In 2019, Elliot Page directed and starred in his own Nova Scotia-focused documentary There’s Something in the Water. The documentary is on Netflix and has seen a lot of success since its debut. After Elliot Page’s big break on Trailer Park Boys and following success through Juno and other films like Inception, he realized that he was passionate about the environmental racism going on in his home province, Nova Scotia, and decided to direct a film on the topic.
Environmental racism has been happening in Canada for decades. When Indigenous and black communities repetitively end up near landfills and other harmful environmental hazards, there’s no question that it’s not simply coincidence. These communities often lack a voice, especially to the government, allowing the racism to continue without being noticed or acknowledged. The idea of environmental racism, as Page’s documentary suggests, is able to survive because it happens slowly, over generations, often making the connection between harmful side effects and racism difficult to see. According to one speaker in the documentary, “It’s also about the government’s slow response to these issues. What we know is that where you live has bearing on your wellbeing”. The film works to expose these issues, and does a great job of explaining concepts and highlighting the upsetting extent of the racism in Nova Scotia.
There’s Something in the Water focuses on issues like Northern Pulp and Boat Harbour in Pictou County. Louise, one of the women being interviewed by Page, points out the shocking number of cases of cancer in her mostly-black community, a direct result of a waste dump nearby. The documentary explains that if you map out Nova Scotia’s BIPOC communities and Nova Scotia’s landfills, you’ll see a horrifying correlation. It also shows the many discouraging ways that the Nova Scotian government has failed to keep its promises to marginalized communities and to fix their errors. It exposes the direct link between environmental racism and its harmful effects. Through all of this, Page’s documentary shows Nova Scotian viewers how environmental racism has been affecting our province for decades.
Overall, the film was extremely eye-opening. It was embarrassing to be reminded of my own ignorance concerning the issue and helpful to then learn more about it. The people in the movie felt very real, as opposed to actors, yet important enough to pay attention to. They made me forget that all of these issues are happening right in my own backyard, and once I remembered, I was once again shocked and horrified that these things could happen so easily and simply go unnoticed. Surprising but important situations were brought to light through the film, like how in 2017, a Shelburne councillor blatantly told residents to “stop playing the racism card”.
I loved There’s Something in the Water. Elliot Page’s ability to make the environmental racism that’s been happening around me seem so realistic, and yet still unsettling enough to make me want to make a difference was incredible. His explanations of the issues were clear and eye-opening, and genuinely encouraged me to start fighting for change. I would recommend this film to anyone, and already have to several people. Overall, I’d rate it 8/10. If it were slightly longer, I’d give it 10/10, because I enjoyed it so much.
The Students’ Representative Council (SRC) is a council composed of a body of students elected by their peers, who are tasked with running the Acadia Students’ Union (ASU). The SRC meets every Wednesday at 5:30 PM in the Beveridge Forum located off the Michener Lounge in the Students’ Union Building (SUB). Each meeting is open to the public and students are welcome to attend meetings to learn more about the decisions being made on their behalf.
This week, council met to discuss further the details of the ASU Investment Policy, reflect on climate change events being held on campus and recent progress with the federal government, as well as talk about support surrounding Indigenous students and the protests and the blockades happening in British Columbia.
Divesting for the Future
Brendan MacNeil, Vice President Finance and Operations, has been working alongside Sustainability Officer Max Abu-Laban to ensure the ASU Investment Policy is renewed to a standard that reflects Acadia University’s values.
Currently, one of Acadia’s mission statements is: “True to its institutional mission and vision, Acadia University will become one of Canada’s most environmentally and sustainability-focused universities”; however, MacNeil pointed out that most scholarships paid to students are currently funded by the oil and gas industry. MacNeil questioned whether this will be Acadia’s legacy in the future.
In order to give further context, MacNeil informed council of a statement that was made by NASA which says: “Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than 30% since the industrial revolution began. This is the most important long-lived forcing of climate change.”
MacNeil then added that 27% of carbon dioxide emissions come from oil and gasoline. While MacNeil fully recognizes the pushback that may be received from relocating funds from oil and gas companies. Currently, the biggest argument against divestment is the worry that if Acadia takes their investments out of the oil and gas industry it will increase the risk of our portfolio and decrease our returns; however, if you look at the annualized volatility of oil prices it’s actually 36%. To put this number into context MacNeil shared that the annual volatility of banks through two recessions (2001 and 2008) is only 28% which means that oil prices are 50% higher than that of banks through two recessions.
Councillor Jonah van Driesum applauds MacNeil and Abu-Laban for the work they are doing to make the university more environmentally friendly but asks if funds will also be taken out of mineral companies. Brendan MacNeil replied stating that the University would still have shares in Canadian Natural Resources. Additionally, Councillor van Driesum adds his worry about whether or not divestment will prevent the school from investing short term in individual companies [who’s programs could benefit us] that are working to become greener. MacNeil responded honestly stating, “The answer to that is yes. As long as the [company’s] main matter is oil and gas. However, all funds will be reinvested into renewable resources companies.”
Abu-Laban delicately raised the controversial matter of investing in military supply companies, sharing that divestment of oil and gas companies provides the opportunity to invest in these military supply companies. Abu-Laban asked council if they could see Acadia University in ammunitions. Councillor van Driesum commented in response, that he personally would not want his own company investing in selling arms, and as the SRC is advocates for morality, he cannot agree with Abu-Laban’s point. Gabrielle Bailey, VP Events and Promotions, diffused the conversation by suggesting the council take one thing at a time and the divestment plan will be brought to a vote next meeting.
MacNeil closed the presentation by asking council, “Do we want to be able to say Acadia University was one of the first Atlantic Canadian universities to divest from fossil fuels? That our scholarships are fossil fuel free? That we were a leader in environmentally sustainability endowment funds?”.
Let’s Talk About Climate Change
Sustainability Officer Max Abu-Laban reflected on the Let’s Talk About Climate Change event which he organized with the help of the town of Wolfville that took place on February 4th. Abu-Laban shared that the quality of the conversation was uplifting and inspiring and added that he appreciated the SRC council members who were able to show their support at the event. Around 25 people showed up to the event and they discussed in groups the different actions that can be taken as a community to limit climate change, any barriers that may prevent us from doing so and ways around them. Abu-Laban continued discussing that the discussion also talked about next steps and where else the community can direct all this fantastic energy surrounding climate change. After reflection, Abu-Laban concludes that the event was a success and the movement is always looking for continuous support from interested students and members of the community.
Viewing of The Office
First-Year Representative Menat Tahoun excitedly announced a stress-relieving activity happening on March 6th. She proposed a viewing of selected episodes of the TV show The Office for all students, noting that the event is not exclusive to first-year students. The event will take place in the KCIC auditorium from 7:00PM to 9:00PM. Tahoun informs council that snacks will be available, and students will be able to come and go as they please.
Additionally, there will be a button making activity to fit the theme of The Office with all materials and craft supplies provided.
Indigenous Student Society of Acadia (ISSA) Letter
Soyini Edwards, Diversity and Inclusion Representative, voiced the concerns of the Indigenous students at Acadia regarding releasing a statement surrounding the blockade protests. The letter provided from the ISSA, which was addressed to ASU President Kyle Vandertoorn, discussed that a few other universities across Canada, such as Dalhousie University, University of Victoria and UNBC have sent out statements to say they stand with indigenous students, and the ISSA is asking the SRC to do the same. Edwards gave ISSA support by stating that Acadia does start every meeting and every event on campus with the acknowledgement that Acadia University is located in Mi’kma’ki, the unceded ancestral territory of the Mi’kmaq nation.
Edwards stressed, “It is necessary to stand in solidarity with people whose land is being taken away.”
President Vandertoorn informed the council that she has been in contact with the Coordinator of Indigenous Affairs, Sabrina Whitman, who has advised that since the Chiefs in the valley have not released a statement taking a position yet, so it may be a good idea to remain neutral and find out what other universities are doing within the province first. The President adds that a meeting with the Chiefs will be held next week to conduct further conversations about what the appropriate actions are to take. Vandertoorn continued sharing that the SRC will always support the indigenous students at Acadia, and are taking Sabrina’s advice on what she would do in our position very seriously.
Councillor Jonah van Driesum encouraged council to not take a position yet for fear of complicating the relationship with the Chiefs of the valley. The majority of people he has talked to on campus about the protests do not support the blockades and van Driesum sees it as unwise to be putting out a view that disagrees with the view of the students. Van Driesum stressed that he is not dismissing the importance of the event, he is simply split on the issue and thinks a lot of people are as well. In response, Vandertoorn stressed that when taking an action such as this, it is wise to do as much research as possible and reiterated that a decision will only be made after the meeting with the Chiefs next week.
Sustainability officer Max Abu-Laban rebutted van Driesums stance respectfully stating, “There is an expression, ‘We are all treated people’. We come here as settlers and it is our duty as settlers to stand in solidarity […] and I don’t know how many of you know what is going on in BC, but it is quite bad and there’s people being forcibly removed by the RCMP.”
Abu-Laban continued offering examples of student support at DAL and other major institutions that are hosting sit-ins and teach-ins in an effort to stand in solidarity with their fellow students. Finally, Abu-Laban shared that he understands there’s a lot of other complex things happening and we don’t necessarily want to implicate the Students Union, but the issue is something that we should all be thinking about as Canadian students.
Advocacy Asks for Parliament
Last week, President Kyle Vandertoorn travelled to Ottawa with CASA, an organization that represents students in post-secondary education. This was the fourth conference at Parliament Hill that Acadia has attended, and they were able to bring forward 6 advocacy asks. Vandertoorn shares exciting news with council that not even 24 hours after the last meeting, the inclusion council member of parliament live-streamed the participants, promising them that 3 of their advocacy asks are already being invested in on behalf of the Federal Government. These asks include:
Increasing the Canadian student grant by 40%
Resigning a loan repayment grace period post-grad from 6 months to 24 months.
Implementing a pause on loaner payment for new parent grads with existing student debt until their children reach the age of 5.
Vandertoorn shared with council that it was a really great opportunity for everyone involved. She is extremely grateful that the Federal Government is considering some of the asks. Vandertoorn also stated that this is a really big accomplishment as this rarely happens, and she encourages the council to share the details on social media or any way they can because it is important for Acadia students to know that the ASU played a major role.
Announcements
The Axe will be hosting a lip-sync battle next Thursday, March 5th at 8:00PM. Historically, it has been a very fun event and students can buy tickets in advance or pay at the door. Any students who wish to participate should contact VP Events and Promotions Gabrielle Bailey right away as there are only 3 or 4 spots left.
Leadership awards are being held on April 1st. Nominations are open now! A list of descriptions for each award was sent out to every students’ Acadia email. Get your nominations in as soon as possible to Gabrielle Bailey.
Lastly, Max Abu-Laban will be leading a student walk-out on March 4th from 10:45AM to 11:45AM with the Acadia Climate Action Club.
Ethan Bear is a rookie defenceman for the NHL’s Edmonton Oilers who is having immense impact both on and off the ice. The 22-year old was born and raised on the Ochapowace Cree Nation in Whitewood, Saskatchewan and has looked impressive in his first season as a regular on the Oiler’s blue line. The defenceman has tallied 16 points this season, and many believe his production warrants rookie of the year consideration. Bear spent the past two seasons in the AHL playing for the Bakersfield Condors where he exhibited solid defensive skills with potential offensive upside. In an interview conducted by the Edmonton Sun earlier this week, Bear commented that much of his success this season is attributed to all the hard work he did in the off-season to get ready for training camp. Bear believed it was just a matter of him “growing up and doing the things [he] needed” in order to be a regular NHLer.
Bear was a stand-out defenceman in the WHL for the Seattle Thunderbirds collecting 70 points with 28 goals in his final WHL season – helping the Thunderbirds hoist the league title and a berth in the Memorial Cup. Moreover, that same year Bear received honours for being the top defenceman in the WHL as he illustrated his talents on a nightly basis. Despite his achievements, Bear was only drafted in the 5th round of the 2015 NHL Entry Draft (124th Overall), and the Oilers hoped he would develop his game into something the organization could rely on in the future. Thankfully, for the Oilers, Bear hasn’t disappointed as he has turned into a top four defenceman for the team, playing in a lot of crucial moments when games are on the line.
According to Bear, the minors were pivotal because it made him aware that he needed to get in better shape if he was going to make the jump to the next level. The Oilers were impressed with his performance during his two years in the AHL but wanted to make sure he was ready when the time came as they knew he was going to be relied on right away. The Oilers had to rely on Bear even more than expected after Adam Larsson suffered a leg-injury upon blocking a shot in the first game of the season. Yet, even with Larsson coming back into the line-up, the Oilers have remained reliant on Bear as he has averaged the fifth most ice-time on the team – behind Oscar Klefbom, Darnell Nurse, Leon Draisaitl, and Connor McDavid. Bear will need to be a crucial piece for the Oilers if the team wants to secure a spot in the playoffs for only the second time since 2006.
Bear hasn’t only found success on the ice, but off the ice as well by being a role model for young Indigenous youth in Canada. The rookie defenceman understands the honour and privilege of playing in the NHL, and he appreciates his reality by giving back to the people who have helped him get to where he is today. Bear is proud of who he is, the family he has, and the rich history his people share as Indigenous people. There are many people supporting Bear back home, and he wants to do his part to give back to his community. That’s why Bear started his own hockey school on the reserve he grew up on, to give back to the youth in his community because he wouldn’t be the individual he is today without them.
Bear is proud to be Indigenous, and he’s representing his people well both on and off the ice.
Sebastian Farkas is a Fourth Year Honours Politics Student and Sports and Wellness Editor of the Athenaeum.
The focus of this creative policy recommendation is to highlight only one aspect within the broader policy recommendation entitled, A Policy Brief Ensuring Continued Canadian Sovereignty Over the Arctic Region. This focus has chosen to observe the voyage of Captain Henry Larsen and to formulate a recommendation, using his learnt knowledge gained from his experience traversing the arctic, which would ensure continued Canadian sovereignty over the the arctic region.
In 1940 Henry Larsen set out on an expedition which would see him become the first Canadian to travel through the Northwest Passage from Vancouver to Halifax. It is by focusing on Henry Larsen – his background as an immigrant, as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and his respect and admiration for the Inuit encountered during his voyage – that might best demonstrate a way for Canada to move forward into the future in which it ensures its continued sovereignty over the arctic.
Within the current Canadian Arctic Foreign Policy, it states “the Arctic is fundamental to Canada’s national identity. It is home to many Canadian’s, including indigenous peoples across the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, and the northern parts of many Canadian provinces. Exercising sovereignty over Canada’s north, as over the rest of Canada, is our number one Arctic foreign policy priority.” (Government of Canada, 2017)
Henry Larsen was a Canadian who found his home within the arctic during his many months spent traversing the Northwest Passage aboard his vessel the St. Roch. Like many Canadian’s Larsen immigrated to Canada from Norway during the early twentieth century. Once a citizen he joined the proud and storied ranks of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was while he was stationed in Vancouver that he was given the arduous task of completing a voyage none had yet achieved – to travel the Northwest Passage from Vancouver to Halifax and back again.
Reflecting a similarity between the current statement from the Canadian government regarding its Arctic Foreign Policy, were the orders Henry Larsen was given by his superiors which read his mission as, “to uphold and enforce Canadian sovereignty of her arctic islands.” (Larsen, 1969)
It was during his time on this voyage that Henry Larsen developed a deep trust and respect for the Inuit peoples and their cultural traditions as he encountered them on this expedition. Larsen states that, “they need one another in order to hunt, live and exist. Some of their customs perhaps do not agree with our ways of thinking, but they are no worse than many among civilized people.” (Larsen, 1969) Larsen’s critique of what it means to be civilized, exemplifies his critical stance against negative social preconceptions towards the Inuit during the 1940s.
At the close of Henry Larsen’s first-hand accounting of his time spent as the Captain of the St. Roch traveling through the Northwest Passage, he takes a moment to recognize the history behind exploration within the Northwest Passage. As well as the men who had partaken in the failed past expeditions. Henry Larsen finds a kindred spirit with these men speaking to those, “few more intrepid who set out to explore and chart the country and claim it for the Empire. This is the spirit we must not let die in Canada.” (Larsen, 1969) While the British Empire is no longer in existence, Canada remains a proud member of the British Commonwealth – with Queen Elizabeth II acting as Canada’s current head of state.
In conclusion, it is the existence of the intrepid spirit that will ensure Canada’s continued sovereignty over the arctic. It is that same intrepid spirit, to venture into unknown that signifies what it means to be Canadian – and by continuing to build relationships between Canada’s Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, cultural and mutual respect between all intrepid Canadians can be ensured. As Nancy Lindell, the first indigenous MP of Nunavut serving from 1997-2008 states, “the red and white flag is, for me, a symbol of freedom and represents my country as the best one to live in.” (Lindell, 20)
Therefore, a line of intrepid Canadian’s can be seen to exist – from Henry Larsen to Nancy Lindell, both who were explorers into new and uncharted territories, both optimizing what it means to be a Canadian.
Sources Cited
Lindell, Nancy. “Inuit Perspectives on Security, Patriotism and Sovereignty.” Published 2013. Accessed March 29th 2019. http://www.inuitknowledge.ca/sites/ikc/files/attachments/20130125-en-nilliajut-inuitperspectivessecuritysovereigntypatriotism_0.pdf.
Larsen, Henry. The North-West Passage. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1969.
Hayden McKee-Godry is a Masters Political Science student
When you travel, people often use the phrase “be like one of the locals” as advice to fully immerse yourself in a culture. This concept is the easiest way to understand the importance of consulting indigenous people when conducting research in an environment that has been inhabited by a community for generations. To put it into perspective: imagine you’ve been sent into foreign territory to research an unfamiliar species. You need to find and explore their habitat, observe their diet and feeding habits and determine their population size. Now imagine you find a community living in this ‘new’ land who hunt, fish, and gather wild plants for sustenance. Wouldn’t it be common sense to ask the locals if they know anything about the species you’re trying to find?
Although this may seem like a simple concept, First Nations communities have been overlooked for far too long by scientists as a resource for information when collecting scientific data for wildlife biology, ecology, environmental planning, etc. Indigenous peoples have been living off the land for generations, a lifestyle that requires an immense amount of knowledge regarding the location of specific species during each season to survive in a climate that gives us extreme weather such as our unforgiving Canadian winters. For generations this information was often passed on through oral tradition, such as storytelling, which is a major contrast to the countless written records that were kept by Western civilizations. However, a lack of physical records does not mean there is less validity in oral tradition. Oral tradition often focuses on the relationship between people and the environment, so although there may be some mythology occasionally mixed into information passed on, the moral of each story has its roots in someone’s real experience and/or observation.
When studying the Arctic landscape, consulting indigenous communities is crucial, and often essential, for survival. With no other inhabitants in the area, and a climate that will not spare a wandering scientist hoping to find their species of interest in the vast open arctic, the best choice is to swallow your pride and ask for directions. The Inuit people traditionally have heavily relied on hunting wildlife populations for their survival due to a lack of vegetation for most of the year; therefore, it would be essential to observe trends such as population size, migration patterns and feeding habits. Inuit traditional knowledge is called IQ, which stands for Inuit Qaujimanituqangit, or “that which has long been known by Inuit”. This term shows how undervalued traditional knowledge is, as we rarely consider that this is just basic knowledge to the Inuit. We often put data presented by scientists up on a pedestal, when in reality a group of researchers could make a number of records and observations over a two-year period, and use plenty of complex scientific jargon in their mile long paper; but it could be a completely inaccurate representation of a population compared to observations made by Inuit over decades that has simply been passed on by word of mouth.
A more local example of the integration of indigenous communities into scientific projects is the Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR) located in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. UINR serves as the voice of the Mi’kmaq people of Cape Breton in discussions regarding natural resource management and environmental stewardship of natural environments such as the Bras d’Or Lakes. Institutes such as this promote education and employment in STEM within the Mi’kmaq community, as well as the preservation of traditions that involve the natural environment such as hunting. One program undertaken by UINR is the Moose Management Initiative. This initiative partners with the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Parks Canada to control the moose population in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park. Mi’kmaq hunters were given exclusive access to hunt moose in the national park to reduce an abundant population that would have overwhelmed the natural environment. Although this was considered controversial among non-Mi’kmaq hunters in the area, and highly criticized for being “unfair”, the harvest was successful, and traditional feast was prepared with excess meat being donated to food banks.
This brings on difficulties that come with working with indigenous communities. In cases such as the moose hunt, it is often seen as unfair to non-Mi’kmaq people that opportunities are being exclusively offered to First Nations people, particularly in areas of already-high unemployment such as Cape Breton. The acknowledgement that First Nations people are a marginalized community and deserve these opportunities is a difficult one to make when you’re struggling to make ends meet. On the other side, First Nations elders can be wary in participating in programs with non-indigenous people, with very real, and valid concerns about being exploited or treated unfairly. Coming together and removing any prejudices about either group is of the utmost importance for having a successful collaboration in any situation, but it is particularly important when dealing with indigenous communities.
The First Nations people of Canada knew the landscape long before the arrival of Western science, but their wealth of knowledge was rarely or never used to its full potential to provide us with information regarding the ecology of North America. With more efforts being put towards including First Nations communities in processes such as environmental planning and wildlife management, the relationship between scientists and indigenous communities continues to improve. Overall, the collaboration of scientists with indigenous communities fosters a sense of cohesion between the tradition and science rather than one of animosity, encourages education and employment opportunities for First Nations people, provides insight and information to scientists, and can create economic stimulus through industry, resulting in a beneficial situation for all parties.
Laura Porter-Muntz is a fourth year Biology (Co-op) student and Science Editor of The Athenaeum
“Acadia University is located in Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral territory of the Mi’kmaq nation.”
This oft-quoted statement has become the norm on course syllabi and department emails, but its significance is often glossed over and not fully understood by many members of the Acadia community.
It is known as a territorial acknowledgement and it is given in recognition that the land upon which we study and gather is part of the traditional lands of the Mi’kmaq peoples. It is an important cultural protocol for many Indigenous peoples, nations and cultures and it serves to demonstrate our respect for the traditional custodians of these lands.
Indigenous peoples had lived on these lands for thousands of years before colonial settlers first arrived in the 14th and 15th centuries. They established successful communities and governing structures that allowed their peoples to flourish in pre-contact North America. However, over the successive centuries, both French and British administrations had enacted policies and laws that disadvantaged and often harmed Indigenous peoples and their traditional ways of life.
The creation of residential schools in the late 19th century served as the culmination of the discriminatory practices against Indigenous peoples. Indeed in 1920, Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of the Department of Indian Affairs, stated “I want to get rid of the Indian problem … Our objective is to continue until there is not an Indian that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department”. This form of outward racism continued throughout the 20th century until the last residential school (Saskatchewan’s Gordon Indian Residential School) was closed in 1996. Residential schools were places of immense sadness and despair as children were frequently abused, physically, emotionally, and sexually by their superiors. They were also prohibited from speaking their language, celebrating their traditional customs and returning to their home communities and parents.
The extensive history of oppression through residential schools, among other things, is a dark stain on the Canadian consciousness. However, it has resulted in renewed movements to educate the Canadian populace on these dark corners of our history and to unite in a spirit of truth and reconciliation as we seek to move forward as a country. This positive message gives us hope that Canadians can come together to recognize our past failures and chart a better way forward.
Each year, October is designated as Mi’kmaq History Month, and it provides an opportunity for the Acadia community to learn more about our collective history and the important contributions that Indigenous individuals and communities have made to our country. Groups including the Indigenous Students’ Society of Acadia (ISSA) and several academic departments often hold events that aim to teach and celebrate Indigenous culture and perspectives.
This year, former Chief Adviser to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Tim O’Loan visited Acadia’s campus to speak about the history of residential schools and the path toward reconciliation, and John Hannam, City Clerk of the City of Thunder Bay (Ontario), visited the local area to screen the “Walk a Mile” film project and lead community members through a discussion on the film.
Oliver Jacob is a third year History and Politics student and News Editor of The Athenaeum
It is not a secret that Canada’s justice system, like the American system, favors the white man. Incarceration rates upon the Indigenous population in Canada resembles those of the African American diaspora in the USA. The recent case on the murder of Colten Boushie has shown Canada that, once again, Indigenous lives aren’t as protected as others within the justice system. The Truth and Reconciliation 94 Calls to Action are a direct cry for change towards the way that Canada governs its country and protects the interests of Aboriginal Peoples.
Colten Boushie was a normal young adult trying to enjoy the freedoms that this country has given all its citizens. As a young adult myself, I can say that I have also gone out for a day of drinking on the beach with some friends. The only difference is that he was a young Indigenous man, and thus seen as a stereotype. Boushie and his friends had been enjoying a day at the beach, and while driving home had gotten a flat tire. The group of young men had stopped on Gerard Stanley’s property in order to fix the problem and get some help, and this was a fatal decision for Boushie.
Stanley, who has been acquitted, had shot Boushie resulting in death. Many responses from the community have been made. Across the nation we have seen Vigils forming to raise awareness to the perpetual injustices against the Indigenous peoples within Canada. Regardless of the efforts of caring Canadians, another incident has happened. Tina Fontaine has been murdered and, yet again, the responsible actor Raymond Cormier has been found not guilty.
According to CBC, $53.8 million has been allocated to the inquiry of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous peoples in Canada, yet there is no way of knowing how many men, women and children have been murdered. In 2015 the MMIW commission had found 174 missing women. However, Canada has had no wide-spread critical response or change regarding these crimes.
Acadia students are called upon to make a change, to become aware, and to take action. No longer will we stand silent against these injustices.
Acadia students are organizing a Vigil to commemorate Colten Boushie and Tina Fontaine. More information will be available at the Wolfville Farmers Market in the morning of March 3rd. We invite all members of the community to attend this information session. We are also honored to receive Elder Joe Micheal on March 6th at noon in the Acadia KCIC to further the conversation on Indigenous livelihood within Canada. Let’s take things in our own hands within our community to further awareness on injustices happening in our own back yard.
This article draws on Idle No More’s discussion guide related to the Colten Boushie case. It is a great resource to explore if you want to learn more about this case.
What happened?
Although some of the details are uncertain, here is what is clear: in 2016, Gerald Stanley shot Colten Boushie in the head and killed him. Colten was a 22-year old man and member of the nearby Red Pheasant Cree Nation. Stanley was charged with second-degree murder. Colten Boushie and some friends had gone onto Stanley’s farm to try to get help for a flat tire. At the time he was shot, Colten was sitting in his SUV on Stanley’s farm. This February, Stanley was found “not guilty” by a jury with no visibly Indigenous people.
Since the verdict, there has been a huge outcry across the country from Indigenous peoples and allies on social media and on the streets through vigils and protests.
Why is this case a race issue?
Some people have criticized Indigenous people and their allies for turning this case into a race issue. However, there are many problems with the way this case was addressed, and most of them have to do with race. At a basic level, a white settler shot and killed an Indigenous young man. The crime may have been racially motivated, or at least racial bias likely played an important role. Indigenous people and their allies see this case not as an isolated incident, but as one example in a long history of violence toward Indigenous peoples in Canada. Ever since Europeans arrived on this land, white settlers have been killing Indigenous people and getting away with no consequences. It is also important to remember that this case was going through the Canadian justice system, and the Canadian state was set up as a colonial state to serve settlers and to control (not protect) Indigenous peoples. The systemic racism in the practices and policies of the Canadian state also permeates the justice system.
One of the major issues surrounding the case is that the jury in the trial for Gerald Stanley did not include any Indigenous people, and all jury members appeared to be white. Under the Canadian jury selection system, both the accused and the prosecutor can veto potential jury members without giving any reason. If they do not like how a potential jury member looks, they can reject them. In the case of the Boushie trial, the defence systematically rejected all the visibly Indigenous people from being jury members. This process explains how it would be possible to end up with a jury with no Indigenous jurors, even though Indigenous peoples represent a significant portion of the population in rural Saskatchewan. In such a racially charged case, choosing a jury entirely with people from one racial group exacerbated the racial tensions. Even if the jury made the right decision, which seems unlikely, it is hard to trust the decision when the jury is stacked against Indigenous peoples and racial bias may have played a significant role in the process. The jury selection in this case has led to calls to reform the jury selection process from Colten Boushie’s family, Indigenous activists and the federal government.
Since the verdict, there has been a lot of victim-blaming. Colten and his friends are being blamed for putting themselves in a situation where he got shot and killed. The argument goes that since they were drinking, since they were on Stanley’s property, and since some of Colten’s friends were under investigation for theft, that somehow Colten set himself up to be killed. Regardless of what Colten and friends may or may not have done, nothing justifies shooting and killing him. This reasoning is like blaming women for “allowing” themselves to be sexually assaulted because they wore the wrong clothes or were drinking. These arguments are very hurtful to the family members and communities who are grieving Colten’s death, and they also reinforce negative stereotypes about Indigenous people.
If you need evidence that racism surrounds this case, check out the comments section of any social media post by an Indigenous thinker, organization or activist. You will find many extremely racist comments in addition to widespread victim-blaming. Beyond recent comments related to the verdict, shortly after Colten’s death, racist responses appeared across social media, to the extent that Saskatchewan politicians and the Assembly of First Nations were forced to publicly speak out against these comments.
With Bell Let’s Talk day and Acadia Mental Health Week recently passing, campus has been putting forth fantastic effort in addressing mental health stigma and promoting self-care. The progress is fantastic, especially when I look back on my first year at Acadia compared to now. However, there is still a crucial aspect to the conversation that has been pushed aside. The reality is that First Nations youth are dying by their own hands approximately 5 times more often than non-Indigenous youth. The statistics are even higher for Inuit peoples, which are indeed among the highest in the world. I knew of these statistics before, but it wasn’t until I read Richard Wagamese’s Indian Horse that it became a visceral reality instead of just statistical fact. Reducing these experiences to numbers and headlines has allowed us to distance ourselves from the issues prevalent within First Nations communities because we don’t feel anything for numbers or headlines. Our response begins and ends with “oh no, that’s terrible”, and then we go on with our lives because we have the privilege to do so. But fiction has proven to be powerful truth. It is easy to see the news and think that you’re knowledgeable about an issue, but it isn’t until you hear the raw stories from the affected people themselves when you truly begin to put the pieces together. Indian Horse- Richard Wagamese
Όταν πρόκειται για ζωντανό ποδόσφαιρο online, το haha sport είναι μια πρακτική λύση.
This novel explores the life of Saul Indian Horse, an Ojibway boy who is telling his own story so that he can reclaim it. The story is told in first person, forcing the reader to experience the atrocities through the protagonist’s eyes. The reader follows Saul’s journey from a young boy living in the bush with his family to adolescence in the residential school system, and onward to adulthood where Saul develops a severe drinking problem like his parents before him. Often faced with dead friends and family, neglect, abuse, and blatant racism, Saul finds himself repressing the harsh reality he faces and opts to instead immerse himself in the world of hockey. A world that he loves but does not love him back. As Saul’s opportunities in life increase, so does the racial hostility. Although he has survived St. Jerome’s residential school, the weight of his life there follows him everywhere he goes until he finds the strength to tell, and remember, his story so that he can heal. Wagamese’s novel serves two very important purposes. First, the story is a powerful reminder that reclaiming your story is a necessary component to healing. Second, Indian Horse answers the most important question we are left with when we see brutal statistics and headlines regarding First Nations addictions, mental health, and suicide epidemics. That question is “how?”. How are these statistics so high? How is this still happening? How does addiction relate to mental health? How can there be this much devastation among First Nation communities? Wagamese details the “how” by telling Saul’s story and, by extension, his own story. This kind of story can only come from a place of knowing, which means it is a story worth listening to. It connects the dots for those of us who have been privileged enough to never know the kind of struggle Wagamese writes about. After reading this novel, I am still asking “how?”, but now from a different context. How can I learn more? How can we teach each other? How can we help? I learned from Indian Horse is that it starts with listening.
The ASU is calling for increased diversity on the Board of Governors (BOG), Acadia’s non-academic governing body. The Students’ Representative Council (SRC) passed a motion in principle on Tuesday January 30th supporting the ASU President to present a proposal to the Board regarding diversity at their latest meeting on Friday February 2nd.
President Grace H-B said in a statement to The Athenaeum that “Diversity among the Board of Governors structure is vital to serving students to the best of its ability. The Board makes decisions that affect all students around campus. Acadia is stronger for it’s diversity and the Board of Governors will be too. Diversity and equity needs to be reflected at the Board of Governors and in all governance structures at Acadia.”
The statement noted how the BOG is composed of 37 voting members, only 21.6% of whom are women with votes despite the fact that the campus is 58% female. Ethnic diversity around the table is described as “almost non-existent”.
Lack of diversity is not due to a lack of unqualified women or minorities, the statement reads, but is “due to selection processes and underlying systemic process to determine who sits on the Board”.
The motion proposed that the Governance & Executive Committees of the BOG prepare a report and recommendation on increasing equity and diversity. The ASU asked five commitments, including:
Adoption of a diversity management policy by April 6th 2018
Land acknowledgement of Mi’kma’ki at the beginning of every Board meeting
Amending the composition of the BOG to include two indigenous voting members
Ensuring a minimum of 50% of Governors identify as female by 2020/2021
Ensuring a minimum of 60% of Governors identify as female, people with disabilities, indigenous peoples, or visible minorities by 2024/2025
President H-B noted that although the province isn’t known for its diversity, “Nova Scotia does have a history with many groups that are not being represented at the Board of Governors. It would be hard to say that we’re ever going to be absolutely perfect in fair representation, but that doesn’t mean shouldn’t work as hard as possible to try to do better.
Working towards a diverse Board is going to take work but it’s work that is so important in ensuring that we’re doing the best we can for students.”
The ASU is looking to increase diversity within its own ranks, as the composition of the Students’ Representative Council is “lacking in people with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and visible minorities” according to President H-B. The Union is looking to incorporate more students-at-large on committees, spurring students into action within the Union itself.
EDIT: An earlier version of this article stated the number of students identifying on campus as female was 69%. The correct number is 58%.
Colin Mitchell is a 3rd year Politics (Honours) student from Vancouver, BC. He is also the News Editor of The Athenaeum and the ASU Student Board of Governors Representative.
News Editor Colin Mitchell sat down with Dr. Rick Mehta on Friday January 12th to discuss recent remarks made in various media outlets. The Athenaeum in no way endorses or sanctions the views expressed in the article below.
First off, what do you see as the main issue with the things you’ve said and the backlash you have received regarding indigenous peoples and the letter you sent to Andrew Scheer?
So basically, the attack was not on the people but on the decolonization movement. That’s a very different issue. There’s decolonization vs. the people. In terms of the decolonization, its proponents are people who are claiming, you know, they claim to be community leaders, but are not people who have been elected to that position. It’s people who are claiming to represent their entire community but people who are self-selected. They differ from the majority of their community in the sense that they’re going to be much more highly educated than people who don’t have access to clean drinking water, as an example. These are things they can take for granted. They’re in a financially better situation, more highly educated and tend to be urban and have better access to resources, so they’re not in a position to claim that they’re true representatives of their community. It has to do with the framework under which the decolonization is occurring.
What is your opposition to the decolonization movement?
It’s based on a premise of guilt. Instilling guilt into the non-indigenous people, so anyone who dares to question their motives or what their- I hate to say demands- but basically what they want to institute is just ignored or they’re going to be called racists. The fact that they’re suppressing debate, which is the kind of action someone would perform if they don’t wish to be scrutinized. If the TRC was truly about truth, the idea that there are lots of stories of people who had positive experiences would still be there. I got a phone call from a lady whose name I wish I’d written down, but-
Just to clarify, you’re saying that there are lots of stories of people who had positive experiences in residential schools?
Exactly. With the one woman who worked in the system, she told me it originated in Sault St. Marie by a chief who had requested it. He wanted it because it was the new way of living so he wanted his people to adapt. So that’s one major issue. The other point she mentioned, which I hadn’t thought about, was look at the new $10 bill. Look at the individuals on it. One of them, if you do your homework, is someone who was from the residential schools and was a successful figure. That really counters the narrative. I’m not at all opposed to acknowledging atrocities, but it is within the context of the entire picture.
We need to look at the details of who was actually selected for the process. How representative was that sample? Was it a biased sample? Or was it a representative sample? Let’s say Tomson Highway, he talked about 7000 people who had a wonderful experience. I’ve received letters now from another individual who’s trying to get their voices heard.
Senator Beyak defended the “good deeds” by “well intentioned” religious teachers in residential schools. With nearly 150,000 students who passed through and over 31,000 sexual assault claims made through independent assessment processes, can you really defend the good intentions of those in charge?
We need to look at the comparison of what was happening in society at the time. There’s what’s happening within indigenous communities, but attitudes about what was happening towards abuses at homes in general would be the other side. In terms of our history, and how we dealt with those issues was very different from how we deal with those now. Whatever happened within those schools and other schools that was considered acceptable is a relevant comparison that needs to be made to get a full picture.
Are you saying that the acceptability of sexual assault is relative in terms of how it was received at different points in time? That it was more acceptable then than it is now?
I mean, partly awareness, and how we dealt with it. The culture has changed quite dramatically over the times. If we’re doing that analysis it needs to be with the full picture and within the context of what was going on at the time and what was considered acceptable then vs. now.
You wrote in your letter to Andrew Scheer that multiculturalism needs to end. Why?
It’s a way of separating the world into us vs. them. Instead of looking at our commonalities and then trying to sort out our differences, the way it’s marketed is ‘we must not only acknowledge we’re different but celebrate our differences’. But those differences don’t always mesh together for ways that are functional in Western society. I’ll give the example of what happened to me when I was an undergrad in my first years of university. At the University of Toronto I was a first generation East Indian Canadian. This was when multiculturalism was starting its first wave under the Mulroney years, and I’m there as a student. I thought I’d join the Indian Students Association. I noticed that the males would filter who their sisters could date, so if someone wants to date a girl they’d have to get permission from their male relative. When I voiced opposition and said that women were more than capable of choosing who they wanted to go out with, I was called various names. The one that stuck was “Oreo Cookie”- brown on the outside, white within. Canada’s placed on the premise that men and women are equal when it comes to dignity, so when the issue of whether women should be equal to men in all ways or not came to me, I thought it was more important than the cultural value of being an East Indian. That comes to the question of are we going to have a conversation about our values? You can’t have that conversation under the framework of multiculturalism. There has to be the idea that Canada has its identity, these are the kinds of goals we strive towards, but try to have bit of flexibility. The old was ‘live our way or get out’ and I think that’s a bit harsh. I don’t think we have to go back to that extreme.
Just to clarify, your method of thinking is that everyone should be on the same playing field?
The way I see it is you’re driving on a highway and we all have similar rules. We have a way to express ourselves in terms of what kind of car you’re driving, what colour it is, what style. There’s room for self-expression but there needs to be a certain set of fundamental principles we agree on- you drive on the right side, you drive at certain speeds, which is different from a highway than a subdivision where there’ll be pedestrians and children. There have to be some areas where we have agreement and flexibility, but there have to be some rules and core values we adhere to. Within that, here’s ways that you can express yourself and express our differences.
Beforehand you mentioned you were opposed to an us vs. them dynamic, but earlier you said that people need to adapt to Western society. Is that not a logical contradiction?
It’s the idea that in certain places there’ll be less flexibility vs. others. Like food, for instance. Someone should be able to bring their food into the lunch room and not have people turn their noses at it and call them names for it. That I would consider less acceptable, but then it comes to core principles like equality of the sexes between men and women. There we cannot have a workplace where I can treat women like dirt because of my culture. We need to have a discussion because we need to fine-tune and I’m trying to figure out where do we have more flexibility as opposed to less flexibility
What is your opposition to the university right now? Where does the major contention lie?
One major issue is equity. It’s based on equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity. I’m all for making sure that everyone has the opportunity to be treated equally so they’re not discriminated against based on criteria that are irrelevant to the jobs. But to have equal outcomes and to define society in a specific way if its distribution isn’t reflected in the workforce, that the disparity there in and of itself is a problem without actually looking for reasons why. There are differences in the kinds of careers women choose over men. What you have to keep in mind is that these are just averages. The nuance needs to be there. I’m not saying ‘all women are this or that’, but on average what do we see when we compare men and women in their interests, so the idea is when it comes to individual differences there are going to be averages. But you still then need to look at the individual because we don’t know where they are in relation to that average. On average, men tend to prefer working with things whereas women on average tend to prefer working with people. But in terms of the exception you just have to look within my family. I just love working with people. That’s why I love doing first year psychology, because I thrive around people. I don’t mind being in a department that’s dominated by women. It doesn’t bother me the least bit. My mother, who was the computer programmer and became a senior systems analyst, who I think could be at Google, is the one telling me I should apply for the full professorship and make more money, but I’m more in line with the female average, which is I’m making money and I’m more than comfortable where I am as opposed to getting the promotion.
You refer to an incident that happened two and a half years ago. Can you tell me a bit about that?
Basically, it was a couple of incidents where I realized I was part of the problem where I thought I was the one advocating for tolerance when I myself was intolerant. I can give you two incidents. One was when I was talking with a friend of mine, who was a key role in pushing me over to the left, basically saying that everything was the fault of the military industrial complex or Stephen Harper. The examples he gave are obesity rates in Canada. I don’t see at all how those are related to Stephen Harper or the military industrial complex. Even within my own subdivision, why people didn’t want streetlights or sidewalks, and when I told him that people wouldn’t want their property taxes to go up that was just dismissed. There was that, and the other was during the time of the Canadian election. These are the facts that you can empirically verify. Being in the university environment, where we’re all anti-Harper for the most part, I was angry for how Tony Clement spent money on gazebos in his riding. I can’t remember what date it was, but he rescued one of his constituents at the beach. Tony Clement rescued him and I was unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt as a human being for having done that. I then realized that was horrible for not being able to separate the deed of the politician from the deed of the person. How can I say that I’m going around as a liberal advocating for tolerance? Those were some of the turning points where I started questioning myself and stick to my core sets of values- what I believe and why I believe them. I don’t need it tied to my identity as a leftist or liberal. I just want to discuss them in a way that leads to consensus.
How would you describe your political leanings? In the past you’ve described yourself as a civil libertarian, but what exactly does that mean? How would you unpack that?
We generally have our rights and freedoms and ways of respecting each other, as well as the idea that we have certain sets of commonalities. That gives us a framework so we can talk to each other as human beings. Within that framework we can look at our differences, some that can be solved in the short and some in the long term. Asking how can we put those in a hierarchy so we can arrange our problems so we can differentiate between the ones that are more easily solved compared to the ones that are going to take a bit longer, and just work our way from the bottom to the top? It’s built on a notion of trust and that we’re constantly communicating with each other. Short term vs. long term.
You’ve mentioned a lot of your discontent with the academy deals with their methods of thinking. Do you find that thinking within the university is more focused on the short-term than the long term?
It’s definitely gone towards short term gains without thinking at all about the long-term picture. It’s become much more insular here, focused around ourselves and not even about what I think is the university’s constituents, which is Canadian society. How do we actually relate to our Canadian society? My employer is not the university, but the Canadian public because in terms of who pays me at the end of the day, it’s the average Canadian. Every time they fill out their tax form, go to the store, pay that HST, that money gets to the government, the government funnels it to the university, who funnels it to me. The other employer is my students. Not in the sense of they pay the tuition and I give them marks, but the fact that students have paid a tuition with the ultimate goal of their education being that I’ll teach them to think for themselves based on facts and being a good consumer based on those facts so they can formulate their own world view and then articulate themselves so they can convince them to adopt their point of view or see what’s correct and adopt their view. It’s not up to me to tell students what the right thing to do is, but to give students the information and let them figure it out and discuss it amongst themselves.
Do you think that it’s appropriate for the classroom to be a place to discuss what some might perceive as offensive topics?
This is definitely the place for contentious issues. If you can’t discuss contentious issues at a university, then where can you? The fact that we’ve been asking that question-
I don’t disagree, but there are students who feel that you’ve brought your own political leanings into the classroom this semester.
My main problem is the university is divided politically. The divide between people who are of liberal and far left to conservative and middle of the road dispositions has become so extreme that there are whole sides of the equation that aren’t even discussed. It’s like ‘Ok, here’s what you’re hearing in some courses so you already know this perspective, here’s another perspective to consider’. That’s very different. I’m exposing them to different sets of ideas and they have to determine for themselves what they think.
Could some of those ideas be hurtful to students? The one question I have is what you would say to an indigenous student in your class noting that you retweeted a post on Twitter discussing the ‘aboriginal industry agenda’, which was to claim that indigenous peoples are ‘playing the helpless victim’ to ‘simply cash government cheques’ and called it all a ‘scam’?
That was for the industry as opposed to the industry, as opposed to the individuals, which is why I stand by that retweet.
Can you elaborate?
Like I said before, it’s a group of individuals who claim they’re speaking for their group. My key criticism is that they’re assuming all members are exactly the same so there can’t be an indigenous person who supports the oil sands, or maybe who is an atheist, or maybe an indigenous person who’s a Muslim. It’s based on a specific stereotype which is based on connection to the land. That’s one kind of a stereotype, but there are very different points of view. They might be conservatives, they might be libertarians, there’s no one homogenous groups. In terms of what I call the industry, this one specific view of an aboriginal is what I mean, and those other voices that aren’t being heard are the ones who need to be criticized. Not me, because I want to hear the different perspectives. I’m not treating them all as a group, I’m treating them all as individuals. My critique of the retweet was the specific people claiming to be leaders.
But as of 2016, 60% of indigenous children on reserves live in poverty. Over 140 drinking water advisories are in place on reserves across Canada. Don’t the people who are bringing those issues to light have a place in doing so, even if they’re not speaking for the other 40% of indigenous children who are not living in poverty?
The way I see it, they’ve been leaders of their communities for how many years. What changes have they brought? What improvements have been brought? We keep hearing about how the problems are there, but the question I have is why are they still persisting after all these years? How have there still been no improvements? We put our money to use to make these things happen, but where is it really going? When there’s an act like the First Nations Transparency Act, the first thing the Liberal government did was take it away. In the meantime, look at Charmaine Stick. Within her community the leaders have taken money and she can’t get accountability for her leaders. She’s working with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to take them to court. There are problems where what’s happening in the communities is quite dysfunctional, and I don’t hear a word from any of our leaders saying that the people we see on TV, who are claiming to be in these offices of indigenous leadership, I haven’t heard them speaking for people who are indeed in poverty or transparency within their own communities.
What is your definition of free speech and hate speech?
Free speech is saying the ideas that are on your mind. Your views on any issue. Hate speech is what is in the law. Anything related to the defamation of character or advocating for someone’s death. Hate speech is unique to Canada because it’s not even an issue within the United States. There they’d say hate speech is protected speech. The main problem with having legislation with hate speech is that it can always grow. In terms of what happens under the guise of inclusion, whoever is the person being offended is the one who gets to dictate the discourse that happens in the classroom or society. We can’t have that happen because then nothing will be discussed.
A large issue around free speech is at what point does it become hate speech, and at what point is society justified in restricting it?
Well, the whole idea of hate speech is something recent in terms of the public discourse-
Is it? If you go back to the 1950s and 1960s in the southern United States, you have white people calling African Americans incredibly offensive names and advocating for lynch mobs. Isn’t that hate speech?
There you’re actually advocating for someone’s death, so that would be, but this isn’t something that happens in the classroom. That’s not typical for everyday discourse and not considered acceptable. How often do you have a classroom setting where someone is advocating for another’s death? That seems like a non-issue, and the fact that we’re bringing that up is disappointing. If you’re doing something like slandering someone, that’s not hate speech. Let’s use Gad Saad. He’s someone who escaped Lebanon as a Jew, came to Canada escaping persecution, and he’s more than welcome to let people deny the Holocaust because they’re more than welcome to their ignorance. For me, I don’t mind if someone says to me I’d be better off living in India under British rule. That’s just their position, I don’t see that as hate speech, so long as they’re not advocating for my death or slandering me any way. Hate speech is an outright act where people can objectively see it, but the general idea that we shouldn’t have issues based on hurt feelings. Ultimately we’re going to get offended. What offends one person might not offend someone else. Mere offence of itself is not of itself hate speech. You have to look at the intention too. If I crack a joke that’s meant to purposely make fun of somebody based on their sex or whatever, that’s very different from somebody saying ‘Well, within my East Indian community rates of domestic abuse and selective abortion are going to be higher’. Bringing those up doesn’t make somebody racist because it happened to hurt my feelings. Hurt feelings, in and of themselves, without looking at the intention behind them.
There was a debate in the Oxford Union discussing the right to offend, where the proposition argued that it helps to advance society. If one was to say in the late 1800s that a man should be able to have sex with another man, it would offend people. The central point of the argument was allowing people to offend has allowed society to progress, but at what point does society become justified in restraining certain kinds of speech?
Only when somebody is advocating for death or physical harm. It needs to be very, very restricted. Under very restrictive circumstances, otherwise you can’t have discussions. I can give the example of the gay community. In high school, in Grade 12 law, our teacher presented the example of a marriage that’s fallen apart, where the woman can’t hold a job, is addicted to drugs, and has a different partner every day. The male, perfect in every way, has a job, security, a good house, but the reason for the breakup was that he was a closeted gay. The question became who should get the child. I was sitting at the very front of the class and I raised my hand for the male, and then I turned around and it turned out I was the only one with my hand up. I was curious about why that would be, but it was homophobia. They thought that if the child goes to the dad it would be bad because he’d be a bad role model because he’s gay and that children shouldn’t be exposed to gay people. That was one argument that was given, and that the child might become gay. These were some arguments given, and back then there was nothing covered in our classes about what a gay person was. I thought they were these fictitious people who lived out in Vancouver because I’d never met people who were gay. I didn’t even know there were people in my class who were gay. With that class debate, it was me vs. the rest of the class. Where there was open discrimination I was the one voicing dissent. I remember someone saying ‘Oh yeah you probably think they should get married too’ and then laughing. In retrospect, I stand by every word I said then just like I stand by every word I say now. Back then I think I was right on the right side of history, and I think I am now too. I’m getting support from people who were in residential schools themselves.
Really?
Oh yes, I would show you but I want to respect their privacy.
My last question is that normally we would not defend somebody who said that the Holocaust didn’t occur, and would restrict their right to espouse those views rather than hold them. Do you think your comments on decolonization and residential schools reach that threshold?
I will agree with Gad Saad. If someone who escaped religious persecution can say ‘You guys are entitled to your ignorance and can spout that’, then I’m fine with it. The reason I want them to say it is that in a classroom setting it can be challenged. You can find a way to challenge it, and you can do it discretely, but you can have a conversation and realize why one is right or wrong about it. If you can do it in a classroom setting where you can separate your emotions it becomes a learning opportunity because you can prove people wrong. This other example I use is where somebody grows up in a community thinking that all gays are evil and an abomination, so it’s welcome. We can challenge one another and have a conversation, because you don’t know why they’re expressing that view on what’s arbitrarily considered hate speech. Understanding where it came from and why that view is held allows somebody to ask why they believe that and where it’s coming from. If we allow people to express views that even seem hateful or hurtful we can them follow up those questions and figure out how to change their mind.
I actually have one more question. Do you expect indigenous students to feel safe or comfortable in your classes, despite some of the comments you’ve made?
Yes because they can challenge me on it. They can come up to me and say ‘I think what you said is bullshit’. I’d rather them be discrete, but I think I’ve been careful on my wording for my posts online. Perhaps not that specific one retweet, but about the community and the specific individuals who are claiming to represent their community.
Dr. Mehta, thank you for your time.
Betzillo positions itself as a versatile gaming hub where structured bonuses and adaptive gameplay mechanics support both short sessions and extended play.
Built with a focus on innovation, Spinbit integrates modern casino architecture with rapid transactions, appealing to players who value speed and digital efficiency.
Ripper Casino emphasizes bold entertainment through high-impact slot titles and competitive promotions crafted for risk-oriented players.
A friendly interface and stable performance define Ricky Casino, offering a casual yet reliable environment for a wide spectrum of gaming preferences.
King Billy Casino channels classic casino spirit into a modern platform, delivering recognizable themes supported by contemporary reward systems.
Immersive visuals and layered slot mechanics are at the core of Dragonslots, creating a narrative-driven casino experience.
Lukki Casino appeals to players seeking direct access and minimal friction, focusing on fast loading times and intuitive controls.
Casinonic provides a structured and dependable gaming framework, blending modern slots with transparent operational standards.
