2013-05-22T23:54:47-04:00 Paul Banwatt http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=paul-banwatt Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Paul Banwatt Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1819150 2012-08-21T14:42:15-04:00 2012-10-21T05:12:12-04:00

Paul Banwatt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-banwatt/ apologized to those offended by the Bank's handling of the design process of its latest $100 bills, launched in November last year.

In October 2009, focus groups in a number of Canadian cities were asked to give their opinions on proposed images of the bill, which included a woman who appeared Asian looking through a microscope. Comments ranged from some praise for the multicultural connotations to accusations of stereotyping Asians and even criticism that the picture failed to properly represent Canada. In the end, the Bank altered the image by attempting to neutralize the ethnicity of the woman, and ended up with what many agree looks like a Caucasian woman on the bill.

It seems to me that the Bank always had good intentions, even if terribly executed. Given the feedback, it isn't surprising that the Bank reconsidered using the image. If they had left it, they were stuck with a bill that some found offensive (though, I'm not defending the fact that people were offended by the image). By changing it they now have to deal with accusations of racism, and headlines that sardonically poke at their decision to "ethnically cleanse" the image. I think they were trying to do the right thing.

And although the Bank promised to review its design process, it is entirely unclear from the apology how things would be different next time. I'm not sure if the Bank is sure yet what they did wrong. So let's look at some of the options the Bank can consider to avoid this in the future:

Option #1: No unidentified individual on a bank note should ever look like they belong to a particular background.

This is the most terrifying option. We have to start debating what constitutes "generic" humans. Yet, this is the precise situation we're in now. And the Bank's attempt at drawing a "neutral ethnicity" has been rightly criticized for looking too Caucasian. You can't actually draw a realistic looking "neutral ethnicity" because there's no such thing. We're all different and that's the point.

Option #2: No individual with an identifiable background should appear to be doing something that people of their background are stereotypically associated with.

This option merely gives into those who would stereotype people. Because of a stereotypical association between Asians and being good at science, the overly sensitive (and equally wrong) response is that no Asian can be depicted performing a scientific task. This is likely part of what incensed the Chinese Canadian National Council, who criticized the bank for "caving to the racist feedback." (While we're at it, why did Mark Carney say the original woman depicted was actually "South Asian"?)

Option #3: Ignore consideration of stereotypes altogether when depicting Canadians.

Obviously this wouldn't work either. We have to retain sensitivity to historical prejudice. To ignore it might recklessly cause even more hurt by inadvertently promoting ideas that we've worked hard to move away from.

Option #4: Only put animals on money.

I'm actually fine with this option.

So what's the answer? Perhaps it's simplistic, but I believe the answer is to let common sense prevail. If a focus group says that a picture may be racist, why not consult with leaders of the communities that may be offended? Why not consider adding more people to the picture? Why not question whether the focus groups' criticisms are the kind we actually should cater to in a multicultural society?

The point is that there are many options one might consider before attempting to "sanitize" the image by altering an individual's features. This analysis has to be done on a case-by-case basis, but in all cases real care has to go into the decision that's made. And if that's too difficult, maybe just go with animals.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1096127 2011-11-18T13:47:18-05:00 2012-01-18T05:12:01-05:00

Paul Banwatt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-banwatt/ City of Toronto eviction notices citing provincial anti-trespass laws, Occupiers responded by claiming constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. At the end of the day, a stay of eviction was granted, but the basic questions remain unanswered: Do the protesters have a right to be there? Does the City of Toronto (or any city in Canada) have a right to kick the Occupy protesters out?

It's a question about what our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms actually mean and the answers are... fuzzy. But, there are some things we can say with certainty -- the protesters do have rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protect their protest.

These rights were definitely being exercised on the day the protest started in St. James Park. They're the same rights that let you stop traffic when you march in protest down the street. It may not be legal in any other circumstance to block traffic and take over a public street, but traffic laws can't stop that kind of expression or peaceful assembly when you're making a political statement. In those cases, the Charter is the only law that matters.

In fact, use of a public space for political speech is exactly the kind of thing these rights were made to protect. But there is also a section of the Charter (section 1, actually) which places a "reasonable limit" on the exercise of rights, including fundamental freedoms. That means that a government can infringe these rights in certain circumstances. For example, you probably can't stop traffic on a major street for a month, even if you are making a political statement (I say probably because I'm sure there's a constitutional scholar who could find exactly the facts in which you could do just that). Courts attempt to balance the rights being infringed against the purpose of the government in infringing them, in order to determine whether the reasonable limit has been reached.

In a leading case, the court said that while a city ban on any amplified noise entering Montreal streets (in this case, from a strip club) was a violation of freedom of expression rights, the ban was, nevertheless, a reasonable limit on that right in a free and democratic society. After all, while people have a right to express themselves on a public street, cities have a right to make and enforce laws that protect values such as safety, health, cleanliness and the right of all to enjoy the use of public spaces. That's where Mayor Ford's best argument for his power to evict may come from. It isn't that there's an anti-trespassing law. It's that the law, as it is enforced, is arguably a reasonable limit on the protesters' freedom of expression. And it's debatable, because, whenever they infringe a fundamental right, laws have to achieve "pressing and substantial" aims, without going too far.

Intriguingly, Ontario Superior Court Justice David Brown, the judge hearing the case, suggested at Tuesday's hearing that the 24/7 element of the occupation was "integrally linked" with the Occupy message. Viewed this way, preventing overnight camping is an outright ban on the form of expression that Occupy has chosen. That's harder for the city to justify, but the question of reasonable limits still exists.

The first day they set up shop, the protesters' rights were the strongest they could be. It would be impossible to argue that the moment they arrived, the protesters had reached any reasonable limit. But with each public complaint and passing day, the case for Mayor Ford stepping in and "reasonably limiting" those rights has grown stronger. Now, one month in, the question for the court to answer is whether the protests have already crossed the line, or whether the line still lies far off in the distance.
]]>