Toula Foscolos2013-05-19T00:06:14-04:00Toula Foscoloshttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=toula-foscolosCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Toula FoscolosGood old fashioned elbow grease.Rehtaeh Parsons: Yet Another Rape Victim to Blame?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30447702013-04-09T12:23:32-04:002013-04-09T13:01:47-04:00Toula Foscoloshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/toula-foscolos/recently wrote a column about the two young men in Steubenville who were found guilty of raping an unconscious 16-year-old girl, I received a number of thank-you emails from readers - both male and female.
I also received a 1000-word diatribe from a reader, about how the girl in question was inebriated, drank way too much to handle herself, and shouldn't have been there at all. To make a long reply short, the reader basically felt the need to explain that she deserved what was coming.
He felt so justified, and so unapologetic about his explanation, that, not only did he sign the letter, he also left his professional credentials as a... life coach, should I feel the need to contact him again. After all, the way that girl drank herself into a stupor, what choice did those two boys have BUT to rape her?
I stared at that letter for a solid ten minutes. Having written an opinion column for the better part of seven years now, I'm used to the accolades and the anger. Few reactions faze me. But this reader's casual and flippant dismissal of the rape charges against these young men, his easy justification of a brutal and violent act, left me deeply troubled, and only served to reinforce what - deep down inside -- I already know.
That, despite what we tell ourselves, what we hear, what legislation has been enacted over the years, we still live in a world that prefers to justify rape - or at the very least, excuses it away, case by case.
The evidence in the Steubenville case was undeniable and was to be found - for all to see in horrifying detail - on social media, in texts and video footage shown in court.
These boys dragged her around like a rag doll, violated her repeatedly, and urinated on her as others watched on. They recorded themselves doing this, while all along laughing and yelling that she was"'deader than OJ's wife."
We're not talking about drunken high school shenanigans. We're talking about the unflinching, callous, and violent degradation of a young woman. A young woman their own age and running in their own circles, whom they should have protected, and yet chose to prod, poke, violate, and rape, like she was an inanimate object; a sex toy for their amusement and pleasure.
The way CNN and other major media outlets reacted to the verdicts (the way they bemoaned the fate of these "promising young men") was appalling and worthy of the public outcry it generated. The way Barbara Amiel justified it made me sick to my stomach.
And yet, despite the cringe-worthy video evidence, people still had the gall to question and publicly shame and blame the victim. Because, like I stated in my column, rape is still the only type of violence where the victim is questioned, doubted, and sneered at. The only type of violence where women's skirt hems are measured, alcohol consumption judged, past sexual history used against them and as a barometer of how much fault they should be assigned. Because, that one silent, accusatory question still continues to fester in many people's minds: she must have done something to bring this on, right?
Just like 17-year-old Halifax student Rehtaeh Parsons must have done something to bring on what happened to her, when she went to a friend's house 17 months ago (only 15 at the time) and was allegedly raped by four young boys. Four young boys who, not only violated her, but then decided it would be hysterically funny to take pictures of her and distribute them at her school and her community.
The victim-blaming culture that we live in, the fallout was inevitable. Rehtaeh was shunned, sneered at, mocked relentlessly. Depression, anger, and thoughts of suicide overtook her. Police were slow to investigate, and even slower to lay charges. Despite the pictures going viral, there was apparently "not enough evidence" to prosecute the four boys.
Last Thursday, Rehtaeh hanged herself in the bathroom. This past Sunday, her family took her off life support.
Blog continues below slideshow...
We, as a society, recoil in horror at such tragedies, but fail to see the triggers that normalize violence against women. We shrug them off as unrelated. But they're not.
About a week ago, I read about rapper Rick Ross getting into hot water for his lyrics encouraging date rape, by extolling the hours of fun one can have with MDMA, also known as Molly.
"Put Molly all in her champagne, she ain't even know it. I took her home and I enjoyed that, she ain't even know it."
Aside from the atrocious grammar that Ross is guilty of, he's basically rapping about slipping a drug to an unsuspecting woman and then raping her without her knowledge. When women's groups reacted with outrage, Ross backtracked and issued the lamest non-apology you've ever heard of.
"I would never use the term 'rape'," he said, taking the opportunity to condescendingly refer to his female fans as "queens" and "sexy ladies". "Hip hop don't condone that."
Only thing is, hip hop does condone that. All the bloody time.
"See me I'm all up on your bitch means I'mma rape her/
All I got for these hoes is dick, duct tape and a stapler." -- Lloyd Banks featuring Akon and Eminem - "Celebrity"
And here's DMX rapping about raping a minor. No big deal. It's just music, right?
"Tryin' to send the bitch back to her maker/
And if you got a daughter older then 15, I'mma rape her"- DMX - "X Is Coming"
Most rappers have such heinously disrespectful lyrics, I have a hard time repeating them here, but one must confront the ugly, misogynistic truth if one is to discuss it. Out of all the songs whose lyrics I looked at, there was only one "romantic" song I found that Snoop had written. It's title? "I miss that bitch." I know; it brought a tear to my eye too.
We can say what we like, women's groups can make as much noise as they can, but the truth remains; we live in a culture that normalizes violence towards women, justifies its existence, seeks to blame the victim instead of the perpetrator. Especially if the perpetrator looks like a good kid from a good family with a good future ahead of him.
According to the American Medical Association, sexual violence, and rape in particular, is the most under-reported violent crime. Of every 100 incidents of sexual assault, only six are reported to the police. Six...
I think of the other 94 that remain in the dark, and I want to cry for them. My heart aches for the women who stay silent, keeping their shameful secret like a festering wound that never quite heals; potentially foregoing therapy and grappling with lifelong issues of sexual intimacy and trust, asking themselves time and time again what they could have done differently.
Is it any wonder that so many women choose not to report a rape, when one sees the public blaming and ruthless finger-pointing that takes place, the moment a woman finds the courage to expose her raw wounds for all to see?
When one sees the public sympathy expressed for the poor "promising" young men and the one silly mistake that took them and their "bright futures" down?
When one sees rappers, like Rick Ross who is paid by Reebok to be a paid sponsor by the way, get to backtrack and issue statements that reinforce and justify the rape mentality we're surrounded by?
If you've incapacitated a woman to the point that she doesn't even know where she is, and then you have sex with her, that's called rape, Rick. Even if you coyly don't refer to it as rape in your song, it's still rape. Just like you can call something an apology and have it be anything but an apology.
Words matter. Public reactions matter. Justifications matter. The reticence to investigate matters. Sometimes they speak louder than the legislation we have in place protecting us. Sometimes they tell us a story we don't want to hear.]]>Le Québec en crise d'adolescencetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18598422012-09-05T22:21:26-04:002012-11-05T05:12:01-05:00Toula Foscoloshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/toula-foscolos/
En premier lieu, les résultats sont tombés et ont prouvé, une fois de plus, que les sondages sont un pâle reflet des véritables intentions de vote. Rivés devant leurs écrans de télé, les Québécois ont vécu une surprise après l'autre.
Les Libéraux, dans leur défaite, ont paradoxalement remporté une grande victoire morale en raflant ou en conservant 50 sièges, après avoir été la cible toute désignée du mouvement étudiant.
Pour sa part, le Parti québécois a réussi de justesse son pari de former le prochain gouvernement. Malgré des positions assez tranchées en matière d'identité et de langue, bon nombre d'observateurs misaient sur une victoire éclatante de Pauline Marois et son équipe. Or le PQ a franchi le fil d'arrivée de manière faiblarde et dispose d'à peine 54 sièges, ce qui le place en position minoritaire. Les « purs et durs » devront composer avec une opposition de 71 sièges et la mise au rancart de l'idée de souveraineté. Les Québécois ont voté pour le changement, certes, mais ils n'appuient pas tout le programme du PQ pour autant. Cette élection n'a pas été remportée haut la main par Mme Marois. On pourrait même dire qu'elle a surtout été perdue par Jean Charest.
Le paysage politique, en ce lendemain d'élection, ne comporte ni grand gagnant, ni grand perdant. Les Québécois constatent que le climat empoisonné des derniers mois a produit un fruit amer. Aucun camp ne peut prétendre être satisfait. L'ordre établi est bouleversé, et les espoirs des partis traditionnels sont bien évidemment déçus.
Pendant ce temps, la panique s'est installée ailleurs au pays. Le « reste du Canada » (ROC) essaie maintenant de prédire ce que cette victoire minoritaire du PQ laisse présager en matière d'unité nationale. Bien entendu, les commentaires haineux qui émanent du ROC sont proférés par des gens incapables d'imaginer la réalité sur le terrain. À moins de vivre au Québec, il est difficile de comprendre les compromis délicats, parfois douloureux et presque toujours maladroits qu'il faut faire lorsque les tensions linguistiques refont surface.
Le grand nombre de journalistes et de commentateurs du ROC qui ont couvert cette élection témoigne à la fois du désir manifeste de comprendre la situation, et de l'incapacité à comprendre quoi que ce soit. Pour illustrer la confusion ambiante, l'acteur Steve Patterson a écrit à la blague sur Twitter que « les journalistes anglophones qui analysent les résultats électoraux du Québec sans y habiter font penser à des hommes âgés essayant de comprendre la série Twilight ».
Cela dit, il arrive que des journalistes anglophones et francophones établis au Québec manquent complètement la cible eux aussi. La perception subjective des événements peut brouiller la réalité chez les plus professionnels d'entre eux, ce qui donne lieu à des réactions à l'emporte-pièce. Voilà pourquoi une journée de décalage fait le plus grand bien.
Avec le recul, on se rend compte que les Québécois ont voté en très grand nombre. Ils ont voté pour le changement, mais aussi et surtout pour une collaboration forcée. Difficile de savoir si cela résulte d'une décision consciente ou non. Les Québécois ont rejeté le statu quo et la rhétorique des vieux partis. Ils ont élu un parti souverainiste, mais l'ont condamné du même coup à trouver un terrain d'entente avec deux partis fédéralistes.
Le Québec de la Révolution tranquille est chose du passé. La province est prête à se redéfinir. Le problème est que ses citoyens ne savent pas vraiment ce qu'ils veulent.
Pour paraphraser les Shakespeare, je dirais que nous avons vécu « l'été du mécontentement ». Les étudiants ont manifesté bruyamment avec leurs casseroles. Les contribuables excédés par la corruption ont investi les assemblées municipales. Les prises de position au sujet de la religion et de la langue ont pris une tournure mesquine. Et les politiciens ont utilisé ces petits et grands malaises comme autant d'opportunités de promouvoir leur camp, sans se préoccuper des conséquences que pouvait entraîner une telle dégradation du discours public.
Voilà qui nous mène aux coups de feu de mardi soir. Ce bref moment de suspense nous a en quelque sorte ramenés sur terre. S'il faut en tirer une leçon, c'est que la frontière est mince entre les démocrates que nous croyons être, et les fanatiques que nous pouvons aisément devenir.
Comme il fallait s'y attendre, cette bizarre tentative d'assassinat de Pauline Marois a fait les manchettes une bonne partie de la journée de mercredi. Personnellement, je ne tiens pas à spéculer sur le sens de cet événement. Il est normal (et peut-être même souhaitable) que le public s'interroge sur les liens entre une campagne électorale fortement polarisée, à la limite agressive, et la santé mentale du pauvre type qui se croyait justifié d'agir ainsi. Mais le danger est d'y voir un fil conducteur à tout prix, comme ceux qui croient que la musique rock et les vidéoclips fabriquent des tueurs en série. Il vaut mieux ne pas tomber dans ce piège et nous concentrer sur les véritables enjeux de l'élection.
Le Québec vit actuellement une crise existentielle. La province se rend compte qu'elle n'est pas le havre de tolérance et d'idées progressistes qu'elle croyait être. Ses habitants doivent résoudre des questions identitaires cruciales, mais souffrent d'un certain nombrilisme. La génération montante ne tient pas à porter le fardeau des peurs et des phobies du passé, mais elle trébuche encore sur la définition de son avenir.
Peut-être ne le sentez-vous pas encore, mais il y a un petit quelque chose de réconfortant à vivre dans le chaos. La société québécoise est dans une phase de transformation. Elle s'accroche aux vestiges du passé, tout en sachant que ces vestiges bloquent son développement naturel et qu'elle devra les laisser tomber.
La rhétorique enflammée et les attaques sournoises qui ont terni la dernière campagne électorale sont très représentatives de partis politiques anachroniques qui tentent par tous les moyens de demeurer pertinents. Une nouvelle vision de la collectivité, du bien commun et du respect mutuel est en train d'émerger, même si la division persiste encore dans l'arène politique. Bref, nous sommes dans une sorte de crise d'adolescence collective.
Selon l'auteure féministe Adrienne Rich, « Il est fascinant d'être en vie à un moment d'éveil de la conscience, mais cela peut être douloureux et déboussolant. » Il en va ainsi de l'évolution. Le progrès est parsemé d'embûches et d'échecs frustrants, voire de reculs violents imposés par ceux qui ne comprennent pas la situation. Mais la clé est l'acceptation du changement.
Pour la première fois de son histoire, le Québec est dirigé par une femme. Les médias ont peu souligné ce fait, comme s'il était parfaitement banal. À mon avis, cela démontre que la société a bien intégré le principe d'égalité. Une première ministre est parfaitement capable de faire la job.
Par ailleurs, nous avons changé de parti au pouvoir pour la première fois en près d'une décennie. La démocratie a besoin d'alternance. Quelques idées novatrices et un peu de sang neuf ne feront pas de tort.
Il n'y a plus un mais trois partis souverainistes dans l'arène. Cela démontre que la notion d'autodétermination n'est plus perçue de manière monolithique. Les jeunes tentent de se définir autrement que par un antagonisme stérile entre le « nous » et le « vous ».
Pour la première fois aussi, nous avons un rapport de forces qui obligera les partis à coopérer ou périr. Le gouvernement minoritaire du PQ ne survivra pas un an s'il ne met pas un peu d'eau dans son vin.
En fin de compte, il y a lieu d'être optimiste. Le climat social a pris une tournure inquiétante ces derniers mois, mais le revirement électoral dont nous sommes témoins a du bon et nous offre de nouvelles perspectives. Nous avons l'opportunité de créer un espace de dialogue à l'image du peuple que nous voulons être. Les propos injurieux, les campagnes de peur et les sujets trop polarisés doivent faire place à l'imagination. Il est temps de laisser tomber nos préjugés et de tenir un nouveau discours qui ne soit pas dicté par les pouvoirs établis.
]]>Can Quebec Move Past its Teenage Angst?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18589862012-09-05T16:16:26-04:002012-11-05T05:12:01-05:00Toula Foscoloshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/toula-foscolos/
First off, the results...proving, once again, that polls can provide nothing more than a skewed and imperfect glimpse into voters' intentions, Quebecers sat stunned in front of their TVs last night as the results started trickling in.
When it was all over but the crying, the Liberals, in their defeat, had paradoxically still pulled off a stunning victory; managing to snag 49 seats during a re-election campaign and a vocal student movement that had positioned them perfectly for vilification.
The PQ, on the other hand, had succeeded in forming a government, but only barely. Despite expectations from many that Pauline Marois and her party, armed with highly contentious proposed identity and language policies, would march victoriously towards a firm majority, all they succeeded in doing was barely cross the finish line. A slim 55-seat PQ minority, inevitably -- and perhaps bitterly to some hardliners -- also translates to a 68-seat strong opposition, and a firm rejection of sovereignty. Quebecers voted for change, yes. But they didn't necessarily vote for the PQ's policies. It's an election that was in many ways lost by Charest, not necessarily won by Marois.
The day after, there are no clear winners or losers. Quebecers gaze at a poisoned political landscape that seems to have borne bitter fruit. Satisfaction seems to elude us all -- irrelevant of our allegiances. Everything has been turned on its head; most of all, one suspects, the expectations of the older political parties.
Across Canada, panic has set in, as the ROC tries to analyze and predict what a PQ victory (albeit it, a minority one) might mean for the country's unity. Of course, most of the Quebec bashing, the angst, the fear comes from the fact that, unless you live here, you are unable to truly understand the delicate -- sometimes painful, always clumsy -- dance we engage in when language tensions get high.
The number of ROC journalists and pundits covering the elections last night speaks to Canada's desire to understand, but also its inability to do so. The confusion is such that it prompted Canadian comedian, Steve Patterson, to jokingly tweet that "English journalists who don't live in Quebec analyzing QC election results are as relevant as middle-aged men reviewing the Twilight series."
Fair enough, but sometimes even the English and French journalists who do live in Quebec miss the mark terribly. Perception has a way of altering reality to such a degree that it sometimes renders us unable to see clearly. All we have left are knee-jerk reactions. But here's some perspective the day after.
After it's all said and done, Quebecers went to the polls in record numbers and voted for change, yes. But most importantly, whether it was a conscious decision or not, they voted for forced collaboration. They not only rejected the status quo; they rejected the status quo in waiting. In doing so, they also rejected their rhetoric. They elected a pro-sovereignty minority PQ government that will have no choice but to work together with a strong opposition comprised of two pro-federalist parties.
This is no longer the Quebec of the Quiet Revolution. This province is willing to be loud about what it does and does not want. The problem is; it still needs to figure out what it is and what it isn't.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, this summer has been our summer of discontent. Students made their case with a pot-banging, marching symphony that left some covering their ears. Those sickened by allegations of rampant corruption wanted change. The phraseology involving religion and language became ugly. Politicians manipulated and harnessed this malaise to further their own goals, unwilling to accept the dangers such loaded parlance could unleash.
And then shots were fired. And we all collectively gasped and came to our senses. We all recoiled in horror at the stark difference between what we thought we were and the offensive zealots we could so easily become. Today, we hopefully all take a step back.
Most of what will be making the media rounds today will be the details of the bizarre assassination attempt on Marois' life. I'm refraining from focusing on this tragic event, because, while it's perhaps understandable (and, perhaps, even worthwhile) that people will want to ponder what implications one of the most hateful and polarizing campaigns I've seen in Quebec in a long time, had on the psyche of a mentally-ill man justifying such actions to himself, it's irrelevant. Ultimately, his personal actions have as much to do with the campaign's divisive rhetoric as video games and rock music have to do with creating mass murderers. Let's not fall into that trap. Let's focus on the real issues.
There's an existential crisis brewing. A province realizing it's not necessarily the open, welcoming, progressive place it thought it was; a people grappling with questions of identity, inclusiveness, and neurotic navel gazing. A new generation coming to terms with the inelegant phobias and fears it wants to unload, as it stumbles upon a new acceptance of what it wants to embrace.
Maybe some of you don't see it yet, but there's sweet comfort to be had in the chaos. This is a society in real flux. A society that is, in some ways, holding on to the last vestiges of a past that defined what it became, but can no longer allow it to become what it must. Quebec is experiencing major growing pains.
The ugly rhetoric and the overall nastiness of the campaign were, in many ways, indicative of anachronistic parties attempting to remain relevant. Relevant, in a time where, even as the hateful politics of division persist, they are slowly, but systematically, being thrust aside for a new vision of shared commonality, and mutual respect. It is the kind of global vision that positions Quebecers as proud members of a distinct society that embraces its uniqueness of culture and language, without living in constant trepidation. The kind of vision that led a Francophone colleague of mine to exclaim: "I want to raise my children to be proud; not afraid."
Feminist author Adrienne Rich once stated: "It's exhilarating to be alive in a time of awakening consciousness; it can also be confusing, disorienting, and painful."
Evolution like this is always raw, vexatious, and hurts to the touch. It's not pretty while it's taking place, because progress is always jerked violently back by those who can't understand or accept it, but if nurtured and allowed to take place, it can lead to the kind of evolution one hopes for.
For the first time in its history, Quebec has elected a woman premier. What's so outstanding about this is how little importance it merited in most of our media. It speaks to the fact that we have a society that naturally assumes that a woman can tackle the job. For the first time in a long time, we have a change of government. Democracy always needs a change of guard and an injection of new blood and ideas to operate well.
For the first time we have not one, but multiple pro-sovereignty parties emerging, signifying that there's a change in how this population perceives self-determination, and a new breed of Quebecer no longer attached to the ugly pandering of "nous" vs. "vous."
For the first time we have a forced coalition of power that will either have to find a way to work together or perish. This minority government won't survive a year if it's not prepared to compromise and add water to its hardline wine. Those are all good things.
While many worry that the current social climate in Quebec is a worrisome one, the fact that everything has been turned on its head may prove to be a good thing. It means we are now faced with a new perspective. Now it's up to us to create the kind of place that speaks to the people we claim we want to be. It's time for the hateful rhetoric, the ugly politics of division, and the manipulation of people's fears to be done with. It's time to look past the narrow confines of our own prejudices and shape our own narrative; not the one so conveniently dictated to us by the powers that be.]]>Why The Media Have the Quebec Protests All Wrongtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15466652012-05-25T15:24:50-04:002012-07-25T05:12:18-04:00Toula Foscoloshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/toula-foscolos/
More than 100 days into all this and I still have trouble formulating a concise and thorough explanation of what's going on -- for myself and for others. Few people, if any, can claim to have all the answers to this explosion of emotions, this eruption of resentment. This is a generation vexed. They've managed to successfully transfer some of that outrage to older generations.
Jean Charest and the implementation of Bill 78 -- an unnecessarily draconian and arrogant law that temporarily poses serious limitations on the right to protest and assemble (i.e. it becomes illegal for more than 50 people to gather and protest) -- managed to do the rest.
First off, let's just get this out of the way: there's no denying that both the government and the students have bungled negotiations. The sheer level of hypocrisy, selective reasoning and tunnel vision displayed all around in this ongoing drama is both amusing and disturbing to me. Both the student associations (which, by the way, only represent a small proportion of students: over 165,000 students are on strike out of 495,000 in the student body) and the Liberals (also a government that has the majority, but was voted in by a minority of the population. Abstaining voters, now complaining, only have themselves to blame for that) have been closed off and unwilling to negotiate and reach some sort of compromise. Both sides are, of course, accusing the other side of stubbornness, while exalting their own openness to dialogue.
I am categorically in favour of students' right to protest and make their voices heard, but not impressed with the lack of accountability I've seen in some instances. When students forcibly attempted to prevent non-striking students from entering their classes, they temporarily lost me. You can't rally on the streets in defense of your rights, and then turn around and deny others theirs.
At the same time, I don't accept a government that chooses to force special legislation down protesters' throats, instead of sticking with what is admittedly more convoluted, messy, and time consuming, yet a vital ingredient of democracy: dialogue. No one gets to claim moral superiority here, I'm afraid...
I'm not, by any means, an anti-establishment anarchist revelling in the ensuing chaos. While I, like the province I reside in and adore, am admittedly left of centre, I've shared the frustration, the anger, the bewilderment of many in my city who can't seem to pinpoint what it is that these students are so angry about.
The movement has been harshly criticized by many for being an umbrella group for all sorts of grievances, having no clear agenda, being an "all-purpose" attempt at a revolution if you will. No one can deny the obvious influence and aftershocks of the Occupy Wall Street movement in this current protest. This ceased to be about tuition fees a long time ago and became a much larger societal and philosophical debate about where we -- as a society -- want our priorities to lie.
Both sides have exasperated me. I've come very close, many a time, to hiking up my pants to my nipples and yelling at those damn kids to get off my lawn. I, too, don't get the pots and the pans, the semi-nude parades downtown, the nightly protests, which have, by now, become a routine. I don't appreciate having bridges blocked and smoke bombs thrown in metro stations, while I'm on my way to work a job that provides the tax dollars to finance the vast majority of students' tuition. I'm fed up too.
But I also don't appreciate how the rest of Canada has gotten it all wrong. I don't appreciate how most national syndicated columnists have attempted to minimize and ridicule one of the largest - predominantly peaceful - civil disobedience actions to ever be seen in this country.
Maclean's magazine plastering the image of a student on its front page and in our faces, declaring: "How a group of entitled students went to war and shut down a province. Over $325" is not only inaccurate, but downright contemptuous of the next generation. It's an affront to the many thoughtful, caring, and socially-conscious people I know who are in support of policy discussion and political debate; in support of asking the question: "Can we, perhaps, do things differently?"
The National Post's Barbara Kay calling the protesters "a mindless mob" reeks of judgement. It's based on the assumption that everyone screaming on the street has nothing of value to say and that authority must be respected simply because it wears a suit. The fact that this government has been mired in controversy and corruption scandals, and has subsequently lost the moral high ground, the fact that too many fat cats have walked away unpunished, should not be up for discussion?
Kay also makes the mistake of thinking that the protests are only a "francophone" issue or only a "student" issue. While that was true in the beginning, after the implementation of Bill 78, I can assure everyone that is no longer the case. Over 200,000 people took to the streets during the April 22th Montreal demonstration. The same numbers were witnessed just a few days ago, on May 22.
It's easy (and intellectually lazy) to use logical fallacies, half-truths, personal attacks and demonization of opponents to try and sway people to agree with your opinion, but none of the "facts" and slanted opinions I've seen published in national magazines and newspapers have managed to accurately portray the mood here and the genuine across-the-board frustration many of us are living.
Can we all please leave absolutism at the door? There's a lot of space between downright ridicule of the student movement and its outright deification. It's time for some respectful dialogue and some flexibility. Both camps are so polarized at this moment, that there seems to be no middle ground anymore. "You're either with us or against us" mode of thinking seems to be prevailing, and history has taught us repeatedly that civil disobedience can easily deteriorate into violence and ugliness. We are not immune to that possibility, so it's time to take action to reach some sort of solution before tensions start to really escalate.
Even as I'm writing this, I can hear the outraged replies forming. But, whether the ROC likes it or not, whether the ROC understands it or not, for the past 100 days we here in Quebec have been witnessing non-stop acts of civil disobedience. It's frustrating, disconcerting, and disorienting, but you know what? It's also profoundly joyous, exhilarating and inspiring. Elections are only part of democracy. This, too, is democracy at work and, while hopelessly flawed and messy as a system, it's preferable to anything else I know. I mean... I hear police states are much quieter, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Change is not neat, restrained and subdued. Disillusionment has to find an outlet. Whether people agree or disagree with what's currently taking place here, one can't deny that it's taking place. Only history will be able to assess whether this is a true "social awakening" or an exaggerated reaction to a simple tuition hike. None of us are in a position to correctly assess that at the moment. The best we can all do is to try and understand why, without dismissive knee-jerk reactions.
American newspaper columnist and author, Molly Ivins, once wrote: "The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion." Cacophony, even. Now pass me that pot, will you?
Correction: An earlier version of this blog wrongly identified Barbara Kay as living in Toronto. She lives in Montreal.