We need to call out politicians who use mental illness as a scapegoat

Addressing the nation in the wake of Wednesday’s Florida school shooting, President Trump told the victims they “are never alone.” He offered to do “whatever we can do to ease your pain,” while committing “to working with local leaders to tackle the difficult issue of mental health.” In a tweet, he had this to say:

So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!

Other “true friends and champion[s]” were quick to add their two cents: Rick Scott called the shooting “pure evil.” Marco Rubio tweeted that the attack “was designed & executed to maximize loss of life,” but said it was too early to discuss gun control. The BBC reports that Rubio told Fox News "You should know the facts of that incident before you run out and prescribe some law that you claim could have prevented it.”

I’m not entirely sure what facts Rubio is waiting on here. We know that the FBI was notified twice that this individual might be planning such an attack, and we know the school was aware of the individual. We also know the shooter attained his AR15 (every gun nut’s favourite toy) legally.

When Mr. Trump asks people to report the “mentally disturbed,” I really don’t understand the logic. All the arguments for gun control are already out there, so it’s not hard to understand why this tweet is complete bullshit. Mr. Trump’s clear misunderstanding of mental health is the most obvious place to begin. Though the “mentally disturbed” argument is the common fallback of Trump, the GOP, and the NRA, few have ever really given an adequate definition for what they mean when referring to a “mentally disturbed” individual.

This is dangerous. Mr. Trump never defines exactly what he means by the terms “mentally disturbed” and “big problem,” and he never defines what he means what he means when he asks (who, exactly?) to “report such instances to authorities.” I guess President Trump is unaware that the FBI was already notified about this particular individual. Twice.

The president’s lack of clarity in this tweet leaves far too much room for individual interpretation. Given the continued prevalence of toxic stereotypes which are can be easily debunked with five minutes on the internet, it is not unreasonable to ask the President of the United States to qualify his statements.

Because right now it seems to me as though the President of the United States is aligning mental illness with white supremacy and mass murder for the express political purpose of backing the private interest group that paid over $17 million to GOP candidates in the 2015-2016 election cycle.

As someone who’s dealt with a lifelong struggle with depression and severe anxiety, I take personal offense to this. As someone who’s struggled with a health care system that can’t seem to provide answers for myself and others close to me, I’m angry that this kind of rhetoric is not being more widely questioned.

For a relative summation of my position here, I’d recommend watching John Oliver’s excellent segment on the subject. Mental illness – a health issue that effects an increasingly vast segment of the western society in a variety of ways – is the favoured scapegoat scape goat of gun lobbyists and the politicians who gladly accept their money. It happened after Las Vegas, and it happened after Orlando: these politicians and lobbyists are contributing a dangerous rhetoric to mental health discussions in order to avoid dealing with the political reality that the right has lost the gun control debate on all rational and intellectual grounds.

In practice, this means that politicians like Trump and Rubio consistently focus on the fact that the attacker can be broadly labelled “mentally ill.” Meanwhile, the systematic factors that contributed to the shooting –the killer’s background in foster care, his ties to white supremacists, the AR15 he was legally allowed to own despite multiple tip-offs to the authorities that he was potentially homicidal – are ignored.

The standard Republican response also allows sweeps politically inconvenient talking points under the rug – like the deleted Instagram account in which the shooter showed off his Make America Great Again swag.

After all, he was disturbed. Why dig deeper?

When mental illness is only just beginning to lose its stigma in the west, it is the responsibility of moral individuals to question the narrative Trump is setting. By consistently aligning the experience of legitimately “sick individual[s]” with the fraction of mentally ill people who turn violent (almost always due to other factors such as, I stress again, white supremacy), Trump and others like him are hijacking a growing awareness over an important issue for political purposes.

To my knowledge, Mr. Trump has not once publically mentioned mental illness outside the context of gun control.

Since this rhetoric has an impact that echoes far beyond the borders of the United States, the responsibility to criticize the precedent set at that country’s highest level also falls outside those borders. That’s why I’m writing this piece. That’s why I’d like to see Prime Minister Trudeau do more than give his “deepest condolences” in between his Team Canada tweets.

In the future, I’d like to see the Prime Minister and other Parliamentarians directly question the toxic narrative that is consistently being spread in our southern neighbours. At the very least, this would be a good time to bring up the issue of Canada’s chronically underfunded mental health system.

One final note. About a year ago, I wrote a post in which I pointed out the value of history in interpreting the new Trump presidency. I asked readers to be vigilant, using an example from the historical moment most clearly comparable to today’s America, 1930s Germany. I attempted emphasize how Hitler utilized public apathy as a key weapon in Germany’s slow move from democracy to dictatorship.

The mentally ill were one of this dictatorship’s first distinct targets, along with Jewish and Romany communities.  

In addition to Nazi Germany, Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan, and Communist Cuba all explicitly utilized the mentally ill for political purposes, often to delegitimize political opponents. The list goes on. In the west, a time when mental illness was a primary fallback for those who opposed female suffrage remains in living memory. Though as a culture we seem to have forgotten this.

I’m angry. Gun lobbyists and their political allies are using the lived experience of millions – my lived experience – to justify their blatant corruption and inaction. We should all be angry.

Star Wars in the Twenty-First Century

Last week, I finally got around to seeing The Last Jedi.

I’ll admit, I had some trepidation. I’d seen the Rotten Tomatoes debacle, heard about fan reactions. Low expectations were a part of why I took so long to see the film. The spoiler-free reviews I read seemed pretty promising, but that was almost even more discouraging. Was The Last Jedi just going to be another example of why critical opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt?

As it turned out, The Last Jedi reminded me why I tend to take fan reactions with a grain of salt.

To avoid spoilers, it’s only the last week I’m letting myself read commentary and the fan reactions. But after watching the movie and reading the articles that have slowly accumulated in a folder on my desktop, it seems the main justification for the vitriol is that the movie “absolutely ruins 30 years of cinema lore.”

While there is a kernel of truth in this statement, I have to admit, I find this thinking somewhat reductive.

In responding to that particular Tweet and the countless fans who agree with its sentiment, I’ll start by acknowledging that, yes, The Last Jedi disappointed me. It was a disappointment for the little boy who’s still somewhere in there, that continues to drive my fandom. In many ways, The Last Jedi spit in the face of the little boy who watched the originals as long ago as he can remember before getting his own generation of Star Wars.

This newest movie disappointed the part of me that drives my belief that Return of the Jedi is the best of the series. In many ways, The Last Jedi is the sequel to Episode VI we never saw with The Force Awakens.  Like all good sequels, The Last Jedi addresses the legacy of its predecessor. Luke’s bleak monologues cut to the romantic heart of Return of the Jedi’s neat fantasy ending: the comradery, the optimism, the mythologizing. The kid inside who continues to idolize Luke’s hero’s journey felt pretty hurt and even offended by the writers’ cynical manipulation of the mythology.

I get why people dislike this movie.

But I’m no longer just that kid. I’m also an adult who attempts to engage at least somewhat critically with the cultural artifacts I am exposed to.

My adult reaction to any offense taken after seeing The Last Jedi is basically this… the existence of a third Star Wars trilogy in a universe where George Lucas sold his baby to Disney is fucking offensive.

Most of the problems with both The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi can be directly tied to the fact that the series should not even exist. Any manipulation of fan-favoured franchise lore isn’t the fault of a single writer or his film. His directing is not the reason Luke seems like an entirely different character in this movie. It would have been inevitable. Luke’s story ended with Return of the Jedi.

Any problems arising with his character can be traced back to the increasing commodification of franchises like Star Wars by entertainment giants (remember, Disney also owns Marvel Entertainment). Rian Johnson seems to understand this, and I wonder if this knowledge played a part in his choice to characterize Luke this way. Is it, perhaps, a statement? At the very least, he’s given an alternative to the predictably Yoda imitator we might have ended up with under a different director.

Whatever people say about the prequel trilogy fit, it directly into the creative vision Lucas created. The first follow up trilogy enhanced the franchises core themes and deepened the universe (providing space to revive a dying expanded universe) while mostly acknowledging the original trilogy as its foundation piece. This new trilogy was unplanned, clearly a product of corporate machinations. Our Twitter friend succinctly summarizes what many of us have been thinking since 2012: “cash cow only and goodbye to all that made #StarWars great.”

I’m almost tempted to say the world did end in 2012, because the world where Star Wars fandom is untainted by the postmodern malaise is no more. Hence, I return to my reaction The Last Jedi: I loved it. It’s up there with the best of the canon, precisely because it understands the place Star Wars is at in the 21^st century.

One of Star Wars’ many values is its reflection of the culture that produces it. The original trilogy reflected Reagan-era anti-communist rhetoric, centered on a hero’s journey to join the collective fight against the evil Empire. Concerned with diversifying the series mythology, the prequel trilogy is perennially well suited for the post-9/11 world, dissecting empires, republics, and religions. In the prequel trilogy, we witness an outdated order being torn down in a manner that seems both reflective and eerily prophetic. The prequel trilogy remains relevant when we look back from sixteen plus years into the War in Afghanistan.

Rian Johnson asks hard questions that have always existed in the Star Wars franchise but have never been tackled in the film’s main line. He exposes some of the problematic thinking promoted by the original Star Wars series, and the way that dogged faith in organizations and religions can exacerbate these problems. Despite Return of the Jedi’s optimistic ending, I’ve always wondered if the Jedi need to return. It was, after all, (as Luke notes at one point in the new film) the overconfident and bureaucratic Jedi order that allowed Darth Sidious to organize the Empire and order the Jedi’s destruction.

Perhaps, The Last Jedi asks, it is time to stop looking for the past for answers. This, of course, brings the film into conversation with contemporary political debates.

The Republic and the Empire both function as analogies for the American state. Though fans debate over how those analogies map onto the real world, look around the world today. Does any other political entity represent the First Order better than the United Sates and the late capitalist west more generally? Specifically, who better represents the First Order’s incompetent and extremist leadership than those politicians currently sitting in the White House?  

It’s no longer enough to joke about “the only other woman in the galaxy” as some form of empty lip service. It’s time to actively dismantle and deconstruct the institutions that reproduce social ills. On the fandom level, that means criticizing franchises like Star Wars and others when they fail to promote socially diverse narratives. It means questioning elements of fandom that are unwilling to compromise their views about the social ramifications that fiction has.

In terms of the franchise’s creative direction, it means little humanization for the villains and even less romanticism in dealing with them. The Last Jedi excellently deconstructs the naiveté of believing in the good inside. In real life, the good guy doesn’t turn, the eleventh hour plan fails, and a petulant man child is in charge of the most dangerous and powerful military in the galaxy. In real life, a villain’s backstory is second to the threat he poses threat. In the real world, actions define a person.

The Last Jedi is the first truly adult Star Wars film not just because it strays heavily into PG territory but because it is aware of itself and the franchise as a set of cultural artifacts with social ramifications. While the child in me will always love the original trilogy the best, The Last Jedi seems to point towards a future where nine films form a unified progressive update to the six-episode saga my heart still considers the core of Star Wars.

Mishandled, though, J.J. Abrams and Episode IX’s creative team risk dismissing some of the thematic depths reached in The Last Jedi. Though The Last Jedi is certainly one of Star Wars’ best moments, this seems largely due to Rian Johnson’s update to George Lucas’s creative vision. Two years on from The Force Awakens, I’m still unsure how I feel about this new trilogy.

We cannot buy into myths about Canadian exceptionalism

At the beginning of last month, the New York Times ran an opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof lauding the Canadian attitude towards refugees, referring to Canada as “the one great exception” to an international community that is steadily turning its back to refugees and immigrants. Given events in Europe and America, it’s easy to imagine Canada as a last bastion against intolerance. Examples like the government’s promise to spend $28 million on Yazidi refugees and Justin Trudeau’s charming publicity pieces make it easy to give a face to Canadian exceptionalism.

It is important that Canadians look past that face.

It is certainly true that Canadian attitudes towards refugees have been generally more favourable than much of the world in recent months, particularly when one makes a direct comparison to our southern neighbour. Just look at Ben Carson’s recent comments that conflate slaves and immigrants. No wonder the months that Donald Trump has been president have seen a dramatic increase in the number of immigrants crossing the U.S. – Canadian border.

There is a danger, however, that this continued presentation of Canada as a quasi-utopian space may lead to Canadians being desensitized to the problems inherent in our own country.

Canada, as a nation, is often misunderstood by much of the world. Simply google Canada, and one will find a wealth of entertaining and rarely accurate stereotypes. The great white north is often seen as a singular mass of friendly semi-Americans who live in igloos and apologize for everything.

While this image, like most stereotypes, is probably based on a degree of truth, it contributes to a dangerous single narrative in which Canadians consist of a single one-dimensional characteristic: their acceptance. The fact that many Canadians seem to buy into this narrative about themselves only increases its danger.

To paint all Canadians with a single brushstroke – in the case of refugees and immigrants, “accepting” seems to be the buzzword being applied – is a mistake consistently made by much of the world exemplified by the Kristof article. Canada is a vast country with a population of some 35 million and a landmass smaller than only Russia. The diversity of Canada’s population is reflected in the diversity of opinion held by Canadians.

Consider the issue of refugees. As I’ve said already, Canadians are ostensibly, and probably on average of late, more accepting of outsiders than the United States; our official policies of multiculturalism and history of liberal leadership speak to a national disposition that is generally accepting of minorities.

Yet it is a stretch to say that Canada is “leading the free world.” To claim that Canada is the sole exception to a pattern of intolerance is perilously simplistic and irresponsible.

Such claims are incongruent with Canada’s history of racialized immigration policy and the ongoing mistreatment of First Nations communities. Sure, we now have Justin Trudeau, a prime minister whose views on immigration and multiculturalism seem to be generally geared towards acceptance. But let’s not forget that two years ago the man in the PM’s seat was advocating policies that were culturally isolationist if not downright racist. Also consider the fact that the idealism that swept Trudeau in the office has very much dissipated.

Canada has yet to elect a Trump-like figure, yet many Canadians are expressing the desire for to have our own swamp drained of both political corruption and ethnic diversity. The rise of Kevin O’Leary as a possible standard bearer for a Canadian populist movement presents a terrifying potential for the next election. The press received by the Canadian business mogul has very much mirrored the press received by Donald Trump back in 2015, with a steady increase in political engagement preceding a run for office.

A recent study conducted by McGill University determined that Canadian attitudes towards immigration are not as exceptional as many imagine. The study argues that perceived Canadian exceptionalism is largely due to the fact that the country’s political system has not suffered any large degree of stress from immigration issues. What happens when the steadily brewing resentment towards outsiders becomes the central issue of national politics? The results of this study seem to suggest that a serious anti-immigration movement is not unlikely over the next few years.

This brings me back to the Kristof article. Certainly it is nice for the world to have a place like Canada to imagine as a pillar of acceptance, yet it is important for Canadians themselves not to buy into this sentiment. Canada is not immune to the wave of prejudice and isolationism that has swept the western world. Increasingly, Canadians (particularly those in rural areas) are turning towards a misplaced sense of isolationism and nationalism.

Canadians need to be aware of the prejudices of their country, and the prejudices they themselves may hold. We need to avoid complacency, and we need to avoid accepting assumptions about our nation’s own moral infallibility.

If we do not do so, we will end up with a Trump of our own. And that’s just the beginning.

Black Lives Matter because All Lives Matter

If a house is on fire and the firemen hose down that house, it doesn’t mean they care any less for the rest of the street; it means that the flames engulfing this particular house are a more pressing concern than the dry rot slowly eating the basement of its neighbour.

I can’t believe it needs saying, but Black Lives Matter because all lives matter. This particular group is getting attention right now because they need it. Just because we are focussing on the more pressing issue right now does not detract from other social issues, nor is the Black Lives Matter movement suggesting that we should not respect other ethnicities simply because the current focus is on aiding a group that is continually victimized.

The idea behind the All Lives Matter movement baffles me as much as the concept of “men’s rights” or “straight pride.” It is an undeniable fact that black people in America face discrimination that many other ethnicities (white or otherwise) do not. That isn’t to say that the trials other groups face are any less important. Rather, it is a matter of acuteness. With the recent high profile (but not out of the ordinary) killings of black men by police in America, and the equally horrific backlash against the officers in Dallas, this crisis has come to a head in ways reminiscent of the civil rights movement.

In light of the recent killings, I think there are two issues that need to be discussed. One is the obvious fact that black people are far more likely to be killed by police than white people, due to factors ranging from ignorance and profiling to outright racism. The other is the issue of police use of force.

This second issue is particularly intriguing, given that American police kill more people than any other western nation by a long shot.

Due to the nature of their society and the rigorous devotion many Americans have to the Second Amendment, it is understandable that cops in the U.S. face a different set of challenges from, say, the U.K., where guns are heavily restricted and the police go unarmed. However, even the gun-centric nature of American society doesn’t account for the disproportionate number of killings carried out by police. Indeed, simply calling the difference disproportionate is an understatement.

The Guardian’s database, The Counted, estimates that American police fatally shot the same number of people in the first 24 days of 2015 as British police shot in the past 24 years.

Just let that sink in for a moment.

In many instances, the use of lethal force is certainly justified, whether to protect the public or the officers themselves. And it is understandable that, sometimes, officers make mistakes. They are, after all, human beings. I have the utmost respect for anyone who goes into police work, putting their own bodies on the line to protect their communities. They see the worst of society: the mangled bodies of car crash victims, abused children, victims of sexual assault. I respect anyone who chooses to go into that line of work. I know I couldn’t.

However, that respect does not extend to a blind refusal to criticize.

In the United States, citizens that people trust to protect and defend them kill almost 100 people every month. Police officers in all countries need to be held to a higher standard. By allowing police officers to carry guns, we, as citizens (of America, Canada, or anywhere else), are giving the state the means to murder us. Policing is the only profession in which people are allowed to kill their fellow citizens as part of their job.

Isn’t it fair that we ask them to be damn sure they are justified in doing so?

Police need to be taught to think beyond the gun belt, especially when operating in places where a citizen can legally carry a concealed firearm with no ill intent. It must be ingrained into police officers that lethal force is a last resort, that drawing one’s gun is not the appropriate response for every kind of threat. Alternatives to firearms such as Tasers and pepper spray need to be used more consistently. Police officers must be taught to respond with equal force to that which they are facing, no more and no less. Officers need to constantly attempt to deescalate situations, resorting to the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves and the public.

This is not an easy thing. Police officers are trained to expect threats, and their reactions are often instinctual. Unfortunately, difficulty is not an excuse to avoid change. Despite the fact that most cops are generally decent people who do their job to the best of their abilities, continual efforts must be made to ensure that all cops are held to a higher standard. When mistakes are made, they can be, and often are, fatal.

The mistakes of police officers become all the more important when a specific minority group is disproportionately the victim in such incidents. As the state’s wielders of lethal force, police officers need to be trained to understand and avoid their own unconscious biases (and the biases of the society they represent). The fact that armed or unarmed black men are often the victims of excessive force is suggestive of that society’s wider tendency to profile and discriminate, and does not reflect the impartiality that police officers are supposed to exhibit. Police officers are who we look to for an example. They represent the laws we are all bound by. They must be the best of us.

I doubt that the killers of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were consciously racist, or that they intentionally murdered black men. They perceived threats to themselves and simply reacted as their training and unconscious biases dictated. Herein lies the issue: police in all countries, particularly America, must develop a standard that emphasises the reality of situations over perception. Tragedies like those of the past week must be avoided at all costs.

No system will ever be perfect, but perfection is what we must strive for; mistakes will always be made, but we cannot simply abandon trying to prevent them.

Police officers are human beings. Does that mean that easily preventable, often fatal, mistakes should be ignored? No. Police officers are our protectors and our examples, carrying the power to end our lives should it be necessary. These are heavy responsibilities. Is it so much to ask that only the strongest of us be allowed to bear those responsibilities? 

Brexit and the Problem with Nationalism

“Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” – Albert Einstein

Right now, the world is in a period of transition. The United States is losing its place as the world’s primary superpower, Russia is stirring up trouble again, and the Middle-East continues to be a seemingly unsolvable problem. Humans are on the move more than they ever have been before, many of them as refugees, and, the world over, economies are suffering as free market capitalism collapses under its own weight. Information travels faster than it ever has before, and people demand news that is ready made and easy to digest straight from their smartphones.

Considering all this, the Brexit debate doesn’t seem terribly surprising.

I’ve hated the term Brexit (“British Exit”) from the start, as it seems like a silly, trivial name for such an important issue. For those unaware, it refers to the referendum the UK will be having on June 23^rd to determine whether or not the country will remain in the European Union.

It surprises me that North American media outlets aren’t paying more attention to the referendum, given the possibly disastrous effects Britain’s withdrawal from the EU will inevitably have on the world. While the referendum debate might seem like a far-off issue for Britons and Europeans, the outcome will have real world consequences that will affect all of us. Considering the fact even the anticipation of a Brexit has a significant effect on the Canadian economy, it is well worth it for Canadians to be informed about the issue.

For the Brits reading this, I’m not going to argue Vote Leave is a con, or why Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage don’t give two shits about the working class. Brexiters are notoriously stubborn, and no amount of logic seems to convince them. Better people than me have tried.

What interests me is the origin of Brexit sentiments: why do intelligent people so staunchly (not to mention angrily) support a decision that would ultimately do nothing to benefit them? Each of Vote Leave’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked, from the absurd notion that an economically independent Britain would be more prosperous to the idea that Brussels is somehow to blame for the woes of the working class. It continually astounds me that intelligent people are campaigning to leave the EU.

As far as I can tell, Brexit, and other such nationalist movements, invariably begin with patriotism.

For all of my adult life, I have refused to call myself a patriot. I was born in the UK, but was raised in both Canada and Britain. I am a citizen of both countries, yet I don’t think of myself as either “British” or “Canadian.” My accent flip flops back and forth, and I consider both countries to be an intrinsic aspect of my identity. Perhaps it is because of this background that I refuse to identify myself as particularly belonging to either country.

 “Aren’t you proud to be British?” Canadians often ask me. “Aren’t you a Canadian now?” my British friends say.

Sure, I appreciate my British heritage as much as I appreciate Canada: the UK is a richly vibrant nation with a deep connection to its history, just as Canada is full of wonderful people, landscapes, and cultures.

Do either of these things make my homelands any better than the rest of the world? Do my Britishness or Canadianness make me intrinsically different from, say, a Frenchman or a German?

Hell no.

Human beings are the same wherever you go. In every nation, you’ll find good and bad people, a vast mix of privilege, class, and ideology. These things are a constant of human society, unaffected by the arbitrary borders and illusions of shared identity that form the abstract concept of “nationhood.” The particular manner in which these facets of humanity manifest is based more on circumstance and attitude than any facts of identity. In short, people are only different because they choose to be different based on race, religion, or, in this case, nationality.

While I respect those who are proud of their country, I also fear them. Patriotism is dangerous, fostering divisiveness and widening our divides, inevitably leading to nationalism and ultranationalism. We’re seeing the fallouts of seemingly benign patriotism right now in the rise of Donald Trump and the possibility of a Brexit on Thursday.

The world over, we are seeing people turn to nationalism, the big brother of patriotism, as the answer to what they perceive as their own powerlessness in the world. This is why Donald Trump is the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, and this is why Vote Leave has so much support. For once, people feel that they are being given a voice in issues that affect them.

Looking at Britain, it is easy to understand the desire to opt out of the EU. The economy is suffering and it is easy to blame those who are visibly “other” for the sorrows of the working class. The EU is an overly bureaucratic organization that seems to do little other than stifle Britain’s success as a country. Political parties like UKIP and news outlets like the Daily Mail stoke the fires of discontent by continually spouting off about the EU’s misuse of British money.

Are there problems with the EU? Yes, obviously. But all logic suggests that the UK is far off as a member than not. The arguments are vast and numerous (I’ll attach some further reading on why the EU should remain at the bottom).

Yet, despite the logic of Remain’s argument, people are unconvinced, and so many members of Britain’s working class see Brexit as the answer to their woes. Come Thursday, the referendum is anyone’s game.

Brexiters are thinking with their hearts and not with their heads. When Boris Johnson promises to make Britain great again, it’s understandable that people want to jump on the idea. Given that, for all its history, Britain has been a ruling force in the world, Brits don’t relish the idea of playing a bit part in a larger group.

Nevertheless, the facts are undeniable. This Thursday’s vote will not help people to “get their country back.” Britain will not reclaim the days of the Empire and become the great power it once was. There is no changing the fact that the sun has indeed set on the British Empire.

Intelligent people are being blinded by nationalist propaganda and rhetoric gone wild. A single referendum will not change Britain’s fortunes for the better. Rather, it is likely to do quite the opposite.

If Britain leaves, Europe will crumble as other restless states follow their lead. The continent could very likely slide backwards into the bickering group of schoolchildren it was prior to the Second World War, and international sentiment will turn against the United Kingdom for setting that ball rolling. Internally, the UK itself is also likely to crumble as Scotland and Northern Ireland hold onto a dying EU. Nationalist parties throughout the world will receive a propaganda boost, and the success of Brexit will encourage Donald Trump and his supporters as the US heads towards an election in November. We could even see a serious movement for an independent Texas, and, if that succeeds, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a revival of Western Canada’s campaign for independence.

There is nothing inherently wrong with patriotism. Pride in one’s country is not a bad thing. But people need to avoid making the mistake of thinking that divisive nationalist sentiments will drastically improve their quality of life.

For everyone voting in the Referendum, it might feel like you are taking back control, but you are not.  Because of circumstances, partly of my own doing, I am unable to vote as an expat in the Referendum, which I deeply regret. For everyone who is voting, please don’t make a mistake of historic proportions.

As always, thanks for reading!

Further reading on the referendum:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/english-working-class-victims-brexit-vote-false-patriotism?CMP=fb_gu

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/mood-ugly-mp-dead-jo-cox

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/10/no-single-market-access-for-uk-after-brexit-wolfgang-schauble-says

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/10/president-trump-brexit-which-worse-britain-votes-leave-hammer-blow-peace?CMP=fb_gu

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/brexit-canada-impact-1.3643295

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36024492

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21700697-parochial-and-vacuous-britains-dismal-referendum-campaign-has-been-populists-dream-nigel

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21700692-aftermath-vote-leave-european-union-will-depend-unpredictable-responses

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8

Bernie Sanders is no saint: he’s a politician who needs to get his head out of his ass

The Sanders camp likes to present Bernie as more than a mere politician; he’s a real human being who cares more about the issues than winning elections. Ostensibly, this is a fairly accurate evaluation. As far as politicians go, he’s always been one of the good guys. His career has been generally fairly progressive and his current rhetoric around Wall Street corruption hits all the right notes. I believe he genuinely wishes to uplift the middle class.

Despite this, one has to understand something. While he’s more genuine than the average career politician, he’s by no means a saint: he is very much a politician. Over the course of the primary season, he has increasingly succumbed to the pitfalls of election campaigns, manipulating facts and doing damage to the very causes he champions.

Those following this blog or my Facebook feed might get the impression that I hate Bernie Sanders. While I have certainly posted a few “Bernie bashing” pieces, I nevertheless admire the man. I admire what he stands for, and how he’s changed the landscape of this election. I appreciate the fact that he has pushed Hillary Clinton to the left and forced her to work for the nomination. On top of that, I think he’s a genuinely decent man who believes in his cause.

That being said, he’s a politician, possessing all the traits necessary to succeed in this role. His career reflects this fact, as much as his supporters like to deny it. As Hillary Clinton has basically now claimed the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders needs to grow up and admit that he’s lost. Likewise, his supporters need to stop treating the man like a saint and recognize that Hillary Clinton is not the devil. To do otherwise is to aid Donald Trump’s campaign.

Those “feeling the Bern” like to point to Bill Clinton’s tough on crime bill as proof of Hillary’s racist incompetence. Few dispute that the 1994 bill was a horrendous piece of legislation that Hillary was wrong to support. That both Bill and Hillary have since stated their regret over the bill does not mean we should simply forget it.

However, what Bernie supporters do like to forget is the fact that Bernie Sanders also voted for the bill.

Can we all take a moment to consider this hypocrisy? Bernie Sanders, Breaker of Chains, Mother of Dragons – wait, I’m getting my posts mixed up – voted in favour of the very bill he and his supporters like to throw in Hillary Clinton’s face. Was he as enthusiastic about it as Clinton? No. For him, it was seemingly more of a grudging concession. In the end, his rationale does not matter. His name is on that bill as much as Hillary Clinton.

Does this mean I think Hillary should be forgiven for supporting the bill, or the ridiculous manner in which she went about it? No, obviously not. But if one is going to point out this specific stain on her political record, one also has to acknowledge that it is just as much a mark against Sanders.

Another issue that the Sanders camp likes to throw out is her reluctance to embrace gay marriage until recently. Hillary Clinton did not publically support of gay marriage until 2013. This was around the time that every other liberal politician jumped on the bandwagon – including Bernie Sanders.

Sanders did not give a definitive support of same-sex marriage up until 2009. Prior to this, he specifically avoided discussing the issue. Despite his championing of the economic underdog, or his involvement in the civil rights movement, when it comes to LGBTQ issues, he’s hardly been a political maverick. One reporter said that “obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders’ position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth...from a rhinoceros.”

To be sure, Sanders’ record on this issue is more progressive than Hillary’s. He was (slightly) quicker to endorse the legalization of same-sex marriage, and he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which would have limited marriage to being exclusively between a man and a woman. The Act is yet another shameful aspect of Bill Clinton’s legacy, one that Bernie Sanders vehemently opposed.

However, unlike how he is currently attempting to portray it, his opposition was based primarily on pragmatism and contemporary issues. As a supporter of state rights, Sanders feared that the DOMA would undermine the ability of the state to determine their own legislation. Jane Sanders, Bernie’s wife and chief of staff, was quoted at the time as saying “we’re not legislating values.” This seems like an odd statement from a man whose entire campaign has been based on specifically appealing to such values.

All politicians are fickle, altering or masking their opinions to win elections. This is the nature of the game. If Bernie Sanders was not so hypocritically claiming moral superiority, holding himself above the corrupt fray everyday politics, his engagements in this tactic would not be such an issue. He cannot portray himself as a maverick and a radical when he continually engages in the same tactics he criticizes his opponents for.

Bernie’s supporters like to highlight the civil rights records of the two candidates. While Hillary was out campaigning for a segregationist, Bernie was off getting himself arrested while protesting segregation. Is this true? Yes, Hillary Clinton did indeed campaign for Republican Barry Goldwater around the same time that Bernie Sanders was actively engaged in the Chicago civil rights movement.

Unfortunately, this comparison represents another manipulation of how the facts are presented. When she played the role of a “Goldwater Girl,” Hillary Clinton was a sixteen year old living in an incredibly right-wing household; Bernie Sanders was a twenty-two year old university student at the time he got arrested, having grown up in the aftermath of the Holocaust a Jewish household. These differences may not seem like much, but is there a single person out there who claims to have been a fully formed individual at age sixteen, entirely free of the biases of their upbringing? We are all influenced by our surroundings. Family and education are undoubtedly the foremost influences in childhood and young adulthood.

There is an immense difference between being a high school teenager and a university student. In high school, one’s world is relatively insular and contained; university, conversely, is about expanded horizons and self-discovery. Speaking as a second year university student, my understanding of the world is very different from that of three years ago, and it will likely be different again three years from now. I challenge anyone to tell me that they are different.

A more accurate comparison would be where the two candidates were at the same relative age. Four years after campaigning for Barry Goldwater, at the age of twenty, Hillary had denounced the “racist” Republican Party and was a staunch liberal. In 1968, she campaigned for Eugene McCarthy, arguably the Bernie Sanders of his day. At her 1969 university graduation, she gave an ad-libbed speech that directly denounced the University’s chosen “anti-activism” speaker.

When one compares the two candidates in this manner, the difference between them becomes far less prominent. Hillary readily admits that she was not born a Democrat, and it is immature to hold any 68 year old woman – let alone someone with a distinguished career– accountable for the mistakes she made as an adolescent over five decades ago.

Is Hillary Clinton the perfect candidate? No. She has made huge errors, some of which the Sanders camp are very right to point out. I could easily write a long essay on the problems of a Hillary candidacy. Perhaps I will. But if Bernie supporters aren’t going to examine their own candidate with the same scrutiny they demand of Hillary Clinton, their arguments lose credibility.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign has been a disappointment. He has contradicted his own beliefs and held his opponents to hypocritical standards. In the wake of the June 7^th primaries, his chances of victory at the convention are arguably nonexistent, despite his intention to win the support of the party superdelegates (which, one might recall, he previously critiqued Hillary Clinton for).

At this point, by continuing to fight, Bernie Sanders is hurting the people he claims to represent. I doubt he would argue that a Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster, so why does he continue to divide the Democratic Party in a manner that can only benefit Trump?

Bernie Sanders claims to be a man of the people. Well, the people have spoken. He has lost fairly. Arguing otherwise is hypocritical and insulting. He seems unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, people have heard his pitch and are unconvinced.

As always, thanks for reading J

Game of Thrones: Mid-Season Update

Now that we’re past episode seven, two thirds of the way through the season, I feel it’s time to give an update on my thoughts about Game of Thrones.

Warning for those who are not up to date, this will contain spoilers for the current season. Read at your own peril.

Overall, I’m fairly happy with this season, but I do have my concerns.

As some may recall, I was wary about the (predictable) decision to revive Jon Snow. Five episodes later, and I’m still not entirely sure what I think. As much as I love Kit Harrington’s interpretation of the character, I can’t help but feel that the writers continue to play it safe. With the exception of the episode immediately following his revival, they have largely glossed over the psychological effects of of the ordeal.

Existentially, the realization that there is no life after death is crushing. Yet, other than his decision to reclaim Winterfell, Jon seems to be plodding on as usual. After he sulkily leaves the Night’s Watch, Sansa’s arrival is the only reason the character is not consigned to oblivion. That said, I love the new interaction between the two half siblings. Both characters have been inalterably changed by their experiences, and the showrunners have done a fairly good job of exploring the dynamic between characters who have largely not interacted onscreen.

You should probably ditch the ponytail, Jon... Your dad could pull it off, but you can't.

The reintroduction of Rickon Stark really frustrated me. Understandably, the writers wanted to motivate Jon to take back Winterfell, but the execution was clumsy. Last time we saw him, back in season three, Osha was taking Rickon to Last Hearth, seat of the Umbers, a family who was fiercely loyal to Robb Stark. The knowledge that Rickon was out there, safe, as a Stark ace in the hole, was comforting knowledge against all the horrors they have had to endure. To reintroduce him as the prisoner of Ramsay Bolton seems like an unnecessary ploy to create tension. Personally, I believe there was enough motivation for Jon to rally the north without adding Rickon as a prisoner.

Speaking of artificial tension, I still can’t get over the ramshackle Dornish storyline.

I didn’t talk about it in my other post due to my word count and the assumption that the story would have farther developments. However, we have now gone six episodes since Ellaria Sand and the Sandsnakes staged a coupe in Dorne and there seems to have been no repercussions. We have seen nothing more of these revolutionaries, and there seems to have been little or no reaction throughout the rest of Westeros. Aside from the actual scene’s clumsy execution, this leaves me wondering… why is Dorne even in the show?

In the books, the Dorne plot was dry but intriguing. One knew this was a possible game changer in Westeros’ larger political conflicts. The show’s adaptation of this storyline? Not so much.

While certainly Game of Thrones has done an excellent job of streamlining other plotlines for the TV format, the excursion into Dorne represents a failure to do this. In A Song of Ice and Fire Doran Martell was a wildcard who’d worked for decades to bring about the fall of the Lannisters. When Arriane Martell and the Sand Snakes (who Ellaria and her daughters are based upon) unwittingly threaten this plan, Doran lets them in on it. At no point is he assassinated: as of right now, he’s alive and well and plotting away.

The Sand Snakes look as dissapointed with the Dorne storyline as I feel

For someone who has not read the books, I imagine this plotline seems pointless. For someone who loves the books, it’s downright frustrating. The showrunners need to find a way to wrap it up, as there has not been adequate set up, nor do they have the time, to do it justice.

The Iron Islands plotline is another one that doesn’t fit smoothly into the show’s narrative progression. Even in the source material, the Kingsmoot seemed to come out of left field. In the show, the reintroduction of Balon Greyjoy in addition to new characters seems out of place. The new dynamic between Yara and Theon is really engaging, and both actors give excellent performances, but the politics of the Iron Islands seem inconsequential on the grand scale of the show. I can’t help but feel like this is going to be another plot tangent that is left ultimately unaddressed.

That being said, the show is doing an excellent job of bringing together certain tangents left wide open in the books. George R.R. Martin has always stated his intention to expand from the relative insularity of the first book, into the middle books’ vast wealth of viewpoints and landscapes, before drawing the threads back together for the final books, giving the series a degree of symmetry.

Despite this, we have largely yet to see this closing of threads in the books, with A Dance with Dragons introducing even more viewpoint characters. The show seems to be moving more actively towards this goal, as can be seen in Sansa and Jon’s attempt to rally the north, Arya’s upcoming return to Westeros, and Danaerys’. One senses that the final act of the saga is about to begin.

Perhaps my biggest disappointment about this season is the apparent spoilers for the upcoming Winds of Winter. As George R.R. Martin originally intended to have ASOIAF’s sixth book out before this season, it divulges certain key plot points, such as the apparent identity of the mysterious Coldhands, the nature of the White Walkers, and the possible confirmation of the R+L=J fan theory. That being said, I am by no means jumping on the anti-George R.R. Martin bandwagon. As I’ve said many times, I’d rather he take six years to write a good book than six months to write a bad one. To quote Neil Gaiman for the umpteenth time, “George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.”

Not only is this one of the show's most badass scenes,
it's one of the most important to the plot

Ultimately, despite its flaws, Game of Thrones remains the best show on television (certainly better than whatever The Walking Dead has become) and one of best page to screen adaptations. The problem with a show this good is that its few flaws, even the minor ones, stand out against such strong writing and performances.

This season has seen some epic and powerful moments, such as young Eddard’s duel at the Tower of Joy and the tragically beautiful “hold the door” scene. The reintroduction of the Blackfish, Benjen Stark, and Sandor Clegane seem to promise great things to come.

I’ll probably write another piece once the season is over, so stay tuned.

As always, thanks for reading J

Still

A review of Captain America: Civil War and my updated thoughts on Spider-Man joining the MCU

A couple of months back, I wrote a post explaining why I didn't think Spider-Man should be included in Captain America: Civil War. Simply put, I didn’t believe that justice could be done by including him as a secondary character in a larger story.

Having seen Civil War, I have been proved wrong.

"Avengers: Civil War"

Titling the film Captain America: Civil War is a little bit of a misnomer. Really it should have been called Avengers: Civil War. But I imagine Disney simply didn’t want to draw attention away from the upcoming Infinity War films. Besides, what would a cinematic portrayal of the Avengers be without Chris Hemsworth’s Thor or Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk?

This is, perhaps, the most mature film to have emerged from this series. Rather than dealing with cosmic entities and alien invasions, Civil War attempts to present a realistic approach to governments dealing with super powered beings. At the same time, the film does not become trapped by the seriousness of this premise. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has always effectively balanced realism, plot, and entertainment without being bogged down in any of them, and Captain America: Civil War is no exception.

The movie has some major plot holes, and in many places one can clearly see characters being guided by the writers’ omnipotent hands. Some of the action scenes are over the top, and I find it hard to believe that Iron Man’s armour only would only begin to show damage when it provides the most dramatic effect. Martin Freeman’s American accent is about as believable Tom Cruise playing a Nazi colonel.

I refuse to take Falcon seriously as a member of the Avengers.

Yet, despite the number of things one could say was wrong with this movie, it does something very right. As with all of the MCU’s films to date, the undeniable problems with Captain America: Civil War are eclipsed by some intangibly endearing quality. Unlike many comic book adaptations that attempt to transcend the genre, Civil War succeeds because it firmly embraces the best aspects of its source material. In its aesthetics, its narrative, and its action, Captain America: Civil War thrives as a comic book movie.

Civil War’s combination of entertainment value, quality casting, and pure heart allows – no, demands – that the viewer simply forget its problems and embrace its better aspects. In its ability to do this while tackling mature and realistic themes, Civil War is arguably the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s best film yet.

Also, there’s an undeniable pleasure to watching our favourite superheroes duke it out.

But what about Spider-Man?

As some of you may recall from my previous post, I was rather skeptical about whether Civil War could do justice to Spider-Man’s MCU introduction. Among so many top notch characters, how could the directors accurately capture the heart of what makes the character so uniquely endearing?

Apparently the Russo brothers understood these concerns, as the film seemed to consciously address them. The choice to cast Tom Holland as a high school Peter Parker, true to the original source material, was an effective method of distinguishing his portrayal from those before him. This Spider-Man’s age is very apparent in his actions and his dialogue. Though his screen time is short, the banter he engages in with other characters is incredibly amusing, one of the film’s most endearing aspects.

The choice to make Spider-Man so distinctly innocent, a kid who’s stumbled into this world of super powers and epic battles, gives him a huge degree of relatability, which has always been Spider-Man’s best quality. As an admirer of the Avengers, just as the viewer is, this Spider-Man finds himself thrust into the middle of battles he is only just beginning to understand, forced to engage in combat with people he admires.

The best depictions of Spider-Man embrace the character’s coming of age story, and I’m willing to say that this seems like no exception. Skipping the origin story did little to hinder his introduction – though I’d like to see the loss of his uncle dealt with in the upcoming standalone film – and Tom Holland provides a unique performance to distinguish him from previous portrayals. Visually and stylistically, the character fits into the tone already establish by the MCU.

I really love the paternal relationship introduced between Peter Parker and Tony Stark. The two actors have some great chemistry, and I think there’s some great potential here. I’d love to see many more “I’ll call Aunt May” jokes.

At the same time, this dynamic lends another layer of thematic significance to the film. As I noted, Spider-Man is young and impressionable, a teenager struggling to come to terms with his new identity. Tony Stark, arguably, takes advantage of this, as Captain America notes during the film when Spider-Man insists that he “has to impress Mr. Stark.” Tony Stark uses the young Parker’s admiration to compel him into a fight where he has no real stakes. This situation poses some questions about the morality of manipulation, an added layer of significance to a film that already questions the extent that one should go to do what is right.

Overall, I was highly impressed with Captain America: Civil War. The film’s ability to handle mature themes without losing entertainment value gives it a rare place among the ranks of comic book movies. Spider-Man’s introduction exceeded my highest expectations, and I’m really looking forward to seeing his follow up movie, as well as that of Black Panther.

Some of the action sequences are predictably over the top, and there are a few big plot holes, yet the film embraces its comic book heritage in a manner that one can’t help but like. Arguably, this is the MCU’s best film yet.

I’ve never liked arbitrary numerical ratings, yet I know that many people do.

8/10

Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton and why I’m not “Feeling the Bern”

I’m not an American, yet I believe we should all have a vested interest in the upcoming presidential election. As the political, economic, and cultural hub of the western world, what happens in the United States directly affects what happens throughout the rest of the world.

When I tell people I’m not a supporter of Bernie Sanders, the reactions range from “That old guy? I saw a post on Reddit about him” to “How could you?! You’re a disgrace to the very nature of liberalism!”

Basically, most Canadians either don’t care about the presidential election, or they actively support Bernie Sanders. This is, admittedly, better than supporting Donald Trump, though a small part of me is surprised that there aren’t more Harperites proclaiming their admiration for Trump or Ted Cruz. Seriously. In terms of ideology, their policies aren’t all that different. They only vary in extremes.

I digress. “Why?” people always cry as I tell them I don’t think Bernie Sanders would be an effective president. “He wants to bring free education, put all those Wall Street crooks in jail: he’s going to change things! What’s not to love?”

Americans are understandably wary of Hillary Clinton, given her representation of the political establishment they feel no longer serves them. Bernie Sanders is noble in his quest to reform this establishment and, in a perfect world, he’d make a great president. Ideologically, I certainly align with him as much as Clinton, and I always admire a revolutionary.

Why, then, would a Sanders nomination be a disaster?

Sanders backers like to point out that he has held office far longer than Hillary Clinton in terms of years, which is certainly true. But the positions they held were quite different from one another. Sanders has slowly made his way up the ladder, starting out as mayor of Burlington and eventually making his way to the Senate. Over the last two decades, Hillary Clinton has made a career distinct from her husband. She’s been a Senator and has worked in the White House both as First Lady and as Secretary of State.

Ostensibly, the difference between their careers isn’t too drastic. But if one reads between the lines, the gaps begin to widen. Sanders has spent the better part of four decades championing the poor and working hard to fight the “establishment.” Yet his political record actually shows very little to distinguish him from the average left wing politician. Much of his career has been based on rhetoric, as he has continually marketed himself as a unique entity unaligned with either of the major parties. He continues to use this tactic in his presidential campaign, basing it largely on rousing speeches of his self-styled “socialism.”

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a pragmatist. Where Bernie schmoozes and impassions his voters, Clinton works within the system to bring about effective change. As First Lady and as Secretary of State, she has built working relationships with many world leaders ranging from Angela Merkel to Dilma Rousseff. She’s a tireless feminist and has pushed for women’s rights the world over. She has the name, the reputation, and the skillset to be an effective president on the world stage as well as in Washington.

Is she a natural on camera? No. Her smile sometimes reminds me of a china doll. But is she a practical and effective politician? Yes.

“She’s a member of the establishment,” Bernie lovers say. “She’s everything that people are frustrated with.”

Yes, Hillary Clinton is very much a part of the Democratic establishment. She’s been a member of the party for a long time, and is a name people like to jump to when discussing politicians who fail to serve their interests.

But is this really the case? As I said, Clinton is a pragmatist. She works incrementally with an end goal in mind. It’s all well and good for Bernie Sanders to repeat the same mantra for forty years, but such sweeping statements rarely bring about the permanent change they call for, least of all in an environment as inhospitable as the American politics.

Rhetoric needs to be backed by practicality. Once the desire for change is infused into the public consciousness, practical and realistic leaders are needed to make ideas become realities. In doing this even the most effective politicians can struggle.

Look at Barack Obama. Hopes were high in the wake of his 2008 inauguration, as were his approval ratings. Over the next year or two, both plummeted and are only now beginning to rise again.

Despite being a smart politician, Obama was elected for what he represented. He was the first African American to win the presidency, he was going to fix the problems of the Bush era, and he promised to end the wars in the Middle-East. Since 2009, he helped America weather the Great Recession and has repaired much of the diplomatic damage done by George Bush. In addition, he’s pushed for gun control unlike any of his predecessors, laying the groundwork for someone else to finish the job (though notably not Bernie Sanders). By all reasonable measures, Obama has been a relatively successful president.

Despite this, he continues to face criticism. Why? Because his actual term in office did not live up to the hype of his campaign. The sad reality is that idealism very rarely brings about long term changes, particularly in the court of public opinion. While American liberals are “feeling the Bern” now, it’s hardly likely that their blind passion will continue when faced with day to day politics. As much as we’d like to think otherwise, a President Sanders will inevitably face the same fate as President Obama.

“So what?” people say. “Bernie stands for something bigger than one election.”

Really?

To be sure, his campaign started out that way. A year ago, I could almost feel the Bern tickling at my political inclinations simply for hearing a refreshingly different voice. I could almost begin to believe that Bernie Sanders cared more about his ideals than winning an election. Here was a politician who cared about the issues under discussion rather than the politics of a single campaign.

Sadly, though Bernie supporters continue to insist otherwise, he has not been able to maintain this level of integrity. I don’t blame him. Politics is a nasty business, and it’s easy to resort to attack campaigns when the going gets tough. But what does this say about the kind of president he would be, if he can’t even uphold his main selling point throughout the primary season? If his issue oriented idealism can’t even make it through the road to candidacy, how could he ever hope to maintain it in office?

Nobody is denying that this election has shaken up the routine of American politics. For better or for worse, Bernie Sanders has ignited a fire in many hearts, and the need for change has blasted its way into the public consciousness. Now that the fire is lit, it is time for a seasoned and intelligent pragmatist to use the system for the good of those who are, justifiably, frustrated.

What continues to amaze me is the number of women who are so adamantly against Hillary Clinton. People seem to forget how revolutionary it would be to have a female president. If people want rhetoric, here it is: in a world that continues to be incredibly male dominated, putting a woman in the oval office would be an unprecedented step towards true gender equality.

I have to admire Clinton for largely avoiding this kind of rhetoric. If anyone has “stuck to the issues” in this campaign, it’s been her.

As always, thanks for reading J

Toppling Televisions and Falling Furniture: More Dangerous than Refugees

In the years since 9/11, Americans have been statistically as likely to be crushed to death by falling furniture as they are to be killed in terrorist attacks, yet we do not see constant news coverage on the subject of toppling televisions and falling furniture. There is a paranoia surrounding the threat of terrorism that other far more pressing issues do not receive.

Consider the horrendous attacks on Paris in November of last year. A total of 130 people were killed, sparking fear and paranoia, specifically involving the flood of refugees from the Middle-East and North Africa. However, a Eurostat study suggests that nearly three times as many people die of cancer each day. While cancer certainly garners more public attention than falling televisions, it fails to rouse the same extreme level of paranoia as terrorism.

This stems, largely, from media coverage. Terrorist attacks are large scale events, specifically engineered to garner attention and inspire fear (hence the name). In the age of the internet and twenty-four hour news services, media outlets play right into the hands of the attackers, stoking the fires of fear with constant replays of panicked crowds, plumes of smoke, and, ironically, public officials urging people to remain calm.

For news organizations in the 21^st century, terrorism has become a commodity, paid for in the public’s fear. ISIS, the so called Islamic State, has dominated the news for the past two years, with the recent wave of refugees from the Middle-East and North Africa comprising the latest act in the ongoing saga. The common fear originating from this coverage is that extremists are hiding among the refugees flooding across the European continent, waiting to obliterate us freedom-loving westerners. In Canada, people oppose providing asylum to refugees out of the belief that there is no way to screen these terrorists from the actual refugees.

This fear is understandable, given the media’s constant juxtaposition of images of war-torn Iraq and Syria with images of refugee camps in southern Europe. Without any other context, it is natural that the general population is afraid.

However, upon examination, this fear is rather absurd. Not only is Canada, of all places, hardly a major target for Jihadist extremism, the actual likelihood of any “terrorist” making it through the entrance process is negligible. The refugees being settled in Canada are not the young men that groups like ISIS tend to radicalize. The people being settled in Canada are families, women and children who are, arguably, the most innocent in the conflict. In addition, these individuals are forced to go through rigorous screening processes by the Canadian government and the United Nations camps from which they are being selected.

But what about Europe?

Certainly, Europe’s geographic location allows for easier access from the Middle-East, while the EU’s porous nature allows for easier travel within the continent. But the likelihood of terrorists entering the continent with the flow of refugees remains low to the point where it is practically nonexistent. Consider the fact that the suspects in the two major terror attacks to have occurred in Europe over the past year – first Paris, then Brussels – were exclusively born-and-raised Europeans. Are critics of resettlement efforts arguing that legitimate migrants and refugees should be left in horrific conditions because of Europe’s inability to contain the radicalization of its own citizens?

Many would argue that such conclusions are harsh and unfair. Those same people often argue that the west should not devote its attention to outside aid until internal problems (such as poverty) have been dealt with. Simply put, many opponents of resettlement argue that the refugee crisis is “not their problem.”

Unfortunately, this is blatantly untrue. For centuries, the west has meddled in the affairs of other countries and regions. Though the United States is arguably the greatest perpetrator of this meddling in the modern era, they have simply inherited a role previously held by imperial Europe. The rise of the Islamic State and other radical groups – and the resulting refugee crisis – can be traced directly to US-led mission to topple the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. To be sure, the west cannot be blamed entirely for the turbulence in the region; many of its causes are deep rooted and ancient, resulting from a centuries of division. But for westerners to entirely wash their hands of blame is immature and dangerous.

Over the past year, the west has become increasingly closed to measures that might help resolve the increasingly dire refugee crisis. The fear created by attacks such as those in Paris and Brussels only serves to heighten this reluctance to act. Indeed, this fear results in mistreatment and closed mindedness towards those who are in genuine need of help.

Due to a recent agreement, the EU now holds the power to deport illegal migrants from Greece back over the border to Turkey in exchange for the resettlement of refugees residing in Turkey. In short, one refugee will be settled in Europe for every one that is kicked.

Aside from the fact that this deal unashamedly uses human lives as bartering chips, it simply does not offer Europe a realistic solution to the problem. Indeed, it fails to even function as it is supposed to. Just days after its implementation, there were reports that the deal had resulted in the wrongful deportation of several refugees seeking asylum in Greece. The quick failure of the deal would be comedic if the situation were not so dire.

The United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) has called Syria the “most dangerous place to be a child;” the current situation in the Middle-East has resulted in the “biggest refugee and migration crisis since the Second World War.” The issue cannot be ignored. It is selfishness of the highest order that people in the west – both in North America and Europe – can argue for inaction. It is not melodramatic to suggest that this is “the world’s” problem, as it were; the west, including Canada, must take responsibility for the situation by acknowledging our role in the solution.

The fear of terrorist attacks continues to be a major holdback for many western citizens. This fear is misplaced, particularly given the homegrown nature of most terrorist cells. The statistical risk of terrorism is smaller than countless activities we do every day, while the horror faced by those seeking refuge is an everyday reality.