Bullying: The Next Step

This past week my school board celebrated a week against bullying. I was excited that it was, in fact, at my school the students who put together the workshops every day that highlighted not only what bullying was, but who was targeted, why it was happening, and its effects. I had a really positive experience with this week until, during some professional development, I came across some material that tried to deny that bullying was in fact bullying. All this got me thinking about how we are all quick to rally behind bullying as a cause, but when bullying happens in the "real" world we forget the basic idea of it and have all sorts of really harmful ways of reacting to it.

So to start off, I thouht it'd be helpful to have a definition of bullying. There are many ways to go with this, but I'd note that most of the common definitions point out two key ideas: first, the power imbalance between the participants and, second, the fact that it is intended to cause harm. There is also a debate about whether or not it has to be sustained. More on this later.

I couldn't help but think that this sounds, to me, a lot like what adults face. Harrassment, intimidation, violence, exclusion, generally based on xenophobic sentiments. Perhaps, I thought, bullying is a manifestation of xenophobia.

To start, a lot of it comes down to the idea of inequality. In our modern world, the notion of inequality is a difficult one to have a rational discussion about, but ultimately it's the idea that two people don't have the same social, monetary, or physical capital. Whether that's based on a metric like race or religion; education or gender; sexual orientation or age. Look anywhere in the media, the political world, our personal lives, or the workplace, and you'll see manifestations of racism, sexism, or some other form of xenophobia. Sometimes it's egregious, sometimes it looks to be harmless. But it's there, always humming in the background.

As adults we get used to the fact that inequality is a "fact of life". If you don't like it you can either pretend to accept it or you can constantly try to agitate against it. There aren't a lot of choices. But what about for children?

Young people are trying to understand the world around them, and they pick up copious cues daily. They generally understand concepts like hierarchy and deference. They learn quickly whether or not authority is something to be followed or questioned. They also are learning how to relate to their peers. They learn from what they see modelled around them, which, unsurprisingly is the real world I alluded to before, full of people evaluating one another based on their differences: xenophobia.

Ultimately, students get bullied for the same reasons that adults experience xenophobia. Because they are different. It could come down to cultural differences like religious practices. It could come down to class like what kind of clothes you wear. It could come down to gender and whether or not you perform masculinity. It could aslo come down to size, race, ability, language, sexuality, or anything else. Rather unsurprisingly, these are all things that adults feel like they are targeted for.

So what about the aforemention question about bullying being sustained acts? Well, a xenophobic remark here and there may not look like sustained, but consider being the one to whom those marks are consistently addressed. That certainly feels like a threat, and perception is most certainly reality. Often I, or my colleagues in the teaching profession, don't intervene when bullying is occuring because we see it as a one-off. For the perpetrators or bystanders, it may be, but what about for the most important person implicated, the victim? It's my best guess that it's not the first time. And that's where I have some difficulty with official school board policies that discuss what is and is not bullying - it has to be sustained. There's no way to know if it is for sure, so why not treat all incidents as part of a social whole?

I write this because I see the week against bullying as a great starting point - a place to stop for a moment and reflect on inequality, belonging, fairness, justice, and participation. Let's consider talking about xenophobia more openly, thinking about how it manifests in our daily lives and what we can do to prevent its toxic influences.

On Sexting

Feminism is getting a lot of buzz these days, and among the hundreds of contemporary issues important to youth is the proliferation of private sexual images. It's becoming a common occurrance with the likes of Kirsten Dunst, Kate Upton, and Jennifer Lawrence as victims of cloud hacks in this year alone. Their images have been distributed widely over the internet and the damage has been done.Trying to sort out responsibility in this situation is challenging and has been the subject of debate.

Many contend that it's clearly the fault of the hackers. Others will blame Apple for the failure of their cloud services to protect against hacking. Others still have decided that it was the fault of the women for taking the pictures of themselves in "comprimising" situations or posting them online.

This conversation is not particularly new since it is a modification of the blame game that women face when they allege rape. It's no surprise that we're talking about this again given the ongoing discussion about Jian Ghomeshi (read my previous blog). People seem to have a difficult time understanding concepts like consent, which have much wider reaches than the physical - it also includes what happens in an online context.

Recently I watched a video produced by Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes. In the video, a young man named Philippe takes images of his girlfriend and then circulates them after an argument. The protaganist in the video is not the girlfriend, however. Another character, Philippe's friend, faces the moral dilemma of whether or not to talk to Philippe about whether or not sexting is appropriate. Initially, he chooses not to say anything, and the result is that the girlfriend is deemed a slut and is excluded by both her male and female peers. With the magic of public service announcements he rewinds to the moment before Philippe sends the image. This time he decides to mention that it's not cool to circulate these images. Disaster averted.

As much as I'd like to be happy about the damage being avoided, note that the protagonist is not the woman. Instead of insisting that the image not be shared, she is reliant on a man to do something about it. And of course it's not something for Philippe to do. It requires someone else - the White Night.

The hacking of the clouds this year was pretty disappointing, but this case highlights some other questions. Notably, it's important to mention that the image in question is child pornography. Before the federal government any image of that variety, regardless of who took it, is regarded as such. There has been a fair amount of attention to this with frequent television and online ad spots. This has attracted a lot of attention as it implicates people criminally who are not culpable.

As far as I can tell, these issues are really complex. Trying to manage them with legal interventions is part of the solution, but not if it criminalises the young women involved. Much like in prostitution why should the women be held accountable? It is the duty of the state to protect vulnerable members of society and to mitigate against malevolent pressures.

Moreover, the focus should be on education for young people that deals with the true complexity of the situation. Not that it's criminal or that these young girls have no morals, but instead that participants are aware of the implications of placing images of themselves where they can be proliferated so that they can participate in it consensually. In the event that consent isn't expressed, then complaints should be taken seriously. But that's another question altogether.

On Heroism

I wrote about remembrance last year in a piece I am particularly proud of. Given the acts of violence that occured last month in Ottawa and Montréal, there has been a lot of anxiety and hatred leading up to this Remembrance Day. Xenophobia has manifested itself quite publicly, including directly from our national leaders — this much to the dismay of many in Canada who would prefer to think we live in a harmonious society. It's been, at times, difficult to watch. There has also been a lot of talk about heroes, most notably Cpl Nathan Cirillo, the man killed at the Cenotaph in October.

Today is a day for reflection. A day for remembering. A day for sharing. Hopefully it's also a day for openness, respectfulness, and tolerance. Even more I hope it's a day for questioning not only the meaning of war, but also of the meaning of public memory. While I explored some of these themes last year, I'd like to focus now on the aforementioned talk of heroes.

This issue has been controversial for some time, but recently Andrew Dreschel of the Hamilton Spectator claimed that Cirillo was no hero. In the article Dreschel points out that hero was a title given posthumously to promote an "accidental" victim. Taking pains to note that the situation is tragic and that Cirillo is deserving of respect and attention, he questions the use of the word hero:

"The accolade traditionally isn't bestowed for simply wearing a uniform... The honour is accrued by performing brave deeds and daring feats — risking or sacrificing your life to save others. Cirillo may have possessed those heroic qualities and might even have had a chance to display them had he lived. But he didn't"

 

The point was not made to be disrepectful, but, like I mentioned above, in the vein of talking about the meaning of public memory.

 

Are members of the Canadian Forces heroes by default? 

 

What exactly constitutes heroism or a heroic act?

 

Is Remembrance Day for heroes, or is it more global in scope?

 

Who else in our society deserves to be remembered for their struggles? Should they get as much attention from the state, the media, and the public?

 

I don't actually have any answers — just more questions. After an intimate ceremony at my school, during which a Canadian soldier recounted his experience in Afghanistan, I asked my students to write a reflexion about the importance of remembering, and again more specifically, who to remember. I look forward to reading their responses as much as I look forward to reading yours.

Jian Ghomeshi, Privilege, and Consent

Let me be the first to say that I loved Jian Ghomeshi from the first listen. His stature to me only grew over the next decade, including meeting him twice in 2007. I was surprised on Monday when my friend Jenn texted me that there was news about him. When I saw he was fired from the CBC it took mere moments to find a wide range of information about his 'departure'.

In this post I aim to write about the public reaction to Jian's firing. The details of the sexual assault allegations are appalling and, as much as they are deeply troubling and central to this case, these issues need to be sorted out in a legal environment.

I'd also like to point out that I think it'd be helpful if more people would at least try to separate his professional work from his personal life. Much of the reaction that has come to Jian's side has used his body of work to build him up as an upstanding man. This of course was aided by the fact that Jian decided quite quickly to make his own emotionally-charged public statement in which he definitely attempted to paint himself as both a victim and as someone who has worked hard to gain the respect of Canadians.

Jian's PR move (let's recognise it for what it is) has been pulled from the book of privileged men attempting to deflect allegations of sexual assault. Males already have a significant amount of privilege in modern western societies (despite what many of them will have you think). In particular, when it comes to sexual misconduct we are programmed to have sympathy for the male who is falsely accused by a "jilted" former partner. This is amplified significantly when you add other layers of privilege, like class, social status, or education. Jian is about as close as a media personality in Canada is ever going to come to being a rock star. He is known both nationally and around the world as a arts and culture superstar.

The other salient element is consent. Jian went out of his way to mention numerous times in his statement that he engaged in sexual practices that were consensual, as well as "exciting" for everyone involved. Consent is already an isuse that our society has enough trouble understanding. Consent cannot be given under duress, in an intoxicated state, or when someone is in a position of privilege. All the people that came forward most certainly did not give their consent. And those are just the ones who came forward.

In line with misunderstandings about consent and public apologia for men of privilege, it's no surprise that women don't line up to publicly or privately come forward with allegations of sexual assault. One of the most powerful hashtags I've seen this year is #whyistayed. Victims of sexual violence and intimidation have numerous reasons to not come forward and they should be respected for their courage in stepping up. They have so much to lose and often so little to gain.

This is a time for a national discussion about consent as much as it is a time for hopefulness. Many Canadians have shown that they will not be intimidated by Jian's immense stature. Many others have shown immense support. I've read so many fantastic articles that empower the victims in this case. Hopefully that will convince others to come forward, leave unhealthy relationships, or talk to others about issues like consent.

Municipal Elections

Today I ran a mock election thanks to CIVIX, a not-for-profit organisation that promotes civic engagement for youth. It was exciting to allow my students to cast real ballots the same day as municipal elections taking place around the country. Despite the fact that I would argue that the activity was a success, it also reminded me of larger social attitudes toward politics, in particular at the local level.

To start with, in Canadian federalism there are multiple levels of government. Traditionally there are three components: the federal government, the provincial governments, and local governments. At the local level, however, there are city and regional governments.

The setup leads to a significant amount of confusion. Local politics are probably the most difficult to understand, the least covered by media, and the least discussed in daily life. It's ultimately rather unfortunate since municipal government is what impacts us most, from public transit to social services to parks to water. Ballots in municipal elections require voters to make multiple selections, unlike in provincial or federal ones. Moreover, there are no party affiliations. This makes it much more difficult to feel connected if you are only keeping up sporadically.

The setup also leads to a sense of implicit hierarchy. It's easy to get the impression that the federal government is at the top of a pyramid with other levels subjected to it. The Canadian constitution stipulates what powers belong to which level of government. In the one hundred and fifty years since negotiation between the federal and provincial governments have led to the arrangements that are in place at present. Municipal governments have traditionally taken on responsibility for services that neither other level can effectively provide. In addition, in the past decade or so governments across the country have been downloading responsibilites to local government.

It certainly doesn't help that local politics aren't particularly exciting. The lack of parties, media attention, or controversial issues means that it's often more difficult to get engaged. There are, of course, notable exceptions. The eyes of the country are on Toronto today. Much in the same way that most Canadians in 2008 reported that they'd give away their vote in Canada to vote in the United States, I would not be surprised if most Canadians would trade their local vote for a vote in Toronto.

When it really comes down to it, it's definitely more difficult to get involved, but isn't your community worth having a say in? Get out and vote in today's municipal elections. They impacts you more than you think.

A National Tragedy

Yesterday much of downtown Ottawa was shut down by a violent attack. It's the second violent incident this week. I know many people who work near parliament hill and my thoughts were with them yesterday. My deepest sympathies go out to the families of the deceased as well as everyone else injured during the incidents. For the purpose of this post, I will be writing about the attack in Ottawa yesterday, though I recognise that the events of Monday are more than merely peripheral.

The alleged killer was born Michael Joseph Hall, but later changed his name to Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. He grew up in a relatively affluent family in Laval, Québec. A white Canadian who happens to be a Muslim convert, much attention has been placed on is religion as a factor leading to the violence. He attended private school and afterward had a spotty criminal record. Beyond these glimpses into his personal life, there have been numerous unconfirmed reports that he was suffering lately from serious mental health problems.

Given that we don't have a clear picture of the alleged attacker, it's best not to put too much into it. Instead, I think it's a good idea to talk about whether or not what happened yesterday was in fact terrorism. Depsite the fact that it is logical to define the parameters of a loaded term like this before proceeding, I've noticed that terrorism often seems to merit no introduction. The notion of terrorism, or perhaps more specifically terrorists, conjures up myriad images, many of which are deeply entrenched in our mass conceptualisations of violent, radical Islam. If you're unsure, just perform a google image search. Terrorism, which by the way refers to acts that are motivated by ideology to produce mass fear, are committed overwhelmingly in the United States by non-Muslims, according to the FBI. I can't say with any certainly if he was a terrorist, but I do believe that the purpose of the attack was to create fear. Hopefully there will be a lot of discussion about this and that you will participate.

On a related note, I found the media coverage of the event to be quite fascinating. Whereas American television and online media were promoting fear and panic, Canadian outlets were more subdued. Terrorism was a word thrown around rather liberally on CNN and Fox while I noticed that the CBC made a conscientious effort to use words like tragedy and ongoing events in place. Moreover, I found Canadian media analysis to be more thoughtful. In listening to live radio coverage, and later watching The National, I noted that reporters and moderators were prone to avoid making assumptions or jumping to sensational conclusions. The same, sadly, was not true of American media.

Try as I might to be content with our rather careful reporting, our prime minister and the conservatives have continued to advance the hardline response to terrorism. The morning Harper was quoted saying:

But let there be no misunderstanding. We will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated. In fact, this will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts and those of our national security agencies to take all necessary steps to identify and counter threats and keep Canada safe here at home, just as it will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts to work with our allies around the world and fight against the terrorist organizations who brutalize those in other countries with the hope of bringing their savagery to our shores. They will have no safe haven.

Much of the wording here is frightening, if not offensive and incendiary. I agree that Canada shouldn't be intimidated, by why should we turn our grief into revenge? Attaching the acts of an individual to other unmentioned terrorists is a leap. Not to mention that words like brutalise and savagery are mired in colonial and racist overtones.

I think it's definitely helpful to remember that Canada has been at war (and an unpopular one) for the better part of the last fifteen years. Intervention in the Middle East as well as strengthening of a zionist policy often breeds malcontent. So much like in the United States and other modern militarised democracies (or aspiring ones) Canada is left open to certain undesirable, though not unpredictable, effects. I don't mean to minimise what has happened or to take away from the grief of a nation, but remember that this absolutely did not occur in a vaccuum.

The most important question now is in regards to where we go from here. The threat of ISIS, radical Islam, and related violence is real. Seemingly we can prepare to further entrench ourselves in this costly conflict. I'd prefer that we think more carefully about how Canada can return to being a broker for peace in the world. Someone who garners respect from all sides for listening and lending a hand. Some may reduce this to a dream, but I say let's not forget Jack Layton's dying hope - that love is better than hate.

Pushing Limits: Exposure and Experience

This weekend my students and I went to London to participate in the filming of a documentary. A francophone historical group, l'Écho d'un peuple, is putting together a webseries that dramatises the four hundredth anniversary of French settlement in Ontario. Beyond getting to dress in period clothing and firing a musket, I felt a compelling connection to my French roots.

I've always identified with French culture and with the French language, even though I'm admittedly an anglophone whose spent most of his life in Ontario. As I've gotten older the interest has transformed into something more central to my identity. Moving to Québec to teach in English was an exciting part of my life and opened my eyes to my own history and identity, but if anything coming back to Ontario to teach in French has truly cemented my convictions about who I am. While I'll always be an anglophone, I'm really pleased to be so deeply immersed in the francophonie. Despite the fact that I've already written about my experience as a Franco-Ontarien, I feel compelled to remark again on the degree to which I feel completely welcomed within the community. I've never felt so at home among strangers. It's incredible.

Working toward a greater understanding of the francophone world is a passion of mine, and it grows with time. Part of what keeps me engaged in life is always wanting to keep learning, and that means exposing myself to new experiences. Being curious is a significant part of that.

This weekend I got to satisfy my curiosity alongside my students. We worked with Métis, Algonquins, Hurons, and Iroquois in addition to other Franco-Ontariens. I admittedly don't know much about aboriginal cultures, despite the fact that I have some native blood. Being exposed to cultural practices, as well as experiencing danse and music, was immersive and engaging. Learning about origin stories, conceptualisations of the relationship between humanity and the earth, and daily life was fascinating.

It was also pretty disappointing that in all my life up until now this information was somehow never passed along. I find this personally embarrassing since I studied history. Moreover, I've been in many social situations where I've had the chance to learn more but held back. Much in the same way that I've slowly come to fully embrace French culture, I'm excited to learn more about aboriginal culture so that I can come to appreciate it and hopefully help other people develop an interest as well.