Lindsey Shephard, Laurier, Why Free Speech Rallies Aren't Pro-Free Speech and What to do Instead

Free speech is under attack! The left is anti-free speech! The sentiment is prevalently expressed and echoed across various platforms by various people today. This idea cropped up in the "Laurier vs. Lindsey Shephard" case that has been in the news recently. Tensions have been running high all around but I want us all to step back and unpack what happened, as well as suggest an alternative to what is happening that addresses everyone's concerns.

For those of you who aren't aware of what transpired, here's a quick summary: Wilfrid Laurier University English TA showed some of her tutorial classes a video of people debating the use of the pronouns that people identify with. She approached the issue neutrally to demonstrate "the nuances of English and how that can cause controversy" (approximate quotation). Laurier was not happy with this and sanctioned her because she did not denounce the opinion of refusing to deviate from traditional pronouns.

Many people feel this was an inappropriate action for a university as they are a place to create knowledge, of which one way to do so is to debate, and as a proud leftist I agree. Laurier did not handle this appropriately. 

But I don't agree with the "free speech defender" rhetoric either. Like too many things today, there is an element of visceral-ness to this response, of react first, think later. And as with anything else, taking a moment to think is important. I know what you're thinking, "duh, don't patronize us, that's obvious," but take a moment to think about how often people are doing that today. 

Did YOU take a moment to think before deciding on an opinion regarding this brouhaha?

Did the dozens of people at the free speech rally take a moment to think before taking sides? I would argue no, because then they would have realized what I am about to say.

Anti-transphobia, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-discrimination, they are all speech, too. 

It's called counter speech and to truly be pro-free speech, you should not be trying to silence the people who disagree with you. You have every right to have opinions, but the act of arguing against someone who calls you out over it, and saying they're anti-free speech undermines them and impedes upon their right to free speech. You can disagree with someone, but when you disagreeing with someone undermines their ability to disagree with you, that is inherently anti-free speech. 

And I want to make it very clear that I'm not pointing fingers. Left, right, center, people of all ideologies, faiths, backgrounds and so on are guilty of this.

But the thing with the current iteration of this "free-speech rhetoric" is that it seems what people really want is to be able to say what they like without repercussion, without thinking about the consequences and who it might hurt.

To be able to say whatever you like, you have to be in a position of relative power over that person or situation - if you were afraid of getting beaten for saying something, you wouldn't say it, you're effectively not able to say it. Then to say whatever you want without thinking about who that might hurt, well, friends, that is the definition of being a bully, of being someone in power who does what they like to the weaker or marginalized. 

So take a moment to think about what people are really defending at "free speech" rallies like that of last Friday.

Free speech started so we as people could keep our government in check and hold them accountable. It has nothing to do with being able to say what you like and having some sort of protection against other people disagreeing with you. And quite frankly, people are plain and simple using it as an excuse to be mean.

Free speech is important but you don't always have to use it. Tolerance is paradoxical in that being too tolerant can lead to intolerance dominating. We have to draw the line somewhere, we don't tolerate people debating whether genocide is wrong, there's a reason for that. 

They teach kindergarteners "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it" so why are we saying all manners of mean and awful things? (And yes, it's pretty awful to tell a trans person that they're experience is not legitimate and that they must fit into a box you made for them, and you know better than them about their own identity). 

Back to being Reasonable 

People on all sides are being unreasonable right now, so how do we change that? 

There are a lot of reasonable people are out there, unfortunately, unreasonable right-wing and leftists tend to get most of the media attention. but the simple truth is if you want someone to be reasonable with you, you need to be reasonable with them, and I'll illustrate with what I think should have happened at Laurier. 

Wilfrid Laurier University should have invited Shepard to a discussion rather than a reprisal. They shouldn't have sanctioned her because she didn't have malicious intent. And when you do humiliate or punish people for doing something you disagree with without malicious intent, they start resenting you, and even generalizing whatever group you're a part of as unreasonable. If they'd met with her and said "Hey, thank you for wanting to foster discussion and excellence in academia, we just want to check in with you because we have some concerns about your approach. Let's chat until we both feel like our goals are looked after". 

What would have come out of that? Laurier expresses their concerns without causing grievance to Shephard. 

On Lindsey Shephard's part, I don't think she handled the initial showing of the video appropriately. Yes, absolutely the creation of knowledge via debate and diverse perspectives is valuable. What she should have done, however, which respects the concerns of all, is to preface the video clip by saying something along the lines of: "Don't use this debate as an excuse to disrespect people". It's still neutral though not as neutral as she maybe would have liked, while addressing the concerns brought up by the university, though not as well as not allowing Shephard to do it at all. It's a compromise, which people need to start remembering how to do again.

So the next time you disagree with someone, please just take a moment and try to see the world as they do and talk to them. Discuss, don't just throw names or accusations out there. And when you're being reasonable, you'd be surprised by how reasonable people can be in return. 

So what do you think? Did I change your mind? Feel free to disagree, but be reasonable about it and let me know in the comments! 

Fearless Girl and Pissing Pug - Is it Really as it Seems?

I want to have a serious talk about the Fearless Girl Statue, and the (although very temporary) addition, Pissing Pug. 

To provide some context for those of you who are completely unfamiliar, Fearless Girl was installed in New York across the street from the famous Wall Street Charging Bull earlier this year, it quickly became a beloved symbol of female empowerment and the obstacles women face.

But that isn't the entire story. In short, Fearless Girl perverts the

meaning of the Charging Bull statue, which was created by immigrant Arturo Di Modica to symbolize "the strength and power of the American people", it cost him about $350 000 of his own money and has been on loan to the city of New York for nearly 30 years. She derives a lot of her power from her placement - just ask

yourself, would she be such a powerful statue if not placed in opposition to the Bull? - and her placement there turns the Bull into a symbol of aggressive masculinity (This is a very short summary of the good points made by Greg Fallis here, PLEASE give the entire thing a read).

And before you dismiss this like I have seen many people do, yes this is a problem. You would never condone somebody without authorization of the creator hanging paintings on the Denkmal Memorial in Berlin for the Jewish people killed in WWII, (and thereby modifying its meaning); you would never condone someone drawing over the Mona Lisa so it looks like there's an animal gnawing on her head, modifying the painting from "a mysterious woman" to an amusing image, 

So we really shouldn't be calling Alex Gardega, who created "The Pissing Pug" and placed it at Fearless Girl's feet "so sensitive". Gardega made Pissing Pug and placed it so it appeared it was urinating at Fearless Girls's feet to protest how Fearless Girl was a "downgrade" of Charging Bull, by using the same technique to "downgrade" Fearless Girl. 

Even though she has become a symbol of female power and the challenges women face, that doesn't make it okay to disrespect a

person's time, care, and work. Feminism inherently about equal respect and equal value - so why do you think it's okay to choose respect for the girl (who is actually an advertisement; more on this later) over a person? Why do you value the meaning of the girl over the bull? A symbol for "the strength and power of the American people" certainly includes women, too, if anything it represents women and other marginalized identities more. because these are the identities with many more hurdles to face, these are the identities that often cause and/or force people to have strength.

There's also a lot of outcry of "Misogyny!", "Anti-Women!" But, no, it's not misogynistic, because Fearless Girl was never a perfect symbol of female empowerment, she is in many ways a part of the systems used to oppress people, a symbol of False Feminism - a master's tool to dismantle the master's house if you will. She is an ad, for State Street Global Advisers, hoping to improve it's image. People critique Dove for co-opting self esteem and empowerment for profit in their advertising, Fearless Girl is just another iteration. It also doesn't get better when you look into what State Street does. Like other investment companies, they fund problematic industries - fossil fuels, weapons of war, none of which are good for women, and people in general. 

State Street wants more women in their ranks because according to

Maquiladora workers - mostly women

their marketing materials, more gender diversity = stronger financial performance and less corruption. It can be interpreted that Fearless Girl was commissioned to get more women to come aboard and advance capitalism - a problematic system in itself  in the way it uses women, from objectification in the advertising industry, to destroying the environment and hastening Climate Change to the disproportionate expense of women's health, particularly in the Global South (See the maquiladoras (factories) of Mexico and How Climate Change is Sexist; How Climate Change is a Feminist Issue). 

(Sidenote: This is not to devalue what Fearless Girl means to individuals, as a work of art, she is inherently subject to wide varieties of interpretation, but just as I acknowledge her value to individuals here, individuals need to acknowledge the problematic reasons she was commissioned, instead of just assuming she is valuable because she is valuable to them. )

Left-leaning media are being very dismissive of Gardega's protest, and this is very problematic. This kind of dismissive, contemptuous attitude, with responses full of jargon that you know non-left leaners, or the less educated might very well not understand, is what is creating the current rift between ideologies in the USA (and to some extent in Canada). In all honesty, I feel the right has become very quick to dismiss concerns as "too sensitive" without actually giving the issue fair consideration, but perhaps the left is retaliating by dismissing things too quickly as sexist, racist, ableist, classist, or some other -ist word that describes discriminatory action. The problem is, how are you EVER going to get people to listen, and even potentially persuade them to agree with you if all you do is accuse instead of explaining, talk at instead of talk with?

Look. I'm guilty of it too, I like to poke fun at masculinity and I'll use it to explain certain behaviours (though often it's in jest) but it is unfair to simply say xx action was because z person is misogynistic without critical analysis. Was misogyny a factor in Gardega's decision? Perhaps. But you can't automatically dismiss that as the only reason, without really looking at his side. 

Image of the Stonewall Protests

Sure his actions weren't nice, but people weren't listening. The Stonewall protests weren't necessarily nice but they are praised for making people listen and understand that the treatment of the LGBTQ+ community needed to change. When voices aren't being heard, people protest, and it's kind of hypocritical to condemn this protest, which did have good intentions (it would be a different story if it didn't) while praising others.  

I've never seen the bull, I don't know how clear it is to passerby's that it's a symbol of the power of the US people (Is there a plaque or something that explains this?) but what I do know is that I oppose attempts at advancement or empowerment if it's at the expense of someone else or another social cause. 

This argument did, and I'm sure it will appear again, in that it can be said that there is misogyny behind not wanting Fearless Girl (and thus women) to take up space, but at the end of the day this isn't an either-or issue.There are other ways to create symbols of empowerment, in fact, a simple change in the placement of the statues could maintain Fearless Girl's power without bastardizing the meaning of the bull.What if we moved Fearless Girl and put her beside Charging Bull? Standing next to a charging bull is still courageous, and it also sends a message of solidarity between women and immigrants (not that these are mutually exclusive), it would represent women, girls, and the American people bravely facing the world, the ups, the downs, whatever ugliness is thrown at them, together, which is a wonderful message, indeed. 

Are You Happy Now Trump?

You, Mr. Trump are killing people. And yes the onus is on you because of everything you stand for, all the atrocious, dehumanizing. scapegoating that you both exhibit and condone. You are making the world HATE again. Violence and hate breed violence and hate and what happened on Sunday, January 29th in Quebec City is just the example to prove this to you. 

There was a shooting in a Mosque during evening prayers. Six people are dead, and at least 18 others were injured, physically that is. You, Trump cannot even begin to understand the pain of no longer feeling safe within yourself, that your body, your identity, the very things that make you who you are, are a betrayal to your wellbeing. You have shown zero capacity to feel empathy but try, just for a minute to understand what it might feel like to no longer feel like your home of forty-two years accepts you, protects you. 

I felt all of these things (albeit with fewer years under my belt than the man in the video above) when you were elected. As a non-white female, I felt many of my rights being deeply threatened even living here in Canada. 

What transpired Sunday is yet another reminder of just how right I was to be afraid. 

Because "This is Canada!" I thought as my mind raced trying to process the news when I found out yesterday. "We believe in diversity, only select few can get access to guns. How could this happen, and how could this happen here?"

But I can tell you why, because of the ignorant, arrogant, hatred spewing from your mouth and the mouths of people like you.

Try for a moment to get into that kind of mindset. The person or people (the police are still investigating) responsible must have held so much disdain, and hatred within themselves, they must have been so filled with the belief that Muslims are sub-human to go through all the hoops to acquire a gun and then walk in on innocent unarmed people and Shoot. Them. Up. 

Nobody deserves to die because of what they believe, this is a foundational characteristic of the United States as a Country. To not allow this to apply to anything but ALL groups is hypocritical and disgusting. 

Let me make this very clear, because far too few understand this. Daesh (ISIS) was pleased when you were elected because your thoughtless, ignorant, alienation of an entire group of people is what radicalizes them. THIS is where the home-grown terrorists are bred, at at least five of the Paris Attack Perpetrators were French Citizens, they turned to terror because they were mistreated, as your attempt at an immigration ban is doing. They turned to terror because it was the only thing that would accept them for who they were. 

It was the only thing that would protect them, stand up for them, the only thing they had.

That is the sad, stark reality that you have helped craft. 

As described in this article, your racism and xenophobia legitimizes Daesh's campaign against you because you embody the wrongness that has infiltrated and brainwashed significant sections of the US public. It "'proves the US is at war with Islam". You are physically forcing people into the clutches of terrorist groups with this travel ban.

Can I really blame you, though, you ask, many of these people must have already felt this way somewhere deep down. Yes, I can, because even though it isn't, you have made this okay. 

To paraphrase Malala Yousafzai, a wise inspiring female Muslim, (neither of which you are very respectful of) the solution to terrorism is education, not discrimination. Hatred and destruction, inflicting pain on a group for the actions of a few, is not the way. When you do that, you are no better than a terrorist, because you incite violence and chaos, like what happened in Quebec on Sunday. You spark terrorism and that will only fuel a larger, more destructive fire.

We need to teach people to accept differences and look for similarities, to understand we're all in this together on this little blue dot. Teach people, young men especially, that violence is not the way. That is how you fight fire, not with fire, but peace.