LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
A Slippery Slope to Censorship?
Kendra Ballingall’s editorial “Campuses and Canada’s gentle military” (05/10/2005) was disturbing on several levels, not the least of which was her lack of understanding of the role played by the military.
The invasion of Iraq was a moral necessity. As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, Canada, and all nations who signed it, are obligated to act when genocide takes place.
The decimation of the Marsh Arabs is just one example among many of genocide under the old Iraqi regime. The population was reduced from roughly 250, 000 to as few as 40, 000 through the systematic bombardment of villages, widespread arbitrary arrests, torture, “disappearances,” summary executions, and forced displacement.
Also, the Canadian military was used neither to “suppress an Indigenous resistance” nor to “protect a golf course” as Ballingall characterizes the 1990 standoff in Oka, Quebec. The Kanesatake standoff had nothing to do with aboriginal rights and everything to do with the Warrior Society’s desire to smuggle cigarettes and liquor across the border. The military was only required when a band of thugs started a fire that burned down democratically elected Grand Chief James Gabriel’s house and tractor, and killed his children’s dog.
Finally, the War on Terrorism is neither racist nor imperialist. It is important to ask who are the real imperialists. The aim of al-Qaeda is to redraw the map of the Islamic world by getting rid of all countries and, it would impose Sharia law. It is just these sorts of claims that demonstrate the bad faith of those hundreds of thousands of demonstrators who marched on September 24, 2005. Did any of these people consult with the Iraqi left who fought to oust Saddam Hussein for years and are now fighting to rid themselves of al-Qaeda?
What was truly disturbing was someone who calls herself a journalist having no trouble at all with the idea of banning a legal government department from the university and with the idea that advertising boycott lists are OK.
If, as she claims, the university in general and the Manitoban in particular are “a forum for critical debate” why would she support any sort of activity that smacks of censorship? In fact, in the spirit of such debate, why would she not engage Canadian Forces recruiters in a discussion about her concerns? And let’s give students a bit of credit. I am certain that those who don’t want to join the military are capable of passing the recruiters by.
Bryan Peeler
Manitoban discriminates against the military
I feel the need to respond to a few points in Kendra Ballingall’s “Campuses and Canada’s gentle military” (05/10/2005).
First, perhaps she should step out of the classroom and gain some experience, or better yet, step into a class on military history. For there, she would learn that the Canadian Forces are a very far cry from being “the largest employer in Canada.” The largest employer is the public sector with the forestry industry coming in at number one, and the federal public service at number two. The Canadian Forces come in at three as a part of the federal public service. Further, the Hudson Bay company employs approximately 8,500 more people than do the Canadian Forces.
Ballingall states, “The difference between U.S. and Canadian militarization of schools lies in the myth that Canada is a peacekeeping nation. Unlike the U.S. defence forces, the Canadian Forces depends on its self-image and international reputation as a global peacekeeper, a ‘gentle military.’” Wrong again, the Canadian Forces do not see themselves as a bunch of “Peacekeepers,” they call themselves soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Only the general population of Canada holds this view of the Canadian Forces. Perhaps it allows them to maintain the illusion that there is nothing wrong with the world and that there are no “bad” people in it.
Apparently “the Manitoban — as a forum for critical debate and an agent of social change that refuses to publish editorial and ad content deemed discriminatory, racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful” appears to advocate discriminatory (and somewhat hateful) practices when it comes to recruiting on campus.
I would argue that, “if military recruitment campaigns are normalized and accepted on campuses across Canada, the Canadian Forces are indeed in line with the values of society,” as your peace has already come with a price, and your rights, dignity and your freedom to self-determination would not be affected should you choose to simply walk by the recruiters on your campus.
However, only by recruiters simply being there do those whose views differ from yours and who choose to join the military get to exercise their right of self-determination. After, all you do not condone discrimination, by your own words.
Yes, I’m in the military. I joined shortly after leaving university. I highly recommend the Geneva Conventions as an educational read. Once you have read them, kindly retract your statement: “there is no shortage of evidence contradicting Canada’s lawful use of force.”
Ballingall further states that, “Canada’s military history is no more than the history of one state’s appeasement of the dominant Empire, whether British or American.” Really? Canada’s birth as a nation from my point of view was at Vimy Ridge.
Veronica Gibson
Banning recruitment ignores the real culprit and denies choice
I’m writing in regards to the Manitoban’s editorial on military recruitment at Canadian universities (“Campuses and Canada’s gentle military” 05/10/2005). I’m a 29-year-old Canadian. I have a philosophy degree, a computer science degree and a minor in social science. I’m currently leaving a high-paying job to join the Canadian Forces.
I think that promoting the ban of military recruiters from campus is a bad idea. First, the Canadian forces obey the orders coming from the Canadian government. Protest against the Liberal Party if you disagree with the current operation in Afghanistan. It’s as if you refused recruiters from the public service because you disagree with a law. It’s targeting the wrong institution.
Second, the military is a very high-responsibility occupation. It’s important that the members of the Canadian Forces be some of the best Canadians. Making recruitment harder is just likely to lead us to a military of leftovers, which is clearly not what Canadians want. Third, the previous regime in Afghanistan wasn’t very democratic and pleasant. As a newspaper that is “a forum for critical debate and an agent of social change that refuses to publish editorial and ad content deemed discriminatory, racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful,” I’m having a hard time seeing why you implicitly defend the Taliban.
I feel that by deciding what’s good for students and what’s not, the banning of military recruiters on campus is a bit totalitarian. Isn’t the purpose of education to allow people to make their own choices? I hope that the [Manitoban staff member] will reconsider its position on this subject.
François Boudreau
To the Manitoban,
I am writing to thank you for the article “Seeds of Change Unsown” (05/10/2005). We as a university community, both students and faculty, need to stand behind our colleagues Ian Mauro and professor Stephane McLachlan. The role of the academy is being compromised by deals between universities and corporations like Monsanto and Apotex. As we all know, the one who pays the piper calls the tune. It would appear that, rather than protecting freedom of speech, the University of Manitoba is acting as a censor. I call upon the University of Manitoba to do the right thing and expedite the release of the documentary “Seeds of Change” and let the public decide regarding the claims made in the film.
Sincerely, Gillian McCann Instructor, Department of Religion, University of Manitoba
Reviewers tastes not in line with band’s success
In response to a previous CD review on the recent The Most Serene Republic record (21/09/2005). Just a note that even though the reviewer disliked the lyrics, music, and CD in it’s entirety (giving it a poor review), in October’s edition of Exclaim!, The Most Serene Republic is ranked fourth out of the top 50 Canadian artists receiving airplay on the radio.
Obviously, people who listen to good music are choosing to listen to this band over many others. I understand that the band may not suit the reviewer’s tastes, but I think it simply says something if TMSR is ranked so high across Canada. I personally enjoy the band and was glad to see them help open for Pretty Girls Make Graves during their August headline at the West End Cultural Centre. TMSR has both good stage presence and music.
Adam Kowal
Education exception to new copyright law
This is certainly an important issue, but there’s a point that seems to have been missed by most of the educational sector (Amendment to copyright could cost universities, 05/10/2005).
If parliament introduces an educational exception for material on the Internet, what’s it an exception to? And where’s the exception for the rest of us? The fact is that an educational exception is a way of saying “everyone except educators have to pay Access Copyright to access works online” which is better than “everyone including educators,” but not by much.
What is needed here is recognition that if you choose to put your work online where it can be accessed freely by all, you are granting an implicit license to everyone to access that work for free.
Chris Brand, New Westminster, B.C.
I’m the webmaster for digital-copyright.ca. While I am not a lawyer, this is an area of law and policy that I’ve spent a lot of time on.
The article (Amendment to copyright could cost universities, 05/10/2005) includes a common misconception, which is that the issue that the government mislabeled “Educational use of the Internet” is included in Bill C-60. This issue has been carved out, and isn’t yet included in Bill C-60 — and will likely result in an entirely separate bill.
Bill C-60 is very harmful to everyone from independent (most) authors, all audiences and most intermediaries ,such as educational and library communities. It is only beneficial to the very few special interests it was written for (incumbent recording industry, motion picture industry, and “software manufacturing” industry monopolies/cartels). In the case of recording and motion picture industries, they are too technically illiterate to realize that what they are asking for will actually harm them in the long term.
Russel McOrmond
Market forces and tuition
In Ryan Weiss’s “UMSU and the Canadian Federation of Students as guilty as the rest” (28/09/2005), he suggests that the University of Manitoba Students’ Union is wrong in focusing on keeping tuition fees at their current levels or reducing them. He argues that tuition fees should rise based on some kind of market principle. Does he realize that the logical direction in which his argument takes us is full-cost recovery fees, true market pricing? That would mean $20,000 in tuition fees per year, or more.
Given the choice between market pricing and UMSU’s position in favour of maintaining the tuition fee freeze, I would have to side with the union. I don’t think it’s “fanatical” to focus on the largest single user fee involved in university education. If we can work together and support our students’ union and the Canadian Federation of Students in keeping the tuition fee freeze, we should. It’s not just about self-interest (although it is there), it’s also about preventing the kind of exclusionary system we see in countries where market pricing is allowed. We already have too much exclusion from education in Canada. Statistics Canada recently released a study showing that even the middle class is being hit hard by tuition fee increases.
As for the point that the tuition fee freeze is responsible for a crash in the quality of education in Manitoba, I just don’t buy that. There is, no doubt, a need for more funding, but the tuition fee freeze has been largely funded by annual grants, enrolment is going up, providing additional revenues, and provincial grants have been rising. The only obvious problem is that the federal government has completely ignored its responsibility to support post-secondary education. Actually, the university administration and the provincial government are also showing a lack of leadership, but that’s a more subtle contributor to quality problems. The freeze is just a punching bag for Weiss’s ideological bent.
It’s bad enough that the university has gotten away with a $150 fee increase in the midst of the tuition fee freeze. I can’t imagine what I would do if tuition fees rose by much more than that. If Weiss wants to open the floodgates to truly massive tuition fee increases on his market-based model for fees, I hope he’s got some answers as to how I can afford tuition fees of $20,000 a year.
