https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/bcb18ab8af90a5c44d40cf9da184465b.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=iX9WD70qChmXh1fis6c15StJWPXKP9uMn1etBjl9R72sbQDqkTxb421D-Bfwoqf687BsgQneycpNf5Bb64RkpPIF7wHxYajI4x45WRwujShN3OPqRdswwOqQH8T%7EWQli78K7zKRwSiz9clIThUC03zCT9PqpXU9K8QRPNdYu8Ve2EmAY37m04VMDGKRYv2htRQVBOviCfcN2a6yoaaDewS0rEMhmjELhkKkP14U%7EUtEuqLpusybmHfBffVRXhjrji6mmjGKFURFKK-wsqqPCKTda94MZUGOZYea5m7iC3DT%7Ec5dmI1ZsTlpnyx8dfcJsZvRuh5VybrVh8RvD9cZiow__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 404acc420d25a616c173e3cc0cffc43d PDF Text Text Commentary The McGill Daily | Monday, April 4, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com 23 Steven mocks the process of equity Behaviour of the Opt-Out! Campaign after filing an equity complaint shows bad faith QPIRG Board Hyde Park W e are writing today to clarify the position of the Quebec Public Interest Research Group-McGill (QPIRG) regarding the ongoing SSMU Equity complaint process involving a member of our board of directors, Maddie Ritts. The Opt-Out! Campaign complainants have received a great volume of alarmingly dishonest publicity regarding this matter, both on the Prince Arthur Herald blog and in campus papers. Their representations of the matter have amounted to a brazen and intentionally misleading defamation of Ritts’s person. Their pursuit of the complaint is based on an unsettling distortion of the concept of equity. Given these facts, we find it imperative to clarify the events and to put this issue to rest, once and for all. Brendan Steven’s equity complaint was filed in regard to an event that he did not himself witness. The committee refused Steven’s request to treat QPIRG as an organization as the respondent to the complaint. As the commission has already clarified, they recalibrated the process to make Ritts the sole respondent. Further, the accusation of “acts of racism” central to Steven’s complaint was not substantiated, and was subsequently thrown out by the committee, as they could not corroborate what was said, by whom, or to whom (though the phrase “fucking rich white boy” was floated by the complainant). Steven and other bloggers at the Prince Arthur Herald continue to attribute anti-white “rac- Steven and his companions have made abundantly clear the contempt they have for the entire equity project, and their cynicism in attempting to appropriate yet again the language of social justice for the sake of cheap political gamesmanship is dishonest and offensive to legitimate complaints of discrimination. ism” and diverse (though always unspecified) “other slurs” to Ritts – despite this accusation having been refuted outright by the Committee and the fact that she was never at any time considered a party to it. What remains of the complaint, despite the appellant’s insinuations, is that Ritts damaged posters. Discussions between Ritts, the Equity Committee, and QPIRG are ongoing, though the process has itself been frustratingly inconsistent and taxing for those involved. Meanwhile, members of the Opt-Out! Campaign continue to publish malicious and slanderous misrepresentations of Ritts and her actions without shame or consequence from the Equity Committee regarding the treatment of their complaint. When the Opt-Out!/Prince Arthur Herald executives were finally called out on their blog by the Equity Committee for their deliberately false accounts of both the alleged incident and the Committee’s findings, Steven’s editorial response was to slip a snide caption beneath the SSMU Equity logo, mocking the Committee’s audacity in correcting the lies being posted about their working decision. Earlier this semester, the same coordinators appropriated the name of the Black Students’ Network (BSN) in their campaign fliers directly against the wishes of that organization, accompanied by imagery the BSN denounced publicly as racially discriminatory. Steven and his companions have made abundantly clear the contempt they have for the entire equity project, and their cynicism in attempt- ing to appropriate yet again the language of social justice for the sake of cheap political gamesmanship is dishonest and offensive to legitimate complaints of discrimination. Many formal judicial processes have policies barring filers whose complaints have been found frivolous or vexatious: that is, those brought forth regardless of their merit, solely to bring hardship upon and harass an adversary. We have been informed that the OptOut! Campaign has been bombarding the Equity Commission with filings since the beginning of the year. The entire basis for the Opt-Out! Campaign’s existence is to strangle organizations like QPIRG, dedicated to the very same struggles against systemic oppression as the SSMU Equity Policy. In light of this, it should be clear that them filing and trumpeting complaints against the social justice group they seek to destroy demonstrates bad faith. As the Equity Committee drafts a proposal to increase confidentiality in its complaints processes, they ought to adopt measures to reject outright similar accusations meant only to harass and defame. More fundamentally, however, we feel compelled to publicly take issue with the repeated references by Herald bloggers to alleged acts of “intimidation” and “racism.” Jon McDaniel goes so far as to reduce the serious and painful reality of racism to what he crassly terms “a two-way street.” As an organization rooted in antioppression theory and practice, we utterly reject the conception of our society as an equal playing field assumed by Steven’s public statements. As anyone actually interested in equity would know, equity policies are written and implemented to counteract the effects of structures that systemically marginalize and disenfranchise historically oppressed groups. As such, their primary concern has always been challenging the ongoing legacies of discrimination against women, people of colour, queers, trans people, people with disabilities, et cetera. To trivialize these very real experiences by insincerely claiming similar persecution is sickening and offensive. We can only hope that in the future, the SSMU Equity Committee will more readily reject such perverse manipulations of their principles, and that the campaigns of the campus far right will no longer be legitimized by the progressive institutions they seek to erase. Signed by the QPIRG-McGill Board of Directors: Coordinators Anna Malla (External) Andrea Figueroa (Internal) Student members Patrick DeDauw Dan Kunda Thagard Mahtab Nazemi Kira Page Farid Rener Maddie Ritts Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan Sarah Woolf Community members Jessica Blair William M. Burton Maddie Guerlain Members of the QPIRG-McGill Board of Directors can be reached at qpirg@ssmu.mcgill.ca. Debunking corporate nonsense Nestlé Canada clearly needs to get its facts straight before they attack their critics Adrian Kaats Comment I think John B. Challinor (the second!) should probably read my article about illiteracy. He may be among the unfortunate 80-plus per cent of Canadians that find themselves below reading level one, unable to comprehend even a moderately complex text. Let’s debunk his nonsense, shall we? First, to the best of my knowledge, the Polaris Institute, Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the Council of Canadians don’t deal in “mythology.” While they may be “anti-bottled water,” trying to label well-respected advocacy and research organizations and huge labour unions as a bunch of activist crackpots spouting lies, while simultaneously trying to brand Nestlé Waters Canada as anything other than a bunch of hucksters trying to distract from the fact that they largely hawk bottled tap water, is embarrassing. Who hired this guy? Indeed, Health Canada does discuss the regulation of bottled water. What is missing, however, is any discussion of enforcement of the regulations. They do tell us that if something terrible happens, they’ll be all over it, “The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and other health officials could test for these bacteria when the manufacturer is out of compliance and/or has been involved in food borne outbreaks.” So I guess we’ll just have to trust Nestlé until something awful happens. Phew, I’m relieved! Nowhere in my article did I write that money spent on bottled water is not spent on infrastructure. This clown invented an argument, pretended I wrote it, and then said it’s illogical. What I was plainly referring to was the following, from the Polaris Institute: “The shift toward bottled water helps deflect from the need to call for increased funding and prioritization of safe public water services, leaving the door open for neglectful governments keen on transferring public service costs over to the private sector.” Probably Mr. Challinor (the second!) didn’t even read my article, and thought I was talk- ing about Polaris’ “exposé” about how our government spends millions on bottled water... which I didn’t. This guy reminds me of the main character in Thank You For Smoking, “Gentlemen, practise these words in front of the mirror: Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cellphone usage to brain cancer,” or Robert McNamara, “Never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you.” The major difference is that this Challinor (the second!) character sucks at re-spinning. But by far my favourite part of Nestlé’s answer to my article is that Challinor (the second!) calls upon me and other concerned citizens to make a number of demands of the government in order to protect our public water supplies and delivery infrastructure. I love this part because Nestlé, with its multi-million dollar marketing budget, as far as I can tell, doesn’t do this themselves (go ahead, check their website). I wonder why? Challinor (the second!), I leave you with a quote from my grandpa, “You’re seldom sorry for what you didn’t say,” or in this case, write. Sometimes it’s better marketing to just keep your mouth shut. —Adrian J. Kaats (the One & Only!) Adrian Kaats is a Daily columnist. He can be reached at adrian. kaats@mcgilldaily.com. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Volume 100 Issue 44 Page Number(s) 23 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2011-04-04 Title A name given to the resource Steven mocks the process of equity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource QPIRG Board Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Description An account of the resource Article by the QPIRG Board commenting on the SSMU Equity complaint brought against one of QPIRG's board of director members by Opt Out! Campaign. QPIRG SSMU SSMU Equity Committee