During Kavanaugh’s nomination period, debates surrounding his innocence or guilt and his ability to sit on the highest court in the United States quickly arose. The way these debates are conducted is directly linked to the way we envision free speech. In Western societies, free speech is akin to a free market economy. The ‘marketplace of ideas’ theory claims that the best path to establishing “truth” is to flood the market with as many ideas as possible. According to this theory, the best, truest, or most worthy idea will prevail. Yet this presumes that the ‘market’ is free of barriers, that everyone is equally free to produce an idea and be heard. It is essential to remember that the words we accept as true or false, the voices we hear, and the opinions we believe, are all informed by the axes of privilege that we live within. Having said that, two issues that influenced the Kavanaugh discussions need to be acknowledged; first, the need to speak freely about sexual assault assumes that people have the ability to speak freely. Second, that those arguing in support of Dr. Ford often already have an unequal influence in these debates.

With the #MeToo movement, and the subsequent revelations of the sexual abuse powerful men have gotten away with for years, news related to sexual assault has been nearly impossible to avoid. People’s reactions to this news are influenced by their own perceptions and lived experiences. In this context, the pervasiveness of sexual assault seems to guarantee that many will relate to these stories on a more intimate and traumatic level as survivors. During Dr. Ford’s testimony, the rate of calls to the American National Sexual Assault Hotline spiked by 147 per cent. Interestingly, people supporting Dr. Ford often felt compelled to share their own experiences with sexual assault in order to gain credibility.

In this context, the pervasiveness of sexual assault seems to guarantee that many will relate to these stories on a more intimate and traumatic level as survivors.

It is then crucial to ask: what is at stake for those challenging sexual abusers? Why must credibility be asserted through sharing personal trauma? How does this resonate with other victims and survivors?

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford made her allegation in a letter that was meant to be kept confidential. She credits her coming forward publically with the mounting pressure of reporters waiting outside her house and workplace. The first words of her testimony after introducing herself were “I am not here today because I want to be. I am terrified…” This reveals the injustice of the speech that surrounds sexual assault. The men who commit sexual abuse are systematically protected by the judicial system and the media whereas survivors are faced with constant harassment when they speak up about their assault. Survivors like Dr. Ford are forced to publicly share traumatic experiences for the world to dissect in order to explain why a man with multiple sexual assault and misconduct allegations should not get a lifetime Supreme Court position. Additionally, while Dr. Ford spoke calmly and recounted a coherent account of the assault, this same composure certainly cannot be ascribed to Kavanaugh during his testimony. However, his loss of temper was not detrimental to his statement because his credibility was never questioned the way Dr. Ford’s was. To my mind, this is proof of the imbalance that exists around voices relating to sexual assault.

The men who commit sexual abuse are systematically protected by the judicial system and the media whereas survivors are faced with constant harassment when they speak up about their assault.

We need to ensure that we do not trivialize or dismiss those who criticize Kavanaugh, especially because such criticism takes an important emotional toll on survivors. The FBI investigation into Kavanaugh produced no corroborative evidence about Dr. Ford’s account, however, it failed to interview her. Similarly, a number of witnesses who came forward saying they had information relevant to an allegation of sexual misconduct made by Deborah Ramirez against Kavanaugh were also not contacted by the FBI. This evidence suggests that the investigation was not conducted thoroughly, and that it was completely dismissive of survivors’ voices.

Susan Collins, one of the instrumental senators in confirming Brett Kavanaugh, said in an interview: “the one silver lining that I hope will come from this is that more women will press charges now when they are assaulted.” This incredibly insensitive statement trivializes the contribution of Dr. Ford as a woman who did step forward only to be met with apathy and disregard from the senators who voted ‘yes’ to the confirmation and from a vast part of the general public. It also ignores the power dynamics and privileges that surround sexual assault allegations. Dr. Ford is an educated white woman with a PhD. These systemic advantages often unfairly help survivors in making cases against their abusers. Dr. Ford is not a ‘better’ victim than someone else but it is important to recognize that, even with the privileges associated with her race and social class, her claim was still not enough to stop Kavanaugh’s nomination. In light of this outcome, we must wonder why women of colour, queer people, and those who face even more prejudice in the legal system would ever come forward. For Collins to suggest that this event will make all survivors more comfortable seeking justice is outrageous. What from these senate hearings and their result would compel anybody to put themselves in Dr. Ford’s position?

In light of this outcome, we must wonder why women of colour, queer people, and those who face even more prejudice in the legal system would ever come forward.

“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,” Dr. Blasey Ford says, and I can hear the echoes of that laughter in my own memories. I can hear the laughter of a drunk high school boy having fun at the expense of a young girl echoing in a Mississippi amphitheatre where the president of the United States openly mocks this testimony. This kind of offensive behaviour strengthens already privileged voices, making them clearer and more confident about speaking on an issue they know nothing about. The freedom to debate such an emotionally charged and personal issue appears as a right for powerful men like the President and a privilege for survivors. The irony, of course, is that in most circumstances, people with firsthand knowledge of a topic would be given authority. In the case of sexual assault, however, we ascribe authority to the likely perpetrators, giving them the benefit of the doubt, while survivors face disbelief and watch their abusers be rewarded with job positions and public support.

The post Who Gets to Talk about Assault? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

To a certain extent, this blame is understandable. It goes without saying that hate expands exponentially and violence incites more violence. Trump’s ban of refugees, especially Muslims, during a time of political unrest and war, has mobilized racists and Islamophobes across the world to be unabashedly bigoted. No two countries, especially not countries that share a border, exist within a vacuum. Canada has become all too familiar with the ripple effects of U.S. policy and U.S. intolerance. This can be seen in the forms of Canada’s economic suffering as a result of the 2008 housing crash or the Flag Shop, for example, facing surprising demand for the confederate flag, a symbol intrinsically tied to the legacy of slavery, in cities such with little link to the confederation of the American south such as Vancouver and Ottawa. The American Muslim ban destabilized not only refugees but permanent residents who had left the country to travel and found themselves unable to return home. This ban affects a great number of McGill students who either cannot return home to their families or cannot pursue higher education in the U.S..

However, excusing tragedy as an isolated result of factors Canada is not responsible for, especially when that tragedy is deeply rooted in racism and settler colonialism, is weak and dismissive. The narrative of Canada as a ‘safe haven’ for marginalized groups is an inaccurate representation of the country. Stephen Harper’s election campaign rested heavily on the banning of the niqab, which fortunately was ruled unconstitutional. Frequent vandalism of mosques and other hate crimes perpetrated against the Muslim-Canadian community are testimonies to the bigotry that exists within our borders. Quite frankly, Canada could do without its self-fellating exceptionalism and constant pats on the back, especially when they occur as a knee-jerk reaction to concrete and homegrown examples of Islamophobia. When assaults like these occur, whether we define them as acts of terrorism or hate crimes, it is a call to critically examine our own prejudice and xenophobia. We must realize that pretending we are more tolerant than others is not a solution to intolerance. It is accountability for our own shortcomings that makes nations safer, not the maintenance of a reputation Canada does not deserve. I hold a firm belief that what makes you a patriot is not your unchecked love for your country, but your commitment to improve it.

Now is the time to mourn; those killed,injured, and affected during the recent attack deserve our sorrow and our support. But more than that, they deserve justice and the assurance that Canadians will learn to reflect and progress rather than blame and dismiss.

The post It’s time for Canadian self-reflection appeared first on The McGill Daily.