AMS campaigns get personal
This year’s AMS election campaign is not as clean as AMS speaker Mike Koichopolos suggested in his closing comments Wednesday night at the presidential candidates debate. At last night’s ASUS Assembly meeting, AMS executive team candidates addressed comments MAP vice-president (university affairs) candidate Suhail Panjwani made last August on Facebook. (back to story...)
Discuss this story (98 comments)
All discussions are moderated. Please see our full comment policy for details.
I have no clue why the hammer fell so heavily on Jacob Mantle, when all that they've done in this case is to look the other way.
The AMS is so eager to judge others, but the recent attempts to keep the campaign clean have gone too far. For both teams which preach diversity, the lack of furor over these statements is shocking in comparison to Mantlegate.
I'm wondering whether it's because the AMS wants to avoid any sort of scandal at all (remember the ignoring of boxes of confidential documents left out), or because people in general are still terrified of accusing someone who isn't white of being racist.
Suhail publicly apologized to the entire AMS assembly immediately. At no point in time did her justify his actions. For those of you who know Suhail, his actions as a leader on campus, speak much louder than this mistake that he made several months ago.
What I want to know is how do we have faith in a student leader who is willing to let a first year student take the blame for this. Who is willing to tarnish a well respected student at Queen's for the sake of an AMS election. Is this really the kind of person that we want running our university. Suhail appollogized, and throughout the past 5 months has been involved in trying to make this university a better place. His actions are speaking much louder than his words. Ceci's actions on the other hand speak for themselves as well. What will happen when if Ceci becomes a student leader. When he makes a mistake will he blame his first year intern?
I think there are some important differences in Suhail's comment versus Jake's comment, though. I was very opposed to Mantle so I'm not jumping back on the MAP bandwagon right away before giving it some more thought.
"still terrified of accusing someone who isn't white of being racist" --
I think you're right. But, still, there is a difference, isn't there? It's still not good, it's still condemnable when a person of colour does it. That's where the power dynamics come into play. I'm hesitant to use anti-oppression language to articulate this because I realize it some people are uncomfortable with that ideology and its language, but here it is: the oppressor using the language against the oppressed is somewhat different than the oppressed using language against the oppressed. That's where power and privilege come into play.
But I guess the main thing is time.
If Mantle's "taliban picture" comment was, when discovered, several months old instead of fresh, and if he had made evident anti-racist progress since then, and he had immediately apologized, the reaction would have been different. I'm not going to just write off Panjwani's comment as history, but at the same time, there have been several months since that comment and since then he has been actively involved in anti-oppressive work on campus.
Perhaps it was hypocritical of him to condemn Mantle's comments, or perhaps it part of the learning process.
Personally I think I'd rather have someone who has been through that learning process and come out of it an active anti-racist than someone who has never experienced that process, and who to this day does not adequately recognize the importance of anti-oppression.
But hey! Obviously this is a sticky issue, and is hotly debated in many communities in many different ways with many opinions. Hopefully this comment board won't turn into a battle like previous ones. There is potential for interesting dialogue.
I'm more interested to know why the Journal agreed, initially, to help both campaigns cover up this story...something missing from this article
Sure Suhail apologized immediately, but it was also on the eve of the story's publication in the Journal (similar to the Jacob Mantle issue), even when Suhail knew this had come to light on Monday before the VP UA debate.
I don't think this makes Suhail an awful person, but rather a human capable of mistakes, and of learning from them. What I just don't understand is why Jacob Mantle isn't allowed to apologize and learn from his mistakes and be forgiven.
This statement was clearly taken out of context and it occurred almost a year before he decided to run the AMS election. We should not compare this to Mantle, nor should we try and put a new spin on this.
We all have facebook, well all know everything on there can be misinterpreted. The mention of bamboo in this comment can clearly show that it could be taken as it was a joke.. not serious. I know a comment like that is not exceptable, but I’m sure if the other team did their “research” as CYZ likes to talk of so much, they could find out everything about them.
The point of the matter is Ceci got a first year to do his dirty work and the first year has become the scapegoat.
I was supporting CYZ all along.. But just like "the Blueprint", I should've read between the lines when I threw my support behind Michael. I'm disgusted by his actions and his so called team.
Now I'm left to wonder why we would want someone who sends a first year to personally do his dirty work to run the AMS.
Now I am not sure which way I will vote.. I'm just appalled by this attempt to get more votes. Suhail never asked for any of this when he chose to run. As Suhail said, he has changed since then.
Everyone should wake up and smell the roses. CYZ is not fit to run.
Queen’s needs leadership, not group of individuals willing to ruin one person’s reputation for some votes.
Thanks MAP for taking the high road and not trying to find dirt of Ceci or the rest of his teammates. At least there is still some good at Queen’s.
Maybe if we got our heads out of the clouds, we’d realise CYZ isn’t as accountable as their promises are.
Accountability comes from the heart, not your wallet.
I could care less if they give their money back.This new Facebook creeping story is just another example of how thirsty and cut throat Ceci is for a win..
Right but if you compare both comments... which one was worse? There's that saying that some people can't keep it in their pants, this is like some people can't keep out of facebook.
The being terrified of accusing a minority as a racist stands fully true. And with Suhail's experience- he should know better. Now if he was white... what would your reaction have been?
This is all too played up.
And for your information Ben, an email was sent out sometime in the last few days to everyone who has a role in student government and some otherwise, with that picture attached and accusing the journal of not taking this seriously enough.
' why has the journal gone out of its way to cover up this story? what does the
journal have to gain by burying it? '
That was a comment from the email. I think the journal finally felt obligated to write something on it.
Is it just me or is anyone else starting to see growing similarities between our current AMS exec and team CYZ? In the same way the Talia AMS administration jumped on throwing Jacob Mantle under the bus, the potential Ceci administration sifted through 8 month's worth of Facebook messages to drag Suhail through the mud. Neither Mantle or Panjwani's statements can be justified, but neither can the actions of the AMS. As the highest body of student government both Talia and Ceci have a duty to foster a sense of community and combat discrimination, rather than just engage in smear campaigns. The failure of the current AMS exec is paralleled by the sneaky underhanded tactics of CYZ. Needless to say, CYZ will not be getting my vote as I refuse to allow the AMS to fail students for two consecutive years.
As if any of the people running can claim that they have never used the word "bitch", "retard", "fag", or any other kind of slur in their life. Sure it might not be on facebook, but if you go back far enough Im sure you can find SOMETHING. I don't think Suhail is a big racist, just like I never believed Jacob Mantle was one.
But this kind of smear stinks, and it tells you something about the people running for office. I will not be voting for CYZ.
On a more humourous note, maybe we should have those "intergroup dialogue facilitators" facilitate a discussion between Suhail and Michael.
Why are people accusing Ceci of blaming this on a first year? Clearly, the incident was out of his control. From what I understand, this person went rogue. Suhail only apologized when it was going to go public. He did not apologize on Monday to ANYONE. Shame on those who support a leader that will only feel bad for the punishment and not the actions.
I was going to vote for MAP all along, but this act was disgusting.
To "a student":
Many students went to the AMS exec outraged by Mantle's comment; how does that equal the AMS promoting a smear-campaign? As the AMS exec clearly stated, Mantle's comment was brought to their attention by concerned, offended and upset students. Mantle's statements were thus brought forward because the AMS exec represent those students! Comparing these two situations and saying it is the fault of the AMS simply illustrates your ignorance of the facts.
In response to John, I was there on monday, Suhail did appologize, and was completely distraught.
Please get your facts straight before posting something like that. you are just further perpetuating this facebook B.S. and are slandering a decent person.
As the first-year named in the Article, I just want to set the record straight on the allegations previous commenters have made about Ceci and CYZ.
I sent the email. It was my decision--my mistake. I acted AGAINST the express wishes of Ceci and CYZ, and then I fessed up for what I did. Why would I allow my reputation to be besmirched if it wasn't me in the first place?
I am not a scapegoat. I am not a "fall boy" for what others have done.
Look. For white people to enter the debate on the 'n word' is totally misguided. White privilege comes from a white supremacist history--the transatlantic slave trade, colonization of the non-western world, even the british occupation of ireland. That word was an integral part of dehumanizing other peoples to serve the interests of white supremacy. So when we (yes, I'm white) use that word it has the force of that genocidal history behind it.
Obviously, the word has been employed within the black community, as well as in other communities of colour, as a reclamation of a term used to oppress people and make it an act of defiance. Some people of colour are against this movement for personal reasons. The point is, as a white guy, it's NOT MY DEBATE. I don't understand why people feel like they've got to weigh in on absolutely everything. Sometimes it's not your business and you stay out of it.
For white people to try and attack a person of colour for using the 'n word' with another person of colour is absolutely digusting. CYZ should be ashamed for sinking to this level. I hope other Queen's students aren't fooled by this smear campaign. And I consider the comparisons between Jacob Mantle and Suhail a part of the campaign... think about the CONTEXT of history, racism, and the current international situation before jumping to equivocate two extremely different events.
I don't believe that CYZ had any intention of 'exposing' Suhail at all. Clearly they've been trying to keep this under wraps not only for his sake, but for theirs as well; as you can clearly see everyone jumping on their backs for something they didn't do. I don't know why the assumption has been made that CYZ is malicious in this at all, when they have been transparent throughout the process with the Journal. Opposition research was delegated, and when presented to the team, they rejected any use of it. When it appeared, they attempted to keep it suppressed, and when questioned yesterday, they continued support of Suhail.
why is this so hard to believe? have you been listening to the tone of this election? CYZ hasn't accused MAP of anything, why this? MAP has used every opportunity to criticize CYZ, even when they're supposed to be promoting themselves in the Journal. The AMS wanted a clean campaign, and CYZ has attempted to do so, turning this election into "Suhail-the-victim" will only help MAP, why would anyone willingly do that?
And comparing Ceci to Radcliffe is like comparing an apple to Pluto. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was willing to give MAP a chance, but their negativity and attacks throughout the campaign have put them in a dark place that I think is much closer to the RWS of this year that you're speaking so poorly about...
Hi Dylan,
The question that I have is why are senior students at Queen's who are in leadership positions sending this email out to students in the first place. From what I have heard, you were balimed for finding the article in the first place and doing this entire thing on your own accord up until thursday when Ceci admitted he had searched for the quote!
Ceci doesn't deserve to be a leader here
It doesnt matter how this comment got out there. what matters is how disgusting and offensive it is. Not to mention hypocritical... coming from the leader of the anti-Mantle group!
Hi Student. That's actually incorrect, Ceci was upfront throughout this entire ordeal. And in fact, even though use of the comment was immediately dismissed by everyone else in the room, I asked him to send it to us, just so that we had it.
A racist comment is a racist comment. Allowing a double standard for persons of colour is just as ignorant as ignoring it from a person of 'white privilege'
Attacking anyone for attempting to benefit from its publication is to assume bigotry. These hypocrites are actually the ones who assume anyone would attempt to do so, and in their minds have thought of this malice as a reasonable course of action.
Shame on them.
Racist comment = Racist comment (except if your coloured) give me a break.
Mike:
You said "Opposition research was delegated, and when presented to the team, they rejected any use of it"
Social Issues Commission, or his work as AMS Food Centre Manager - one of the most community oriented services the AMS offers. Instead he stood up publically in front of a body of student leaders and apologized. Jacob Mantle's first comment to the Journal was something akin to "I don't think I did anything wrong" and his apology (which came later) was so obviously written by someone other than him that it was anything but sincere.
I agree that CYZ probably didn't want the story written but if that's the case, why did they go searching for the material in the first place? The only negative thing I've heard coming from Team MAP this campaign has been comments about the ineffectiveness about some of CYZ's platform points. Obviously MAP doesn't have a perfect platform either, but CYZ has taken their own opportunities to criticize that. So where exactly do the accusations of "negative campaigning" come from?
I appreciate Ceci's comment at ASUS assembly, but when you are the cause of the misfortune in the first place, it's only right that you stand up in support.
Business as usual at the AMS. A plague on both their houses. Which is disappointing, because I honestly believe that both of these teams have the potential to be excellent executives and yet they are losing the chance to do that before they even began.
At least Suhail has taken responsibility for his actions, something that RWS has failed miserably to do this year. At no point did MAP blame CYZ for the attacks, and only through Ceci's own admission did that side of the story come to light.
So perhaps it isn't all bad - perhaps having an executive who bothers to say sorry is exactly what we need?
An inappropriate comment is an inappropriate comment. no matter who said it, or the circumstances.
Shame on Suhail!
Mike, CYZ was clearly looking to expose *someone* for something, otherwise why would they be poking around people's Facebooks from way back in August?
What is up with this double standard. I don't know this guy, I didn't know Mantle, but it is clear to me that apologizing is not the issue, anyone pursuing a career in politics is obliged to straddle the line of political correctness and will inevitably be forced to apologize for something. If your criticism stops at one person/one case/one country, YOU ARE COMMITTING A DOUBLE STANDARD!
This kid should be put under the same kind of dis-proportionate, offensive, rigorous condemnation and anti-Suhail grafiti all over campus that Mantle had to go through. None of this should have ever happened in the first place, but if your gonna crucify Jacob Mantle, it seems only just that you plant a stake for Suhail right next to him. It's almost as if reverse discrimination was the big "thing" of this school year.
Never in my life have I seen people who matter so little (student politicians and student journalists) think they matter so much. Get over yourselves, this is all an inflated issue, but since its been inflated to a ridiculous level, it seems only just that you criticize everyone for every racist comment ever made (since that seems to be the general consensus a couple months ago). His "I'm not the same person I was 8 months ago" is hardly an excuse. The same group of people that cried out for equality are themselves guilty of double standards and hypocrisy (hardly anything new in this world).
Simply put, this university only seems to be getting more self-absorbed and self-obsessed than ever. There simply MUST be a simpler way of doing things that has just been abandoned. As someone much smarter than myself once said "I don't believe in being politically correct, I believe in being correct".
In response to Mike's comment-- as someone who has been following this campaign since the beginning, I think your claim that Team MAP "has used every opportunity to criticize CYZ" and your reference to "their negativity and attacks throughout the campaign" are completely unfounded. At no point has Team MAP run a negative campaign, or made any kind of negative comments towards CYZ during the campaign period. If you are going to make these kinds of ridiculous claims you need to do your research and back up your claims with evidence, instead of throwing around comments that have no basis in actual truth.
I learned something today. As a visible minority I realize I can say anything I want. Its great, I can make comments about First Nations, Asian-Canadians, African-Canadians, Blacks, Whites, Browns, it doesn't matter! Because I'm one of them! Ha ha! All you white people got your time, now its our time. It doesn't matter if I offend someone, I can just apologize months later and say I've learned from this experience! Yea!!! Free at last! Thank god almighty we are free at last!
...i'm spoiling my ballot.
Sorry, but…
Irrelevant: opposition research (totally fair practice), the apology (received with standing ovation?! what?!!), this Dylan guy
Relevant: Suhail's comment
…and I vote CYZ accordingly.
Or shall we further spoil Queen’s media reputation?
gimme a break. A VPUA candidate drops an n-bomb and CYZ is getting flak for it? Sure, they did some creeping on Facebook, but that's called RESEARCH. CYZ wants to know more about their opponents, it's a basic strategy that anyone in competition does. This research helps you find your opponents weaknesses, that's how you exploit it to show that you are the better competitor. Are you going to get mad at the Maple Leafs for watching old videos of the Senators so they can find weaknesses in their defense? No, you're not, and that's why you shouldn't be pissing all over CYZ either for looking up information on team MAP either.
ON TOP OF THAT, CYZ finds something about team MAP that would put a horrible smear on Suhail's reputation, and instead of hanging him out to dry on Monday they took the high road and didn't release that information.
CYZ unfortunately had a campaign member release that information, but for gods sakes don't question CYZ's ability as an executive over that. Sure, you might say CYZ would hire bad individuals if they can't even control their campaign members, but remember this frosh has very little to lose. On the other hand, CYZ's commissioners have a lot to lose if they pulled a stint like that - their salary.
Look at the big picture here - you have a VPUA candidate dropping an n-bomb and CYZ tried to give Suhail another chance. Don't let one first-year's mistake overshadow that.
I'm not going to even comment on the Jacob Mantle situation and all the hypocrisy. But, a bunch of you need a wake up call and it's to stop obsessing over yourselves and logically figure out what happened and why it did. CYZ is the team that should be earning respect here and MAP should be thankful for CYZ's efforts to protect MAP.
Also, kudos on the late public apology Suhail. Maybe you would've earned a little more respect if you apologized on Monday. Especially because you had the opportunity to learn from Mantle's mistakes - apologize right away if you truly believe you made a mistake. Don't wait until it's necessary.
Well said 'Engineer', well said.
The research undertaken by CYZ on MAP members was totally inappropriate.
Is getting elected that important to CYZ that they felt it necessary to obtain personal information on fellow Queen's students that could damage the personal reputations of these students? Was it only after realizing that these campaign tactics would potentially damage CYZ's own election campaign that CYZ decided not to proceed with the release of the information? In any case, the gathering of the information was inappropriate, whether or not it was released at the direction of CYZ.
Suhail made an inapproprite remark and has apologized. CYZ undertook a systematic, purposeful campaign tactic to research personal information on MAP members. We await a public apology by CYZ to MAP.
Where do all of you find the time for this? Its ALL SHAMEFUL. How about just not saying such stupidity. And since people are searching facebook for inappropriate comments, just stop posting such stupidity on facebook.
Get back to your studies, and if this is the way OUR student governments are going to behave, then perhaps we should consider proroguing them. While I am proud to be a queen's student, I am greatly ashamed by such childish stupidity. Nothing on the internet is private. And the lengths both ASUS and AMS are going to prove who is WORSE, are beyond immature. Here's a news flash kiddies its a TIE, your both disreputable.
As a black student at Queen's i was offended by Suhail's comment. It was totally uncalled for and I personally believe that the only people who have the right to use the n word are black people. Just because Suhail is a minority does not mean that he can't be racist to other minorities. I have been victim to racism by people of South Asian descent. The whole justification that other minorities besides blacks can use the N word is totally absurd. I hope that Suhail learns from this incident and grows as a person.
Let's get something straight everybody. As a black man, I totally disagree with what a lot of people are saying about a person of colour having the "right" to use the N word.It is quite clear, that black people throughout history have been the most opressed people EVER. Not only is it offensive for another person of colour ( that is not black), it is not justifiable. It is to be condemned. Many other people of colour that are not black have used this word to subordinate black people.
However, I do agree with the fact that Suhail is not to blame. Many, and I mean many people who are not black use this because a black friend uses it or they simply add it to their vocabulary because of its prevalence in the hip-hop culture or new urban culture. I believe his apology is sincere. This was 8 MONTHS ago and I dont think he is a racist. Guys next time done use this word. Its simply offensive coming from any other race.
I'm just going to make one comment about a post by Iris earlier. The post is representative of the ridiculous point of view that uses twisted logic to arrive at a double standard that either absolves or condemns a person based on their skin colour (talk about racism). She says:
"...the oppressor using the language against the oppressed is somewhat different than the oppressed using language against the oppressed. That's where power and privilege come into play."
Jacob Mantle is not an "oppressor." Suhail Panjwani is not "oppressed." This kind of thinking is ridiculous.
This just seems like another Ceci campaign scheme. I remember one time, 2 years ago, Ceci grabbed the stand of Toronto Stars that were previously available in Ban Righ, and students who wanted to read one, weren't able to get it without being harrassed by Ceci and his campaign staff for whatever position he was running for at the time.
He's a scheme artist. Who knew two years later it would have transpired to facebook tricks.
1. Mantle's comment was inflated and people overreacted.
2. Anyone who criticized Mantle's comment is being hypocritical if they do not criticize Suhail.
This is getting ridiculous. Not only did Suhail advocate for Mantle's resignation, but Suhail's supporters, who also advocated for Mantle's resignation, are somehow forgiving Suhail. I just can't believe the hypocrisy. If you are going to forgive someone after they apologized, why not forgive Mantle for a joke that was clearly meant to be funny using exaggeration, which he apologized for? Frustrating.
Making racist comments like that simply makes you unfit for student leadership. That's the bottom line. It seems to me that the Journal is scared to side with a white individual over a brown individual on a matter of race relations. Call it like it is... it was a racist comment.
Even I, as a member of a visible minority, can see the double standard going on here.
What the heck is wrong with the people who moderate this discussion? How can you allow such blatant garbage from "A visible minority" to be posted? To the rude person who hid behind that alias, you are disgraceful. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. You are likely a troll, however I still ask you to please use legitimate arguments to prove your point. Not childish, and rather offensive, banter.
To the Journal staff who moderates this: Please moderate more effectively.
Thanks. You can delete and/or not post this comment in the event that you choose to remove the one by "A visible minority".
Yes, Suhail DID advocate for Mantle's Resignation and rightly so. Mantle still hasn't learned his lesson and still doesn't seem to care about any minority on campus.
Suhail on the other hand is perhaps one of the most upstanding people I have ever had the opportunity to meet. And how many times can it be underlined, this is something he said EIGHT MONTHS AGO. The Suhail I know today is very separated from the Suhail that wrote the comment and I know that his apology was truly heartfelt. Having worked with Suhail on anti-racist initiatives on campus and knowing all the great things he does for Queen's, I know he will make a fabulous VPUA. Sadly I could not say the same about Mantle.
MAP has my vote. Please don't let the uproar of shaming blind your judgment. In the history of every word coming out of your mouth, has everything you have ever said been free from offense to every single person? Probably not. But hopefully you've grown from the person you used to be. If Jacob Mantle were to show up to a "How to be an Ally" training session or be involved in any genuine dialogue and show that he is a changed person or even a changing person for that matter, I'd have it in my heart to forgive him. But he's had so many months to do so and nothing genuine has come out of it. Diversity week? Jeeze. That's a shame.
Yup, still voting for MAP. I really thought better of Ceci too...seems we can all be poor judges of character.
To "A Real Visible Minority" I find it insulting that you would question my 'minority status' where you have also hid behind an alias. I find it insulting that you think its acceptable for minorities to insult other minorities. I find it insulting that you believe it is childish to call out other people who are insulting me and culture. I believe if you had any moral fiber or any personal experience being oppressed or having experienced other people's cultural insensitivity you wouldn't be so quick to critique those who have been hurt by it.
I'm ashamed that you believe you can assume to know what I believe or what my motivations are when your first reaction was to doubt my ethnicity and question my right to stand up against something that I found atrocious. I do not find Suhail's apology acceptable enough to dismiss the comments altogether. I don't doubt that Suhail's apology was genuine, but I believe those who are quick to accept his apology at face value without first acknowledging it was wrong, inappropriate and hurtful to a great many people.
I'm insulted that you would assume to know anything about me or my intentions and that you would question my legitimacy. I'm insulted by the fact that you believe that you can simply apologize for any comment directed at anyone and that makes it acceptable. I'm insulted at your attack at free speech and I'm insulted by you. People like you disgust me.
If this becomes the deciding factor in the elections, well then, there really isn't much hope for any of us. Thankfully from the discussion here it seems like it probably won't. Everyone who was in support of CYZ is shocked at MAP and everyone who was in support of MAP is appalled by CYZ. It seems the only victim here will be the voter turnout.
I'd like to thank the Journal and the reporter who wrote this article for this neutral, nonsensational coverage of the issue. I definitely think they have played a key part in avoiding Mantlegate II (knock on wood).
First: opposition research is a standard political practice, and its a good idea. If you don't know who your opponents are, it's fairly hard to compete with them. McCain and Obama both did it and shook hands afterward, and Team MAP is exactly innocent of it, either.
Second: Team CYZ helped Team MAP convince the Journal not to run the story on Tuesday, after Dylan leaked it against their will and was fired for it. I don't think a coverup was a good idea on anyone's part, because as we all know, it never works; but as far as CYZ's involvement goes, it seems a bit of a stretch to call this deliberate sabotage. Ceci found the comment, told his team about it, and agreed with his team not to report it - that's his story, that's what the Journal published, and that's what I hope any rational individual would have done in his position. If you're going to call him (and Dylan for that matter) a liar, at least be forthright about it; but it seems to me you'd have to make that judgment based on his previous actions, not just this event.
Third: Letting a first year face the consequences of his own actions, after explicitly prohibiting him from acting, doesn't seem reprehensible to me - it seems fair, and Dylan seems to think so too.
Fourth: Although Suhail's comment was made months ago, he received NCBI inclusivity training last year when he first became a Don. Suhail and the members of QCRED criticized Jacob Mantle for not having learned from sensitivity training he took as ASUS president, but as far as I'm aware, NCBI Don training is far more intensive, and if it wasn't effective for Suhail, I don't see why we should allow him to implement it for all AMS employees (as he seems intent on doing).
Fifth: The comment was made earlier that there is a different relationship of oppressive language to the oppressed and the oppressor; although this is true, the use of oppressive language by the oppressed against itself can be just as damaging as its use by the oppressor. It can't be ignored that Suhail's status as a visible minority makes this situation entirely different than Mantle's, but I can't see any rational justification of the comment as "just part of the culture he comes from" being valid, and I don't want someone to carry self-oppressing culture with him into the vice presidency - that's not effective minority representation. I do hope Suhail has made the progress he's said he has.
Sixth: Language isn't reclaimed if its still offensive for someone (in this case a white person) to use it in any context. If I can't even use the "n word" referentially without my comment being deleted off this site, it isn't reclaimed. As far as I know, the word still has a negative connotation and will continue to have one for as long as I'm alive - and in that case, the use of it by anyone to refer to black people is oppressive. For an example of a reclaimed term, consider "queer", which I can use comfortably as a descriptor of my LGBT friends without worrying that I'm offending them.
Last: To the student who compared CYZ to RWS - what a joke. I'm fairly certain it was Suhail making an open stand against Mantle, not Ceci. If anyone is going to be compared to RWS, I don't think it should be CYZ.
I don't know why I bothered to post so much when people are so set in their ways. I'm still making my vote based on which team I think will make a better AMS executive, and I sure as hell hope everyone else is, too.
I loved the post from "a visible minority" and can't help but respond to the harsh criticism of that post by "a real visible minority." Sarcasm is a perfect tool to expose the hypocrisy on display in this situation, and speaking of hypocrisy:
A) You say that it is "disgraceful" to hide behind an alias. I agree with you. But you are hiding behind virtually the exact same alias. You are disgraceful too.
B) You call "a visible minority" rude, then in the next sentence opine that he/she is "likely a troll."
C) You ask "a visible minority" to "please use legitimate arguments to prove your point, not childish, and rather offensive, banter." But your own argument – that the Journal should not allow free speech - relies only on your own opinion that certain posts are “blatant garbage.”
I think calls for censorship and restrictions on freedom of speech are “blatant garbage.” But I’m not going to suggest that they shouldn’t be printed. If you don’t think the joke is funny, or the opinion is valid, go take a hike. Freedom of speech is a bedrock value of Western civilization and it is being increasingly threatened around the world by calls for censorship. I encourage everybody to get informed by checking out the new International Free Press Society (http://www.internationalfreepresssoci...). And kudos to the Journal staff for standing by freedom of speech, at least in this instance.
Are you all so naive to think that competing teams don't conduct opposition research? Really? Facebook is a PUBLIC realm, so anything you post is free for others to observe. Just like researching another candidate's platform is justified, so is any other public representation of the candidates.
CYZ is open and honest about their side of this issue, and has revealed everything they had known and done to the public. MAP has not.
I am disgusted that Suhail, supposedly the 'social justice pillar' of MAP and 'proud' residence don of 2 years, would use such language and rely upon his race to justify it. Terrible. Hypocrite. I will never vote for MAP.
This comment board - particularly all those obvious campaign partisans who think they're getting a point across by saying that one act is worse than the other - is an embarrassment to the university.
Do you not realize how pathetic this looks? Friends and campaign workers of both teams desperately slinging mud on the other because they know they themselves f*cked up. Are you all that naive? Do you think your weak, weak attempts at playing politics are going to win you votes?
If this Suhail person was calling for Mantle's resignation, he is a hypocrite no matter how "upstanding" he is or if he's a "different person than he was 8 months ago." (Which, by the way, is a pathetic excuse and pure BS. Although I'd like to think that AMS sensitivity training can change lives like Jesus, I'm a realist. The only thing that's changed this person's character is his ambition for office.) People said the same nice things about that Mantle kid - look where it got him. Anyone who criticized Mantle and now supports Suhail should be ashamed of themselves for their double standards and obvious hypocrisy (obvious to everyone but themselves, obviously). He is running for an office that is higher than Mantle's was. He should therefore take some of his own advice and resign from the campaign. Find a new VP, MAP. It doesn't matter when the comment was said, the fact is that it was said by someone claiming to be a good representative of the ENTIRE (again, ENTIRE) undergraduate body. Grow up people.. this fellow is in the same boat as that poor, unfairly sabotaged Mantle kid, and it's sinking fast.
And what is with people bringing up irrelevant stories and schemes about candidates? Personal vendettas are running wild on this comment board. That can only mean one thing: people are so afraid of the repercussions of this that they're resorting to anything they can rack their brains for. And, like everything else here, it is pathetic.
What happened to this school?!?!?! Can a third team please get their name on the ballot. My humble recommendation for their platform...
"Hey Queen's, not to be rude or anything, but you're going insane, everyone is noticing. Now go home, have a drink, do some homework for once, and let us take care of the rest. Because really, it doesn't matter which AMS exec wins - the transition manuals and permanent staff are all we need. Oh, and also, STOP BEING SUCH LOUD-MOUTHED HYPOCRITES, MUD-SLINGERS AND SENSATIONALISTS. Don't forget to vote :)!"
Obviously, we all agree that the comments made by members running for MAP are disgusting and without place at Queen’s. I can honestly say that, if elected, that person does not represent my interest, nor my opinions.
That being said, what I think is more shocking (and, indeed, appalling) is that MAP has been promising it’s volunteers fulltime positions on AMS council (if they are, in fact, elected). It seems common knowledge now that, if MAP is elected, the president’s friends (and girlfriend) will be given full time paid positions regardless of qualification. How does that make the AMS an equal opportunity employer?Date the president and get guranteed the position of human resource officer? What about the other candidates for those positions? There needs to be more accountability. It's funny how everyone on the "inner circuit" seems to also know who the Campus Activity Commissioner will be next year as well.
I too have heard about Colin's girlfriend becoming Human Resource coordinator for the AMS next year. I think we can all agree that that is a conflict of interest and unfair to the others applying for the position.
I think it is safe to say that if the other VPUA candidate (Zabrodski) had made the same comment on facebook- this election would be over because he would be forced to resign.I know Suhail is a leader within the anti-discriminatory movement on campus and I wish there were more people with his character at this university.
However, I believe that there should be a certain amount of consistency when these types of issues arise. The AMS should condemn Suhail, much like they did for Mantle. They are both student leaders that made honest mistakes on facebook. Due to the fact that Suhail is supported by many of the same people that condemned Mantle earlier this year, Suhail is not dealing with the same shit storm that Jacob went through.
This is very hypocritical: being involved in the anti discriminatory movement does not give you the write to use language that would other be deemed as racist- I wish the election did not have to come down to this but lets call a spade a spade- a racist comment is a racist comment- no matter who says it and who they associate themselves with.
I would like to see Suhail go through exactly what Mantle had to-just to be fair.
Whoever you are Olivia, you obviously have no idea about the kind of people Colin, Ellen and Suhail are if you think that they would give positions to people based on their personal relationships with the team. Team MAP has been nothing but professional throughout the campaign, and if Colin's girlfriend received the position of Human Resource Officer next year it would clearly be for her qualifications, regardless of her personal relationship with the team. She should not be discounted for her personal relationship with the team if Team MAP IS elected, and I'm sure that she will not be given any special treatment if they are elected. I don't know where you are getting the information that Team MAP is making campaign promises to its volunteers, but I'm sure that is completely untrue considering they haven't even been elected yet, and they would never presume to make such promises that they might not be able to keep.
I may clearly be a Team MAP supporter, but at least I don't spend my time bashing Team CYZ. Some people respond better to positive campaigning rather than negative, so perhaps you should concentrate on campaigning for Team CYZ (which you clearly are doing) by touting their merits, instead of attacking the girlfriend of Team MAP's presidential candidate (who is, by the way, a wonderful person who doesn't deserve to be dragged through this campaign slush) and by attempting to spread untrue rumours about Team MAP. Just a thought.
Yeah, I've heard that the Presidential candidate's girlfriend is going to be given a plum Council position, as will many of their campaign volunteers.
Disgusting.
Something also tells me that Q'CRED won't be demanding Suhail's resignation should he win. Were I CYZ and to win the election, my first act would be the disbandonment of Q'CRED as a Queen's-ratified club.
Oliva and Sarah...
grow up.
Colin wouldn't do such a thing. If anything Ceci would stoop that low, come on kids. Grow up. Why dont we keep the comments positive or do you not have anything better to do on a Saturday. I'm more worried about CYZ getting elected, did you see there debates... awful on CYZ part.
good night children.
This is disgusting how personal people are making this election....
Ceci and CYZ are a disgrace to this school...end of story they'll do anything it takes to win
ceci has tried throughout the campaign to keep the debates about the issues. CYZ has been nothing but professional and i'm sure would be horrified to hear people slandering the girlfriend of colin mcleod. friend, significant other, or otherwise, both teams deserve better than to have their supporters stoop to such lows.
"Ceci and CYZ are a disgrace to this school...end of story they'll do anything it takes to win"
that's orginal.
anything new to add beyond the MAP talking points?
dare to be different. come up with original though.
Clearly my point hasn't been understood by anyone who is still posting.
To the "Student", and others, who keeps posting everywhere. You are obviously a supporter of MAP. YOU are a disgrace to this school. You're hurting its student body by pathetically trying to throw sh*t on others because you feel threatened in your support of one team. Stop posting and go do your job. "Olivia", and others, you are also likely a supporter of CYZ, go do you job - you're all guilty of the same.
Imagine what elections your student body could have if you all put this much time into platforms instead of slinging mud (in a very personal way) on all the candidates!
More advice from the detached: after this election is over, when all these emotions calm down, I'm sure you'll all regret much of what you are saying on this comment board (proven by your cowardice in being unable to put your real names with your comments.. I am guilty of the same. However, I am not a campaign worker - I just don't want my name publicly associated with this immaturity.) Not that I know anyone involved, but I'm sure they're all very nice, amicable people. You're all hurting your campus by very clearly trying to creating massive divides between both teams, in very personal ways.
Judging by the character of those who support them and partisanly commment on this board, I would spoil my ballot just so I could get the free coffee.
Clearly b.m. was watching a completely different set of debates from the ones that I just watched. I am sure that CYZ had the upper hand in all of them.
Although both VPOps candidates had trouble fielding Ken Wang's specific questions at the VPOPS debate (about Specific fees) the VPOPS candidate from CYZ actually gave the correct answer even though she was not a 100% sure that she was correct while VPOPS from MAP had no idea what she was talking about. the VPOps from CYZ clearly came more prepared to the next debate and was easily able to explain the Health and Dental Plan while the VPOps from MAP just stumbled over the answer, obviously having no clue about one of the aspects of the job she is running for.
As for the VPUAs, Let me just say the fact that MAP decided to pick CFS over CASA (although he retracted this statement) just shows how ill-prepared and unversed they are in everything other than social issues. And although social issues contributes a lot to the job of VPUA, it is not the only thing that the VPUA gets to work with. A VPUA needs to be well-rounded otherwise the SIC will be the only commission that will succeed next year. I am sure that nearly all of the council, permanent staff and current exec will agree that CASA is easily the better option than CFS and if the VPUA for MAP spent just a little time researching this he would know this.
Finally to address this town-hall meetings that MAP keeps bringing up, sure it is a great idea in theory but it has been used in the past but has receieved lower turnout . Past execs have even offered incentives for people to attend them in the past with fail. So obviously this is not a solution at all to any problem though it might be starting point. It should definitely not be a whole section on their platform.
This does not mean I am a CYZ supporter as I still have to decide whether I want to vote for CYZ or MAP (and there are some other things to consider other than the debate). But I can tell you for a fact that according to an observer of the debates, CYZ easily won the debate section of the this campaign and b.m. I assume you are a MAP supporter cause I am 100% sure that most people over there thought that CYZ beat MAP when it came to the debate section.
The point of elections are to vote for those who you feel are best fit for presidency ( and vice presidency). The biggest problem here is that people are voting for their friends, voting for their allies and not taking the time to look in to platforms and policy.
Regardless of how hard either team tries, hiring practices will always look iffy - when RWS was elected, some of their friends were hired in salary positions. Same would have happened if it were WCW or ACH. The AMS has always been criticized for their hiring and this will continue - it isn't a surprise that MAP volunteers have been sniffing around all the big salary positions.
We can't bash CYZ or MAP. Both teams have their flaws, both teams have mad mistakes and both teams are playing dirty at this point.
If you don't believe either would be fit for presidency, spoil your ballot. Just don't vote for a "friend" -that's not the point.
Okay I think everyone needs to settle down over this issue.
Regardless of what viewpoint a person has there are a few issues that need to be understood.
Firstly, dragging people like Colin's girlfriend throw all of these crazy rumors is not fair. We have no proof on either side which leads me to think that we should not start false rumors. Be stand up people and support CYZ or MAP based on their platforms, debates, and experiences you have had with them.
Regardless of who gets elected, I am sure they will do a good job. We need to focus our comments positivly in order for this election to recover.
Secondly, and I think most importantly is that everyone needs to realize now that facebook is not the private realm. What we say over this technology mediated society is far more public then we think. Think to yourself now all who are reading this about 8-14 months back and every comment you made. Do you think you are the same person you were a year ago? I know I am not. That aside I think most of us at Queens have finally learned that Facebook, as fun as it is, can have serious side-affects in the "real world".
I just wish other people at other schools, and who live in Canada generally could learn this lesson. In 30 years from now will we judge future prime minister candiates on things they did/wrote in University? Does that make them any less of a leader? I think not, and if we do begin to think this way many of the best candiates will be over looked.
In short, keep in the back of your mind how facebook is really a public realm and not a private one.
I demand to know what he meant by "Indian rapist"
"I demand to know what he meant by "Indian rapist"."
I second that, International Student from India. All the naive progressives around here forgiving this bigotry because it is "the oppressed using language against the oppressed" might want to ask this question as well. If you get a bit more specific, you wind up not with one minority attacking another minority, but a Muslim student using derogatory language against Indians. If multiculturalists weren't so blissfully ignorant of history, they might understand that racism isn't an exclusively white phenomenon.
The hypocrisy on display is absolutely staggering.
The facts are very simple. Two racially-charged comments were made on Facebook by two male student leaders. One leader is white, one is not. The reactions to each have been significantly different.
These are the facts - everything else is just clouding of the issue.
To the anti-Mantle crowd (especially QUMSA) who so vehemently condemned him after his comments: I look forward to your similar condemnation of Panjwani.
First- to Tom Mann- are you delusional??? Do you not know that a Muslim can be an Indian? Suhail was born in India and is therefore an Indian Muslim. Therefore he was referring to his own people when he said his comment.
Second- to Brody, QUMSA did NOT vehemently condemn Jacob Mantle. They made it a point to not get involved. Rather, it was QCRED which was vocal about Mantle- NOT QUMSA. Get your facts straight.
"The hypocrisy on display is absolutely staggering." - I AGREE!
Everyone agrees that 2 racist comments were made on Facebook by 2 individuals who now acknowledge and regret their mistakes. These two thoughtless statements however pale in comparison with the attitudes of the DOZENS of critics who vehemently condemned Jacob Mantle, but NOT the MAP comment (which at face value is even more racially charged).
We are waging a war against racism on campus, and I am terrified that the most outspoken members of this movement are not choosing their battles objectively. It is only my opinion, but I agree with the last post hypothesizing that Mantle was condemned far more severely in part because of his race. I would say this outspoken "anti racist" lobbyist army needs to take some time for introspection.
To Melissa,
My apologies - I should have mentioned QCRED as well as QUMSA. Both came out with comments against Mantle and have yet to do the same for the Panjwani incident. If you are going to condemn racism, it must be across the board. As David mentioned above - you can't just pick the battles which are convenient for you.
My point is simply that the situation is incredibly hypocritical and speaks to the values of those who initially attacked Mantle and are now ignoring the comments of Panjwani. I don't think there can be much argument about that.
Brody J -
Re: "..the anti-Mantle crowd (especially QUMSA) who so vehemently condemned him after his comments.."
Can you please provide evidence for "QUMSA's vehement condemnation of Mantle's commens"? I'm not sure if you attend this university.. but, in case you do, perhaps you missed Safiah's (QUMSA's External Liason) editorial comment which said:
"It is important that the Queen’s community know that the Queen’s University Muslim Students Association (QUMSA) has not taken an official stance regarding Jacob Mantle and his position as ASUS president other than the fact that we believe it is an AMS issue. We have intentionally chosen to do this so as not to polarize this campus. This, again, is not a QUMSA-specific issue. It is for this reason that the QUMSA executive abstained from speaking at Assembly as much as possible. "
http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/200...
Here's some advice: Please be factual. The last thing we need is biased rhetoric from misinformed individuals.
It's great how many people on this board who do not engage with anti-racism or their own privlege on a regular basis feel qualified to criticize those who do. It's really productive and your feedback has brought up so many new ideas for us.
And by that I mean not.
People keep discussing this 'double standard' that is just a shy step away from 'reverse racism'. .... FYI reverse racism DOES NOT EXIST. Shocking, I know. Try reading a book, I recommend something easy to start perhaps 'The Colour of Democracy' by Henry and Tator.
To Jeff Fraser: NCBI training for dons only began THIS YEAR, not last year as you hinted. Therefore Suhail only took it in Setpember, after 'the comment' was made. It was this training along with his position as AMS Food Centre manager that pushed him to begin a journey of anti-oppression as he has spoken vocally about.
Additionaly, Queer is still not a reclaimed term for everyone, same rule applies: If you're in the community its probably safe, if you're not, DON'T USE IT.
The N word debate is something that white people can NEVER play a part in thanks to the history of colonialism and slavery inflicted upon Black people.
If you think that's a 'double standard' WELCOME TO REALITY. Why isn't it a double standard when we live in a 'democratic' nation yet people of colour and women are still paid less than white men who have the same jobs? There are a hundred more examples of this, many of which you can find at Queen's, but they're not 'double standards', it's just racism. Deal with it.
I think we can at least agree that racist remarks are racist regardless of who says it. What you seem to propose is that we come down more harshly on some than on others based on the colour of their skin. No matter what that colour is, it's wrong. I think making comments like that show you something about the person and how they're thinking. Mantel saw the girls wrapped up and I guess he thought they looked like they were wearing a hijab, which made him think of Islam which made him think of Terrorism. You can most certainly come down on him for having that line of thought and jumping so quickly from Islam to terrorism. At most I'm willing to say it was a tasteless, and not funny (on its own merits, not by way of whether or not it was tasteless) joke, but I do think it shows you something about his headspace maybe. That said he then went for that sensitivity training, which I thought was ridiculous.
Here again we have someone who is making a racist remark, and actually, I would argue, makes more racist leaps in that comment than Mantel did (not arguing the merits of one racist remark over the other, but it was longer and had more to say, thus allowing for more racist remarks). The biggest one would referring to Indians as rapists and alluding to violence against them. I'm sure no actual violence took place, but as these people are supposed to be speaking for the student body, the quality of their language and word choice matters! Calling his friend a "nigga" I would place on the same level as Mantel's comment, given it's about a friend. But then add to it his opinion, or insinuation, as to what Indians are "rapest[s]."
Again, I'm not going to argue the merits or lack there of for one racist comment over another, but can't we at least agree that these are two racist comments that were said and therefore we should treat them equally.
Personally I'm willing to let it go. But then again, I wasn't among the throngs of people, like Suhail Panjwani, who thought Mantel should step down.
Suhail claims he has progressed since then. I'll ask the obvious... in what way? Mantel can say he's bent over backwards to appease the public through sensitivity training and seminars and what not, what can Suhail point to in order to show his attempt at reform?
Had Suhail not been among those demanding Mantel step down, I'd say let it slide. But if he can't even abide by his own morality, which in this case would require that he drop out of the race (or not have run in the first place, to be more accurate) then I have to ask how it is he thinks he can speak for the student body?
Iris, I have to say, you're wrong on this one and falling into the same trap EVERYONE at Queen's has been falling into, and as an alumni it has been embarrassing to watch. What oppression are you referring to? He's a student with the same rights as everyone else, and he's entitled to the same privileges and access to university facilities, and he's running for a position in the student government, for crying out loud. I don't think you, or most of Queen's for that matter, understands what oppression is. A few people who act badly towards you because of your race, religion, nationality, etc, can let you claim you've been discriminated against. Hell, I've dealt with it myself. But you can't call it oppression, it's not even exclusion, it's just a few jerks. You know what? It sucks. Been there. I've even been physically assaulted because of my background, but that's racism. Oppression would at least require that your options are being limited by some authority, or even group of people who prevent you from even trying for something. This guy is running for the student government, and HE made a racist comment. I don't think you get to play the "they're in different power zones, and he's oppressed" card. Come on. He's a free student, on campus, who has maybe (probably) experienced some racist incidents in his life like many (if not most) minorities on campus, and dare I say in any country where they find themselves to be in the minority. That doesn't mean he's oppressed.
"Here's some advice: Please be factual. The last thing we need is biased rhetoric from misinformed individuals."
To Student:
"Biased rhetoric"? Come off it... I based my statement on numerous comments made on Journal discussion threads by people claiming to be affiliated with QUMSA. I cannot quote them as those boards are not accessible anymore. My apologies in that I mistakenly assumed they represented the views of QUMSA as a whole. That was my mistake and I'm sorry if I offended you (and any others).
However, this is exactly the sort of response I've come to expect - ignore the thrust of a comment by making an issue over semantics. I can only assume you don't want to debate the hypocrisy of the situation as you offer no evidence to refute my statement.
I'd just like people to have some perspective on this matter and realize that a racist comment is just that - regardless of who says it or what color their skin is.
"First- to Tom Mann- are you delusional??? Do you not know that a Muslim can be an Indian? Suhail was born in India and is therefore an Indian Muslim. Therefore he was referring to his own people when he said his comment."
Thanks for the pedantry Melissa, but I apologize for my mistake nonetheless.
I'm not going to try to explain the complicated history of the partition of India, but the conflict between India and Pakistan has mostly been a Hindu-Muslim conflict, since most Muslims in the subcontinent wound up in Pakistan, while the Hindus mostly wound up in India. Of course there are Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan, but I think my mistake was an honest one, and I think my point still stands.
@Tom Mann: You don't seem any less ignorant to me...India is a secular republic with the worlds second largest Muslim population (something I am very proud of.
As far as Mantles comment goes, I condemn it and was displeased with the way he handled the whole situation. Whats interesting is, that a majority of Mantle supporters are having fun by taking a blast at Suhail, due to the colour of his skin. I ask them: How can you justify Mantles comment, and condemn Suhails. There both equally ignorant.
As an Indian I condemn Suhail's comments, and don't find them any less ignorant than Mantle. It would be nice if someone from team MAP or Suhail himself would like clarify what he meant by it. I'm pretty sure there checking this page everyday. However I also want to point out that Suhail apologized in a more swift manner unlike Mantle. Regardless I'm still not voting for him.
To Brody -
Re: "I can only assume you don't want to debate the hypocrisy of the situation as you offer no evidence to refute my statement."
I had no problems with your claim about hypocrisy. I agree, that any individual who spoke against Mantle's racist comments should speak equally against Panjwani's racist comments.
My issue was with your accusation of QUMSA, for which, I understand you were misinformed and appreciate your apology. For your information, QUMSA is the only organization on campus that has made the effort to start a campaign for a hate-free campus (http://www.qumsa.net/campaign/campaig...). I am a huge supporter of QUMSA's efforts as I feel it gives those who have experienced racism a louder voice; one which in my view, had not been heard for a while.
A debate is only as effective as the soundness of the claims put forth, and that is why I request that anyone who makes a claim, at least, be able to support it with evidence.
@ Tom Mann: Shut the bloody hell up! You clearly have no idea about the Indian subcontinent, the Hindu-Muslim story or the Indian Pakistani conflict. "Most Muslims wound up in Pakistan." INDIA HAS MORE MUSLIMS THAN PAKISTAN does. And has the worlds SECOND LARGEST MUSLIM POPULATION. This issue doesn't pertain to this discussion, so I'm not going to go on about it. The comment he made has nothing to do with India-Pakistan or Muslims-Hindu. As the son of a Indian Diplomat, with the Indian tri-colour raised above our house for the past 20 years, I'm sure I know much more about the partition of India. I've studied the partition throughout my life. How dare you say, India and Pakistan is a Hindu-Muslim conflict. After the Mumbai terror attacks, every politician in the country wants to put pressure on Pakistan, whether he is Hindu, Muslim, Christian.etc. Hundreds of our Muslim soldiers have died in wars against Pakistan. Please educate yourself before saying something, and not by merley reading a wiki article.
@International Student from India:
Thanks for ruining a reasonable discussion and debate. Telling someone to "shut the bloody hell up" is not conducive at all. Perhaps you don't know the proper etiquette in THIS country.
To Student:
I'm glad we could come to an agreement and once again, apologies for my earlier assumption. Thanks for the additional info on QUMSA.
To International Student from India:
What purpose are you trying to serve with your aggressiveness? I can only assume you're trying to pick a fight with Mr. Mann...
Guy:
"Perhaps you don't know the proper etiquette in THIS country."
Did you really just write that?
International Student from India.:
"Shut the bloody hell up!" - Well, you certainly don't seem interested in other people expressing their opinions (however inaccurate they may be). Try reading a wiki article on 'Open dialogue'. As a direct relative to a diplomat, maybe you should spend more time learning to be a polite member of civilized society.
Given that, I too would like to know what Suhail meant when he said 'Indian rapest'. So far its looking like a tie between bad spelling skills and him meaning 'rapist' and having to explain that, and me having to figure out what 'rapest' means in 'gangsta-English'.
alumni:
1) I agree with the point you have made. Suhail is not oppressed. Either that or we (visible minorities) are oppressed and I'm just really thick and don't notice (Its a pretty sad state of affairs when I feel the need to make sure that people know I'm a visible minority).
2) I also agree with you on the point that I wouldn't really be against Suhail if he hadn't been so anti-Mantle. Not resigning after claiming to have committed acts of physical violence against 'indian rapest[s]' (as opposed to all other kinds of rapests) is absolutely hypocritical given that he had such a huge problem with Mantle for 'liking a picture'.
ncbi graduate / QCRED supporter:
1) Reverse racism does exist at Queen's - I walked around last semester with pro-Mantle signs. If my skin was white, I'd very likely get mobbed by a bunch of P.C. (politically correct) yuppies.
2) "they're not 'double standards', it's just racism" - Racism is a double-standard.
International Student from India,
I respect that you are more familiar with the India Pakistan conflict than I am, but your suggestion that I "have no idea" about it is way off base.
“How dare you say, India and Pakistan is a Hindu-Muslim conflict.”
Obviously, simplifying the conflict down to Muslims in Pakistan vs. Hindus in India is not warranted, but are you suggesting that religion isn’t one of the biggest factors? Your next sentence starts: “After the Mumbai terror attacks…” Unless Wikipedia is wrong here (that’s called a joke – an alternative to telling your opponent to shut the bloody hell up) isn’t the name Mumbai derived from a Hindu goddess? Aren’t the terrorists you mentioned Muslim radicals? Of course, some people will tell you the conflict is about territory or poverty or whatever, but the root of the conflict is religious. To pretend otherwise is to bury your head in the sand.
"Most Muslims wound up in Pakistan." INDIA HAS MORE MUSLIMS THAN PAKISTAN does. And has the worlds SECOND LARGEST MUSLIM POPULATION.
I know that, and I wrote the post in a hurry so I misspoke. I should have said this: Pakistan became a majority Muslim country and India became a secular state (majority Hindu).
“The comment he made has nothing to do with India-Pakistan or Muslims-Hindu.”
You were the one who initially demanded to know what he meant! This would imply that you don’t know. I guess you must actually know, but are trying to play mind games or something.
I admit I was wrong in saying that...and said it in direct anger for the comment posted before me. It was in the heat of the moment. It was a moment of mere enragment for the comment posted before me. I apologize for this to everyone. I just didn't appreciate the fact of people talking about a issue which they know very little about. I apologize once again for my comment. And Ravi I certainly don't need advice/lecturing from you. All I can say that is I am sorry that I was agressive in the heat of the moment.
International Student from India, I understand your being upset at Tom Mann's inaccurate representation of the India-Pakistan conflict. Everyone is upset at you for getting upset at his ignorance, but you have the right to be upset if you want to be since he based his entire point on the idea that most Indian Muslims relocated to Pakistan due to Partition. He also never addressed the fact that Indian Muslims have died fighting for India as well.
Anyway, Ravi - I completely disagree with the majority of your comments.
1. Reverse racism does not exist on the grounds that racism is a systematic, institutionalized form of discrimination that has far reaching consequences. Discrimination against white people exists, but it is not systematic.
2. While you may find comfort in the culture of whiteness at Queen's, many students of visible minorities do not and by denying THEIR oppression by belittling it, you are making them more oppressed.
3. I am a person of color and I saw you with your signs supporting Mantle, and I did not approach you because your presence saddened me: you supported a cause you believed in, but to onlookers like myself you looked and act(ed) like a token: "I'm a person of color who agrees with X position, therefore all those so called oppressed people are wrong.. cuz if I'm brown and feel x, then those brown people cannot feel y".
4. I appreciate your feeling at home at Queen's, but you should appreciate and show solidarity with those at Queen's whose experiences are altered irreparably by the racism they face every day. Your denial only denies the existence of their oppression and prevents progress in their initiatives to be free.
5. The word "oppressor" and "oppressed" have historical significance that extend to this day although they are not readily visible due to the language of multiculturalism, and "equality". i.e. "we are all born equal, so we are all on equal grounds", or "We all get into university, so we are all on equal grounds and have equal rights".
In a place where posters are defaced with white supremacy remarks, prayer spaces are broken into, a Jewish student has found a swastika on her car, Muslim women get "Taliban" yelled at them from speeding cars, black history month displays are torn down, it is "ok" or "cool" to "Dress up" as an ethnicity, and it is "uncool" to support antioppression; where papers have gotten low grades for "controversial" subject matter (like racism); where students in classrooms say apartheid was "made to give black people jobs"; where FACULTY members are threatened and police officers face drunk students saying the N word..
In this place, I do not have the RIGHT to feel comfortable walking down the street at night like I should. I am oppressed because I don't feel safe to be where I am paying to be. It has happened to friends, it can happy to me. I am not even as afraid that I am a woman alone at night or elsewhere, as much as I am afraid that I am colored.. especially in an environment that would rather deny racism and hold the anti-racists guilty of radicalism etc than deal with it.
There is no such thing as oppression at Queen's. I'm sorry but anyone arguing that is clearly doing a disservice to actual oppression around the world. The overuse of this term and the misconceptions regarding its actual meaning have gotten tiresome and are resulting in a backlash against people for using it in an inappropriate context. I'm sorry but being an upper-middle class kid attending one of the best universities in North America you have no right for using that term.
You're not bent over in a cotton field somewhere so drop the charade.
International Student from India:
"Ravi I certainly don't need advice/lecturing from you" - Oh, so you get to tell people what to do (like 'shut the hell up', and 'please educate yourself') but I don't? I'm sorry I didn't get that memo, I'll pay more attention to them next time. My bad.
Concerned Student:
1. So discrimination against white people doesn't count as racism because its not institutionalized? I disagree with that, and continue to consider that kind of discrimination racism/colourism.
2. I don't recall ever belittling the experiences of people who have been discriminated against, perhaps you can cite examples of when and where you think I have done so. I do, however, stand by my right to say that I have not been discriminated against, and have not felt 'oppressed'. And exactly how do you figure that I'm making 'them' more oppressed?
3. Next time, maybe you should step up and talk instead of jumping to conclusions. "cuz if I'm brown and feel x, then those brown people cannot feel y" - I never said that, and I have never believed it. Jumping to conclusions is a great way to get things wrong.
4. I don't have the obligation to do the things that you tell me I should do. Again, I have never denied their experiences. Are you suggesting that I don't have the right to say that I haven't been discriminated against?
5. Good to know. Whats your point?
Alright, so you don't feel comfortable about walking down the street at night. Fair enough.
Me, I feel comfortable about it. I don't and have never had a problem walking alone at night (in Kingston at least, I'd feel very uncomfortable about that in Bombay). Do the previous 2 statements deny your feeling of discomfort? No, they don't. Just because I have a different opinion than you doesn't mean that I 'belittle' or 'deny' your viewpoint.
In fact, you saying that my statements "makes them more oppressed" seems a very thinly veiled attempt to try to silence me from stating my opinion.
Concerned Student:
* You did not approach me because my presence saddened you?
Why did my presence sadden you?
* You thought that I think that "brown people cannot feel y"?
1) Why do you think this? Do you have any reason to think this?
2) Would it really have been difficult to walk up to me and say the following:
"Hello, I think that you think that brown people cannot feel y. Do you actually think this way? If yes, why?"?.
Really, would it have been so difficult to say that?
Well, I guess its just easier to tokenize a person. I guess its just easier to jump to conclusions. Jumping to conclusions certainly does save a lot of time. As an added benefit, it does reduce the chances of exposing yourself to the viewpoints and perspectives of people who don't think the way you do. Not exposing yourself to people with different viewpoints saves you the trouble of actually conversing with them, which totally removes any chances of that pesky 'open dialogue' fad thats going around.
Yes, jumping to conclusions has a set of very tempting benefits.
Ravi, with all do respect: Get a life.
Melissa D, I think most people on here will see Ravi's intelligent and well reasoned arguments (and also simple, honest questions - is anybody going to answer him?) and your petty insults and it'll be pretty clear who has a life and who doesn't.
Ravi, you sound like a great guy to me. I appreciate you standing up for my right to say what I want. If you feel my views are inaccurate, I would love to have a chat and maybe learn why. Get in touch with me on Facebook if you want...
"Ravi, with all do respect: Get a life."
One of the all-time worst posts I have seen on the Journal's website. "Get a life" for expressing her opinions (very eloquently I might add)? “Get a life” for defending herself when her values and decisions are questioned?
Also Melissa, if you are going to write offensive comments like that, the very least you could do is spell correctly. It's "DUE" not "DO".
To Ravi - thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. Please ignore the ignorance of the previous post.
I agree with the posts directly above, I would really like to know what "indian rapist" is in this context because, just as Tom Mann has written above, that sounds to me like racism on a different level not just against Blacks/Whites/Asians/Browns or any other group as a whole, but maybe also rather within the groups, in this case within South Asians, maybe on national levels (without intending to provoke the sensitive geopolitical issues that exist).
I also would, very honestly and without any malice or sarcasm, like to see, as Brody J has also written, Jacob's detractors take up the same cause this time around, and QUMSA especially, even if it is a Muslim student who is guilty this time around. Cultural/religious/social groups on campus need to speak out against wrongs against others, not just themselves all the time.
Melissa, why don't you take your pompous politically correct attitude and not attack one of the few intelligent people on campus?
Thanks.
1. You are free to disagree, but I am not speaking from my opinion, I am speaking from academic work studying the issues of race and racism. Racism is based on historically constructed power dynamics. There is a lot of work being done in this field, and I invite you to look into it to understand the rhetoric of those who you argue with.
2. I recall you belittling the experiences of those discriminated against at the ASUS Assembly when a girl courageously recited her experience of having someone speed past her in a car and yell “Taliban!” at her (in order to demonstrate the climate within which Mantle’s comment was made, not to call him a racist before anyone jumps to that conclusion, just to provide context for why it is not “just a joke” to many individuals). After she spoke, you asked her repeatedly why she didn’t write down a license plate number instead of being shocked/scared/stunned etc as the car sped away. Even after she told you it was late at night, etc, and expressed the absurdity of a first reaction to racism as being shuffling in your bag for a pen and paper – you still insisted that *she* was wrong for not writing anything down from a momentary instant. By responding as though *she*, the victim, is guilty because she did not act as you claim you would have, you are denying and belittling her experiences (hence the angry reaction at being unjustly accused of doing nothing when there was nothing she could’ve done).
In fact, the fact that this girl is now –burdened- with having to respond in X way you deem adequate, emphasizes the fact that she does NOT have the same rights as white/non-visibly muslim students on campus who are free to walk down the street without thinking about having racial epithets thrown at them and then being burdened to challenge them in a very specific way so as to be free of blame of “not doing enough”
3. In the time I saw you being vocal, you were constantly defending white peoples’ free speech and belittling people of color for being offended by it/not acting as you want them to. This translates in the eyes of many observers as “if he feels x and is a visible minority, then why does this person feel y as a visible minority?” You are free to express your opinion, and I am not trying to silence you. However, the attitude you displayed of forgiving the ones saying racist things and then chastising the victims for having been discriminated against is disrespectful to say the least.
4. “I don’t have the obligation to do the things you tell me I should do” – neither did that girl in her response to racism but you nonetheless spoke over her and told her what she “should have done” – with the implication that not doing it made her in some way (at least partially) guilty in the assault on her. You say you never denied their experiences – please refer to point 2. You have the right to say whatever you like; but if you are stating that you have not been discriminated against and you respect the experiences of those who have, then why are you trying to silence them by telling them not to be upset, when to be upset, and how they should react to racism.
I didn’t approach you, and would not should I see you again, because of a) your reaction to, and chastisement of victims of racism in a public forum; and b) the sign you carried that implied that Mantle’s comment about the Taliban was unrelated to Islam, and that somehow those offended made the connection (when in fact Mantle did by relating headscarves to hijabs to Islam to the Taliban). Again, I personally felt as though you were placing a portion of the blame on those offended by racism/racist comments, instead of on the perpetrators of the words.
Finally, Ravi, I am not making these comments to insult or personally attack you. I find it ironic that people on this board have lauded you as intelligent defender of freedom of speech, and none have responded to the my comments about feeling safe on campus. One even ridiculed the idea of being "oppressed" after I wrote and proved that I do not have the same rights as white people who have the priveledge of not worrying about racial attacks in the same way as I do.
What saddens me is this: that while you champion the "other point of view", you constantly silence mine and others who have no venue of expression and clamor to leave/transfer/drop out of this school every year because of the racism (professors even resigned, read the Henry report!) on this campus.
You acknowledge that individuals don't feel safe on campus. So why don't you clamor as loudly for us having every right (and therefore not being oppressed anymore) that other students do to think, live, dress, and walk down the street without fear of violence? The campus is safe enough for you; but for others it is not. If you acknowledge this, then why are you silent in their suffering?
Ravi is a boy's name. :)
I think people are over reacting and need to put things in perspective. We don’t go school in Africa or the Gaza Strip. We live in fairly safe city and country. Some people are afraid to walk home late at night, but the chance of anything happening is relatively small especially when you compare Kingston to other countries. What bothers me about Suhail’s comments is the obvious double standard that exists. I know the one of main argument in his defense is that he was quick to apologize. Well of course, he saw what happened to Mantle. Mantle was criticized for not apologizing quickly enough. I’m not saying oppression doesn’t exist, but no one being asked to sit at the back of the bus. Queen’s is not Alabama in the 1960s.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Have any of you turned on a T.V. lately and listened to the language that is used everyday? I say that everyone posting here that is blaming Suhail and calling him a racist is a hypocrite. Are you telling me you have never used offensive language around your friends? Do you honestly believe that that kind of comment sincerely reflects his inner beliefs? In fact, it makes me feel like his a more typical part of the community, in that he doesn't need stalk the opposing teams facebook account in search of incriminating details of team CYZ's lives, unlike Mr. Ceci. Some people just need to realize that while words do not intrinsically harm, it's only the listener that gives that kind of power.
Here's my view:
Making a racist comment - whether today, yesterday, 50 years ago or 100 years ahead - is unacceptable.
However, I also realize, that given the imperfectness of humanity, we are all prone to mistakes - so before I accuse the person of wrong-doing, I will consider their background, external environment/surroundings and their actions, especially after the comments are made.
In Mantle's case, while I sympathize with the fact that he has not been exposed much to the world outside Canada, I do have an issue with his actions AFTER he made the racist comments. His actions (including a delay, as well as, belittling of his apology - see discussion here: http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/200...) is what made me question his intent. Is Mantle able to delay or belittle his apology because his inner character is flawed? Or, is he able to delay and belittle his apology because he feels safe to do so in the community he lives in? Indeed, that is what caused an uproar among the social/racial and ethnic groups on campus who wanted to expose this injustice. They were shocked with Mantle supporters who failed to realize how much the comment had hurt them. Minorities argued, that this is the n-th time a racist remark has been made, and instead of condemning it, people are arguing to support it?? They felt that Mantle's supporters were, in part, ignoring the experiences of some of the visible minority students on campus who are deeply hurt by such comments; not to mention, the fact that comments were made by the President of the largest student faculty on campus (which includes many minority students.)
As for Suhail's racist comments; I noticed that although his comments were made a while ago, it was followed by a sincere and swift apology once they were revealed. This is not to say, that I don't hold him accountable for what he said - I do; but, I also have to consider the fact that he wasn't running for AMS candidacy at the time he made that stupid comment and do not hold him to the same degree of accountability as Mantle. If Suhail was to make a racist comment while in the AMS, I will definitely call for his resignation.
I've heard people say that Suhail's apology was swift because he "learned from Mantle's experience." But, who am I to judge? One can only judge Suhail from his actions and I encourage you to personally go up to speak with him about these issues, just as you should with Mantle. Ask both of them specific questions, as to why they made the comment? What are their views on racism on campus? What is the best way to deal this problem? What actions have they specifically taken to educate themselves about racism?
I assure you, if you make both of them hold a higher degree of personal responsibility for their word choice - they will think before they speak. And doing that will be a major step forward towards reducing racism on campus.
Concerned Student:
"you still insisted that *she* was wrong for not writing anything down from a momentary instant. By responding as though *she*, the victim, is guilty because she did not act as you claim you would have, you are denying and belittling her experiences"
-- Inaccurate. You don't seem to be able to make the difference between providing a suggestion that would help the Kingston Police catch the perpetrators if such an incident would re-occur and blaming a person. There is a difference. Providing constructive suggestions for how to act next time is not equal to blame.
"belittling people of color" - Do you have a specific quote, one that is verifiable (as in, one that you can prove to not be made up by your imagination)?
"chastising the victims for having been discriminated against is disrespectful to say the least" - Same as above.
"told her what she “should have done”" - Again, I made it very clear that getting the license plate numbers would have been helpful to the authorities. I also made it clear that I was offering a suggestion on how to act if a similar incident should happen again.
"when in fact Mantle did by relating headscarves to hijabs to Islam to the Taliban" - Oh, so you know what goes on in Mr. Mantle's head now?
I grew up amongst numerous muslims in Bombay, and let me tell you that it is very easy to think Taliban without thinking 'Islam'. Its very easy to think of the Taliban as a misogynistic and barbaric cult who abuse the teachings of Islam for their own purposes. Last time I checked, one could be a devout muslim without stoning women who don't cover their heads. Maybe Mr. Mantle had just read about the Bamiyan Buddhas, or anything else related to the Taliban, and so he made the connection 'head covering on a woman <-> Taliban'.
You don't know what went through his head, and assuming the worst is simply not nice.
"you constantly silence mine and others who have no venue of expression" - Again, could you provide an example, or have you been reading between the lines again. 'Cause anyone who knows me will tell you that there is nothing there. Me saying that I haven't felt discriminated against is not the same as me saying that other people can't get discriminated against. I notice that you haven't addressed this argument of mine yet.
"The campus is safe enough for you; but for others it is not. If you acknowledge this, then why are you silent in their suffering?" - On one hand you accept that my skin is brown, and then you say that 'the campus is safe enough for' me. What are you playing at over here? The campus is as safe for me as it is for any other brown-skinned person.
Secondly, I never acknowledged that my safety on (and off) campus is any different that that for any other person. Are you sure you are not hallucinating when you read over my responses and listen to my words?
Journal comments policy
The comments on this website do not represent the views or opinions of the Queen's Journal, but of the comment-writer alone. Libelous comments and unsubstantiated allegations will not be printed, nor will comments that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, marital status or mental or physical ability. All comments are moderated, and may take up to 24 hours to be posted on this site barring any unforeseen circumstances. The Journal reserves the right to refrain from publishing comments. Comments are not edited for grammar or spelling, or for vulgar language outside of the above restrictions. The Journal respects your privacy. By posting your comments in our feedback forum you give us permission to post and publish your name, city and comments on the Journal website. All submissions must contain the email address of the comment-writer. Thank you for your co-operation.
Kingsotn
January 23, 2009 at 11:06 a.m.
The standard has been set with Jake Mantle... What is even more interesting is that Suhail was one of the members of the group that was after Jake'resignation. Who does he think he is condeming on one hand and doing that same act on the other?
I do not believe he is fit for AMS presidency. The last think I want is someone who is inclined to repeat what Queen's students went through last semseter next year.