Letters to the Editors

Dear Editors,

Editorial ignores efforts to save After-Hours Childcare

RE: “Cancellation a poor decision” (Journal, Sept. 13, 2005); “After-hours childcare canned” (Journal, Sept. 9, 2005).

I find it disconcerting that the editorial about the closure of After-Hours Childcare (AHC) essentially ignores the substantive facts and careful analysis that supported this difficult decision that were detailed in the well-written news article appearing in your previous issue.

As the article accurately stated, the primary reason the childcare service was closed had little to do with AHC’s chronic financial losses.

When the large majority of users are not undergraduate students, and when the service’s employees are members of St. Lawrence College, it becomes clear that continuing operations is not fulfilling its mandate. It is this fundamental problem with AHC that underpinned the closure decision.

Moreover, the service was simply not being used by AMS members. The AMS made a commitment to students who required the service when it saw there was a need in 1995. The service was continued despite falling rates of usage for the last decade. To put it in perspective, at the peak of usage last year, there were 17 undergraduate families using the service, which represents roughly 0.12 per cent of the undergraduate population.

Your editorial errs in suggesting that nothing was done prior to the cancellation. While it is unfortunate that the service was cancelled, a number of alternative options were explored prior to closure. Regrettably, neither your original news article nor your editorial reported on how many measures were looked into, nor how much time was put into the efforts of replacing this service.

The grant-based program was dismissed after much review. An ad hoc group spent three months searching for a solution, but the possibilities dwindled and it soon became apparent that support from other parties—who perhaps have a greater responsibility than undergraduate student government to address the important need for childcare on campus—was not going to be forthcoming.

At this point the AMS Board of Directors had little choice but to close the service. The final line of the editorial “The decisions made by the AMS are lasting … it should seriously consider the ramifications of these decisions and think through the solution it offers” is a slap in the face of the students and university administrators who worked so hard to find a solution.

Despite best efforts, it appears that there is not a solution at this time. No service is opened or closed by the AMS lightly, and there is far more work that goes into this than is often apparent.

The AMS has not walked away on its commitment to those students who are in need of childcare. As the Ban Righ Centre can attest, the AMS was the only party willing to contribute financially to the solution, so to say this was a matter of finances is simply incorrect.

Ashik Bhat

AMS Student Services Director

Letter ignores Mantra’s legal history

Dear Editors,

Re: “Mantra practices not sexual assault” (Journal, Sept. 16, 2005).

I want to thank Alex Davis for his letter to the editor. It provided us with insight as to how some people may perceive our handling of the issue.

The Journal article on Girls Gone Wild lacked information on specific legal cases mostly in the U.S. that spurred the AMS to oppose their visit. It was primarily because of these specific cases, Dalhousie’s position, our common sense, and general empathy for the students of Queen’s that we took this position.

Mantra Films Inc. and Girls Gone Wild producer Joseph Francis are named in ongoing criminal cases related to a 2003 filming in Panama City Beach during spring break for the production of a Girls Gone Wild video. Mantra Films Inc. is facing 27 charges that include one count of racketeering, three counts of promoting sexual performance by a child, two counts of use of a child in sexual performance, four counts of procuring a person under 18 years of age for prostitution, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, among others. Francis is facing 42 charges that include those listed above, as well as one count of trafficking of hydrocodone, one count of possession of oxycodone, and two additional counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Mantra Films Inc. is also named in a civil suit related to the criminal trials.

The AMS and Sexual Assault Centre Kingston (SACK) are not taking this position to come across as prudish, but to prevent something very damaging from happening. If readers do not think that activities like this promote sexual assault I would invite them, in an attempt to remedy a lack of awareness on the matter, to volunteer on the sexual assault crisis line that SACK operates to fully understand the ugly reality of human behaviour and how very real this type of threat is. There have certainly been other seemingly harmless activities like Girls Gone Wild in Kingston that have had disastrous effects.

Lastly, it is clear from Davis’ “principled” letter that he finds no causation between the practices of Mantra Films Inc. and sexual assault incidences: “This is not a shady case of back-room date rapes.” Davis, let me give you some food for thought: if a person can get attacked by doing something as common as walking down the street in a winter coat at night, then certainly the intoxicated woman stripping in front of an audience is not protected. Defenders of Mantra Inc. should consider this. Why protect a predator? Instead defend your sisters, partners, classmates, and friends.

Jennifer Holub

AMS Social Issues Commissioner

Letter ignores predatory nature of Girls Gone Wild

Dear Editors,

RE: “Mantra practices not sexual assault” (Journal, Sept. 16, 2005).

I would like to thank Alex Davis for presenting the opportunity to clarify Sexual Assault Centre Kingston’s (SACK) position on the Girls Gone Wild issue. However, I must admit that I was offended by his glib concern that we appear to be a “morally condescending gang of prudes.” As former director of the Sexual Health Resource Centre on campus, I daresay I have never been accused of prudish behaviour; in fact, when I helped initiate the selling of sex toys (a campus service which has steadily gained immense popularity), I was lambasted for a project labelled “crude.” Here’s the relevance: I support and promote the expression of healthy sexuality, and the sovereignty of individual choice, as long as informed choices are made by legally consenting adults.

I did not label Mantra Film Inc.’s practices as “sexual assault;” rather, I likened them to certain characteristics of assault. Do I believe that the company’s practices are, unequivocally, sexual assaults? No. However, they toe the line. The law is quite clear on the rules of consent. Consent cannot be obtained if the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity. Anyone who has ever seen Girls Gone Wild is aware of the obvious level of intoxication, which renders most imbibers incapable of giving informed consent. Davis quotes Mantra’s Bill Horn who suggests that Girls Gone Wild is quite harmless. Consider this statement made by Horn in an article on slate.com: “There’s some part of me that always wants to shriek [to the girls], ‘Don’t do it!’” Perhaps the most disturbing element of Davis’ letter was his final paragraph that smacked of victim-blaming rhetoric. Certainly, some women are fully consenting to their participation in Girls Gone Wild activities. But despite their claims of empowerment, shouldn’t we question the origin of this behaviour? Since we often dismiss pop culture as irrelevant to “real issues,” we don’t acknowledge its vast influence. Entertainment media that rely on voyeurism and sexual objectification of women is so pervasive that it begins to shape values that individuals develop over a long period of time. Consider the eight-year-olds who are bulimic, or preteens who want boob jobs. The notion that women should be sexually available/attractive to men becomes ingrained. What child, adolescent, or even adult is immune to such pressure? As a culture, we effectively create these behavioural expectations and then castigate those who fulfill them, turning our backs on the “young and uninhibited” in scorn, as demonstrated by Davis.I cannot purport to know Davis’ background. However, I ask him this question: are you working in the trenches? Because I am. Every day I see people struggling with the effects of being sexually exploited in various ways. Anti-oppression work is what allows me some liberation from the machine of our violent and materialistic culture. Those who rush to defend the practices of such corporations, that make millions through exploitation, are fulfilling the duties of a cog in that machine. Why is there such motivation to protect the machine, instead of protecting people from it?

I realize that many will disagree with me. Often we are hyper-vigilant about threats to the free-market of individual enterprise, arguing that censorship is necessarily a curb of our basic rights. However, when examining an issue such as rape, or the culture that permits it, try to bring it down from highbrow and condescending debate to everyday people and statistics. I guarantee that once you see the real faces of brave, strong survivors, your tune will change.

Caitlin Coull, ArtSci ’03

Public Education Coordinator,

Sexual Assault Centre Kingston

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content