The McGill Daily Vol. 108 Issue 15

Published by The Daily Publications Society, a student society of McGill University.

The McGill Daily is located on unceded Kanien’kehá:ka territory.

Volume 108, Issue 15 | Monday, January 28, 2019 | mcgilldaily.com Areby’s — we have the meats since 1911

2

contents

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Table of Contents 3 EDITORIAL Canada is Complicit in the Occupation of Palestine 4 NEWS McGill’s “Master Plan” The Daily Publications Society is currently accepting applications for its Board of Directors.

Are you in love with campus press, and would like to contribute to its continuity and improvement? Are governance, bylaws and motion writing your cup of tea? If so, you should consider applying to the DPS Board of Directors.

DPS Directors meet at least once a month to discuss the management of both Le Délit and The McGill Daily, and get to vote on important decisions related to the DPS’s activities. They can also get involved in various committees whose purpose range from fundraising to organizing our annual journalism conference series.

Positions must be filled by McGill students, duly registered for the upcoming Winter 2019 semester and able to serve until June 30th, 2019, as well as one Graduate Representative and one Community Representative.

Outremont By-Election Montreal’s Wonky Weather Migration and the US Border Wall Queer Purges in Chechnya

8 CULTURE “What Does Justice Mean to You?” 9 COMMENTARY Steps Forward or to the West?

Critique of Imperial Reason

11 FEATURES Photos of Mérida, Mexico ISTHMUS 14 Brown-Eyed Men and Their Sons

16 COMPENDIUM!

To apply, please visit

Photo by Coralie Dupin

dailypublications.org/how-to-apply/

Questions?

Email chair@dailypublications.org for more info!

The McGill Daily and Le Délit have moved to a new location on campus!

Check out more stories online! www.mcgilldaily.com Follow us on social media: facebook.com/themcgilldaily & facebook.com/UnfitToPrint twitter.com/mcgilldaily instagram.com/mcgilldaily

Visit our new space: 680 Sherbrooke St. W Room 724 Photo credit: Jeangagnon [CC BY-SA 3.0], from Wikimedia Commons

EDITORIAL

Volume 108 Issue 14

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

3

editorial board

680 Ave. Sherbrooke, Rm. 724 Montreal, QC H3A 2L1 phone 514.398.6784 fax 514.398.8318 mcgilldaily.com

The McGill Daily is located on unceded Kanien’kehá:ka territory. coordinating editor

Lydia Bhattacharya

managing editor

Phoebe Pannier coordinating news editor

Claire Grenier news editor

Athina Khalid commentary + compendium! editors

Nellia Halimi Yasir Piracha culture editors

Nadia El-Sherif Yasna Khademian features editor

Eloïse Albaret science + technology editor

Nabeela Jivraj sports editor

Vacant

video editor

Vacant

photos editor

Vacant

radio editor

Sian Lathrop illustrations editor

Nelly Wat

copy editor

Julia Crowly

design + production editor

Frederique Blanchard social media editor

Justine Ronis-Le Moal

cover design

Nelly Wat

contributors Sherwin Sullivan Tjia, Libby Williamson, Claire Grenier, Sian Lathrop, Kelsey McKeon, Nelly Wat, Emily Black, Julia Crowly, Athina Khalid, Mila Ghorayeb, Yasir Piracha, Evren Sezgin, Phoebe Pannier, Kismet Bandeen le délit

Lara Benattar

rec@delitfrancais.com

Published by the Daily Publications Society, a student society of McGill University.

The views and opinions expressed in the Daily are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of McGill University.

The McGill Daily is not affiliated with McGill University.

Canada is Complicit in the Occupation of Palestine Content warning: mention of colonial violence

O

n January 15, during a town hall meeting at Brock University, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reaffirmed his condemnation of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The issue was brought up after an audience member asked the Prime Minister to retract his previous statements regarding BDS. In November 2018, during his apology to the Canadian Jewish people for Canada’s refusal to admit Jewish refugees in 1939, Trudeau cited “BDS intimidation” as an example of contemporary anti-Semitism on Canadian campuses. The BDS movement emerged as a call from Palestinians to engage in non-violent, sustainable resistance against the apartheid military state of Israel. Condemning BDS as well as supporting its ban on college campuses blatantly disregards both the Palestinian struggle for liberation and the safety of Palestinian students in Canadian universities.

While condemning BDS, Trudeau denounced the movement’s attempt to “delegitimize, and in some cases, demonize” Israel.

These statements mischaracterize BDS. The movement calls on states, organizations, and individuals to boycott, divest from, and place sanctions on the Israeli government, in order to not “be complicit in the commission of Israeli crimes.” These actions take the form of military embargoes, commercial and financial penalties, and the cutting of diplomatic ties. Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land and violently oppresses Palestinians. Canada’s refusal to take action against Israel’s blatant human rights violations is rooted in a pro-Zionist and geopolitical agenda. Hypocritically, Canada currently enforces economic sanctions against 20 different countries, including five in the Middle East. These sanctions include measures such as trade restrictions, freezing of foreign officials’ assets, and arms embargoes. Canada only targets states that are not politically allied with the West.

Furthermore, Trudeau’s mischaracterization of BDS as anti-Semitic equates the boycott of Israeli occupation with religious discrimination. Tying Jewish identity to the Zionist project of a settler-colonial state both masks the Israeli government’s violent actions and suppresses criticism against it. The conflation of Zionism and Judaism is also harmful to Jewish people who do not support the actions of the Israeli military-state. A member of Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) McGill told the Daily that, “as a Jew, I have a very specific stake in this matter because Netanyahu and the State of Israel are claiming to speak on my behalf. Knowing the full history and realities of Zionism, settler colonialism, and occupation, I must refute and resist this violence being enacted in my name.”

In September 2017, the SSMU Board of Directors suddenly ratified a petition claiming that BDS violates SSMU’s constitution. The approved petition is 13 pages of propaganda and inaccurate statements. It claims that if SSMU was mandated to support the BDS movement, it would mean adopting an antiIsrael platform, leading to Israeli students being disadvantaged.

It concludes that this “breaches the fundamental Constitutional values which permeate SSMU, as well as the Equity Policy.”

Claiming that Israeli students will be targeted if SSMU expresses opposition to the Israeli government’s actions and policies is flawed and misguided. The people of a country cannot, and should not, be conflated with the country’s government.

SSMU has in fact divested from companies who profited off of human rights violations in the Congo. Similarly, supporting BDS will condemn the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

The issue is perceived differently due to the aggressive antiBDS stance taken by the Canadian government and the McGill administration, both of which continue to capitalize politically and economically on this illegal occupation.

The BDS movement is one of the only student issues the McGill administration has decided to comment on. Principal Suzanne Fortier echoed Trudeau’s mischaracterizations, claiming that BDS “flies in the face of the tolerance and respect we cherish as values fundamental to a university.” These comments came directly after donors threatened to reconsider funding due to support for BDS on campus. The administration’s complicity in the occupation of Palestine continues to marginalize and delegitimize the lives of Palestinian students. Principal Fortier seems to be more concerned with pleasing donors than protecting students. What actually “flies in the face of tolerance and respect” is the government and administration continuing to support and profit off of a violent occupation that threatens the lives of Palestinians every day.

As McGill students, we have a responsibility to support BDS and must work towards bringing the movement back on campus. A member of McGill Students in Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) states that the best ways for the McGill administration to implement BDS demands are by “cutting off ties with [Israeli] universities which engage in military weapons research [and] divesting from corporations that are complicit in the continuous occupation of Palestinian land and life.” They also add that as students, “the best way we can fight [the occupation] is by [...] listening to Palestinians,[and] learning from them,” as well as attending SPHR and IJV events and workshops on campus. Supporting BDS also means engaging in the economic boycott on a personal level. The full list of companies which contribute to the occupation of Palestine can be found here: bdslist.org/full-list/.

Read us online!

2075 Robert Bourassa Bld., Rm. 500 Montreal, QC H3A 2L1 phone 514.398.6790 fax 514.398.8318 advertising & general manager

Boris Shedov

website Facebook Instagram twitter

www.mcgilldaily.com www.facebook.com/themcgilldaily @mcgilldaily @mcgilldaily

sales representative

Letty Matteo

ad layout & design

CONTACT US

Mathieu Ménard dps board of directors

Julian Bonello-Stauch, Nouedyn Baspin, Sébastien Oudin-Filipecki, Boris Shedov, Juliette De Lamberterie, Lara Benattar, Lydia Bhattacharya, Phoebe Pannier

All contents © 2018 Daily Publications Society. All rights reserved. The content of this newspaper is the responsibility of The McGill Daily and does not necessarily represent the views of McGill University. Products or companies advertised in this newspaper are not necessarily endorsed by Daily staff.

Printed by Imprimerie Transcontinental Transmag. Anjou, Quebec.

ISSN 1192-4608.

Coordinating NEWS COMMENTARY CULTURE FEATURES SCI+TECH SPORTS

coordinating@mcgilldaily.com news@mcgilldaily.com commentary@mcgilldaily.com culture@mcgilldaily.com features@mcgilldaily.com scitech@mcgilldaily.com sports@mcgilldaily.com

Managing PHOTOs ILLUSTRATIONS DESIGN + PRODUCTION COPY WEB + Social Media MULTIMEDIA

managing@mcgilldaily.com photos@mcgilldaily.com illustrations@mcgilldaily.com design@mcgilldaily.com copy@mcgilldaily.com web@mcgilldaily.com multimedia@mcgilldaily.com

4

News

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

McGill

McGill’s “Master Plan”

McGill Administration and CPDO Unveil New Campus Plan

Claire Grenier The McGill Daily

O

n January 17, representatives from the McGill Administration and Campus Planning and Development Office (CPDO) invited student press to learn about McGill’s new Master Plan. Interim Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Fabrice Labeau, Executive Director of the CPDO Cameron Charlebois, Director of Stakeholder Relations Dicki Chhoyang, and Interim Director of Communications James Martin answered questions about the upcoming changes to campus.

The “Master Plan” is a living document that sets the course for short, medium, and long term changes to campus. McGill’s master plan asserts common goals of campus living and addresses issues of transportation, landscaping, building, and space requirements. Charlebois explains that “a master plan can be many different things. You lay out what needs you think you’re going to have in the future for buildings, classrooms, research labs, student communal spaces, and outdoor spaces”.

The Master Plan also puts forward strategies to address McGill’s space issues. Some of McGill’s buildings are not ideal spaces for classrooms, and are often inaccessible. Charlebois explained that McGill is renting 36,000 square metres of property, mainly on Sherbrooke, to accommodate student and staff needs. He also mentioned how McGill does not receive government subsidies for rental space, citing the extreme cost as an integral reason why McGill needs creative spatial solutions.

“How do you dispose of the building assets that you’ve got?” he asked, “what do you do with these [buildings] that are old and need to be refurbished? Some should be gotten rid of [so] new development can take place.”

Charlebois also touched on the Royal Victoria Hospital project, explaining that McGill purchased part of the hospital with plans to use the structure for extra classroom space. Estimations say the first classrooms will be ready around 2028. On the topic of campus expansion, Charlebois maintained that “[McGill] won’t have more students and

Nelly Wat | The McGill Daily professors, we will just have more space so we can move people into those buildings and move people from these rental buildings to campus. It’s going to be a lot cheaper.”

Members of the CPDO were also asked about how concerns of accessibility will factor into their renovation plans. “Any new construction has to be fully accessible,” Charlebois stated. He also elaborated on the struggle of updating existing buildings on campus. Most buildings, he says, have “severely constrained” renovation options because of their heritage status with various governments. according to Charlebois, “existing buildings, which are difficult for accessibility, are going to be worked on one at a time.” He drew attention to the efforts to improve accessibility at the Athletics Complex and at Redpath library.

The CPDO is also making the cultivation and creation of communal space a priority, emphasizing that this is one of the main areas where McGill lacks infrastructure. “We’ve heard through other consultations that communal space is very important.

It’s very important for students who don’t live near campus but have classes all day long. Where do they go if there’s five [or] six hours in between classes? [...] We want to hear what the spaces are that people like, [such as] places to socialize or eating areas,” said Dicki Chhoyang.

Additionally, the CPDO is stressing their desire for, and the general importance of, student input on the Master Plan. Even though most of these projects will not be brought to fruition for almost a decade, the CPDO wants to hear from current McGill students. Chhoyang explained that “[the CPDO] realizes that when

We want to create a platform for students to let us know if they have a favorite space. What do they like about that space? If they have a least favorite space what is it, why, and how can we make it better?”

— Dicki Chhoyang, Director of Stakeholder Relations, CPDO

we ask students for their input and their thoughts on the spaces that they like or don’t like, many will have graduated by the time the project materializes [...] We are appealing to the students’ wish to contribute towards a legacy for future generations of students based on your experience. What do you want to say so that the space is better for the next generation of students?”

Chhoyang continued, “we want to create a platform for them to let us know if they have a favorite indoor/outdoor space for studying, learning, research, socializ[ing], and relax[ing]. What do they like about that space? If they have a least favorite space what is it, why, and how can we make it better?”

The CPDO has a short survey available online, and will be tabling across campus the week of January 28, with more information about the Master Plan.

news

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

5

Montreal

Outremont By-Election

NDP Candidate Julia Sànchez Launches Campaign Emily Black Reporter

T

hree federal by-elections are set for February 25, as called for by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier this year following several vacancies in parliament.

Tom Mulcair, former NDP leader and MP for the riding of Outremont, retired on August 3, 2018, leaving the riding without representation.

The riding was almost exclusively Liberal until Mulcair’s victory in 2007; Outremont has belonged to the NDP since.

On January 20, Julia Sànchez kicked off her campaign as the NDP candidate at her offices on Park and Bernard. Despite the snowstorm, the room was filled with supporters.

Before running as the NDP’s candidate in Outremont, Sànchez worked in international development for 25 years. She is also a McGill alumnus.

In her address to supporters, Sànchez discussed how she has been “fighting for human rights, the rights of Indigenous peoples, and of women,” and feels that this campaign is a “natural progression” of her work. Sànchez said that she sees “a lot of broken promises” from the Liberal government. Sànchez is sympathetic to what she sees as Canadian’s “disillusionment”

with the current Trudeau government, and is motivated to be a part of changing that: “we need to push the government to do more, and do better.”

In her speech, Sànchez affirmed her commitment to representing the riding, recognizing the people of Outremont’s “own fights, their own battles,” and committing to them herself.

Combating climate change is a key issue for Sànchez. She shares her constituents’ concerns that the “government is not doing enough to get on top of this huge issue.” She said that people are worried for the future, for a future for their children.”

Any gains for the Liberals in Quebec this fall will could offset losses accepted elsewhere in the country and could help sustain a majority for Trudeau.

Wanting to move away from discourse that the NDP are “negative” and “unhappy with the status quo,” Sanchez said that “we

are angry, [but] we are also acting.

We are taking action, finding solutions. We believe that there is a better future possible, we want to contribute to that, and we have hope. That’s what motivates me.”

MPs Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont–Petite-Patrie) and Hélène Laverdière (Laurier– Sainte-Marie) also spoke, affirming their support of Sanchez and discussing their optimism for the race ahead.

Other candidates running in Outremont are Rachel Bendayan for the Liberals, Jasmine Louras for the Conservatives, and Daniel Green of the Green Party. The People’s Party of Canada, the Bloc-Quebecois, and the Libertarian Party have also expressed intentions to run in the by-election, but no candidates have been named.

Coming so close to the federal election in October, this byelection race is crucial for both the Liberals and the New Democrats, as the parties struggle to gain ground and seats ahead of this fall. Any gains for the Liberals in Quebec this fall could offset losses accepted elsewhere in the country and could help sustain a majority for Trudeau.

Predictions like these, as well as rumors that a concentration of efforts into NDP leader’s riding Burnaby South will leave other ridings such as Outremont

Emily Black | Photographer underprepared and undefended, do not faze Sanchez. Addressing this dispute, Sanchez pushed back against the notion that this race will be a “shoo-in for the Liberals.” While admitting that

“it’s going to be difficult; we’re not taking anything for granted,” but stated that she’s “never shied away from challenges.” *more coverage on the Outremont by-election to come.

Montreal’s Wonky Weather

Causes and Consequences: Climate Change and Workers Julia Crowly The McGill Daily

M

ontreal’s recent dangerously volatile weather is part of a much larger trend of climate change, says atmospheric scientist and McGill lecturer Eyad Atallah.

Atallah says that January’s extreme weather swings are not a temporary occurrence, but are rather likely

to continue, as the probability of more frequent heavy precipitation as well as more frequent and long cold snaps increases. Citing climate change research, Atallah asserts that the coldest air in the planet, currently located over Siberia, is shifting, and may move towards Montreal. As these drastic changes occur, Montreal can expect a pattern of weather fluctuation.

January’s extreme weather swings are not a temporary occurrence, but are rather likely to continue.

Furthermore, due to the heavy precipitation, flooding in the spring may be more drastic.

Meanwhile, amidst a week of terrible road and transit conditions, Montreal snow removal workers have been working grueling hours and received a break over the weekend of January 26. Due to the “dangerous cocktail” of rain, snow, and ice, city workers have been working long hours to clear

roads and spread salt and abrasives.

Due to regulations on the working hours of drivers of heavy vehicles, snow removal work continued at a slower pace over the weekend as workers received staggered breaks.

This allowed workers to continue working long hours the next week to clear roads, and ensured that workers are “well-rested and vigilant” as they continue their important work.

6

News

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Beyond

Migration and the US Border Wall Interview with Sociology Professor Dr. Jennifer Elrick

Emily Black Reporter

O

n Friday, January 25, President Trump announced that the United States House of Representatives voted unanimously to end the government shutdown. Trump shut down the US government to pressure Democrats to agree to the border wall along the US-Mexican border.

The 35-day partial shutdown is the longest in history, and has resulted in close to 800,000 federal employees being without work or forced to work without pay, some seeking unemployment and food assistance or new employment altogether.

The wall, an integral part of Trump’s presidential campaign, is, according to him, an issue of “national security.” A new policy went into effect on January 25, which would force migrants claiming asylum in the US to be sent back to Mexico until their court date.

Debates around the border wall and immigration policy have intensified over the last few weeks. To gain some insight on this issue, Dr. Jennifer Elrick, Assistant Professor of Sociology, who specializes in immigration and political sociology, sat down with the Daily to discuss border walls, immigration, and the current condition of the United States.

The McGill Daily (MD): Can you speak to the functionality of border walls, and whether or not they are effective?

Jennifer Elrick (JE): I think immigration scholars would agree that walls don’t work as a means of keeping people out of a national territory. Their function is largely symbolic – they’re a gesture in politics to a certain constituency; that would be their main value.

There are currently parts of the US-Mexico border that do in fact have walls, and have for some time, so there has been some research done as to whether or not they work as deterrents. With these walls and other security measures, the answer is simply no, they are not effective. People find more creative, more dangerous ways of crossing the border anyway. The wall in this case is particularly ineffective as people can arrive by plane – the land route is not the main route of entry. Even where the land route is concerned, the wall will not stop people. I would also go so far as to say –

and research supports me on this – that there’s no way it’s intended to be effective. There’s a very disingenuous aspect to the politics of border walls, and that is that very large swathes of the US economy rely on the existence of a large pool of flexible, undocumented immigrant labour, because those are legally very vulnerable people.

They don’t need to be paid a living wage, because who are they going to complain to? They don’t have any rights as workers. So there’s a disingenuousness about calling for a wall, because the people in places of power who are, quite often, tied to interests in industry and economics. They don’t have a real interest in stopping these movements, and if they did have an interest, like I said, the wall wouldn’t be effective. So it’s more of a dog whistle than anything else.

Having someone in the household who is, as researchers call them, “under the threat of deportability,” creates a lot of strain, even psychological strain on an individual’s life.

— Dr. Jennifer Elrick, Assistant Professor of Sociology MD: What impact can enforced borders and strict immigration policies like this have on a community?

JE: There’s a lot of new research, actually, coming out on the idea of these policies impacting a community as a whole, not just the people who are targeted by them, but their friends and family members. Quite often people who are undocumented have relationships and ties with people who are citizens. Having someone in the household who is, as researchers call them, “under the threat of deportability,” creates a lot of strain, even psychological strain, on an individual’s life. In

the community as a whole, there’s psychological strain too - there’s a heightened sense of suspicion among these populations. As we saw early on into Trump’s presidency when there were crackdowns in the agricultural sector, there can also be a negative economic effect on communities.

Like I said, there are many sectors, particularly agricultural and service work, that are dependent on workers whose legal status is uncertain in the United States.

As the climate shifts towards an increased threat of deportation, that’s relevant not just for the people who are directly affected psychologically, but also the economic base of the community.

MD: Do you think this especially affects communities that are in close proximity to or right on the border?

JE: Absolutely. They feel the brunt of this. The land may be claimed by the US, but border lands are always mixed territory.

They’re complicated and have intricate community structures that have thrived in the absence of strict control regimes. I think those are the communities hit hardest. The symbolic politics played out on their grounds actually has the least possible benefits for them. They’re usually the case in point for arguing against a closed border.

MD: How do immigration “crises” in North America compare to those elsewhere in the world?

JE: I would push back against that and say, who says we have a crisis? That word “crisis” is very interesting. What we’re seeing play out in the immigration discourse in the US at the moment very much echoes the kind of discourse that’s been ongoing in Europe, especially Western Europe, for the past couple of decades. Starting in the 1990s with the collapse of communism, there was a very strong skepticism that rose in Western Europe regarding multiculturalism. There was talk among scholars about the ‘death of multiculturalism’ from this point, and even more so after 9/11. There’s a very strong antiimmigrant discourse that paints them as a threat to welfare, to security, to culture, and to communities. This is being mirrored currently in the US. MD: How do strong anti-

immigrant sentiments fit together with “cultural mosaic” mythologies that are also present in countries like the US?

that immigrants got no support, is simply not true. In Canada, for instance, there were many programs well into the 20th century for

Their function is largely symbolic – they’re a gesture in politics to a certain constituency; that would be their main value. There are currently parts of the US-Mexico border that do in fact have walls, and have for some time, so there has been some research done as to whether or not they work as deterrents. With these walls and other security measures, the answer is simply no, they are not effective.

— Dr. Jennifer Elrick, Assistant Professor of Sociology JE: It makes intuitive sense to me as a sociologist that a lot of the receptiveness to these discourses is based on two things. One is a very low level of knowledge in the public of the immigration system, how it actually works. What is legally possible in terms of admission and deportation processes, I think there’s a huge lack of knowledge there. So for skilled politicians, it’s very easy to manipulate that and to make broad claims. Combined with that, I think we don’t do a great job of historicizing current debates. I think that mythology can sit side by side with the anti-immigrant sentiments because a lot of people who empathize with that relate the ‘country of immigrants’ narrative as completely separate. So it’s then possible for those people to say that immigrants who are coming in today are not the same as the immigrants who built this country. You get the current immigrants characterized as “freeloaders” and getting lots of support, going against the narrative that founders of this country got very little in comparison and ‘pulled themselves up by their bootstraps’ to form what we have today. That argument only resonates if you dehistoricize those earlier waves.

Immigration control as we know it today didn’t exist back then, and this is true for both Canada and the United States. Near the end of the 19th century people just were arriving by the boatloads and were being taken in. And that argument,

assisted migration. Many people could come and have everything set up for them. There are people who make wild claims about what benefits immigrants are entitled to and levels of selectivity for those who are being let in. This is evident in campaigns from the recent Quebec election: the promises that people would be deported after a certain amount of time if they didn’t learn French. But deportation was never a provincial jurisdiction – Quebec cannot control that. So I think it’s anachronistic to imagine that current standards are relevant to those earlier waves of immigrants.

This is why these statements can co-exist, because we misunderstand legal and other frameworks that structured the earlier migrations that these myths are founded on, and we misunderstand the current situation. So the bottom line here is a lack of knowledge and an unwillingness to dig deep and understand what’s happening.

Immigration is an emotional issue, and it’s easy to see how people can get caught in knee-jerk reactions, but I think a lot of the damaging effects of these populist discourses could be muted if people took the claims being made and really read them through. We can’t stop politicians from playing those cards, but I think, as citizens and voters, we can do a lot to inform ourselves and make careful judgements.

This interview was edited for length and clarity.

news

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

7

Beyond

Queer Purges in Chechnya Kelsey McKeon News Writer

O

n January 14, the Russian LGBT Network released a statement confirming a new wave of persecution of queer people in the Russian republic of Chechnya.

As of January 15, there have been reports of at least 40 people detained, and two confirmed dead from injuries sustained through torture. The recent resurgence of what some have called a “queer purge” is part of an ongoing crackdown on LGBTQ+ people that was initially reported in January 2017.

Much like in 2017, these purges are being carried out by state agents.

Ramzan Kadyrov, Head of the Chechen Republic, has denied his involvement in the purges, as well as the existence of queer people in Chechnya entirely. In December 2017 he was listed under the US Magnitsky Act for supporting extrajudicial killings, which has allowed the US to impose sanctions.

Until now, the persecutions have targeted mostly gay and bisexual men. It appears that this most recent crackdown has expanded to target women as

They’re finding LGBTQ people on social media, they’re confiscating their cellphones and looking for people’s names.

— Andrea Houston, Rainbow Railroad

well. In addition, recent reports have described authorities destroying victims’ passports and pieces of identification in an effort to prevent them from leaving the country.

Andrea Houston, Communications and Development Officer for Rainbow Railroad, a Toronto based organization that works directly with the Russian LGBT network in Chechnya, told the Daily, “with this new wave of arrests, it’s not just the people themselves; it’s their entire

families, their networks. They’re finding LGBTQ+ people on social media, they’re confiscating their cellphones and looking for people’s names. They’re torturing people until they give up names of other community members. To top it off, many of them are being taken to their families where they are being told to kill them.”

Andrea Houston suggests that the purges are part of “ an ongoing terror campaign and that seems to be the motivation: to instill terror and evoke fear in the LGBTQ+ population.”

8

CULTURE

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

“What Does Justice Mean to You?” Unpacking Institutional Colonial Practices at McGill

Libby Williamson Culture Writer

Blackstock’s earlier comments about McGill’s lack of diversity, he referred to the university’s tendency to “lock knowledge up in silos called diversity,” tokenizing what it sees as “alternative” knowledge and its holders. Placing tokenism over real radical change serves the university’s image and simultaneously harms the people such institutions claim to support.

This harkened back to Thain and Blackstock’s references to unstable employment, and Jirousek’s firsthand experiences of discrimination.

“

What does justice mean to you?” Kama La Mackerel asked the audience.

This was one of many questions posed by at Decolonize McGill: Unpacking Institutional Colonial Practices. Organized and moderated by student Benjamin Delaveau, the panel was made up of various activists, academics, and artists, many of whom crucially blurred the lines between these categories.

The five speakers were Tomas Jirousek, a varsity athlete and the leader of the vital and revolutionary #changethename campaign, Alanna Thain, Director of the Institute for Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies at McGill, Philip S. Howard, prolific scholar and Assistant Professor at the Department of Integrated Studies in Education, Cindy Blackstock, professor at the School of Social Work, public speaker, and author, and Kama La Mackerel, performer, activist, and founder of Gender Blender, a curated QTBIPOC space in Montreal.

Unstable employment is not only harmful to the people employed, but is also a clear indication that the institution places “diversity points” over fostering spaces for marginalized peoples.

Tomas Jirousek started the panelists off, speaking of the importance of his mutual identities as an Indigenous student and varsity athlete competing under the R*dmen name. His communicated the hurt inflicted by the R*dmen name, and the necessity of changing it after decades of insidious and overt racism. His description of wealthy donors to McGill “holding us hostage” over an outdated name contrasted with his being called “overly sensitive” for advocating to change the name, saying that it was those who are so committed to upholding a racist legacy that they would throw a monetised tantrum about it that are “too emotional” about this matter. The result of the #changethename campaign could be pivotal, and Jirousek hopes for a

Nelly Wat | The McGill Daily future where “powerful Indigenous students take lessons from this.”

Later, in the Q&A session, Jirousek stated a preference for the phrase “Indigenous resurgence” over “reconciliation,” as “resurgence” signifies taking back power to him.

His vocal activism is indicative of a substantial force preparing for this resurgence, a movement each of the speakers also approached with equal zeal.

The next speaker, Alanna Thain, discussed the conflict between the scholarly study of radical movements and real-world activism. “Is academia where radical movements go to die?

Does academic work diminish the chance for radical change?” she mused, and this question recurred in different forms throughout the evening. She placed emphasis on the link between conservatism and corporatisation, saying that at the time of the Institute for Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies’ founding, the departments were told to remember that they are “academics, not activists.” She also mentioned the need for a physical process of decolonization and not just a metaphorical one, explaining that staff members are often hired on a temporary basis to teach courses such as those about Indigenous feminisms. She noted that this kind of precarious and unstable employment is not only harmful to the people employed, but is also a clear indication that the institution places “diversity points” over fostering spaces, including courses, for marginalized peoples. Thain believes that we need a repatriation of resources; she explained how panels, like Decolonize McGill, were used by the university to show that it is indeed progressive and inclusive, but that this is not reflected on any

meaningful level. Thain included in this discussion the university’s low rates of employment of people from marginalized groups, as well as the unavailability of intersectional content within the majority of its offered classes. Instead of hiring people from marginalized groups permanently and engaging in real change within the university, McGill uses the labour of activists and scholars as a token of progression to show to the outside world.

Blackstock pointed to institutions like McGill that continually place monetary interests over any possibility of change, citing McGill’s unwillingness to change the R*dmen name in part due to outcry from its donors.

Cindy Blackstock’s contribution to the evening was crucial. She problematized the lack of diversity in the student body and the ingrained preference for Western forms of knowledge in academia. She also discussed the vital link between capitalism and colonialism, and

how the two systems are inherently rooted within one another.

Blackstock pointed to institutions like McGill that continually place monetary interests over any possibility of change, citing McGill’s unwillingness to change the R*dmen name in part due to outcry from its donors. She asked, “how courageous are we? What are we prepared to sacrifice?” She said that if McGill is unwilling to “piss people off” – donors, graduates, and racists – how can we hope to progress? Blackstock called out McGill’s refusal to “actively advocate anti-apartheid education,” and their tendency to ‘funnel’ Indigenous professors into teaching specific courses, perpetuating an image of Indigenous issues as niche.

She addressed Jirousek directly, telling him, “I don’t want you to hold back,” saying his efforts and campaign are integral to McGill’s process of decolonization.

Philip S. Howard gave credence to his co-panellists, and gave a “tour back around” on some of their topics from his own perspective. Howard explained that Blackness was defined against what it meant to be human, and noted the university’s pervasive efforts to keep Blackness, including Black knowledge and experiences, outside of its walls. As such, anti-Blackness is deeply rooted within the university as a colonial institution. He, like his co-panelists, attempted to disentangle the creation of the university as a colonial institution from its present image, saying that we must work within the system in order to change it. He believes that changing the R*dmen name would go against McGill’s “raison d’etre,” citing the institution’s efforts to exclude Indigenous peoples in an active and continuous way. Referencing

Placing tokenism over real radical change serves the university’s image and simultaneously harms the people such institutions claim to support.

The final speaker, Kama La Mackerel, reflected the audience’s awe at the other speakers. “Why am I closing this panel right now?!” they exclaimed, but it soon became abundantly clear that their contributions were just as vital to the panel as those of the other speakers.

With vision, passion and humour, they offered a non-academic perspective – instead one of a performer and activist.

They started by acknowledging the “invisibilized labour” that allowed the panel to take place – the “behind-the-scenes” work of those exploited by capitalism, again citing its complicity in ongoing colonial structures. They provided a visceral description of colonialism “oozing out” of the university, emphasizing, like Howard, the pervasive nature of “unpacking” the system from within it. La Mackerel cited the immense power imbalance between activists and the administration as one of the reasons that they engage more with “smaller-scale” activism, such the spaces they’ve curated in Montreal for queer and trans BIPOC. They see this as a necessary step in the process of decolonizing institutions such as McGill. They then outlined the two tasks that they saw as standing before us: “creating spaces” that prioritize the safety of the individuals, and “shaking the foundations” of the colonial institution. La Mackerel stated that they prefer the term “reimagination” to “reconciliation,” as it evokes a sense of “learning from the past” and heading in a different direction. They maintained a strong optimism, emphasising that “you have the power to transform yourself... and those around you.”

commentary

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

9

Steps Forward or to the West?

On the LGBTQ Rights Movement in the Indian Subcontinent

Yasir Piracha The McGill Daily

O

n December 29, the first Pakistani trans march took place in the streets of Lahore. Hundreds of people came out to celebrate and witness the historic moment. The march concluded a particularly eventful year for queer rights in the Indian subcontinent, with Pakistan passing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act in May, and India decriminalizing gay sex in September. As a response, several mainstream Western news outlets published articles celebrating South Asia finally “catching up” to Western standards of freedom for sexual minorities.

These mainstream Western conversations often establish their authority by relying on a white saviour mentality which positions the East as “outdated and oppressive,” and in need of “saving” by the “progressive” West. This perspective infantilizes the East and ignores the colonial histories of these queerphobic laws. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalized consensual sex between same-sex individuals for 158 years, before it was struck down by the Supreme Court. The law originated during the time of the British Raj, a period of ongoing colonization by Britain. Section 377 cannot be separated from the orientalism* which created it. At the time, Britain imagined the Indian subcontinent as “stuck in the past,” in contrast to Western “modernity,” and viewed the indigenous community of the subcontinent as “exotic” and “uncivilized.” The “catching up” rhetoric attempts to discount the direct responsibility of the West in the production of queerphobic aspects of South Asian culture. Several accounts of precolonial India depict acceptance, and even reverence, for sexual and gender minority people, such as hijras (gender non-conforming individuals).

Jain religious texts from the fifth century CE distinguish between sexual characteristics and psychological gender and accept a “third sex” as an identity. Many Islamic poems considered hijras as “closer to Allah,” and during the Mughal Period, hijras were often political advisors, generals, and guardians of the holy places of Mecca and Medina.

Same-sex relationships also appear often in ancient Indian literature, and adorn Hindu temples. It is necessary to acknowledge that

the West directly caused a vast majority of oppression that sexual minorities face in the Indian subcontinent today.

Often, the LGBTQ rights movement in the Indian subcontinent is assimilated with decolonial practices. However, while the movement does fight against colonial laws, it can also be criticized for upholding the very colonial hierarchies it opposes.

By using models of gender and sexuality that originated in the West, and are non-native to the Indian subcontinent, the LGBTQ rights movement does not truly engage in decolonization. Terms such as gay, lesbian, transgender, etc., along with the LGBTQ acronym itself, did not exist pre-colonization. The tools employed by the movement, such as the rainbow flag and the invocation of non-native identity categories, are reinforcing the use of Western ideologies and models, which implicitly perpetuates the hegemony of Western hierarchies.

It is necessary to acknowledge that the West directly caused a vast majority of oppression that sexual minorities face in the Indian subcontinent today.

Audre Lorde’s seminal work “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House” suggests that the patriarchy cannot be destroyed using agents of its oppression. She argues that when oppressive systems are used to critique or dismantle oppression, no substantial change can ever occur. It follows that the colonizer’s tools cannot be used in the process of decolonization.

Similarly, Foucault argues that the very idea of a “true sexuality,” such as that of the homosexual, was produced in the West during the Victorian era. Thus, the freedom to express “true sexuality” that the LGBTQ rights movement in the Indian subcontinent advocates for, is often rooted in the colonial and nonnative “LGBTQ” discourse. This is apparent through transformations that have occurred in gender discourse, such as the definition of hijras, who once might have not

Nelly Wat | The McGill Daily been defined in the discourse of the West, and who are now narrowly referred to as “trans women.”

Using colonial models of gender and sexuality to fight against colonialism will never be effective, as it simply reinforces the colonial power dynamics which frame the West as progressive and modern.

Mainstream conversations around sexual minority rights in the Indian subcontinent often fail to criticize or reevaluate the benchmark used for “queer acceptance.” After the decriminalization of gay sex in India, articles published by Western news sources celebrated the major victory for the LGBTQ rights movement. Many articles were also quick to point out that “other major victories, like samesex marriage, [are] on the near horizon.” This legal recognition of same-sex relationships is depicted as the ultimate goal of LGBTQ rights movements, implying that getting heteronormative approval should be the paramount concern of LGBTQ rights. Public sex or “cruising” is still outlawed, while many other acts continue to be

socially, if not legally, stigmatized.

The mainstream Western idea of LGBTQ rights does nothing more than reinforce a flawed idea of what queer rights movements should advocate for based on heteronormative standards.

Furthermore, considering the decriminalization of gay sex as part the decolonial process can lead to harmful assumptions. When examining the East, Western writers often essentialize the culture of pre-colonial India and fail to recognize that the subcontinent is not ubiquitous in their identities and struggles. The idea that the pre-colonial subcontinent was somehow utopic in its treatment of sexual minorities, and was then “ruined” through colonization paints a picture of a homogenous mass lacking nuances. Theorizing about gender and sexuality also requires the recognition of indigenous queerphobia in the pre-colonial era – although hijras were more widely accepted, they were still fetishized, and their treatment and freedoms were still limited compared to those

The idea that the pre-colonial subcontinent was somehow utopic in its treatment of sexual minorities, and was then “ruined” through colonization paints a picture of a homogenous mass lacking nuances.

afforded to cisgender people. The decolonial discourse around precolonial gender and sexualities often romanticize them as “fluid” and “exotic,” in contrast to Western models, without acknowledging that this view is also rooted in orientalism. This ignores the complex social and political structures that affect gender and sexuality, both preand post-colonization.

All mainstream views on LGBTQ rights in the Indian subcontinent must reconcile with their power structures. Although advocating for queer rights is an important step in decolonization, it is important to avoid romanticization and talk about the political climate of the East with the same degrees of complexity that we offer the West. While it is important to reveal the colonial and orientalist power structures that led to prevalent queerphobia in the subcontinent, we must ensure we do not homogenize and idealize precolonial communities, as this also perpetuates orientalism. While the increased visibility of the LGBTQ community and the massive strides made in the past year should not be understated, it’s important to remain cognizant of the work that remains to be done. Remaining critical of both the movement itself and the responses to the movement is essential to resist reproducing power structures. *Check out The McGill Daily anti-oppressive glossary online at mcgilldaily.com/glossary/

10

commentary

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Critique of Imperial Reason Colonial Thought and the Case of North Sentinel

Mila Ghorayeb Commentary Writer

L

ast November, news broke out about the death of an American missionary, John Chau, who had gone on a mission to convert the North Sentinelese to Christianity. The North Sentinelese are an uncontacted people who have protected status from the Indian government. They are “hostile” to outsiders, likely due to other attempts at “contacting” them – such as British attempts at colonizing the Andaman Islands, which resulted in the kidnapping of Native people and multiple deaths due to the spread of diseases. As such, travelling to their islands is illegal, and attempts from the North Sentinelese to keep out foreigners by any means are permitted by the Indian government.

Naturally, the news of Chau’s death sparked a great deal of commentary – some of which posed a question that may be all too familiar to colonized people: ‘shouldn’t we show them the goods of Western society? Isn’t it a crime not to?’ or “shouldn’t we civilize the Sentinelese?’”

While these comments certainly received their fair share of pushback, I found that the discourses produced by Chau’s death have given us the opportunity to understand colonial mentalities. Colonialism has a long intellectual history. While much of it, in practice, was exercised through pure coercion and material power, plenty of rationalizations and normative justifications for colonialism took place and evolved in different stages. As we see, the intellectual history of colonialism still haunts our political thought today.

In Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, Antony Anghie effectively divides colonial thought into stages of intellectual rationalizations that have evolved in each era of colonialism. Colonial thought, Anghie argues, relies on something called “the dynamic of difference,” which postulates that there are two cultures: one that is universal and civilized, and the other that is rogue, hostile, and uncivilized.

Advocates of colonialism thus try to “bridge” this gap by assimilating the latter into the former. As a result, the “civilized” are owed sovereignty

rights, while the “uncivilized” are malleable. The form that this takes has been altered over time, but its basis in colonial thought has remained rather stable.

The first rationalization of colonialism was an appeal to natural law. “Natural law” gained popularity in Western political thought through philosophers such as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Its rationale is that there are universally binding principles about how we ought to act that are discoverable to anyone that possesses the use of reason. During the colonization of the Americas, European values were projected as the universal, natural law. It was thus Western “benevolent” thinkers that “posited” that Indigenous peoples were capable of reason (how nice of them!).

However, since Indigenous peoples did not use their reason to adhere to natural law (e.g., by resisting European impositions of property and trade), subjugation of Indigenous peoples was justified under the guise of enforcing natural law.

The second rationalization of colonialism was legal positivism, which claimed that law – international law in this case – was for civilized peoples.

Hence, in order to have the privileges of sovereignty, states needed to have what European powers deemed “civilized social institutions.” Because practices of non-European states were considered “uncivilized,” they weren’t afforded the same rights to sovereignty as European states were. Therefore, European powers were justified in interfering with the governance of what they deemed “uncivilized” states.

The third rationalization was pragmatism, which divided the colonizer and the colonized into the “developed” and “undeveloped” world. Pragmatism was exemplified in institutions like the Mandate System in the Middle East, which sought to promote ‘good governance’ and economic prosperity. This was also for the sake of Western economic prosperity. For instance, in the Mandate era, the United States requested an “open door policy” to Middle Eastern oil deposits.

It is clear, for instance, that Sentinelese sovereignty — and the explicit wish to be left alone after a history of abuse – was not respected by Chau, and isn’t respected by bloggers and experts alike.

Nelly Wat | The McGill Daily In modern times, we see imperialism and violations of sovereignty in the Global South manifest through the idea of “good governance.” This can be seen with the notion of “spreading democracy” in Iraq or Libya. These interventions are often expressed in the language of human rights to make them more palatable. Nonetheless, they operate on the mentality that uncooperative, non-Western states should not be afforded the same kind of sovereignty as Western states and their allies. We know that there is no real concern about good governance; otherwise, Western allies that commit human rights violations — such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia — would not have their sovereignty respected, either.

The case of North Sentinel shows us that these three rationalizations have not made a clean break from each other, but are instead a chimeric spectre haunting today’s popular discourse.

While Chau’s venture mimics the “natural law” rationalization, reactions to North Sentinel and Chau’s death have shown us a noteworthy blend of colonialism’s three dominant rationalizations.

It is clear, for instance, that Sentinelese sovereignty — and the explicit wish to be left alone after a history of abuse – was not respected

by Chau, and isn’t respected by bloggers and experts alike. While the Sentinelese case is unique, the responses to it are not. The urge to try and expose the Sentinelese to our ways of living despite very clear signals of rejection and the laws of the Indian government continues the

pattern of disregard for sovereignty in non-Western states.

The newer language of “good governance” is implicit in the above arguments. Because the North Sentinelese do not partake in our globalized economy, they are of no use to the global political body with respect to resources and trade. Thus, integration into the global economy would give other states access to North Sentinelese resources.

“Development” language often implies that economies must “modernize” like western ones. In order to avoid unwelcome invaders and condescending calls to be civilized, “developing” nations are urged to follow the same historical trajectory as developed ones. The “development” rationale continues today with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which intervene in developing states to create compliance with Western financial interests.

Frameworks like that of Anghie’s help us understand and see our history in action, as colonial rhetoric is repeated and perpetuated further. The arguments that we see resurfacing are not new, but rather, (often poorly) evolved and borrowed from a dark and shameful past.

John Chau’s writings did not indicate that he had conscious illwill toward the Sentinelese, but it did contain elements of infantilization that are all too familiar. He referred to the island as “Satan’s last stronghold” that could be saved by benevolent Christians like himself.

If the belief is that Christianity is a self-evident truth, then the North

Sentinelese would, hypothetically, be left to contemplate it on their own, as natural laws are supposedly discoverable to anyone that can use reason.

But it does not seem that the North Sentinelese are being treated as rational agents at all, despite the fact that they are behaving as such.

This is likely because rationality is being conceived of as “openness” to modernization and conversion to Western ways of life. But given the colonial violence the North Sentinelese have experienced, resistance to foreign contact and interventions seems like rational self-preservation. That is, they are acting on the knowledge and experiences that they have to keep themselves safe from colonialism, violence, and exposure to disease.

The problem is that treating the North Sentinelese as rational agents puts colonial apologists in another bind: namely, that they should then be permitted to set the terms of their own practices within their legally protected parameters. This means that their “development” is up to them, and not those that wish to “civilize” them or show them the light.

To quote C.L.R. James, a scholar of the Haitian Revolution: “Bonaparte was not going to be convinced by Toussaint’s justice and fairness and capacity to govern. Where imperialists do not find disorder they create it deliberately.” The rationales presented by Anghie have transformed and evolved precisely because they need to keep up with those that continually point out their inner contradictions.

features

Photos of

MÉrida, Mexico

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

11

12

January 21, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Athina Khalid The McGill Daily Photographer

features

features

January 21, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

13

14

ISTHMUS

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Brown-Eyed Men Evren Sezgin The McGill Daily

O

ver lunch, in a canteen in the Cihangir neighbourhood of European Istanbul, Baba and I argued. We regularly argued. It seemed natural to argue with Baba; our relationship had floated down large oceans of unfinished arguments, and when we spoke, the tide seemed to pull us towards those unfinished waters. Here, we argued about my decision not to pursue law school, despite my pursuing a political science undergraduate degree. The restaurant’s television was on. It showed pictures of flash floods in the eastern part of the state. Even there, a Turkish flag flew brightly over the brown water, dark red in the pouring rain. When we ordered at the back of store, Baba had forgotten the word for the dish he wanted, years of living in Los Angeles taking a toll on his mother tongue. “I don’t even consider myself Turkish anymore,” he had once told me many years ago. But he disputes this claim when I tell others about it.

This is another ocean we are unable to swim in together.

The past is not linear for either of us, our history neither the friend nor truth that either of us are able to hold the other accountable to.

Summer nights were slow in Istanbul, like a boy walking to school. Guided by a blue river and cement roads, darkness seemed to tread its feet until it reached the city, its citizens not noticing the sun vanishing above them, the stars beckoning them to continue to dance and sing as their ancestors had taught them.

I sat with Baba in the blue lights of an Istanbul bar.

The August air stuck to my skin. The moon seemed to radiate a heat, familiar to one I felt in hala’s – aunt’s – living room, sitting on her couches overlooking a busy but organized Baghdad street. Her apartment sat across from the Bosphorus Strait and far from the BeyğOlu neighbourhood we stood in.

Love was not something I welcomed. Neither was loneliness. Worried I would be unable to properly communicate on my own, Baba accompanied me to a bar I found on Yelp. I wanted to do something a Turkish person my age would do. I did not have friends here, nor did I know anyone younger than 35 years old. The summers spent in this country seemed layered with a repeating trajectory: a journey to a desolate place with my sister and Baba, culminating at ancient monuments, and flying past possible friendships, and the opportunity to learn Turkish. Baba, on his iPhone playing a word puzzle generator next to me at the bar, not out of desire, but necessity, reminded me I was not a Turkish 20-year-old. I tried to pretend I was on vacation, to let go and meet new

people, but the streets of Istanbul reminded me that I had mourned the hope of belonging to Turkey.

In the bar, two women in tight red dresses danced together under the air conditioning unit. Men in floral button ups and white chinos passed on my right. One was telling an elaborate joke, the other two laughing. A woman in a white blouse looked in our direction. Her eyeshadow was dark. I wondered if she was looking at Baba.

We faced the stacked liquor cabinet, watching tall silhouettes, mostly men, place their orders. A man in a black shirt approached us when we sat, presenting himself as the waiter. He spoke in English.

I wondered what gave me away; I was reminded that this part of Istanbul was not mine either. I looked to Baba who ordered in Turkish. When the man turned to me, I blushed. I did not know what to order. I wanted to be part of this space, but even ordering from the menu made me feel foreign.

“What’s can you recommendation?” I said, in English, incorrectly. I wondered how stupid I looked, a western Turkish boy not knowing how to properly speak English, not knowing at all how to speak Turkish.

“The Russian muse is very good,” he said.

“Can I get a vodka coke, actually?” I said. I wanted to impress the waiter. If I knew what I wanted to order, maybe he would believe I belonged in this bar.

“I don’t have it because I don’t have soda,” the waiter said, “I can do something like this.” He pointed to the menu open to my left. “Barbounay. I really like it,” he winked at me, a trick Turkish merchants use to charm clients. I wondered if he was flirting with me. I had never had a Turkish man love me. I had never kissed a browneyed boy. I wondered if he could be mine.

“Okay,” I said. My face was red like the Turkish flags I had seen driving into the city. Baba was on his phone; he seemed to have lost interest in the conversation. I wondered if he was embarrassed of his son. The air seemed heavy. I was disappointed in myself.

A cat licked itself on a couch at the corner of the bar.

Popcorn was brought to the table. Green lights lined the bar’s surface. A man with a short haircut swayed his arms to the music, wrapping himself around his friend who laughed, clapping her hands. The bar was open, crowded with smokers. Many were young, sporting the same Adidas shoes I had on. One man had tattoos across both his shins.

Men were grouped together. They wore shorts, attire I had been told was not club appropriate in North America.

They wore bags, backpacks. They wore white tank tops, and long-sleeved shirts. The rules I knew were broken here. I wondered whether, if I stepped away from Baba and stood alone in this space, I would feel comfortable in this city whose citizens looked like me.

Sherwin Sullivan Tjia | The McGill Daily

Sitting across from Baba, I remembered the night I came out to my parents. Baba had stood in the corner of his master bedroom and cried.

“Those were not tears of shame,” my mother explained, many years later. “He just did not know how to protect you.”

“What the fuck are you doing?” Baba said. He was smiling, “What ya thinking about, Booboo?”

Sherwin Sullivan Tjia | The McGill Daily “I don’t know.” I said, returning his smile.

We rarely spoke. Three years ago, I moved to Montreal to study at McGill University. I found it difficult to speak to him on the phone. The honeymoon period that consisted of asking how our individual days were going was short, and accompanied by questions neither of us wanted to answer, and memories neither of us wanted to revisit.

“Why don’t you go talk to someone?” he said, moving his head towards the different crowds of people outside.

My mind drifted to the bar’s floor, imagining two blue shadows towering over the other dancers who waded into the ebb and flow of the music. Speaking to someone loudly into their ear over the crowd, our bodies close. But I remembered how hard it was to stand with confidence.

The feeling of being able to see what you need but being required to sit with what you have.

“No. It would be too weird,” I said to him., “besides, I have you here.”

“Oh, I can leave, sweetie,” he said, “if you want, I can go.”

“I’m just here to spend time with you,” I said.

“Okay Booboo,” he responded. He returned to his phone, scrolling through unopened apps. “Do you want to get out of here? Maybe get something to eat?” He had taken a picture earlier of the cat in the bar and held his phone close to his face to look at it.

Baba had always joked that he had grown up on the streets of Turkey.

“I had a rougher childhood than you, Pasadena Boy,” he would remind me whenever we got into an argument over race or ethnicity. “I grew up on the streets of Ankara.

You are so spoiled, one day you will understand when you have children of your own.”

ISTHMUS

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

15

and Their Sons Like two positive magnets, we repelled each other, unable to find a common ground when it came to discussing Near Eastern and queer culture in North America. We spent nights over a wood dining room table with my mother, his now ex-wife, arguing over the ongoing Palestine and Israel BDS movement.

In the two-seater black Porsche car he bought in his attempt at a midlife crisis when I was in fifth grade, on the 5 South Freeway, we

Sherwin Sullivan Tjia | The McGill Daily listened to a local radio show calling in an Iranian woman activist to discuss women’s rights in the country. I called the interview a fetishization of Near Eastern identity and closed my eyes when the woman being interviewed referred to her father calling her breasts “orbs of sin.” I said that it played into the demonization of the region.

Baba called the interview an accurate representation of the daily life for women who live in the Middle East.

“It’s really like that, it’s a very hard life, sweetie,” he said. In the commercial breaks of Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy, now part of his newly established bachelor life, we argued over the extent to which Turkish culture and heritage were destroyed by Atatürk’s modernization of the state in 1923.

white marble stones that mirrored the Islamic Art I had seen in the Getty Museum in Los Angeles. I walked past a chestnut stand. A man in a blue shirt and large stomach ran tongs over the open flame, roasting chestnuts whose skins were black.

The smoke drifted near my face. We wove through crowds, flowing past bars that rang Turkish folklore music loudly, like church bells calling in a crowd for morning mass. Women and men danced around the live music or speakers, snapping their fingers, pulling their arms through the wind.

The next bar was quiet. We sat across from each other and talked about how rapidly Istanbul was changing.

“I didn’t even recognize the boat terminal in Karaköy,” I said.

“Yeah, Booboo,” he said, “that’s what happens when you don’t visit for a long time.”

When I didn’t respond, he said, “things change.”

The bar looked over the rooftops of smaller Ottomanstyle buildings. I saw a heron on the rooftop of the table parallel to the one we sat at. I remembered, looking over the Marmara Sea that Baba called a small bay, that only seagulls stood on Istanbul’s apartment buildings.

Outside, the usual open terraces ran across Istiklal Cadesi, sprouted in rows that reminded me of the olive trees I had seen, driving from Atatürk airport when we arrived. A food vendor was open, watermelons and figs sprouting from the baskets that lay in front of his store.

We stepped out of the second bar after quickly finishing a small drink.

In a 24 hour manti shop, Baba ordered raki, Turkish liquor. Babanne, Baba’s mother, had taught my sister how to make manti many years ago. I tried to learn on my own later but felt awkward. Memories like these were hard for men like me, who preferred the knowledge that only women were privy to, in a culture and identity I was not at home with.

The manti arrived in deep bleached dishes; Baba ordered his with garlic, and shook paprika over his yoghurt dish.

Sherwin Sullivan Tjia | The McGill Daily “Only old people order manti with garlic,” Baba said.

The night ferry crossed the Istanbul waters, drawing long breaths into the city’s atmosphere. The Istanbul sky seemed blue, the dark of the night swimming in the skyline’s yellow-lit skin. The pointed rooftops of the mosques pierced the star-studded skies.

The waitress asked me if I wanted more Coke Zero. I shook my head no, worried about my pronunciation of the one word, “hayir”– no. Baba did not look up when I said nothing to the waitress. He drank his water, the ice in his glass shaking lightly.

The seagulls were loud above us. Smoke drifted to our table from a woman in an orange summer dress, a red handbag hanging from the top of her chair. Her hair was black, darker than the cover of the notebook she wrote in. She seemed to watch us, writing in her journal the subtle nuances of two men learning to tread water together. I wondered if she too wanted to belong to Istanbul as badly as I did.

Baba never understood my anger towards America, and I could not understand his compliance with it. I spent my days in university learning about orientalism, driving down roads of colonialism and racism, reaching for an ancestor whose face I wore but whose history I was not taught. Baba had come here 20 years ago, thankful for the pizza delivery job he was able to get with his civil engineering degree from Middle East Technical University.

“You’ve never lived there,” Baba would say, “Why do you even get worked up about these things? Just be grateful for what you have.”

I understood that no brown-eyed man could understand his brown-eyed boy’s tears.

After leaving the bar, we crossed the street, Istiklal Cadesi, and went down the alley that stood behind what Baba pointed out to be his niece, Ipek’s, alma mater, Galatasary Lisesi. We went into Sahara Bar, its door ordained with turquoise and

Sherwin Sullivan Tjia | The McGill Daily

16

compendium!

January 28, 2019 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Lies, half-truths, and disappointing my father.

Crossword

Across 2. Unicellular organisms that can sometimes cause disease 5. Dutch artist of Girl with a Pearl Earring 9. Said thrice when bored 11. Like Michelangelo or Donatello 17. Noncommittal response 18. Sad coffee 19. Smallest state in the US, acronym 20. Not dead 22. Last name of Provost and VP Academic 23. Like Raphael or Leonardo, acronym 26. Journalists, collectively. Or, to squish.

27. Last name of Black Skin, White Masks author 28. A short-winged songbird 31. Sensational writing, or, the bits in orange juice 33. Country home to Jakarta 36. Calf-length

Phoebe Pannier The McGill Daily

38. Artistic movement to which Duchamp belonged 39. Carries blood to the heart 42. Like Tacocat or Emily’s Sassy Lime 43. Female equivalent of lad 45. Controversial singer married to Iman 46. Not out 48. Royal name for a dog 49. Like some international students (and some Quebecois students!), acronym 51. Where, in French 52. Union for McGill employees 53. National language of Pakistan 55. Like Shrek or Fiona 56. Not records or cassettes 57. Prolonged pain 58. Richard who was the last English king killed in battle

Down

59. ____ green ideas sleep furiously 62. “Be quiet” 63. A bird’s claw 66. Greek titan who ate all his sons 68. Phallic French pastry 70. Not Marvel 71. Folk music violin 73. Way to send paperwork 75. Poke 77. Large dark antelopes 78. Mouse, in Spanish 80. Plucked instruments from India 84. Philosopher important to German idealism 86. A written grant by a legislative power 87. Units of heredity 88. Contradict

1. Beg, __, steal 2. American __, a popular music show on from 1952 to 1989 3. Mexican-American “__ movement” of the 1960s 4. Catalogued 5. By way of 6. Another name for thumb pianos 7. Consume 8. Condensed water, or, online storage space 10. Noise of understanding 12. Two individual letters of the diphthong in 76-down 13. Johannesburg’s country, acronym 14. Foggy city in California , acronym 15. Like lust or gluttony 16. Highest order of angels in Christianity, plural 21. Short album 22. Don’t shoot the (Facebook app) 24. State on the Canadian border with a Nordic football team, acronym 25. Inverse of don’t 28. Male widow 29. Copy of DNA, with uracil 30. Opposite of “yes” 32. Alternative to Le James 34. A drug which reverses the effects of opioid overdose 35. After March, Lavigne 36. Historical region now encompassed by parts of Moldova and Romania 37. An artificial satellite housing astronauts from five space agencies, acronym 40. A billion years 41. A series of connections, or, a central idea 42. Lima is its capital 44. The country whose Crown Prince had Khashoggi assassinated 47. To revoke 50. Like the Mediterranean or Baltic 51. Keats wrote one “on a Grecian urn” 53. An online address 54. French dolphin or heir to the throne 56. To provoke or question 60. Laundry day is __ of fun 61. The unfortunate middle name of Harry Potter’s youngest son 62. When you’re sick 63. You’ve probably got some of these in your mouth 64. Probably not used in cold temperatures 65. Netflix original show with two vowels for a name 67. Pale brownish-yellow 69. Ancient Egyptian sun god 71. Between E and H 72. Man, to a surfer 74. It makes you see your bones 76. Name of digraph in 12-down 79. The first three words in a valedictorian speech, acronym 81. Tootsie Roll Industries stock market acronym 82. Chez, en anglais 83. Jr.’s father 85. Dash between hyphen and em

Looking for ways to procrastinate?

Write for the Daily!

Email managing@mcgilldaily.com to get involved.