Tuesday, January 27, 2015
//
21
Campus // opinions
Threats can’t silence Israel-Canada talk Marc Garneau IsraelCanada talk will be rescheduled Bradley martin Contributor
On Jan. 12, Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party Marc Garneau was scheduled to speak to university students on the subject of Canada-Israel relations. The event was to be presented as a co-sponsorship by both the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) and the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research (CIJR). The morning of the event, CIJR received a call from the Montreal Police saying that there was a threat of violent protest from a demonstration estimated to comprise of at least 60 individuals. These threats were very real and can be corroborated by several officers. It was indeed a cause for concern, considering that the police saw the need to call CIJR in the first place. The National Chairman of CIJR, Jack
Kincler, therefore decided to postpone the event due to concerns over whether the building could be secured as well as to ensure the safety of attendees. This comes at a very dangerous and sensitive time. The right to freedom of speech as well as religion recently came under attack with the horrific massacres that took place in France earlier this month. Twelve people were murdered in an attack against the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Known for its strongly secularist, anti-religious and left-wing views, the paper was targeted for its satirical cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. A French police officer was killed shortly afterwards. Two days later, another gunman entered a kosher food supermarket in east Paris and murdered four Jewish hostages. Because of Quebec’s close cultural and national relationship with France, these attacks have resonated strongly with us. This is especially true with regard to the Jewish community, since so many have family and friends in France. This event was meant to be an opportunity to present a forum for Marc Garneau, a respected and accom-
plished Member of Parliament, to present his views concerning Canada-Israel relations and interact with students. It would not have been postponed had there not been a real concern over the safety of attendees. The fact that university students could be in danger for simply attending an event and meeting with their representative of government is an egregious violation of their civil liberties. On Jan. 20, a similar situation arose at the University of York. Luke Akehurst, a Labour Party activist, was scheduled to speak about the IsraelPalestine conflict. That lecture was cancelled, due to fears of security risks. This only serves to highlight the seriousness of the situation we face and how even the mere mention of subjects pertaining to the State of Israel are under attack on campuses by those who oppose its existence. Proper security precautions must be made in order to ensure the right of free assembly for all people, especially in the wake of these massacres. “We will not be intimidated. [The supressing of] freedom of speech must be opposed on and off campus,” says Director of CIJR, Dr. Frederick Krantz.
It must be stressed that this event has not and will not be cancelled. To do so would be to give in to the whims of weak-minded fundamentalists, whose sense of self can be easily compromised by different opinions and something as trivial as cartoons. To value freedom in the form of expression and religion and not surrender to terror is the best way to send out a clear message that such thuggish tactics are not acceptable in civilized discourse. As of now, another venue is in the process of being finalized and MP Marc Garneau has announced a willingness to reschedule. The event has been rescheduled to take place next month, at a location where the security of all participants can be ensured. One thing is certain: while this turn of events has been unfortunate and threats of violence should not be considered legitimate forms of expression, this is anything but a victory for bullies who seek to silence discussion on Israel. Bradley Martin is a Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) Fellow and student at Concordia University.
Technology // opinions
Into the Deepnet: can buying ecstasy be art? Randomized computer art program that purchased drugs seized by police ROBIN STANFORD Staff writer
W
hen a robot buys drugs in the name of art, who’s to blame? Is there a point at which art stops being art? These are some of the questions that police in Switzerland are now trying to answer. The machine in question, The Random Darknet Shopper, is a computer program designed to make one random purchase from the Deep Web a week with $100 in Bitcoin. The items are then shipped to the sight of the art exhibit, titled The Darknet: From Memes to Onionland, and added to its previous purchases. The only problem: the marketplaces being bought from are comparable to the Silk Road. Items purchased thus far include: the complete Lord of the Rings book set, a pair of Diesel jeans, Nike shoes, a fake passport, stolen credit cards, and ecstasy pills. The the artistic group responsible— !Mediengruppe Bitnik—said in an interview with The Guardian that the goal of the work was to get the public to think. “We really want to provide new spaces to think about the goods trades on these markets. Why are they traded?” The project also notes that they aim to explore the ways that trust is built between anonymous participants in online transactions for possibly illegal items. Their exploration of the darker side of the web came to a close on Jan. 12, when police seized the bot and exhibit. According to a statement made to TechCrunch, “the confiscation [was] to impede an endangerment of third parties through the drugs exhibited by destroying them.” It is unclear, at the time of writing, if
any legal action will be taken against the group who created the work. Aside for the question of who is responsible, this situation comes down to one question: what is art? In !Mediengruppe Bitnik’s conversation with The Guardian, the Swiss constitution is described as having articles which state that “art in the public interest is allowed to be free.” This would indicate that, if deemed artistic, there is no crime. Remember, the police took no issue with displaying fake passports and credit
cards, which could potentially be used— just the ecstasy. Through the non-issue with all other forms of illegal items, there seems to be an understanding that The Darknet is art. The question then changes from whether its art, to how far should art be allowed to go. Should there be a limit to what aspects of human reality should be broached by artists? Historically, artists of all types, have been the first voices silenced by authoritarian political regimes. The reason for this is precisely because the artist can
speak about things which are taken for granted or ignored in society. There are no numbers on exactly how much money is spent on black market websites each year, but it is reasonable to assume that there is a fair amount. This is something that most people turn a blind eye to. Perhaps this should not be so. Whether or not The Darknet: From Memes to Onionland is good art, it is something worth thinking about. At the very least it’s left us with a lot of questions.
Graphic by Marie-Pier LaRose