Silence Lingers as Injustice Prevails

As my eyes stayed glued to the television many things entered my mind this past weekend. The media coverage of the G20 summit was plagued with the “othering” of protestors and a positive representation of law enforcement and politicians. The protestors were described as “thugs”, “dangerous”,” violent” while the police were described as “heroic”, “justified”, and “doing a great job.” It is important to look at such media discourse as social power, abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context (Dijk, 352). Interestingly enough once the new legal powers came to the police there was much talk and debate on if this was necessary. Ultimately what happened during the G20 summit protest was a justification technique in the media of such new laws, and the 1 billion dollar budget for law enforcement to be perfectly necessary to protect citizens from such “violent” protestors. Meanwhile the majority of the protestors were innocent people, many were community organizers, social advocacy workers, youth workers, lawyers, and students.

Media footage illustrated images of police cars set on fire, and vandalizing of stores yet as this was occurring no police were in sight to stop it. Later protestors were arrested in large groups and sent off to jail. Section 2(b) of the Charter states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. During the G20 summit protests, many people were arrested simply for exhibiting the freedom of expression. I do not in any way condone the burning of police cars, nor the vandalizing of buildings. But many of the people who were arrested were not taking part in either of those activities.

As a society we must question laws in place, and ask ourselves if they are just. We must also question injustices as they occur. By not questioning we are silently allowing injustice to replicate in society. Many people were interviewed in various media broadcasts stating the police were doing an excellent job, how Canada looks like a different country in the footage, how people are being so violent etc. Yet very little is shown of the other parts of the protests. We are given very limited information on the protestors, the groups they are from within Canada and why these mobilization efforts are occurring. What we are hearing is of a Black Bloc group which origins are not even Canadian. Sadly we are losing the picture of why these protestors went out to resist the G20. The media’s coverage of the G20 summit protests created the continuation of control of public discourse and demonstrated the power of controlling people’s minds as a way to reproduce dominance and hegemony (Dijk, 357). Through the media coverage we were taught to believe that the protestors were the aggressors and the police were simply doing their job. Due to the powerful nature of news media many would believe such ideas to be true. The fact of the matter is many innocent people have been arrested and continue to be detained. Although many experts have said that the people will be let go without charges why have they not been let go? Also why do many of them show signs of physical abuse? And what about the emotional trauma suffered? The questions are not being answered, and silence lingers. Foucault has stated that social change will disturb us, It will never come easy but social change is necessary. We have become a society that does not want to question authoritative power or bureaucracy, but social change cannot happen without questioning injustice created on our very own soil.

Sources:
Dijk Teun A.Van (2003). “Critical Discourse Analysis” In Schiffrin, Deborah, The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Wiley, John & Sons pp. 352-371

Bill 94

Recently the government of Quebec has proposed to create a piece of legislation that will deny services to people who wear face veils. This legislation in many ways is directed towards Muslim women who wear the Niqab. Premier Jean Charest has stated that the reason for Bill 94 is to promote gender equality, and the secularism. Saving the Muslimwoman from the oppressive Muslim man is a common theme that has risen. This can be seen in many debates of the “veil” and whether or not it oppresses Muslim women. Cooke states that the “sign of the cage is the veil whether mandated or forbidden” (Cooke, 2008, p. 92). This cage exists to suppress Muslim women and keep them from the public sphere of life. The belief by most western feminists is that the veil is something imposed and forced upon the Muslim woman, and could never be a voluntary choice. Recently the veil has been a contested matter in the legal system and the banning of the veil has already occurred in a few countries. Whitlock states that the “liberal western consumer desires nothing more than to liberate and humanize by lifting the Burqa and bringing the Muslim woman alongside us in the west (Whitlock, 2005, p. 55).” It is important to learn about the desire of the Western feminist to “lift the veil” as it is a common theme that occurs in subtle ways within feminist literature. Whitlock further states, “no one can read the veil from a neutral disinterested space (Whitlock, 2005, p. 56).” As an outsider it is difficult to read such a religious symbol because there are underlying assumptions of why Muslim women veil and many of these assumptions come from Orientalist discourse that state such veiling is dictated by Muslim men. Often a negative image of Islam is “encoded by the oppressed Muslim women (Cooke, 2008, p. 93). Cooke states that there is a homogenizing rhetoric that reinforces and reproduces our own dominant paradigm (Cooke, 2008, p. 89). The importance of Cooke’s arguments are that we cannot dictate to Muslim women how to live their lives, if they should veil or should not veil, and attempt to “save” them from their faith. Ultimately no one has a right to dictate to any woman what she should or should not wear. Telling women what to wear is a paternalistic attitude. Furthermore by denying services to women who wear a face veil we are excluding these women from society. If a woman who wears a face veil is in need and turns to an agency for help to escape she in fact would be denied services. Reaching out to Muslim women means starting with ourselves and our own preconceptions and stereotypes that we already have about this segment of the population. It begins when we are able to deconstruct our ideas, and be willing to be self reflective about who we are, and how we have come to know what we know. The way to liberate women is not to dictate to them what to do. Knowledge is power, and we must start by knowing both others and ourselves.

Cooke, Miriam. (2008). Roundtable Discussion: Religion, Gender and the Muslimwoman. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 24:2, pp. 91-119

Whitlock, Gillian. (2005). The Skin of The Burqa: Recent Life Narratives from Afghanistan. Biography, 28:1, pp. 54-74.

The Stigma of Mental Health

Today I had an interesting conversation with a student near a printing station. I was waiting for the printer to be fixed and me and this student began talking. He was speaking about a recent article in a Toronto newspaper about tenants and fraud. He had mentioned how the tenant had blamed the fraud on his mental illness, and how people in society will use mental illness as a scapegoat to get away with crimes, and how disheartening it is for those who have mental illnesses and are legitimate. This made me think about how the media portrays those who have mental illness. Often those who have mental illness are portrayed in the media as criminals "getting away" with crime, crazy people, scary, people who invoke fear, people who are not intelligent, people who are emotionless, people who will hurt you, and people you should not be around. This student I was speaking with told me about his friend who was a university graduate, a young bright man who has schizophrenia. At times he thinks he is an archangel or other thoughts. The student told me how disheartened he was with the social workers at the hospital. He told me of a situation where he told a social worker to convey a message to this young man who is his friend and the message was that his father had died. The social worker did not convey the message, and also did not tell this guy that he would not convey the message, later when called the social worker said it was not his place to convey such a message. This made me question the role of social workers, and ethnical dilemmas we will face within our careers. It also made me question the power we hold, and how we dictate the lives of others, and how through knowledge we have acquired we are able to oppress other human beings if we choose to do so, and even if we choose not to do so ethics, agency mandates, and guidelines may put us in a position of an oppressor. We usually think of ourselves as kind empathetic beings who can "help" people. But in many ways we are agents of oppression.

Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People

The creation of the “other” is not a new concept. Its roots are held in the same roots of colonialism and imperialism. In creating the image of the “other”, one can justify actions. Throughout colonialism the image of the other is seen as “savage like”, “inhumane”, “ferocious”, “animal-like”, “barbaric”, and “uncivilized”. In creating this dehumanizing portrait the west sought out to civilize the world. If one paints such an image of the “other”, they gain support, because those supporting these thoughts also feel they are doing the uncivilized people of the world a favor by giving them a chance to a civilized life. Our consumer culture feeds us with many thoughts, many ideas, which give us, the perception that “we” are better, and “they” are not. The “they” I refer to is the undeveloped part of the world. They are foreign to us; we do not want to know of their genuine culture, what lies deeply imbedded in it, we would rather just judge them for what they appear to us to be. And that image is nothing but a myth. That image is distorted, an image that leaves us thinking that “they” are uncivilized, and believe in values that are wrong, and that they oppress each other, and are more like an animal than a human. For us it seems it is our “duty” to civilize them, to bring them liberation, and to make them more “human”. It almost seems as if it is our “God” given duty to make the world more liberated, to wipe out all other values, and only impose the values of the west. Words are powerful and define who we are. Through academia, legal legislations, literature, art, media we are programmed to form certain thoughts often they enter our minds without any question of their intention. After September 11th there has been an influx of stories of Muslims in the media. The representation of Muslims in the media has resulted in further stereotyping; blame the victim tactics by hate groups, discrimination, and a legitimization of human rights violations worldwide. Shaheen has described the depiction of Muslims in the media post 911 as “malign, subhuman, much like the Nazi’s portrayals of Jewish people (Reel bad Arabs).” In this paper I would like to examine the movie Reel Bad Arabs and discuss how Hollywood films replicate racial and gender d discourses towards Muslims, as well as how these representations become evident in the legal system, and how it further affects immigrants and refugees coming to Canada.

In the documentary “Reel Bad Arabs” Shaheen studied over one thousand Hollywood films to gain an understanding of how Hollywood has used similar stereotypes over the years, as well as created new stereotypes to vilify Muslims, in particular Arab Muslims. Shaheen describes Hollywood’s actions as “robbing an entire people of their humanity.” Foucault has stated that European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the orient as sort of a surrogate and seen underground self (Said, 3). Through the “othering” of Muslim people in the media the western world gains strength and takes on an identity. Edward Said’s work on “Orientalism” can be seen as very useful in illustrating the creation of the “other”. The creation of this image of the “other” has roots in history and can date back to the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt, soon after the rise of Orientalist scholarship in Europe within the nineteenth century, then the end of imperial hegemony by British and French in the Orient after world war two. Shaheen’s documentary clearly demonstrates how Hollywood historically has portrayed Arab Muslims using very similar tactics to that of European colonialism. Said states that “Orientalism was the discourse by which European culture was able to manage and even produce the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, and even scientifically” (Hall, 253). Orientalism clearly illustrates the “other” by using the relationship between the “Occidental”, and “Orient”, one that depicts “power of domination, of varying degrees of complex hegemony” (Said, 1978, p. 5). When Muslims are portrayed negatively in the media there is a direct correlation of hegemony involved and a domination of western ideas over that of the Other. In his book on Orientalism, Edward Said notes that there are “westerners” and there are “Arabs.” The westerners are described as being “rational, peaceful, liberal, logical, and capable of holding real values, without natural suspicion” (Said, 1978, p. 49). On the other hand the “Arabs” are none of these things. The documentary paints a clear separation of the “Occident”, and the “Orient”. The “Orient” is clearly a European invention, “a place of romance, exotic beings, haunting memories, and landscapes, remarkable experiences…one of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its civilizations and its language its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most reoccurring images of the other” (Said, 1978, p. 1). The “west is seen as the actor on stage, while the east is the passive reactor, the west is the judge and jury of every facet of Oriental behavior” (Said, 1978, p. 109). The Orient helps to define the West, and without it the West is not able to define itself. It is through the contrast, and “Othering” that definition takes place for the dominant group.

The image of Muslims as the “other” is not one that occurred recently, nor has it happened due to September Eleventh. It had in fact been prevalent for years before this event, but this event triggered more stereotypes, and generalizations of an entire group of people. Edward Said in his book “Covering Islam” even goes as far as saying that this “unacceptable generalization could never be used for any other religious, cultural, or demographic group on earth” (Said, 1981, p. xvi). The unacceptable generalizations that Said speaks of are highly evident in the reoccurring portrayal of gender roles in the media when illustrating Muslims. A reoccurring theme in Hollywood films is that of the dominant Arab Muslim man taking away the innocent blonde American woman. This is a story that has been told many times on the silver screen. The Arab man abducts the blonde maiden, wins her over with love, then takes her to “Arabland” where she is imprisoned, or used as an object. The Arab man is seen as over-sexed, too rich and too stupid to know the value of money, as well as sleazy and perverted. The arab woman is seen as highly sexualized, a belly dancer, or a bundle of black shadows in a veil. More recently the Arab woman is seen as a militaristic bomber, or terrorist. Said describes a piece of colonial literature as saying the “oriental woman never spoke of herself, she never represented her emotions, presence or history, he spoke for and represented her (Said, 6).” This quote illustrates the silence of Muslim women portrayed in media, and how the Muslim women are oppressed beings, dominated by males in their life. Although Muslim women have progressed, and in many Muslim countries the women in post secondary intuitions outnumber males, and Muslim women have led women’s rights movements for decades their voices are almost always silenced in media representations. The media described by Said, has the “tendency to reduce Islam to a handful of rules, stereotypes, generalizations about the faith, its founder, and its entire people, and the reinforcement of every negative fact associated with Islam” (Said, 1981, p. xvi).

It is very important to note the reason why the world is being shown depictions of Muslims in such a negative way. Shaheen notes in the documentary policy enforces politics, Washington and Hollywood come from the same genetic thread. Shaheen uses the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Arab-Oil Embargo, and Iranian Revolution as three key events that led Arabs to Hollywood. If the media runs stories depicting Muslims in a negative way, and show Muslims as terrorists, and vilify Muslims it is much easier to have a war on terror, to gain military support, to change immigration and refugee laws, and to control the borders. Running stories in the media that question the safety of westerners, and create fear allow the government to implent policies that affect everyone, and also policies that target specific groups and further xenophobic ideas. An editorial in the Globe and Mail written by Margaret Wente stated: “Those who are responsible are most likely men from remote desert lands. Men from ancient tribal cultures built on blood and revenge. Men whose unshakable beliefs and hatreds go back many centuries…farther than the United States and its young ideas of democracy, pluralism, and freedom…Men capable of giving their lives up for Allah, Men with the implacable determination of fanatics”(Ismael&Measor, 2003, p. 102). When Canadians are exposed to such stories there is an idea of these people being from tribal lands, and not worthy of any justice due to their backwards ideas, and violent culture. Yoosun argues that language can never be considered neutral, impartial or a-political acts, so when stereotypes are used in the media it is for a direct purpose (Yoosun p.18). The media plays a key role by influencing the creations of laws. After September 11th new immigration laws came in to place because of such stories, and the negative depictions of Muslims. Kruger argues that although Canada has portrayed itself as “immigrant friendly” through developing policies that extend Canada’s diversity and a country that welcomes immigrants the reality is that Canada is not friendly to all immigrants (Kruger, 72). There are two groups of immigrants the preferred ones and the non-preferred. It is the job of the Canadian government to implement policies that make sure the non-preferred ones do not get into the country. The men who are described above are not welcome in Canada, and who would argue with this? The media has portrayed Muslims in such a way that most Canadians would feel unsafe with such a population, and to have neighbors that believe in terrorism, and want to kill “infidels.” Historically immigration occurred to remedy issues such as lower birth rates, and economic hardships in Canada. Canada was not simply welcoming immigrants because they wanted diversity, or was a friendly nation, these men and women were welcomed solely for financial gains. Shaheen has illustrated in his documentary that the depictions of Muslims in the media directly relate to policy changes in the government. In showing such depictions policies such as the “Immigration and Refugee Protection Act” become justified. If the government states they want to be “tough on those who pose a threat to Canadian security but maintain Canada’s humanitarian tradition” and it is paired up with images of barbaric Muslims it is legitimized by the people (Krueger, 77).”

The Othering of Muslims throughout history and the increase after September 11th has a direct implication for social work practice. As social workers we are naturally drawn to the media just like anyone else. We are fed stories, and ideas that sometimes can have a direct effect or an indirect effect. When we work with immigrants and refugees from Muslim backgrounds it is important to acknowledge the intentions of the media in their negative portrayal of this entire group. It is also important to not replicate such stereotypes in our everyday practice. Razack quoted Lucienne Robillard as saying “they have no ID, we will not give these people permanent resident status until they have had time to demonstrate respect for the laws of Canada and for us to detect those who may be guilty of crimes against humanity or acts of terrorism (Razack, 182).” This depiction is one of many that came after September 11th from government officials and media sources. The minister uses us versus them tactic, by using contrast she has demonized the image of the Other. As social workers working with immigrants and refugees we have to be acquainted with such language and also advocate for change. The only way to erase old discourse is through creating new discourse and questioning and refuting discourses that are xenophobic and create Othering. Razack states “as original habitants they are obliged and entitled to discipline non-white Others through a colonial relationship (Razack, 187).” There is a sense of entitlement to tell Others what to do and how to live their life. The entitlement spurs from the idea that to be white you are higher than everyone else, and come from a civilized culture and it is your duty to civilize anyone who is different from you. This is why it is detrimental for social workers that work with diverse populations to self reflect and recognize what privileges they have. Without this recognization and educating oneself on how we come to know what we know, and dispel the myths we will never be able to help marginalized groups.