Those of Us with Our Panties in a Bunch v. Mock Trial

As my caveat lector (right) makes very clear, I am not afraid of a good argument. In fact, given my vocation and, some would say, pathological inability to keep my mouth shut, I am more or less doomed to a life of debate. One of the most delightful manifestations of my contrarian nature is my staunch opposition to over-wrought complaints of injured sensibilities and the arch self-righteousness of special interest wankery. If I am a feminist, I am a small-“f” feminist, thank you very much. As proof, I offer a complete list of the last three things that made me as teeth-grindingly angry as I have been for the last week:

1. The militantly feminist politics teacher who told me that wearing makeup was a betrayal of the “cause” and suggested we move to consensus government because it was easier on women
2. The guidance counsellor who demanded that I had an obligation to take math and computer science because previous generations of women had fought for my ability to do so (apparently I owed them some Cs and Ds, although why they preferred to be paid in the currency of bad grades I’ve no idea)
3. The lit professor who insisted that (a) cannibalism was good, and (b) that anything any person of British extraction had ever done was inherently evil (particularly perplexing given that she was a white Australian)

In short, I am astronomically unlikely to find something “offensive to women,” let alone to raise the issue. There is, of course, one major exception: when those arguing the counter-feminist perspective (some of them, I’m sure, quite convinced that they are being excellent little third-wave feminists) are so obviously missing the point that I despair for the rhetorical and analytical skills of my generation.

Now let me clear (somebody has to, I suppose): I take no issue with Mock Trial. Not having seen it, I cannot take issue with it. I know that many people on both sides of the debate invested enormous amounts of time and effort into the show, which by all accounts was 90% unimpeachable, at least under the terms of this debate. I’m told it was amusing; I’m told it raised $10,000 for charity. This is commendable, and it has nothing to do with this debate.

My concern, the issue to which I am sacrificing so much precious dental enamel, is the cultish attitude of those who have equated criticism of Mock Trial with betrayal of Osgoode, nay, of freedom of expression itself. To them I have but one question: Seriously?

While I sympathize with distrust of censorship, some counter-arguments have gone so far as to raise the spectre of Osgoode turning into a fascist police state where all free expression is quashed. While I admit there are days when these hallowed halls of learning strike me as dystopian, it is clear that the school is too committed to being Kafkaesque to waste time being Orwellian. Plus—thankfully—law students are mouthy little brats who would never let that happen. This is yet another straw man argument that ignores the issues.

There are legitimate counter-arguments to the positions (a) that a strip-tease is an entirely inappropriate feature of an official school event, in that it furthers the acculturation of the virgin/whore dichotomy in the legal profession; (b) that depicting a specific and identifiable student as an embodiment of the worst stereotypes of (attractive) female lawyers, namely that we sleep our way to the top, is not only potentially defamatory and unquestionably injurious to the target, but also harmful to the student body as a whole; (c) that any attempt to address a breakdown of institutional standards must go outside that institution to challenge the defensive groupthink to which any school or organization is prone; and (d) that serious breaches of standards which take place in a public and highly publicized forum are properly addressed in an equally public forum. But I haven’t heard any yet. Instead, I’ve heard a lot of arguments so heinously illogical that they deserve to be broken down into their component logical fallacies.[1]

Regarding “Come join the Cabaret…”

Mock Trial is, I think, best defined as a cabaret show. Cabaret as an art form is generally a bawdy, funny, sometimes vulgar intertwining of performances of varying calibre and has also traditionally been a venue for social and political satire and commentary. Mock Trial is very much along this vein. It is a cobbling together of the efforts of many different people into a final product that is meant to be entertaining, humourous, and racy, while simultaneously satirizing Osgoode, the legal profession and various notable personalities both at Osgoode and in the larger legal community.

The comment begins with masterful examples of both the bare assertion fallacy and begging the question. Since mock trial = cabaret and cabaret = good, mock trial = good. This is also a nice specimen of the weak analogy. It then moves on to a simultaneous ad hominem attack/use of loaded language, by dismissing the complainants as part of the “legacy of melodrama that is Oz” who are “getting their knickers in a knot.” The mischaracterization of the debate continues, as we find out that the subject of the knicker-knots in the mere “’raciness’ and ‘inappropriateness’ of some numbers.” I would classify this as abuse of quotation marks. No one is concerned that some of the Mock Trial performers showed a little ankle, it is how they did so and the likely consequences that have our unmentionables all a-tangle.

The comment then moves on to a rhetorical device so rare I feel luckier to have witnessed than if a Spix’s Macaw landed on my shoulder. Having established—or rather, asserted—the Mock Trial-cabaret link, the article goes on to compare criticism of Mock Trial to censorship by the Nazis (the author’s disingenuous and exclamation-pointed demurral aside). Indeed, it is the rare reductio ad hitlerum, not seen in the wild since the mid-twentieth century.[2] Both a false analogy and an attack ad hominem, this particular logical fallacy is too frail to survive the arched eyebrows of its interlocutors. It demands the question, once again: Seriously?

The article moves away from Teutonics and on to a reaffirmation of the previously discussed bare assertion/begging the question: “At Osgoode, Mock Trial is one of the most apt forums in which to criticize the legal regime in which we find ourselves.” This neatly sidesteps the fact that, (a) if Mock Trial is that important to legal discourse at Osgoode, then perhaps we should take in our shingle and go home, and (b) that the impugned elements of the show had nothing to do with the “legal regime”. Then the article moves on to a fallacy of relevance implicating Jonathan Swift as a hypothetical supporter of Mock Trial’s right to say anything, however defamatory or sexist. My counter-hypothesis is that Swift is currently turning in his grave like Pulsar B1257+12. While the article may be right that “satire gets a point across far more effectively than the clearest analytical writing,” it sadly fails to prove that Mock Trial is satirical.

Satire must have an object. It must satirize something. It is a manifestation of irony. So then, what was the object of the satire in the impugned parts of Mock Trial?

**cricket noises**

Ah yes, that’s right, there was none. To its credit, the article does explain the use of non-satirical humour in cabaret:

In terms of non-satirical content, such as plain old “toilet humour,” gratuitous swearing, or sexually explicit content, I would like to point out three things. First, cabaret has always included these aspects of entertainment and humour – it is part of the genre. Second, the performers in Mock Trial are adults, who are capable of making decisions about what they are willing to take part in. They are not goaded, paid or tormented into participating, and what appears on stage is therefore not exploitive of them.

I would also like to point our three things: First, appealing to the authority of cabaret is unhelpful because no one has actually established that this is an apt analogy. Second, defending Mock Trial on the basis of the performer’s personal agency is missing the point by a margin of error comparable to New Coke. It is a non sequitur; nobody is arguing that the dancers or actors were forced to do something exploitative. The problem is the loss of agency on the part of other women in the Osgoode community. Third, while I’m glad to hear that Mock Trial doesn’t pay or coerce its participants, the point is irrelevant to the current debate.

In the last four paragraphs, the article moves into an analysis of the freedom of expression interest supposedly threatened by those of us with our lingerie in a barrel hitch. This is purports to be the crux of many of the arguments for Mock Trial’s impunity, and it is defeated only by its myopic hypocrisy.

I would agree that it is good advice to not “assume that because you were morally offended by something in the show that everyone was or should be offended.” However, it is likewise true that one should not assume that because they were not “morally offended,” no one else would be either. It is entirely true that “that kind of thinking that leads to moral arrogance as well as a lack of dialogue between divergent viewpoints.” Such moral arrogance could include the un-argued assumption that support of freedom of expression is a carte blanche for anything, no matter how harmful. Blackface? Punch and Judy? Snuff films? Why not?

Now, I clearly don’t agree with that point of view, especially in this context. The medium is the message, and if the medium is a school-supported, firm-funded, institutionalized performance which paints women as sexualized being to the exclusion of other traits, then the message isn’t “women are just sexual”—which would be bad enough—but “Osgoode and the firms agree that women are just sexual”. But perhaps I could “agree to disagree”, had the article not concluded with an admonishment that the complainants had expressed their discontent wrongly. In short, Mock Trial can say what it wants because freedom of expression is paramount, and if you don’t like it, shut your face. Charming. And that’s not the worst of it.

Regarding “The beauty of freedom and feminism”

This article avoids any particularly egregious rhetorical abuses by the simple use of wishful thinking, and a troubling misunderstanding of what it is to be feminist. It begins where the previous one left off by indulging in rampant hypocrisy, ironically by misusing the word “hypocritical":

The first issue is between the student and the producers. Anyone who has spoken on behalf of this student to other organizations or to the school newspapers is simply hypocritical in their actions. If this student chooses to handle the issue personally, then that should be respected. Using the student to advance your own grievances is discourteous. Regardless, the skit in question in no way TRUTHFULLY depicts any student in this school and is just a farce of a fictional situation.

From this I glean several troubling themes. We should not, apparently, support members of our community who have been maligned. We should also not use blatant and troubling evidence of a problem in the institutional culture of the school to illustrate that problem. I confess that following these suggestions would make it frankly impossible to be a lawyer, to advance cases and use evidence, particularly when I agreed with my clients and their cause.

Also, the statement that there was no targeting of a student is obviously untrue, however sincere the author may be. I can’t believe—or, perhaps, refuse to believe—that all or even most of those who contributed positively to Mock Trial were aware of the situation and untroubled by it.

The article continues:

The second issue a few people had with the show is the alleged “misogynist” depiction of women. "is is something that falls under the headings of “taste” and “censorship”. I would be dishonest if I said every skit showed women in the best light. However, that is my opinion. I am entitled to that opinion just as women are entitled to be smart and sexy, even overtly sexual if they choose. Women can even be bitchy and sarcastic in their skit, a la moi. This is the beauty of freedom and feminism! You can be want you want to be. You can be criticized, but you should not be stopped.

This is troubling, once again in that missed-the-point, fallacy of relevance way. First Wave, Second Wave, Third Wave, Post-, or reluctant feminist, there is one thing we can all agree on: that individual women have a right to self-determination. Women’s identities should not be determined solely by the external culture. Women should feel free to express their sexuality, their “sexyness” howsoever they choose. So, why then is it problematic for Mock Trial to feature stripping female lawyers and young women lawyers prostituting themselves?

Because the dance was a depiction of young female lawyers in general, and because the skit was a depiction of a young female lawyer in particular. It is not the behaviour that calls for criticism, but rather that said behaviour is a public representation of a stereotype that many of us have had to fight against. It is also screamingly ironic that the skit ridiculed that which the dance purported to celebrate.

In short: Worst. Third-Wave Feminists. Ever.

For those who were offended by the show, you are entitled to voice your own opinion. You could address the issue with the producers or in the Obiter, but to go so far as to contact corporate sponsors is preposterous! The sponsors come and see the show; therefore, they can personally address any issues they have with the producers or the school.

Again, it is interesting how Mock Trial should be immune from criticism, but its critics are not. We are “entitled to voice” our “own opinion”…at the time and venue, and to the audience, that is least likely to respond. Please read Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada,[3] then get back to me.

The article concludes on a morass of appeal to emotion (they’ll cancel our beloved Mock Trial!), ad hominem attacks (you hate charity!), and an amusing poison pill: “Seeing our peers’ talents is secondary to the charitable contribution.” Since that’s true, and since Mock Trial appear incapable of raising money without particularly unfunny and damaging portrayals of members of our community, maybe we should quash the whole thing and try for something less mean-spirited?

Regarding “In defense of Mock Trial”

I’ve read this article several times now, and while I am more than willing to point out its flaws, I shall make the caveat that, while I believe this is a particularly inept satire of the complainants, it may in fact be an incredibly clever satire of the respondents.

I have a disability. It’s genetic, so there’s not too much I can do about it. My doctor tells me that my chromosome five is abnormally short, and as a result I don’t have a sense of humour.

To begin with, this article could easily have kept its basic premise without invoking chromosomal abnormalities. I don’t find Le Jeune’s syndrome[4] particularly amusing, and I would caution the author that a quick Google might have prevented him from mocking an actual and tragic genetic disorder. I’m also discouraged that there was no fact-checking on the part of the editors.

Having begun with retards, the article moves on to racism.

Having this disability is usually fatal in most societies. I’ve heard reports that in some island cultures, children born with this disability are actually thrown off cliffs, to the mirthful approval of the community. I think they did this in ancient Sparta as well, although this is still a point of debate among contemporary academics. In other societies, those born with this disability and it impossibly difficult to mate with the opposite sex. As a result, they usually relegate themselves to living in caves. Surprisingly however, my disability has never been an obstacle for me in Canada – thanks primarily to our culture of ultra-political sensitivity.

Anhedonia and over-sensitivity are then conflated:

I’ve recently discovered that my disability is actually an advantage in many circumstances. By not being able to laugh, I have the luxury of finding offensive just about anything. Any mention of sexuality? Obviously sexist. Allusion to ethnicity? Obviously Racist. Satirical suggestion? Most definitely discrimination. I also find that most people are afraid to disagree with me. Those who are not, I usually like to portray as colonial supremacists. This usually does a good job of shutting them up.

First of all, this “joke” lacks continuity. Lack of sense of humour does not make one jump to conclusions like this. Again, the author could have claimed to have the fictional illness Hypersensatus politica without dragging people with serious medical problems down into the muck with him. Second, he paints the complainants as malignant narcissists who cannot abide any criticism.

The irony is so thick only Paul Bunyan could dent it. And yet the ad hominem attacks continue:

Being able to point out offensive material has now become second nature. It’s a knee-jerk reaction that doesn’t really require any higher cognitive function. I no longer ask myself why I am offended, I am merely comforted by the fact that I am. And besides, I find it’s a great way to get people into trouble, and also to set the bar so incredibly high that people around me are perpetually afraid of what to say. I like it when people respect my values. I call it a subtle form of coercion.

The complainants are apparently irrational (and possibly stupid), textbook cases of narcissistic personality disorder, and apparently dabbling in Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy or at least an overdeveloped sense of Schadenfreude.

Continuity breaks down again when the narrator states: “My latest pet peeve are school performances. I really think they just aren’t funny anymore.” Um, if you were born without a sense of humour, when did you know they were funny? When satire is good, it’s very, very good, but when it’s bad, it’s this article. I believe Jonathan Swift’s rotational velocity is approaching light speed.

I’ll spare myself the analysis of the next two paragraphs, which continue the theme of narcissism. The article then concludes with yet another bizarre mischaracterisation of the issues:

I also don’t see the point in opening up lines of dialogue with those who have offended me. It’s much easier just to tell on them. I guess this is something I learned from elementary school. If I can’t deal with an issue, I seek higher authorities to resolve the problem for me. It makes me less accountable. In truth, I’m not sure if I’m in it to change the opinions of those who I think are offensive. I’m more interested in my own emotional catharsis. It’s easier to complain than to explain.

To those critical of the way the complainants made their complaint as not “opening up lines of dialogue,” I’d like to point out in as few words as possible the flaw in your argument: it’s wrong. It’s just so, overwhelmingly, obviously wrong that it almost doesn’t bear analysis. The complaints didn’t move this debate from the private to the public sphere, because it was already in the public sphere. Even in the Excalibur article, both sides were given the opportunity to express their opinion, and it’s hardly our fault that some people just tried to bluff their way to a defence of the indefensible. To argue that Mock Trial should not be called on its errors for the sake of abstract and unanalysed claims to “humour” and “freedom of expression,” while simultaneously berate its critics for “telling on” it is so painfully illogical that I lose a few neurons every time I contemplate it. If Mock Trial is blameless, than complaints cannot harm it. But if Mock Trial is blameless, then why hasn’t their been a single articulate statement in its defense? If untempered freedom of expression is good, then why are we not free to express our problems with the show?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go batten down the hatches against the inevitable backlash.

---

[1] I won’t criticize any of the authors for their use of appeal to ridicule, since it’s one of my favorite rhetorical tools. I can’t blame anyone for trying to be funny—I can only blame them for failing.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_hitlerum.

[3] v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139.

[4] http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001593.htm.

In which my long-dormant feminist side speaks out

Okay, brief intro to a sordid tale:

Osgoode has an annual charity review called Mock Trial. Mock Trial is usually pretty racy. This year, Mock Trial took an unfortunate turn from "racy" into "what the hell...that's inappropriate." Friend of mine complains to York University's student paper, resulting in this article: "Producer shows no concern over ‘misogyny’" Quote:

     “There were a couple of scenes in this year’s performance that were unacceptable and downright offensive,” she said.
     One such scene, according to Brierley, involved female law students “gyrating” on chairs to the song ‘Buttons’ by the Pussycat Dolls.

...

     “There was another scene which portrayed a female law student who was essentially down on all fours, pretending to give [oral sex] to somebody who was playing a partner in a downtown Bay Street law firm,” she said.
     “The reason for which this law student was doing this was to gain funding for an environmental program.”
     Brierley claimed the female law student depicted in the skit was also meant to resemble an actual student.
     “As it turns out, the [female] character that was being portrayed was actually modelled after a specific individual at Osgoode. And although no names were mentioned, everybody that I spoke with after the performance knew exactly who it was referring to.”
     Elizabeth Martin*, another Osgoode student, said she knows the student who was being depicted personally, and that although no names were mentioned, the skit referred to the student through personal details known to the Osgoode community.
     “They made sure they made reference to [those things] in the opening of the skit to allude to her. And from there, it went on to this degrading act,” she said.
     “She’s deeply humiliated. She doesn’t even want to attend school.”

First of all, from all accounts it was meant to depict this person, and there was a striptease, so the whole "Brierley claimed" thing is misleading.

The producer contacted not only denied that the skit was inappropriate in any way, but also denied personal responsibility, or responsibility to the student body:

     [James Butlin, one of the show’s producers, said] “We’d certainly not apologize. Our show raises almost $10,000 for local charity and involves over 15 percent of our student body, and the response to our show has been excellent from all but these people that I hear about now.”

I...what? WHAT?! Goddammit man, if they'd only owned up to how totally NOT CRICKET that was, we would have been okay, I think. But instead, people went mental, siding with either "Mock Trial" or "Alyssa" (as if those two sides were mutually exclusive, as if Alyssa some sort of irrational hate-on for Mock Trial in general).

My favourite part, and by favourite I mean most-rage-inducing, is that people are angry she went "outside" the school. As if Osgoode is sort of sacred closed community and by "snitching" she broke some sort of unspoken rule. That is patently ridiculous. Osgoode is part of York--sorry folks, but it's true. Also? Osgoode has this bizarre secret-society mentality that allows institutional biases and groupthink to reign; those who don't buy in only have to survive three years of it, so we cope. If you think something is a serious problem, you have to go outside the school.

The editor of Obiter Dicta, the Osgoode paper, said in the most recent issue:"This is essentially a private affair that has unfortunately been played out publicly..." which is simply untrue. If someone had said something offensive is, say, a class, that might have counted as private. But Mock Trial is a publicly advertised show. Public sexism and inappropriate behaviour requires public discussion and public apology.

I will now quote the entirety of Alyssa's comment in the most recent edition of Obiter, because I think it's cogent and eloquent and deserves to be available in an indexed/html sort of a way:

While it is noble that so many Osgoodians spend months preparing an entertaining production in order to raise money for charity, the content of some of Mock Trial last week was troubling to say the least. I would like to preface the comments I am about to make by saying that I commend the dedication and hard work that so many student colleagues have spent on this performance. There is clearly a great deal of talent within the halls of Osgoode. My comments here and those that I made to the Excalibur are not meant in any way to undermine the efforts put forth by the vast majority of participants in the performance. It is unfortunate, however, that the production as a whole has been tarnished by the poor judgement of a few people who felt the need to include questionable material. In a profession where women struggle to be taken seriously, one has to wonder why students – many of whom were female – are perpetuating the very gender stereotypes that make it difficult for women to succeed and why their so-called progressive institute of higher education is allowing this to happen.

Two skits in particular were offensive: one with female students performing a chair dance to the lyrics “loosen up my buttons, baby,” and another depicting a female law student crawling on the floor and simulating oral sex on a male lawyer with whip crème and knee pads. As for the sexually charged dance scene, I fail to see the value in inviting the public to our school so that they can see female law students dancing in a sexual manner on chairs. What a woman does on her own time is her business. What people do at a public event in the name of Osgoode Hall becomes everyone’s business. I for one do not appreciate being associated with this type of performance given that I face enough problems as a young female trying to succeed in a field dominated by men and male oriented career norms.

Most troubling about the performance, however, was the second skit mentioned above. The vast majority of my criticism rests here. While the dance was inappropriate, the now infamous “blow job” scene was degrading, offensive and I would even go so far as to suggest that it constitutes sexual harassment. Aside from being completely inappropriate at a public event attended by families, professors, student colleagues and friends, this skit maliciously targeted a specific female student in a manner that can only be understood as an attempt to humiliate this individual and tarnish her reputation. Although no names were mentioned in the show, it was clear to most people that I have spoken to since the performance last week exactly who this character was supposed to be.

Both of these scenes were offensive in their portrayal of women in a profession where women have had to fight for respect and the right to be taken seriously as intelligent professionals. The portrayal of women in this manner also undermines the ability of female students at Osgoode Hall, such as myself, to feel that they are earning an education in a safe space where they are respected as intelligent and capable individuals rather than sexual objects. What’s worse is that this event had the school’s name all over it, suggesting that this type of depiction of women is sanctioned by Osgoode as an institution.

Finally, the fact that there were so many people involved in the production implies an institutional culture at this school that sees no problem in treating its female students in this manner. Presumably dozens of students witnessed rehearsals of Mock Trial practices and dress rehearsals and yet the performance went on as is – three times. This is clearly a much bigger and more systemic problem. The fact that many knew about the offending performance and no one felt compelled to remove this content is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this entire story.

This should never have happened. The Mock Trial producers should never have included these scenes and the Dean – who performed in the Wednesday night performance– should never have allowed this to continue for two additional evenings. These Mock Trial scenes have embarrassed the school and personally harassed and degraded a member of its community. For the first time in my life, I am embarrassed to be affiliated with this institution. I was so outraged, in fact, that I contacted the Excalibur so that they could report on it. They ran the story on the front page of this week’s edition. When asked to comment, one of the producers remained unremorseful, as if doing something for the purpose of raising money for charity gives them a carte blanche to treat people in such a degrading manner. As for the notion that the offending scene featured a “fictitious character,” that is simply not true and everyone knows it. Claiming that it was not an actual representation after the fact does not change this.

I have been challenged – privately, by members of the Osgoode community and my friends – for my decision to complain to the sponsoring firm so that they could “raise these issues with the producers of Mock Trial and to either pull funding for next year’s production or make it conditional on the content of the production being less offensive to women and other vulnerable groups.” Note that this is a direct quotation from the letter I sent to Cassels Brock; I do not think this is an unreasonable request. People have pointed out to me that this may have an impact on the ability of Mock Trial to secure funds in the future for its charitable aims. While I understand why some may be concerned, perhaps those same people should be instead complaining to those responsible for this, rather than the person tired of this kind of behaviour at Osgoode. I have received numerous letters of support in the past day, from total strangers thanking me for speaking out publicly about this issue. Clearly I am not the only one who feels offended by what happened last week.

Make no mistake: if Osgoode loses funding in the future for Mock Trial, it is not because a female law student got mad as hell and raised a fuss, but rather because there was a failure of judgement and oversight at all stages of the process. If people don’t want their dirty laundry aired, then perhaps they should keep their clothes clean. I don’t think it’s appropriate to be quiet about this simply because this is a charitable event and it reflects poorly on the school. It should. We have to face the consequences as a community for allowing this to happen and not run for cover. This is indicative of a systemic problem and a culture at Osgoode that makes this kind of behaviour possible. There are plenty of ways to raise money for charity in an inclusive and respectful manner and defaming a member of our community in a (mostly) otherwise entertaining production is not one of them. (emphasis mine)

Now, I applaud Obiter for including a number of pro/con comments in this issue, and I only have serious concerns with one: "Come join the Cabaret…" by Sheila Hyatt. The comment states: "Mock Trial is, I think, best defined as a cabaret show. Cabaret as an art form is generally a bawdy, funny, sometimes vulgar intertwining of performances of varying calibre and has also traditionally been a venue for social and political satire and commentary. Mock Trial is very much along this vein."

Okay, I'm agree so far. But the comment continues: "I’ve heard mostly positive comments about the show. Naturally, however, this is law school, and in keeping with the legacy of melodrama that is Oz, I have also heard murmurs that some people are getting their knickers in a knot over the 'raciness' and 'inappropriateness' of some numbers."

Again: What? This isn't about a couple of prudes in a tizzy because someone showed some ankle, for heaven's sake.

The comment then raises the similarity of Mock Trial with the cabaret as depicted in the film Cabaret, stating: "The film deals with cabaret in Germany during the Nazi rise to power. Between 1933 and 1945, the art form was essentially “sanitized” due to Nazi repression of social and political criticism, as well as a desire to exert greater control over public morality. Clearly I am not saying that those who are worried about the content of the Mock Trial show are repressive, fascist, racist, dictators!"

HAHA, CLEARLY! My God, we've actually gotten to a use of reductio ad Hitlerum. (I suppose Godwin's law fits too.)

The major problem for me is that I agree with much of this comment, if it were applied to different circumstances. The statement that: "I would like to point out that, as anyone who has studied Jonathan Swift can tell you, satire gets a point across far more effectively than the clearest analytical writing." So true! And that: "...don’t assume that because you were morally offended by something in the show that everyone was or should be offended. It is that kind of thinking that leads to moral arrogance as well as a lack of dialogue between divergent viewpoints." Yes, yes!

But of course, the comment misses several major points. Like the fact that these differences of opinion aren't about opening a progressive discourse, but about a series of ad hominem attacks that the comment itself has participated in (seriously? Nazis? SERIOUSLY?). Also, the striptease was sort of a side note, but was nevertheless problematic not because it was "racy" but because of the way it portrayed a group of students. Would it be okay for a skit to portray any other group by reference to a single, generalized stereotypical characteristic? Hell no.

Another point is that satire and parody have an object. Had the dance number been contextualized, even briefly, it might fit into this category. Male and female students stripping as the only way to pay gargantuan tuition. perhaps, or a sexy dance choreographed to a recording of a boring lecture set to hip-hop music. As it stood however, the only message of the piece was "SEXY DANCING".

The fact that these two skits (mainly the one consisting of a personal attack) made it into Mock Trial concerns me a little. The fact that half the Osgoode community seems hell-bent on attacking the whistle-blowers is, to my mind, far far more alarming.

Long time no blog...300 spoiler alert

So last Saturday I watched 300, the much-hyped, much-criticized film version of Frank Miller's graphic novel (full disclosure, I ♥ Frank Miller). Wikipedia has a good summary of the criticisms, which were many, ranging from the political implications to the historical inaccuracies. I think people who expect historical perfection from action movies need a roundhouse kick to the head, but it's always nice when they make an effort.

One thing which did amuse me was the throw-away comment about Athenians being "boy lovers," since Sparta was, I believe, downright famous for pederasty. The Guardian featured an article quoting a historian, Paul Cartledge, stating:

Few cultures have celebrated the naked male body in the way the Greeks did. But the Spartan king Leonidas refers to the Greeks as "boy lovers", suggesting they are decadent. The irony is that the Spartans were literally boy lovers: they incorporated a form of pederasty into their educational system, as a way of turning a boy into a warrior.

Zephyrus and Hyacinthus, beloved of Apollo was a patron hero of pederasty in Sparta. Attic red-figure cup from Tarquinia, c. 490-480 BCE.

Another comment often echoed:

But the most controversial aspect of the film is the portrayal of the Persians. They look a bit like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The real emperor Xerxes was not a 10ft-tall god-king with multiple piercings. I can understand why the Iranians are upset about this. However, I think they're wrong to assume that the film-makers are making a comment on the Middle East, simply because it takes a very long time to develop a movie.

This is exceptionally true. For one thing, the Greeks and the Persians? Arch enemies for centuries. And the story is a fairly central one to Western culture. So to link the current supposed "Clash of Civilizations" to the Battle of Thermopylae is pretty ridiculous. For one thing, the 4th century BCE Persians were extremely different from Middle Easterners in general and Iranians in particular today. For one thing, they wouldn't be Muslim for another millennium. Which sort of involved a paradigm shift. Also, the graphic design was done when Miller published the graphic novel in 1999, before the current conflict.

Xerxes version Frank Miller, left version Zack Snyder, right

I suppose there might be a better argument to be made that the reaction to the film was influenced by the current "clash of civilizations," which is concerning. But that's a symptom of our time, not attributable to Miller or Snyder. In short, I can't agree with this comment from Slate reviewer Dana Stevens :

If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war.

Stevens missed some key points of the film. For one, she says that the law is "whatever Leonidas wants", and "if Spartan law is defined by 'whatever Leonidas wants,' what are the 300 fighting for, anyway?" As evidence, she relates this tidbit:

When a messenger from Xerxes arrives bearing news Leonidas doesn't like, he hurls the man, against all protocol, down a convenient bottomless well in the center of town. "This is blasphemy! This is madness!" says the messenger, pleading for his life.

Which raises the question: did she watch the movie? Not that it's incredibly strong on plot, but there is more to the story. First of all, the set-up to throwing the messenger in the pit is a consequence of Leonidas's belief that one should not use the cloak of "messenger" to throw threats at his people and insult his wife. Was the pit an over-reaction? Well, duh. But Leonidas is clearly a Punisher-style whackjob-maverick. Over-reaction is his forte. And as for the "there's no law" thing...uhm, a major plot-point of the movie is the fact that Sparta's "law" (as interpreted by venal, pseudo-religious perverts who have been bribed) is that Leonidas cannot defend his land and people, and so he has to try fending off the Persians with a tiny group pf volunteers.

Look, the movie is visually stunning and ideologically suspect. But if your getting you ideologies from movies based on Frank Miller graphic novels...there's a bigger problem.

Quebec town excludes Muslims, human rights

(Apologies, my images won't post...will try to fix later)

Google News Canada brought this little gem to my attention: "Welcome to town, here are the rules" (Globe & Mail, 5 Feb 07)

It appears that, starting with the Municipalité Hérouxville. a number of Quebec municipalities are adopting so-called "Public Standards" that outline what is and what is acceptable in the town. The county (Mékinac) has a visible-minority population of only 0.16%, so I wonder why they feel so inundated that they must shore up the original cultural fabric, but the reason is less important than the method used.

Of course, the standards themselves are not as starkly exclusionary as the headlines paint them. This is not a case of a town posting a "No Fat Chicks" sign at the city limits. In fact, the standards state: "...we would like to invite, without discrimination, in the future, all people from outside our MRC that would like to move to this territory." They continue:

So that the future residents can integrate socially more easily, we have decided unanimously, to make public, certain standards already in place and very well anchored in the lives of our electors.

THE PROS

It is hard to criticize the people of Hérouxville for promulgating such core Canadian standards as the following:

We consider that men and women are of the same value. Having said this, we consider that a woman can; drive a car, vote, sign checks, dance, decide for herself, speak her peace, dress as she sees fit respecting of course the democratic decency, walk alone in public places, study, have a job, have her own belongings and anything else that a man can do.

...

Our children are required to attend public or private schools to insure their social development and to help integrate into our society. Any form of violence towards children is not accepted.

...

In our schools certified men and women teach our children. The women or men teachers can teach boys or girls with no sexual discrimination. They do not have to dress any different to accomplish their tasks.

...

...boys and girls [play] the same games and often play together.

...

Our immense territory is patrolled by police men and women of the "Surete du Quebec". They have always been allowed to question or to advise or lecture or to give out an infraction ticket to either a man or woman.

...

The employers must respect the governmental laws regarding work conditions. These laws include holidays known and accepted in advance by all employees.

...

You will appreciate that both parents manage the children needs and both have the same authority. The parents can be of the same race or not, be from the same country or not, have the same religion or not, even be of the same sex or not. If a boy or girl wants to get married, they may, they have the liberty to chose who their spouse will be.

Sure, the wording is a little graceless (bear in mind, this is not the original French, which I assume bore little or no grammatical resemblance to Yoda), but all in all the above is a reasonably acceptable code, more descriptive than anything else, and imposing very few positive duties...and those it does impose are, I beleive, of a character that even more libertarian Canadians would accept as neccessary. Unfortunately, the "Standards" go further than they should.

THE CONS

This particular line in the preamble disturbed me, despite its vagueness:

We would especially like to inform the new arrivals that the lifestyle that they left behind in their birth country cannot be brought here with them and they would have to adapt to their new social identity.

They would like to inform? Oh, how very kind of them...If I hear one more person say that those who come to Canada must "leave behind" their "old" culture, I am going to beat them senseless. Did the English leave behind their culture? Did the French? Note that these "Standards" were promulgated in English and French, not, say, Mohawk (which, thank your chosen gods, still exists, unlike so many actually indidgenous languages). But thanks for coming out.

And after the otherwise agreeable paragraph on the equality of women, this is thrown in:

...we consider that killing women in public beatings, or burning them alive are not part of our standards of life.

There's so much wrong with this my eyes cross just reading it. First of all, what in the hell are they referring to? Sati? Please, real sati is incredibly rare, and always has been (and Canada and India have comparable suicide rates, according to the WHO) so that's crap. So then, so-called "bride burning" (dowry murder)? Well, no one's going to argue that isn't a serious problem (one which is slowly getting better?), but it is equal parts hysterical and hypocritical for Canadians--or Westerners in general--to point shocked fingers at other cultures for violence against women, just because other cultures have flashier, more exotic ways of killing females. Newsflash people: we don't have an iron-clad system of protection for women, we just have less imagination. StatsCan tells us that "Between 1995 and 2004, 39% of all homicides committed against females were perpetrated by a spouse..."

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/venus/venus-symbol.jpg

This provision, which of course gets most of the press, is stupid and xenophobic, but really is not saying much at all:

We listen to music, we drink alcoholic beverages in public or private places, we dance and at the end of every year we decorate a tree with balls and tinsel and some lights. This is normally called "Christmas Decorations" or also "Christmas Tree" letting us rejoice in the notion of our national heritage and not necessarily a religious holiday. These festivities are authorized in public, schools, and institutions and also in private.

I've never been a big fan of banning Christmas trees from public places; generally I prefer the "pack the lobby with as many diverse holiday decorations as possible" methodology. Forgive me, I grew up in Toronto, where eating latkes by the light of the Christmas tree was a standard activity and I was jealous of my half-brother because there were Muslim kids in his elementary school so he got to celebrate Eid too, the perfect Abrahamic hat trick. And don't forget Solstice or Lunar New Year or International Women's Day (always celebrated with pretzels in the venus-symbol).

http://www.mef.qc.ca/images/kirpan.gif

Then there's this unsubtle dig:

In our schools the children cannot carry any weapons real or fake, symbolic or not.

Thanks? That is a heavy handed indictment on the recent decision of Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, wikisummarized here, wherein a Sikh student was found to have the right to carry a kirpan, as mandated by his religion.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/10/05/jkstrwapaa.gif

Then there's this:

You may not hide your face as to be able to identify you while you are in public. The only time you may mask or cover your face is during Halloween, this is a religious traditional custom at the end of October celebrating all Saints Day, where children dress up and go door to door begging for candy and treats. All of us accept to have our picture taken and printed on our driver’s permit, health care card and passports. A result of democracy.

A...a what of democracy? Thanks, Jack Straw, but I hardly think the niqab qualifies as either a security threat or a threat to Western civilization, and by the way, in what alternate universe is Hallowe'en a) a human right, or b) a religious holdiay? It's a pagan holiday, you imbeciles, and by the way, your ancient pagan ancestors weren't above burning people alive, so lets not get uppity, alright? I say that with the greatest affection, too, being a sometime student of neopaganism myself, but truth is truth, and a history of human sacrifice is near universal.

There's some more assorted drivel about no extra holidays, no prayer spaces provided at work, no tinting windows so people can't see in to sweaty excercise rooms, and the like. Basically, ridiculous in a way that boggles the mind.