June 2018 Columns

Last month, the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics visited Grassy Narrows (Asubpeeschoseewagong) First Nation, in Northern Ontario. His task was to investigate mercury contamination in the community.

The polluted land of Grassy Narrows claims more lives every day.

Azraya Ackabee-Kokopenace asked her parents to put her into the child welfare system in Kenora, Ontario. She needed mental health counselling services to cope with her brother’s death from mercury poisoning. The only specialists available were far from her home.

A few weeks later, on April 19, 2016, a First Nations search team found her body in the woods.

The police and welfare agency have refused to answer questions about what happened to Azraya that night in Kenora. Her family still does not know whether she was killed or committed suicide.

Azraya’s generation is the third to suffer in yet another saga of Indigenous intergenerational trauma. In the 1960s and ‘70s, a resource-extraction company dumped ten tonnes of mercury into the water surrounding Grassy Narrows. This neurotoxin contaminated the rivers, ground, and fish. Residents developed tremors, tunnel vision, impaired hearing, slurred speech, and lost muscle coordination. The flourishing tourism industry shrivelled up. A study revealed that the adults of Grassy Narrows report higher rates of suicide compared to other First Nations adults, whose suicide rate is already twice the national average.

Mercury levels in the community today remain as high as levels five decades ago. No government—or party—is blameless here.

On National Aboriginal Day in 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau stated that “no relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples.” In the time since, he has refused to visit Grassy Narrows each of the five times he has been invited. In January of the same year, Trudeau promised to deal with the mercury crisis “once and for all,” but on Wednesday, his government reported that it could not keep its pledge to build a specialized health facility for victims of mercury exposure.

Following the Special Rapporteur’s visit, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer tweeted that a Conservative government “will help Grassy Narrows.” It was a previous Conservative government, under Stephen Harper, that promised reconciliation before systematically excluding Indigenous voices from consultation.

The Ontario government’s $85 million pledge to clean up the waters can only do so much, says former chief Steve Fobister. Mercury does not disappear once ingested. Instead, it “bioaccumulates,” passed from mother to child through the placenta.

Each successive generation sees more serious health effects. Maria Swain, 58, shakes involuntarily and feels numbness in her face. At 11 years of age, her granddaughter, Robyn Fiddler, committed suicide. She had been suffering from seizures since birth.

This Friday, the UN Special Rapporteur will deliver his report on Grassy Narrows. Despite the growing attention from government officials, residents aren’t allowing themselves optimism. The Canadian government agreed only a few weeks ago to release the results of decades-old mercury tests. The Ontario government was aware of mercury in Grassy Narrows soil since the 1990s, according to a Toronto Star investigation. The first public admission came only in 2016.

Residents of Flint, Michigan know this story well. In 2016, six officials there were charged with burying a report that showed a spike in lead poisoning in children. The pipes that carried water to Flint’s taps had been slowly corroding for years, releasing lead into the drinking supply. Health officials had full knowledge of this, yet never informed the public.

Flint is majority African-American. Grassy Narrows is a First Nations Reserve. These are not coincidences.

Black and Indigenous communities across North America are disproportionately likely to be the sites of toxic waste disposal and pollution and this has long been the case. One hundred twenty five petrochemical-producing businesses line an 85-mile stretch in Louisiana known as Cancer Alley. Identify this as an African-American area In the 19thcentury, the municipal government of Halifax, Nova Scotia decided to place an infectious disease hospital and a garbage dump in the predominantly Black area known as Africville.

When Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette handed down the Flint indictments in July 2016, he described the cover-up as “part arrogance, part viewing the people of Flint as expendable.”

The Grassy Narrows First Nations echoed those words. “We are not expendable, and our children have to feel that,” said Judy DaSilva, a 55-year-old grandmother and activist.

Children believing their lives are expendable—add that to the list of injustices and broken promises in Grassy Narrows.

After four long years, the next federal election is creeping in this October. This time, it’s truly a gamble. With Andrew Scheer closing in on Trudeau, the Liberals are desperate to reassert their relevance-– and what better way to do so than with fearmongering?

It seems that the Trudeau we knew and loved is no longer. Back in 2015, that fresh-faced Adonis could get away with pretty much anything. His only criteria for exceeding expectations was “if he comes on stage with his pants on,” in the words of the Conservatives’ Kory Teneycke. But the suffocating positivity just doesn’t hit the same notes anymore.

Canada’s political climate is actually hindering the success of Trudeau and the Liberal party. When compared with the rest of the world, Canada’s policies are decently progressive on issues like immigration, abortion, and gun violence, to name a few. They’re certainly frightening to hear about, but there’s been little indication that any of the same problems could prevail in Canada. It’s looking pretty good for us. Trudeau, however, wants to change that.

Earlier this year, Trudeau made multiple comments denouncing the Conservative party, calling them the fearmongers when it came to immigration and warning Canadians against “the dangers of populism.” With concern in his voice he stated that “knowingly spreading falsehoods” and “drumming up anxiety” are no ways to “move forward in a thoughtful way.” Because Canada clearly isn’t progressive enough when it comes to immigration and refugee harbouring. Trudeau assured that he is open to discussion “as long as it sticks to meaningful areas of policy,” or in simpler words, “please be nice!”

A sort of civil war between Trudeau and Andrew Scheer began back in January, when Trudeau gave Canadians an eerie warning about the fearmongering tactics that would, inevitably, be used in the upcoming election. He lamented that the world is less open-minded these days, and reminded Canadians that it was the Liberals, not the Conservatives, who provided so many Syrian refugees a sanctuary. Scheer didn’t like that one bit and called him out straight away, labelling him “divisive” and “dismissive” of legitimate questions or criticism. It happened again just last week, when Trudeau deemed Scheer’s speech on reinforcing immigration policy “anti-immigration rhetoric.” I could dissect the speech and decide for myself but I’d prefer not to get into the minutiae. It continued into the uproar about the new Southern laws against abortion, with Trudeau boldly declaring the idea (no pun intended) Scheer blasphemy, despite the Conservatives’ blatant statement that the conversation on abortion is over and done with.

The point is that Trudeau is desperate. He no longer has the confidence he had running against Harper; he’s scrambling to find something that can swoop in and save the day, but there is simply nothing there. Instead, he has chosen to break down the support of other parties’ campaigns, something not uncommon in politics, but still reprehensible, to say the least. The world can’t be fixed with the sunshine-and-rainbows –– “sunny ways, my friends!” was the exact wording –– technique he won with in 2015, so his next best option is… fear tactics? You know what they say: if you can’t beat ‘em, scare ‘em.

What Canadians pride themselves on and what the world envies about this country is not that it’s like the others, but the opposite. Canada is a community: inclusive, diverse, welcoming. It is the immigrants who find a home in our country that contribute to its culture so deeply. Yet to hear the Liberal party constantly reassert that they were the ones to open Canada’s gates to those in need of asylum is exhausting. At this point, it would be impossible for a new PM to erase that part of Canada’s culture, no matter what his personal values were. Canadians don’t live in fear because they don’t have to, but that worries Trudeau. If nothing keeps us second-guessing what something new could offer us, it’ll be too easy to say goodbye to him once and for all.

It’s the end of the school year, and we can all practically taste summer. I hope that everyone can take time to not only relax during this break but also to explore something new. Keeping this in mind, summer is well anticipated by many, but not an easy time for all. Without the distractions of classes and everything that the school year brings, not everyone’s mental health remains consistent. Many things can come to light and some pre-existing situations can intensify. I came across an article a while ago that is practical and could be very useful for someone this summer.

When we are in a bad mental space, the reason is not always clear. However, here is a list of questions to ask yourself when in this space to self-help.

Ask yourself the following questions:

Are you hungry or thirsty? If you’re feeling down but can’t quite pin the reason, eat something first, and drink water. We know that dehydration is bad, but it takes a larger toll on your emotions than you think.

Are you sleepy? Beauty sleep is a real thing. In fact, a lack of hours sleeping could be the primary for your bad mood and unsettled head.

Are you comfortable? Are you feeling hot or cold? Have you moved? The case may be that you’ve been on the couch or in your bed all day, and going outside for a walk will make a big difference.

Are you feeling lonely? If you haven’t spoken or interacted with another person in a while, do your best to help yourself by reaching out, even if it’s as small as texting a sibling or close friend. Don’t feel pressured to hang out with a large group of people. In this case, less is often better.

Are you mad at yourself for doing/not doing something? Firstly, try to identify a very small step that you can take to stop procrastinating and to set yourself in the right direction.

Are you feeling anxious? Most people have developed their own coping techniques, whether they are aware of it or not. However, it’s important to simply be able to identify that you are feeling anxious, even if you don’t know why.

It is normal to feel this way. It is important for us to remind ourselves that negative mindsets, days, or experiences are outside factors that do not define your self-worth. Finally, remember: it will get better. Take time for yourself in the next few months and congratulations on surviving summative season! Have a great summer.

Great links:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/20/mild-dehydration-causes-a_n_1288964.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cueW91dHViZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKHw4nYTbH6LuUhxaLxhh84ZgbGz7VleAYpXyEoZS2Sr5tmMxj4-ZPV-HCNCI72DpwhVg5bLJBx-ppZW75cGLmoCT21WFcFOUpbmOof4Rd7akF2hMWDTG7ty8XqtI--_Grim7tIu1OeWDsspYBoNC8vBbHCFBq5mupB-M37WaoTh

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-science-behind-why-you-get-hangry_n_9170500?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cueW91dHViZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIM9jVHoogKkbdvMQEPW5CSeZt2Y1wlgC1zm_NeJdj1aIV01YdiN1Au8RuICAlWNNhkkFqXn0EOro0gkQIc-vKE64HvpyfQIeKe_KSwd3sIM9XjERR3E0fa1TB6crKmGaGJTu9ar4w1Rux6zpOLw-2IJiaiaKK_dP8vvWQ837Nf_

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/27/napping-guide-health-wellbeing

Gilded age: a term coined by writer Mark Twain to describe a period in American history during the late 19th century. The Gilded Age was a time of rapid economic growth and immigration to the United States. An influx of cheap labour, coupled with few regulations of the capitalist market, led to unrivalled economic success for business owners who often monopolized entire segments of the economy. Take, for example, Andrew Carnegie, one of the richest men in American history. Carnegie amassed his wealth through the steel industry, building and owning massive railway systems. His business allowed him to become one of the most prolific philanthropists the world had seen and allowed him to create his own university, museums and libraries among other institutions in the hopes of properly servicing the public.

Today, it seems that we have entered another “Gilded Age.” While the grand elite of yesteryear have faded, new wealth has erupted via the energy and technology sectors of the economy. Oil barons and tech moguls have amassed record-breaking wealth. So, how best should this wealth be used to service the greater good?

First, why should the ultra-rich relinquish their assets for meagre middle and lower-class benefits? Father Raymond J. DeSouza addresses this question extensively in one of his columns written for the National Post, titled “The Rich Abandon Their Duty to us All.” He states, “great wealth imposes obligations to provide for the common good. It often goes by the expression ‘giving back’ today, but it is more than that. There is a moral duty to provide that which only riches make possible.” The wealthy have an obligation to offer their services to those that they may have used to help them achieve their great wealth. The world requires great Renaissance-esque cultural projects to ensure society does not slide backwards. While governments can do their part, it is crucial to have grand private investment in the arts and culture.

The visual arts could become the most inaccessible to the public in this era of great divide between the upper one percent and all others. The “art world” is the last truly free, unregulated market. This means that it is often a game for only true insiders. Those with the best connections coupled with extreme wealth are able to collect the best works. A prime example of this is the recent Leonardo Da Vinci painting that came up for auction, the famed Salvator Mundi. The Da Vinci was purchased by an anonymous Saudi Arabian prince for over 450 million dollars, a new record for auction houses. It was to be displayed in the Louvre Abu Dhabi, but for an unknown reason it was withdrawn, and the work has not been seen since the auction. It is likely that this masterpiece will never be seen in public again.

It is troubling that today, even renowned museums lack the resources to purchase certain artworks, and often solely rely on private donations to fill their collections. As more and more of the world's most important artworks end up in private, clenched, hands, it is crucial that museums thrive in order to allow all people to have access to some form of art.

There have been some significant philanthropic donations and projects conducted by the super-wealthy recently, especially in connection to museums. Ken Griffin, a Chicago hedge fund founder, purchased a Jackson Pollock and a separate Willem De Kooning work together for $500 million, and promptly lent them to the Art Institute of Chicago. Entrepreneur Eli Broad created The Broad, an art museum in Los Angeles; its free admission forced other museums in the area to become free of charge as well. Alice Walton, an heiress of the Walmart fortune, funded the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas, the only elite art space in Arkansas.

In the new “Gilded Age” where a great rift has formed economically and culturally between segments of the population, it is now more important than ever that the ultra-rich commit themselves to apply their wealth philanthropically for the improvement of society or are held accountable by the masses.

“We won't have a society if we destroy the environment.” These words, uttered by Margaret Mead, American anthropologist, author, and speaker, accurately critiques our current attitude towards the environment. People have a tendency to spend hundreds of dollars on useless accessories, with this spending amplified around holidays. Many people think of global warming and the damage being done to our planet as a second priority, a problem that is being exaggerated. On holidays, we waste immense amounts of energy and food, which damages the environment. The bitter truth is that climate change is a real problem, and whether we want to believe it or not, we all contribute. We make excuses and ignore the impending threat around the most “joyous times of year,” believing that holidays are an exception, a reward for our hard work, and as a result we ignore our negative impact on our surroundings. Thousands of plants and animals are killed during the holidays, but this fact is covered up with flashing Christmas lights and holiday song. We need to change our way of celebrating holidays and avoid unnecessary luxuries.

People waste too many of the planet’s resources all year long, but during the holidays, the amount nearly triples. During Christmas, Hanukkah, and Valentine’s Day people carelessly spend money on luxuries they do not need and cause damage to the environment. During Christmas in the U.S.A alone, 6.63 billion kilowatt-hours of energy are used. If this is not enough to convince you, let’s look at another holiday. In Germany, 5000 tons of particulate matter is released in fireworks, most of which is during a span of 1 to 2 hours during the New Year celebrations. That’s 17 percent of annual vehicle emissions. As you can probably tell by now, during the holidays, we tend to be more careless with our carbon footprint, blinded by the festive spirit. To verify this, think about your own street. During Christmas, we tend to get attracted to the houses lined with colourful lights and glowing decorations. However, despite the pretty appearances, these are the people with a larger carbon footprint, and who have a more negative impact on their surroundings.

There are several problems that are created by holiday celebrations, but there are ways to lessen the impacts on our surroundings. When people exchange gifts on holidays, they waste a ton of tape, tissue paper, and other wrapping supplies. However, these materials can be used conservatively and can be reused. Think about the gifts you get. The tissue paper from many of them could be reused for another gift, and instead of using long strips of tape, it is better to use short pieces and tape them in the best spots to avoid wasting any. In fact, if every American family wrapped just 3 presents with reused materials, we would save enough paper to cover 45,000 football fields. Another factor is food. People cook and buy tons of food to celebrate with their families, as well as their friends and at parties. The amount of food waste is immense; we make the food, but we almost never finish it. Millions of dollars and thousands of trees are cut down in order to grow and ship the food that we cook and eat today. Shipping also emits tons of greenhouse gases, since large quantities need to be shipped over large distances. Simply taking what we need would make a big difference, even if it may seem like an insignificant action. By doing these certain small actions, we will be able to bring down our greenhouse gas emissions little by little. You will be able to save hundreds of dollars spent on electricity bills, extra wrapping, and food.

During the holiday season, we waste our limited resources on pointless luxuries and use things we don’t even need, which has a negative impact on the environment. To curb this, we can avoid wasting energy and food, and start reusing the materials around us. In the following holidays, we should make an effort to avoid wasting resources and reuse what you have around you to help lessen your carbon footprint. It is understandable why many of you may want to ignore the problem, but this is a part of a serious threat to everyone’s life, which is why we need to take action and start to alleviate the damage to our environment.

“Greening the Holiday for a Less Wasteful Holiday Season.” History, 7 Dec. 2016, www.colorado.edu/ecenter/recycling/reduce-and-reuse/greening-holiday-less-wasteful-holiday-season.

“Margaret Mead Quotes.” BrainyQuote, Xplore, www.brainyquote.com/authors/margaret_mead.

Treptow, Shelene. “The Environmental Impact of the Holiday Season.” Clean Air Partnership, cleanair-stlouis.com/the-environmental-impact-of-the-holiday-season/

In the six months that have passed since the CRISPR baby scandal rocked international scientific communities, the controversies surrounding He Jianku’s ‘edited’ twin girls and the associated topic of human genetic modification have only grown in complexity. As a result, the idea of using tools like the CRISPR-Cas9 system to improve or perfect our own bodies has faced contentious debate. The future of genetic modification certainly carries much unpredictable excitement, yet with such untapped potential also comes the hazy moralities of altering who we are fundamentally. Although there is no conclusive evidence that Jianku has succeeded in altering the girls’ genes, the mere fact that it is a possibility has provoked discussion along the lines of "should such extreme modifications of human bodies (or minds themselves) be considered morally permissible?" Personally, I believe not.

When He Jianku announced this past November that he had been working on modifying the genes of two babies to “cure” them of HIV, many were surprised to see such an outpouring of condemnation from the Chinese government and from international scientists for a seemingly positive premise. Superficially, the concept of taking initiative to combat the development of an incurable disease like HIV seems beneficial, perhaps even inspiring. The key fact to remember in this situation, however, is that genetic modification carries uncertain, permanent, and potentially dangerous consequences; furthermore, the process occurs in the complete absence of independent consent and betrays the values of autonomy as a human right. Personally, I believe this serves as the first reason why genetic modification should not be considered morally or legally permissible: genetic modifications of human embryonic cells occur based on the presumed consent of future populations, yet there is no basis for this presumption. How could scientists obtain the consent of a non-existent, undeveloped human? Today, embryonic consent is presumed on the basis of proxy parental consent; however, this is morally ambiguous at best. There is no way a parent could know what their unborn kid would want in their lifetime and whether or not they would allow such an action. Advocates for genetic engineering frequently argue that parents should be able to presume consent, at the very least, for “Rawlsian primary goods” (defined by a Russian system as qualities such as intelligence which would be valued by all of society). Yet for every good imaginable there is likely a situation where an individual would choose to reject this engineered quality as it is impossible for everyone to approve of a single value. In consideration of such violations of autonomy, combined with the potentially serious consequences of current genome editing (some approaches can even trigger severe diseases such as cancer through accidental mutations), there is hardly a case to be made for wading into unnecessarily hazardous territory.

Genetic editing imposes serious consequences not only on an individual level, but also on a societal scale. In a world already abundant with inequality, the pervasion of genetic modification could also increase the economic disparity between the upper and lower class and trigger even more social and political dissent. Regardless of the specific procedure chosen, even the smallest alterations can cost around 20,000 dollars. As Dr. David King (former molecular and chemical biologist and founder of the Human Genetics Alert organization) once wisely stated,“Once you start creating a society in which rich people’s children get biological advantages over other children, basic notions of human equality go out the window… What you get is social inequality written into DNA.” (NYU, 2017)

If the biological fundamentals of human capabilities in creativity, intelligence, personality, physical beauty, and overall health become controlled by editing program available exclusively to the wealthy, it will not only provide the upper class with indisputably improved skill sets but also reinforce social attitudes that the rich are automatically superior. In a world already full of hatred, economic crises, and growing inequality, should we really be encouraging technology that aggravates already serious issues? Genetic modification is counterproductive to the progression of society towards stability and harmony.

My final opinion to be made against the permissibility of genetic modification is that it places immense power in the hands of questionable authorities: in particular, it is the historical and modern-day connections between genetics and eugenics that render it an even greater public hazard. In the past, there have been devastating consequences when genetic research was combined with the intent to “improve” the human species; the most well-known case is the Holocaust where any non-Aryan race was meant to be eliminated through deadly procedures and painful torture. Yet, the Holocaust is only one example of many: several other less publicized injustices have been perpetrated throughout history, especially during the late 19th and even? 20th century. In fact, the founder of a cereal many of us grew up eating (or at least recognize and associate with childhood sweetness) was a perpetrator of unjust eugenics movements (Holmgren, 2002). In establishing the Race Betterment Foundation and hosting, sponsoring, and paying for multiple American conferences on improving human species, he also furthered incorrect social constructions that it was the faulty genes of ethnic and lower class citizens (and not a faulty system of prejudice) that made them allegedly less valuable to society. When bringing this back to the context of potential modern-day genetic modifications, genetic editing technology makes it even easier to further the development of eugenic “designer babies” that strive for a standardized child of perfection. When even a few mutations in a sequence can easily bring about “improved” human models, it is easy to imagine how the technology may encourage the elimination of diversity and focus on replicating traditionally-accepted traits. The inevitable promotion of such mindsets could move current societies towards accepting values of intolerance and prejudice subconsciously, furthering cycles of social dissent and moving farther from goals of acceptance and harmony as a whole. With so many communities around the world already plagued with political intolerance and refusals to accept others’ identities and opinions, genetic transformation technologies will only worsen an already grave situation. The development of such precarious instruments and programs should not be incentivized.

In light of these radically negative consequences genetic modification can perpetrate onto mass populations, I strongly consider the hazards of genetic modification to greatly outweigh any potential positives. In an era already abundant with problems that demand the conscientiousness of humans around the world more than ever, how can it be considered ethically acceptable to work on an unpredictable technology that may do more harm than good? Take an honest look at the current state of affairs of our crumbling world around us (politics in disarray, social rights in decay, and the environment we inhabit in degradation and dismay): do we really trust ourselves, a species known for acting in its extremities, to behave responsibly in the face of such scientific power?