January 2021

Volume 47, Issue 2

Defunding the Police, Six Months Later

By Daniel Grushcow, S5 Editor

Just six months ago, everything seemed different. A motion for a 10% cut to the Toronto Police budget was introduced to City Council, support for Black Lives Matter and police defunding skyrocketed, and a veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council had pledged to dismantle their city’s police force. But progress is rarely easy or quick.

To be clear, there have been a number of incredible, tangible gains as a result of the George Floyd protests. An average of four polls show that 31% of Americans support defunding the police, with 58% opposed. Consider that just a year ago, defunding the police was so far outside the realm of mainstream discussion that no pollster would have bothered to ask about it. Now, it is polling similarly to gay marriage just eight years before its legalization. In Canada, defunding the police already has the support of a slim majority with 51% of Canadians in support and 49% opposed.

But despite the surge in support for police defunding, legislative change has hit several stumbling blocks. As mentioned before, Minneapolis City Council pledged to abolish their police department, and backed it up by supporting an amendment which would remove a requirement to fund police in the city charter. But now, nearly every councillor who supported the pledge has walked it back. To quote directly from a New York Times article on the subject:

"Councillor Andrew Johnson, one of the nine members who supported the pledge in June, said in an interview that he meant the words ‘in spirit,’ not by the letter. Another councillor, Phillipe Cunningham, said that the language in the pledge was ‘up for interpretation’ and that even among council members soon after the promise was made, ‘it was very clear that most of us had interpreted that language differently.’ Lisa Bender, the council president, paused for 16 seconds when asked if the council’s statement had led to uncertainty at a pivotal moment for the city."

The councillors faced pressure from community organizations that didn’t support the pledge, and ran up against Minneapolis’ majority-white, unelected Charter Commission, which said the pledge violated several guidelines used during typical changes to the city charter. The Charter Commission rejected the Council’s amendment 10-5, and support for the pledge among politicians fizzled out.

Instead, the Minnesota Legislature passed a series of incremental reforms, most notably increased funding for mental health training and a ban on chokeholds. These kinds of incremental reforms sound significant even though they are proven to be almost useless; an NPR investigation found chokehold bans were “largely ineffective and subject to lax enforcement.”

Unfortunately, the city of Toronto is experiencing its own miniature version of the Minneapolis debacle. On June 8, City Councillors Josh Matlow and Kristyn Wong-Tam introduced a motion to defund the police by 10% - a small but significant cut that would send a message to the Toronto Police and encourage the use of non-police alternatives in a variety of situations.

More surprising than the motion itself was Matlow’s involvement. Matlow entered City Council as a proud centrist, complete with a Twitter account devoted to mocking his mushy moderate persona. To see him introduce and support such a motion meant there was a possibility other moderates would get behind it as well.

What stopped the motion from being passed? None other than mayor John Tory himself. Days before the vote on defunding, Tory threw his weight behind his own motion consisting mostly of watered-down versions of the reform policies proposed by Matlow and Wong-Tam.

The Matlow-Wong-Tam motion banned tear gas and the use of deadly force on unarmed civilians, while Tory’s motion included only a vague commitment to “deescalation.” Additionally, Tory’s motion limited the potential use of mental health responders to situations without weapons or violence, compared to all non-criminal calls involving mental health, addiction, or homelessness. On a practical level, Tory’s motion means that a shove or a butter knife would still be grounds for armed police response. Finally, Tory’s motion included $5 million for the implementation of body cams, despite clear evidence showing they have no effect on police misconduct.

But the most salient part of the motion was what it left out - police defunding. The Tory motion did promise to look for areas where funding could be cut, but the additional funding required for mental health training and body cams means the net effect will be a slight increase to the police budget.

Tory’s motion passed 17-7, with all but two councillors who had remained neutral voting yes. The defunding motion, however, failed 8-16.

What lesson should we take from this? For the people in power, the optics of change are far more attractive than actually changing things. Even in a place like Toronto, where the city motto is “Diversity Our Strength,” and where the mayor’s friendly rhetoric on the need to embrace that diversity is ubiquitous, Frederick Douglass’ famous line rings true: “Power concedes nothing without demand.”

but first... let me take a selfie

Naruto the Monkey and Copyright

By Janet Fu, S5 Editor

Back in 2011, David Slater, a wildlife and monkey enthusiast was deep in the jungles of Indonesia, hoping to get a photo of a Celebes crested macaques, a critically endangered and highly intelligent species of monkey. The British photographer had been in Indonesia for three years, and had no luck snatching a close-up image of any of the monkeys. One day, however, his luck turned when he left his camera lying around and Naruto, one of the macaques monkeys, picked it up, saw his reflection inside the lens, and quite literally, took a selfie.


The photo that the monkey took of himself was striking -- a giant, amused, grin on his face, striking red eyes -- a one-in-a-million picture that all photographers strive to take. However, there was one small problem: Slater himself didn’t take the photo. The monkey did. Which is why, when a lot of publicity was garnered from the amusing way the photo was captured, many (including Wikipedia themselves) began to question if Slater actually deserved the copyright to the photo.


And he wasn’t too happy about this.


“Until I hear from the monkey’s lawyers,” Slater said, “I will stick to the belief that I own the copyright.” And that’s exactly what PETA did-- slap him with a big ol’ lawsuit.


The argument, ludicrous as it may seem, is that since the monkey took the photo, the monkey should have gotten the copyright to the photo. I’d like you, the reader, to guess which way the lawsuit went while the following arguments are presented.


Argument 1: Monkey Gets the Copyright

As CGP Grey puts it--“I’m tickled by the notion of the monkey getting the copyright! I think this is a fascinating, fascinating question.”


Giving a monkey copyright isn’t as crazy as it sounds. If the monkey took the photo himself, why should the human get copyright? Sure, it was the human’s camera, but the photographer didn’t actually do any work. Naruto did. As Slater himself stated, Naruto was playing around with his camera and decided to take a picture. But later on, he changed up his story from “the monkey took the picture by himself by random chance” to “I set up the cameras so that he would take it, which took days of planning in advance”. If he was the one to bait the monkey into picking up the camera and taking the photo, absolutely, he should have gotten the rights. But if Naruto picked it up of his own volition, that’s a bit more of a gray area, which is why Slater switched his story last minute. If you’re feeling like something fishy was going on, so did quite a few people, who began to doubt that Slater should have gotten the copyright after all.


If we turn to the definition of copyright, it states that those who have the right to copy are “the original creators of products and anyone they give authorization to are the only ones with the exclusive right to reproduce the work.” And who was the original creator of the product? The monkey, of course. Did Naruto authorize Slater to reproduce the photo? No, he didn’t. Therefore, Slater has no right to claim copyright, and it should go to Naruto, who has legal authorship of the photo.


Argument 2: Human Gets the Copyright

Now, you must be thinking, wait a minute, this is ridiculous, animals can’t get copyrights. And of course, you’re correct. US copyright laws explicitly only extend to humans (even this is a little foggy). In section 202.02 of the Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices, it is stated that: The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.”


Furthermore, in section 503.03 of the Compendium:“Works-not originated by a human author.”“In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship.”


So unfortunately for Naruto and PETA, it doesn’t look like the law is on their side. And if the copyright should go to any human, it should go to Slater. After all, it was his camera that the monkey used. Many people believe that copyright should reside with the equipment; whoever owns the equipment gets the copyright.


Wildlife photographers spend their whole careers to get that one photo, that winning shot, and money isn’t easy to come by. Why should Naruto, who’d probably appreciate a banana more than a copyright claim, get anything?


Something about the copyright residing with the equipment just doesn’t sit right with a lot of people, however. As a general rule, people feel that the copyright owner is the person who does the creative work. This is much more of a grey area than people believe it to be (we’ll review that later).


Argument 3: No one gets the Copyright

This dispute began because Slater asked Wikipedia to take down the photo of Naruto from their commons, as he claimed, posting it would be an infringement on his copyright. Wikipedia however, said that since the photo was taken by a monkey (who can’t own the copyright), it was free for anyone to use. Furthermore, in section 503.03 of the Compendium, it’s stated:


“In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable.”


Briefly, the argument is that since Naruto took the photo of his own volition, the photo could be classed as a random selection; a work of nature with no human authorship, and therefore is not protected under the copyright law.


Finale - The Two Year Lawsuit

If you made it this far, I’d like you to place your bets and make your final guess on which way the lawsuit went. Done? Let’s continue.


At the end of the day, most experts agreed that it boiled down to whether or not Slater was artistically involved with the setup of the photo. If Slater directly contributed to the setting and angle and all the monkey needed to do was press the button, then the copyright should have gone to him.


Since the court couldn’t directly get a statement from the monkey, all they had to go off of was Slater’s word of mouth. His tale was spun more and more to fit his tune; first, the monkey had picked up the camera randomly, second, he had lured then into the setup, third, the group of monkeys had taken a liking to him and were comfortable enough to let him move them around, and fourth, he was the one to hold the camera while Naruto pressed the button.


Thus, it was decided that Slater would get the rights to the photo.


Hypotheticals

This situation has brought up many other interesting questions, all of which may become relevant in the foreseeable future. If the monkey had not picked up the camera, and instead a person from the uncontacted tribes deep in the Amazons had done so, who would then get the copyright? If technology allowed animals to develop so that they would be able to create, would they have rights to their work? As robots are becoming more and more advanced, would hyper-intelligent AIs be able to obtain copyright for their creative work, or would it go to their coders?


As technology advances and becomes more sophisticated by the day, more and more issues akin to this one will surely be brought up. Someday, will non-humans be able to produce copyrightable works of their own merit? To some extent, I believe that eventually, they will have to.


Next time you’d like to monopolize off of your pets’ talents, think again. You’ll bet your bananas that PETA will be on your case.

Dream On . . .

By Mohammed Hussain, S6 Editor

When you think about it, the concept of dreaming is stunning; our brains are capable of generating full 4k realities in which the rules of logic are completely suspended for what feels like up to hours on end. But why do we dream in the first place? Is there any deeper meaning? These questions have mystified scientists to this day. No one has provided a conclusive answer, but research is now beginning to show that they play a much more crucial role in our daily lives than many could have ever dreamed.


Perhaps the most striking indication of the power dreams hold was demonstrated in many studies conducted over the past decade, showing a relationship between REM sleep and depression (REM sleep is the stage where most dreaming occurs). The researchers found that “the more severe the depression, the earlier the first REM begins” during sleep. This non-restorative, excessive REM sleep displaces deep sleep to the point that when the patients woke up, they felt as if their brain was even more active than it was during the day. According to the expectation fulfillment theory of dreams, this is because excessive rumination during daytime generates so much cortisol (stress hormone) that a) one finds it extremely hard to fall asleep, and b) the body immediately goes into REM sleep. But what exactly is the connection between worrying and REM sleep? Researchers have speculated that a critical function of dreams is to regulate and ‘discharge’ intense emotion generated during the daytime. It stands to follow that worrying creates so much negative emotion that REM sleep must last longer to bring the mind back to balance.


The work of other scientists seems to confirm a relationship between dreaming and our emotions, at the very least. In particular, they assert that our dreams play a hidden yet oversized role in how we feel the next day. For example, a 2018 scientific journal article found a strong correlation between a “waking peace of mind and well-being with more positive dreams.” A separate experiment found that when people dreamt of drinking water, they woke up feeling more hydrated. The connection between emotion and dreaming even seems to extend all the way to emotional intelligence. People who were observed to be getting too little REM sleep had difficulty recognizing what constituted a sad or joyful facial expression.


To say, however, that dreams are only connected to emotions would be an understatement. Now we also know that they are tied to our brain structure too. According to the ground-breaking defensive activation theory, the brain would rewire itself and deprive the visual cortex of the neurons it needs to operate if it was rendered useless for 8 hours a day. Thus, dreaming keeps the visual cortex active so that we don’t gradually lose the ability to see over time.


So what can we do to affect the dreams we have? Humans are capable of ‘lucid dreaming,’ or becoming aware that they are within a dream, allowing them to change it to an environment they prefer. The most common technique used to do this is ‘reality checking,’ where people continuously ask themselves during the daytime if they are within a dream. They hope to make this such an ingrained habit that they will ask themselves this when they are dreaming to become self-aware. Be warned, though; it can take up to three months of this obsessive training before you can manifest your lucid dream. Alternatively, if that sounds too Matrix-y for you, then you can listen to calm music before sleeping. No pressure, though. Dreaming is probably just the most essential thing you’ll do in a day. Unless you want your visual cortex to die and emotional well-being to suffer.


Now go to sleep.

Marks of Supernova Found on Tress

By Jessica Yu, S5 Editor

Supernovae are the largest explosions that take place in space. Spanning only a few short months, one of these explosions can release as much energy as a sun will in its entire lifetime. But how do these violent events, thousands of light-years away, affect life on Earth? Of course, a supernova very close to us would be capable of wiping civilization from the face of Earth. However, a study published this November in the International Journal of Astrobiology notes that even further away explosions are capable of causing an impact, bathing our planet in dangerous radiation and damaging our ozone layer.

To study possible impacts from supernova explosions in the past, Robert Backenridge, a geoscientist at the University of Colorado Boulder, combed through tree ring records for marks of supernovae. Sure enough, unusual spikes in radiocarbon levels shown in tree rings correspond to cosmic explosions that have happened in the past 40,000 years.

Carbon-14, also known as radiocarbon, is an isotope that could have formed when cosmic rays from space have bombarded our planet. Trees pick up carbon dioxide, and some of the carbon might be radiocarbons. Unusual spike levels in these isotopes indicate that extraterrestrial energy, either from solar flares or supernovae, might’ve bombarded our planet.

Brackenridge found eight supernovae that could be associated with random spikes of radiocarbon level on Earth; four of them are especially promising candidates:

  • Vela supernova: 12, 740 years ago, 815 light-years = 3% increase in radiocarbon on Earth.

  • S165 supernova: 7,431 years ago, 2,300 light-years away = 2% increase in radiocarbon on Earth.

  • Vela Jnr. supernova: 2,765 years ago, 650-700 light-years away = 1.4% increase in radiocarbon on Earth.

  • HB9 supernova: 5,340 years ago, 1,000-4,000 light-years away = 0.9% increase in radiocarbon on Earth.

There is a possibility that these four supernovae led to climate change on Earth. However, the evidence is not conclusive; Breckenridge states that they’re only tantalizing hints that the occurrences in space affect the stability of life on our planet. Research on supernovae are worth delving deeper into, as scientists are currently unsure of the exact impacts the explosion could’ve had on animals and plants. If there is a conclusion that the reach of outer space incidents extend to Earth, we may have yet another reason to continue astronomical studies.

“I think the supernovae hypothesis has been dismissed too quickly,” said Brakenridge. “These are extreme events, and their potential effects seem to match tree ring records.”

The geoscientist also hopes humanity won’t have to experience the answer first-hand. Some astronomers suspect Betelgeuse, a red giant star in the constellation Orion, may be on the verge of collapsing. And it’s much closer to Earth than Vela, only 642.5 light years away (see the list above).

“We can hope that’s not what’s about to happen because Betelgeuse is very close,” he stated.

Senioritis

By Wendy Huang, S6 Editor

sen·ior·i·tis (noun) : a supposed affliction of students in their final year of highschool, characterized by a decline in motivation or performance.


Symptoms:

  • Not completing assignments

  • Procrastination

  • Loss of interest in studies

  • Skipping class

  • Dropping grades


Although the term “senioritis” is often used as a joke, it is a real phenomenon that people experience. It's the feeling after seeing the finish line and deciding you don’t have to work as hard anymore to reach it. The loss of momentum and motivation leaves students hoping they can float through to the end.


In September, I was amazed to finally step into school and see my teachers and peers again. But slowly, that in itself lost its thrill as less and less people started coming in and teachers piling on seemingly endless amounts of work. The insane amounts of lessons learned in a day sapped my personal enjoyment for the course. Instead the courses became an abundant amount of assignments or tests to complete before the due date.


I felt myself getting sucked into the Senioritis vortex, but little things like facetime or messaging friends pulled me out. One big thing that sparked my enthusiasm was the live rehearsals Chamber Strings was fortunate enough to have at 371 for the Remembrance Day Concert. Even though we were all socially distanced, playing beautiful music together felt somewhat normal.


Tips to Overcome Senioritis:

  • Set goals to get you motivated

  • Reward yourself

  • Get yourself organized and on schedule

  • Surround yourself with support

  • Change things up - work environments/scenery

  • Take a break


Sometimes I forget how privileged I truly am. I’m so lucky to have the option of going to a school with amazing teachers who continuously try their best to create engaging lessons and make the best out of our pandemic situation. Even though focusing on the negatives are easy, I remind myself to take a step back to see how lucky I am.


A huge thank you goes to all the UTS staff and admin who put so much effort to ensure we’re able to have extracurriculars, fun online events, and a wonderful hybrid learning model. <3