-- headline from OhmyNews International, South Korea - 21 Sep 2006
The headline is in reference to Globe and Mail columnist, Jan Wong's statements regarding race and the recent shootings in Quebec.
While debates continue to rage (in print, radio and television -- though one questions if the office cooler is burning up) I thought I'd weigh in on the validity and weight of these comments.
Wong's statement was that the shootings that occured earlier this month at Dawson College in Montreal were carried out by a young man of Sikh heritage. Wong suggested that Kimveer's heritage was important, as it may provided the impetus for why Kimveer felt like such an outsider -- in otherwords Quebec society was intolerant of differing cultures. She suggested that, like everyone else who is not 100% French Canadian, Kimveer didn't feel wanted in his own society. She then supported her assertions with the fact that this was the third such slaughter in 17 years in a Quebec post-secondary institution. In 1989, Marc Lepine killed 14 women and wounded 13 others -- he was only half French Canadian; his mother was Algerian Muslim. In 1992, Valery Fabrikant, an engineering professor from Russia, shot four colleagues at Concordia University and wounded a fifth because he had been refused tenure.
As Wong stated: "To be sure, Mr. Lepine hated women, Mr. Fabrikant hated his engineering colleagues, and Mr. Gill hated everyone. But all of them had been marginalized in a society that valued 'pure laine.'" (The phrase, meaning "pure wool," is the Quebecois designation for undiluted French-Canadian ancestry.)
Now, I'd like to weigh in.
Despite media reports Quebec is not the only province to experience shootings and massacres related to alienated teens or young adults and directed at institutions. Yet, the reportage of such events leads us to believe that Quebec is the centre for such violence. As Wong suggested, if Quebec were the centre than perhaps sociologists should examine whether or not their significant reasons for such alienation and (subsequently) of such violent condemnation. But the media sets and defines its own parameters. The media decides which shootings/massacres/attacks are sensational enough to be included in "a list" or story. The reality is Canada has experienced its fair share of rage against society -- and not just in Quebec.
For example:
- Oct. 21, 1975; Ontario, Canada: 18-year-old Robert Poulin opens fire on his class at St. Pius High School, killing one and wounding five before turning the gun on himself. Poulin had raped and stabbed his 17-year-old friend Kim Rabit to death prior to the incident. A book was written on the incident called Rape of the Normal Mind.
- April 28, 1999; Taber, Alberta: In both the first school shooting since Columbine and the first Canadian school shooting in over 10 years, Todd Cameron Smith brought a sawn-off .22 rifle to W.R Meyers High School and shot two students, killing one.
- April 20, 2000; Ottawa, Ontario: A year after the Columbine massacre, a student attacked and injured four students and a school clerk with a butcher knife at Carine Wilson High School in the suburb of Orleans.
- Sept. 14, 2006; Ottawa, Ontario: A 22 year old university law student fired a pellet gun at one of the buildings of the University of Ottawa in a drive-by shooting. He was quickly arrested at his home and was subsequently banned from the University. No one was injured.
The reality is that there are pockets all over Canada of disassociated and disaffected youths. These pockets exist because of societal pressures and they exist because of rights-of-passage (the growing up process we all undertake). To blame a province, such as Quebec, because they are cultural different from the rest of Canada is to incite a causal link that does not exist. The reality is Quebec's immigration numbers are higher than most provinces, so is their level of unemployment, and the disparity between the haves-and-have-nots. While we always try and examine the various sociological reasons for why people react violently to their lot in life, we continue to willingly forget the studied, proven and established correlational relationship between socio-economic factors and crime -- even sensational school shooting crimes. Over and over again disparity is cited as the primary unconscious motivator for crime and violence. And over and over again we (as journalists and as society) opt to examine and explain the situation based on every other reason but. Yes, there may be validity to what Wong stated -- but only if it is prefaced on the notion that Kimveer's angst was NOT because he was Sikh, but because he was a have-not member in what, he perceived, as a have society.
8 comments:
R: As usual, Jan has got it all wong. Surprised?
Check out my recent posts on Gill and his psycho groupie folowing or check out my friend Harding at TO Crime (link on my page). You might find some interesting reading.
Despite media reports Quebec is not the only province to experience shootings and massacres related to alienated teens or young adults and directed at institutions.
The fact that similar events happen elsewhere does not excuse Quebec from doing a little soul searching about what happened at Dawson, Concordia and Ecole Polytechnique. Wong has rightly noted that there is a commonality among the three cases related to the "otherness" of the perpetrators. It is at least worth exploring.
I fail to understand how we can look to root causes behind the actions of Muslim terrorists in Ontario, or gun violence in the Jamaican community in Toronto, yet somehow to discuss language in Quebec is off limits.
The statistics provide some support to Wong's argument. Have a look.
Otherness? What is that... literary criticism? They were unstoppable random nutcases. How is soul searching going to get you anywhere but hopelessly co-dependent in that situation?
Steve, your comments are appreciated (and I did take a “look”), however, I still disagree with your assertions and Wong’s initial statements.
And (I love starting sentences with and – it really pisses off the editor in all of us) K-dough makes a valid point – albeit blunt. When we consistently examine and search and attempt to derive meaning out of senseless, violent acts we end up narcistically self-referential.
Yes, there is an isolation issue in Quebec, as there is in every other province for every other immigrant. Yes, there is a language difference, but for any Middle Eastern immigrant the burden of learning a new language is not made worse because that language turns out to be French. A new home, a new culture and a new language (French or English) is difficult and the process can be alienating. Period. Language option, then, becomes almost irrelevant (and given the Quebecois ability to keep French language entertainment engaging, to the point where some of the best Canadian writers, film-makers and musicians are French, one need not worry about whether or not there is enough culture to absorb).
Again, I stress, the ONLY correlation that has continually been shown to have any significant impact on crime rates is socio-economic factors – the disparity between haves and have-nots.
These kids may be reacting to alienation, but it is not alienation due to language, but rather, alienation due to discrimination of immigrant status and THAT is host-country phenomenon. What do you think the French riots were about? Or the clashes in Ireland once the EU money had been spent and the borders opened up. And what about the on-going dilemmas the United States faces with its growing Latino population? Yes, there is discrimination, and yes, language plays a part – but it’s not a causal factor, rather, it's a differientiator – a way for ‘true’ Canadians to tell immigrants apart. Ask the Hungarians in the 1950s, the Japanese in the 1940s, the Sudanese in the 1990s and, now, the Arab and Middle Eastern immigrants in the 21st century. And even if an immigrant learns French or English, they must still go through the hardship of being the next division of have-nots -- a division made all the more acute by our government's refusal to acknowledge foreign credientials or to fast-track professional and degree holders.
My final comment is this: there is one other causal option that Wong and other self-professed commentators have failed to put forth. The reason is that this option would call into question the morality, ethics and tactics of the media itself. Steve, it is quite possible that the reason why these types of violent crimes persist and appear to be on the rise is because these types of violent crimes are over-reported and over-analyzed. Kimveer’s name was splashed over every Canadian newspaper, television channel and radio station for days. His victim, Anastasia De Sousa, however, was an afterthought. Mentioned only in passing with minimal coverage, out of respect, perhaps, for her early demise. The media sensationalizes events such as the Dawson shooting; we splash the name of the perpetrator(s) around; we probe into their lives to derive sense and meaning; and we give press and credit for an act that is abhorrent and deplorable. The fact is Kimveer’s clothing, music taste and even his Internet habits (ie: blogs) were not an indicator for his potential rage, but his preoccupation with past shootings were.
Perhaps, then, the media needs to examine how it handles these horrific events. It has before. Years ago, sociologists examined and determined that suicide rates dramatically increased every time the media reported a case. Time and time again the numbers would spike whenever suicide was mentioned (for a high profile example examine the year after Kurt Cobain’s death). As a result, media banded together, for the good of society, and imposed self-restraint. As such, suicides are no longer reported, though they occur weekly, even daily. For those sensational cases (where the person is a celebrity or noted personality) the details of the event are downplayed and the wording is vague. The story still gets reported we just don’t hear the salicious details anymore.
That is where we need to start our examination – rather than blaming a language and a culture that has openly embraced immigrants for more than three decades.
k-dough: "Otherness" is an anglicization of "les autres" which is often used in Quebec to denote those not of pur laine stock.
Romana: It is only natural that we want to ask why these crimes happened. You point to many possible factors. But it is important that we discuss them and not dismiss them out of hand.
Unfortunately, this does not seem possible when discussing language in Quebec. While Ontario is capable of discussing systemic racism as a possible contributor to gun crime in Toronto, or the marginalization of muslim youth as a factor behind recent arrests of alleged terrorists, Quebec just closes its eyes and pretends any issue is in the minds of imaginative journalists who only say these things to insult Quebec. To me, the way they try to shut down all debate is a symptom of the problem. They can pretend it is not an issue, but in the meantime, non-francophone, non-pur laine people will keep moving out of the province.
Steve,
Non-francophone, non-pur laine people do not move out of the province because they are discriminated against; they move out of the province because they can speak English and the Quebec job market is one of the worst in Canada. As Romana said, this boils down to economics, not language. If the francophones felt they could better their lot in another province, they too would move. But the language in almost all other communities in Canada would be a barrier -- hence they are stuck with the options provided.
how can you put the thing with the 22 year old law student in that list of "disaffected" youths. get your facts straight and don't believe everything you read. this was a couple guys playing around with a toy gun, not a pellet gun. no one even saw other than the guy involved who were just laughing together. a prof saw some guys laughing and looked into why. the rest is a mountain from a mole hill
Dear Anonymous #2:
Yes, it all appears quite innocuous. Pellet-gun? How can that be serious? Hell, it couldn't even kill a person, right?
Yet, our laws (and attitudes) over animal cruelty are lax to the point of laughable -- despite the fact that numerous sociological studies have shown that people who abuse animals have a propensity to go on to bigger, more violent crimes.
And what about child abuse. Again, another study into the childhoods of all the "great" (tongue-n-cheek, there) dictators show that each one of them came from dysfunctional, abusive childhoods.
Certain actions, though minor in isolation, show a clear and distinct path to violence or the possibility of violence.
So, where you say get perspective, I say stop being so myopic.
Post a Comment