voltairine: (nom)
I went to Bikurious the other day for a haircut. Bikurious, aka Revolutions, is kind of a Montreal institution; a leftist bike repair shop and and makeshift hair salon. The hairdresser there, JJ, specializes in what they call "lesbian haircuts for anyone" - usually short, usually asymmetrical haircuts that could never be mistaken for heteronormative. I told them I wanted my hair cut like Morrissey's, and that is what they did.

It was kind of an event for me. I haven't let another person NEAR my hair with a pair of scissors since I was twelve, when I was (totally non-consensually) given a "boy" haircut, which led to a lot of bullshit and hostility because as a kid I was really androgynous and when people can't peg you as a certain gender they tend to get pissed. So I've been incredibly squirrely about having hair shorter than shoulder-length for a really long time. But now that I do I can't believe I didn't get it done sooner. It looks and feels SO GREAT. I am stoked, yeah!

Work continues to be exhaustive and great. Going to an intensive suicide prevention/crisis intervention training this weekend in Kahnawake. Excited about this.
voltairine: (nun)
I found this quote on tumblr (TUMBLR, OH MY GOD, HOW DID I EVER LIVE WITHOUT YOU, I'M SORRY I SAID ALL THOSE TIMES THAT YOU WERE JUST FOR HIPSTERS LET'S NEVER BE APART) and it is pretty good:

“For anarchists who do know something about anthropology, the arguments are all too familiar. A typical exchange goes something like this:

Skeptic: Well, I might take this whole anarchism idea more seriously if you could give me some reason to think it would work. Can you name me a single viable example of a society which has existed without a government?

Anarchist: Sure. There have been thousands. I could name a dozen just off the top of my head: the Bororo, the Baining, the Onondaga, the Wintu, the Ema, the Tallensi, the Vezo… All without violence or hierarchy.

Skeptic: But those are all a bunch of primitives! I’m talking about anarchism in a modern, technological society.

Anarchist: Okay, then. There have been all sorts of successful experiments: experiments with worker‟s self-management, like Mondragon; economic projects based on the idea of the gift economy, like Linux; all sorts of political organizations based on consensus and direct democracy…

Skeptic: Sure, sure, but these are small, isolated examples. I‟m talking about whole societies.

Anarchist: Well, it’s not like people haven’t tried. Look at the Paris Commune, the free states in Ukraine and Shimin, the 1936 revolution in Spain…

Skeptic: Yeah, and look what happened to those guys! They all got killed!

The dice are loaded. You can‟t win. Because when the skeptic says “society,” what he really means is “state,” even “nation-state.” Since no one is going to produce an example of an anarchist state—that would be a contradiction in terms—what we‟re really being asked for is an example of a modern nation-state with the government somehow plucked away: a situation in which the government of Canada, to take a random example, has been overthrown, or for some reason abolished itself, and no new one has taken its place but instead all former Canadian citizens begin to organize themselves into libertarian collectives. Obviously this would never be allowed to happen. In the past, whenever it even looked like it might—here, the Paris commune and Spanish civil war are excellent examples—the politicians running pretty much every state in the vicinity have been willing to put their differences on hold until those trying to bring such a situation about had been rounded up and shot.

There is a way out, which is to accept that anarchist forms of organization would not look anything like a state. That they would involve an endless variety of communities, associations, networks, projects, on every conceivable scale, overlapping and intersecting in any way we could imagine, and possibly many that we can‟t. Some would be quite local, others global. Perhaps all they would have in common is that none would involve anyone showing up with weapons and telling everyone else to shut up and do what they were told. And that, since anarchists are not actually trying to seize power within any national territory, the process of one system replacing the other will not take the form of some sudden revolutionary cataclysm—the storming of a Bastille, the seizing of a Winter Palace—but will necessarily be gradual, the creation of alternative forms of organization on a world scale, new forms of communication, new, less alienated ways of organizing life, which will, eventually, make currently existing forms of power seem (asinine) and beside the point. That in turn would mean that there are endless examples of viable anarchism: pretty much any form of organization would count as one, so long as it was not imposed by some higher authority, from a klezmer band to the international postal service."

-David Graeber

Reminds me a lot of arguments I've had with non-anarchist skeptics. I think that I have failed a lot in trying to explain the ultimate "goal" (if it can be called that) of anarchism because we are so used to only conceiving of things in terms of the current system (I am certainly guilty of this myself, even when trying to "spread" anarchism, sigh).

A and I talked about this tonight, and about ways in which anarchism could be supported in the current system - like how copyright laws ought to protect things under GPLs and creative commons licenses, or how the laws governing corporations could better support organizations run by consensus collectives. It is an interesting thought.

We are nerds.
voltairine: (Default)
I am mostly over there - missvoltairine.tumblr.com. Sorry, other blogging platforms! None you of you provide me with quite the same mixture of social justice people arguing with each other and pictures of adorable kittens and turtles and assorted baby animals.

Someday I will post something real here again. Some day soon. Lately I am really busy with work and volunteer stuff, and tumblr feels a lot more mindless than other platforms? I dunno. Hm. I will think about this some more.
voltairine: (Default)
The only thing missing from my life right now, aside from a million dollars and a pony, is a studio, preferably one where I can mess around on a pottery wheel and maybe learn to throw.

I signed up for throwing classes, but they don't start until July. Until them I am sad and studio-less. I FEEL SO LOST. Maybe Studio Beluga will let me hang out there.

SIGH~

Next weekend I am taking a somewhat-annual trip into the Laurentians, this time with some folks from Missing Justice for a visioning retreat. It is nice to leave the city sometimes.
voltairine: (nom)
My latest batch of masks looks SO GOOD! I'm feeling the end of semester push pretty significantly right now. Last day to use wet clay is the 3rd of April (!!!!!!), and my final in-class crit for litho is the 5th. Litho is the most stressful; I'm not done my midterm project, and haven't even started planning my final. Spending long periods of time in the print studio is unpleasant because the ventilation system is probably not as great as it could be and the chemicals used there are pretty abrasive. I'm fortunate enough to not have any severe reactions to them, but damn, I'm pretty sure it's not great to breathe in varsol fumes?

Also, the rollers that I'm using have fixed handles and now my hands are all bruised from rolling up my plates.

I should switch my fine arts major to ceramics. Print is dead, ceramics are awesome. No, I'm just kidding, Print, you will always be my first love, nothing can take that away from us.

I'm sorry.

Mar. 19th, 2011 12:13 pm
voltairine: (zine)
Okay, so a piece I wrote about Sady Doyle's ableism a while back was reposted elsewhere and there was some messed up ableism in the piece itself, which people rightfully took issue with and pointed out.

I wasn't thinking critically when I wrote the piece - I was ranting, responding in the moment, and clearly there is ableist shit that I haven't worked out of my vocabulary, and it came through. There's not really an excuse for that; my reaction was from a place of anger at being scapegoated and marginalized by someone who should know better, which just makes it even more awful that in that reaction I scapegoated and marginalized ANOTHER group of people when I myself should know better. It just was shitty of me. Erasing ableist language from my vocabulary is something that I take really seriously, and so I'm really, really grateful that someone pointed it out to me in this case (for real, thank you - I know how hard it is to do that sometimes, so many props to everyone who pointed out the issues with my language use).

So, I am really sorry if my language was hurtful to anyone reading that piece. I fucked up. It won't happen again.
voltairine: (nun)
ANDER: Jesse, you are so angry.
JESSE: Well, I learned from the best.
ME: Wait, why are you looking at me?
JESSE: Uh, you're the one who taught me how to be angry in the first place!
ANDER: It's true, that's how she explained the concept of you to us.
JESSE: Before you, I was only sort of pissed off but I didn't know why. You're the one who taught me how to be angry at everything, all the time, forever.
ME: I think that is the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me.
voltairine: (nom)
Review of the show in a student paper.

No mention of my work in the show, but it's still a good review of the show overall.

aahhhh

Mar. 15th, 2011 08:52 am
voltairine: (zine)
Vernissage tonight.

No time to change between class and meeting and vernissage.

Solution: wear fancy clothes all day, try to avoid mixing ink or working in the ceramics studio. Yeah, this is a good plan.
voltairine: (nom)
Instead of getting ridiculously sappy (WHO AM I KIDDING I'M LIKE THE SAPPIEST PERSON EVER), I will just let John K Samson do it for me because he is so good at that kind of thing.

lyrics )
voltairine: (raeg)
Putting words in one's mouth = making assumptions about the speaker's motivations, perspectives, etc that are unconnected or spuriously connected to what they are actually saying. (ie, PERSON A: "these pears are delicious!" PERSON B: "WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST POTATOES?!")

Putting words in one's mouth =/= rephrasing something the speaker has already said (ie, PERSON A: "having an abortion is different from having a miscarriage because a miscarriage is involuntary" PERSON B: "so you are saying that having an abortion is inherently a voluntary procedure, and having a miscarriage is inherently something that people never do voluntarily"), and/or drawing inferences based on implications that the speaker is making when the speaker is approaching their point mainly through implication instead of through direct statement (IE, saying "abortion legislation today is all about "what's best for ME!", instead of saying "choosing to have an abortion is selfish" - without the implication in the former statement, the statement is nonsensical, therefor drawing and stating the implication is not putting words in the speakers' mouth, it is clarifying).

This message has been brought to you by the department of people who are tired of disingenuous anti-choicers acting like martyrs whenever they are called on their anti-choice rhetoric.

(Also: "well, the whole 'my body, my choice' thing can also be used to justify SUICIDE!!!!!11one." Um. YES AND? arjsdklajs should not have even TOUCHED that one, just. What the fuck, people.)
voltairine: (raeg)
An example of school shit that is getting me down lately:

A guy in my public art and ceramics class is doing his final installation project at the convent of the Order of the Grey Nuns, a huge old building that is being converted into part of the university as the population of grey nuns dwindles (there are only a few left, and they're not actively recruiting young ladies into nunnering as a career path). In his proposal, he talked about how the "real history" of older buildings like the convent building is being forgotten because young people just don't care about history, and how he planned to represent the dwindling population of nuns with repeating, identical figures of nuns and angels installed in staircases around the building.

Of course, he hasn't actually TALKED to any of the women who are still grey nuns and still live at the site of his installation. Why would he TALK to them? They are his subjects! It's not like they might have OPINIONS about why many convents have dwindling numbers, or the conversion of their home into university property - it's not like he's planning on literally installing art in their home that they've had no input or say in or even been informed of or anything. And naturally he's not planning on going any further back in his exploration of the history of that location, to acknowledge in his exploration of the convents history the fact that the convent did not simply always exist, and was in fact established as part of a long history of religious institutions participating in the colonization and appropriation of Indigenous land and resources. I mean, I'm not saying he should write a book on that one spot, if he wants to specialize that's fine, but nowhere in his proposal or his research notes does he ever talk about the founding of the convent or allude to anything that might indicate that it wasn't always there, which irritates me considerably, because for a history-oriented project it shows a really selective and self-limited knowledge of history.

This is what I mean when I say there's a lack of critical analysis in art school. Public art is a really varied medium, and there are a lot of ways of practicing it. Public art can be advertising, architecture, sculpture, it can be something that was created by the public or something that invites public interaction with the piece, or something that is designed to inspire dialogue in the public sphere or reflect a specific community, it can be functional or decorative, political or not, but in our class we don't really have any discussion about this, we're pretty encouraged to ONLY approach public art in terms of specific sorts of installations. It's really limited, and the discourse in the class has so far actually served to discourage students from approaching members of the community and talking about what needs could be served with their installations.

Like, in one discussion, the prof said: "You need to be able to anticipate a number of public reactions to your piece. There are three main ones that I've observed, which are that the piece is left alone, or in the case of a piece that's designed to be altered and redistributed parts of it are moved and taken, or people break it." I mean, jfc. 1) there was no talk of public discourse as a reaction to the piece, or of how the piece might impact the community at all, and 2) How about, instead of trying to "anticipate" reactions like you're looking into a crystal ball, you actually talk to the community that will be interacting with your work? And see what they think about it? MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP?

I'm sick of the idea that an artist is someone who is divinely inspired or otherwise is a vessel for some greater message that they are "passing down" to the rabble through a process that is highly individualized. That art isn't something informed by dialogue and community and experience, conceived of through a process of research and discussion and development, and created using practical skills. In a way, I think the whole idea of the artist-as-divinely-inspired-messenger-to-the-masses actually serves to delegitimize art as a form of actual communication and discourse, as something with a practical function in society. And it bugs me to see that perpetuated in art school, where you'd think people would take their craft seriously enough to look critically at all the ways it can be created and used.
voltairine: (neurological faultlines)
A while ago I asked some friends of mine to stop using the word "crazy" as a pejorative term, as in, "I can't believe that person acted in such a disrespectful way, it's crazy" or "No, I can't go to that dance party, I'm crazy busy". Most of them are making a genuine effort to change their language (one person has replaced the word "crazy" with the word "Rambo", as in, "Did you see that last e-mail so and so sent to the collective? That is some Rambo shit") but it's a process, and every time they slip up in my presence they'll look at me and apologize, and it makes me feel really, really, intensely awkward, like it's all about me, when I don't think it is (if it was I probably would have not even said anything in the first place).

I'm really glad and grateful that my friends are trying to change their language and are accepting of my perspective here. I have good, supportive friends, I really do. But I am hyper aware every time a slip up happens that I Am The Person Who Has A Problem With That Word, and in a way it's more upsetting than it was when I just had to deal with hearing the word "crazy" used to mean unreasonable, ridiculous, offensive, etc all the time, because at least then I wasn't causing trouble for other people, which is something that I have some pretty deep-rooted insecurities about doing.

It's not even the first time I've called someone on offensive or oppressive language, but for some reason it's been so much more awkward for me than every other time previously. So I spend a lot of time wondering if I was wrong, if it's really okay to use "crazy" as a pejorative term for things that annoy or offend you on a daily basis despite the fact that it's also a pejorative term that is used to erase real peoples' perspectives and often to justify abusing those people as well; if I should just tell my friends to forget I ever said anything; if it really matters this much anyway.

I think part of it is that in my daily life I'm not really connected to any kind of movement w/r/t mental health. There's peer support, but that's more of an individualized thing; I don't think there's anything being done in my community to really challenge attitudes about mental illness on a systemic level. And on some level I feel like there's also this sense of, oh my god, ANOTHER OPPRESSION WE NEED TO ENGAGE AND/OR FIGHT SOMEHOW, AS IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH (probably more important) THINGS TO DO ALREADY - which is definitely how I feel about it, until I check myself and remember that there's a difference between creating a hierarchy of oppression by deeming some things "worth" fighting for and other things "not worth it" at all, and simply being honest about how much you can reasonably take on and subsequently not going to every meeting, speakers' panel, film screening, demonstration and community consult ever. ESPECIALLY because oppressions and battles intersect and thus cannot really be separated from each other, because they are all affected by each other.

So.

I mean, I feel like it clearly matters in the context of an ostensibly conscious community. You can't have a conscious community that is conscious about SOME things but not others; intersectionality means that anti-oppression doesn't work that way. But on some level I still feel like it's just about me individually and it's not worth a bigger fight. Internalized ableism? I guess at one point I felt this way about survivor's issues, women's rights, housing and gentrification, etc too, and I clearly got over that somewhere along the way.

It's all a process.

I think that this means I need to connect more with other neuroatypical people for more of a sense of community and support. And maybe explain to my friends how burned out this whole "apologizing to Laura personally every time you slip up with your language" thing is making me, and ask them to keep working on it without making me feel responsible for it? I am worried about coming across as hell of entitled if I ask for that, though.

Still, a couple years ago I wouldn't have even TOUCHED any of this with a ten-foot pole, so clearly we're getting somewhere?

Baby steps.
voltairine: (Default)
HANIA: How are you going to title the deformed masks?
ME: I don't know, I wasn't planning on hanging them so I don't have names for them.
PIF: They look kind of like Marlon Brando. I mean, these three do. You should call this one Young Brando and this one Old Brando.
HANIA: Hahaha, and this one could be Middle-Aged Brando.
ME: What about the fourth one? It doesn't look like Marlon Brando at all.
PIF: Secret Brando.


(For the record, yes, that is actually what I ended up titling those pieces.)
voltairine: (nom)
It occurs to me that at the end of the semester I'm going to have more ceramic shit than I can possibly store. I'm going to have to get my etsy account functional, aren't I. I have no idea where to start with that at all. Blargh.

I spend so much time in the ceramics studio that people have started assuming it's my major, even the security for the building that the ceramics studio is in. It's just so satisfying. Part of what has always appealed to me about printmaking is the production aspect of it - producing a quantity of something, things you can number and line up and compare. My ceramics work has definitely been an area where this tendency of mine, my collector instinct (so easily converted into hoarder's instinct) really comes out. I just finished a series of slab-built and press-molded bowls, and am moving on to a matching set of cups. My mask/face series is coming along well, ten more faces made this week and five more masks.

It's tiring work, but building a series of something is intensely satisfying for me. A healthy way of working out my issues with compulsion, perhaps.

ugh

Feb. 20th, 2011 11:10 am
voltairine: (neurological faultlines)
A friend of mine shared this video on the facebooks and I can't get over it or seem to articulate the ways in which it makes me mad.

A big part of it is that, you know, it's like two minutes long, so it obviously doesn't deal with any of the nuances or complexities inherent in talking about diagnosis and "labelling" of mental health issues. The image of a bunch of people ripping off their "labels" to reveal that ALL ALONG they were REALLY just revolutionaries, artists, leaders, and activists is catchy, there's inspiring music, dramatic lighting, it's very well-constructed propaganda, and the message is simplified enough (using diagnoses as labels to define people is wrong) that it's hard to argue with right out of the gate.

Less catchy and inspiring, though, is the more complicated reality of a lot of people who are diagnosed with mental illnesses. While diagnoses are frequently used as tools to oppress neuroatypical people - ways for mental health professionals and other authority figures in historically fucked institutions to gaslight neuroatypical people and justify abuse; ways to stigmatize non-normative means of communication, problem-solving etc - they are ALSO often used by neuroatypical people to access resources, information, and help that can potentially be life-saving. Both sides of this coin are VERY real, and also valid, legitimate parts of peoples' lives, often at the same time.

A diagnosis makes me vulnerable to a lot of things, the most frightening of which (to me) is institutionalized abuse - but which also encompasses a broader socially-based discrimination and stigma: if I need a certain accommodation in class or at work, should I ask for it and risk opening myself up for discrimination and hope for the best, or should I struggle through processes designed for people who function differently than I do and (again) hope for the best? AND, A diagnosis ALSO allows me access to the Centre for Students with Disabilities at my school. It makes it easier for me to access medication, should that be the route I choose to go, and easier to access support when I want to go OFF medication, should that be another route I choose to go. In a town where waiting lists for doctors and mental health professionals are often months long, it allows me to get quicker access to these people. Messages like the one in this video - that diagnoses are something that "patients" have no stake in themselves - serve to enforce another (albeit unintentional) stigma: that "patients" (ie, neuroatypical people) have no agency regarding their mental health, that we are always uninformed about the processes we go through in mental health systems, and that diagnoses are something that we necessarily need to be "rescued" or helped to "break free" from (usually by neurotypical people).

While it's true that the process of diagnosis can be and often is a disempowering and alienating one - especially for children who may not have access to the info necessary to self-educate around the issues affecting their lives - these stereotypes, repeated in this way, do NOT facilitate a better understanding of such power dynamics and injustices or help to dissemble them, because they are, well, stereotypes. Like the stereotype that people with depression, bipolar disorder, and/or other mood disorders are inherently more artistically inclined than normative folks (see also: the moment in that video when the girl labeled "bipolar" rips her label off to reveal a t-shirt bearing the word "artist"), it's well-intentioned (usually) but serves to enforce a greater stigma and disempowerment for people actually dealing with these situations. This is especially risky when such stereotypes and oversimplifications masquerade themselves with progressive language and imagery as being liberationist and radical knowledge, because in doing so they "replace" and discourage the seeking and creation of ACTUAL liberationist and radical knowledge.

Diagnosis is a double-edged sword. It's something that can cut you, and something you can use to defend yourself in a world that stigmatizes and shames your way of thinking, feeling and doing things.

The way to deal with this is not to create further shame by offering up propaganda like this, which serves to (perhaps unintentionally, but still) direct existing shame at those who actively seek diagnoses and use their diagnoses as a tool for themselves. The way to deal with this is to understand the ROOT of the problem as being not diagnoses-as-labels, or diagnoses period, but a society which normalizes certain ways of functioning and oppresses anyone who does not conform to that, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT those people seek and/or receive formal diagnoses. The way to deal with this is to understand what it means to live and/or "function" as a neuroatypical person in such a society - and to understand the benefits and joys (yes, some of us are leaders, some of us are artists, some of us are activists and revolutionaries and inventors and philosophers) AS WELL AS the struggles (some of us harm ourselves, some of us have trouble getting out of bed sometimes, some of us cry and yell and can't go outside and are deeply, life-disruptingly afraid of things that wouldn't cause a more normative person to blink) that that entails. We are anxious heroes, we are strength and limitation. Mental "illnesses" can be dis/abilities - yes, REAL DIS/ABILITIES - and dismissing them by saying (as is said in so many ways, overt and implied, every day of our lives) that it's just something in our heads, that we have a false consciousness, that we THINK it's difficult to deal with but we REALLY just need to embrace our true nature as ARTISTS and LEADERS, etc, is dismissive and insulting to neuroatypical people who often have to fight for our survival in a hostile world. It minimizes our pain and turns our joys into patronizing stereotypes.

But it does not make us more free.

Freedom means the ability to self-educate, it means access to knowledge, it means being empowered to make informed decisions about what goes into your body - whether that's herbal supplements or pharmaceutical meds or rays from a sun lamp or WHATEVER - and having the autonomy to refuse treatments you don't want. It means being afforded the legitimacy as a human being that is necessary to have your choices and your self-determination respected, whether or not your self-determination includes phrases like "obsessive-compulsive disoder" OR "organizer" OR BOTH - it means an understanding that you CAN BE both, and you can be more, if you want, and none of those things necessarily preclude others or define who you are all by themselves, but they are all as relevant to who you are as you know them to be. It means not having to choose between asking for what you need and losing the respect of the people you're close to. It means respect for the full expression of your humanity - not having to be the Model Neuroatypical Person all the time, lest you cross the line and be vilified as "crazy" for refusing meds, or as an ignorant anti-radical fool for taking them.

When all of this is understood, not just by individuals but on a systemic level, then maybe we will be getting somewhere. But videos like this one are not going to get us there. They just aren't.

So put THAT in a two-minute propaganda video and tell me about my life.
voltairine: (Default)
CTV News - watch the video for February 14th, we get a quick mention (also: OMG I'M ON TV? aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh) starting at about 11:40.

APTN - coverage of the Sisters In Spirit demo in Ottawa is the first segment, coverage of our demo is about 5 minutes in. (STILL ON TV, WHAT IS THIS SHIT, NO DON'T SHOW MY INTERVIEW I AM A HORRIBLE INARTICULATE TROLLTHING WHAT ARE YOU DOING) (The video is the February 14th video, again.)

(Erm. I'm the white girl with the brown hair and glasses, in both clips.)

The Gazette also did a quick article, saying that Quebec Native Women had organized the Montreal demo. Oh, well - coverage is coverage. There was a speaker from QNW so it's all good.

Some coverage from Global News as well, starting at around 15:00. I haven't been able to get this video to load, but Chad says we're on there, so cool.

Whew! Fairly consistent media this time around, so far. C'est awesome. Good to see.
voltairine: (zine)
Morning: glazing pieces for installation. Ten down, ninety to go. (I'm actually ahead of schedule, lol lol) Load kiln for glaze firing.

Afternoon: Missing Justice demo.

Evening: Grinding stone for litho glass.

Night: Eat burrito. Mock trailer for film based on Atlas Shrugged. Collapse from exhaustion.
voltairine: (raeg)
"Four hundred years after colonial powers landed here, on unceded Mohawk territory, it is still not safe for Indigenous women to walk these streets. Four hundred years after British and French colonists raped and killed Indigenous women with impunity, Indigenous women remain five times more likely to die a violent death than women of other ethnicities.

A recent study by the Native Women’s Association of Canada found that many victims are targeted simply because they are Indigenous. Their attackers assume they will not fight back or be missed. But as we have seen today, Indigenous women do fight back. And they are missed. The tragic, needless deaths of between 580 and 3000 Indigenous women since the 1980’s, is a human-rights crisis of epidemic proportions. This disproportionate level of violence must be understood in the context of a colonial strategy that has sought to dehumanize Indigenous women, with the ultimate goal of appropriating First Nations’ lands and resources.

Généralement, lorsque qu’une femme blanche disparaît, l’état, les médias, la police et la société travaillent conjointement pour faire connaître cette situation et pour la résoudre. En ce qui concerne les femmes autochtones, nous n’avons pas connaissance du nombre de femmes qui sont disparues ou qui ont été assassinées.

Why don’t we know how many Indigenous women have been taken from us?

Les rapports inadéquats de la police et des médias ainsi qu’un manque d’intérêt de la part du gouvernement dans ses actes politiques ont causé cette intense disparité statistique. Plus de 300 cas connus restent irrésolus et ce, en raison du racisme systémique au niveau gouvernemental et du système judiciaire, de la police, des médias et de la société canadienne dans son ensemble.

Why don’t we know where their killers are?

(pause)

Why don’t we know where their killers are?

Nous marchons aujourd’hui pour rendre honneur à toutes les femmes qui ont été portés disparues ou qui ont été assassinées et plus particulièrement aux femmes qui ont été marginalisées et maltraitées par notre société. Les siècles d’empiètement sur les territoires autochtones est une cause directe du taux anormalement élevé de la pauvreté auxquels sont confrontées les populations autochtones. L’exploitation des terres ainsi que des peuples autochtones continuent malheureusement d'alimenter l'économie canadienne.

As a solidarity collective, Missing Justice strives to support demands already made by Indigenous activists, the families of victims, Native organizations, and international bodies including the UN and Amnesty International. We demand a public investigation, adequate funding for research, support for Native-run women’s centres and shelters, and anti-oppression training for police.

Canadian society is at a turning point. We are taking responsibility for these legacies together. We will no longer shut our eyes to this violence and marginalization. We will no longer stand back as Indigenous women are abducted and killed. We will no longer allow their killers to roam the streets.

Indigenous women’s lives are valuable. Today we have marched in their honour. We continue to march in their memory. This is why we are here."
voltairine: (nom)
Had a placard-making session in prep for tomorrow's demo. When I got there, there was a guy there with a videocamera, filming the placard-making for a thing he's doing for APTN, about the prep work and organizing that goes into coordinating events like this. So I ended up doing an impromptu interview. Dunno if any of it will end up on the teevee, but who knows.

Things have been a little heavy lately, so me and the beau and a bunch of friends decided to go see the new Harry Potter movie at the dollar cinema for some escapism. It was weirdly paced, and the beau said that he felt like a lot of it was about killing whimsy - "Oh, look, a magical owl. Now it's dead*. Oh, look, a magical elf. Now it's dead." Also, the love triangle thing was weird. Granted, it's been a really long time since I read the books and I didn't read anything after book 4. But I don't remember that being in there? Whatevs. It was nice to have some silly escapism. I like the dollar cinema, too. The guy who runs it looks like Alice Cooper and is super nice. Also, they have 50 cent samosas at the concession stand.




*I actually cried when this happened. I cry whenever animals are killed in movies, especially pets.
Page generated Oct. 24th, 2017 09:11 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios