redlensedglasses - Tumblr blog

[redlensedglasses]

Journal Summary

Over the course, of the semester my discussion skills and my attitude towards them have shifted from my ignorant stance of ‘ I already know how to have a discussion’ to ‘I have improved’. It is this shift that I see blatantly from then to now. In last semester I asked leading question after leading question after leading question. I was selfish in thinking that my viewpoint was the only one that truly mattered, and it hindered the learning and discussion of others. In an early discussion, I still had this mindset and was easily offended by peoples questions or opinion. To the point where I would rant about it and not reflect in my journal entries. This leads to a negative start to my discussion skills journey as I was too focused on myself and my own curiosity to let others indulge themselves.

The most difficult skill for me to grasp was paraphrasing by far. I hated it when it was first explained. It seemed so unnatural to have a conversation and it felt like it was being forced on us during that discussion day. That discussion day was also extremely personal and brimmed with tension, and in my opinion, it is harder to paraphrase when you’re so emotionally invested in a subject like the community outreach project. But after that first discussion day with paraphrasing, gradually it became more common and natural. I found myself using paraphrasing more and more especially when listening to my roommate about her day or random topics. I was repeating certain points back to her and she was responding in a positive way. It just showed her that I really was listening and not just nodding my head. Personally, I think it only made our relationship grow closer. She still hates when I ask her ‘where does that come from’ or ‘why do you think that’. She hates those questions, but truly enjoys when I paraphrase.

From the actual discussion skill conversations we had before the actual student lead conversations there was one moment that really stood out to me. This might be because I said it and people acknowledged, but it was being genuine in asking your questions. When discussing what makes a good question there were important aspects that really would be helpful, like intent and tone, but nothing seemed more positive and innocent than having a genuine interest in what the other person's opinion was on that topic. You could ask the most absurd question, though so long as it was asked with genuine curiosity or concern it would still propel the conversation into new avenues.

As for actual content, I learned more about myself than anything else from these discussions. These portfolio moments were all made possible from psychoanalysis and knowing about my defences and fears. AI and Biological warfare being some of the ones that come to my mind first. But let’s start with AI, shall we? I am fascinated with AI and how it could help out society as a whole yet I was still wary of how it could all go wrong. Seeing movies like iRobot terrified me in ways I couldn't express before, but know knew they were more or less the fear to lose control. Having something that is smarter than us, and now able to think freely with potentially the government or corporations controlling them terrified me. And I made that know through the conversation. But in doing so we were able to actually get to the root as to why I and many others within the discussion felt like that. It was our fear drove everything. It was the same with vaccines and biological warfare. The loss of control.

I also found that if I knew more about the topic going in I was more likely to give some context to the discussion and not always diving deeper because I spent too much of my time explaining certain aspects of the topic. Bell Let’s Talk felt like that. I was explaining how nefarious Bell was and it was influencing those within the group because I was inserting my own biases with the facts I was giving. I realize now it wasn’t helping the group, but in a way making them conform to my own views and not develop our collective ideas on the topics.

I really did enjoy this experience in developing my discussion skills and seeing where a lot of my own thoughts on it came from. I often came in with one idea and left with a completely different one. Which in my mind is what going into discussions are all about. That change in mindset and growth of ideas from a group to a personal level. I not only see my growth from being selfish to genuine, but I see how I have used many of the skills in day to day interactions. These interactions only aiding my relationships with loved ones.

[redlensedglasses]

Discussion: 1st Year Cohort

Oh boy, where do I begin for today's discussion topic and conversation? We started with talking about the elephant in the room, that big, hindering, elephant in the room. The tension, that underlying cease pool of emotions bubbling soon engulf us. Yeah, that. 

I wasn’t pleased with the topic. I knew what the aftermath was going to be. I could envision it in my head as we all sat in our circle and just spoke our minds. I knew that afterwards we would all go back to how we acted before and nothing would change. It never did. There were still going to be pictures of members of the cohort hanging out or partying in the group chat, people were still going to be excluded. Nothing was going to change. 

I kept my mouth shut the entire discussion because I didn’t want to be a part of it. This tension everyone else felt, I didn’t. I was excluded from the group at the beginning of the first semester here and never really found a way to wiggle my way back in. I was okay with that. I say most classes with the same people because we were the ones excluded. So all this tension that people had felt since Christmas break was my normal at this point. 

The emotions were high within the group discussion as the word blacklisted came up a lot. I immediately nodded my head at it. Those who I knew were excluded from the group were blacklisted, not all to the same degree, but still excluded. The thing with exclusion, in general, is that I am used to it. That’s how I have been treated all my life with the exception of that one summer in Nova Scotia, but that’s a whole different post. 

I came here with no expectations of how close the class was going to get. I didn’t know enough about RC to actually assume that. But after a few weeks and especially the camping trip I was convinced that we were supposed to feel like a family, that we were going to be super close. Yet I knew after the first month that was going to be impossible for me. This in part by my mental health throughout October and November, and the defences or wall that I put up around myself. And at that point, it was the exclusion of myself and by those around me that pushed me away from the possibility of having any close relationships with any of the classmates. 

I would consider myself a friend to everyone in the class, but none that I could fully trust. They are my classmates. Like Nathan said about boundaries, that’s what they mostly are to me. People in the same program who share a common goal and who I try and please with jokes... Okay here’s a sad recount of just last month. I was in the kitchen cooking my Zoodles as I do, and Ben walked into the kitchen his typical chipper self, and I was cooking away. And Out of the blue, he asked me how my day was going today. I didn't know how to respond. I ask it so much from other people no one ever asks me first. So I responded in earnest “you really want to know?”. we kind of just looked at each other for a second before he smiled and said yes. It was strange, but also eye-opening. Here we were two people that aren’t within the close-knit first-year cohort and yet we in a way have excluded ourselves from each other to the point where common pleasantries were seen as abnormal. 

But to get back to the actual discussion topic at hand and to deviate from the depressing tangent that was, the main take away I have from the discussion is of boundaries. Not that I need to set up some, but that I need to let people into mine so that I can ensure a more inclusive and positive group dynamic. 

[redlensedglasses]

Discussion Topic: Vaccines

Well paraphrasing doesn’t come naturally to me but I’m sure as hell going to try, and that I did within our discussion. I started out on the ‘rah rah everyone should get vaccinated’ side of the discussion. Coming into it I thought those who didn’t get vaccinated were a danger and a hindrance to the rest of the population. It baffled me how parents could be so stupid as to not getting their kids vaccines. I mean no parent I knew would want their kid to get polio. 

But as the conversation progressed, it seemed like a lot of people were on the side that vaccines were good, but as we got deeper it was terrifying. I brought off the notion of biological warfare actually from a clarification that Claudia asked from me. I didn’t really realize this going in, but biological warfare and vaccines could have a closer link then I originally thought. That and biowarfare is absolutely terrifying and there have been enough movies to represent the ill effects of pathogens released onto an unsuspecting populace. 

As we dug deeper into how vaccines could be used for nefarious purposes, I began to understand non-vacciners point of views. It seemed like they maybe were onto something as the possibility of the government using vaccines for their own purposes (population control) (no idea what goes into those vaccines) seemed plausible. I’m not sure what sets me off when we talk about governments taking over and becoming totalitarian, it might be the fact I fear a loss of control and see the government now as more controllable than the dystopian vaccine and people controlling one we imagined in the group discussion. 

This all ties back to psychoanalysis and how there’s always this fear of loss. Loss of control as seen with a totalitarian government, the loss of life, or fear of death with the possibility of biological warfare. It’s all just so unsettling and there’s nothing I can really do to comfort that feeling as it is to great of an unknown.

When I walked away from that discussion, all of us came in with the assured fact we believed in vaccines, but now we left questioning our own trust we put in the government and medical officials. They hold the power and all we can do is submit to receive our injection.....

[redlensedglasses]

Discussion Topic: AI, VR and AR

Today was the last discussion skills and I can’t help but feel like this was the most organic and well-structured conversation we’ve had so far. I enjoyed all the topics brought to the table from Bens tuition to… well I can’t remember the other one, but I was extremely happy with being put into Lesley-Anne’s group. I felt it was useful for us not to pick, but to be told what we were discussion, like Nathan said, you don’t always choose the conversations you have.

 I was still pleased. I have been in groups before that discussed AI and VR, yet as much as it was the same topic, it was an entirely different conversation. We started off by trying to focus on the positive effects of AI and VR, and how in the medical field it could help in training and surgeries. Simple surgeries could be done quickly and safely by AI’s so that more complex surgeries would be left to other surgeons. Yet even this conversation turned more negative. 

(I find it funny how no matter what discussion, we always end up at the worse case scenario. How we always think of what could go wrong and not what could go right.) 

We focused on the use of VR as a form of training in the military and how it’s being used at this very moment to simulate if a comrade is dying, what that solider should do. VR could result in either more PTDS within a population or less; yet they are desensitized to that situation. This is a grey area it seems. We all want our forces to be well trained/ equipped but we don’t want them to become mindless killing machines… 

Moving onto a lighter topic at Leslys-Annes guidance, we turned to Sophia the robot. She has citizenship in multiple countries (we had to steer ourselves away from discussing that aspect and issue.). We discussed how was it the programmer’s motives and ideas that Sophia was reflecting, or her own. This only spiralling the conversation down into talk of the matrix and who controls the watcher (in this case programmers). It was all interesting to listen to. All of our questions were in genuine curiosity or ‘what if’ situations. I’m proud to say I paraphrased a couple of times and asked for clarification at points. It was something that has almost become second nature. To ask for clarification or to repeat certain points back to the person. The ‘so what factor’ is really starting to piss off my roommate, but that an entirely different post. 

Back to AI. Meredith brought up an amazing point about how the pen was seen as new technology and that we could have been afraid of such a new piece of technology. She related it back to what we were facing now with new technology. At first, we were afraid, we were petrified, keep thinking we could never live with AI by our side. Maybe she’s right, maybe google having a high probability of owning the majority of AI will be benevolent dictators as they slowly take over out home *cough* google home *cough*. But this might be paranoia, AI could help… but it’s still a scary discussion topic.

[redlensedglasses]

Listening and Discussion Groups: AI, Group Work, Tina Fontaine and Paraphrasing

I would like to start by saying that 8 moderators, 4 conversations in a day was too much to handle. My head was not only spinning after learning the instructions of paraphrasing I started off in the Tina Fontaine group. 

We started by getting the laydown of who she was and what happened, as well as the detail of her court case. None of us really talked, there was a pregnant pause in the group as if none of us really wanted to talk about it. Yet our moderator made it so we were able to have a meta-discussion more or less about that. We spoke of how we were using this poor girls story, her life as a talking point, a reason to discuss and ‘dig deeper’. We felt guilty, we knew the reasons behind why that what there, racism instilled by colonialism, but none of knew how we could help. Yes, we were helping Under One Sky, but how could us as student stop this injustice? We questioned how talking about issues like gun control, racism and mental illness yet sit by and do nothing. We eventually understood how it all played out. We needed to talk about it to understand and to EVENTUALLY deal with it. So that these issues had a voice and understanding. 

The conversation went in then out then in then out in terms of meta-discussion and then discussion ‘on the topic’. 

Chiara’s group I found was more of us complaining about out community project instead of having a meta discussion. We were a large group and the project was due that week. It was just a lot to consider. No one used their paraphrasing skills because this was personal. We all felt the pressure, and we all didn’t feel like we were contributing an even amount. 

The AI discussion by Meredith was by far my favourite of the day. We used the hand signals, and yet still found it terribly hard to understand and to have a decent conversation with someone as this was going on. No paraphrasing was done either. Perhaps by use of the hand signals, we were limited. The last few minutes at Nathanssuggestion we dropped the hands and continued on. THIS MADE EVERYTHING EASIER. We were able to paraphrase and go ‘deeper’ than we had in the last 35 in total. We got to what we saw as the core issue: the fear of loss of control. That we were scared that AI’s could be used for just production and for war. 

Going forth I see the hand signals becoming obsolete. It’s hard to raise your hand then be the third one on the list when the conversation has already jumped from one topic to the next. Without that structure of the hand signals, we will be freer in future conversations so we can have a more organic feel. It was easier to employ the skills learned such as questioning and paraphrasing when we had this open discussion.

[redlensedglasses]

Listening and Discussion Groups: Bell Let’s Talk - Feb 13th

Since Bell Let’s Talk was all over my dashboard on both Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook, I thought this would be an interesting discussion to have, to join that group. I came into the discussion with my mind clear set on one thing: I didn’t like Bell Let’s Talk. I thought it was a way that this company exploited mental illness for a tax break. 

I admit that I was biased in this approach and in answering some questions given within the group. I spent the first few minutes saying this is what Bell did with the money, how they used it, and other detail that all bt incriminated Bell. I was not a healthy member of this conversation. I was providing an extremely biased approach and answering, not asking questions. 

Eventually, the topic spread from Bell to mental illness itself. I still felt like this was a biased because of what I had given to the group. Yet even now in seeing this, I remember asking selfish questions for my own benefit and not for the benefit of the group discussion. 

Getting away from that line of thinking though, going down the mental illness route we talked a lot about how mental illness has become a trend, how you have to, and this was a shocking statement, “live up to a label”. We touched on the privilege of mental health and near the end our moderator had us going around the circle saying our opinions on how it has become this new ‘privilegde’.

 It was profound. I walked away from the conversation with a heavy heart and still angry with Bell. This was by far one of my worst times within this discussion-based learning. 

[redlensedglasses]

Listening and Discussion Groups: Gun Control - Feb 20th

I decided to go for both groups on gun control mainly to see how the conversation differed. I also really enjoy debating with people on this topic, and I know the discussion isn’t a debate, but some stats and information as background really helps to grasp deeper meanings in my opinion.

The first discussion I felt though, started out as a more Q and A sort of deal. We had to get some basic knowledge out about gun laws, especially in the US. But eventually the right questions were made not to ask a question straight out, but one that was open-ended. The beginning of the questions was more discussing “who is the NRA? Why are they so influential? What are other countries that do or don’t have these problems?” they weren’t meaningful in the sense of getting to a core issue. It was informative yes, but still not deep enough.

Eventually, the conversation shifted to mental health and we went down that rabbit hole for a bit before being brought up with traditions and rights to have guns.

The second discussion I felt there was better depth. It started off being framed from the last discussion, like it was a continuation. Which made it harder for those that were not in the group previous to follow the conversation. We also started out the conversation in an almost hostile atmosphere as if we were questioning the ideas of one group member and their views on guns. Thankfully we stopped and took a breather, the feeling in the room stuffy and tight as we all could feel what was going on. Having a little meta-discussion about that feeling was good, it cleared the air and really helped people to focus on the topic not the values of an individual.

We eventually got the point in this discussion where Ben brought up how the US was built on fear. I can’t tell you how much that statement affected me. I was almost taken aback at how I couldn’t have seen it like that before. How the US was built on fear, propaganda, how even now fear is a tool that is being used to fight both sides of this issue. We can use this suggestion of fear to explain a lot of America (in simple terms), xenophobia and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan from 9/11, the cold war and the fear of Russia getting more weapons than the USA… the list could go on.

America is built on fear.  

I went home thinking of how this affects the populace, how this constant feeling of fear could relate to their obsession with security and how that affects not just them, or us being their northern neighbour, but other countries as well. It also explains why they feel like they need guns. It’s their safety blanket. They feel safe knowing they can ‘protect themselves’. Take away the guns, and the fear will engulf them. That’s why there’s so much of a debate on the issue. You’re arguing with someone who is terrified of being without that sense of protection, like being thrown into the sea with no boat or lifejacket, land nowhere in sight. It’s the sense of fear that allows for gun control to still be a debate, the discussion we had really striking that idea home.

[redlensedglasses]

Listening and Group Discussions on Rights of Medical Professionals: January 30th

As for it being the second point in our journey in discussion and moderation, it seemed to flow better than the last session, yet still had choppy aspects to the flow of conversation. In the second discussion group talking about Trump's proposed plan on medical professionals being able to choose if they can help someone or not depending on their own beliefs, I felt as if the conversation would have been more natural if there were fewer hands. 

We stopped the discussion and had a meta discussion about it, and the issue resolved itself, but I still felt it was choppy. ‘add something hands’, and ‘new point hands’ were often mixed and we would go off on tangents and questions we had on a certain subject presented would be obsolete with the new stream of inquiry. This was a communication error in my mind, perhaps on the moderator's side, and on ours as well. 

We spoke and focused on listening skills, yet some of the ones highlighted in class such as: open-mindedness, body language, and space for silence were not as prominent as other key points like: genuine care, asking for clarification and finding the common ground. In that discussion, the group facilitator had to stop us and have us think for a time being to reflect and ask a question. In both groups, it seemed like body language was an issue. I particularly noticed, in between me coughing my lungs out, that people were more closed off. And that reflected in their participation of the discussion, and or the questions they gave. 

I might be out to lunch here, and I am guilty of this too, but those who seemingly asked not well thought out, or more ‘close-minded’ type questions generally positioned their body slumped back and arms crossed. Those who didn’t participate or were not active listeners had their mind astray it seemed. 

This was especially so with me in the explanation of the Riverdale, and the class defining what a ‘good listener was’. I find it almost ironic that I wasn’t listening as were discussing that topic. I was sitting in my chair fiddling around with paper, not giving my full attention to the speaker(s). Active listening is something I need to work on considerably. I have an exceedingly short attention span... 

oh look a youtube video...

But getting back to the topic, I want to know why I have this issue, but also improve upon it. 

Fabulous, now that I’ve given a recap and touched on the effectiveness and skills portion of the journal requirements. Let’s get down to business to discuss Trump's plan. Oh boy, I can’t tell you how much I am conflicted on this. Yes, I want peoples beliefs to be protected, but I also don’t want to die or have other people potentially die just because a doctor says that they don’t believe in what I am or what they have to do so that they can’t help me. I understand it’s an American issue and not a Canadian one, but it will still have repercussions for Canada if it is enacted. We jumped right in and I still like the example I gave as a clarification point in the beginning off  of the moderator's intro: 

“For example, this policy would potentially allow a doctor who is Jahovahs Witness to refuse to transfuse blood because it would be against their beliefs.”

(generalization I know) But it really brought on the discussion of should they be able to let someone die because of their beliefs and eventually the conversation go onto rights which I found to be quite interesting due to it bringing in privilege and getting to the deeper issue of who makes these decisions of what is a right, and what isn’t, should rights be by country? What is a right? It was really interesting to see where those thoughts came from, how it basically all came from rich western countries that dominated the world stage. 

Graphic of the discussion above.

[redlensedglasses]

Anti-White Narrative Poster UNB Discussion: January 16th

For it being our first in class moderation and for it to be two topics that were just sort of thrown at us and the first time moderators, it seemed to develop gradually. Liam had a good question to start as to why we were all there, picking that topic and not the other and what we thought the poster meant. It wasn’t like sharing knowledge in the sense that he had the supposed answers; it felt more organic than just a category/ questions hen our opinions on it and everyone sitting around a circle looking at each other going ‘yup that’s it...’. 

There were silences in the discussion but I believe it wasn’t that there was nothing to talk about, but that this topic of racism is so vast and takes on so many different forms, that it’s hard to pin down. What I think really helped make the conversation more organized and that would be beneficial is to have this sort of set theme. Instead of just the wide topic of racism, it could focus on colonialism or white privilege and make tangents but ultimately reeling it back into the theme. 

I personally felt once the anger subsided from me, that we were able to get to more underlying reasons for racism. Bens story of his mother's partner really stuck out and how we then went from this hate to ignorance, then to how racism could be a form of ignorance. It made you think that perhaps that those who are racist in some cases are just miss informed and ignorant of other worldviews and cultures. But like what Dr. King said about how even us assuming that they are ignorant is placing us above them in a sense. Saying that our way is the right way (not that racism is good or justified). The ignorant tangent we went on really made you think or who are we to tell them that they don’t know any better? IS that something they have to learn for themselves?It was a small 5-minute talk on that line of thought, but I think that it was one of the underlying parts of what racism is. 

We neared the end of the conversation and we ran out of time, by several minutes, but there was one point that was brought up that I really wished we could have had another 20-minute talk on: why there was no contact information or group taking responsibility for the posters. To me that would have been an integral part of the whole theme of the discussion saying can racism, colonialism, be anonymous? Does it need to be to get its message out? why would it be? If someone is willing to spread this hate, why aren’t they taking credit for it? Is them not claiming responsibility somehow liked or not with the ignorance tangent? 

All in all, I felt walking away from that it could have been discussed better in more detail with more time. It’s no fault of the moderator, just how the subject resonated with the group, and the limited time allotted this class. Racism and colonialism really makes you think about how you got here and how it is affecting those around you and by what degrees. My ancestry is of white descent, I benefited from racism, am I ignorant of some aspects of it? Yes, especially in history, the visit to the art gallery was proof alone of my lack of black history knowledge. That is my ignorance, but spreading those posters, that’s not ignorance, that’s blatant hate and denial of historical events and effects on people now. 

[redlensedglasses]

Guys this is a language pun omfg. It took me 5 minutes to figure this out

i saw a dead fish on the floor of petsmart and i almost cried

[redlensedglasses]

Blue Whale Game Editorial

The internet has become a haven for communication and sharing ideas with others globally. Through Social media, we can access news and reach out to people from every country with little to no effort. It through this ease of access that predators lurk, in the still waters of internet threads and websites, there are those who prey on young and vulnerable users. They use menacing games and challenges to lure in youth to their trap, games such as the Blue Whale Challenge. Thought to be an internet hoax, in the beginning, it’s a serious issue for countries across the globe, as teens take their own lives in the name of this sick game.

The Blue Whale game is a ‘challenge’ that targets youth as young as 12 who are already in a vulnerable state of mind. The teen starts by contacting a curator, someone who runs or administers the game. Now there are many access point for a child to get ahold of a curator. Up until 2014, there was an app on both the app store and google play that immediately granted the youth access to the challenge. Though since then the games apps have been taken down from public use. Social media websites such as Instagram and Tumblr even have set up helplines for those looking to search for the game in filters. Twitter and Facebook have yet to take notice of this issue and have not unfortunately provided service or awareness to this very real issue. But if youth do begin this ‘game’, they are given 50 days of ‘challenges’ that can be as simple as watching videos, waking up at 4:20 am, to carving a whale into their skin with a razor. The child can’t tell anyone, it’s ‘against the rules’. They are told by the predator, that their family would now be in danger if they disobey the game. 

The game, since found mainly online, can be accessed by anyone, and everyone. It has spread from Russian and a social media platform called VK.com to Asian, European and South American countries where deaths have been linked to this game. In Spain, a family raced to stop a 15-year-old girl from killing herself after she posted “End.” with the games catch sign F57 on her Facebook wall. The young girl reportedly now recovering in a hospital in Barcelona. This is not an isolated myth of the deep web anymore, this is a growing issue that is affecting youth all around the world as they are brought into the game and forced through manipulation and black to finish the game and end their life.

His name is  Ilya Sidorov, and in February of 2017, this so-called ‘mastermind’ of this suicide game was arrested for encouraging youth to self-harm. He was arrested in Moscow after a confrontation with police and years of investigation due to this game not being taken seriously and the game being so private. Sidorov said he wanted to “cleanse society of the weak..” in his initial questioning after his arrest. He is gone yes, currently contained in Chelyabinsk region in the Urals as investigations continue and could only face up to five years in prison is found guilty; but his work still has impacts. Others have taken up his position as curator, his ‘work’ and ‘legacy’ still available for those vulnerable to access.

This is not a myth, this is not a simple game. This is a situation of life and death. One where we need to stand up for those who fall victim to these predators, and murders as they take the lives of our children. We as a collective internet society need to rise up and speak out about this issue. The youth being pulled in are not alone, they need to be told this. Support for those who are contemplating suicide should be mandatory in every community, so why should the largest community in the world not have any?

[redlensedglasses]

Alright, let’s get down to business to defeat gender barriers and sexual misconduct in the military.

So in the spring of 2015, stats Canada released a survey regarding sexual assault/ misconduct in the military. The results were not pretty. It sparked outrage, as it should have, within the Armed Forces causing the creation of Operation Honour. And Operation that has been long overdue for what it’s hopefully going to prevent. 

Stats:

“960 Regular Force members of the Canadian Armed Forces, or 1.7%, reported being victims of sexual assault during the previous 12 months either in the military workplace or in situations involving military members, Department of National Defence employees or contractors.” (x)

Let that sink in. 960 members of the Canadian Forces, our military, our soldiers have stated that they’ve been a victim of sexual assault. This doesn't even take into consideration the percentage of victims who have yet to come forward about their attack. Of every 100 incidents of sexual assault, only 6 are reported to the police (x). Expanding that to the number of personnel in the CAF, 100,250, this means that approx. only 6015 cases of assault are reported.

The thing is, there, like in the civilian world, a stigma attached to rape culture and its victims. In civilian walks of life, there’s ‘victim blaming’. Where society blames the man or woman for how they dress, flirting with the perpetrator,  or even accusations of the victim ‘deserving it’. The military isn’t that different, unfortunately. There’s the factor you being in a group of close-knit people who live, eat and train together. If one of your teammates comes forward saying that another has abused them, you immediately, as is in human nature, try to defend one of the two parties. You end up having a ‘house divided’ aspect. Where typically the victim will be the one accused of ‘crying wolf’. The reporting of sexual assault in the military is only 1 out of every 10 sexual assaults (x). 

Operation honor needs to focus on fixing this little stigma and allowing for victims to not receive backlash for reporting an incident that should’ve never happened anyways. 

“Just over one in ten (12%) Regular Force members who were victims of sexual assault stated that they were victims of more than one type of sexual assault in the past 12 months, while 77% stated that the only form they experienced was unwanted sexual touching.” (x)

In the military (COAT branch) I know there’s the ‘ask for permission before touching’ rule that applies to everyone regardless of rank or gender. This is stated in the CATO’s, though if it applies to the actual CAF I am unsure. But with the numbers in the statistics given (12%) regarding unwanted sexual touching, this elevates the need to enforce the notion of personal space, boundaries and asking permission to touch. It’s about consent. 

Consent can only be given from someone who is in a proper state of mind and body. Any indication of intoxication, being pressured by someone’s position (rank), or substance abuse prevents the individual from giving consent.

I’m going off on a tangent for consent for a sec. Now in the military, it’s structured via a ranking system. Unless you’re at the top, you always have someone over you as a superior. Now if that person, your boss so to speak, uses their rank to gain sexual favours, advantage, or uses it as blackmail. It is a form of sexual assault. 

Here’s a situation: You’re the platoon commander for an Army Officer, a Major, for example. Then they use their position as your boss and state or suggest that unless you ‘go to dinner’ or ‘allow them to touch you’, there will be punishments/ consequences for disobeying a superior officer. This is a form of abuse of authority and the abuser holding a higher position over the victim to entice them to do as the abuser wants. There is no consent given due to the separation of position. This is rape. 

“Women in the Regular Force were more likely than men to have been victims in the past 12 months. Women were four times more likely than men to experience unwanted sexual touching (4.0% versus 1.1%), five times more likely to be sexually attacked (0.9% versus 0.2%), and six times more likely to be subjected to sexual activity to which they were unable to consent (0.7% versus 0.1%).” (x)

Oh boy, let's just start with this, shall we? Women are 4, 5 and 6 times more likely to be the victims of sexual assault. If we have 24 females in a division or squadron (given that it’s been reported), 6 will experience unwanted touching, almost 5 will be sexually attacked and 4 women will be the assaulted when they are unable to give consent.

Women in the military are the most at risk for being the victims of sexual assault. This is why it’s good that Operation Honor has at least attempted to reach out the victims of sexual assault in our Forces. It’s giving men and women a voice against the mistreatment they have faced, and allows for those who commit these crimes to be punished accordingly. Fortunantly since the beinging of the opperation, “29 members of the military have already been forced out due to sexual misconduct”. That’s 29 victims that have begun their road to recovery.

Operation Honour is something that needs to be taken with the utmost seriousness. Sexual misconduct is not publicly acceptable in our society, so why should it be permitted within our military?