#BellLetsTalk’s corporate and. systematic campaign > Examining a mental health campaign Cazzy Lewchuk Opinions Editor A you've probably seen, Canadian telecommunications giant Bell’s annual Let’s Talk campaign will be happening soon, and it encouraging openness and awareness of mental health. Bell will donate $0.05 towards mental health organizations across Canada for each use of the hashtag #BellLetsTalk and each text sent on a Bell phone plan. Ultimately, millions of dollars go towards helping people with their mental health. In addition, a conversation across the entire country is initiated on a topic so often ignored. These are fantastic initiatives and should be highly encouraged. Mental health issues disproportionately affect minorities, including women, the members of the LGBTQ+ community, and POC. It is underprivileged folk who are most likely to develop a mental health problem, and who have more difficult accessing resources and treatment. The #BellLetsTalk ads are incredibly white. Almost all of the people smiling and encouraging you to talk are extremely privileged (and rich) Caucasian celebrities. Mental health issues affect all demographics of Canadians, but not all of them are as successful as Howie Mandel. Bell needs more diversity in their ads, though I can understand why a homeless Indigenous woman with schizophrenia just doesn’t look as nice on a billboard. Above all, social conditions area huge factor in the mental health of the population. Low-income individuals are more likely to develop a mental Clara Hughes Marie-Soleil Dion health disorder, and more importantly, are unable to access proper care for it. Counselling and psychiatric services are not free nor covered by the glorious Canadian healthcare we all worship for some reason, even though it’s just as important as our physical health. (The government doesn’t consider eyes and teeth to be essential for our health, either.) Mental health is an ongoing struggle with many root causes. Lifestyle is avery important one. Many who suffer could significantly improve their conditions through a healthier diet, exercise, and environment. Of Etienne Boulay course, following these regimes is easier said than done, particularly if youre severely underprivileged. Bell is getting a lot of free advertising out of this event. They're donating millions to charitable causes, and that’s definitely worth some exposure. Bell is also a corporate giant that continues to use capitalism to hold a monopoly on wireless services in Canada. Their bills are getting higher and higher, and I wonder how many Bell employees have their mental health suffer because they aren't being paid a living wage. Do Bell employees have an EAP included The ethics of animal welfare and consumption > Is it ok to eat meat? Colten Kamlade Contributor hen talking about current moral issues, someone inevitably mentions animal welfare. Just as invariably, someone smugly dismisses the movement as childish. They say that pigs and cows are just dumb animals. Another common response is that animals eat each other in the wild, and so it is all right if we eat other animals, as we are animals ourselves. This is all uttered with an air of authority and intelligence. However, what kind of argument is actually being made? The idea that animals have no moral value because they are less intelligent than humans is easily dismissed. We know it is no worse to kill a man with an IQ of 160 than a man with an IQ of 85. There is no reason why this logic should not apply to animals. The food chain argument is no better. It essentially translates to this: In nature, some animals are able to dominate and devour other animals and this is right because it is natural. Firstly, I see no reason to consider what is natural to be what is morally right. Secondly, the argument could also apply to human interactions. Thus, all number of horrific acts would be permissible. There is no way to create a consistent ethical system in which animals are not included. I imagine many people will respond to these arguments with “But they’re just animals.” Though perhaps not the most sophisticated rebuttal, I believe it captures something of what we know to be true. There is something sacred about human life. No argument can be made for this and it must be accepted as foundational. You must believe it to be true without evidence. If so, then you can disregard much of the previous paragraph. No one can argue with you. Instead, you must ask yourself whether the sanctity of human life implies that animals have no worth. Is slaughtering a pig for your own pleasure a morally neutral act? How about allowing a cow to wallow in filth and infection? Surely the same sense that told you that human life was sacred cried out in protest when you read that. If so, do something to improve Howie Mandel Michael Landsberg a