Old ideals first? » A criticism of Canada’s criteria for accepting Syrian refugees Mercedes Deutscher News Editor & news@theotherpress.ca When I was eight years old, | was obsessed with the disaster that was the Titanic. While my peers were collecting Neopets, I was collecting knowledge on a ship that sank 84 years before my birth. My repertoire of knowledge exceeded that of most adults. The Titanic and the Syrian refugee crisis share a few commonalities, including the excessive number of scared people crammed into tiny boats, or them sailing into dangerous waters during the dark of the night. Yet the similarity that struck me most was the enforcement of “women and children first.” The concept of “women and children first” in the face of crisis is one that ages back far into history. It happened during the sinking of the Titanic, and now it’s happening as Canada takes in Syrian refugees. Granted, Canada isn’t only taking in women and children; men are being allowed through, but under strict regulations and priorities. Essentially, men who are part of a complete family or are part of a sexual minority are being permitted, while single men are left behind in : Syria or the dangerous seas. Don’t get the wrong idea : here—it fills my heart with : joy that Canada is (mostly) : accepting refugees with : open arms. Yet how wide are : these arms really open? Why allow single women : into the country but not : single (straight) men? Is this > supposed to be Canada’s idea : of chivalry to refugees? These : people don’t need an outdated : and sexist medieval code. They need a home where they : can sleep without the fear of : being abducted, bombed, and/ : or murdered in the night. Some have argued that : this criteria for taking in : refugees is a way to protect : those most vulnerable in Syria. : Yet I believe that everyone is : vulnerable in Syria—that’s the : reason so many are jumping : ship from their home country to : begin with. Single men have a : greater risk of being recruited, : whether by influence or force, : bya violent group. Whether Image via www.mycause.com : that be the rebel alliance, the : nationalists, ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, : there are no groups that have : clean hands in this conflict. By pushing away these : Syrian men, we are telling them : that as aman, it is their duty to : be brave in the face of adversity. : However, expecting men to put : ona brave front consistently : may be “honourable,” but it : is unrealistic. The groups : fighting in Syria have not fought : honourably. So why should we : expect innocent men to not be : afraid? I’m certain that if you : lived in a state where danger was : as common as Starbucks, you : would be afraid too. Being male : does not exempt you from fear. How does this acceptance : process benefit Canada most? : Sure, there may be gender parity : amongst children and youth, but : what about the adult population? : It may lead to a population : deficit between males and : females. As we've seen around : the world, vast differences in : a population's sex can create : a problematic imbalance. It is time we sailed away : from the archaic idea that : is “women and children : first” and think of what will : benefit the overall population : best. Then we will find our : way into calm waters. What I hear when we talk about terrorism » A problem, but not our problem Elliot Chan Opinions Editor ‘ye, M opinions@theotherpress.ca e can’t live our lives in fear. Terrorists want to instill fear into us, andasa whole it’s working. In the wake of a tragedy, we can all feel that fear. We all sympathize with the victims, and worry about our own safety. What’s stopping an attack from happening here, close to home? The answer: nothing. Yet we all believe that there is a solution. We believe that if we can work together and put aside all our differences, we can fix everything. When people talk about terrorism, what I hear is a situation akin to a natural disaster. But instead of earthquakes, hurricanes, and diseases, we suffer the wrath of people, Mother Nature’s most notorious killer. We understand the shift of tectonic plates, but we have yet to understand these “people.” We : want to fight them, but can : we fight a way of thinking? : Can we fight a hurricane? When I hear people talk : about terrorism, I think about : all the bad people in world—or : merely those who we consider : bad. I wonder what made them : this way. I wonder how safe I : am from becoming one of those : people. How thin is that line : from being the person running : away from a bomb to being the : person wearing the bomb? The media presents : terrorism through the lens of : fear and anger. And so we fear : itand we are angry at it. Yet, : we seldom prepare for it. We : expect it to stop somehow, as if : that tragic time before will be : the last time. We all know that : earthquakes are never going to : stop. Should one happen and : we are caught unaware, we have : nobody to blame. However, : when a terrorist attack occurs : and we are caught unprepared, : we blame the act itself. We : don’t blame the earthquake : for being an earthquake? Perhaps it’s time we react : to terrorism as a continuous : problem, one that is as natural : as the movement of the earth, : the temperature shift of the : atmosphere, and our own poor : health. We keep addressing : terrorism as the terrorists’ : problem—they are the ones that : need to change. They are the : ones that need to die, before they : : kill us. It is not their problem; : itis our problem. Ifa fire takes : place in our house, it is not the : fire’s job to put itself out. It’s : our problem. We need to know : immediately what to do after : the flame goes out of control. What I hear when we talk : about terrorism? I hear us trying a] [s) is) = a a a cre G = Oo os] Es C0) a oo EI oi to solve a problem that has : existed forever. People killing : other people. It’s a virus that : lives within our humanity. : In one form or another, it’ll : continue to happen. It’s natural. : Terrorist attacks, school : shootings, mass murders: to : stop these problems is, in a : way, to stop being humans.