terrorist

Where the line is drawn and where it is crossed

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. January 13, 2015

The hostile take over of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical left-wing magazine, and the massacre of nine employees and two National Police officers reminds us of the thin barrier protecting our freedom of speech and the fine line between poking fun and instigating attack.

The senselessness that occurred on January 7 gave strength to what many agree to be a dying medium. Publications across the globe banded together to acknowledge the bravery of those cartoonists who died so that we may continue to speak our mind and express our opinions.

Newspapers, magazines, and various other publications that hold the mirror upon society, showing all the blemishes, scars, and corruption, are the vehicles for democracy. Without them, without freedom of speech, without public and private institutions to speak up, we are doomed. And for that reason alone, I honour those who have lost their lives over the years—CharlieHebdo included—for our right to express ourselves.

Yet, such ruthlessness cannot be ignored. Forthright as I am, I am not eager to die for my craft. So I must ask, where is the line I must draw for myself? How will I know when I have crossed it? When should I cross it?

Those who know me know that I only view activism from the perimeter. I have yet to determine my stance. Should I fight against corporate giants like Kinder Morgan? Should I challenge government discourse, like those in Hong Kong did last year? Should I rally for legalization of marijuana? I know at some point I’ll have to pick a battle, because those who stand idly by give power to the enemy, whoever it is.

So I ask us all: What are we willing to die for? What change in the world do we wish to see for the next generation? What have we inherited from the sacrifice of those before us? Take a moment to learn about our history, whatever realm you are interested in—art, politics, civil rights, etc. You will find that what we have did not materialize overnight; what we have came from battles hard-fought. Unlike a war, but still a battle with casualties.

We should arm ourselves with open-mindedness and good intentions. We should not talk or write with the goal of being accurate, but with a whim of curiosity. Societal issues lie in a grey area. What is right in our minds may be wrong somewhere else. We as artists, journalists, comedians, filmmakers, and other influencers must set the example. We too must not be close-minded. We too must see from our opposition’s point of view, understand where they are coming from, and why they are willing to risk their lives to defeat us.

Let’s harbour discussion to create a better world—one without intentions to provoke, one without intention to kill.

Formerly published in The Other Press. May 8 2013

By Elliot Chan, Staff Writer

Tragedies affect people on many different levels. If we’re lucky, we observe crisis from the outside, as a third person. We see horrific footage and hear about disasters through newsfeeds, computer screens, and word of mouth. We might call ourselves lucky to live in a world where we can keep misfortune at arm’s length, but just because we’re fortunate for a moment, we mustn’t forget that tragedies of all sizes can affect the best of us at any time.

On April 15, the world-famous Boston Marathon was interrupted by an alleged terrorist strike. An explosion rattled the fences separating spectators from marathon runners. Horrified screams echoed across the city of Boston and were heard across the continent. While some sent condolences and sympathy for those affected, others coped with the event by minimizing its repercussions. Hours after the tragedy, social networking sites were flooded with appalled and appalling statuses. Sure, the explosion was not on the same scale as 9/11 or a day in the life in Somalia, but if we are to reduce human life to the number lost and gained, humanity will be as cold as the stock market.

Natural disasters, shootings, and terrorist attacks are all terrifying scenarios. To be caught in any of them would be an absolute nightmare for any person, no matter their nationality, ethnicity, or wealth. A death toll is not a competition. A loss is a loss, regardless of the trigger, and we shouldn’t belittle the experience of the victim. You don’t blame the innocent victim for a traffic accident; you blame the irresponsible driver. The drunk ones who swerve from lane to lane are at fault, and it would be wrong to put the onus on the victims. We all make snap decisions, and hindsight won’t save us. You too could be caught on the other end, staring down at a pair of headlights, and have it be too late. The same goes for the victims of any tragedy.

When an incident like the Boston Bombing happens again—and, by the looks of the current political tension, the intervals between conflicts may become shorter—we must remember that the innocent must stand together. Tragedy should create unity, instead of division through blame. Finger pointing is not the solution; it is the initial problem.

A perfect world is not a place without problems, but one where everyone works to solve the immediate issues.