Mediaboss Marketing

Since the general election was called, the establishment media has consistently talked up the probability of a Tory win, although those following the Labour campaign closely have reason to be positive.

Behind the scenes, volunteers for the campaign group Momentum have coordinated a nationwide effort using online forums to organise phone banking parties, doorstep canvassing, and the creation of viral memes. This blend of online tactics with traditional face-to-face campaigning borrows from the experience of the 2016 US Presidential campaign, which is widely believed to have been swung in Trumps favour by a loosely organised rabble of alt-right meme makers. Although this is only half the story, as the grassroots Bernie Sanders campaign engendered a new positivity on the left, despite failing to win the democratic nomination.

The success of Sanders campaign in shifting the US political landscape led Momentum to seek advice from Becky Bond and Zack Malitz two of its principal organisers in late 2016. Since then, Momentum has been honing a campaign method known as distributed organising, which involves a dispersed network of campaigners trained remotely via conference calls, videos, and Instant Messaging chats. This mobilisation of dedicated volunteers gives Labour an advantage over the Conservative Party, whose superior funding leads them to hire cold professionals. As one Momentum forum visitor who wishes to be known simply as Kristin said, the campaign has been about:

Skilled, intelligent people pulling together whenever they get a spare moment, doing for free what the Conservatives spend a fortune on, and getting tangible results.

The difference can be seen in the real-life stories told on camera by Labour supporters and uploaded onto social media accounts as part of the #videosbythemany campaign, which was launched by Ken Loach in a conference call on 6 November. The director and vocal Labour supporter said:

The Tories represent a class of people that most of us have no contact with Labours strength is the experience and voices and integrity of people we know.

In addition to effectively democratising the party political broadcast through the #videosbythemany initiative, Momentums #videoclipping team has diligently screenshotted and recorded news and debate footage throughout the campaign period, amassing thousands of videos ready to be captioned and uploaded to social media as potential viral memes.

Such efforts may make this the first UK general election to be influenced by a centrally coordinated, volunteer-run, meme campaign. Although its the use of the internet to organise real-world interaction through doorstep canvassing that may prove vital in causing an electoral upset. In the last two weeks of the campaign, Momentum launched My Plan to Win via a conference call to Momentum volunteers. The call introduced a web app that allows volunteers to organise their campaign days into Big, Medium and Small actions. The initiative encourages campaigners to, for example, canvas in a marginal, make and share a selfie video, and post on social media explaining why they are voting Labour.

In this way, volunteers are encouraged to treat meme campaigning as something that goes hand in hand with real world interaction. This may go some way to dispelling the popular notion of the political meme maker as a cynical and hermetic being, dedicated to upsetting the political status quo from the safety of their bedroom. The meme has come of political age in the UK as an asset to Labours army of town centre and doorstep canvassers. This 12 December, the left will show that not only can it meme effectively, it can win!

Featured image via Facebook Momentum

Mike Watson (PhD from Goldsmiths College) is a theorist, critic and curator who is principally focused on the relationship between culture, new media and politics. He recently published his second book with ZerO Books, Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming and Stranger Things.

View original post here:
Momentums meme campaign can win. Heres why. - The Canary

Politics is about coalitions, said the Democratic Alliances (DA) Geordin Hill-Lewis in a Daily Maverick opinion piece.

Its therefore odd that he then goes on to blame only former Johannesburg mayor Herman Mashaba, and not anyone else connected to the DA, for the partys loss of the City of Johannesburg to the ANC last week.

This is strange since this defeat entailed the party failing to convince their coalition parties to vote with them. They were abandoned by their entire coalition, except for its two most right-wing members Freedom Front Plus and ACDP.

It seems obvious that the party has offended many, including three of its own members, who appear to have voted for the ANCs corruption-accused Geoff Makhubo, with its swing to the right-wing, which has involved the return of Zille, the overt meddling of think tank the Institute of Race Relations (IRR), and the adoption of a report which called for the partys first black leader Mmusi Maimane to consider stepping down.

But Hill-Lewis is committed to showcasing the official opposition doing what it does best these days blaming anything and everything other than themselves, and distorting reality.

READ MORE: Mashaba resigns as Johannesburg mayor following Zilles return

Hill-Lewis and I do agree on two things. He says he could never abide Mashabas views of foreign immigrants. Me neither. The former mayors apparent xenophobia which the DA did nothing to discourage, because after all, populist politics gets the votes was indeed obvious and noxious.

Hill-Lewis adds that Mashaba got far too close to the looting EFF. Having read amaBhungane reports suggesting that the City of Johannesburg under Mashaba gave AfriRent a massive tender, and the proceeds somehow ended up in what appears to be a slush fund for Julius Malema, Id agree there too.

This column does not seek to show support for Mashaba, only to argue that its absurd that he is being entirely blamed by Hill-Lewis for the partys ill fortunes since he left.

The fact remains that without Mashaba, the party lost the support of the EFF, and without the EFF, they no longer had the majority they needed in the Joburg Council.

The DA, therefore, either wanted to give Johannesburg up due to a refusal to keep working with the EFF their reaction appears to show that they in fact hoped to keep power or are simply guilty of bad political manoeuvring, regardless of whether you think the corruption-accused Geoff Makhubo or Mashaba would make a better Joburg mayor (personally I think theyre both terrible options).

Hill-Lewis argues that Mashabas decision to leave was entirely his own.

The facts are that he was not forced out, there was no imminent move against him, and the report of the DAs internal election review did not recommend that we voluntarily leave government, he writes.

Mashabas reckless resignation, as Hill-Lewis calls it, may have been of his own accord, but those who believe he was forced out or at least pushed into leaving have certainly been informed by actual evidence.

It has been widely reported that many within the DA voiced opposition to his close relationship with the EFF. And Mashaba despite being further to the right of Zille when it comes to economic policy was understandably unable to get behind the political implications of her return to the party, considering her views on topics like colonialism and black privilege, her expressing the view that all race-based politics must be abandoned, and her cosying-up to SA right-wing media figures like cartoonist Jerm, podcast The Renegade Report, and YouTuber Conscious Caracal.

The DAs internal election review did not recommend that we voluntarily leave government, Hill-Lewis writes.

But it did state that forming governments with the EFFs support in Johannesburg and Tshwane was a mistake.

It said that the partys close relationship with the EFF was harmful to its brand and stopped it from being able to govern according to its policies.

Where the DA can dominate coalitions and protect its identity and brand while doing so, it should not hesitate to enter cooperative government. If it cannot do that, it should avoid such governments, it continued.

If thats not a call to voluntarily leave government I have no idea what is.

The report did say that the party should not make a final decision on whether to exit government in Johannesburg or Tshwane without a proper study of voters views and a careful consideration of the consequences.

READ MORE: Angry Herman Mashaba tells the DA: See, I was right

But Mashaba, who made it clear he was not comfortable with IRRs involvement in the partys politics, or with Helen Zilles return, didnt wait for careful consideration. And why should he have?

Those in the DA espousing the kind of so-called classical liberalism popular with the global alt-right appear unable to accept that they have moved to the right, or to acknowledge that their ideas are considered toxic to the majority of South Africans.

Hill-Lewis was once both Helen Zille and Mmusi Mamaines chief of staff. But its Zille he seems to identify more with, and his closeness to the woman who now holds the powerful position of DA federal council chairperson led several analysts and journalists to tip him to replace Paul Boughey, who resigned as the partys CEO in October [the party has not yet replaced him].

Everything he writes about the party should, therefore, be seen through the lens of someone heavily invested in the DAs jump to the right a direction denied by many of those within the party who champion it.

As long as the DA continues to moves rightwards a development which clearly makes many uncomfortable it will continue to lose support.

The partys recent refusal to take the advice of analysts or the media, however, means theyre unlikely to learn this lesson, as long as there are still outside factors to blame.

The Citizen digital news editor Daniel Friedman. Picture: Tracy Lee Stark.

For more news your way, download The Citizens app foriOSandAndroid.

Continue reading here:
Blame Mashaba: The DAs stunning refusal to take responsibility - Citizen

Skin Deep, Journey in the Divisive Science of Race, by Gavin Evans By Philip Guelpa 9 December 2019

Skin Deep, Journey in the Divisive Science of Race, by Gavin Evans (Oneworld, 2019), is a timely and welcome review of the substantial body of work demonstrating the complete lack of a biological basis for the category of race, as well as the historical falsifications and scientific distortions that have been used to promote racism. It is well written and accessible to the non-specialist.

The books biographical sketch of Evans states that he was born in London and grew up in Cape Town, where he became intensely involved in the anti-apartheid struggle. He studied economic history and law before completing a PhD in political studies, writing extensively on race and racism. He lectures in the Culture and Media department at Birkbeck College, London. His strong antipathy toward racism is clear throughout.

Evans presents a review of relevant research and examines the results with a scientifically based and critical eye, identifying weaknesses in studies that purport to identify racial differences in physical and intellectual capabilities. These weaknesses are due to such limitations as small sample sizes, unwarranted extrapolations from weak statistical correlations, and the assumption that correlation necessarily denotes causation. He also examines exaggerations or misinterpretations presented in the popular press as well as by individuals or groups who distort the science to support predetermined conclusions.

It is impossible in this brief review to effectively summarize all of the topics examined in Skin Deep. We will highlight a few.

Evans provides a good, up-to-date summary of the evidence and interpretations regarding the genetic, paleontological, and archaeological data on human evolution. There is still much to learn. A number of recent fossil discoveries indicate the existence of a greater variety of early hominins than previously known (e.g., Homo flore siensis, aka the Hobbit, Homo luzonensis, and Homo naladi), suggesting local adaptation of populations in relatively isolated environments.

However, the one central fact is the overwhelming genetic similarity of all modern humans (Homo sapiens, as opposed to other members of the genus)a much greater uniformity (99.9 percent) than is the case for most other mammals. This indicates that modern humans either replaced earlier forms and/or genetically subsumed them, when they moved out of Africa, with the latter making only minimal genetic contributions, except for Neanderthals and, perhaps Denisovans.

The bottom line is that all living humans are much more alike than they are different. Within population variation is greater than that between populations. Indeed, those differences are, metaphorically speaking, not even skin deep.

Archaeological evidence indicates that sophisticated tool manufacture and other evidence of abstract, symbolic thought (e.g., various forms of art), almost certainly associated with fully developed language, are nearly as old as the appearance of anatomically modern humans ( Homo sapiens ), about 200,000 years ago, before dispersal out of Africa. Consequently, early, anatomically modern humans were already equipped with sophisticated mental capabilities that allowed them to adapt primarily through the use of culture to the new environments into which they migratedEurope, Asia, Oceania, and the Americas, rather than by physical adaptation.

This runs counter to claims by hereditarianists (those who claim that human behavior is largely determined by genetics) that it was the challenge of adapting to new environments encountered in the move out of Africa that prompted biological selection for increased intelligence. This latter contention bears the stated or implicit conclusion that those who remained in Africa were not so challenged and, therefore, did not develop the more advanced intelligence acquired by the emigrants.

Of particular value is Evans debunking of the conception that there can be individual genes that control either intelligence in general or categories of behaviors such as criminality.

Research has shown that hundreds of genes may have some influence in any particular aspect of intelligence, each one contributing only a tiny amount to the observed variation. Even then, the interactions between them are complex and difficult to isolate. In short, the quest to identify one or a few genes that have a major determinative effect on intelligence has found no scientific validation.

An example of the extremely dangerous and reactionary implications of pseudo-scientific, genetically based interpretations of human behavior is illustrated by Evans. Steve Bannon, shortly before becoming the chief of Donald Trumps presidential campaign, wrote a piece for the fascist publication Breitbart.com promoting the belief that black males have a disproportionately high frequency of an extreme warrior gene that leads them to an increased rate of violence. Thus, according to Bannon, Heres a thought: What if the people getting shot by the cops did things to deserve it? There are, after all, in this world, some people who are naturally aggressive and violent.

The gene allegedly identified as promoting extreme warrior behavior, the MAOA-2R allele, is cited by such hack writers as Richard Lynn and Nicholas Wade, to explain the supposed overly aggressive behavior of black males. Evans provides an extensive review of research regarding this gene. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no scientific justification for such a claim. Nevertheless, this and similar pseudo-science is employed by Bannon and others to provide an ideological justification for racism to their fascistic base.

Another important aspect of the concept of race examined by Evans is the mistaken idea that, until recently races corresponded to broad geographic unitsEurope, Asia, Africa, etc. And that these populations were cohesive wholes, genetically distinct, and historically stable. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Human populations have been on the move for hundreds of thousands of years, mixing and remixing genetically, culturally, and linguistically, with the rate of movement accelerating significantly following the development of agriculture, beginning roughly 10-12 thousand years ago.

While biological adaptation did occur, these are minor and superficial. Current configurations of physical characteristics simplistically described as races are simply a snapshot in time, reflecting a single moment in an ever-changing landscape. Evans cites dozens of examples of such migrations, including the movement of early agriculturalists from the Middle East into Europe and the southward migration of Bantu-speaking farmers in Africa. Many are only recently being identified through genetic research, such as the discovery of a significant admixture of Eurasian DNA into East Africa dating to about 3,000 years ago.

Evans summarizes the historical data that exposes the promotion of racism by Europeans as an ideological justification for colonialism, that Africans, due to supposed inferior intelligence, were incapable of developing advanced civilizations. Examples cited include ancient Nubia and the Great Zimbabwe.

The bulk of Skin Deep presents an extensive review and critique of the claims by some scientists (very few in number) and others that significant differences in intelligence between races can be identified by IQ tests or other means, championed by the likes of Nicholas Wade and Richard Lynn. Such claims, based on simplistic and unfounded characterizations of what constitutes intelligence and how it can be measured, have been refuted time and again. Evans critique is interlaced and supported by countless examples of historical distortions, pseudo-scientific fabrications, religious dogma, and outright lies that have been employed over the last few centuries to justify the characterization of one population or another as inherently inferior and others as superior.

Evans takes particular aim at The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray. This work of pseudo-science, which purports to document genetically determined differences in intelligence between races, is based on selective, manipulated, and fabricated data and interpretations. It has been repeatedly critiqued by a variety of researchers and demonstrated to have no validity. Nevertheless, its use by those with a racist agenda persists. Evans brings together numerous lines of research that conclusively demonstrate not only the scientific worthlessness of The Bell Curve, but that of others who have followed in this line of research.

Time and again, claims of racial differences in intelligence, often based on culturally biased IQ tests, are in fact attributable to historical, social, and economic factors, which have nothing to do with intelligence. An extreme example Evans cites is the conclusion by one researcher that San peoples of the Kalahari Desert have an IQ equivalent to that of an eight-year-old European child. Aside from the fact that the test is based on a cultural context with which the San had little or no experience, Evans observes:

I presume Lynn [the researcher in question] has never met a San person, but my experience suggests the notion that their average intelligence is that of a European eight-year-old is absurd. And the idea that a European child could survive alone in the Kalahari is laughable; the kind of statement that could only be made by someone whod never set foot in a desert.

And further, regarding San whom Evans has met, They were all fluent in at least two languages, some in four or more.

In a critique of one of the most recent examples of scientific racism, Nicholas Wades A Troublesome Inheritance, Evans states, No one disputes that human populations evolved for skin color, lactose tolerance, altitude tolerance, defenses against malaria and the rest, but no scientist has provided evidence of population-specific evolution for wealth-making, authoritarianism, tribal loyalty or, indeed, intelligence.

This is the crux of the matter. Pseudo-scientific works such as Wades conflate clearly biological phenomena with historical/cultural behaviors, and claim, without evidence, that the latter evolve in the same manner as the former, in the tradition of Social Darwinism, sociobiology, and the like

The fundamental question one is left with is: Why in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that, while humans exhibit only a limited range of variation in a few, superficial genetic characteristics, does the concept that races exist as some sort of overriding, bounded phenomena, demarking distinct entities, nevertheless persist?

For all of the valuable information provided by Evans, the book has one significant weakness. His contention that racism is a belief rather than an expression of power (since a powerless person can be a racist) is fundamentally idealist, in the philosophical sense, and leaves the reader with no satisfying explanation as to why such a mistaken and pernicious belief should persist and at times become a justification for vicious behavior and mass murder, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence otherwise.

Evans suggests that race science, apparently as an expression of underlying racism, is a constant phenomenon that occasionally bubbles to the surface under certain conditions. In the section What Motivates Race Science?, Evans cites Stephen Jay Goulds observation that each resurgence of race science coincides with waves of political attacks against the poor, which are promoted by the far right. Evans observes, The process is influenced by the political climate, as illustrated by the proliferation of race science on social media in the wake of Trumps election campaign and since.

He attributes the latest resurgence to the combination of the economic fallout from the 2008 banking crash, the decline of manufacturing and mining jobs in the West, the recalibration of the world economy as information technology changes the world, and to the wars in Syria and elsewhere in years to come.

And further, The current wave [of race science] is particularly strong and persistent for reasons that relate to the rise of ethnic nationalism, which in turn is partly prompted by the existential insecurity, particularly of young white men, in response to a rapidly changing social and economic milieu.

With the rise of the alt-right, fascists taking to the streets all over Europe, populist, nativist right-wingers winning power in several parts of the world; far-right terrorism on the increase; it is clear that racism, and the ideas that feed it, are more resilient than we hoped. The twentieth century showed us where bad ideas about race can lead. If we dont want the twenty-first to echo those themes, bad ideas need to be countered whenever and wherever they appear.

In a number of instances throughout the book, Evans points to the use of racism, including purported differences in intelligence, as ideological justification for oppression, such as colonialism. However, he does not go deeper and make a class analysis. Throughout history, racism and other forms of discrimination (e.g., xenophobia, religious bias) have been used by ruling classes as a weapon of dominationto divide and conquer the lower classes. This is nakedly obvious in recent centuries under capitalismthe Nazis anti-Semitism and anti-black racism in the US, for example.

Therefore, one must conclude that the driving force behind racism and the like is not simply the result of wrong ideas or bad science, whatever any individuals subjective motivations for adopting such views may be, and regardless of the scientific justifications that may be concocted in their support. Rather, such ideas are promoted and sustained as tools of class rule, as the overt promotion of racism currently undertaken by both the right and left wings of the American bourgeoisie (e.g., Trumps drive to build a fascist movement, on the one hand, and the New York Times 1619 Project, on the other) clearly demonstrates.

Now, as world capitalism plunges into extreme crisis, the bourgeoisie feels seriously threatened by the resurgence of the working class. It, therefore, reaches for one of its deadliest weaponsracism and similar forms of ethnic and religious bigotryto keep it divided. While detailed critiques of pseudo-science and historical falsification, such as Skin Deep, are important and indeed vital resources in the struggle against such biases, these will never be overcome until the root cause, namely class society, is eliminated.

The author also recommends:

Genetic study demonstrates that racial classification by skin color has no scientific basis[9 November 2017]

New genetic data show Back to Africa migration in Neolithic times[23 October 2015]

2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.

Read the rest here:
Skin Deep, Journey in the Divisive Science of Race, by Gavin Evans - World Socialist Web Site

"Knives Out" is being marketed as a post-modern deconstruction of the whodunit genrecomplete with a genius detective, a stacked cast of great actors and a plot so full of twists you might get whiplash from all the head shaking. Writer/Director Rian Johnson is such a cinephile that he's incapable of making something that doesn't at least poke fun at the strictures of genre, but more than being a clever riff on the nature of stories, he's made a perfectly executed and wildly entertaining mystery.

The premise is a delight: Harlan Thrombey is a wealthy mystery writer along the lines of James Patterson who brings his children and extended family together at his country estate to celebrate his 85th birthday. In the morning, Thrombey's body is found, an apparent suicide, but a Southern gentleman detective shows up determined to prove that it was murder.

Spread throughout the house are Harlan's oldest daughter, Linda (a wonderful Jamie Lee Curtis), her Trump-loving husband, Richard (Don Johnson), their alt-right sh*t poster troll son, Jacob (Jaeden Martell), their spoiled and nasty older son, Ransom (Chris Evans, playing against type), Harlan's daughter-in-law and lifestyle guru, Joni (a perfect Toni Collete), her liberal daughter, Meg (Katherine Langford), Harlan's oldest son and publishing company CEO, Walt (a restrained Michael Shannon), his fragile wife, Donna (Riki Lindhome), Harlan's ancient mother, Wanetta (K Callan) and Harlan's nurse, Marta (future movie star Ana de Armas).

Each character has at least one secret, and aside from Marta they're all fairly greedy and terrible people. Daniel Craig's detective Benoit Blanc is one part Hercule Poirot and another part Foghorn Leghorn, interviewing each family member and setting up a timeline for Harlan's death. With such a fantastic group of actors all playing multi-layered and interesting characters, the film ends up playing less like a smug deconstruction and more like a classic throwback to films such as "Clue" and "Murder by Death."

There are so many twists to the expertly crafted plot that to tell anymore would be cruel. Rian Johnson once again proves that he's not interested in making movies that aren't layered with meaning, just as he did with the Neo-noir masterpiece "Brick," the time travel brain-melter "Looper" and his much debated "The Last Jedi." Sure, on its surface "Knives Out" is an old-school murder mystery, but there's a lot to unpack about class, race and white privilege that most movies don't have the spine to address.

"Knives Out" had the audience screaming with laughter and surprise and everyone was talking about it in the hallway afterwards. I don't think it reinvents the wheel like the marketing suggests, but the film's ambitions aren't that lofty. When a film is as charming, surprising and lovingly crafted as this one is, what else do we need?

Knives OutDir. Rian JohnsonGrade: B+Old Mill Stadium 16 & IMAX, Sisters Movie House, Odem Theater Pub

Read the rest here:
Cut to the Quick | Film | Bend - The Source Weekly

Late in the afternoon on 6 December 1989, a young man walked into Montreals Polytechnique engineering school with a semi-automatic rifle and killed 14 women, injured 14 others (including four men), then killed himself.

Marc Lpines page-long suicide note, written in French, made his motivations clear: Feminists have always enraged me, he wrote. I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker.

In Canada, 6 December is now a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women.

But the events of three decades ago are not a horrifying memory safely confined to a bygone era. From the viewpoint of 2019, the Polytechnique shooting now seems like an unfortunate foretelling of things to come.

Two weeks ago, a young woman in Chicago was killed by a man after she ignored his catcalls. Last November, a man whose hatred of women was well-documented online shot six women at a hot yoga studio, killing two. And seven months earlier, a man named Alek Minassian drove a van on to a Toronto sidewalk and killed 10 people, eight of them women.

The sexually frustrated young man behind the vans wheel a self-described incel, or involuntary celibate saw his act as retribution against women who had starved him of the affection he felt he was rightfully owed. Minassian said he was inspired by Elliot Rodger, an incel and wannabe pickup artist who shot 20 people in 2014.

I think the link between Polytechnique and the van attack is so clear, so direct, so obvious, said Julie Lalonde, a Canadian educator focused on violence against women. The link is more than a virulent hatred of women it is also the ability for misogynists and antifeminists to find support for that hatred in both fringe groups and in mainstream culture.

Finding that support is easier now than its ever been.

The pseudonymous Liz (a volunteer researcher on hate groups in Canada who outs extremists and who uses a fake name because of the volume of violent threats her alter ego receives) says misogyny is a powerful undercurrent in all alt-right and white supremacist online groups.

Where do you really start to discuss the intersection between misogyny and hate groups, when they are really one and the same? asked Liz, adding that hatred of women often serves as a base upon which to build other forms of hate.

The fact that [misogyny] acts as such a pipeline makes the incel movement exceptionally dangerous, Liz continued. I think thats actually an aspect that people overlook; people look at it as kind of insular, like its in a vacuum Oh, they just hate women. But hate is infectious. When you learn to hate, you learn to hate more, and more, and more. Its a drug.

When Lpine began composing his ideology back in the 1980s, he didnt have an internet commiseration machine; in his suicide note, he said it took him seven years to form his extremist views. Those views ultimately ended in a mass shooting and a meticulously assembled hitlist of 19 accomplished women he would have killed if not for a lack of time.

Lpine targeted Polytechnique specifically because the women there were pursuing careers in engineering a discipline he believed should be reserved for men.

Nathalie Provost was 23 when Lpine shot her. Four bullets from his legally obtained rifle entered her body and changed her life forever.

Lpine had entered her classroom and sent the 50 men and nine women to opposite sides of the room. Then he ordered the men to leave.

He told us that we were there because he was against feminists, she told the Guardian. I answered back, We are not feminists. We are just engineering students, and if you want to study at Polytechnique you just have to apply and youll be welcomed. And then he shot. Six of the nine women in that room were killed.

Provost believes the same forces that radicalised the Polytechnique shooter were at work with Minassian and Alexandre Bissonnette, the young man who killed six people inside a Quebec City mosque in 2017. Both young men were radicalised online in communities that legitimized their hatred; in Bissonnettes case, his online search history revealed he had researched feminism before deciding to kill Muslims.

A woman or girl is killed every 2.5 days in Canada, yet the issue went unaddressed during the countrys 2019 federal election. Lalonde and Mlissa Blais, a Montreal university professor and expert on the Polytechnique shooting, both say that a major obstacle to solving the issue is a widespread unwillingness to call violence against women what it is: an act of hatred.

Marc Lpine was not the last of the dinosaurs; its the opposite. Its worrying. We absolutely need to renew our view of current forms of antifeminism, and to be able to speak about it without being afraid, said Blais.

Thats why she campaigned to have the city change a commemorative plaque hanging outside of a Montreal park honouring the women killed at Polytechnique. Instead of ambiguously reminding visitors to contemplate the victims of the Polytechnique tragedy, the brand-new sign speaks in no uncertain terms: This park is named in the memory of 14 women assassinated in an antifeminist attack.

For Blais and Liz, its critical to recognize that misogyny and antifeminism are often not ends in themselves, but rather strings that people can follow to the most extreme, violent forms of hatred.

And theres no doubt that if Lpine existed at the same time as online hate groups and YouTube extremism, he would have used the internet to feed and shape his ideology and plan the shooting, said Liz. The only difference now is that he would have live-streamed it.

View original post here:
Hate is infectious: how the 1989 mass shooting of 14 women echoes today - The Guardian