I haven’t really been keeping up to date with the situation between Russia and the Ukraine, but I was very impressed with the article “The Ukraine crisis through the whimsy of international law: Money and hard power count, and that’s that” by Neil Macdonald. Neil begins his argument expressing his disbelief while listening to President Barack Obama speaking about world opinion and obeying international law. Neil points out that Barack Obama is the president of a country who operates a prison camp in Cuba despite Cuban protest, who shoots drones at other countries with no care to killing innocent victims. He argues that as the western countries continue to denounce Putin, they are in fact just hypocrites. “what Putin is doing is really no different from what other world powers do: protecting what they regard as national self-interest.”

Neil goes on to argue that Ukraine has very strong ties to the Russia and despite some of Ukraine’s citizens, the country does not belong culturally, emotionally nor politically to Europe – as suggested y European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. MacDonald continues by explaining that many believe there is a possibility for economic sanctions however, feasibly, that would be difficult because that itself would not only hurt Russian but also European Economies. Neil ends his article explaining how delusional people are if they believe that all countries abide by international law and want to live in a fair and just world. Neil ends with, “We must at least pretend there’s international and basic rules, because it reassures us that we live in a world where raw power doesn’t ultimately rule.”
I found this article, like many others commented, to be surprisingly honest and straightforward. In today’s media/news sites we are given information and facts that compliment the sources opinions. No longer do we read articles of pure straight fact, we now read them with hints of opinions and suggestions smuggled within in order to convince us to agree. While that is a clever writing technique, it is not always the honest fact, nor is an un-biased balance reported from both sides. In most cases, news articles from the west regarding western politics and politicians against foreign politics and politicians tend to favour the west, and often refuse to point out any flaws. Neil MacDonald was able to write a factual and honest article explaining the hypocrisy that revolves around Western politicians condemning Putin. His closing paragraphs explain that while people like to believe that International Law has some control, in all actuality, with no one to police the situation, world powers are capable of breaking these ‘international laws’ for their own self-interest.

While I myself am one of those people who would love to believe that International Law held some influential authority, able to dominate even the strongest of world powers, I know it is unable to. In addition, I would like to point out that I do not believe Putin is in the right, and he should not be allowed to push its way into Crimea, I find it is a refreshing reminder that western powers remember they themselves are not innocent of crimes such as these. It is difficult for countries that have committed very similar crimes to have any credible authority to condemn others from doing it. Neil MacDonald wrote a very important article reminding people that one cannot judge another, unless they themselves are innocent.

Recently in Astu, our class has been focusing on the issues surround the Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Last class we watched a film title “Finding Dawn” which introduces the story of Dawn Crey, a woman who went missing from the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. Dawn Crey’s DNA/remains were found on the farm of Robert Pickton, a serial killer from Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, believed to have killed up to 49 women. Robert Pickton was a pig farmer of British Columbia and his story is one I have become quite familiar with. His farm was located all but a few steps away from my high school and no matter how many years pass, his story is equally terrifying every time I hear it. Pickton was not completely innocent before the discovery of his murders, In 1998 he attempted to murder/brutally assaulted a sex worker, however he was NOT charged!

During the film, viewers meet Dawn’s older brother who has become a spokesperson for the families of the missing women, especially those of Aboriginal descent. He comments bluntly and quite plausibly that because many of the women missing were of aboriginal descent, or poor and living in the Downtown eastside that the Police failed to act as seen fit. He mentions that he believes that if the women had been of wealthier families, or even had mainly been of Caucasian descent the Police would have acted faster and with more determination, and it saddens me to say – I think he’s right.

The Downtown Eastside has a large aboriginal community, something I noticed very quickly in high school when I would join a group of students on a monthly trip to a soup kitchen. I often stopped at the cork board on the wall, reading the many papers attached to it containing warnings of dangerous people, of assults and criminal activity and the faces of missing people – often women, and often aboriginal people. I had the opportunity to speak to some of the women we had the opportunity to serve, and almost every single one of them wore a beautiful smile. We shared stories and laughter and everything in between. Their only difference being, they had not been as lucky to be born into the families and lifestyles we are priviledged to have, nor were they given they opportunities that we were able to take. However, they are treated and looked down upon, they are seen as extremely different. But they aren’t. Every one of them and the one’s before them are human beings, just like all of us. So why were they ignored? As the lawyer of around 17 different families of the victims of Pickton, Cameron Ward stated, “I think our society has the right and the need to determine why the investigation unfolded the way it did, and why, for so many years this man was allowed to prey on vulnerable women in the Downtown Eastside.” He later comments “I’m not confident that sufficient lessons have been learned, …. This was Canada’s most horrific mass serial murder, and nothing I’ve read so far has convinced me that something similar couldn’t happen again.” How was Pickton able to begin killing women in the early 1990’s but wasn’t caught until 2002? How had so many women gone missing from the Downtown Eastside for so long?

This is a link to an article about the case against Robert Pickton and the failings of the Justice System:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/robert-pickton-analysis-of-a-killing-rampage-begins/article556914/

After completeing the Novel “A Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood, I decided to watch the movie interpretation of the book to see how well the film was able to grasp the book and I’ll admit, I was slightly disappointed. Aside from the obvious mistake in which, the handmaids of the film were not wearing the white blinders – which I feel is an important aspect to the uniform the handmaids are forced to wear – the film failed to grasp little things.

In the novel a particular scene, which struck me, was when the Japanese tourists came to visit and their clothing and actions would be classified as our western ways. Offred’s reaction to their revealed skin, which was how she dressed a short time ago, was uncomfortable and slightly shocked. I found that to be a significant scene demonstrating the change in which the state of Gilead and it’s people have already gone through, and how they have become used to what life had become. The movie also does not portray the salvaging, where Ofglen specifically attacks the accused “rapist” first as a way to knock him out of his misery, however she becomes one of the crowd.

The particular scene where Ofwarren goes into labour and gives birth I found to be very well done in film by keeping very much to the novel. The commander’s wife assists ofwarren in the birth and what I found to be very well done was after, when ofwarren gave birth, the commander’s wife took the child out to the other wives where they all cooed and awed over the baby, Ofred is ordered by the commander’s wife to hurry things along and concieve a baby. After Ofred goes inside to tend to Ofwarren and Ofwarren asks her what the baby was. I found this particularly powerful in showing the immediate seperation from the handmaids and their child. While they may stay a while to breastfeed the child, the handmaid is no longer the mother and is no more another person the baby than anyone passing by on the street. I found this moment to be particularly powerful.

The movie ends with Offred (or Kate) is living up in the mountains in a trailer with a dog and a baby on the way. She explains that the war down in Gilead continues and the revolution group Mayday brings her food while she waits for the birth of her child. Sometimes she recieves news from Nick brought by the Mayday group. The movie ends with her stating she waits for the time in which her baby can grow up in a different world and the screen fades into blackness leaving the viewers with a sense of hope.
While I wasn’t pleased with the ending of the novel, I found the movie’s ending to be cliché and romantic. I thought the novel should have ended a little further with even a little bit of information into whether or not Mayday exsists and if the war continues. However the movie ending was weak as well. Not all things in life ends happily, it’s a sad thought, but it’s true. So my question is why does every movie need to end with a happily ever after? I feel much of the dissapointment towards the movie ending is based on the fact that as a protagonist, Offred is not very passionate, she does not achieve much nor is she a hero to the story, so for her to just escape and get a happily ever after doesn’t make sense. Protagonists are usually the ones to help solve the problem, who usually help stop the evil and fight for freedom and while they may die they have still done something heroic for the people, they have achieved something, where as I feel Ofred didn’t really achieve anything… as a charater she was pretty weak and honestly I was dissappointed with the movie and the book ending.

The Hunger Games has become one of the most popular series in recent years. The thought of 12 districts choosing 2 teenagers to go to the Capitol and fight each other to the death to become the “Victor” earning a life time of special treatment has fascinated many. The relationship between the two main District 12 characters, Peeta and Katniss has been one balancing between real and fake. The relationship reveals Katniss as one who lacks the ability to express her emotions (one of the only times she is seen to physically cry is at the death of Rue); her inability to open up to others, express herself, and trust others prevents her from truly connecting to others. Often Katniss is described as un-charismatic and unfriendly. However the soft spot she has for her family and friends, causing her to volunteer as a tribute in place of her younger sister, makes viewers unable to not love her.

Katniss is an intelligent girl with great strength. After the death of her father, not only did she have to keep emotionally strong for her sister when her mother lost her mind, she had to be physically capable to continue hunting. With the lack of her father supporting the family, it became Katniss’ job to support her family by hunting. She does not represent the typical stereotype for females. Usually one would expect a female to be an emotional, weak and friendly person and one who is easily likeable and enjoys taking time to look good. However throughout the movies, Katniss Everdeen breaks every expectation. Why is it women are usually seen as weaker, emotional, and are expected to always be friendly and happy? Why are the stereotypical expectations of women so strong throughout the world that seeing someone like Katniss Everdeen is seen to be a unique shock?
Throughout the movie, not only does Katniss break every stereotypical belief, so does Peeta.

The general consensus is men are the strong ones, men are the more emotionally stable, providers, and protectors. Men are the ones who go out and provide for the family while the women stay home and give the caring emotional support for the children. However, Peeta is displayed as the bakers son, who used to “decorate cakes” in the shop and the one who is so openly emotional and easily liked. He doesn’t hide his feelings from Katniss and he is often needed to be saved from some of his stupid mistakes by Katniss. Peeta breaks every male stereotype and in the relationship between Katniss and himself, Peeta is the one who acts like the “girlfriend” while Katniss acts as the “boyfriend.”

Stereotypes create such a strong general belief throughout our world that the sight of a female acting more in favour of male stereotypes and a male acting in favour of a females stereotypes is something that comes as a shock that everyone talks about and everyone notices because it is the complete opposite of what is expected.

Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark have become a perfect example, making us aware of our own stereotype thoughts and bring the question to us, Why does our society create such general stereotypes, in which we come to believe is the norm, and change to those stereotypes becomes one so utterly shocking.

On October 1^st, the professors of the Co-ordinated Arts Program Law and Society had a joint lecture presenting their different points of view on how Law and Society relate. We had a chance to group up and ask some questions and one of the questions my group found intriguing was

Does society affect the law more or does the law affect the society more?

We had a brief but interesting discussion with a divide in opinions and when we got our chance to ask the question our Political Science professor stated he believed that both law and society affect each other equally. He used the example that the relationship between the two is like an ongoing conversation in which each argument or move makes the other adapt and change to respond. I personally believe that Law affects the society slightly more due to the authority it holds over the society.

When a child is born and growing up the law is an absolute authority in which the child does not question. To some extent a child is shaped by the laws of his or her country. A child grows with ideas and thoughts, which are significantly impacted on what the law states. Children know things such as don’t steal, lie, fight etcetera, all of these are basic understandings of what the law states. So during this time or phase in a person’s life the law affects the society more.

As a person becomes a young adult and finally an adult they begin to develop their own ideas and thoughts that may not correspond directly with a current law. At this point the conversation begins, people begin to ask questions, change opinions and so the law adapts with what the people of its country wants. Governments listen to the voices of the people and create laws, which answer people’s questions and satisfy their new ideas and may even replace old laws. As life changes and the world progresses the law is forced to adapt to the modern world. Laws that existed in the 1800 don’t necessarily have any significance now as the world and the ideas within the world have changed. Political parties are constantly evolving their platforms to make their policies relevant to current events and current issues in order to appeal to more voters across the country. In this case both the law and the society equally affect each other as they adapt to each other.

However, as the law adapts to what the people want it does not have to. If people decide to fight for a change to a law and it is not changed the people still need to abide by that law if they wish to avoid repercussions. In extreme cases in which the government is corrupted and the people choose to replace or over throw the government the society will have the larger authority however only in extreme cases does this occur. In most cases the people continue to debate until a decision is made by the government as they make the final decision on what they believe is best for the people.  So while the law and society are constantly adapting to each other the law has a slightly larger affect on society due to it’s larger authority overall.

I’ve decided to comment about the reading “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and while throughout my post I focus on the issues still remaining in the United States I am not in anyway saying there has been no progression, I am also not oblivious to the fact that there is still racism and segregation issues in other countries however due to the fact the Martin Luther King Jr. fought for freedom in the United States I feel it makes sense to talk about a couple of the issues still remaining 🙂

After reading, “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. I find it shocking to think that during the 1960’s the African Americans of the United States of America were fighting for freedom and Equality and yet now in the 21^st century certain aspects are still the same. At one point of the letter King stated, “Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider.” While African Americans are now given their freedom many people are still considered Outsiders while living in the USA. There are those people who have immigrated to the United States to find a better life for their children without legal documentation as getting a green card can be difficult if you do not have family in the states, a job, or if you are not a professional. Those who live in the states without documentation are as Martin Luther King stated “Outsiders.” and if found (no matter how long they have gone undetected) they are treated like “aliens” and are sent back to their home country. People who were desperate to escape their old lives of poverty and pain move for a better life only to live a life of fear but are willing to make the sacrifice in the hope of security. While they are illegal immigrants, they are still human beings and if the conditions of their home are so poor they seek another country for improved lives I feel the governments of these countries should be accepting these people and making it easier for them to live in these countries. Be flattered that these people see their country as a place of opportunity and safety.

Another point Martin Luther King brought up in response to why he and many others were fighting for freedom was “when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society.” When slavery was abolished the “Great Migration” began in which African Americans fled the south to the north in hope of safety. This suddenly over-crowded many cities and so they were forced to build what are called “projects” which were apartment style buildings for those who could not afford expensive housing. Many of these now free slaves were poor and unable to find work and were forced into these housing buildings. People were unable to find jobs and so many turned to drug trafficking and prostitution. This created what is called a Poverty cycle in which each generation have difficulty escaping this life style and so these are still present today. Currently in New York it takes 18 minutes, or 9 subway stops to go from Manhattan, which is the 7^th wealthiest district in the USA to Harlem which is the poorest district in the USA. In this day and age where we are people of human rights, equality and charity I find it shocking that people are suffering in dire poverty so close to people who have more than they truly will ever need.

Finally I picked up on the line “when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging sings reading “white” and “coloured”.” Many of us have been ignorant in believing that segregation has been ended for a while and that now all is equal when in fact it still continues. Wilcox County High School in Georgia, USA just held their first integrated prom in June 2013. For years past the parents of Caucasian students have held a “white student only” prom event excluding all students of coloured ethnicity to attend the event. So African American Students were forced to have their own prom or else have none at all. When segregation was made illegal many schools stopped sponsoring school proms to avoid any legal action being taken out on them against the still segregated proms. It wasn’t until this past school year did students decide to take matters into their own hands hosting an integrated prom. What I find the most shocking is that while many people are very supportive of this change to a long tradition the student organizers are still receiving many negative responses to this idea.

This link is about the integrated Prom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=funJ_K_II3Q
It’s such a shame to think in 1963 Martin Luther King fought so hard for equality and when the US government finally brought an end to segregation many people believed that was the end of the inequality. People stopped asking questions because from appearance everything looked fixed but yet it continues now in 2013!

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Hey,
My name is Robyn Bingham and I am a first year student at UBC.
At the moment I’m planning on majoring in History 🙂
Hopefully I’ll get to know you all better as the year continues and I wish you all a successful school year 🙂

Robyn