Mantra practices not sexual assault
Dear Editors,
RE: “Girls Gone Wild tour skips Kingston” (Journal, Sept. 13, 2005).
I was surprised to read that the Sexual Assault Centre Kingston and Janice Deakin of Student Affairs both liken the “predatory” practices of Mantra (maker of Girls Gone Wild) to “sexual assault” on the student body. Having read the article, and having found no corroborating evidence anywhere in its text, all I can surmise from these words is that we must come off as a very morally condescending gang of prudes.
When Caitlin Coull says that “individuals cannot legally consent to sexual activity under intoxication,” she is confusing the law to malign Mantra’s name. She would be correct if there was any sexual activity between the featured women and the videographers, but Bill Horn expressly points out that Girls Gone Wild just records the goings-on at “wild” party venues.
Therefore, the only consent Mantra really requires is the permission to use the actresses’ images on film. Under Canadian contract law, consent under intoxication is “voidable” but not void. If a consentor regrets her decisions from the previous night, she has the option of voiding her consent as soon as she regains her sobriety. However, if a reasonable amount of sober time es before she rescinds her permission, consent to a contract stands.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of participants are probably willing and aware. This is not a shady case of back-room date rape. As Bill Horn states, these are planned and oft-d party nights intended to attract “wild girls” to expose themselves in front of a large audience.
In the end, I think we are most offended by what the young and uninhibited are willing to do for a camera.
Alex Davis
MSc ’06
Generalizations a disservice to football
Dear Editors,
RE: “Frosh Week ‘hazing’ a disgrace to Queen’s” (Journal, Sept. 13, 2005).
In her letter to the editors, Emily Bamforth made some very inappropriate generalizations. Bamforth describes the activities of Frosh Week as “hurling abuse” and “aggressive harassment” which is simply a wrong assessment. Queen’s University is rooted in tradition and spirit and it is no accident that there is a large incoming class this year.
Speaking of school spirit, Bamforth wrote, “… but I feel that the antics of Frosh Week belong on the football field, not on the campus of a respectable university.” I, and many others, would very strongly disagree with this statement. A rash generalization of relating “antics” to activities “on the football field” is gravely inappropriate. While I am not involved in football, I can definitely attest to the incredible dedication, commitment, respect, and honour in which student athletes at Queen’s and all over comport themselves with on the field of practice and competition. Especially at a time when the Queen’s football program is showing incredible respect, honour, and professionalism as demonstrated in the sports section of the very same edition of the Journal, for Ms. Bamforth to state such a generalization is simply wrong.
David Korell
MA PHE ’06
Police intimidation unfair enforcement
Dear Editors,
RE: “Police enforce law in Ghetto” (Journal, Sept. 13, 2005).
In the unsigned editorial titled “Police enforce law in Ghetto,” the [editorial board] praised and welcomed the increased police presence in the Ghetto. What the [editorial board] does not seem to understand is that the Kingston police force is not patrolling the Ghetto to stop any kind of real crime—they have stepped up their visibility in order to intimidate students.
Almost everyone commits small crimes every day, and the heavy police force breathing down our neck all the time waiting for us to make a mistake is entirely unwelcome. I, for one, am not all up in arms when I see 18-year-olds drinking beer. To say that underage students ought to be aware of the risks they are running by drinking is ridiculous. An overwhelming majority of Canadians drink at some point before their nineteenth birthday—including, I would think, the [editorial board]—and wouldn’t have enjoyed getting slapped with a ticket for it. The problem in this scenario is the law. Everyone knows frosh are drinking, and most students would like to see the drinking age lowered because of the elimination of OAC. However, because of bureaucracy, we turn a blind eye to it instead—except for some overzealous cops and newspaper editors trying to take the moral high ground.
I also really wouldn’t venture to condemn someone walking around with open alcohol—there are much better uses for our tax dollars. To say that the police are throwing students in the drunk tank if they are “judged to be drunk to the point where they’re endangering themselves or others” is also a sham—if that was actually the case, I might even the charges. However, I personally know two of the students who ended up in jail overnight last week, and it was because they were intoxicated and for some reason decided to harmlessly kick a recycling bin, without even knocking it over.
Thank you for serving and protecting us, [editorial board]. Cops: get out of our neighbourhood. We’ll call you if we need you, but don’t hold your breath.
Eric de Domenico
ArtSci ’08
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].