Photo of the author, by Paul Salvatori.

It’s been a year since I took my final police escorted ride to hear Judge William B. Horkins deliver the verdict for the Jian Ghomeshi trial. Lucy, Witness 3 (still under publication ban) and I gathered in the Victim/Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) room accompanied by lawyers and friends to hear the outcome of this much publicized trial. Although I was never invested in the outcome, the suspense was getting to me and everyone else in the room. We hugged with anxious smiles in support of each other. We were crawling to the finish line after publicly getting torn to bits, but there was still more to come.

All of us were ready for the not guilty ruling. What we weren’t prepared for was the ruling that was written with such ignorance around memory and expected behaviour after the trauma of sexual assault and then delivered with condescension. The ruling was read not only to us, but to the entire country. That in itself holds a lot of stress.

Before the trial, my knowledge relating to sexual assault was limited to personal experience, but I was cognizant of the rape culture that was known to show up when reporting. Unfortunately, I’ve learned that many non-activists also have limited understanding of the process and unconsciously buy into the rape myths. Yes, reporting is difficult—and were you drinking?

Never having faced the justice system with a sexual assault complaint like this, I was unaware of the complex challenges facing complainants in police stations and courtrooms every single day. I was consequently thrown into a crash course on Reporting and Testifying at a Sexual Assault Trial 101, which everyone fails. I found out the alarming realities that all the others and I would be facing in a courtroom. A shocking eye opener.

That horrible day was the day I truly decided to fight back. I launched ComingForward.ca. Its launch intentionally coincided with the verdict to hold myself to my intention to help others. I was alone through the Ghomeshi trial and I wanted others going through the process to have a welcoming space to read stories, get resources and support.

A Year In Review

It’s been a year since the ruling, and although there have been many challenges, this is not going to be where my focus rests. Instead, I am choosing to celebrate my accomplishments to keep the momentum going and contribute whatever I can.

Since starting Coming Forward I have:

• had countless survivors of sexual violence share their experiences with me when they had no one to talk to
• learned of the many issues with reporting and testifying against sexual violence with different demographics
• connected survivors to resources
• arranged a meeting in Ottawa with Status of Women
• supported survivors through trial
• participated in numerous protests
• danced in a flash mob for sexual assault
• given many media interviews
• written articles
• given keynote speeches at conferences
• and lastly, met some of the strongest and most inspirational people that I have ever known who have changed my life for the better.

I’ve only just begun.

This trial has opened up many conversations all over the country and is giving attention to many who have been working tirelessly trying to get reform. We now have judges being held to account for their lack of understanding of sexual violence and how it relates to the law. We have journalists revealing the realities of reporting to police across the nation. We even have a sold-out play about sexual violence. Add to that a prime minister that is giving back the funding for these issues that the previous government took away.

The conversations didn’t die out after the trial as we feared. If anything I think they are picking up momentum, speed, and volume But we have only just begun. There is still much to do. Maybe this is the beginning of a new paradigm for how we treat sexual violence.

Our March/April issue is now on newsstands, and we’re super excited. Check out the editor’s note from Lauren McKeon, where she shares our motivations for publishing the issue, and also what you can expect to see inside its pages and online at this.org!

I cannot remember a time when I didn’t identify as a feminist. From the moment I first heard it, the word feminist fit me like the perfect pair of jeans. I learned it as if by osmosis, the way geese know to migrate south for the winter or dogs to bark at strangers. I know many people who feel the same way I do, and many who don’t. Some days, lately, I’m not sure which side has the higher tally.

Feminism has taken over our national conversation and the results are both encouraging and discouraging. As feminists get more ink and airtime, so too do anti-feminists—our current clickbait-centred media culture ensures it. We debate merits and viewpoints, all the while obscuring this pervasive attitude that women’s life experiences aren’t worth being taken at face value. It’s not enough to simply testify these things are happening to us, to say we are oppressed, abused, and disadvantaged: we must prove it. Again and again and again.

Well, f*@k that. Here at This Magazine, we believe Canada needs more feminism—now. In this issue, we also give a big f*@k that to the popular culture that fostered Jian Ghomeshi, Bill Cosby, and the boys at Dalhousie’s Dentistry school; the one that cultivated mansplaining, manspreading, and street harassment; and the one that encourages apathy toward threats to abortion access, the pay gap, and our country’s Indigenous murdered and missing women.

But it’s not all raised fists: We also explore what we need from feminism now, and ask the tough questions: Is feminism too middle-class and white? (Answer: Yes. “The trouble with (white) feminism” by Hana Shafi) Where do men fit into the movement? (“Allied forces” by Hillary Di Menna) Does hashtag activism work for feminism? (“#Feminism” by Stephanie Taylor) And more.

While we can’t cover all the myriad ways in which we need more feminism, we hope this issue can add to our great Canadian feminist conversation, as well as spark a few new conversations. Because now, perhaps more than ever, we need to examine the current state of—and need for—feminism. We need to look at what we can do better. So, please, pick up up a copy of This and stay tuned to this.org and, where you can join us in saying, “F*@k that.”

Can’t find This on newsstands? Contact publisher Lisa Whittington-Hill at [email protected]

Picture via Twitter

Smug Brits the world over will have to find a new spokesman. Sources say CNN head Jeff Zucker is “actively looking for a replacement for Piers Morgan.” 

Generally, conducting interviews with the disposition of a snooty butler is not something people like to watch. But if you like your issues served up with a side of Geoffrey from Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, don’t cry yet because the decision is not near official.

However, this could be a victory for believers in the purity of the interview format, if CNN showed some guts and did something different—and, after all, at least we’re getting rid of Morgan.

Morgan seemed to believe an interview was simply a conduit for snappy clips of outraged guests, or public shamings. That the only value to be found in an hour long format could be benign admissions or pointless sentimentality. Splash in a multi-coloured set and you’ve got yourself a show.

He also seemed to believe that people would watch his show to “see what ol’ Piers says next”. An opinion evidently driven by a massive ego and steadfast belief that he was the show, not his guests. Not the topics they discussed. Self importance can be an interesting tactic for an interviewer to use to shake things up, if he/she has the intelligence to back it up. He does not. Ultimately he’s condescending and prickly when it comes to fluffy or fun topics and waaaay out of his element concerning serious, nuanced issues.

I love the interview format, especially in its stripped down, long form iteration. It is a pliable form that can fully capture the essence of a person, their beliefs or their work, often making the esoteric palatable, the tactful candid.

Yet, I get it: the move away from this type of show is understandable in an era where television executives have to compete with other forms of digital media. They compete by throwing more, brighter, buzzier options at viewers (hence the Piers Morgan set). This is a mistake. Less is more, and right now less is different. Extremely different.

Katie Couric is rumoured to take over the spot that craggy old buzzard Larry King made famous. Have you watched her current show? Unless you’re interested in an interview where Katie maternally condescends to Miley Cyrus and then promotes her new album after they drink cocoa together, you’ll probably have to look elsewhere for ‘less’.

Why can’t we get someone like Charlie Rose, instead? Rose is the undisputed Substantial Interview Heavyweight Champ. Being equally at ease with writers, politicians, entertainers and intellectuals is a quality that sets him apart, but it’s not his versatility alone that makes him great. It’s his ability to extract from each person he talks with the thing about them that makes them interesting. So why don’t more people steal from him? Probably because it’s too difficult and the idea of giving someone time to build a rapport with the audience through consistently thought provoking interviews isn’t something CNN, or other networks, is particularly interested in these days.

Unfortunately, this is hardly any different in Canada. What, really, do we have to offer in terms of television interview options? Um, not much.

At the top we’re stuck with the perpetually squinting Peter Mansbridge, who’s buttoned up and very serious. Too serious. He has the demeanor of a concerned principal chaperoning a school dance. (“That’s not dancing” Peter says to himself placing an index finger to his temple.) Most of his interviews have him cocking his head thoughtfully, as if he’s “really learned something”. And, you know what’s worse than a buttoned up, serious Peter Mansbridge? A letting- his-hair-down Peter Mansbridge. This is when he takes the form of grass-roots politican rolling up his sleeves, loosening his tie and “getting back to the people”. He and the subject take a stroll and “just talk” and he gets at truths that the buttoned up Peter never could have. Yuck.

Amanda Lang, who everyone likes as a foil to cartoonish Gordon Geckophile Kevin O’Leary, conveys far too much empathy with every question in her interviews — pausing on every word to let the audience know she’s taking this seriously. But it often comes across as out of place and sometimes disingenuous.  Then, there’s George Stroumboulopoulos, who is (kind of by default) the best television option we have for the one-on-one format, but the show is thoroughly flawed. Stroumboulopoulos or Strombo as he’d like you to call him reminds me of the university professor who thinks he’s cool—not like the other profs you might find around this stuffy institution. This persona, that either Strombo or whoever’s in charge at the CBC has fabricated, gets in the way of an engaged, interested interviewer that consistently allows his interviewee’s to shine more often than not—a skill that I think is very important and seemingly elusive.

Jian Ghomeshi is interesting but probably won’t ever be right for TV. He currently holds the record for most consecutive whispered questions in a row at 1.7 million and counting. He’s very prepared and asks thoughtful, interesting questions while keeping things semi-conversational, but seriously what’s with the whispering? It’s too bad because a more forward Jian Ghomeshi could be extremely compelling to watch, particularly in a stripped down, extensive, limited interruption format. He may be our best hope for a Canadian Charlie Rose , Q has experimented with video content recently, but if it’s this difficult to find substance over style on Canadian Government subsidized television how can we expect to find it on profit driven platforms?

Oh and Steve Paikin is a thing that exists I guess.

Am I missing anyone good?