Journal of Phillip B. Hong

Birchmount Park Collegiate in Scarborough was home to quite the set of disturbances earlier today. And in the end, in my opinion, the events that followed was the fault of everyone, apart from the police and media.

The freedom of speech is cherished here in Canada, to the point of being legally enshrined. This was the message that students brought out in their protest after a number of students were suspended for making comments online. The demonstration grew, especially after the fire alarm was pulled, and thanks to an altercation with police, a couple of students are now detained.

What is the point of the freedom of speech, anyways? Well, even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has its legal interpretation, but in the raw, it's about expressing views.

The school was right in the first place for determining that the students were basically striking down the reputation of the teacher involved. It is unfair and intolerant to have teachers being disrespected to this point. It's ridiculously arrogant, however, to suspend students without explaining what these comments were. It is too much for the Toronto District School Board to have a heavy hand over something they don't have authority in. The internet is open to all, but responsibility involves the school, not just the students.

The students involved are just as arrogant, even self-centered, to use such a fundamental right to further their own interests. I understand that the right to speech is paramount, but by high school, students are taught that there is a responsibility involved with a line between freedom of speech and libel. It's ridiculously rude to bully, even teachers, and it's not freedom of speech if you cross the line.

It seems that students and teachers have feet in their mouths. That's fine... if you can walk with your buttocks.

I am reminded by a commercial for Wal-mart that aired a few years back. An employee of this conglomerate approached a member of the famous country group, Lonestar, asking if he knew a particular tune that caught her attention. It was, quite obviously, one of Lonestar's early hits that this employee was belting out, and this member of Lonestar decided to follow the sing-a-long. That was the first commercial I've ever seen from Wal-mart.

Several years later, this large retailer decided to put the word "Christmas" back into holiday shopping. The mandatory advertising campaign that most retailers undertake has seen a dramatic turn into the politically correct, and Wal-mart decided to revert to "the good old days", when speaking of holidays were not frowned upon.

I am reminded by the outrage that was the result of renaming Toronto's Christmas Tree. Critics and pundits alike feasted on this decision with indulgence, claiming that "Holiday Tree" simply doesn't make sense for a holiday mostly celebrated in Canada by Christians.

In my opinion, the kind of changes we have seen to have our December holidays more inclusionary have done quite the opposite, creating havoc to those that are religiously convicted.

No one in this right world will say "I'm Dreaming of a White Holiday" or re-tooling that hit by Wham, "Last Holiday". Mariah Carey won't say that all she wanted for holiday is you. That's like touching the Koran and calling it "The Religious Book".

Regardless of my opinion in the severity of making the holiday season politically correct, I believe that Wal-mart's right. We should be inclusionary, not exclusionary to everyone.

School shootings have been a plenty recently here in the great continent of North America. It comes as no surprise, as we have all gone through this before, and the only thing we can do is hope it doesn't happen again.

But how do these shootings happen in the first place? Some say that the social fabric of an educational institution can leave a few out of "the mainstream". Others believe the system of gun control, or lack of one, may be the cause of all this. Or could it be the parent to blame, not preventing their attacker/child from performing all this suffering?

In my humble opinion, it's probably a combination of some or all of these factors. The childhood playground may serve as a temporary nirvana to students, relatively innocent to the eye.

But the prescence of bullying can be just about common in many playgrounds, isolating those who then consider themselves as "loners". As a child, I admit I had been subjected to this kind of war tactic, but although I remained peaceful into the high school years, some may want to take revenge. If this was the cas,e inclusion to the social fabric would have solved most of the concern.

As some people may bring grudges into adulthood, our next step to preventing such heartbreak would be controlling the flow of guns. If a possible assailant can't get ahold of his killing machine, we needn't worry. But we obviously know that we cannot control every single gun.

Our could it be the parents? The shooter in the Dawson College incident was an avid collector of guns, and his mother never realised his deadly potential.

All in all, we cannot pinpoint on any one cause. We need a very effective strategy to figure this all out.