Spectacle over substance: CEO Sleep-out and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights

Homelessness and human rights took centre stage at two of Winnipeg’s iconic locales this past weekend: at Portage and Main, the Downtown BIZ’s third annual CEO Sleep-out, and at the Forks, the inaugural opening of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. With the Sleep-out, the BIZ was drawing attention to the issue of homelessness, as well as the poverty, addiction and mental illness that contribute to it. For the museum, a celebration of human rights. Both issues are important. Both are deserving of society’s attention and, even more so, action.

However, do a group of CEOs, politicians, glad-handers and hangers-on camping out at Portage and Main—comfortably, in sleeping bags—do much to actually alleviate homelessness? Does a national museum for human rights—built at a cost of nearly $400 million—do anything to address the continuing human rights violations of the very peoples on whose land the museum is situated?

Sure, supporters of both events would undoubtedly argue they’re “raising awareness” about these issues. Raising awareness: a bromide too frequently substituted for actually doing something. Is there a person in this city, or any for that matter, who isn’t aware there are some who are tragically homeless? Is there a person here, or anywhere in Canada, who isn’t aware of the myriad ways governments and churches together conspired to erase the existence of Aboriginal peoples—or the crippling poverty in which so many still live?

But think of the money the Sleep-out raised! Nearly $200,000! Yes, imagine if the roughly 160 participants had each simply written a cheque for $1,250, and hadn’t talked or tweeted about it. Or was that what was meant by “raising awareness?” Those selfless sleepers were raising awareness about their own selflessness.

Honestly, there’s nothing dignified about slum tourism. And what else to call a guided (and guarded) tour of downtown’s shelters and soup kitchens; a food truck serving ribs and oysters at midnight; be-gowned and be-jewelled VIPs, fresh from the museum’s gala, photo-bombing campers’ selfies? Raising awareness, indeed.

(Pro tip, campers: if you’re looking for ways to network, join LinkedIn or attend a Chamber of Commerce luncheon. Don’t spend the night beneath Winnipeg’s own JumboTron, warmed by its glow, the small-batch bourbon in your mongrammed flask, and that down-stuffed sleeping bag.)

Meanwhile, on the very same banks as the CMHR, individuals have had to take it upon themselves to dredge the Red River for the remains of Aboriginal women and girls—taken, tortured, then dumped like refuse to be forgotten—because there isn’t the will amongst wider society to give closure to their families and friends.

As has been well publicized, across Canada over 1000 Aboriginal women are either missing or, worse, presumed murdered; their lives snuffed out, their very existence erased by acts of utter inhumanity. Erased. Not unlike the genocide committed against Canada’s Aboriginal peoples; a genocide recognized by academics, historians, even the United Nations—but not by the very museum located on Treaty 1 land, designed and dedicated to the exploration of and education about human rights, a stone’s throw from where Tina Fontaine’s body was found stuffed in a plastic bag.

How can the “Tower of Hope” possibly inspire such feelings of optimism if, at the same time, the very institution on which it stands refuses to acknowledge the full scope of atrocities committed against Aboriginal peoples historically, or the crimes being committed against them right now on the museum’s own river bank?

Oh, but surely the generations of students from Winnipeg and across the country that will pass through the museum’s doors will be forever changed by the interactive, multi-media exhibits documenting the nasty things people have done to each other and the ways in which Canada and other countries have worked to ensure such atrocities aren’t repeated! Surely, too, ours will become a more tolerant, inclusive society because of this national museum, the first of its kind outside of the nation’s capital. And surely, above all, there was no better way to spend over a quarter of a billion dollars on the cause of human rights!

Why must it be an either-or proposition? Why can’t we have awareness-raising sleep-outs and actually help end homelessness; erect a museum for human rights and actually do something to stop their ongoing violations in this country? We can, but we rarely do. Too often governments, emboldened by an electorate overcome with cognitive dissonance, choose spectacle over substance; the shorter, less complicated, less uncomfortable route.

Fitting, then, the Downtown BIZ’s CEO Sleep-out and the opening gala of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights took place on the same night, both nothing more than spectacles fuelled by ego shockingly insensitive in their handling of the issues they’re meant to be addressing. And above all, considered substantive only through willful ignorance.

***

Originally published on Spectator Tribune.

Advertisements
10 comments
  1. Ryan Boldt said:

    I can’t find any evidence that the United Nations recognizes a genocide occurred in Canada. Could you give me your source for that?

  2. Namaste said:

    I don’t recall an instance when narrow-minded criticism helped to ameliorate human rights struggles or homelessness, either.

  3. RealityWpg said:

    The fact that major charities who are there on the front lines of caring for the poor in our city support the CEO sleepout speaks to me very highly of its impact. The writer is forgetting that writing a faceless cheque is one thing, although I’m quite sure that many cheques have been written, but the willingness to spend a night even in a shadow of someones shoes means the world. This was a very angry and poorly written article, and only leaves me with the question of what if anything the writer has done on their own to care for the homeless of our city…

  4. Ryan Boldt said:

    The sentence “a genocide recognized by academics [and] historians” seems really misleading to me, as there is nothing close to a consensus on this issue. The fact that the Human Rights Museum does not take a side on this issue therefore does not make them the equivalent of Ernst Zundel, as the article seems to imply.

  5. Mac Mhathain said:

    OH MY GOD A HUMAN INSTITUTION HAS HUMAN PROBLEMS WHAT A SURPRISE EVERYTHING IS TERRIBLE especially this bullshit article.

  6. Mac Mhathain said:

    I love how this article is full of ideas and suggestions on how to address the many issues facing humanity oh wait it’s just peacocking. Also I love how the idea that a bunch of money was spent on this museum is somehow a bad thing, like that money could have somehow single-handedly dismantled the sex trade or something. And keep in mind the museum was not just funded by taxpayers (oh god forbid the taxpayer put in for anything other than roads), but also through tireless fundraising efforts (read: private donations) by people who truly believe that maybe presenting the opportunity for an education on the dark corners of the human experiment might brighten the corners of the future.

    • James Andrew Jaworski said:

      The almost a half billion dollars that was indeed wasted on this fugly, unwanted “museum”, could have been better spent on a subway line for Winnipeg.

      But, oh wait, backwards politicians like Jenny Gerbasi are so stuck up the asses of New Flyer that they’re too blind to see what Winnipeg really needs.

  7. Toby McCrae said:

    I wasn’t certain the UN has used the word genocide to describe the atrocities that happened to Canada’s first people at residential schools. I thought the Museum was taking a lead from the UN decision in the choice not to use the word at CMHR. Does anyone know?

    • Ryan Boldt said:

      You are right, the UN has never ruled that genocide occurred in Canada. Though at the moment there are some Canadian groups who are trying to change that.

    • Ryan Boldt said:

      Also, the UN seems to have a fairly strict definition of genocide. For example, it ruled that the government of Sudan did not have a genocidal policy in Darfur. For that reason, it seems very unlikely to me that they would call the residential schools genocidal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s