The first paragraph of Yves Engler's Playing Left Wing almost led me to throw down the book in disgust and anger. I'll admit though that my reaction was fueled by my opposing political viewpoints it took me reading the next few paragraphs and then the subsequent chapters to understand that Engler and I didn't only have political difference, but that he was in fact an arrogant prick who confirmed my pre-existing views of left wing student activists. I'd like to be clear that I do try and be tolerant of opposing political orientations from my own, I believe that debate and dialogue is a necessity in a healthy democracy my issues with Engler stem from his use of double standards, inflammatory rhetoric, and his unashamed willingness to simultaneously play both the hero and the victim cards.
Yves Engler's double standards are evident from the start, in the first paragraph he says, without irony, that he was trying the stop someone from speaking on campus and without missing a beat goes on to accuse Concordia University of banning free speech (Engler, 2005). It seems that Engler believes that there is one law for people who shares his viewpoint and another for those who don't, he makes it clear repeatedly that all of his actions are his "democratic rights (Engler, 2005)" while ignoring rights of others. Take for example his refusal to accept the legitimacy of Concordia's Board of Governors, this seems similar to refusing to accept the legitimacy of the Canadian Senate, one can argue that the Senate should be reformed or abolished but this doesn't give them the democratic right to ignore any laws passed by the Senate. Engler is stick handling his understanding of free speech and democratic rights from left to right.
Inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusation are tools often used in Playing Left Wing, some the statements made by Engler are problematic because they serve little purpose other than to pit groups against one another, and other statements just try and stir up conflict when there is none. The daughter of the family where he is billeting making dinner one evening prompts Engler to assert that our society is patriarchal, it seems like Engler is grasping at straws to identify with the struggle, teenagers should help their parents with dinner, get over it. What's more troubling is the language that the author uses when describing the confrontation over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in one instance Engler explains how he got away from police by lying to them and asks in the text if the same would have happened "Had I looked Arab?(Engler, 2005)" What is the point of asking this question, I would challenge Engler to find a Montreal police officer who can distinguish between an Arab and an Israeli. He also describes PM Netanyahu as an accused war criminal and prints a warrant for his arrest (Engler, 2005) filled with controversial chargers, Engler does this without mention of the complexities and the real questions of legitimacy that come with an international war crimes warrant. I'm worried about the use of such gimmicks by activists as well as the reaction of my classmates reading such an inflammatory document without criticism, university campuses thousands of miles away from the site of the conflict should be spaces for dialogue, not rhetoric specifically aimed at creating conflict. Engler's unwillingness to engage in a balanced dialogue is further evidenced by his assertion that Hillel Concordia was distributing anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian material on campus while denying that the other side ever engaged in any sort of anti-Semitic language (Engler, 2005). I have been involved in pro-Israel advocacy for a number of years and I will admit that sometimes anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian sentiments can creep in, especially when things get heated, but at the core is the belief that one can be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Engler, instead of owning up to the same short comings on his side, makes the claim that the people against him do something all the time and his side never does, this is unhealthy and dangerous rhetoric.
Engler sees himself as both a hero and a victim, whatever suits the situation, and considers all of his activism to be good fun. This approach is what I see as most problematic for student activists, it reconfirms the widespread view that these lefties are selfish idealists. The author describes how he marches with a group of activists, forces himself between the doors that people were trying to enter and then has the audacity to say "he found himself trapped" and that he was "targeted" of course he was targeted he was blocking the door that people were trying to enter through. It's is clear that he loves creating conflict multiple times in his accounts, he describes the first confrontation at Concordia as an "amazing day", and says "it's like having a great game," he describes his experience protesting in Venezuela as a day of "defending rights and good fun (Engler, 2005)" this statement is a good summation of Engler's viewpoint he enjoys the conflict as much as the results, it also makes clear that he doesn't understand rights; free food for medical students is not a right, it is a policy you may feel is worth fighting for, but not a right. Clearly this begs comparison to the current student movement in Quebec; they have the same problem in persuading me to their opinion because of their approach and attitude. What those students are fighting for is not a right, but rather a different policy position, a different distribution of resources then decided on by the democratically elected government. These students do have the right to voice their opposition to the government plan but this right does not extend to the ability to hold the rest of population hostage with paralyzing protests, but the current crop of student activists have the same view as Engler, where one set of rules applies to them, and another to everyone else.
Engler, Y., 2005. Playing Left Wing: From Rink Rat to Student Radical. Vancouver: RED Publishing.
