Just a month ago, the online harassment campaign targeting Algerian boxer Imane Khelif legitimized a staggering level of verbal abuse against women who defy gender norms. The Olympics are over, but this new record of online hate and transphobic hostility is already affecting a women’s magazine that is very much our own.
On the cover of the September issue ofShe Canadawe can read (in English): “Canadian women who are making changes for the better”. On August 29, the team ofShe shared the accompanying article on X, with the description: “Over the past year, these eight extraordinary Canadian women have shattered the glass ceiling, and paved the way for those following behind them.”
Right away, the English-Canadian Twittersphere went wild. You see, two of the eight Canadian women profiled by the magazine are trans women. I’ll spare you the details of the hate and deeply dehumanizing attacks that came out. I’ll summarize the main argument, when there was one: How dare you present trans women as women?
That’s not all. Internet users were also outraged by the inclusion in the article of Sarah Jama. This Ontario MPP has fought hard for the rights of the Palestinian people over the past year — and it is this work that was highlighted. Her positions also brought her to the centre of controversy last fall, when she was excluded from the provincial NDP caucus and continued to wear the keffiyeh in the House despite the new Queen’s Park rules.
The magazine responded to X’s vitriol two days later by removing the entire section about Jama from the web version of its article. It also changed the words ” Canadian Women ” For ” Canadians “, a gender-neutral term in English, in the title and lead-in.
This time, it was in more progressive circles that people were outraged. She Canada So added an editorial note the next day, on the 1ster September: “Due to the threats received, this article has been edited online by the editor, for the safety of all involved. You can read it in its entirety in our September issue.”
A second version of the note was published on September 2: “The original version of the article represents the views of a political figure, but does not reflect the views of the editors ofShe Canada and its parent company, KO Media, or any other She affiliated.” In addition to repeating the content of the first note, it mentions that the name of the author of the article has been removed.
Since then, it seems that the various changes and notes have only fueled the controversy in English-speaking circles. I can only imagine the intensity of the headaches for the management of KO Media, a team that was essentially only active in Quebec before acquiring She Canada (And She Quebec) in 2019. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in the shoes — or in the inbox — of the editor-in-chief of both She nor the author of the text this week.
My goal here is not to add to the stress that surely weighs on everyone involved. Beyond the magazine, I believe it is useful to remind us collectively of something obvious that allows us to take the measure of what is happening. That is, online violence against women is violence against women.
I say that it is obvious. But if we understand much better than before that the length of a woman’s skirt does not justify her physical aggression, we still struggle to name that a person can disturb – or even exist — without justifying hateful, violent or threatening reactions.
Whether we like Sarah Jama or not, what she represents is publicly known — we must conclude that the editorial choice of her inclusion by She Canada was assumed. It was also absolutely no secret that two of the women on the list are trans. The magazine did not “learn” new facts or context from their critics, did not admit to a lack of sensitivity, did not make a correction, and did not change its editorial line. What seems to be motivating its reactions is fear and fear alone.
This saga perfectly illustrates a sinister chain of consequences. When a society normalizes online violence against a young woman—one who is black, Muslim, and disabled, like Sarah Jama—for her political stances, even controversial ones, and the vitriol that has grown toward trans women who dare to be visible, it’s only a matter of time before that violence spills over to more privileged women (in this case, the team atShe) and on… pretty much anything that moves.
There are no “controversial” women and “consensual” women here who should avoid them: to think like this is to run straight into a wall. The dizzying increase in online harassment represents a growing danger for all women who have public visibility, whether they are politicians, social organizers, artists or journalists.
Let us repeat it, therefore. Violence against women in public spaces (physical or otherwise) is unacceptable and should not silence women.
Unless there is a clear collective position (and awareness) in this regard, I fear that we are sinking into a world where editors and editorial teams will make increasingly beige choices out of fear for their own safety and will thus push their more vulnerable counterparts into the shadows. A world where, through self-censorship, online mobilizations will have succeeded not in “changing mentalities,” but in making us hide our ideals, to dissociate ourselves from each other — and thus make us all more vulnerable.