About fifty students, faculty, and community members, including striking McGill non-academic workers, gathered off-campus last Thursday evening to take part in a student-led initiative to reform McGill’s governance structure, beginning with the University’s Board of Governors (BoG).

The BoG – the highest decisionmaking body in the University – is made up of 25 voting members and two student non-voting observers, and meets six times a year.

The initiative, known as the McGill Governance Reform Project (MGRP), emerged from a demonstration immediately following November 10.

One of the project organizers, former Daily News and Features editor Niko Block, recounted how discussions around the project began on November 11.

“We need to do something that is big and lasting, and we need to create some fundamental institutional change at McGill,” he explained.

“We need governance reform because there’s no accountability whatsoever within this institution,” Block added.

Stephen Strople, McGill secretary-general, commented on the MGRP in a statement to The Daily.

“I believe the Board is always interested in hearing what its members say about governance or other issues, and that, of course, includes its student members,” he said.

Arts Representative to SSMU Jamie Burnett spoke to the significance of governance reform.

“McGill is, and always has been, a fundamentally undemocratic institution, and I think that undemocratic institutions don’t produce good decisions for the people that make up that institution and are affected by the decisions and activities of that institution,” he said.

A group of between 15 and 20 students met twice before Thursday’s assembly in order to plan and organize. SSMU VP Clubs & Services Carol Fraser facilitated the assembly, which ran according to loose Robert’s Rules of Order.

Three proposals were brought to the meeting and ratified. The proposal on the project’s guidelines states that the project’s assembly “stands in support of a governance structure that is democratic, transparent, accountable, and more appropriately reflects the social and academic interests of the McGill community in the context of broader society.”

The next two proposals addressed the structure of a commission and a follow-up assembly.

The commission will consist of 12 members responsible for researching and presenting recommendations at a subsequent general assembly. However, the election of commissioners stopped due to a debate over the election process.

Associate Islamic Studies Professor Michelle Hartman voiced her concerns.

“This is a certain assembly of people who were able to come at a certain time… It’s a bit weird to be talking about governance reform and all these democratic processes and using Robert’s Rules of Order and doing this in a very proper way, but then to form a commission from people sitting in a room and to just appoint them is, to me, ironic.”

After two hours, quorum was lost, at which point the assembly became an informal discussion regarding how the assembly was run.

Associate History Professor Daviken Studnicki-Gizbert explained that the assembly had focused too much on amendments to the wording of proposals.

“My reading of the situation was that we latched onto the wording,” he said.

Speaking to The Daily after the assembly, Burnett said, “I think it represents a lot of the problems that we’re trying to solve in terms of people at McGill. Whether they’re students or workers of the community around the University, [they] don’t have a lot of experience working with each other, and don’t have a lot of experience talking about what a community is.”

“I think a lot of students who have been doing the planning for this just didn’t understand where other people may be coming from and didn’t structure the meeting in such a way that those concerns really could be brought in,” Burnett added.

Gregory Mikkelson, an associate professor in the Environment and Philosophy departments, spoke about his impressions immediately after the assembly ended.

“I’m really glad that this happened – that there’s an effort being made. I’m not entirely clear on whether they’ll be able to pull it off, especially in the time that they envision,” he said.

The commission is to finalize its recommendations by January 30, 2012 for ratification before a general assembly.

Block explained the time frame put forward in the assembly.

“A movement can lose a lot of steam over the summer,” he said. “If we don’t accomplish something on a relatively large scale along those lines by the end of the year then I think that we will lose steam and this issue itself could just could kind of die out.”

The follow-up meeting for the MGRP is scheduled for Friday at 3 p.m.

Two video clips have been publicly released by the 14 students who occupied the fifth floor of the James Administration building on November 10. The videos, filmed by Moe Nasr – the ninth occupier to identify himself – on his cell phone, are two of four taken over the course of the nearly two hours that the students occupied. The other videos are not being released in order to respect a number of occupiers who wish to remain anonymous. The first clip shows Susan Aberman, chief of staff for the Office of the Principal, addressing the occupiers and asking them to discuss their demands with her. Aberman has been vocal about her experience in the occupation, addressing a crowd outside of James Administration on November 11 about her experience and signing her name to a letter from office staff about their November 10 experiences.

Aberman said in an email to The Daily that, to her recollection, “This exchange took place approximately three to five minutes after the protesters forced their way into our office area and refused to identify themselves or their purpose. There was shouting prior to this exchange.”

As for her interaction with the students, Aberman said that “it was my intention at this point to attempt to defuse a tense situation and initiate a dialogue with the goal of ending this occupation. The person I was speaking to was wearing a hat and a bandana covering his face. I may have looked calm, but frankly, I was very nervous.”

Vice-Principal External Olivier Marcil is also seen in the video, though he is not shown interacting with the students. Le Délit reported last week that an occupier accused Marcil of ripping his bandana off. Marcil told Le Délit in an email that he denied the allegations, and that Dean of Law Daniel Jutras’ investigation would allow facts of the incident to be shown.

Most reports of the occupation have named only Provost Anthony Masi and Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson as senior administrators present, since they negotiated with the students.

A second clip was filmed as occupiers were removed from Principal Heather Munroe-Blum’s office. At 11 seconds into the clip, a student – identified by occupiers as Alex Timmons – is dragged by a security officer. Nasr can be heard telling Security Services that he suffers from osteoperosis as he is pushed from the room.

In a third clip, which has not been released publicly, Timmons can be seen kneeling on the floor of the reception area, allegedly having been hit in the stomach by security immediately before the video begins. He is unable to stand for over a minute, as fellow occupiers come to his aid and bring him water.

Kevin Paul, one of the occupiers, said that the occupiers decided to release the videos at this time due to “the sustained effort to misrepresent what happened on the fifth floor as part of a campaign to influence student and public opinion. We felt it was important to release these and set the record straight about what was actually happening on the fifth floor.”

According to Paul, Marcil and Aberman “were in the room for essentially the entire time of our interaction with security, [so] there’s no way they could not have witnessed the violence that we experienced.”

Paul also said that administrators and staff in the office were documenting the events, and identified both Marcil and Director of Media Relations Doug Sweet as filming the occupiers. In an interview with student media on November 14, Munroe-Blum noted that she had seen video footage, but did not go into detail about their content.

Victor Tangermann | The McGill Daily

On Monday, November 14 – four days after the events of November 10 – Principal Heather Munroe-Blum sat down for an interview with reporters from The Daily, the McGill Tribune, and Le Délit. While the conversation was intended to broach a variety of subjects, November 10 dominated the interview. When asked for a response to a recent petition calling for her resignation,  Munroe-Blum stated she was not aware of it, though she was asked the same question in an interview two hours earlier on CBC Daybreak. Read the full interview here. 

The McGill Daily: Why was Dean of Law Daniel Jutras chosen to do the investigation, and why was it decided to be an internal investigation?

Heather Munroe-Blum: My interest as principal is that we learn from what happened to do the best that we can to not have that happen again… In that regard, I wanted someone who has deep loyalty and concern for the University and the well-being of everyone in it, and yet who is known for impartiality, independence. He is a highly distinguished, member-trained lawyer, [who] has worked at the Supreme Court. He is a guy who’s beyond reproach in his character. In a university, we do a lot of things that depend on internal judgments, you know, the whole peer-review system is us, judging ourselves as a community. We have a very self-governed approach to our operations, and so choosing someone of the highest distinction, whose integrity is so highly regarded, who has training to look at facts, and make judgments, and who is willing to undertake to do this. He was the first person I thought of to do it who would be able to conduct it.

MD: You made this decision unilaterally?

HMB: Yes. It was my decision. It was my judgment that this was the way to proceed.

The McGill Tribune: It was reported that activating the [emergency alert] system [on November 10] could have increased the amount of students in the area. Why did the University act with mistrust of students, thinking that they would automatically incite violence?

HMB: What actually happened I think is a big question. One of the issues of course with demonstrations that are called for the University is that with social media everybody knows about them and anybody can come… Then the issue is not a question of distrust of students, it is a question of the mix of protesters you get in…a climate of activism. So any demonstration can become a bit of lightning rod for activists across the city with a range of issues. That’s one of the things that has to be dealt with.

Le Délit: Are you concerned in terms of what happened in your office pertaining to students’ relationship with the security agents?

HMB: I’m very concerned with what happened, but I’m concerned in both directions. There are colleagues who feel they were hurt, there were people who were pushed aside by masked intruders who wouldn’t identify themselves.

LD: So you feel we can wait [for the Jutras Investigation to conclude on December 15]?

HMB: I think if anyone wants to file a disciplinary complaint or press legal charges, this does not get in the way of them doing that.

MD: If there is some kind of dispute over the process which Professor Jutras goes through for his investigation, who would people go to in a situation like that?

HMB: Well, it’s all going to be public, so what won’t be public will be the names of people, and no person will be identified by name.

MD: So if one of these anonymous people have an issue, what can they do?

HMB: That’s what I’m saying. They can be using the disciplinary process, they can be filing a complaint, they can be taking legal action. And they don’t need to be waiting until the report comes out to do that… This is not an investigation for people that are looking at perpetrators and victims, this is not an investigation to do that. This is an investigation to understand: Did processes fail? How did processes work? Were there groups that could have done things differently? In general, is there a sense of responsibility in one direction or another to do things differently, should a similar situation be on the horizon?

LD: Have you read the McGill Security Services’ report?

HMB: I have only seen some video footage, and as I said, I wasn’t here, so Friday I had a briefing. Thursday, I was off-campus and had a briefing in real time on it, both while the occupation was going on, and while the riot police were here. Then I had a pre-set meeting with a group of professors first thing in the morning on Friday, so I met with them then, in full. I had asked Thursday night for all the people that I [wanted] to come in to give a full briefing so I could hear their point of view.

LD: If you thought that there were claims against employees, would you wait for the “victim” to come forward or would you be able to bring it up yourself?

HMB: I have not seen anything that would make me take action before December 15. I was very concerned about hooded, masked people, breaking their way in, pushing staff, and not identifying themselves, nor even saying what their purpose of being there was. That’s very concerning to me. If there was any abuse in any direction I expect that will come out in the report, and that will form the basis of judgments of what to do next.

MD: So even though staff members have said they were pushed or felt scared, there is not evidence to lay disciplinary charges?

HMB: No, I’m saying that it’s up to them, if they’re going to do that, if someone feels they were hurt, and the only evidence I saw was a video clip. So do I believe that there were people who were masked and hooded in my office? Yes, because I saw a video of it, and some who weren’t.

LD: What about the allegations of assault on the fifth floor during the occupation?

HMB: I’ve actually seen no evidence that that happened. I’ve received no complaint, and I’ve received no evidence that happened, and I’ve asked Professor Jutras to investigate for me. There are a lot of allegations out there, they’re very general allegations.

LD: They’re actually pretty specific. I don’t know if you’ve seen the coverage of The Daily?

HMB: I’ve certainly seen the coverage of The Daily, and I see no evidence presented in support of them. We do have due process here, and no one has filed a complaint through the normal channels for due process. The Daily is not a vehicle for due process.

LD: On November 10 – this is from eyewitness account – I saw seven security managers who were standing by while people were crying, they offered no help. How do you react to this?

HMB: You say you experienced this, I know a lot of people felt upset and felt isolated on Thursday evening, and I feel terrible about it. If that’s what happened, I feel terrible about it. And then that raises a question of qualifications to do that and that’s something we’ve got to look at.

—Compiled by Erin Hudson

We are seven staff members who were working in the fifth-floor offices of the James Administration Building on Thursday, November 10 when 14 protesters broke in and forcibly occupied our work spaces.

We would like to add our voices and experiences as staff members to the public record in order to provide a fuller picture of what happened on that day.

We would also like to make it known that we take issue with the account presented in the letter authored by the 14 occupiers of our offices, published in The McGill Daily on November 13.

This was not a peaceful occupation – this was trespassing, intimidation, and the restriction of our freedom.

In the student media and on the banner hung by protesters from a window in our office, this event has been referred to as “Occupons McGill.” The fact that the aggressive occupation of our work spaces is being associated with a peaceful international movement does not sit well with us.

We are not oil barons nor Wall Street bankers. We do our jobs because we believe in McGill and because we value higher education. We work to support the McGill community – students, faculty, and administration – and we are proud to do so.

The occupiers of our offices did not act like members of the McGill community as we know it.

They were not peaceful. They seized and blocked the entry and exit of the doors leading to our common reception area and then overpowered a staff member to break through a locked door leading into the Principal’s and Provost’s private offices.

They stormed into our offices and attempted to use furniture to blockade themselves inside spaces containing confidential documents.

They refused to identify themselves and several were hooded and had masked their faces with bandanas.

They refused to discuss their concerns or explain the purpose of their occupation when asked.

They forced their way past another staff member and into the Principal’s private office. When Security arrived and asked them to leave that office, some of them refused.

They shouted insults and profanity at Security staff, including calling them “[expletive] pigs.”

We were threatened and intimidated on the night of November 10 in the very spaces we thought were safe. When Security attempted to escort us out of the building, we were prevented from leaving by a large group of protesters who had surrounded our building and were blocking the exits.

As we watched the clash of protesters and police from the windows of our offices, we understood how many of the non-violent protesters and bystanders outside must have felt. The rage and unreason of the few had hijacked a day of well-planned protests. The safety of those inside and outside the James Building was endangered by the actions of the few.

One might even call them the 1 per cent.

The spaces that were forcibly occupied on November 10 are the spaces in which we do our work every day. Even though the protesters may not have stopped to consider us, we, too, are McGill.

The 14 individuals who occupied our offices have published accounts of their so-called heroism. They did not, however, sign their names to their accounts published in The Daily and Le Délit.

We, too, are McGill, and by signing our names to this letter, we hope to remind them of what that means.

Last Thursday afternoon, tens of thousands of students took to the streets of Montreal in protest of the upcoming tuition hikes proposed by the Quebec government.

Led by the Association pour la solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ), students from different universities, CEGEPs, and their supporters rallied at Place Émilie-Gamelin before marching to the office of Quebec Premier Jean Charest to protest the hikes.

The Charest government first proposed the tuition hikes in the fall of 2007. This second round of increases will raise tuition costs across the province by $1625 over the next five years.

A McGill contingent estimated at over 1,200 gathered at the Roddick Gates at 1 p.m. before heading down McGill College to join the main protest at Place Émilie-Gamelin. The group consisted of campus unions, students, faculty, and  striking MUNACA workers who could fulfill their picket duty by attending the march.

At the intersection of McGill College and Ste. Catherine, they were met by cheers from roughly 1,000 Concordia students, led by Concordia Student Union President Lex Gill and VP External Chad Walcott.

The march continued to Place Émilie-Gamelin, where the Anglophone students joined Francophone students from across Quebec in the square.

For Saurin Skah, a U0 Arts student at McGill, it was solidarity that pulled him into the street.

“The tuition hike may not affect me a lot, but I know that for the people of Quebec, and for everyone who chose to come to Quebec for their education, low tuition is what makes college and universities acceptable,” he said.

Although the thousands of students present at the demonstration were united against tuition hikes, expectations for the day were varied.

Paula Furfaro, a Psychology student at McGill, expressed what success would be to her.

“If all we can accomplish today is for [the government] to second guess themselves, and take a minute or two more to finally think about the decisions they make, then we know we accomplished what we were here for. We have a voice, let’s use it,” Furfaro said.

Amir Khadir, a member of  the Quebec National Assembly and spokesperson for Québec Solidaire, was also present at the demonstration.

Speaking to The Daily in French, he emphasized the importance of accessible education, saying that “to improve access in a durable and promising manner, we need free education from preschool to university… Education is liberty, and liberty is a right – it’s not a privilege. Education must be free,” he said.

For Khadir, the hikes reflect a problem within the Charest government. “It’s the ideological decisions that they make in favour of the one per cent,” he said.

Following the gathering at Place Émilie-Gamelin, volunteers from ASSÉ donned red pinnies and guided protesters as they marched to Charest’s office on Sherbrooke and McGill College.

Hugo Laframeara, a Law student at McGill, was at the demonstration with a large group of McGill Law students.

Laframeara said he was concerned about the lack of opinion from the McGill administration around the tuition hike rally.

“When you are such a highly recognized university…you have to take a position in such a debate. I find it deceiving that there is no real will from the administration or from the SSMU to create a forum for this event,” he said.

SSMU President Maggie Knight told The Daily that SSMU stands by its official policy against tuition hikes.

“We think the march showed the power of the student movement and we think that the turnout from McGill students was really solid. It was a strong spirit of solidarity between Anglophone and Francophone [students] coming together to express their concerns,” she said.

— With files from Laurent Bastien Corbeil and Esther Lee

One week after the events of November 10, students and faculty are questioning the inquiry launched last week by Principal Heather Munroe-Blum to investigate the events.

The inquiry, led by Dean of Law Daniel Jutras, was announced the day after Montreal riot police broke up a student demonstration outside of the James Administration building. The demonstration formed in solidarity with 14 students who were occupying the fifth floor of the building in protest of numerous McGill positions, practices, and policies.

In an interview with The Daily, Jutras said he “thought it was important that I [lead] it,” adding that the fact-finding inquiry “relates to the hopes that this will not happen again.”

“If there are appropriate recommendations to be made with this purpose in mind, I will make them,” he continued.

“The process is not meant to assign blame to anyone,” Jutras said. “The effort is to identify the facts, determine the facts, and report them to the community.”

Jutras said he has never performed an investigation similar to this one before, and added that he was unaware of any precedent for such an inquiry on campus.

Students and faculty have been quick to speak out against the Jutras Inquiry, however.

At a student meeting in the SSMU cafeteria the same day that Munroe-Blum announced the Jutras Inquiry, three students – U2 Economics and Political Science student Christopher Bangs, U4 Anthropology student Allison Cooper, and U4 History and Canadian Studies student Matt Dowling – helped to form an independent student inquiry into the November 10 events.

“We think that there are some real problems with the idea of the Dean’s investigation,” said Bangs. “I’m sure the Dean will conduct a very comprehensive institutional review, but that’s not a student perspective.”

In response to a question about how he hopes to stay impartial in conducting his inquiry, Jutras stated that, “I stand on my own reputational integrity.”

Jutras said he would not have the authority to compel the Montreal police to give testimony to the inquiry, saying it “most likely will be up to the police itself.”

Furthermore, Jutras said similar parameters applied to dealing with McGill Security. The James Administration fifth floor occupiers have alleged that they were shoved, dragged, and kicked by McGill security guards.

“I have no power of constraint, or to compel testimony, so I’m inviting people to communicate with me, and I will solicit interviews whenever I think it’s useful – but if people don’t want to speak to me, I won’t be able to force them,” said Jutras, adding that he will be asking McGill Security to provide testimony.

Regarding the occupiers themselves, Jutras said he will “see whether they communicate with me in writing” before interviewing them. He also stated that he had been unaware that student Senator Matthew Crawford was among the 14 occupiers.

Lerona Lewis, president of the Association of Graduate Students Employed at McGill – who have called for an independent inquiry – said she was troubled by a perceived focus on police intervention in the inquiry.

“I don’t see much emphasis on what took place for the [fifth floor] occupiers,” said Lewis. “The fact that the security guards could actually physically assault students – I mean, this is what has been said – so I think that’s where we want to place emphasis, too. Who gave them the authority to do that?”

Lewis also questioned the impartiality of the Jutras Inquiry, saying that an investigator from another university would understand the “culture of universities” without having close ties to McGill itself.

The independent student inquiry is hoping to release a preliminary report by the end of November, and a final report in January. The deadline mandated by Munroe-Blum for the Jutras Inquiry is December 15.

Bangs said the students hope to offer a wide range of student and community voices in their inquiry.

“If we issue recommendations, they won’t be political or biased,” he said.

At the Senate meeting yesterday, both student and faculty representatives voiced concern about the Jutras Inquiry. Post-Graduate Students’ Society Senator Lily Han said that the way the investigation is set up is “highly problematic.”

“It’s not merely the events that occurred that should be investigated, but the actual structures and systems that led to those events,” said Han. “The position of Dean is an inherent part of the administrative structure of a university, so the fact that [Jutras’] running the investigation is pretty problematic.”

Arts Senator and Anthropology professor John Galaty proposed that Jutras be assisted and accompanied in the investigative process by one faculty member and one student. Despite his recommendations, Galaty added that Jutras is “probably the best person in the University to head this investigation.”

Addressing concerns about his impartiality as lead investigator, Jutras told Senate that, “In this investigation and report, I will speak for no one but myself, and serve no one but the McGill community as a whole.”

Jutras also admitted that, given the mandate for the inquiry, “I will not necessarily receive [testimonies] from all sides of every story.”

Amina Batyreva

The forecasted rain on November 10 foreshadowed the impending threat of the events that were to transpire. That morning I decided to wear my heavy coat, even though it might have slowed me down – because on this date I wished to hover in time as slowly as I could; it was a day I wanted to prolong. On November 10 I chose the pants I wore the day before, because on this date I had no concerns for vanity; this day promised to descend upon me and take with it all the insecurities and fears of this faint-hearted creature.

Life as an international student holds an intrinsic duality that, in many ways, divides my existence in two. Every four months or so, when I return to Colombia, I am called to dismiss all accustomed behaviours and identities attained in Canada, making my life a never-ending cycle of nomadic impulses. This is not to say that my life in Colombia is unbearably dissimilar to that in Canada. But it is certainly different. The underlying effect that language inflicts upon me segments my life, chopping it into two different entities. It’s not just a matter of living one life in Spanish and another in English. In contrast to language, life is not something I can easily translate.

The rare occasions in which events permeate my two realities are usually deliberate and unexciting. But on November 10, the extent to which coincidence would unite the two and crush this duality of mine, truly made an impact on me.

On November 10, students in my hometown of Bogotá, Colombia, organized a demonstration against the educational reforms proposed by the Minister of Education. The reform, amongst other things, seeks to further privatize educational institutions and make accessible education even scarcer. On that same day, students here in Montreal staged a rally against the reform to the provincial budget planned by Quebec Premier Jean Charest.

The November 10 student demonstration in Montreal was my opportunity to stand in spirit beside my friends fighting to support education in my country. Colombia is a country where education is already largely privatized and, in my opinion, this reform would further hinder development in the nation. Being miles away from the demonstrations in Colombia truly disheartened me; I was failing my duty as a citizen of Colombia and I was failing my friends that were fighting for an education. But on this date of mysterious edification, coincidence stepped.

On November 10, as I was reporting the rally for The Daily here in Montreal, I was truly standing besides my friends and family in Bogotá. The reforms in Quebec and Colombia are not the same, and by no means do I mean to equate them, but the spirit of the students transported me to the place I wanted to be; walking down my childhood streets and corners, with that impetus of a child asking for the education my country so badly requires.

On November 10 students in Colombia demonstrated the power of young leadership in a nation that sorely needs it. From what I have been told, the events in Bogota were peaceful, with pictures of students embracing police officers surfacing on the Internet and displaying the truly peaceful nature of the Colombian population. November 10 could have been a remarkable day in my memory, it could have been a day of existential reconciliation, it could have been that day where I finally existed in peace with the world and myself.

But on November 10 I faced the most violent experience of my life. Never during my eighteen years in Colombia did I feel as vulnerable as I did in the afternoon of November 10 on McGill campus. My sense of security was completely shattered by the people that were supposed to protect it. The roaring hand of authority descended upon us, leaving us unguarded and defenceless. I did not witness the events that preceded these instances, but I can say that the reaction of this authority should not have been as enormous as it was. They are here to protect us, and for that reason WE give them authority, that should never be forgotten.

While my fellow McGill students were indiscriminately attacked, my friends in Colombia were experiencing a peaceful student demonstration. Somehow any labelling, or degree of “development” these countries might have had, seemed irrelevant as the tables turned and violence occurred where I never thought it would. What I deemed to be my great date of unity became a demonstration of disrespectful use of authority and violent means of repression.

November 10 will continue to pervade the consciousness of many individuals and shape the collective identity of McGill students for months to come. Whether or not you support tuition hikes and regardless of what your opinions on the occupiers are, the violence inflicted on McGill students in their campus was by no means acceptable. For my part, November 10 will continue to bemuse me: on the date where my existences were supposed to unite, they could not have stood in stronger opposition. The dream of inner peace was disrupted, even as I thought this would be a date of unity and reconciliation between my two selves. But I learnt to mistrust coincidence – and learnt that maybe life is not meant to be one, at least not for me.

It is with admiration and anger, exasperation and love, that I write this letter expressing my gratitude and frustration regarding the occupation of Heather Munroe-Blum’s office on 10 November.  Having read your statement of November 11, “Letter From the Fifth Floor Occupiers,” and as a supporter of the student movement, I must congratulate and agree with the eloquently worded sentiments behind your brave action. However, as a member of the McGill community and as a friend, I feel that I must also respectfully point out some perhaps unconsidered consequences of your decision to occupy.

To preface, let me thank you for your courage, which seems to me beyond doubt.  It takes stern stuff to stand up to the likes of the administration, considering all the wealth and power and force of arms at their disposal.  Yet I must question the platform you chose to make your stand: why this day and why at McGill? Last Thursday marked a province-wide movement of thousands of students directed at the provincial government of Quebec Premier Jean Charest, from which the decision to raise tuition fees stems.  I fear that the occupation, in drawing the attention of our campus – and of the media – away from the message of Thursday’s protest, may inadvertently cause the community to lose sight of the stakes in the battle ahead.

In this vein, I also question the secrecy with which the decision to occupy was made.  I understand why, perhaps, you did not consult the greater movement – you did not want an information breach to alert administration, who would, in all likelihood, have pre-empted your efforts.  But, in keeping this knowledge from us – from the hundreds of students who followed you, the students who reacted passionately and forcefully to try and liberate you from the police – you participated in the creation of a situation of conflict for which we were not prepared.  I do not think I exaggerate in saying that we would have moved heaven and earth to ensure your safety, and, in attempting to do so, some of us were harmed.  We are your supporters and community – we deserved to know what we were getting into.  Furthermore, it is democracy and true empowerment that you fight for, is it not?  I must remind you to please remember that, whether you intended to or not, your actions represent us to the greater world, and so the decisions that affect us all must be made openly, or else we risk replicating the very administration and government we fight against.
Hindsight, of course, is 20/20.  I do not intend to impugn your integrity, only to query your forethought and to make a suggestion for the future: speak not for me, but with me.  Be not my martyrs, but my brothers and sisters.  Stand not ahead of me in the storm, but beside me, and together we will usher in the future we deserve.

In solidarity,

Ryan Thom is a U2 Social Work Student. He can be reached at ryan.thom@mail.mcgill.ca

If you walked up to a police officer and punched that officer in the face, would you expect retaliation? By law, committing an act of violence against the Service de police de la ville de Montreal (SPVM) is a crime which demands a serious response.
If you can’t punch a cop in the face, why would it be ok to throw placards and other objects at one?
Such is the leap in logic made by those who supported this past Monday’s “We are all McGill” protest. Billed as a collective moment of reflection about the “shocking presence” of riot police on McGill’s campus, Monday’s meeting was a textbook peaceful protest.
What was not a peaceful protest was last Thursday’s event, which led to the deployment of riot police so decried by Monday’s protesters. As a friend once said to me, if people don’t want riot police on campus, maybe they shouldn’t riot.
Debate about the nature of police tactics has spiraled into claims of “brutality” and “oppression”. Little to no effort has been made to understand why police did what they did. Let me attempt to do that now.
Accounts of the fifth floor occupation of the James Administration building differ. In a letter to The McGill Daily, occupiers claimed that they were non-violent. In an email to the McGill community, Heather Munroe-Blum claimed that the occupiers “forced their way from a reception area outside the offices of the Provost and the Principal, pushing staff in the process.”
Either account may be the correct one. There may be elements of truth in both. No matter what actually happened, it is understandable that McGill Security called the police. Occupying a building is an inherently hostile act. McGill Security had no idea of the intentions of the protesters, and no one wants to trust the safety of staff to fate.
The Daily reports that occupiers contacted allies by phone, asking for support. The result was a crowd of about 200 students around James Administration. They formed a human chain around the building, effectively preventing staff from leaving. This amounts, in my view, to forcible confinement, a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada. The crowd thus demonstrated its willingness to break the law.
Daily coverage further describes twenty police officers on bicycles entering the scene. They worked to clear protesters away from the entrance of James Administration, as the law mandates them to do. In my view, they were attempting to open a path into the building both for police to enter and for trapped employees to leave.
This is where things get out of hand.
Protesters attack the bicycle cops. Placards and other objects are thrown, eventually necessitating a police retreat from the area.
This was the right decision. Twenty officers with bicycles had no hope of controlling a crowd of 200, especially a crowd that had shown a propensity for violence.
Once a peaceful protest turns violent, I believe police are justified in switching tactics to riot control. This is especially true when a violent crowd barricades a building filled with employees. Undoubtedly, one of the police officers on the scene called in about the situation, and someone in command made the decision to deploy riot police. Police brutality involves the intentional use of excessive force. A fair observer cannot say that is the case here. Police did their jobs – they secured the safety of those in James Administration, and they dispersed a crowd that had committed violence against the lawful SPVM. They did so with minimal injuries to protesters.
Instead of asking about police tactics, I have a better question. Protesters attacked cops, barricaded a building, and got away without being held accountable for their crimes. Who will hold these demonstrators to just standards of lawful behaviour?

Brendan Steven is a U3 Political Science student and co-founder of the Prince Arthur Herald. He can be reached at brendan.steven@mail.mcgill.ca

Amina Batyreva

When I read Erin Hale’s Hyde Park on November 12, I must admit that I thought I was reading an issue of The Daily from 2009 or 2010, as her commentary was so out of touch with the recent developments on McGill’s campus.

One has to be very pessimistic to overlook that, in the span of only two weeks, students at McGill have voted for a faculty association strike, showed up in great numbers to the November 10 protest, gave clear support to independent student groups in light of their impending Memorandum of Agreement negotiations (CKUT and QPIRG), occupied Principal Munroe-Blum’s office, and organized the biggest campus assembly in McGill’s history.

Students have more influence today than they’ve had in at least the past  ten years. The principal’s presence at Mondayès assembly is significant proof of this change. Last year, she walked by a massive student protest against the closure of the Architecture Café, commenting condescendingly that it was just “students being students.” But last Monday, she cancelled whatever important schmoozing appointments she had in the afternoon to come listen to what students had to say. Had she gotten “her way,” like Hale claims administrators always do, she would be at the Montreal Club drinking scotch with the CEO of Quebecor, or engaged in a similar activity reserved only for the Montreal elite, which entails anything but listening to campus activists speaking out against injustice. The Ivory Tower she once hid in, completely detached from students, has been broken into, both figuratively and literally.

On Thursday night, students could have “[given] in,” like Hale claims the administration usually convinces them to do. The presence of riot police is scary and could be an excuse to forfeit. Instead, most students remained peacefully on what they shouted is “their campus.” Pepper sprayed and beaten by police batons, they stood next to James Administration demanding that their friends be liberated safely (following reports of the occupiers being brutalized by McGill Security) and claiming their right to assemble peacefully. This manifestation of solidarity and perseverance is nothing short of inspiring.

Students around the world have historically fought,  and still continue to fight, political repression, and they’ve led various social justice movements,  while being subjected to police violence, and in a number of cases they have won. There is no doubt that these students also had “finals to worry about.” However, when you come to realize that the pressure of finals is very much smaller than the pressure of the status quo, then you will def  initely persevere until your goals are achieved, no matter how long this can take and regardless of the sacrifices you will have to make. Listening to students’ speeches at the assembly on Monday, I firmly believe that many of them have come to realize the scope of the struggle at hand. And this is only the beginning, as this movement may very well be a gateway to deeper analyses of power, and the different injustices it creates and sustains.

Hale must not diminish the potential of current student activists on campus. Old hacks like Hale and myself need to move past what once was a student movement reduced to only electoral student politics, filled with political scandals, power trips, and complacency vis-à-vis a fierce and careless administration. We must commend the current grassroots movement and its successes, while remaining critical of it in order to make it more inclusive and empowering to those who are otherwise marginalized. In other words,  to make it a better representation of the socially just world we are all trying to achieve. All of this is in the hopes of having it become stronger, a force not to be reckoned with.

Erin, this is the movement we have both hoped for throughout all those years. We must turn the page on the past, and embrace the future of activism at McGill.

Myriam Zaidi is a U4 Humanistic Studies student. You can reach her at myriam.zaidi@mail.mcgill.ca.

McGill Senate met on Wednesday, the same day that rabble.ca published the “Letter from the Fifth Floor Occupiers,” definitively identifying eight of the fourteen occupiers of the James Administration building on November 10.

Student Senator Matthew Crawford announced during his speech at the “We Are All McGill” rally on Monday that he had been on the fifth floor. In addition to Crawford, Arts Representative to SSMU Micha Stettin also signed the letter published on rabble, as did McGill students Jean-François Faucher, Ethan Kyle Feldman, Kevin Paul, Ben Patrick Stidworthy, Alex Timmons, and Derek Tyrrell. The other six occupiers wish to remain anonymous.

Senate suspended procedural rules to allow for a Committee of the Whole in which the events of November 10 could be discussed – including the inquiry to be conducted by Dean of Law Daniel Jutras.

With a room capacity of 125 people, administrators warned students and professors that space for spectators would be limited. As a result, over 50 students who did not make it inside gathered outside of the room. A live stream of the event was set up so that those outside of the room could watch the discussion.

In Senate, Jutras explained the process for his inquiry. As he spoke, many members of the gallery rose and turned their backs to the rows of senators, to show their disapproval of the administration’s decision to appoint Jutras to head the inquiry.

Senators were invited to talk about issues surrounding November 10. Management Senator and former Daily Web Editor Tom Acker read a statement regarding the events. “Thursday marked the day [students] stopped seeing their campus as a safe space,” he told senators.

Acker also referenced the fact that, despite an entirely peaceful gathering on Monday, at which numerous senior administrators were present, “McGill still had police cars waiting outside three campus entrances,” leaving students – still reeling from their November 10 experiences – uncomfortable.

Darin Barney, a Senator and associate professor in Art History and Communication Studies, urged the administration to “reverse the trend of the securitization of this campus.” He further called on the Principal to rename James Square “Community Square” – to honour the decision made by students at “We Are All McGill” – as well as to designate November 10 “Freedom Day” at McGill.

Crawford addressed the room as he recounted his experience on the fifth floor. “I really, really hope that our efforts were not in vain, and that this sees a new era at McGill where we see frank discussions about student representation of the student voice on campus,” Crawford said in an interview before the Senate meeting.

Gallery members stood in support as Crawford explained that McGill Security should not be able to lay hands on students, deny giving their names when asked, or “wantonly call the police when a clearly peaceful demonstration enters campus.” Crawford assured those listening that the “fifth floor of the James Administration building was entirely peaceful.”

Provost Anthony Masi, who had previously been identified as participating in negotiations with the fifth floor occupiers on November 10, spoke minutes after Crawford.

“I actually witnessed some of the things on the fifth floor,” Masi said, claiming that staff was “subject to attack by individuals who were wearing scarves and hoods.”

Gallery members stood and turned their back to the room as Masi began to speak, hissing when Masi commented, “You can’t turn your backs on the truth.”

“The only thing we wanted to do was make sure that every one of them got out safely and securely,” Masi added, referring to office staff.

Crawford rose and left the room at Masi’s comments. Students in the gallery began to walk out after Crawford, crying “lies.” Timmons, another occupier, shouted, “Students were assaulted… Shame on McGill” as he walked out of the room. The students joined a group of peers still outside, who began to chant “no more lies” and “shame on McGill.”
After the meeting, Timmons said he felt that Masi was “skewing the reality of what happened” on the fifth floor.

“As someone who had no voice [in Senate]… I feel that my voice had to be heard,” he added.

Crawford also expressed reservations about Masi’s monologue. “I felt [Masi’s] narrative was problematic, planted in a particular bias that did not fully respect what the students [occupying] were trying to do,” he said. However, Crawford did say that he thought the Principal’s remarks on the subject “were extremely productive…even if they were somewhat late.”

—with files from Erin Hudson and  Michael Lee-Murphy

Nicole Gileadi

“This is what democracy looks like,” shouted nearly a thousand McGill community members who gathered in James Square on Monday.

The rally, “We Are All McGill,” was a student initiative organized in response to the events of last Thursday, November 10, when McGill students were pepper sprayed, teargassed, and pushed off campus by riot police.

Alex McKenzie, a U2 Arts student and Daily staffer, created the event on Facebook the night of November 10.

“I was sitting at the library getting these crazy text messages from my friends, saying they were getting hurt, and I got really angry, and posted one of those angry Facebook events which I was expecting 10 people to join and embarrassingly have to delete six hours later,” McKenzie explained. “And I had 500 people on it in 30 minutes.”

“I woke up the next morning to realize that there were over a 1,000 people attending, and something needed to be done,” he added.

McKenzie, a Mob Squad member, then conferred with other members, who began to plan the event together. A meeting after the sit-in outside of James Administration on Friday formed working groups to help with organization.
The rally, which began with a march from Roddick Gates, opened with a sound collage from the night – which captured the screams of students as they were pepper sprayed by police – followed by a moment of silence.

A motion was then introduced to rename James Square. The crowd voted to rename the space  Community Square, or Carré Communautaire.

Those present were encouraged to share personal experiences relating to the events and discuss “how we can move forward,” according to the Facebook event page.

One of the first students to speak expressed his refusal to stay silent amidst recent events that have taken place at McGill.

“We can dramatically change this University. We really, really can,” he said. “We must stand up, we must get loud, and we must act now.”

Jonathan Sterne, chair of the Department of Art History and Communication Studies, and member of the McGill Faculty Labour Action Group, also spoke.

“In the face of administrative inaction, let’s escalate our commitments to one another, and to other students around the city,” said Sterne. “Let’s escalate our commitments to fair compensation for our colleagues in MUNACA.”

At one point during the rally, the crowd waved to the MUNACA workers picketing across the road from Milton Gates, shouting “solidarité!”

“I believe in the protesters,” Sterne added. “I believe in my students, and I ask you to believe in yourselves, and let’s work to write the course for this University, in this province, and in this world.”

The open forum culminated in a General Assembly, which discussed commitments to future action, including forming a committee to democratize McGill’s governance structure.

Despite the peaceful nature of the event, police officers were stationed at three entrances to McGill throughout the afternoon.

According to Montreal Police Sergeant Guiseppe Boccardi, McGill called the police “to inform us that there’s going to be some kind of gathering between 12:30 p.m. and 5 p.m., five to six hundred people, to make sure that everything stays well.”

“We’re on what we call standby mode, in case something were to get out of hand,” he added.

Administrators in the crowd included Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson and Principal Heather Munroe-Blum.

Munroe-Blum sat on the steps for a portion of the gathering, and was on the speakers list before she had to leave for another appointment.

In an email to staff and students yesterday, Mendelson said the administration “clearly understand[s] the concerns expressed at Monday’s gathering and elsewhere in response to the events of November 10.”

He goes on to list services available to students who experienced “distress, fear or anxiety,” who “witnessed or were subjected to violence,” or were “hurt or otherwise affected” as a result of the events of November 10.

McKenzie said the most important thing to take away from the event was that “this isn’t the end.”

“This was a forum to start thinking about a set of ideas, to start making opinions about a set of ideas, and to start being active about a lot of ideas,” he said.

­—with files from Juan Camilo Velásquez and Erin Hudson

Ariel Prado, U3 Arts student, is one of two McGill students arrested during the November 10 demonstration on campus. Prado talked to The Daily about his experience and how he feels McGill responded to the events.

The McGill Daily: Were you at the tuition march during the day?

Ariel Prado: I was at the march all day, and then at some point somebody said something about them wanting more people at James Administration, that there was something going on over there. So I walked with a group of friends – we really had no idea what was going on – over to James Administration to check it out.

MD: How many people would you say were there at that point? Was there any action?

AP: When we got there…maybe closer to 50. There were a lot of people yelling, there was a woman and two security guards in front of the main door of James Administration and a couple security guards by the other door, just preventing people from coming in. There were rumours and people yelling in the crowd that there were people being held on the fifth floor, abused by the security – it was a lot of people yelling, and it was hard to tell whether it was people trying to incite the crowd or what was actually happening.

MD: When did the human chain around James Administration start? Were you part of it?

AP: The human chain started probably ten minutes after [student and former Daily news and features editor Niko Block] was on the megaphone. Maybe a little less, but well before the police arrived. For a while I was [part of it], and then that kind of broke up when the bicycle cops came…because a bunch of students went to stand in front of the bicycle cops so that they couldn’t keep coming forward. And then, that got violent, the bicycle cops tried to lift their bikes so they could push through the crowd, and in response students started throwing things at the cops, I don’t know how many, but at least one stick went flying into the crowd of cops.

MD: From what you saw, did students begin to throw things first?

AP: I don’t know if I can speak to that. From what I saw, cops were lifting their bikes and trying to push through the crowd first; it was already an incited environment, it was already an environment that felt like something violent was going to happen.

Eventually I ended up in a human chain in front of the main door of James Administration and, I think, it was five or six of us, and the idea, I guess, was…to block the main door so that nobody else could get out of the building…until students who were trapped on the fifth floor were let out. And, at that point we were talking a little bit with the security guards who were in front of the door, in between us and the door, and they kept saying that they didn’t know what was going on, but that, of course, McGill Security wouldn’t be abusing our students, and if they were abusing our students, then why wouldn’t they kick our ass too, or something like that.

MD: When did you get arrested?

AP: I got arrested when the riot cops showed up. I was facing the building, so they came up behind me… I knew they were coming but I couldn’t tell where they were or when they were coming, and eventually one of them just started hitting me with his nightstick, I mean – they do it in such a way that it doesn’t hurt, it’s just forceful so it’s really pushing me to get out of the way – poking me with it, wrapping it around me trying to pull me backwards – and eventually he ended up grabbing [me] by the collar of my shirt and with the nightstick pulling me back out of this crowd and then three to four cops starting shoving me with their shields. They shoved me to a certain point and I kind of stopped there and just stood there because I didn’t want to leave… A bunch of my friends were in the crowd and I didn’t want to leave them. So another cop came and he shoved me a little further back with his shield… They kept coming up, shoving me to go back, and finally one cop came up and he started yelling in my face and he said that if I didn’t leave campus by foot I would be leaving in a paddy wagon. To which I, maybe stupidly, replied that he was going to have to arrest me because I wasn’t going to leave my friends behind until I knew that they were safe. And then he said ‘Okay, well then get on your knees.’

MD: Do you know why you in particular were arrested?

AP: I think partly because I was part of that [human] chain… I’ve been trying to think about why they targeted me, and I don’t know. I didn’t threaten them in any way, and I never raised my hands above my waist. I got charged with assaulting a police officer. And I never lifted my hands. I just stepped back every time they pushed me, and stopped [when] they stopped pushing me.

MD: Did they tell you what you were being arrested for?

AP: I didn’t know until I was getting my mug shot taken that I was being charged with assaulting a police officer. And then later on when I had a legal call I was told that because I’m an international student I was going to have to spend the night in jail… Then after being escorted to my cell, maybe an hour, two hours later – I don’t know I didn’t have a clock – somebody came and said that they were going to suspend the charges because, even though they knew I had assaulted a police officer, they couldn’t find the report, at the time, that said so, and so if they found the report maybe they’d call me back or something. Really – very clear that they just didn’t want to admit that there was no proof that I had assaulted a police officer.

MD: Were you near anybody that you knew, who might have seen the arrest?

AP: No, because the police pulled up from Milton Gates, so they were pushing everybody back towards Ferrier, and I ended up on the other side, in between the police and Milton Gates. At one point I realized that nobody was seeing me get arrested, and that kind of scared me because I didn’t want to get taken to jail with nobody knowing, so I started yelling that I was being arrested and asking for somebody to take pictures or do something. One of the cops came over and shoved my hat over my face so that I couldn’t yell any more, and then, at that point, I don’t know if anybody was watching me.

I was arrested at the same time as [U3 Engineering student] Alex Briggs, and we were both escorted into – I don’t know who was escorted off of campus first – but we were both, we ended up in the same cop car and were together for most of the night, so that was nice to have some kind of solidarity, that was cool. But I didn’t see anyone else – I saw him in the process of being arrested, but I couldn’t hear what he was being arrested for.

MD: When they released you, did they drop the charges?

AP: They said they’d get in contact with me if they were going to press charges, so I don’t know. But I don’t think they’re going to press charges. I hope that they don’t press charges.

MD: Where was the jail that they took you to?

AP: On Guy, just below René Lévesque… In the paddywagon, you have no way of knowing where they’re taking you. The way that you end up leaving the jail, there’s a key card that they have to swipe, so that they can open up the door and then they close that behind you, and you’re in a garage. I was in there for like a minute before anything happened, it was just this concrete garage with two garage doors, and I was kind of looking around, like, waiting for what’s gonna happen next. Then one of the garage doors opens, and there’s nobody there. I just assume that I’m supposed to walk out of this garage door and I walk out of it, and they close it, and its like a scene from a movie – you turn around and the door closes behind me, and [there’s] just no way I could go back in if I wanted to, and there’s just no sign that it ever actually happened. All of a sudden, I have all my stuff, I’m out on the busy street and nobody even saw me come out of this door.

This is less relevant to what actually happened, but I thought it was interesting the entire time, you’re constantly switching police…the majority of the people were so ready to assume that I was a criminal and so ready to really be angry with me – to the extent where, when I was being processed, I was in a room with six cops around me, two of them were actually talking to me, and one in the corner who, when they found a computer in my backpack, asked me, ‘Why would you bring a computer, something breakable, to a manifestation, where you clearly planned to throw rocks at police?’ I looked at him, and said, ‘I didn’t want to throw rocks at you, I wanted to do my homework after the manifestation, I was just going to go home or to a cafe or something.’ He said, ‘Okay, maybe think twice next time.’

MD: Did you actually throw rocks?

AP: No, no, no, I got charged with assault of a police officer, because I refused to leave the campus. But, at no point did I lift my hands above my waist, I mean I was standing there and that’s it.

That, more than anything, is what I want to emphasize, is that what was really terrible about last night was that, from both sides, there was just this complete willingness to be angry at the other side. This complete willingness to set up – and after the police show up, it’s pretty hard not to feel like it’s an us and them thing, when there’s people in uniform and people not in uniform – but even before that point, there was this complete willingness to really antagonize one another as opposed to discussion.

Even when it was [Block] who was up on the megaphone, when he was talking, there were people who were too riled up and too excited to be shouting at the security guards, and they had to be shushed for almost a full minute. People had to try to get them to calm down so that [Block] could talk. The whole way through, with the police and with everybody, there’s this feeling that nobody really wants to have dialogue, nobody really wants to really understand. I don’t even really know what happened with the people inside, I have no idea, and neither did most of the people on the outside; they were just going based on rumours. And the security guards didn’t seem to know either; they were just going based on orders.

For me, what would have been perfect would have been for all of us to sit there and just to wait for the kids to come out and in solidarity establish our presence and that’s it, but to have people storm in the building like it’s some kind of castle, people yelling, ‘We need more bodies, we need more bodies inside!’ doesn’t make sense to me. Bodies can be outside, inside, they don’t need to be rescued – they’re not hostages. It’s just wrong… ‘We’ll just wait until it’s rectified’ was how I would have liked to have seen it, and I think that that comes out of a climate where the students are so alienated from the administration, and from McGill… It’s really easy to see this line between the two groups: between students and the security, between students and the administration, and when the police show up, between students and the police, because it’s the simplest way to go about addressing the situation. I don’t think it really helps anyone.

MD: How did it feel to be arrested on your own campus?

AP: It’s – more than anything, that’s what pisses me off, is that cops were called into this. I think it’s evidence of the kind of environment that we have on this campus, that really alienates the students from the administration. Although I’ve heard since that the administration actually wasn’t responsible for calling the police, and that it was the security guards, which is still strange to me – that this group that we’ve contracted to keep us safe, as the McGill community, ended up calling the police on us. There’s just something strange there. And I don’t think that the police should have been on campus in the first place. There was no threat from the students towards the administration, or towards the security.

I’m scared now because there’s this huge protest being planned for Monday and a whole bunch of other things, and it’s so easy for this kind of climate to just keep escalating and to really create this division between the administration and the students – and I don’t see that going anywhere positive. I really hope that the administration, even if they don’t want to take full responsibility for what happened [Thursday] night, extends some kind of invitation to some kind of discourse because the simple emails we’ve been getting, and the minimal interaction we’ve had with the administration, has just completely alienated us from them.

MD: Are you aware there’s a sit-in outside of James Administration right now [Friday November 11]?

AP: It’s kind of surreal to be passing that, 18 hours later, after thinking – I thought I was going to spend the entire day in jail and then in court, and then trying to figure out with customs whether or not I was allowed to stay in this country… Then a day later to be passing the exact same spot and realize that it might, actually, just completely blow over – at least the me being arrested part.

I think I got out of jail around 7:45 p.m. or 8:00 p.m… On the way back from jail, I just found myself walking back across campus and there were students leaving the library, and, at the same time, just signs of something that had happened but nobody knew, kids talking about just where they were gonna get drunk. It was really strange. It was really, really strange.

—compiled by Queen Arsem-O’Malley and Erin Hudson

McGill students violently forced off campus

James Administration occupiers allege assault by security