“May ‘68” refers to a series of student demonstration and mass general strikes that took place across France between May and June 1968. Socialist Fightback called the uprisings “the greatest revolutionary general strike in history” in their Facebook event.

The event began with a half-hour presentation by Samantha Ilacqua, a member of Socialist Fightback and a Concordia student, on the historical details of May 1968. A question and answer period followed the presentation and the organizers then invited everyone to join them at an off-campus bar for further discussion.

Origins of May ‘68

The presentation began with an overview of the economic climate in France at the time.

“The living standards of workers were rising and we saw the emergence of a middle class,” Ilacqua said. “There was social stability for a certain section of the working class.”

However, for many people “the working conditions were actually quite poor […] In many places, bosses ran a very strict dictatorial style of management.”

Ilacqua stressed a feeling of disconnect between May ‘68 protestors, and the political and union leadership of the time, who “wrote off the working class as having no revolutionary potential at all.”

She also highlighted the role of youth, saying that “historically many movements begin with the youth, and this was also the case for May 1968.”

“The working conditions were actually quite poor […] In many places, bosses ran a very strict dictatorial style of management.”

She added that “in the early 1960s, students were involved in big movements against the Algerian War and […] were protesting against the restrictive education system,” as well as high unemployment and dropout rates.

Linking student protests and worker strikes

Socialist Fightback’s event largely focused on how a student protest can lead to a massive worker’s strike at the national level.

Ilacqua explained the key events in May, starting with the closure of the Paris-Sorbonne University because of protests, police intervention and brutality, and ending with how the French working class came to join and transform the uprising.

“Ten million people were on strike out of 15 million. That’s two thirds of the work force and only 3.5 million were actually unionized,” pointed out Ilacqua, illustrating the scope of the month’s protests and reiterating the lack of union and political leadership in coordinating these movements.

“Historically many movements begin with the youth, and this was also the case for May 1968.”

Ilacqua emphasized that the agency behind the strikes needs to be attributed to the workers, saying “more and more workers began to join the movement and they began to feel their collective power.”

Members of Socialist Fightback discussed the potential harmful effects such strikes can have on a capitalist system.

“I think what’s amazing about May ‘68 is that it shows that we […] can organize amongst ourselves and continue to provide for these people while hurting the bosses,” said one participant, who did not identify themselves. “I think that’s an essential part of how we can organize in solidarity with workers and students […] it’s something we should put forward when we talk to people, that there is a solution that won’t hurt them but will hurt the system [instead].”

Ultimately, protestors’ morale weakened and de Gaulle was re-elected, partially caused by an exclusionary voting system and the discreditation of socialist parties, putting an end to May ‘68.

May ‘68 and the 2012 Quebec student protests

In terms of the relevance of May 1968 to McGill and Concordia students, many attendees at the event had the 2012 Quebec student protests on their minds.

“I think what’s amazing about May ‘68 is that it shows that we […] can organize amongst ourselves and continue to provide for these people while hurting the bosses. I think that’s an essential part of how we can organize in solidarity with workers and students […] it’s something we should put forward when we talk to people, that there is a solution that won’t hurt them but will hurt the system [instead].”

Kian Kenyon-Dean, a McGill student and member of Socialist Fightback, explained in an email to The Daily that the event didn’t explicitly address the local protests because they were very different from May 68.

“2012 unfortunately largely remained a student movement, while 1968 brought ten million workers out on general strike for a few weeks,” he wrote. “[In 2012] the trade union leaders did not want this, and the student leaders, while many of them had good intentions, did not organize to make this a reality.”

Ilacqua, in an email to The Daily, explained the main objective behind organizing an event like Thursday night’s.

“What we need to do is to study past revolutions, so that we do not repeat the same mistakes as the past,” she wrote. “The workers and students of France rose up to transform society, but were blocked by the lack of direction or even bad direction of the movement that had their heads in the past. We need to build good leadership today to be prepared for movements like this that will happen in the future.”

“2012 unfortunately largely remained a student movement, while 1968 brought ten million workers out on general strike for a few weeks. [In 2012] the trade union leaders did not want this, and the student leaders, while many of them had good intentions, did not organize to make this a reality.”

Joel Bergman, a Fightback organizer present at the event, spoke about the failures and opportunities of socialist solidarity in modern times, especially in regards to movements like Standing Rock.

“I think [Standing Rock] is a good example of […] a failure of the leadership,” explained Bergman. “The IFL-CIO [Iowa Federation of Labor] is opposed to the protests that are happening because they want the pipeline, they’re in favour of supporting the very few number of jobs […] created when that pipeline is constructed.”

“The movement [could] actually win in Dakota […] if the trade union movement came out hard behind the protestors and actually mobilized their members and organized strikes,” concluded Bergman.

The post The influence of May 1968 appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The McGill chapter of Silence is Violence (SiV) launched on August 26, describing itself on Facebook as “a survivor-led collective of community members at McGill to advocate for institutional accountability and tackle rape culture on campus.” The group is part of a wider national network, with chapters already in existence at York University, University of British Columbia, and University of Toronto.

“We need huge, huge systemic changes in Canada to address this issue, and [the] SiV network is at its forefront.”

According to York University’s SiV chapter’s website, the network does not get its name from the silence of survivors, but from that promoted by institutions. It seeks to combat a damaging systemic approach to sexual violence that puts pressure on survivors to keep quiet by casting doubt on their stories and otherwise making their lives more difficult.

“We need huge, huge systemic changes in Canada to address this issue, and [the] SiV network is at its forefront,” wrote Paniz Khosroshahy*, a U3 Women’s Studies student who founded the McGill chapter of SiV, in an email to The Daily.

According to her, there are “administrators [at McGill] that literally re-traumatize students when [the students] report [sexual violence] to them, [and staff that] just sit in a room and repeat ‘I’m sorry that happened to you’ and ‘that sounds frustrating.’” She also stressed that these administrators do not provide material help to ensure safety and access to education.

“Ending sexual violence doesn’t happen by talking, but by taking actual action,” she continued, explaining that for her, the most important thing is ensuring that “students have continued access to education after they’re assaulted.”

“Ending sexual violence doesn’t happen by talking, but by taking actual action.”

Currently there are no systems in place at McGill that prevent a traumatized student from encountering their assailant on campus. This was also the case for Ariane Litalien, an organizer of McGill’s SiV chapter, who was sexually assaulted while pursuing studies at Harvard.

“My assailant lived in my dorm at Harvard, and administrators refused to do anything about it,” Litalien wrote in an email to The Daily. She added that SiV is working to ensure survivors aren’t forced to carry out their education under such circumstances.

As explained on York University’s SiV chapter’s website, the collective does not simply want improvement on these issues. They seek to implement radical change by ensuring that “those who have experienced sexual violence are placed in decision-making and leadership roles.” This would prevent universities from operating in ways that exacerbate trauma due to sexual violence.

“I personally believe that support after a case of sexual assault has occurred is vital […] There are definitely people at McGill who want change and are willing to listen.”

Litalien confirmed that the services already in place at universities such as Harvard are not enough: “We had a Harvard-sponsored Sexual Assault Center, and although I got some incredible help from the angels who work there, the office was severely understaffed and had virtually no power to hold the University accountable for its systematic silencing of survivors.”

A McGill professor who preferred to remain anonymous expressed concern to The Daily in an email: “I personally believe that support after a case of sexual assault has occurred is vital […] There are definitely people at McGill who want change and are willing to listen.”

McGill’s Sexual Assault Policy

McGill’s SiV chapter was also created because of growing frustration toward the University’s lack of response to ,and cooperation with, student demands and initiatives. Since 2013, a student-led working group had been drafting a Sexual Assault Policy for the University, without administrative support. On March 22, 2016, the administration, represented by former Dean of Students André Costopoulos and Associate Provost Angela Campbell, refused to bring the policy forward for approval by the Senate.

Current Dean of Students Christopher Buddle told The Daily in an interview on August 30 that the student-drafted policy has been consulted extensively in developing a new policy to be brought to Senate by the end of 2016. In the interim, however, McGill still lacks official guidelines for handling cases of sexual violence.

“We encourage everyone to provide feedback, which can be done online and anonymously if the commentator so chooses.”

The anonymous professor confirmed this: “There have been calls for feedback over the summer, and a number of groups – including the Senate Subcommittee on Women and the McGill Association of University Teachers (MAUT) – have made a number of recommendations. Faculty members like myself hope to continue to have input during this semester – alongside student groups,” she wrote.

In an email to The Daily, Associate Provost Campbell confirmed that the administration’s draft policy would be published on September 12.

“We encourage everyone to provide feedback, which can be done online and anonymously if the commentator so chooses,” she added.

McGill’s chapter of SiV does not want the policy to focus further on prevention awareness. While it is important, “the phenomenon of consent education [overshadows] any institutional accountability,” Khosroshahy wrote.

“I am involved not because I hate McGill, but because I love it enough to want to make it a better place.”

As such, survivors of sexual assault such as Khosroshahy and Litalien are working to ensure institutions like McGill are held accountable to their students and communities.

“I am involved not because I hate McGill, but because I love it enough to want to make it a better place,” Litalien concluded.

*Disclaimer: Paniz Khosroshahy is a staff writer for The Daily.

An earlier version of this article stated that Paniz Khosroshahy is a Women’s Studies and Computer Science student. In fact, she is now pursuing a degree solely in Women’s Studies. The Daily regrets the error.

An earlier version of this article did not mention that Paniz Khosroshahy is a staff writer for The Daily. The Daily regrets the error. 

The post ‘Silence is Violence’ launches at McGill appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Let us not forget that winners write history, covering up a multitude of narratives and leaving them to be forgotten. The narrative that Remembrance Day chooses to commemorate is not representative of any universal history or sanctimonious truth; it is deliberately chosen by a government and an administration to promote the political decisions that led to war in the past and still lead to war today. Opposition to Remembrance Day is not a gratuitous, reactionary, or uneducated attack on those mourning on November 11. Rather, it is one of the few means that remain at our disposal to confront the jingoistic ideologies tied to a sentiment of collective grief, that while legitimate for some, are a constructed fiction for many.

To mourn and remember may be a natural right that transcends common law, but it is no justification for privileged patriotism to be proudly exercised at the expense of those currently experiencing wars waged by Commonwealth nations. Expressing grief through the fanfare of restrictive symbols, selective history, and arms undermines the value and sincerity of memorial thought altogether. The echoing sounds of gunshots and cannons across Montreal this Wednesday, dubbed “artillery salute,” exemplify this.

One of the more disturbing aspects of Remembrance Day is the disparity between the World War I official narrative and its realities, a discrepancy propagated in Canada to this day. Veterans Affairs Canada says that 68,000 Canadian citizens died between 1914 and 1918 because they “gave their lives and their futures so that we may live in peace.” This notion of giving and sacrifice is constantly used as part of a vocabulary that serves to mythologize and justify death. In reality, World War I was embroiled in an early 20th century thirst for imperialist and colonial power. In the words of the Guardian columnist Seumas Milne, “The bloodbath of 1914-18 was not a just war. It was a savage industrial slaughter perpetrated by a gang of predatory imperial powers, locked in a deadly struggle to capture and carve up territories, markets and resources.” The obscured narratives of World War I are particularly important to uncover, due to the centrality of the war’s of symbolism in Remembrance Day traditions.

Similarly, among British Commonwealth forces in World War I, no one who “fell” did so for a noble cause, and this is perhaps the tragedy that many find so difficult to face: it is much less harrowing if one can say “this war was waged for you, me, and our nation,” rather than “this war was waged for absolutely nothing.” This type of justifying rhetoric was displayed in the selection of John McCrae’s “In Flanders Fields” as the emblematic poem of World War I, turning the red poppy into the symbol that it is now, as well as the phrase “lest we forget” – a phrase from Rudyard Kipling’s poem “Recessional” about how the British empire will only be saved once we remember the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In George Orwell’s “Essay on Kipling,” he says: “It is no use pretending that Kipling’s view of life […] can be accepted or even forgiven. […] There is a definite strain of sadism in him, over and above the brutality which a writer of that type has to have. Kipling is a jingo imperialist, he is morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.” Why do we honour poets like Kipling, who use verse as a call to arms, over poets who, rather than praising war, denounced the futility of it? Wilfred Owen’s lines written in 1917, which detail the cost of war on human lives, are instead worth our attention:

“If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: ‘Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori’ [‘it is sweet and honourable to die for one’s country’].”

Indeed, renewed idealizations of the war only serve to retell an old lie.

Too often, we are told that those who died in “The Great War” died for our sake, for the sake of democracy, and for my freedom to write these words, but this simply is not true. The motivations behind the war were intrinsically intertwined with white supremacy, competitive industrialization, and a scramble for domination. At the turn of the century, the urge to import raw materials in order to satisfy consumer needs in the metropole was fueled by a discourse suggesting that “Western” countries could and needed to better the rest of the “savage” world. Kipling, as the bard of the “civilized world,” made such Eurocentrism and racism rhyme in his famous poem “The White Man’s Burden.” This sense of entitlement and domination was in no way vital to the wellbeing of the allied nations; its only purpose was to appease a greed for foreign capital and justify a colonizing mission.

When remembering World War I, it is cowardly to ignore the role of the war’s conscientious objectors in past resistance movements. No justice is done to the history of previous generations in failing to recognize their social and economic situations at the time, especially their absence from the decision-making process that declared war in their name. Voting conditions in the early 20th century were abysmal, as many men of colour or without property were denied full suffrage, and women in Quebec also couldn’t vote until the 1940s. The patriarchal glorification of the male war hero in narratives of war continually omits the fact that many men were forced to fight against their will by conscription and out of poverty.

The narratives promoted also often fail to recognize the vital work done by women during wartime and, perhaps most of all, relegate the involvement of racialized peoples to a third place. The experiences of Indigenous and other racialized peoples in wars are constantly understated and left out of history, which only perpetuates and normalizes the exploitative discourse that forced a number of them to fight for and alongside the very same people who occupied their lands and committed genocides of their people throughout Africa, the Americas, the Middle East, South Asia, and Oceania. During the East African Campaign, part of what colonizers called the “African Theatre” of World War I, the death toll of African porters – comprised of civilian men, women, and children – far exceeded that of European soldiers. According to Edward Paice at the Africa Research Institute, 95,000 porters alone died carrying supplies for British troops.

What we do, and don’t remember on campus

In light of these factors complicating dominant narratives, the theatrics of Remembrance Day on the McGill campus seem absurd. Soldiers carrying weapons and performing salutes supposedly teach us not to repeat conflicts like those of the past, but their mere presence advocates for their present-day use. Setting up tools of violence in a dramatized context serves only to romanticize and fictionalize a brutality that is a very real experience for some. It should go without saying that out of the 30,000 students at McGill, it’s likely that gunshots and tanks rolling past the Roddick Gates could be traumatic for some, and no amount of remembrance is worth this trauma; remembering the past should never come at the expense of those living in the present.

Those who support Remembrance Day on the grounds that it teaches us not to engage in war are neglecting the fact that wars are indeed being fought at present – but out of sight and out of mind. Syria is now one of the present-day battlegrounds for international conflicts and interventionism, but because there is a lack of repercussion on Canadian soil, the terrible effects of war elsewhere do not resonate with many Canadians. Remembrance Day not only commemorates violence of the past, but violence of the present. As long as militaries are actively perpetuating state violence and calling it “benign” and “defensive,” these official events are validating past warmongering and essentially giving everyone a thumbs up to continue.

No amount of remembrance is worth this trauma; remembering the past should never come at the expense of those living in the present.

The height of irony is reached when recognizing that the weapons brought onto campus each November 11 are in fact being brought onto unceded Kanien’kehá:ka traditional territory. While the administration has been busy planning events to commemorate war, it has completely ignored repeated initiatives to merely recognize that the university sits on unceded land.

Remembrance Day becomes a show of double standards and hypocrisy when one contemplates the University’s complicity in perpetuating war across the world. Student groups have uncovered and criticized research conducted at McGill that could be used for the development of weapons and surveillance programs. For example, student group Demilitarize McGill found that researchers at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering’s Shock Wave Physics Group (SWPG) were establishing technical foundations that could be used for manufacturing thermobaric weapons. Additionally, McGill mechanical engineering professors and researchers have signed contracts with Canada’s Department of National Defence.

Admonishing war and commemorating the deceased while having a hand in perpetuating more wars is nothing short of deceitful. That these double standards exist is a relic of an archaic moral code that commands individuals not to kill some on the one hand, while encouraging them to kill others in the name of nationalism on the other.

Resisting state violence

This isn’t to say that a rejection of militarism requires one to reject the validity of all violence. Indeed, while violence is legitimized by states to suit the needs of some and deny the agency of others, painting the situation white with absolute pacifism is not a useful response. Whether it is narrowly choosing to see Remembrance Day as an advocation of peacekeeping or actively advocating for an idealized and universal peace, both responses serve to silence crucial forms of emancipatory violence. Unseen from the discourse on our campus is the mention of countless people for whom fighting is the only answer when given the choice between resistance or obliteration. The final means of empowerment – revolt – deserves respect that should neither be undermined by unwarranted state violence nor ignored in pacifist discourse. We must consider the scale of oppressive violence that is enacted against many, and weigh the necessity of certain acts against this disproportionate repression, before casting judgement – be it on the civil unrest of protesters in Ferguson, the stone throwers in Palestine, or the Kanien’kehá:ka in Ka’nehsatà:ke during the Oka Crisis 25 years ago.

So this week, when students, faculty, and community members walk past each other wearing poppies, remember that there are legitimate reasons for opposing the symbolism of Remembrance Day, which justifies wars for comfort, fear, and material interests. This dissent aims not be divisive for the sake of controversy, but rather to challenge ideas that have dire repercussions, whether they are felt personally by the dissenters or not. The aggressiveness that Remembrance Day protesters on campus were met with a year ago is a sign of the intolerant nationalist zeal that comes with such a day, only being encouraged by the events displayed on campus. In hosting Montreal’s Remembrance Day ceremony, McGill as an educational establishment fails to set an example for its students, and instead chooses to perpetuate a tradition of misguided pride. Remembering those whom we lost should not be a nationalistic project. In the meantime, perhaps we will be able to bridge our differences on the small hope that in the coming years a Remembrance Day article like this will no longer be a necessity.

The post What we remember appeared first on The McGill Daily.