The first instance of suppression began well over a year ago. Montreal’s police force, the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), began to frequently prevent people from protesting by unjustifiably deeming protests illegal and then attacking them within seconds. The SPVM have followed this procedure since the student strike, but especially since the movement lost its power, kettling and ticketing hundreds of protesters on numerous occasions. The clear beneficiaries of this crackdown are the state and corporate interests, which perceive anti-capitalist, anti-police brutality, and tuition-related protests as a threat to ‘business as usual’ in Quebec.

 The second instance of suppression is more recent. Many out-of-province students were prevented from voting in the provincial elections in Quebec a couple months ago. The Parti Québécois (PQ) is thought to have been behind this suppression, believing that they would benefit from restricting the political rights of certain students. The suppression occurred due to students’ supposed inability to prove that they are domiciled in Quebec. Yet many students who were barred from voting did, in fact, fulfill all of the necessary voting qualifications. As such, these students were likely turned away from the polls due to their place of education, first language, or original provincial affiliation, as the PQ believed that out-of-province anglophone students would vote against them en masse.

Many Canadians see voting as the only legitimate method of political participation. Any other form of protest is something to be condemned.

These two instances have quite a bit in common. In both situations, young people attempted to express themselves politically, and were prevented from doing so with vague references to domicile requirements and municipal bylaws. Additionally, in each instance a force – government, state, capital – attempted to prevent political expression for its own benefit. Both cases are clear examples of a systematic violation of young peoples’ right to political expression.

Yet only one of these instances received serious media coverage throughout Canada. The voter suppression scandal was a massive story covered by most national media outlets. People across the country called for justice, and were shocked that rights were being so flagrantly violated. Meanwhile, the brutal crackdown on protests in Montreal over the last couple of years has been largely ignored by most of the media, especially outside of Quebec.

How can one deride a generation of young people for not being politically active and then support attempts to crack down on their activism?

This disparity in coverage exists for one simple reason: many Canadians see voting as the only legitimate method of political participation. Any other form of protest is something to be condemned. This is why stuffy political commentators will point to voter turnout rates as proof of supposed youth apathy. This is why many Canadians celebrate those who vote, while demonizing those who protest. This is why Canadians were outraged over one example of political suppression while ignoring or supporting another.

Canadians, especially those who chastise supposed youth apathy, make two mistakes in their disregard for the political suppression of protesting youths in Quebec. First, they ignore evidence that, contrary to their tired claims, young people are politically active. Second, they undermine their stated desire to see young people become politically active by failing to condemn those who prevent this participation instead of encouraging it. How can one deride a generation of young people for not being politically active and then support attempts to crack down on their activism?

Canadians need to accept that youth political expression is not, and should not, be limited only to voting. It must be made up of a diversity of tactics and produce consequences that challenge mainstream norms. If Canadians cannot accept this, then they cannot complain about youth apathy without being hypocritical. Either Canadians do not want young people to express themselves politically, or they just want a neutered form of expression stripped of subversion – which, in the end, is hardly expression at all.

Davide Mastracci is a graduating History & Political Science student and a former Daily Copy Editor. He can be reached at davide.mastracci@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Fetishizing the vote appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Click on each quote to read more.

“There’s many applications: fire surveillance, harvest surveillance […] Police forces are using UAVs to help them with search and rescue operations.”

Inna Sharf, McGill professor of mechanical engineering, and researcher at the Aerospace Mechatronics Laboratory

UAVs, or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, are colloquially known as drones, and have attracted attention in recent years for their role in wars waged on foreign turf, and for allowing those wars to be waged in a detached, methodical fashion. In the above quotation, Sharf defended her lab’s research, which has the goal of making landings and take-offs for UAVs more autonomous, by pointing to its potential use in civilian matters. Sharf’s lab receives funding from the Canadian military; this came to light this year through the release of documents obtained through the Access to Information Act.

Resistance to military-funded research has developed on campus in recent years. Demilitarize McGill, a campus group founded in 2009, seeks to end military research at McGill and raises awareness through walking tours of campus, workshops, and articles published in student press. Its members also engage in direct action. On March 14, in response to revelations that defence contracts fund Sharf’s lab’s UAV work, Demilitarize McGill blockaded the Aerospace Mechatronics Laboratory for close to four hours. Seen as an obstruction of university work, the demonstration was dispersed by invoking McGill’s protest protocol and the arrival of police on campus.

McGill has responded that research at the university is “[conduct[ed] with integrity and adhere[s] to the highest ethical standards.” While researchers point to potential applications outside of warfare, Kevin Paul, member of Demilitarize McGill, asserted that military-funded research at McGill is dependent on the possibility of warfare, “McGill benefits when war is being waged by virtue of the wide array of military research opportunities and labs that arguably would not exist without military funding.”

Demilitarize McGill continues its ongoing campaign to disrupt, and eventually end, drone research on campus. In the meantime, McGill has released a series of heavily redacted documents in response to Demilitarize McGill’s access to information requests regarding military research at the university.

—Drew Wolfson Bell and Anqi Zhang

“Among the opponents to the Charter, a number of people fall within a fundamentalist movement. […] They become the first victims of the large-scale manipulation orchestrated by Islamists under the pretext of an attack on individual freedoms.”

Martine Desjardins, former student leader and current Parti Québécois candidate, criticizing opposition to Bill 60, the ‘Quebec Charter of Values.’ (translated from French)

On September 10, 2013, Parti Québécois (PQ) Minister Bernard Drainville officially proposed a ‘Quebec Charter of Values.’ The Charter includes five proposals seeking to regulate interactions between state officials and the public, but only one proposal has garnered significant attention. This proposal would “limit the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols” for state employees. In practice, this means that state employees would be prevented from freely expressing their religion if the Charter passes, potentially at the expense of their jobs. Banned religious symbols would include hijabs, burqas, turbans, kippas, and ‘large’ Orthodox crosses.

Debate erupted after the Charter was proposed, leading to numerous anti- and pro-Charter rallies. Those opposing the Charter have claimed that it unfairly targets religious minorities, and as such, is racism barely disguised under a label of secularism. This claim has been reinforced by a reported increase in hate crimes against religious minorities, such as Muslim women, as part of the public fallout since the Charter was first proposed. A Léger survey released in January 2014 found that 60 per cent of Quebecers polled support this component of the Charter.

In early March, the PQ called an election for April 7, with the intention of emerging from the election as a majority government. If this occurs, the PQ will likely push the Charter into law. Other major parties have failed to explicitly condemn the Charter in its entirety, and have instead endorsed altered versions that still prevent certain religious minorities from freely practicing religion. As such, the fate of religious minorities’ place in the public workforce in Quebec remains unclear, regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election.

—Davide Mastracci

“That’s what food justice is: working with those most affected by an unjust food system, rather than creating spaces outside of it only accessible to the privileged.”

Aaron Vansintjan, “The potential of food banks”

This year, the column “A Bite of Food Justice” by Aaron Vansintjan turned a critical eye to contemporary narratives of food politics and sustainability. In tackling topics like land grabbing, gentrification, and dispossession, Vansintjan created a narrative that included broader themes of food security in the face of ongoing colonialism and capitalism. Alternating between a historical context and current events, and between a specific Montreal focus and case studies elsewhere, from rural Ontario to urban Hanoi, Vansintjan investigated and reported on a broad range of social politics in his seven columns.

—E.k. Chan

“Every story we tell of our dead is also a story of those of us who still live: a cautionary tale, a political fable, a remembrance of what happened, and what is still happening.”

Kai Cheng Thom, “For moonlight siblings on the Transgender Day of Remembrance”

In Kai Cheng Thom’s second year of writing as a columnist, they took a different stylistic turn by penning a series of open letters, in From Gaysia with Love. Addressing their letters to personal role models like Janet Mock and CeCe Macdonald, as well explicitly addressing broader audiences at times, Thom wrote with poetic flare on a broad range of subject matter in their nine columns. Covering intersections of transness, sexuality, race, class, and other factors, the intimate nature of epistolary writing drew personal connections and contrasts between Thom and their addressees, which in turn related to broader, societal issues, such as rape culture, transmisogyny, homophobia, and racism. Writing about their own experiences cast a tangible light on normally abstracted concepts, grounding these discussions in a daily, lived reality.

—E.k. Chan

“All of those expectations for me to be masculine, to act a certain way and to live up to an ideal, were thrown out the window.”

Eric White, on dressing in drag for the first time, in “Sore feet and smokey eyes”

White Noise, a column by Eric White, broached topics of queerness in Montreal, using personal experience as a jumping-off point. In his writing on heteronormativity, polyamory, drag, and the contemporary notions of what it means to be ‘queer,’ White broached critical discussions that remained accessible to the student body. In his columns, White refrained from invoking highly academic terms and instead focused on a relatable narrative, through which urban queerness could be explored and critiqued.

—E.k. Chan

[/raw]

The post Year in review: Commentary appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Each component of the strategy against drugs (prohibition, deterrence, punishment) has led to disastrous consequences. The prohibition of a wide range of drugs is the most well-funded manifestation of the idea that people must be prevented from using drugs. For example, the U.S. has spent at least $1 trillion over the last 40 years in an attempt to destroy the supply of drugs that millions of their citizens demand. This effort has failed, as the U.S. leads the world in drug use, with an increasing rate of illegal consumption.

The next step in most states’ anti-drug strategy is deterrence. Since state efforts to destroy drugs have been tremendous failures, states should determine that they need to attempt to convince their citizens not to experiment. Providing accurate information regarding the negative effects of drugs is extremely important, yet most information the government relies upon grossly exaggerates the negative effects of drugs in an attempt to make the deterrent factor more effective. This is prevalent in numerous examples of television anti-drug campaigns and the scientific studies they rely upon, such as one by Dr. George Ricaurte, published in 2002, which claimed that one hit of MDMA could cause Parkinson’s or death in primates. The study was retracted shortly after publication as it turned out the scientists had used extremely high doses of methamphetamine in their tests instead of MDMA. Despite this, Congress members quoted the study extensively, leading Marsha Rosenbaum, director of the Safety First Project of the Drug Policy Alliance, to claim that “[this] study looks like high-class ‘Reefer Madness.’ The government’s trying to scare the kids out of experimentation and into abstinence, and it just doesn’t work.”

Finally, the state drafts and enforces punishments for those who decide to do drugs regardless of all the deterrent efforts. These punishments are deeply flawed in three ways. Primarily, the logical basis of these punishments is that taking a substance that only harms you means you deserve to be punished so that you will stop doing said substance. These laws impede on an individual’s agency but are also tremendously ineffective at aiding individuals who may have addictions as a result of their drug use.

Additionally, these punishments disproportionately affect the most marginalized within society in numerous ways. For example, black people make up 13 per cent of the U.S. population, but 56 per cent of those incarcerated for drug-related crimes (and this has nothing to do with drug usage rates, as white people are more likely to use drugs and develop addictions than black people, according to a 2011 study from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.)

These ineffective and racist punishments also create a costly cycle that does nothing to stop the drug problem, but only adds to the prison problem. From 1973 (three years after the agreed-upon start of the “War on Drugs” in the U.S.) to 2009, the prison population has grown by 705 per cent. These typically unjust prison sentences are funded by tax payer dollars and have destroyed families and communities from the inside out.

Essentially, the policies that have emerged from the notion that people must be prevented from doing drugs are clearly ineffective. So, despite all of the ‘tough on drugs for your benefit’ rhetoric, it is astonishingly clear that drug-prohibiting states do not actually care about their citizens’ health as it pertains to drug use. If they did, they would drastically alter their anti-drug strategy instead of spending more money on the same things to get worse results.
Future drug policies should start from a refined conception of health in relation to drugs which seeks to ensure that people purchase and use drugs in the safest way possible, instead of banning them from doing so. This conception would treat citizens like autonomous adults instead of like children who are told what to do. This means that current policies regarding prohibition, deterrence, and punishment must be turned on their head.

Rather than prohibiting drugs, drugs should be legalized and distributed by the state to ensure that drugs are not dangerously laced; this would simultaneously destroy the income source criminal networks rely upon. Then, rather than harshly punishing those who use drugs, the state should offer rehabilitation and support to those who desire it. This has been the model in Portugal since all drugs were decriminalized in 2001, and it has resulted in reduced drug use and reduced rates of addiction to hard drugs, which have dropped by 50 per cent. Finally, rather than seeking to use exaggerated health effects to scare people away from using drugs, states should properly fund areas where people can learn how to use drugs safely. For example, safe injection sites in Vancouver have aided local drug users tremendously, as there have been no deaths on the site even though over 2 million people have used it in the last ten years.

While these examples are steps forward, it will take much more than a few minor reforms in a broken drug system to solve the ever- expanding problem. The way drugs are dealt with in society needs to be revolutionized. This must begin by reconceptualizing how policies should deal with health in relation to drugs.

The post The war that can’t be won appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Lu and Zahar sent a mass email to their colleagues on September 10, outlining their grievances with the proposed charter and then calling for professors throughout Quebec to protest it. The form of protest they recommend in their email is for professors to “adopt and wear visible religious symbols of their choosing in classes and lectures” during a “Week of Action, starting on Thursday, September 12.”

This call to action is problematic for numerous reasons. Primarily, it does little to encourage the National Assembly to reject the proposed charter. The action would be more meaningful if the charter had already passed, as it would force the PQ to decide if they would be willing to lose a great number of public sector employees in order to enforce their charter. Still, this hinges on the possibility that the charter would apply to universities; at this point, whether this would be the case is unknown, as universities will be able to opt-out of implementing the proposed Charter.

Of course it is likely that Lu and Zahar do not intend their call to action to be anything more than an act of solidarity. Yet their call to action is flawed even – and perhaps especially – as an act of solidarity, as it veers into being culturally appropriative.

Under Lu and Zahar’s call to action, a professor choosing to wear a hijab – one of the symbols included in the PQ’s proposed ban – for a lecture can take it off when the lecture ends. When the ‘Week of Action’ finishes, the professor can go back to their ordinary life without a hijab. Yet for those who would actually be affected by the PQ’s proposed charter, the hijab is ordinary life. As such, the latter would be faced with serious consequences the professors appropriating the hijab wouldn’t: either to quit their job, or to give up a piece of their identity and lived experience.

Furthermore, Lu and Zahar unintentionally mirror the PQ’s discourse on religious symbols. The PQ charter wouldn’t ban religious symbols entirely; it would only do so for public sector employees on the job. This implies the PQ believes these religious symbols can be worn and discarded at will. Professors who wouldn’t normally wear religious symbols doing so sends across the same message by treating the religious symbols as costume parts that can be taken off when the ‘Week of Action’ is over. Most who wear the religious symbols in question don’t treat those items like casual clothes that can be switched around in day-to-day use, as Lu and Zahar are doing.

If the charter were to pass, it would be of most concern to those who wear the symbols for religious or cultural reasons, not those doing so in protest of the charter, or for any potential casual purposes. When Lu and Zahar claim that “even an atheist who may want to wear a religious symbol for non-religious but perhaps aesthetic reasons, would be prohibited from doing so,” it only makes their call to action more open to concerns of cultural appropriation.

Lu and Zahar’s grievances with the proposed charter used to justify their call to action are also troubling. Throughout their email to professors, they attack the proposed ban by highlighting the troubles it could bring to the economy and integration, among other more legitimate reasons. They claim that “the Charter will only deprive the public sector of much-needed qualified workers,” who they claim have a “desire to contribute to the common good of society.” They also state that the charter would “make integration of new immigrants harder,” which is important for them since they claim to “agree with the PQ government that integration is the desired goal for new immigrants to Quebec.”

Both of these reasons for opposing the Charter (economic and integration) shouldn’t matter. Citizens should be permitted to wear a religious symbol – regardless of its impact on the economy – because it is an essential form of expression. As for the goal of integration, of course many Quebeckers who wear a religious symbol appreciate Quebec and want to contribute to Quebec society. But those who don’t particularly care for Quebec, and are working solely to make money, still deserve the right to wear those symbols in the workplace. Coupling the permissibility of a basic freedom with economic or societal requirements is very troubling, and it is wrong of Lu and Zahar to have done so.

Professors – and other Quebeckers who may take up Lu and Zahar’s call to action – should continue to protest the proposed charter, but not by culturally appropriating the symbols they want to defend.

Davide Mastracci is a U3 History & Political Science student and a Daily Copy Editor. He can be reached at davide.mastracci@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Take it off appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As these students walked up to the building’s sixth floor, they were simultaneously stepping outside of McGill’s inefficient student democratic system to solve their problems. Yet their strategy failed, partially due to a series of serious mistakes on their part. This is why 6Party (as the occupation would come to be known) became a important source of lessons. I present a collection of lessons I took from this moment in history at McGill, realized through research but mainly from interviews I conducted with the occupiers. My hope is that future students can be inspired to take action by 6Party and learn from their strategic mistakes.

***

The 6Party occupation took place in the volatile 2011-12 academic year. In November, CKUT and QPIRG – two independent student groups – were scheduled to hold existence referendums which would determine if they continue to exist. However, this was not the only concern the organizations had on their mind. In 2007, CKUT and QPIRG had an online opt-out system forced upon them by the McGill administration. CKUT and QPIRG wanted the in-person opt-out system reinstated as it allowed them greater security in the face of financial instability.

Thus, CKUT and QPIRG incorporated their desire for the end of the online opt-out system into their referendum questions. The questions were formatted so that only two options were possible: either the organization would continue to exist and would be opt-outable in person, or the organization would no longer continue to exist. The questions’ wording would later prove to be an issue, but they were approved by various checks and balances and were placed on referendum ballots.

By November 10, the results of the referenda were in. CKUT and QPIRG both won, by 72 and 66 per cent, respectively.  This should have meant that both organizations would return to existing outside of the jurisdiction of the online opt-out system. Things did not turn out to be that simple. Two months later, the McGill administration announced that the results of the referendum would not be recognized. The administration claimed that the referendum questions were in direct violation of the SSMU Constitution as they allegedly contained two questions (one regarding existence, one regarding the opt-out system).

***

McGill’s decision to invalidate the referendum results was an abuse of power. The only body at McGill technically allowed to overturn referendum results is the Judicial Board (J-Board). Two students had launched a case against QPIRG’s referendum results through the J-Board, but this was irrelevant as McGill made its decision on the matter clear.  The McGill administration decided to circumvent McGill’s democratic process to impose its ruling.

The cumulative effect of poor administrative decisions that year finally boiled over, leading a group of McGill students to begin planning 6Party. At this point these students had found an important cause that many students were concerned with. Yet from here on out, most of the decisions the students made backfired.

***

The first mistake the occupiers made occurred during the planning stages of the occupation. Many members of the McGill community saw an earlier occupation in November as threatening due to the masks and black clothes the occupiers wore. The occupiers then decided to make 6Party more positive by styling it as a resignation party; they would wear clown wigs, bring balloons and a cake, and set up speakers to hold dance parties. They would also ‘party’ until their two main demands were met: the recognition of CKUT and QPIRG’s referendum results, and the resignation of Morton Mendelson, the Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning), who the occupiers partially blamed for the administration’s behaviour.

This idea backfired as many McGill students did not view 6Party as a fun occupation with a serious message. Instead, they saw a group of seemingly ‘immature’ students dressed up and dancing in the midst of midterm season. Danji Buck-Moore, a former McGill student and 6Party occupier, expressed his frustration with this perception claiming, “What was disappointing I guess was that people saw it as being very childish; that was the word that was being thrown around a lot, or being immature. From my perspective I thought the backlash was almost hypocritical […] Do this one way and it’s perceived as being threatening and violent, do it another way and you’re perceived as being childish and immature.” Rather than preventing the occupation from being threatening, the party theme prevented it from being taken seriously.

***

The occupiers’ next mistake occurred on the day of the occupation itself. The occupiers set up a distraction rally in support of CKUT and QPIRG to allow themselves easier access to the James Admin building. When they entered the building unimpeded, students at the rally received the news and rushed to the site of the occupation. McGill student and 6Party occupier Solomon* was hidden on the first floor. They ran past security to open the now locked doors, allowing the mass of protesters to flood in. Solomon described the scene vividly, “We were all singing ‘It’s a Wonderful World’ and this huge crowd of people comes in. And then Midnight Kitchen comes in and all these people are there. We’re handing out coffee and we were having such a wonderful time downstairs and we made the administration building our own.”

The first floor occupation had evacuated by the next morning, leaving only 20 occupiers on the sixth floor. 6Party was not large enough, even for an occupation unconcerned with mass representative democracy, because it did not present a serious financial or logistical threat to McGill.

***

Due to 6Party’s failure to present a serious financial threat to McGill, it should be classified as a symbolic action rather than a direct action. Current McGill student and 6Party occupier Alex Lacroix described this distinction in relation to 6Party claiming, “People have this divide between symbolic actions and direct actions. So like, ‘No, I’m not going to go on a march, I’m going to go smash a bank window.’ […] These people shouldn’t be fooling themselves. That’s not a real action. That’s what will show up on the news the next day. So that means they go in trying to have this incredibly direct action and what they get is probably the most highly mediated action.”

Though 6Party was more of a symbolic action, a symbolic action can be as effective as a direct action. Yet as a symbolic action, 6Party was even more lacklustre than as a direct action because it failed to gain mass popular support.

Primarily, the 6Party occupiers failed to use social media properly. When the occupiers entered the James Administration building, they knew they would be faced with an uphill battle. Most McGill students are fine with ignoring student politics until they can’t; then, they typically crack down on whoever caused them to have to break their routine and pay attention. In this case, the culprit was the 6Party occupation. The reaction to the party theme Buck-Moore mentioned made it difficult for students to listen to the occupiers’ actual demands. Yet the press source that came to represent 6Party, and which would have been crucial for a successful symbolic action, made the occupiers’ public image even worse.

In the opening hours of the occupation, 6Party had no means set up to communicate with the outside world. A blog started by McGill student on leave and 6Party occupier Ethan Feldman, known as the Milton Avenue Revolutionary Press (MARP), inadvertently filled the communication void. MARP offered a live blog of what was going on inside the James Admin building with a satirical style, mimicking pieces of Maoist propaganda. Feldman claimed that other “extreme leftists” critiqued the blog calling it “too masculinist, too stupid.” He added that MARP “was vulgar and vile and it didn’t really fit the super positive party theme.”

MARP’s inflammatory content became a serious problem for 6Party when McGill sent a mass email to all staff and students linking to the MARP on the second day of the occupation, claiming that the occupiers’ demands could be found on the blog. At this point, thousands of students were exposed to the MARP’s content, permanently scarring the face of the occupation. Solomon expressed frustration with how seriously the blog was taken, stating, “People who went to MARP and pulled out stuff and then used it for whatever they were going to argue, we were just like, ‘No! Don’t go to MARP cause MARP is just calling everyone fascists.’ [laughs] Whoever is not part of the communist revolution is a fascist! That’s what MARP was talking about. And if you can’t recognize the absurdity of that then…” Yet Solomon also added that the blog’s intentions didn’t matter when it was being received in a far different way by most students.

By the time the administration linked to MARP, official 6Party press sources existed that provided relevant information. So, McGill certainly used their email system to deal a strategic blow to 6Party. While this was inappropriate, it should have come as no surprise to the occupiers who were well-versed in the administration’s shady behaviour.

***

Though the occupiers’ action, and lack of proper media strategy, made it easy for McGill students to react negatively, an organized opposition arose to ensure that 6Party would fail as a symbolic action. The opposition’s first move was creating a Facebook event titled “The James 6th Floor Occupiers Do NOT Represent me.” The event warned of a group of radical students taking over campus politics who had to be stopped, and was an effective display of clicktivism. Over 2000 students marked themselves as attending this event in the first couple days of the occupation.

The students who created this event, however, were no more in line with the “silent majority” than the occupiers. Most of these students had taken part in organizing politically motivated opt-out campaigns against CKUT and QPIRG in the past, which were not broadly supported either. Still, the medium of activism these students used was perfectly designed for largely apathetic McGill students. Solomon explains the troubling nature of the opposition’s tactics saying they were “coming at it from a neutral perspective. They were saying they were the voice of reason and […] moderation. One of the most insidious ways of making your voice seem like it’s not the oppressive voice is to hide it in the veil of tolerance [… ]I think if we were to decouple [them] from this, we would have had much more power […] All the liberals on the fence listened to them. The best thing to do is to win over the people on the fence; the liberals.”  The conservative opposition had gained mass support from the general “liberal” students, at least on paper, destroying 6Party’s ability to be a successful symbolic action.

***

Finally, the McGill administration’s response to the occupation prevented it from becoming a successful symbolic action. The administration’s most important decision was to refrain from calling in the police immediately as they had done earlier in the year, which had led to students and professors on campus being pepper sprayed and beaten indiscriminately. Instead, the administration used other tactics to force the occupiers out. This included cutting off power, internet, food access, and eventually bathroom access for the occupiers. Though there was some backlash to these events, it did not do much damage to McGill’s public image.

Eventually the administration decided to use the threat of force against 6Party. On the sixth day of the occupation an eviction notice came knocking on 6Party’s doors. McGill security guards and several police officers informed the occupiers that they had five minutes to gather their things and get out of the building and off campus. The occupiers complied with police demands.  There was little outcry regarding the police presence on campus used to force the occupiers out, as the administration had let the occupation drag out until it lost momentum. Buck-Moore claimed, “We were there [6Party] very clearly in a moment when we weren’t welcome to be there. There weren’t any people who ‘weren’t doing anything wrong’ who got police action brought against them. That was very much a difference from November 10 […] There was a massive moment of the student body feeling unsafe on November 10 […] Whereas in February […] I don’t think anyone else felt like the police presence affected them on campus.” 6Party ended six days after it started, with none of its demands met and the issues the occupiers had fought for still at stake.

***

In the coming days and weeks, the issue was settled through the system the 6Party occupiers sought to avoid. The J-Board case launched by two McGill students concluded with QPIRG’s results being invalidated. Though many doubted the legitimacy of this ruling due to the plaintiff’s history of political opposition to QPIRG, it was clear that the official system had disagreed with the occupiers’ belief that the referendum questions were legitimate.

However, during the occupation the McGill administration announced that the existence portion of CKUT and QPIRG’s referendum questions would be recognized.  Still, if these organizations wanted to have the online opt-out system revoked, they would need to hold another referendum. CKUT announced they would be holding another election in March. They failed to win this referendum, with only 42 per cent support, a notable drop from the 72 per cent they had previously held.  QPIRG chose not to hold another referendum. The online opt-out system is still in place for both organizations.

6Party likely contributed to CKUT’s loss of support, as many students ended up associating CKUT and QPIRG with 6Party. Louise Burns, a board and staff member at CKUT, described the negative effect of this connection. “I’m sure there was a negative backlash,” she said. ‘It was bound to have a negative backlash just in terms of students who, practically speaking, were inconvenienced, or from people who perhaps would have felt neutral towards CKUT or QPIRG who now had a reason to be annoyed or irked by us.”

The occupiers were also aware that this connection may have been possible. Some directly stated that the occupation probably did harm CKUT’s referendum, while others noted that they couldn’t be sure, but felt it was a possibility.

***

I perceive 6Party as a cycle of sorts. The occupiers were enraged by McGill’s disregard for student democracy. Due to this, the occupier’s launched 6Party as a means to empower themselves to solve the issues they had, without waiting for a system they felt was stacked against them. However, the action failed. Because it wasn’t destructive enough financially, it had to rely on the force of public opinion for its impact. Yet most students at McGill seemed to be against 6Party, which prevented the administration from having a serious crisis on its hands. The occupiers’ failure caused them to come full circle back to the inefficient system they despised to resolve the issues they had. Their action stacked this system even more against them than before, partially causing none of their demands to be met.

In my interviews with the occupiers, it was clear that they took their movement seriously and are not unaware of its deficiencies. In fact, they were quite open and frank about where 6Party failed, and what could have been done better. In terms of judging 6Party by its explicit demands, most of the occupiers agreed that it was a failure. Yet, the occupiers also listed ways it succeeded including the connections and friendships they made through it, the feeling of support they got from some fellow students, and its potential to inspire others in the future.

6Party’s potential to inspire is its most important feature. While 6Party failed, it did no serious damage to CKUT or QPIRG, as both organizations continue to exist and have attempted to make up the funds lost through the online opt-out system by raising their student fees. As for the occupiers, though they were forced to go through trials, most of the occupiers came out with a mere warning as punishment. As such, 6Party did no permanent damage to the occupiers, CKUT, or QPIRG.

The issues the occupiers partied for are still plaguing McGill. This is why the need to inspire is so important. Unless students are willing to take a few moments out of the daily grind of academic life, McGill’s student politics will only continue to deteriorate. While they certainly could have done things better, the most important thing the occupiers did was make a moment in history that McGill students won’t forget. As long as the problems 6Party fought for continue to exist, students who are troubled by them will as well. If 6Party can provide these students with the spark needed to set a political fire to McGill, it will have been a worthy venture. Until then, it’s clear that the party isn’t over.

*Name has been changed

The post 6Party and the morning after appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Many would argue the latter. Originally, the Egyptian grassroots movement Tamarod, formed in April of this year, created a petition calling for Morsi to resign from his position and for new elections to be held. This petition reportedly amassed 22 million signatures before June 30; by contrast, Morsi was originally voted into power with 13 million votes.

On June 30, Tamarod called for protests across Egypt to demand Morsi’s resignation. Some estimates of this protest allege that 14 million Egyptians took part. As protests continued, Morsi refused to cede power, despite demands from protesters and, later, the Egyptian army. On July 3, when he had not stepped down from power, the Egyptian military announced the end of Morsi’s presidency, suspended the constitution, and declared that a new election would be held.

Many have labelled these events as a coup d’etat. In an article for the Independent, Robert Fisk claimed, “The army t[ook] over, depose[d] and imprison[ed] the democratically elected president, suspend[ed] the constitution, arrest[ed] the usual suspects, close[d] down television stations and mass[ed] their armour in the streets of the capital.” Fisk furthered his point by adding, “Morsi was indeed elected in a real, Western-approved election.”

This view has been channeled by much of the Western press, though notably not directly by the American government nor the European Union. Fisk claims this is because if they – specifically the American government – labelled the events in Egypt as a coup, it “would force the US to impose sanctions on the most important Arab nation at peace with Israel.”

As clashes continue in Egypt, and pro-Morsi protesters are continually targeted, the answer to the question – was Morsi’s ouster a revolution or a coup? – remains murky.

* * *

On July 10, bringing the debate closer to home, the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), a Marxist group with a local chapter in Montreal, held an event at Café Gitana to discuss the recent upheaval in Egypt. The discussion presented a view far different than Fisk’s. The event description asked such questions as, “Is this a coup d’état as is said in the capitalist media? Or is this the second stage of the Egyptian revolution which began two years ago? Did the army truly act on behalf of the revolution, or perhaps it is trying to protect its own privileges by throwing the Muslim Brotherhood under the bus?”

The event centered around a speech, given in English by IMT member Fehr Marouf and subsequently translated into French, began with a brief history of recent developments in Egypt from the time of former President Hosni Mubarak’s ousting onwards. Throughout his account of recent Egyptian history, Marouf highlighted his assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood did not actually have that much popular support.

Marouf explained that the 2012 elections consisted of two rounds. The first, from May 23 to 24, saw the vote split almost evenly between Mohammad Morsi for the Freedom and Justice party, an Islamist party with strong links to the Muslim Brotherhood, Ahmed Shafiq, an Independent whom Marouf described as “the candidate of the old regime,” and Hamdin Sabbahi, of the leftist al-Karamah party.

Morsi and Shafiq advanced to the run-off election in June, despite allegations of massive voter fraud on the part of the old regime party. Marouf claimed that “Sabbahi was robbed of his spot in the second round of elections” due to this alleged fraud.

Marouf went on to address the final election – which saw Morsi elected with 51.7 per cent of the vote, according to official tallies – with suspicion. “If we want to actually think about Morsi’s support in the country or legitimacy, we have to look at the first round,” said Marouf. “The second round, of course everyone is going to try to vote against the old regime.”

From this point onwards, the speech focused on explaining why the recent upheaval, which saw millions of protesters across the country take to the streets, was not a coup. Marouf essentially argued that power was given to the Muslim Brotherhood by the Egyptian people on the condition that they would do what the people demanded. A year later when, according to Marouf, it was clear the Brotherhood hadn’t, the people rose up to call for new leadership. Marouf indicated that the army only took charge of the direction of the mass protests when it was clear they would dispose of Morsi.

However, Marouf did make it clear that the army, which he claimed is still heavily populated by old generals from the Mubarak era, should be regarded with suspicion. He indicated that the way forward for the Egyptian people must lie in their own hands through a genuine democratic uprising that takes into account the will of the people.

Connecting the crises of the Egyptian people to a supposed global capitalist crisis, Marouf insisted that “under the capitalist system there is no solution for the Egyptian people. We cannot eat democracy, and a democracy that does not allow you to provide food for your people is not democracy.”

* * *

Marouf’s perception of recent events in Egypt offers a different perspective when compared to Fisk’s more widely popularized characterization of these events as a coup. Some local Montreal and McGill students shared an interpretation more similar to Marouf’s than to Fisk’s.

In an interview with The Daily, U2 McGill Political Science student Rana Badawi offered an explanation for these differing perceptions. “The first [reason for the divide between the perceptions may be] because the situation in Egypt is odd and unusual to Western standards. We are talking about countries [that] have known and lived democracy for quite some time now; therefore, the idea of overthrowing a democratically elected president is unacceptable. But they should know better, they should know that democracy does not end at the ballot boxes, it is much more than that.”

“When the president himself crosses the boundaries of democracy, there is no longer space for his so-called legitimacy,” Badawi added.

Mostafa Momtaz, a McGill student and VP Internal of McGill’s Egyptian Students Association, has been participating in the recent protests in Egypt since they began. In an interview with The Daily, he also stressed that these protests, and Morsi’s downfall, should not be referred to as a coup, due to the widespread support he alleges that the actions maintain in Egypt.

“A number of young activists started the Tamarod campaign. These people went to almost every city, village, and town in Egypt to collect signatures from people to withdraw their trust in Mohamed Morsi as their president. Most of the people I know, including my whole family have signed. According to the group they collected 22 million signatures, almost a quarter of the population,” Momtaz said, adding, “Only 13 million people voted for Morsi in the final round [of elections].”

Another element emphasized in the interview with Badawi, and throughout the IMT event, was the Muslim Brotherhood’s alleged misappropriation of Islam.

“Throughout my answers I referred to Morsi’s organization as the Brotherhood, not the Muslim Brotherhood, because in my honest opinion they have absolutely nothing to do with Islam,” said Badawi.

In a question and answer period at the IMT event following Marouf’s speech, activist Ted Sprague reaffirmed this opinion, highlighting the role of class within the politics of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sprague noted that, in his view, there exists an “Islam of the workers, the poor, and an Islam of the rich” which “don’t meet eye to eye.” Sprague alleged that the Muslim Brotherhood espouses the latter type of Islam.

The IMT event concluded with Marouf highlighting the ongoing nature of the upheaval in Egypt, and the need for proletariat around the world to look out for Egyptians.

“Our revolution here is tied with the revolution of the Egyptian masses,” he said. “We have a duty to prevent imperialism from oppressing the Egyptian people. We’re going to keep watching the Egyptian revolution, and this is not over yet.”

Marouf’s message rings true for many, as the events that have been continuously unfolded in Egypt did not stop with Morsi’s ouster. In recent days, violent clashes between supporters and opponents of Morsi have continued, with over 100 dead since Morsi was deposed.

So far, a new president has not yet been elected, the Muslim Brotherhood and the army have not engaged in dialogue, the upper house of Egyptian Parliament remains dissolved, and doubts linger about what role the army will play in the future. Yet according to Badawi, “after the past two and a half years, we are entering another transitional period having absolutely nothing to lose. We’ve already lost everything.”

The post Revolution or coup? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Nazila Ghanea, a lecturer in International Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford, gave a talk on “International Perspectives on Religious Minorities.” Throughout this lecture, Ghanea attempted to define what characterizes religious minorities, citing the lack of power as one important factor. She rendered Bashar al-Assad and the Alawites in Syria as a non-minority regardless of the quantitative validity of this characterization on the basis of population, since they aren’t a minority in terms of power.

Ghanea went on to discuss the specific challenge facing religious minorities in the Middle East, highlighting a general unwillingness among members of groups in the region to identify themselves as religious minorities. “In the Middle East, at the point of death, you’re not going to get any religious minority to declare themselves as a religious minority,” Ghanea stated. “It is absolutely rejected because the implication of saying…you’re a minority is saying that you’re not loyal, that you’re a security risk, that you’re not really Egyptian, or you’re not really Lebanese, but that you’re foreign.” Yet unless one declares themselves as a religious minority, Ghanea claimed, the affirmative action type benefits and protections offered to religious minorities cannot be applied, and thus the problematic treatment of religious minorities continues.

Lamia Mekhemar, Egypt’s ambassador to the Vatican, also spoke at the conference in regards to minorities, centering her talk on religious minorities in Muslim states. Mekhemar focused on the potential of the Arab spring to bring greater rights and living conditions for religious minorities throughout the Middle East. In response to doubts brought up regarding some of the failures of the Arab Spring, Mekhemar claimed that “We are not watching the final episode [of the Arab Spring] yet.” This point was well received, as Mekhemar offered numerous examples of continuing unrest in Arab Spring countries. For example, although she did not refer to the matter directly, she gave hints to the unrest currently building in Egypt.

On June 23, the talks quickly turned into a lively discussion touching on human rights, minority status, and what the panelists deemed the ‘problem of religion’: the “artificiality and superficiality surrounding religious discourse.”

Religion, and in particular Islam, is as relevant as ever. Each of the panelists – speaking on the topic of Middle East and Asia – emphasized this fact. Religious rhetoric is a powerful emotional tool used for political mobilization, and is often at the root of sectarian violence, religious persecution, and other human rights violations. “The state has a responsibility to intervene in such cases,” Mekhemar stated, “and in this case its role must be unlimited.” Indeed it seems logical that with globalization being the mark of our century, governments will move towards a singular ideal of religious expression and religious pluralism. But as the panel concluded, existing discourse seems instead to be stagnant and steeped in political agenda. As such, Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Australia Samina Yasmeen’s chide still rings true: “ The state does have [that] duty … but not an unlimited one. It is after all comprised of ordinary people, ordinary values, ordinary beliefs.”

Each of these lectures were followed by an allotted time for questions from the crowd, which was made up of an even mix of older academics and students, most of whom were enrolled in the McGill seminar “Comparative Religion” taking place this summer which focuses on the connection between foreign policy and religion.

This summer is the second time the seminar, taught by Religious Studies professor Daniel Cere and Dean of Religious Studies Ellen Aitken, has been held. Last summer, the course focused on the link between religion and human rights. It is an intensive two-week course, advertised to many international students from schools within the Tony Blair Faith Foundation’s Faith & Globalisation Initiative. The foundation’s main component is made up of a chain of research universities that help analyze the “role of religion in a globalized world,” a characteristic which this conference, and course, neatly fit into. It is made up of a variety of talks and panels given by different academic figures from around the world. The conference on the weekend served as a component of the course, as well as a way of introducing a broader range of students to the course’s offerings.

Although the content of the conference was interesting, and some of the figures brought in to speak were intriguing, it appeared as though the conference did little to reach beyond a core of students and academics already immersed in the content being presented, although the talks given on both days seemed intriguing and stimulating. However, little advertisement, as well as a hefty $40 registration fee for non-McGill participants, presented major obstacles to broader attendance. If this conference is to continue, these issues should be addressed so as to better serve the purpose of McGill students.

The first day of events was covered by Davide Mastracci. The second day was covered by Nusra Khan

The article previously mistakenly stated that the registration fee for the conference was $40 for all participants. In fact, it is only $40 for non-McGill participants. The Daily regrets this error.

The post Bridging politics and religion appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The first protest, on June 7, called for the “extermination of turbo-capitalism,” and aimed to disturb the Grand Prix. Around thirty protesters gathered at both Laurier Park and Hochelaga Park. The total sixty protesters left their respective parks, all on bicycles, at around 6 p.m.

The protesters rode through various streets where the Grand Prix activities were held in an attempt to disrupt the events. They claimed that the Grand Prix promotes the commodification of women – due to the increase in sex work – capitalist excess, and environmental destruction – as promoted by car culture.

The protest was not declared illegal, despite a heavy police presence, and no arrests were made. This was the first CLAC protest of the year not to be declared illegal. Last year, hundreds of protesters took part in demonstrations against the Grand Prix, and numerous clashes between protesters and police officers occurred.

The second protest organized by CLAC this past week called for the “extermination of financial capitalism,” and took place on June 10 alongside the Conference of Montreal. The conference, hosted by the International Economic Forum of the Americas (IEFA) has occurred annually in Montreal since 1994. This year’s event saw numerous speakers, including economists, chief executive officers of oil companies, and political leaders.

The meeting took place at the Hilton Bonaventure hotel. Just over thirty protesters stood to the side of the entrance to the hotel’s parking lot, which was heavily guarded by over ten protesters, as well as a few of the hotel’s security guards. Police officers were also stationed at the corners of the nearby intersection.

As onlookers across the street gathered, the protesters began to make their grievances with the IEFA clear. Norman, a member of CLAC who was holding one side of a large black banner which called for the destruction of capitalism, told The Daily the meeting was “all about these people making money off of everyone’s back.”

When asked by The Daily who “these people” referred to, Norman claimed, “We’re talking about the government; the provincial and federal government. These people are creating austerity everywhere.”

Various protesters, including Aaron Lakoff, a community organizer and DJ at CKUT, had dressed up in extermination suits. One by one, they called out the names of some of the members in the IEFA meeting, prompting another protester wearing a mask with that member’s face on it to come forward. The CLAC members dressed in extermination suits then introduced each IEFA member as a type of insect, and described how they could be fought.

For example, Christophe de Margerie, the Chairman and CEO of the multinational oil and gas company Total, was introduced by Lakoff as a “nasty parasite” that can be found “lurking around wherever there’s oil money to be made.” Lakoff also cited “class war” as a “good method of prevention and extermination” to fight this so-called “parasite.”

Regardless of the theatrics, the conference behind the line of police officers was not disrupted by the group gathered outside, and no arrests were made. Last year CLAC held a similar protest against the meeting, and while the turnout was approximately double, that protest was not disrupted by the police either.

CLAC Extermination Speeches – recorded by Davide Mastracci

The post CLAC organizes week of anti-capitalist protests appeared first on The McGill Daily.

 Jaggi Singh, a member of the EABC, explained that all children need a permanent code (PC) to register for school in Quebec. According to Singh, most non-status children have not received PCs, which means that they are barred from primary and secondary school.

In cases where exceptions are made and non-status children can register for school, their parents typically must pay upwards of $5,000 a year, per child, for primary and secondary education.

 With this concern in mind, demonstrators arrived to the CSM building as early as 6:30 p.m., but were forced to wait outside, and then in the lobby, until 8:15 p.m.. At this point, they were allowed to make their way to the fifth floor of the CSM building where the monthly meeting was taking place.

The group was set to be admitted into the CSM meeting shortly to present their case to the commissioners. However, when the group arrived at the fifth floor, a member rushed through the security guarding the meeting’s doors, and made his way inside, taking the group by surprise. A few other members of the group followed, and began to shout at the commissioners. After a couple of minutes, security escorted the group out.

 Over the next seventy minutes, police officers began to join security in front of the meeting’s doors until finally, at 9:25 p.m., five minutes before the CSM meeting was set to end, approximately 15 of the demonstrators from EABC were allowed into the meeting to make their case.

 Two children delivered the first of the group’s round of speeches, decrying the fact that children their age who lived near them could not attend school.

A variety of other members then spoke, citing such issues as basic human rights; the opportunity for all children, regardless of status, to receive an education; and serious concerns with the CSDM’s lack of progress on resolving the issue thus far.

A man personally affected by the law, who remained anonymous, claimed in French, “We’ve been meeting for the past two weeks with the Minister of Immigration, Diane De Courcy, and she doesn’t understand why you haven’t given a clear answer [to our concerns].”

Another woman, who also remained anonymous, asked in French why the commissioners continue to send letters to non-status families demanding payments they are unable to make.

 As the speeches continued, tension boiled in the room until Daniel Duranleau, president of the CDSM, spoke in French to tell the group that despite the commissioners’ concern, there was not much they could do about the issue at the moment. Duranleau also stressed that the issue was not a major one affecting all Quebecers.

After Duranleau claimed in French that demonstrators had exceeded their allotted time in the meeting, demonstrators, frustrated that no progress was made since the last meeting, began yelling as the security attempted to escort them out. Well over twenty police officers lined the hallways of the CSDM to guide the demonstrators toward the building’s exit.

Singh pointed out that Montreal’s lack of progress was unique within a wider context.

“This is clearly an issue that’s settled in most places in North America. In Toronto, in Vancouver, there’s flexibility for kids to be able to go to school, and all over the U.S. non-status kids can go to school. They can do that in Texas, they can do that in Alabama, they can do that in Florida, but they can’t do that in Montreal,” Singh said. “Montreal is the only major city in North America with a significant immigrant population that prevents children from going to school. That’s scandalous.”

However, Singh noted that the EABC’s efforts would not stop, regardless of the lack of progress within the CSDM.

“We’re getting close to the end of June – the end of the school session – this is something that needs to be resolved now,” he added. “So we’ve been slowly escalating our tactics, and our anger, and our disruption, and that should be expected to continue.”

– With files from Henji Milius.

The post Education Across Borders Collective makes fourth visit to school commission appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Primarily influencing the BoG’s decision was a recommendation from the Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR), the BoG’s designated body to review potential concerns regarding social responsibility in University investments.

CAMSR recommended that the BoG reject the petitions, citing an inability of the petitions to prove that “social injury” had occurred under CAMSR’s Terms of Reference – CAMSR’s mandate, and its guidelines for reviewing the social responsibility of University investments.

According to CAMSR’s website, “social injury” implies “the injurious impact which the activities of a company is found to have on consumers, employees, or other persons, particularly including activities which violate, or frustrate the enforcement of, rules of domestic or international law intended to protect individuals against deprivation of health, safety, or basic freedoms.”

Previously, on April 10, members and representatives of Divest McGill presented their petitions to CAMSR, a committee made up of eight members. After deliberating the arguments put forth by Divest McGill at the meeting, CAMSR determined that neither of the two petitions presented adequate evidence of “social injury.”

Earlier in the evening of May 23, approximately 15 members of Divest McGill and their supporters had gathered outside the James Administration building to greet governors as they made their way to the closed portion of the meeting. These members were invited to the BoG meeting when the open session began – when the decisions regarding the petitions were announced.

Brenda Norris, chair of CAMSR, gave a brief background of her committee before announcing the verdict. She explained that the committee had accepted two petitions for divestment since 2006, including divesting from tobacco companies as well as Burma (Myanmar).

The tobacco decision, in her words, was “a wrenching decision for McGill because … the MacDonald family, who set up MacDonald college, and the Stewart family, were major donors.”

Burma, however, “was an easier decision because the government of Canada was issuing directives that perhaps we should cease from investment because a democratically elected government had been overthrown by a military coup.”

She concluded by stating that in both instances there existed clear evidence of “social injuries” which were absent in the petitions rejected by the Board in the same meeting.

Upon hearing the decision, several participants in the meeting offered their opinion. Josh Redel, the outgoing SSMU President, critiqued the Terms of Reference used to justify the decision.

“I didn’t come to McGill, no one here came to McGill, to be following norms, we came here to set them,” Redel told The Daily. “And I think that using a 77 word mandate is an unfortunate excuse for not looking further into this.”

Michael Boychuk, a member of the BoG, defended the decision by outlining the economic incentives offered by McGill’s investments.

“This university survives because of the investments that are made by the University, in addition to the funding it gets from the government,” he said. “Whether you like it or not, Canada is a resource-based company; that’s a fact. It’s not going to change anytime soon.”

Norris also cited this point, notably absent from her speech during the BoG meeting, in an interview with The Daily following the meeting.

“If we divest from fossil fuels and everything else, it’s not going to change it, somebody else is going to buy it,” Norris said. “Students might feel great that they’ve divested, but our income goes down, fewer students can come to McGill, and what is the act of the social injury in the oil sands?”

In an interview with The Daily, David Summerhays, a representative of Divest McGill, expressed disappointment in the BoG’s decision.

“We thought we had a chance of CAMSR saying yes to divestment, though I don’t think anyone was shocked that they didn’t right away,” said Summerhays. “That said, I think we were expecting them to find that there was social injury, but do something inadequate about it, such as shareholder activism.”

Although Summerhays noted that the presence of CAMSR at all was unique compared to many American universities, he expressed hope that the Terms of Reference would be changed.

“There was general consensus in the discussion that the Terms of Reference for the Committee to Advise need to be reviewed. And they will be reviewed over the summer and fall,” he said. The Committee is required to review its Terms of Reference every three years, a point that was brought up at the May 23 meeting.

“If an industry whose work leads to the death and displacement of millions of people falls outside their definition of social injury, we obviously think that they need a new definition.”

According to Summerhays, the next steps for Divest McGill are to respond to CAMSR’s report on their petition, as well as to discuss the matter with McGill’s incoming principal Suzanne Fortier.

Divest McGill’s media contact, Amina Moustaqim-Barrette, also explained that the group’s efforts would not end. “We have the support of the three major student societies at McGill, which represent 35,000 students here,” she said. “So we’ll definitely keep campaigning and keep on going.”

The post Board of Governors rejects divestment petitions appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Eventually, the crowd picked up the coffins and began to march in commemoration of the Nakba – Arabic for ‘catastrophe’ – which occurred 65 years ago. The Nakba was a series of tragic events in which an estimated  700,000 Palestinians were violently ejected from their land by armed Israeli forces; the sole purpose of which was making room for more Jewish settlers and expanding the State of Israel. Palestinians, and their allies around the world, commemorate the Nakba each May, the day after when, in 1948, the State of Israel was officially created. Last Sunday in Montreal, a wide range of people gathered to remember the bloodshed which accompanied the foundation of the state of Israel.

Though the Nakba occurred 65 years ago, many of the participants in the march found it difficult to differentiate past from present.  Palestinian marcher Myriam Siraj claimed, “We cannot divide the two, both of them are linked. Remembering is never something you do in the past, you always remember at the present, for the future.” The vibe of the march, with chants like, “Montreal take a side, human rights or apartheid?” reinforced this message: the Nakba is not an event which occurred only in the past, it is an ongoing tragedy in Palestine, since Palestinians are still uprooted from their lands today.

Bill Sloan, from Palestinian and Jewish Unity, stressed that the Nakba, as well as the ongoing occupation of Palestine, should be viewed as a territorial dispute. During the march, Sloan explained, “It’s not about religion. They’re not fighting about which religion is better. They’re fighting about who is going to control the land, the water; that’s all it is about.”

This opinion was shared by another marcher, who had driven to Montreal from New York for the march. Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, a member of the international Orthodox Jewish organization Neturei Karta, described the Palestinian catastrophe as a “worldwide Jewish issue.” Marching at the head of the crowd, he claimed, “Our identity [as Jews] has been hijacked by a nationalist Zionist State of Israel. Judaism is a religion, and Zionism and the State of Israel is a mere transformation into nationalism that is simply not recognized by our religion.” He also noted in regard to Israel that, according to the Torah, Jews are not permitted “to steal, to kill, and…even to have one inch of Jewish sovereignty.” Essentially, Weiss espoused the view that to be a truly religious Jew is to stand against the State of Israel.

An organizer of the march, Laith Marouf, brought up the broader imperialistic nature of the conflict. While Marouf decried Israel as an apartheid state that the West supports in order to keep the Arab world in check, he also criticized Arab leaders throughout the Middle East, noting the failure of the Arab Spring in liberating Palestine. Marouf stated, “Last week we heard…the oil Emir of Qatar going to the U.S. and offering to give up more Palestinian land for peace. And this is the opposite of what was expected for the Arab Spring. It was supposed to be more support for the Palestinians from their Arab brothers.”

Yet, despite the seemingly gloomy nature of the march, a strong sense of hope existed among the participants. Speaking about her lifelong involvement with Palestinian activism, Siraj explained, “I do believe things are changing…Before the Second Intifada, I would tell people ‘I’m Palestinian’ and they would say, ‘Oh, you’re Pakistani!’ But now since the Second Intifada [the second Palestinian uprising from 2000 to 2005], everybody knows where Palestine is, [who] Palestinians are.” This message was mirrored by other marchers, intent on ensuring that everyone is aware of, and not complicit in, the suffering of Palestinians.

As the march drew to an end at Place des Arts, the remaining participants in the march gathered to hear announcements regarding more Nakba-related events in the upcoming week. They smiled and cheered when a dabke (traditional Arabic dance) performance was announced. These smiles persisted when a van drove by the crowd, honking and waving an Israeli flag. In fact, beyond the initial attention garnered by the honking, the crowd acknowledged the van with nothing more than eye-rolls and raised eyebrows.

This concluding incident reflects the focus of Palestinian activists, whose message was made clear throughout the march. The Nakba is not a historical event, it is an ongoing phenomenon. Though it is being committed by Israel, it does not represent Jewish belief and practice. It also is more complicated than just Israeli and Palestinian geo-politics, since Western forces, as well as some Arab leaders in the Middle East, are also meddling in the fate of Palestine. Yet regardless of all the challenges ahead, Palestinian activists and their allies promise to remain dedicated to their cause until Palestine is free. Viva, viva, Palestina!

[flickr id=”72157633481406254″]

The post Day of the Catastrophe appeared first on The McGill Daily.

I did not believe the PQ would cancel tuition hikes, and I was sure ending the strike would destroy any pressure we had put on the government. Though the PQ did in fact repeal the tuition increases on September 20, my pessimism was warranted as the PQ have embarked upon a path nearly as destructive as Charest’s Parti Libéral du Québec (PLQ) since then.

For example, at the Summit on Higher Education on February 26, the PQ announced that it plans to increase tuition annually by 3 per cent, which means a raise of just over $65 for the 2013-2014 academic year. The summit was also boycotted by one of the main student unions, the Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ), after the government announced that free education would not be discussed despite the clear desire for it from a sizeable portion of society.

The student movement will not allow the PQ to continue in this manner without resistance. We took to the streets in thousands last year, were arrested and assaulted, had arms and ribs broken, and even lost an eye. We will not allow those months of protest to go to waste, as was made clear by the protest involving nearly 10,000 people on the second day of the Summit, as well as ongoing strike votes. However, with that said, if we are to have a more successful run this time around, we should change our strategy, and McGill students should be part of those new efforts.

While I will always support the idea of free education, both in theory and in practice, I do not think student groups should organize their efforts solely around this goal right now. So far protests have focused on the claim that we currently receive a service, and the amount we pay for said service should not increase, and in fact should not even exist. Protests should now focus on the service we are getting for the tuition we pay. Of course, the two can go hand in hand, but the focus needs to be on the latter example as the attacks the PQ have proposed on university funding are quite serious.

Just after cancelling the tuition increases in September, the Ministry of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology retroactively cut university funding by $124 million, $19.1 million of which were at McGill. The PQ expected university administrators to make these cuts in four months. A few months later, on February 8, the PQ announced that these cuts were to double, and if at least 50 per cent of the cut was not made by April of 2014, another $32 million would be cut from McGill alone.

As Principal Heather Munroe-Blum stated in an email to McGill staff, students, and community members on February 19, “These unprecedented cuts are not abstract.  They will hurt people we care about in our McGill community, and families across Quebec.” Yet despite what the administration has claimed, it seems that these cuts have already begun to make their impact. Munroe-Blum has indicated that in the future McGill will start “eliminating positions and pulling back on services, supports and programs.”

While tuition increases will reduce accessibility for students in the future, the massive cuts by the PQ will drastically reduce the quality of our education right now. This is something that should concern all of the students in Quebec, even those at McGill who actively seek to separate themselves from Quebec politics. Rich students may not have cared about the possibility of tuition increases, as they could afford them. Yet can any of us truly afford to have the quality of our education further diminished while carrying the same monetary weight upon our backs?

We came together as students and fought the tuition increases – now we should come together once more to fight the cuts. The PQ has other ways to save money; they just believe we are the easiest to rob. Let’s take to the streets once more until this belief is shattered.

Davide Mastracci is a U2 History and Political Science student. He can be reached at davide.mastracci@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Fuck you, PQ appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Daily easily passed its referendum, implying that the McGill community largely believes campus is better with The Daily. In order to explain why this is so, examine one of the sole critiques The Daily received during the referendum period, from Leacock’s writer Christopher Wang.

The main argument in Wang’s article was that The Daily is too controversial. The Daily has a duty to “depict and analyze power relations accurately in its coverage.” In comparison, Leacock’s only duty seems to be depicting the latest trends in studded heels. When a paper is dedicated to examining serious issues, controversy is unavoidable.

In Wang’s article, Bull & Bear executive editor Dan Novick was quoted as stating, in reference to The Daily’s articles, “In terms of The Daily, they are sensationalist and they are crafted to attract attention.” The Daily receives attention because it launches attacks on norms many do not realize they carry. Most attention the Bull & Bear has received this year has been due to posting blatantly racist and sexist articles. Novick claimed the problematic articles were removed due to an outcry from the readers. Unlike the Bull & Bear, The Daily does not need an outraged student body to realize that publishing articles which compare women to animals is inappropriate.

Yet the most crucial aspect of The Daily is its status as a campus watchdog. The McGill administration rarely escapes criticism from The Daily. With the exception of the odd editorial, the Tribune usually acts as a slightly more popular version of the McGill Reporter.

The Daily is the best paper on campus because it covers important issues, is largely free of racism and sexism, and monitors the McGill administration. This is not to say The Daily is perfect, but rather that The Daily is the only paper crucial for a better McGill.

—Davide Mastracci

U2 History and Political Science student

The post Yay! We’re alive! And there’s still some air left. appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Now, almost ten years later, though my love of rap is not hidden in any way, similar questions often arise. And this is due to the fact that when you’re an explicit fan of rap music (or a fan of explicit rap music) you can’t just simply enjoy the music. As Chris Rock famously stated, you have to defend it. It’s reasonable to expect that people won’t always share your taste in music. Yet with rap, the accusations thrown at the music often go beyond matters of taste and have serious political connotations. These accusations usually fit into two categories.

The first category is the pseudo-artistic critiques which seem to come up in casual conversations about rap music. An example is the “legacy” critique. Will rap music be able to last the test of time? I’ve been asked this question – the intent being insult – on numerous occasions. The most memorable, however, was last summer at a barbecue. An iPod was playing Notorious B.I.G over the speaker system when an older white man threw the question my way. The song playing at the time was “Big Papa,” which is nearly twenty years old. Rap music has lasted the test of time in cultures where it plays a prominent role. It may not be important to fifty-year-old white rock fans, just like Led Zeppelin means nothing to me, but for many populations which are pushed into the “other” category, hip hop is crucial.

A second example is the “slang” critique: “At least with rock music you can understand what they’re saying!” When I hear this, I respond with “In rock music YOU can hear what they’re saying.” Rock music and rap music alike use forms of slang. Slang in rap is no less legitimate than in rock; it simply exists in communities those who criticize the slang don’t engage with or participate in. So critiquing rap for using slang is really just attacking it for using slang that doesn’t adhere to certain WASP standards.

Far more examples of these pseudo-artistic critiques exist, but the more problematic arguments against rap fit into the second category, which is comprised of explicit political critiques of rap music. Rap music without a doubt has many issues. A great deal of rap is filled with sexist, homophobic, and shadeist lyrics. Just like any other medium which perpetuates oppressive content, rap deserves to be criticized and numerous valuable critiques of elements in rap music exist, such as Tricia Rose’s text The Hip-Hop Wars.

However, a lot of the political criticism of rap music has troubling connotations. For example, Rose describes some critics of sexism in hip-hop as people who “use hip hop’s sexism (and other ghetto-inspired imagery) as a means to cement and consolidate the perception of black deviance and inferiority and advance socially conservative and anti-feminist agendas.” When conservatives like Bill O’Reilly attack hip hop for sexism, they are expressing the same sort of fear white men in America have expressed throughout history toward black men acting ‘unruly’ – they appear unaware of critiques of the sexism prevalent in ‘mainstream’ culture. They do not care about women’s rights; they’re more concerned with the supposed lack of respect from black males.

Additionally, critiques of rap which focus on violence are usually  paradoxical. Rap music is at once blamed for glorifying violent cultures while at the same time credited with actually creating the violence portrayed within the content. While rap music certainly can glorify violence by portraying it as a necessary component of masculinity, rap music does not cause violence. Idealists who make this claim ignore the fact that rap music often is created by the most disadvantaged and oppressed members of society, who come from areas where crime and poverty are rampant. Those who blame rap for violence miss the chance to offer more important structural critiques of capitalist society that survives through violence, and makes violent crime-ridden communities inevitable.

Essentially, like anything else, music is political, and it is not created in a vacuum. As such, the widespread disapproval of rap music cannot be written off as simple disagreements on musical elements. Critiques of a form of music which arises mainly from people of colour in lower income brackets can certainly be valid, but they should be scrutinized. Especially when they come from above, whether it be through those with more wealth, or those who enjoy the privilege afforded to them by their ethnicity.

Davide Mastracci is a U2 History and Political Science student. He can be reached at davide.mastracci@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Parental advisory: explicit content appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The demonstration is being planned by La Fédération des Québécois de Souche and La Légion Nationale, both of which are known neo-Nazi organizations. Maxime Fiset, the supposed leader of La Fédération des Québécois de Souche, pleaded guilty to charges of hate propaganda and possession of a prohibited weapon in 2008. Patrick Grenier, one of the alleged co-founders of La Légion Nationale, has been spotted giving the fascist salute and wearing shirts with Nazi symbols.  The behaviour of Fiset and Grenier reflect upon the behaviour of both groups as a whole, as they are quite open about their sympathies with Nazism and fascism.

Last year, on November 26, organizations in Quebec such as La Fédération des Québécois de Souche led a demonstration mirroring the one planned for this year. The group of approximately thirty neo-Nazis who participated in the demonstration were pelted by bottles and rocks thrown by anti-fascists who had organized a counter demonstration. The mainstream media, such as the CBC, La Presse, and Radio Canada, widely described the demonstrations as being held by peaceful “independence groups” and claimed they were attacked for unknown reasons.

Though I cannot speak for the anti-fascist protesters at least year’s demonstration, I would like to offer the mainstream media some possible reasons for their counter demonstration. I also offer these reasons as a justification for another, hopefully stronger, counter demonstration this year, which I hope you will attend.

Essentially, any effort from neo-Nazis or fascists to enter the public sphere must be smashed. Some will argue that we should simply ignore Nazis, as they only desire attention. This does not seem to be the case. Most Nazi political activity takes place privately, because Nazis know that they are extremely unpopular amongst the general public. Any sort of public displays organized by Nazis are usually done in order to show potential and current recruits that they hold some sort of power, or that their views are legitimate.

By combating public displays from Nazis, we make it clear that their politics are neither acceptable nor safe in our communities. Our methods of combat can vary. In Edmonton earlier this year, angry anti-fascists and local families alike chased down a small group of neo-Nazis; in Athens, squads of anti-fascists on motorcycles patrol the city at night, attacking Golden Dawn members, thereby helping to protect immigrants from attacks.

Of course, some will claim that the best way to refute Nazis is to refute their ideology academically. Certainly we can combat Nazis ideologically through articles such as this one, but this will do little to stop Nazism. Nazi recruits are often taken in because of a desire for power or belonging, not because of the intellectual merits of bonehead thugs. By ensuring that belonging to a Nazi group means belonging to a group despised and attacked by the rest of society, we will likely see a reduction in Nazi recruits.

There is also the issue of free speech. Certain free speech extremists will insist that free speech only means anything if you extend it to the views of all those you do not like. Nazis are a different case. We have no institutional power to control the literature they publish in print and on the internet. We have no judicial power to determine when their speech becomes hate speech. We also have no police power to determine when their demonstrations become illegal. All of these means of fighting Nazism are possible, but the power to realize them is largely out of our hands.

Yet we do have the power to decide that we will not tolerate Nazis regardless of their legal standing, for example, we can disrupt demonstrations such as the one on November 24. Some will state that, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ If we defend Nazis’ supposed right to free speech for too long, our death may come at their hands. This is not fear mongering or exaggeration, as it happens across the world often.

Neo-Nazis may not be as powerful here as they are in Europe, but they are still responsible for numerous violent hate crimes. To give just one example, in 2008, two neo-Nazis in Montreal attacked a group of Arabic youths and a black taxi driver with knives and fists, leaving one victim with gashes on their head requiring over fifty stitches. As such, though most racism occurs in day to day institutionalized forms, we cannot downplay the threat of direct violence.

Therefore, I call for you to show neo-Nazis that they are not welcome anywhere in Quebec: join the anti-fascist march on November 24. To receive updates on the details of the march, check out the Facho Watch website closer to the date.

Davide Mastracci is a U2 History and Political Science student. He can be reached at davide.mastracci@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Smashing NAZIs appeared first on The McGill Daily.