Ke had filed an application to allow Chen to travel with his children to China. The application included two cases as precedent: one in which a mother took her 7-year-old child to India for six weeks, and another where a mother’s application to travel with her 9-year-old child to China was approved. However it was soon discovered that these cases did not actually exist, and instead they had been fabricated by ChatGPT.

Allegedly, Ke asked ChatGPT to find relevant cases that could apply to her client’s circumstances. OpenAI’s chatbot generated three results, two of which Ke then used in the application. When lawyers of Nina Zhang, Chen’s ex-wife, were unable to locate the referenced cases, Ke realized her mistake. She attempted to withdraw the two cases and quietly provide a new list of real cases without informing the opposition. Zhang’s lawyers then demanded copies of the two original cases, leaving Ke no choice but to inform them expressly of her mistake. She wrote a letter acknowledging her actions, calling the error “serious” and expressing her regret. In an affidavit, Ke later admitted her “lack of knowledge” on the risks associated with using AI, saying it greatly embarrassed her to “[discover] that the cases were fictions.”

Justice David Masuhara, who presided over the case of Ke’s client, wrote in his ruling that “citing fake cases in court filings…is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court,” going on to say that the improper use of AI could ultimately beget the miscarriage of justice. Masuhara mandated Ke to review her files and disclose if AI had been involved in any other materials she had submitted to the court.

Fraser MacLean, the lead counsel of Ke’s opposition, also emphasized the serious dangers of using AI-generated content: “what’s scary about these AI hallucinations is they’re not creating citations and summaries that are ambiguous, they look 100 per cent real.” He adds that it is important to be “vigilant” in verifying the validity of a legal citation.

Despite Masuhara finding Ke’s apology to be sincere, she will be held liable for the costs incurred by Zhang’s lawyers in remedying the confusion. The judge also acknowledged that she was suffering the effects of “significant negative publicity” following her misconduct. The Law Society of BC has also issued a warning to Ke affirming the ethical obligation for lawyers to ensure accuracy with the growing use of AI tools. In addition to incurring the debt of her opposition, Ke will also be facing an investigation from the Law Society of BC.

While Ke’s AI-generated content was removed before it could have any significant impact on court proceedings, this case underscores the ethical risks surrounding the use of AI in the legal field. Discussions are already being held around the importance of lawyers’ diligence when it comes to navigating AI tools in their work and the need for clear guidelines to prevent potential abuses of the process. Thompson Rivers University law librarian Michelle Terriss commented that this ruling sets a new precedent, indicating that “[these] issues are front and centre in the minds of the judiciary and that lawyers really can’t be making these mistakes.”

Lawyers have an ethical duty to acknowledge the risks and benefits that arise from the use of AI tools. But as the use of AI grows, new questions around its implementation in the legal field are beginning to emerge, including whether or not a lawyer can ethically bill a client for work that an AI tool performed or if using AI to handle court materials is a breach of confidentiality. The latter is especially concerning as most AI tools, including ChatGPT, do not guarantee the confidentiality of user inputs – in fact, OpenAI’s terms of service state that a user’s exchange with the program “may be reviewed” by OpenAI employees in order to improve the system, and that the responsibility of maintaining confidentiality lies with the users themselves.

While AI can provide significant improvements to tasks including electronic discovery, litigation analysis, and legal research, concerns persist about biases and prejudices in the system in addition to the potential for legal fabrication. Bias in AI technology is common and results from the training process of AI tools. For instance, Microsoft’s AI tool for text-based conversations with individuals was found to mirror discriminatory viewpoints that had been inputted in training conversations. These biases have already made it into the legal field, with a prominent example being the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) system, an AI algorithm many US judges used in making decisions regarding bail and sentencing. Investigations revealed that the system, in assessing whether or not a past offender would re-offend, was found to generate “false positives” for people of colour and “false negatives” for white people. The issue lies in the training of AI, as many are programmed to “quantify the world as it is right now, or as it has been in the past, and [to] continue to repeat that, because it’s more efficient,” says AI and robotics expert Professor Kristen Thomasen of UBC.

While the future of AI in the legal field and its ethical implications remain ambiguous, many legal and AI experts, including Professor Thomasen and Justice Masuhara, have weighed in, expressing their beliefs that an AI system could never “truly replace the work of a lawyer,” and that “generative AI is still no substitute for the professional expertise that the justice system requires of lawyers.”

The post Vancouver Lawyer’s Use of AI in Legal Proceedings Sparks Ethics Debate appeared first on The McGill Daily.

South Africa’s application asserts that Israel’s actions in Gaza “are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite intent” to destroy a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial, and ethnic group. The claim argues that Israel, via its government and agents, is breaching its obligations under the Genocide Convention and has committed genocidal acts against the Palestinian people. South Africa has invoked Article 41 of the ICJ Statute to seek provisional measures aimed at protecting the rights of Palestinians and ensuring Israel’s compliance with its obligations.

During the public hearings, Mr. Vusimuzi Madonsela, representing South Africa, contextualized Israel’s actions within a broader historical framework, encompassing Israel’s 75-year apartheid, 56-year occupation, and 16-year siege on Gaza. South Africa contends that Israel’s deliberate imposition of unlivable conditions on Gaza qualifies as a genocidal act. Emphasizing the targeting of civilians and the destruction of essential infrastructure and healthcare, South Africa’s application describes Israel as “a silent killer of people.”

In response, Israel vehemently denies these allegations, characterizing South Africa’s case as a “profoundly distorted factual and legal picture.” Mr. Tal Becker, Israel’s lawyer, highlighted the civilian suffering in the conflict, attributing it to Hamas’s alleged strategy of “seeking to maximize civilian harm to both Israelis and Palestinians, even as Israel seeks to minimize it.” Israel argues that its actions throughout the conflict have been legal, self-defence responses to attacks by Hamas. Further, Israel accuses South Africa of curating a manipulated narrative, taking advantage of the term “genocide.” To counter the claims of genocide, Israel utilized the UN Charter to illustrate their right and responsibility as a state to, when attacked, “legitimately” respond in “a forceful and proportional manner.”

As the ICJ case is ongoing, global opinions vary. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has dismissed the genocide allegation as “meritless,” citing concerns about Hamas’s status as a terrorist organization. Both Germany and the United Kingdom, among many other countries, have also rejected the genocide case, with UK Prime Minster Rishi Sunak calling the case “completely unjustified and wrong” and the government of Germany expressing its belief that the “accusation has no basis whatsoever.” Conversely, countries including Namibia and Bangladesh have issued statements supporting the ICJ case. Namibian President Hage Geingoh took to X to express his rejection of Germany’s stance, stating that “no peace-loving human being can ignore the carnage waged against Palestinians in Gaza.” He also reminded the world that “The German Government is yet to fully atone for the genocide it committed on Namibian soil.” With countries around the world coming forward with their positions, Canada’s stance has remained quite ambiguous.

Canada refrained from announcing its stance on the case until both South Africa and Israel had made their arguments before the court, and even then, its position was vague. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statement was that although Canada “wholehearted[ly]” supports the ICJ, it “does not mean we support the premise of the case brought forward by South Africa.” These statements have led to public confusion and criticism, with various groups expressing their outrage and discontent with Canada’s lack of a clear position. This includes Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, who made a statement declaring their “outrage” at Canada’s refusal to support South Africa.

In its interim judgement delivered on January 26, the ICJ ordered that Israel must immediately “take all measures within its power” to prevent any acts that fall within the genocide convention. While this interim ruling is not the final ruling from the court on whether Israel’s actions constitute genocide, it does point to a belief among the judges that Israel’s actions may be in violation of the genocide convention. The court asserted that “the civilian population in the Gaza Strip remains extremely vulnerable” when calling for immediate action by Israel. For these provisional measures to be ordered, the court does not need proof of genocidal conduct; however, it means that at least some of the state’s actions could be considered acts of genocide.

As the ICJ case continues, the international community will be watching closely, recognizing the broader implications for global politics. The case highlights the shifting dynamics in global politics with perceptions of justice and accountability at the forefront. Many nations, specifically in the Global South, have come forward and condemned the decisions and actions of Western nations, suggesting that in addition to Israel, the Global North is on trial for its “hypocrisy” in applying international law. Raising questions on the issues of precedent cases, the trial will be a defining moment in international law, prompting South Africa’s representative Blinne ní Ghrálaigh’s assertion that “the very reputation of international law hangs in the balance.”

The post The ICJ’s Ruling Could Set a World Precedent appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In Canada, period poverty occurs at the intersection of rising living costs — exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, humanitarian crises, and natural disasters — and the persisting taboos surrounding menstruation. Increasing inflation has also magnified levels of period poverty. According to Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index, the cost of personal items, including tampons and pads, increased by 6.2 per cent compared to last year. Additionally, the “pink tax,” a tax put on menstrual hygiene products, further exacerbates the cost of menstruation. A 2023 public opinion research survey conducted by Environics Research on behalf of Women and Gender Equality Canada reveals the current extent and prevalence of menstrual inequity existing in Canada. Reportedly, one in six Canadians who menstruate have been personally impacted by period poverty, and this number rises to one in four among households earning less than $40,000 a year. One in five Canadians who menstruate believe they may not be able to afford period products at some point in the next 12 months.

In response to this problem, the Canadian government has established Budget 2022, providing $25 million for the establishment of a national pilot for the Menstrual Equity Fund (MEF). By allocating $17.9 million of their funds to Food Banks Canada, the MEF aims to address the barriers related to affordability faced by Canadians. The plan is split into 3 phases, the first two comprising the ongoing research and surveying conducted by Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE) and the third phase being the funding project which will run until March 31, 2024. The pilot project aims to provide free menstrual products to Indigenous schools on reserves and in federal schools across Canada, as well as to ensure the provision of free menstrual products in federally regulated workplaces.

With Canada’s cost of living crisis, community organizations such as Food Banks Canada are seeing increased demands for menstrual products. At the same time, they are having to handle the escalating costs of supplying other essential items. Many organizations have been unable to meet the needs of those coming in and asking for menstrual supplies. As the cost of living continues on an upward trajectory, many have been forced to choose between feeding their families and buying menstrual products. This burden is disproportionately felt by youth, single mothers, Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, immigrants, people experiencing homelessness, gender-diverse individuals, people living with disabilities, and those in remote areas. These groups face not only economic challenges but also increased stigma surrounding menstruation.

Many young people have experienced this stigma: feeling the need to hide their tampon or pad up their sleeve when going to the washroom at school, or the dread that comes when they forget to bring one, only to find their school does not have tampon dispensers or has run out of supply. According to Environics Research’s survey, one in four Canadians still consider periods dirty and unclean, while one in five believe it is a topic that should not be publicly discussed. These beliefs have turned menstruation into a taboo, resulting in the current lack of knowledge and support around period poverty. Due to the stigma surrounding menstruation, many people are reluctant to talk about their periods or to ask for help, instead chosing to stay home from school or work. A report from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization found that one of every ten menstruating adolescents miss school during their menstrual cycle due to insufficient access to menstrual products and resources. The lack of education around menstruation is one of the primary factors that lead to negative attitudes toward this natural bodily function. Today, 78 per cent of people who menstruate beween the ages of 18 and 24 feel the need to hide their periods at school or work, while 54 per cent have felt embarrassed to talk about their experience with menstruation.

While Budget 2022 is a step in the right direction by the Canadian government, further importance needs to be given to education and awareness initiatives to reduce the stigma surrounding the issue. Comprehensive and open dialogue on period poverty and menstrual equity needs to occur. Addressing period poverty is about more than just the economic challenges; the societal barriers that perpetuate the silence and shame surrounding menstruation need to be recognized and dismantled for true and lasting change to occur. It is only through a collective effort that we can hope to create a future where menstrual products are accessible to all, regardless of economic status or identity, and where no one faces the choice between menstrual hygiene and food on the table.

The post A Step Forward in Tackling Rising “Period Poverty” in Canada appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In light of the current conflict in Israel and Palestine, many individuals and groups have staged protests to display their discontent with the actions taken by the Canadian government. The direct statement from Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is that the government “fully supports” Israel’s “right to defend itself in accordance with international law.” However, other leaders and Members of Parliament have different opinions on the issue and, as the crisis has progressed, the government has struggled to maintain a unified front.

As of November 8, the Palestinian death toll was estimated at 10,569 according to the Health Ministry in Gaza and the Israeli death toll was estimated at over 1,400 in addition to 242 hostages taken into Gaza by Hamas. Gaza is currently under siege and has been cut off from food, water, fuel, and other supplies by Israel in response to attacks by Hamas. To address this humanitarian crisis, on October 27, Canada reported that until November 12, it will match every donation up to $10 million made to the Humanitarian Emergency Appeal. As tensions increase, the stance of the Canadian government has come under increased scrutiny.

Trudeau has been clear that the Canadian government supports Israel, however, this stance does not encompass all of the members’ positions. While members including Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson have echoed Trudeau’s belief that “Israel has every right to eradicate Hamas,” other members have different opinions. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh recently declared “Canada must call for a ceasefire to end the killing of innocent civilians in Gaza immediately,” and the need to end the siege on Gaza. In addition, over 30 MPs, including 23 from the governing Liberal party, have signed a letter to Trudeau calling for him to advocate for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The letter voiced Canada’s need to act as “the longer this conflict goes on, the more innocent civilians will pay with their lives,” and also posited that while Israel may deserve assistance, that it cannot come at the expense of innocent lives. Thus far, the Canadian government has resisted calls from the NDP, Green Party, and some Liberal members for a ceasefire, instead, supporting the possibility of humanitarian pauses.

This has raised debates over the discernment between these two terms, humanitarian pause and ceasefire, neither of which have a formally agreed legal definition. Both terms would involve a pause in fighting so that aid and supplies can be delivered to Gaza, the main difference being how long the breaks in fighting will last. A ceasefire is typically implemented as a long-term agreement to cease hostilities, on the other hand a humanitarian pause would mean a less formal and temporary break for the purpose of sending aid to vulnerable civilians.

In response to the violence in Israel and Gaza, there have been frequent protests throughout Canada, many of which have targeted the stance and actions of the Canadian government. A recent cause of this upset was the censure and ejection of Sarah Jama from the Ontario NDP (ONDP) caucus. This occurred after Jama expressed her support for the Palestinian people and called for an immediate ceasefire in an October 10 statement on X (formerly Twitter). She was then urged by the government to issue an apology, which she did 24 hours later. Despite this, the ruling Conservative party pushed for her censure, and was later removed from the ONDP caucus. ONDP MPP Peggy Satler said that Jama’s expulsion was due to the party leadership’s disapproval of her “insistence on acting independently, unilaterally, and with repeated disregard for the [ONDP] Leader.” This response encouraged both praise and contempt from the public, becoming an additional catalyst for many pro-Palestine protests.

On October 30, pro-Palestine protesters staged sit-ins at 17 MPs offices in 12 cities across Canada. During these sit-ins, the names of Palestinians who have been killed since October 8 were read out, and the protestors called on MPs to demand a ceasefire and an end to Canada’s complicity in Israel’s apartheid. Sit-ins targeted the offices of MPs who have not pushed for an immediate ceasefire. Three of these sit-ins occurred in Montreal, at the Ahuntsic-Cartierville office of Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, David Lametti’s office in the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, and Rachel Bendayan’s office in Outremont.

As well, there have been a number of pro-Israel protests. However, these protests have not been met with the same criticism from politicians as those in support of Palestine. While rallies held for both Israel and Palestine have remained peaceful, Trudeau has responded to the two groups distinctly, while he continues to reiterate the government’s support for Israel, he denounced “[t]he glorification of violence” and “the demonstrations that have taken place, and are taking place, across the country in support of Hamas’ attacks on Israel.” In contrast to the Canadian government, some Jewish organizations, including Independent Jewish Voices Canada, have stated their solidarity with the Palestinian people. At a rally held in Toronto on October 29, Corey Balsam, the national coordinator of Independent Jewish Voices declared that “[w]e’re of course gutted by the attacks on Israeli civilians on Oct. 7,” and that they “continue to be terrified at the loss of life, the collective punishment and the just extreme, really inhumane treatment of Gaza right now,” calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
As the bloodshed in Israel and Palestine continues, Canada has become divided into those in support of each side. As unrest over the conflict continues, both Jewish and Muslim communities have expressed their concerns over the heightened risk of hate crimes. Since the beginning of the conflict, there has been a noticeable increase in hate crime occurrences. On October 12, the National Council of Canadian Muslims reported that recently it has received double the complaints of Islamophobic incidents than normal. Additionally, Yair Szlak, President and Chief Executive Officer at Federation CJA, has warned that the Quebec Jewish community “is under attack,” following the overnight shooting on November 8 at two different Jewish schools located on Saint-Kevin Ave. in Côte-des-Neiges and Chemin Deacon in Outremont. No one was injured and authorities believe the shots were fired overnight and the investigation is ongoing to assess the hate-crime situations. In response to this notable rise in hate-crimes against both Jewish and Muslim communities in Montreal, Vincent Richer, Deputy Director of the Montreal police force has announced an increase in police vigilance and presence as hateful acts proliferate.

This statement by the Montreal police force follows a recent confrontation between Israeli and Palestinian students at Concordia that turned violent on November 8. The confrontation began after the Israeli student club, StartUp Nation and Concordia’s Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR), set up tables for events they had both reserved on the same day. Both groups have stated they were unaware that the other group had booked a table on the same day and Concordia’s Student Union has been unable to confirm which group actually requested a table first. SPHR was holding a fundraiser for Gaza, selling Keffiyehs to raise money for humanitarian efforts in Gaza. StartUp Nation’s setup included putting up posters of the 240 hostages depicting the hostages taken by Hamas on October 7 and an artistic representation of an empty sabbath dinner. Tensions arose when it was noticed that some of the posters put up by StartUp Nation were attached to a wall in front of the SPHR’s table. Multiple people began to remove the posters of the hostages surrounding SPHR’s table, however SPHR declared that this was not an act they condoned. The President of StartUp Nation insisted that the posters were not intended as a provocation and had been put up before SPHR’s table was set up as they “didn’t know that they would be here today.” Soon after Concordia campus safety and prevention as well as Andrew Woodwall, Dean of Students, arrived to inform StartUp Nation that many of their posters did not align with Concordia’s guidelines and thus had to be removed.

While videos have been circulating the internet, they show only a fragmented portrayal of the event and the entire context and account of the confrontation remains uncertain. Numerous videos and conflicting recounts of the confrontation have emerged, resulting in some ambiguity over the initiation of the conflict. Videos show shoving matches, chanting, and shouting between students, non-students, and staff. During this conflict, multiple altercations broke out resulting in the injury of two Concordia safety staff and one student. At 1:30 p.m. police arrived, calling for the crowd to disperse and arresting a 22 year old pro-Palestine student.

Another video that went viral depicted a Concordia student who has been alleged to have said an antisemitic k-slur. However, a longer video shows a middle-aged non-student being verbally aggressive and homophobic toward the student. Since then, the student has clarified they did not say antisemitic slur, and in fact was not even aware of said slur. In a statement to the Link, the student emphasized that “any kind of slur is not something that I want to be associated with, especially as someone who’s from a marginalized community,” and mentioned the immense fear they now feel on campus. Subsequent to the conflict, in an email, spokesperson Vannina Maestracci from Concordia discussed the event, writing that “the safety of our community is our priority.” Additionally, in response to the confrontation, many organizations and leaders have expressed their opinions on the issue, denouncing the violence that transpired, and the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations has urged educational institutions to take necessary action in order to prevent violence and discrimination on campuses.

The post How the Canadian Government is Addressing the Israel-Palestine Conflict appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The purpose of the summit is to highlight “first mover and doer” leaders within the government, businesses, local authorities, and civil society who have established set actions, policies, and plans to reduce carbon emissions on both a global and local level. In doing so, Guterres hopes to inspire climate justice by  demonstrating the feasibility of cutting emissions. Additionally, the Summit aims to accelerate their goal outlined in The Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. 

Legault’s 2023 Plan for a Green Economy 2023-2028 Implementation Plan has drawn recent political and international attention and was the basis of his invitation to the summit. Legault’s plan has a nine billion budget and is based upon five main axes: mitigating climate change through a reduction of Quebec’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, building the “economy of tomorrow” by focusing on electrification, adapting to climate change, creating a predictable environment, and accelerating research and development. Other aspects of Legault’s initiative include a target of reducing GHG emissions to 37.5 per cent below its 1990 levels by 2030 and aiming to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Additionally, they hope to have two million electric vehicles on the roads by 2030. 

Although Legault did not end up speaking at the Summit, he did give a speech at a meeting held on  September 19 for the representatives of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, a group of governments working to decrease gas and oil production of which Quebec is a member. At this conference, Legault explained his 2030 initiative including Quebec’s plan to make green aluminum, green steel, and electric buses using clean energy. He stated Quebec has “the lowest rate in Canada and the lowest in the United States” of greenhouse gas levels per person. 

However, not everyone is as pleased with Legault’s actions against climate change. The belief among many environmental groups, including Greenpeace Canada and Greenpeace McGill, is that while Quebec has made some important strides, more needs to be done to qualify Legault’s invitation to the UN Summit. Greenpeace Canada stated its worry both that the goal of a 37.5 per cent reduction in GHG emissions should be updated to 65 per cent and that based on Quebec’s current climate actions, emissions are not “being drastically and rapidly reduced“ enough, meaning that “Quebec is not on track to meet its 2030 target”. They pointed out that in contrast to Legault’s Green Economy Plan, emissions in the transportation sector have seen a rise as of late. Greenpeace McGill echoed this concern that although “Quebec has consistently been a climate leader,” that “given Legault’s reluctance to develop productive and changemaking climate policy, we don’t necessarily consider him to be the best representative of climate interests.” The main issue they emphasized is the plans’s failure to facilitate system-level changes: “it is not enough to simply hope that innovation will allow us to circumvent issues that are, at their core, systemic.” 

Other political and environmental groups in Quebec, including the Parti Québécois, has questioned whether these plans made by Legault are performative. There is also skepticism around the execution of said plans on a local level and in the long run. In terms of Quebec’s representation as a strong leader in climate change, Greenpeace McGill noted that there are many important leaders and groups working in Quebec who “would be able to better explain the goals and ideas of the local climate movement, such as members of our Indigenous community” than the Quebec government. 

As the UN Summit concluded, Guterres stressed their goal to inspire more businesses, governments, and leaders to act by highlighting green initiatives at the event in what he called a “Summit of Hope,” which was intended to illustrate the feasibility of climate change action by spotlighting green initiatives. The Summit outlined that the next best steps will be aligning local and international policies with possible and science-backed targets to expedite decarbonization and more climate justice actions. The goal of keeping temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius will require the establishment of policies and regulatory architecture to enable this transition. There will be much work that must be done on behalf of the government, financial authorities, and regulators to ensure these actions are being put into practice. At the UN Summit, many leaders who were initially invited to deliver speeches were sidelined due to a lack of action in their plans. This was a means of moral pressure delivered by the UN. Following this, there will be a great deal of pressure on governments, including Legault and the Quebec government to be able to implement his climate change plans, with many international and local leaders watching closely.

The post Legault Invited to UN Climate Ambition Summit appeared first on The McGill Daily.