The Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), a non-profit umbrella organization that has taken a lead in opposing the bill, has said that the legislation does not target smugglers, but rather the vast number of asylum-seekers who arrive in Canada with their aid.

Bill C-49 would make participation in “human trafficking events” a criminal offense. Individuals arriving in Canada by irregular means could be detained for up to one year without review, and denied permanent residency status for up to five years, even if recognized as a refugee by Canadian officials. Individuals would also be denied the right of appeal if their refugee claim were rejected.

Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews introduced the bill to the public in October last year, while standing in front of the Ocean Lady, a rusty freighter carrying hundreds of Sri Lankan asylum-seekers that docked in Vancouver last August. The migrants were held in a Vancouver jail for several months before being released and permitted to file refugee claims.

Jessica McDonald, media spokesperson for the Ministry of Public Safety told The Daily in an email that the bill “reduces the attraction of coming to Canada by way of an illegal human smuggling operation,” and would send a clear message to smugglers that “Canada will not tolerate your criminal activities.”

Liberal MP Justin Trudeau criticized the logic of Bill C-49 as a deterrent to smuggling, and accused the federal government of increasing the barriers facing legitimate refugees.

“[This bill] doesn’t fulfill any practical purpose of cracking down on illegal smuggling. It only aims to make the Conservatives look tough on crime, and anyone against this piece of crap legislation appears soft on human smuggling, which we are not,” said Trudeau.

“We have a process for refugees; they are evaluated by the IRB [Immigration and Refugee Board], and it is established whether they are legitimate…and anyone who is simply trying to immigrate to Canada for economic reasons gets sent back,” he added.

CCR Executive Rick Goldman viewed the bill as a direct attempt to crack down on the individuals seeking asylum in Canada.

“It is impossible for many people from refugee producing countries to get here through a legal method. So the vast majority have to use illegal methods at some point,” said Goldman.

“This is accepted by the U.N. High Commission as normal, and not normally held against refugees. So the government is really attacking something that is an accepted reality; that refugees need to have recourse to false documents in order to get to somewhere far from their country of origin,” he added.

According to Goldman, the proposed legislation is also a clear contravention of the U.N. Refugee Convention, which prohibits states from imposing penalties on the illegal entry of refugees facing a well-founded fear of persecution.

“The good refugees are those who wait 15 to 20 years in a camp, with only the hope that maybe one day they will be resettled. … But we also have an obligation towards the ones who come here. They are entitled to rights. They get to stay if they are real refugees, and that is our obligation under international law,” added Goldman.

More than 12,000 refugees were welcomed to Canada last year. As of December 31, however, 51,000 refugees claims remain pending before the IRB of Canada.

McDonald also stated that while Canada remained committed to providing a safe haven for legitimate refugees, the federal government would cut down on the abuse of the immigration system.

“Every sovereign country has a responsibility to protect its borders,” wrote McDonald. “Bill C-49 sends the message that it is unfair to those seeking to come to Canada through legitimate, legal means when others pay human smugglers to jump our immigration queue.”

However, according to Trudeau, effective legislation on this issue would target migrant transit countries, such as Thailand, and working with these states to increase their refugee acceptance rates and to crack down on trafficking companies, as well as with source countries to help move individuals facing threats of death and torture.

Goldman expressed dismay at the federal government’s characterization of asylum-seekers as “queue jumpers.”

“There is no queue for refugees. There is a queue for people who want to come here as skilled workers, but there is absolutely no queue for refugees,” he said.

Trudeau points out that this rhetoric was to rally electoral support among first-generation Canadians and immigrants by equating refugees to economic migrants.

“This is probably one of the most insidious elements of how they [the federal government] have decided to spin this bill. It is meant to make first-generation Canadians and immigrants turn against this bill [by saying] that a refugee is the same as an immigrant, and while new arrivals have to wait five or ten years to come to Canada, these new arrivals are jumping the queue,” added Trudeau.

Goldman also believed that the legislation is an attempt to shore up Conservative support in the run up to any future election. He drew attention to the fact that the federal government has continued to promote the legislation despite the fact that all three opposition parties have heavily criticized it.

“It’s dead in the water as a serious piece of legislation, so why continue to talk about it? They are still having press conferences, and photo ops, so it is really for electoral purposes,” added Goldman. “They continue to whip up anti-refugee hysteria in order to win election votes.”

The post Federal anti-smuggling bill cracks down on asylum seekers appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Prior to 2010, postdoctoral students in Quebec were considered regular students. However, a change in federal tax law standardized the status of postdocs across Canada, categorizing them all as employees and trainees.

“If you are not pursuing a degree, you are not a student, according to the federal government,” said PGSS VP External Ryan Hughes.

According to Hughes, some McGill Postdoctoral Fellows have been audited by the federal government. As a result, their 2009 income has been declared taxable despite McGill’s issuance of the requisite T2202 forms to the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA), that normally exempt post-doc students from taxation.

The motion feared that “the CRA have put an untenable financial burden on these PGSS members and their families, and stand to threaten all PGSS members.”

It remains unclear how many postdoctoral students will be affected, and how much of their income may be collected as tax.

“Since education is a provincial purview, the question is whether the federal government has the right to determine who a student is,” said Hughes.

“Some students have been audited randomly at Laval [and] McGill, and will be taxed for this year and for the 2009 year. We are talking about thousands of dollars here, which will directly impact not only the students but also the families they support, “ Hughes added.

Hughes argued for the necessity to have funds available to challenge the changes in federal tax law if needed. The motion called for $2,000 to be allocated toward hiring the consultants needed to further research the implications of the changes and potential responses.

The remainder was to be allocated for providing graduate students with needed legal aid and financial support if audited.

The reallocation provoked heated debate at Council because the $40,000 was taken from the newly approved maternity and paternity program supporting graduate students with dependents.

PGSS had initially hoped that the McGill administration would match their $40,000 allocation in order to support a daycare program. When this did not happen, however, the daycare program was left in limbo.

PGSS Family Commissioner Hadley Myers, PhD Electrical Engineering, opposed the reallocation. Myers had planned on using the extra funds to buttress the current family care program, which currently receives $60,000, extending support to pregnant and ill graduate students. The current system only supports those who already have children.

“This was money that would have been used to benefit people. We had programs ready to go that we worked really hard on,” said Myers.

The PGSS Student Support Commissioner Ulrike Trojahn, MA Biochemistry, expressed concern about the reallocation of funding.

“I’m worried about the message we are sending regarding student families. They are a minority in our student society, and fundamentally these people have been overlooked,” said Trojahn.

“Last year, when the family care pilot project was launched, it was an exceptional step in terms of student societies taking care of their members, and I feel that this direction should be continued,” she added.

The emergency motion contained a clause, however, which would see Council hold final responsibility for the allocation of the remainder of the funds if legal action and financial support were not deemed to be appropriate responses, and would see the funds then funneled back into family care.

Despite the clause, Myers was still concerned about the decision to take the money from a program which had received widespread support from Council in previous meetings.

“It was an affirmative action program to support those who needed it. Taking it away now is unfair and many, many of the parents, a disproportionate number of them are in fact postdocs. So we are robbing postdocs to support ten postdocs,” said Myers.

The post Postdoctoral students to get taxed appeared first on The McGill Daily.

International students in Quebec are required to renew their federal Study Permit every three years. In order to do so, they must first apply to Immigration Quebec to renew their Quebec Acceptance Certificate (CAQ). Immigration Quebec advises students to apply three months before their permit expires, but delays and complications have left some McGill students waiting for over six months after submitting their applications.

Draper applied for her CAQ last May, three months before her application expired. Five months later, she received notification that there was a problem with her application, and that it would take an additional two months for her documents to be reviewed.

“I was under the impression that I wouldn’t be able to go home for Christmas, which would have been devastating to me. … This measly little paper was holding me back,” Draper said.

Without her CAQ, Draper was considered to be under “implied status,” meaning that she couldn’t leave the country, or Canadian immigration would de-register her from McGill and she would not be allowed to re-enter Canada.

“It’s like being held hostage, and now you are intruding on my family time, family time that means so much to me. It is emotionally draining,” she said.

Draper’s case only turned around when she approached Dean of Students Jane Everett for help.

“[Everett] answered my email within five hours of receiving it. A week later I got a personal call from someone at Immigration saying they made a mistake, and that they were sending my permit,” said Draper.

“I am assuming that getting a personal call from Immigration is unheard of…so I am sure that me getting the Dean involved had something to do with it. Talking to her was the first time I had my faith restored in McGill administration. It’s the first time I thought someone gave a damn that I was able to leave the country,” said Draper.

Draper is not the only student who has been delayed in having a permit renewed. Kristina Litvin, from Boston, Massachusetts, also submitted her application last May, three months before it was due to expire. Her application was sent to the wrong address three times. Uncertain of the status of her application, Litvin went to McGill’s new Service Point to find out whether or not she could leave the country to go home for Thanksgiving weekend.

“According to Service Point, it wasn’t a problem. I just had to print out my statements saying I’d already applied. When I asked the same question to Canadian Immigration, they practically laughed at me,” said Litvin.

“According to Immigration, leaving the country means I’d ‘voluntarily revoke my implied status’ and would only return into the country as a visitor. I would be banned from my classes. When asked what would happen if I kept going to classes, I was told that my degree would be suspended and I wouldn’t be allowed in the country for a full year afterwards to finish it,” she added. 
Michael Kirwin, an advisor at International Student Services, commented on the delays.

“I don’t want to bash Immigration Quebec, but I think they have been very inconsistent. Some people have gotten it early, some people don’t hear back until May, and it is going to their Montreal address when they are home. We get as frustrated as students do,” said Kirwin.

“We don’t have the power to accelerate the processing,” he continued. “What we do do is that – if we find that a student file has been unfairly treated – we can try to help students contact people to find out what is going on.”

 Kirwin emphasized, however, that students waiting until the last minute and incomplete or incorrect applications cause the greatest number of complications. International students must demonstrate that they have the financial capacity to pay full tuition, as well as an additional $11,000 of liquid assets, documentation that takes time to compile.

Immigration Quebec did not respond directly to The Daily’s questions about the inconsistencies in processing time experienced by McGill students. Communications Advisor for the Quebec branch of Citizenship and Immigration Canada Julie Lafortune, however, recommended that students submit their documentation at least thirty days before the expiry of their permit, and assured that students whose permit expired before they received a response could continue to legally study in Canada until they received a decision.

For students like Meryl Draper and Kristina Litvin, who submitted their applications well in advance of the thirty-day deadline, the bitterness of their experience remains. 
“What bothers me isn’t the process itself. Every country has their own codes and processes for immigration, and it’s never a walk in the park,” Draper said. “But it’s the complete lack of communication and knowledge, both internally, within the departments, and to the applicants. When you try to get help, the people whose job it is to help you just don’t know.”

 “McGill’s the exact same way. You’d think that an internal institution of 30,000 students would know a thing or two about the nineteen per cent of their students who are international, but they have no idea, and no one cares to find out.”

The post International students struggle to remain legal appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The conviction concludes the first ever trial of a child soldier accused of war crimes since the Nuremberg hearings after the Second World War, and the first trial of a terrorism suspect by the Obama-led military commissions.

Khadr pled guilty last Monday to the murder of Sergeant Christopher Speer, an American medic killed in a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. In exchange for his guilty plea, Khadr was offered a sentence of eight years in prison, and permission to apply for transfer to Canada after one year.

In a statement released to 28 journalists, The Daily among them, Khadr’s lawyer Dennis Edney said that justice had not been served.

“The fact that the trial of a child soldier, Omar Khadr, has ended with a guilty plea in exchange for his eventual release to Canada does not change the fact that fundamental principles of law and due process were long since abandoned in Omar’s case,” Edney wrote.

“We may choose to believe that through his plea Omar finally came clean and accepted his involvement in a firefight when he was 15 years of age, or that this was one final coerced confession from a victimized  young man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time because his father placed him there,” said Edney.

The plea agreement limited the number of witnesses Khadr’s defense could call to four individuals, while the prosecution was able to call ten witnesses to the stand. Moreover, the commission judge refused to recognize Khadr’s status as a child soldier, although he was only 15 at the time of arrest.

Finally, the commission did not permit evidence that Khadr had been threatened with murder and rape while being interrogated by U.S. officials, although the incriminating statements elicited from Khadr while “under duress,” and without the presence of a lawyer, were accepted.

Nathan Whitling, another lawyer for Khadr, called the forty-year sentence “astonishing,” particularly because the prosecution had only asked for Khadr to be sentenced to 25 years.  
“To hear the [military jury] come down to that forty number was quite shocking. We knew that number didn’t mean anything, because there is a deal in place that will ensure Omar will serve only eight,” said Whitling.

“These people on the panel were all soldiers, and Sergeant Speer was one of their own. … In that sense, it is no surprise at all that there was such a harsh sentence,” added Whitling.

Though the Canadian government has stated that it was not involved in negotiating the plea agreement, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon confirmed on Monday that Khadr would be permitted to apply for transfer in one years’ time.

According to Whitling, Khadr’s defense team will seek his release as soon as possible following Khadr’s return to Canada. Khadr’s lawyers will focus on the parole process since the International Transfer of Offenders Act does not permit Khadr to challenge his foreign conviction.

The post Khadr sentenced appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Khadr, the first child soldier to be tried for war crimes since the Nuremburg trials after World War II, and the first terrorism suspect to be charged under an Obama-led military commission, has vehemently denied all accusations in the past. His reversal has been attributed to news of a plea bargain that would see him serve an eight-year sentence, and allow him to seek repatriation to Canada after one year.

Wayne Marston, NDP Human Rights critic and MP for the Ontario riding of Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, was hesitant to call the plea bargain an improvement in Khadr’s case.

 “It depends what you call progress. … He had two choices: eight years or life in prison. There was no third option. What would you have done?” said Marston, adding that in the U.S. plea bargains are used as a matter of expediency to keep the number of cases to a minimum.

According to Marston, Khadr’s admission of guilt could not be used to overlook the illegality of Khadr’s detention at Guantánamo Bay and of the military proceedings.

“When you take a plea bargain you have to acknowledge the facts of the plea bargain. You have a young man saying he is guilty, who may or may not be. But put all this discussion aside, and you come down to one thing. He was a child combatant protected under the Conventions on the Rights of [the] Child, and the Harper government failed drastically on this fact,” said Marston.

 According to Marston, Canada’s behaviour toward Khadr has not only cost him eight years of his life, it has also impacted the perception of Canada within the international community.

 “We just lost a seat at the United Nations. Do you mean to tell me that when the [UN] Secretary General asked Canada to repatriate Omar Khadr, and Canada refused, that that doesn’t have an impact on our seat at the UN?” asked Marston.

“The United Nations will look at how you support UN Resolutions and Conventions. We clearly weren’t abiding by them. … He is [a] Canadian citizen, and the government had an obligation to provide him with consular support, to protect his rights,” he added.

The U.S. State Department indicated this week that it would support a future request by Khadr to be returned to Canadian custody. The Canadian government has not acknowledged the existence of an agreement, or that negotiations are underway. A statement issued by Canadian Foreign Affairs minister Lawrence Cannon addressed the matter as one “between Mr. Khadr and the U.S. government.”

It has been widely reported, however, that Cannon and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are involved in negotiating an agreement that would see Khadr returned to Canada.

Sukenya Pillay of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association speculated on the existence of an agreement, insisting that the Canadian government ensure that any future transfer of Khadr be conducted smoothly.

“We expect that the Canadian government should do nothing to obstruct a smooth transfer. We have been saying all along that the Canadian government should repatriate him and they should not do anything to thwart that,” said Pillay.

“Moreover, they should do everything possible to rehabilitate him, and they should provide him with adequate remedy as the Supreme Court of Canada has said, for the breach of his Charter Rights,” she added. 
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled last year that the Canadian government was complicit in violating Khadr’s human rights under the Charter, and basic standards on the treatment of detained youth. Khadr was subject to abusive interrogation practices while detained at Guantanamo.

According to McGill Law Professor François Crepeau, if repatriated to Canada, Khadr and his lawyers could apply on these grounds to have the U.S. military court sentence reduced or overturned completely.

“It is difficult to make predictions, but since the U.S. Supreme Court and Canadian Supreme Court have said the military commissions are not appropriate for Omar Khadr…[he] and his lawyers may apply to have the whole proceeding quashed, arguing that he was tortured, detained as a child soldier, and should not have been treated as an adult,” said Crepeau.

Canadian public opinion may be the greatest obstacle to federal action on Khadr’s file. Recent media coverage has indicated a clear opposition to Khadr’s right to repatriation. 
Crepeau attributed the division to a number of factors: the Conservative belief that individuals are responsible for their actions abroad, the total confidence of some Canadians in the American judicial system, and the belief that Khadr and his family are not deserving of Canadian citizenship.

“It’s not really racism I think, but if the person were blonde, blue-eyed, and called Tremblay, the situation would be different,” commented Crepeau. “The fact that he is Omar Khadr means that he should not be called Canadian, and not only should we not be calling him Canadian, but that we could strip him of his citizenship. The fact that he was born here does not matter,” he added.

The post Omar Khadr pleading guilty appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Premier Jean Charest has said that the proposed law will advance the value of equality and secularism in the province, and that uncovered faces will improve security, identification, and communication in Quebec’s public sector.

The bill’s opponents say that the legislation would impede religious freedoms and shut Quebecker Muslim women out from the public services to which they are entitled. Others have called it a hasty response to political pressure following the expulsion of a niqab-wearing student from a CEGEP in Montreal.

The Daily sat down with two women from the Montreal area to discuss their views on the niqab, the ban, and reasonable accommodation in the province. Though the bill has garnered international attention, local women wearing the niqab have yet to weigh in on the debate and the bill’s implications.

Sheeba Shukoor, 25
Brossard
The McGill Daily: When did you start wearing the niqab? Why? 


Sheeba Shakour: I started wearing the hijab when I was 15. Niqab wasn’t something I really understood at first, and the same goes for hijab as well. Upon doing research I found the niqab to be a manifestation of hijab, and I did research, and I went back and decided to wear it. 

I am still a student of knowledge so I can’t say with expertise, but from what I have learned from now, is that it is more of a concept: separation between men and women, and one part is to lower your gaze.

Another part of this is that the wives of the prophet wore it when speaking to his companions. It is said that when you ask them [the wives] for something, ask them from behind a barrier, and we know according to narration and tradition that the wives of the prophet did in fact cover themselves.  They are our role models and we wish to emulate them.

 With regards to an obligation for women, I can’t comment on this, because I can’t speak with knowledge, but it is something encouraged in Islam and it is something for purification – it is pure for your heart.


MD: What difficulties have you encountered while wearing the niqab?


SS: For two months I was wearing the niqab and right now I am not wearing it, but I really miss it, and I want to wear it again. But with the niqab I found that my relatives at home were more skeptical about it than third parties. Many Muslim people are not understanding of [even] the hijab. They don’t understand the niqab which is even harder to grasp. It helps to have support from family members.


In the West and in the media you get scrutinized for it…. Someone asked me in grocery, “Ma’am, did you pay for everything in your bag?,” and they think I am trying to hide something…so a challenge is that I have to be more articulate and outspoken, and I have to be nice to people. I want them to know that I don’t want to be intolerant, and I wish to be tolerant of others, and that I don’t want to impose anything on anyone, but that I would respect this tolerance in return.


MD: Why did you stop wearing it?


SS: Mostly I guess because my husband wasn’t very much for it. I was the one who said I wanted to wear it, but people would say that he forced me to wear it. He felt conscious of the fact that perhaps they would think that he is blameworthy when in fact it was my conscious choice and decision. So I decided that maybe not now, I won’t wear it for awhile to see, and I guess there [were] other things going on…. 
But inshallah [god willing] when things settle down, and I have time…I would like to wear it again…. It is a sacrifice [and] it is not easy to do, but you feel like you are doing it for a noble purpose, then it doesn’t matter so much what people think or say because you know that you are doing it for God.


MD: Do you think the niqab could make other people feel uncomfortable?


SS: I think it can make people feel uncomfortable, but I think that’s because they might not be sure why it is being worn. Personally I don’t remember any experience where I felt I was making people feel uncomfortable in any way, and when I was wearing a niqab I was making more of an effort to be friendly with people, and to say hello so that people could see past what I was wearing. There is a lot to a person’s intellect and personality and that can be expressed with or without the niqab…. I don’t think it made anyone feel uncomfortable in any way, and when I did wear it I was very conscious of the fact that I was wearing it. In fact, I was the one who felt a bit nervous, especially in the beginning. But it is something that has become a part of me and I don’t find a problem in wearing it.

 I can’t think of an actual experience when others said that they found it offensive or disturbing in any manner. 


MD: What are your thoughts on the bill? Why do you think this ban is being considered?


SS: It is something strange, this whole effort of reasonable accommodation in Quebec. People from different backgrounds, different ethnicities could come together and be part of this society. In many ways, by passing this bill, not only are people being marginalized, but they are being deterred from being part of society just because they have a different view on things. 

In the case of the lady wearing the niqab and was expelled from college, I don’t think it should have gone to higher levels – that a bill is passed. It could have been resolved at the college, or by an intermediary coming in…and resolved it without it becoming something applicable to the entire province. Education is a right for everyone in this country, and I can’t understand why a different manner of dressing should [prevent] someone from seeking knowledge.


MD: Do you think you were able to interact with the wider public while wearing a niqab? 


SS: I wasn’t rigid about it, in the sense that I would try not to make it so blatantly obvious. I would wear subtle colours, not black. It was summer that I was wearing it, and summer tends to get hot. So I would wear pastel colours, not something that would make me stand out – something that will help me blend in.

 I remember even having to board a flight, and I was more than willing and able to remove it so that they could identify me, and it doesn’t take long to get on the plane and to go about your day.

I think a lot of women are already understanding of that if they are asked to identify themselves…they understand that safety and security is important.
 
In many ways the bill is reasserting something that was already understood, and not only that but it went a step forward to limit people.

Dayna Ahmed, 28
Parc Extension
The McGill Daily: Why did you start wearing the niqab?


DA: I started when I was in Concordia, and I thought I would never wear it, but alhamdulillah [thank god] I read more about it, and the more I grew in spirituality, I realized that this is part of my religion and this is what my creator wants me to do. After awhile I met a sister who wears the niqab in Concordia and I started asking questions; what is the stance [of the] niqab in Islam, and as I read more I realized it is the right thing to do.

 The sister who was wearing the niqab, and the way she was really convinced me. She was covered and she was doing her masters. The way she was, the way she was talking, the confidence she had…that is what compelled me to wear the niqab.

You need more confidence to do it…and that really attracted me to it. 

The niqab makes me conscious of my creator. It’s very out there, and it’s very visible, very different, it makes you very conscious of your creator, why you are here, what is the purpose of my life, its a protection, a reminder, a way of coming close.


MD: How do people react to you when you wear the niqab?


DA: It’s been seven years now, and yah, I finished my undergraduate wearing a niqab, and it was really great at Concordia. I didn’t have any problems. 

Very few people would really make comments, and the people who make negative comments are the people who don’t really know…but in some areas, like south side when I was in Concordia I would never have any comments, but maybe in other places I would. 

If people asked me politely I would tell them, would you like me to tell you why I am doing it? But it scares them because they just want to comment. They are kind of scared when you want to make a conversation. People who want to know would ask, but some people have already made up there mind, they don’t want to know why you are doing it, but they have the stereotype in the media, and they just want to make comments, and throw their anger at you.


MD: Does the niqab limit how you can interact in public?


DA: Most of the things, you know the drivers license, passport, was all really good. I would ask for a lady when getting ID’s…and most of the time it would be ok if there is something they would provide something. Alhamdulillah even for my exams, I would not feel anything. People were ok with it, they were really accommodating.

 And it was not like I would unreasonable. I was traveling to the states and they didn’t have anyone female, and they would just understand and asked me to come in a corner with my husband, and I did. It was something reasonable to do because there was no other person, but it was something that they couldn’t provide, and that’s only happened once.


MD: How would the ban affect your life?


DA: It will really affect my life in many ways. I finished my undergraduate but if I ever wanted to continue, that would affect me, and lot of people who want to get further higher education.  What’s so funny about the bill, that I don’t understand really well, is that it is not very clear. I don’t know what it means…is it that I can not go into the building? Is it about removing the veil? If it is a female or a necessity, I do remove my veil, so I don’t know what the bill is helping us to do. The bus is also a public service, does that mean that I have to take off my veil? I don’t know how it will affect me because I don’t know what it is implying. The bus, the metro, that would affect me because once in awhile I use public transportation.


MD: Were you surprised by the proposed ban?


DA: When the bill came, I was kind of shocked. How come they didn’t ask anyone who is wearing he hijab or niqab? How come they didn’t consult us? They presented a bill without asking us, but it will affect us. We live in a democracy, they should ask us, they should ask most of the publics opinion and the people who are going to be affected by it. We are citizens living in this society, we should have a say too. We can accommodate, negotiation, but you have to talk to the people who are going to be affected by it, and discuss what should be the methods of dealing with it.


MD: What are your thoughts on the bill?


DA: I think it is the negative sentiment toward Muslims, which is also the fault of Muslims. We haven’t given good dawah [education] about Islam because most of the people who oppose it know very little about Islam. It’s the ignorance that has spread toward Islam and Muslims, and whatever they hear in the media…. It is also the feminist movement. For so long they have fought against male dominance and when they see a women covering they feel like they are going back in time. So it shows that they don’t know what the hijab and niqab are, it’s nothing about male female equality.


I think that not allowing me to where a niqab; that I have to choose between my religious identity and my Canadian identity, my nationality…. Why should I have to make this compromise? It is my right of freedom, my religious right. It is my religion, and it’s not something made up either, and by wearing it I am practicing my religion. I am practicing my faith. You aren’t making an accommodation for something that is baseless, but something that is there for good reason. 

I always grew up in Canada, I came here when I was two years old. This is the only country I know. I am a Muslim and I am a Canadian, I am both…. I would be very sad that this country would condemn people for practicing their faith in that way, a country that is known for justness. And I hope people can be more tolerant, in a country that is so multicultural. Why should we not tolerate that someone wants to practice their faith?

Siema Abbas, 33
Côte-des-Neiges
The 

McGill Daily: Did you choose to wear the niqab? Why?


Siema Abbas: I chose personally to wear the niqab and the reason I wore it is because I think it something that will bring me closer to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala.
 After researching about religion, I made a decision that this is something that would kind of complete me a bit…. I know for a fact that the prophets’ wives wore it, and that’s something I wanted to emulate. That was the main reason, because we are supposed to follow Qur’an and Sunnah, and if they wore it – that is an example for women, and that’s why I decided to.

MD: How do people react to you when you where the niqab?


SA: There are good days and bad days. Sometimes I walk out and no one really says anything, but most people are pretty much ok with me…. On bad days I will hear comments here and there: the occasional look, the occasional comment, but I haven’t had anyone tell me something too, too harsh. All in all, [some] people are indifferent, some people are curious, others are a bit hostile.


MD: How will this bill affect your life it is passed?


SA: It would kind of be difficult, because me, personally, I go out and I interact: I have a social life. If I go to the hospital, it would limit my freedom to go places. The government is saying that they want to free us, free people who wear niqab. But I don’t think it is really freeing us – it is restricting us. I made a choice to wear it. It is part of my every day life and it would restrict me because I don’t want to take it off.


MD: Are you able to interact with the wider public while wearing a niqab? 


SA: I did go to school. I completed my university degree before I wore a niqab, but I chose to go back to a CEGEP. So I went there, and I was in class, and I interacted with people. I didn’t have to wear my niqab in certain classes, but I interacted how I had to, so I don’t see how this would cause a problem. 
I can speak to people, people can hear me, maybe some people have a negative image of me, but it’s not what I am trying to portray…so I don’t see what the whole uproar is about. 


MD: Those in support of this bill have argued that individuals employed in the public sector should not have their faces covered. If you imagine yourself in those positions, do you think you would be able to provide a public service to people? 


SA: I think I would be able to…. Doctors and nurses already wear it when dealing with their patients. I have to communicate with the person, and people can hear me when I am talking, so I don’t see what the problem is. So far I’ve never had a problem…communicating with anybody.


MD: Have niqab-wearing women be consulted about the bill?


SA: Absolutely not. I don’t think women have been consulted. If they had been consulted, they would actually say not to have a bill like this. I don’t think that people who wear it like this…but government wants to have this bill because they feel like women are oppressed, so I don’t think they were consulted.

The post The niqab in perspective appeared first on The McGill Daily.

SPHR filed the petition with the Judicial Board on March 17 after being granted an extension by the Board. The group has argued that Newburgh’s association with Hillel Montreal represented a conflict of interest, which compromised his position as speaker of the GA.

SPHR’s motion for the “Defense of Human Rights, Social Justice, and Environmental Protection,” which called on SSMU to investigate the University’s investments in companies complicit in human rights violations through the existing Financial Ethics Review Committee (FERC) or the creation of a new Corporate Social Responsibility Committee (CSR), passed. It also included two clauses in its introduction that targeted McGill’s ties to unethical practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories – though they were later removed in an amendment before the motion was passed by the GA.

Discussion of the motion became heated when Newburgh was accused of a conflict of interest in his role as SSMU speaker since he is also president of Hillel Montreal and his roommate is president of Hillel McGill, which led the campaign against the motion.

“Zach Newburgh is a very capable and professional individual,” said Jamal Daoud, a member of SPHR-McGill, “and [it] came as a surprise that this sort of unprofessional conduct can transpire from someone who has his standing.

“He knew that there was definitely bias in the situation…and the logical thing to do, anticipating this conflict of interest, was to let the other SSMU speaker, Lauren Hudak, preside over the motion. But he refused, and did not utilize the outlets that were available for him to circumvent this conflict of interest.

“We’re not asking for any serious reprimand. We’re not asking for a re-vote. We are going to let the past be the past…. This is solely an issue of SSMU integrity, and this is solely an issue of a clear and transparent conflict of interest…. As a student group, in order to protect other student groups, we just want a safeguard and to set a precedent [of impartiality] for other SSMU speakers, and councillors,” said Daoud.

Newburgh was appointed speaker of council by the SSMU executive early this year, along with co-speaker Lauren Hudak, who facilitated the fall GA.

He received a copy of SPHR’s petition last Friday and said he was surprised by the Judicial Board’s move to review his conduct almost a month and a half after the GA. Newburgh responded to the allegations, saying that he acted “absolutely impartially” and that he did not make any decision alone.

“Every decision was made with my co-speaker of council with consultation. This is a step we take to prevent partiality,” said Newburgh.

“I think we did a good job making sure that the room was tolerable for everyone that was involved, [in] dealing with a room of 650 people who are frustrated, tired…lashing out against each other, and directing their anger against the speaker of council,” Newburgh added.

Newburgh viewed the petition as an attempt to humiliate him as the speaker of council, and called on the group to settle the matter before it became a source of division among the student community.

The petitioners have turned to decisions made by Newburgh during the GA as possible evidence of partiality toward those who opposed the motion.

“Robert’s Rules says that the preamble is amended last, and what [Newburgh] did was as soon as the motion was presented – which he also did not read in full, which is also a breach of procedure – he allowed it to go straight to a vote to strike the preamble clauses without debate and without amending any part of the motion itself…. This is a violation of Robert’s Rules,” said Daoud.

“[He interpreted] Robert’s Rules to fulfill his biases against this motion, and in order to fulfill the grievances of his constituency,” Daoud added. “We feel there was a very obvious procedural breach that resulted from a conflict of interest…and that SSMU is supposed to have safeguards against these occurrences.”
Newburgh said that the conflict of interest question had been raised and addressed by the SSMU executive prior to the GA.

“I had highlighted this particular issue with the president and the rest of the executive and they had stated that considering that I had displayed impartiality on a number of different resolutions that had come up for debate at the SSMU legislative council, resolutions that I had particular opinions about, stakes in…given [my previous] impartiality there was no reason to question whether I should be the one presiding over this particular resolution, or that meeting,” said Newburgh.

According to SSMU president Ivan Neilson, GA organizers received no indication that members wanted to reconsider Newburgh’s role as speaker.

“I think if people have specific concerns or if they perceive a situation to be particularly troublesome…it is within their right of Robert’s Rules to bring a motion to remove the chair. We received no such motion,” said Neilson.

He added, however, that he had full confidence in Newburgh’s ability to act impartially.

“Considering in [Newburgh’s] case that he was the president of Hillel Montreal, entirely separate from the McGill context…[and] separate from SSMU, his involvement was separate so we had confidence in his impartiality,” Neilson explained.

“I think every person has beliefs and that every person has opinions, but you are either impartial or you aren’t. Throughout the entire interviews [Newburgh and Hudak] showed they were capable of that.”
Daoud agreed with Neilson’s view that the position of speaker should not be withheld from Newburgh on account of his other affiliations since many students are involved with organizations and groups on and off campus. He stressed, however, that individuals selected to such positions should have the foresight to acknowledge potential sources of conflict and to step down when necessary.

“The only thing that we are trying to remedy [through the petition] is future occurrences of the same nature. We don’t want any student on campus, or any group on campus, to feel marginalized or to feel that SSMU possesses a partial stance against them,” said Daoud.

“In [Newburgh’s] capacity as incoming SSMU president he has a responsibility to represent the student body, and this responsibility is a serious [one] because he is supposed to uphold the integrity of the SSMU…. Without that integrity people will lose their trust in their elected student members,” he added.

The post SPHR takes Newburgh to Judicial Board appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On Sunday, the Native Women’s Shelter of Montreal (NWSM) held a policy meeting with Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff to call on the federal government to reinstate its support for the AHF. The shelter depends on the AHF for funding.

“We have been receiving funds from the AHF for the last 10 years, and it goes toward our healing program, and the basics, a roof over the head and food to eat…A lot of people [are] out of work, and we are going to be grasping at straws now to try to meet the needs of the women,” said Nakuset, the shelter’s executive director.

Nakuset also said that the shelter will now have to cut the positions of sexual assault counsellor, program coordinator, and clinical supervisor.

“It is quite devastating; we have an art therapist that comes in on a weekly basis, a psychologist, and psychotherapist who is Mohawk. People over the last decade have come to depend on our services for more than just the basics,” Nakuset added.

Women community leaders from across Montreal, Ignatieff, and Liberal MP Justin Trudeau attended the policy meeting to express their support for the shelter and AHF.

“At the moment when aboriginal women and aboriginal families are under maximum pressure, increased pressure in an economic downturn, it is the worst possible time to cut funding to these healing centres that provide so much good,” said Ignatieff.

He added that working with the Conservative government is extremely different, and that co-operation on its part is the exception, not the rule.

“These groups depend on public money. We don’t think it’s appropriate for them to have to go begging to private sources…. We think these institutions perform public services; they protect women, they shelter women, they help women, and they deserve public support,” added Ignatieff.

According to Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs spokesperson Margot Geduld, the federal government has allocated $65.9 million over two years for aboriginal health programs to be distributed by Health Canada. The federal budget also allocates $199 million for the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The federal program provides former residential school students with a lump sum payment of $10,000 for the first school year plus $3,000 for each subsequent year they spent in the residential school system. Students who suffered serious physical and sexual abuses may apply for additional compensation.

Geduld would not comment on why funding to the AHF was not renewed this year, though she thanked the foundation for providing support to aboriginal peoples and said that officials had met with the AHF to discuss moving forward.

Terri Normandin, the shelter’s sexual assault counsellor, said that the federal budget did not specify how the allocated funds would be distributed, and that it remained unclear whether existing programs would receive any support.

She added that she was surprised that the funding was cut considering the magnitude of the trauma caused by the residential school system.

“It may be from the past, but when you look at the social issues we are dealing with, we have a loss of cultural identity, poor self esteem, a lot of health issues, addiction, a lot of domestic violence. The whole thing is inter-generational trauma…years and years of habits that we were starting to help with, issues that are not laid to rest,” said Normandin.

The NWSM sent an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper Tuesday to demand the renewal of funds for the AHF.

AHF communications director Wayne Spear said the foundation is prepared to support the transition of 11 healing centres and other programs.

“We will continue to inform the government of the work we are doing and our research and experience. We’ve been clear that there is five years of truth and reconciliation work, mental health counselling, and support for survivors that are needed. We’ve also said that there are a lot of unreached communities, and that communities with service are still early on in this work,” said Spear.

The post Aboriginal non-profit loses funding appeared first on The McGill Daily.

“People actually [have had] their lives ruined by a certificate which turns out be bogus in the end. This is a real problem. We have preventative arrests, jail for people who are not charged…let alone convicted…. These are things which were unimaginable in the Canadian fabric 20 years ago. They were just not possible,” said Simon Potter, a member of the Canadian Bar Association, and fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

“I don’t want to argue here whether these things are necessary…. My point is that necessary or not, they are dangerous and we have to be alert,” said Potter.

Also present at the symposium was Maher Arar, arguably Canada’s best-known victim of outsourced torture. Wrongly labeled an Islamic extremist, Arar was deported to Syria by the American government in 2002 based on information provided by Canadian officials. Arar was held for over a year, and tortured during his detention. Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology five years later.

Arar addressed the growing list of Canadians who have been victims of security intelligence failures. “Here in Canada we are all aware now of at least five or six cases where there is either direct or indirect complicity of the Canadian government: Abdelrazik, El Matti, Almalki, Nureddin. One can only ask the question, what are the other cases we haven’t heard about?” said Arar, commenting on how the lives of these men have been “destroyed” by their experiences.

“Taxpayers’ money was wasted going after the wrong people…. Would we have had a better return on our investments if our security agencies used standards existing for these cases, along with our solid legal system? Maybe it is time to revise our counter-terror strategy in light of what we have learned,” he said.

Many of the panels focused on how Canada’s national security policy should be changed.

Safia Lakhani, one of the symposium’s organizers, commented that the event was about looking forward and improving responses to the current security environment.

“Security certificates [make this discussion] especially timely. They have been thrown out by the courts, upping the measures the government would take. It’s the same with national security policy…. It’s at a turning point, a crossroads, and what matters is where we are going with it,” Lakhani said.

With Parliament back in session, speakers also discussed potential changes to security legislation in coming months.

According to Craig Forcese, associate professor of public international law and national security law at the University of Ottawa, the government has promised to “modernize” judicial codes to fight terrorism, and laws on preventative detention are on the table.

“There is the old adage about the democratic state that we always fight the instruments of chaos with one hand tied behind our back, and that is true and a necessary reality in a democratic state,” said Forcese.

“It’s a question of balancing the legitimate objective of grappling with terrorism against the equally legitimate objective of preserving the rule of law and the democratic institutions we are habituated to.”

Forcese emphasized that terrorism is a security reality that states must be equipped to address. He added though that many of the instruments currently available are insufficiently nuanced to deal with threats, and made the case for moderate preventative detention measures.

“It is possible to arrive at situations where the government has a real cogent and compelling fear of terrorism activity…. My view is that it is best to have a very modest system with checks and balances rather then putting the onus on law enforcement to protect us and then not give them the tools to do that, then driving them to contort those tools in manners that abuse process,” Forcese added.

Julian Falconer, a lawyer who represented Maher Arar and Suaad Mohamud, a Canadian mother who was stranded in Kenya after her passport was rejected by Canadian officials, also commented on the need to achieve a balance between genuine security concerns and respect for civil liberties.

“There was a time when someone had a Canadian passport, it meant something. If you were a Canadian citizen and you were stranded abroad, the existence of that Canadian passport was your insurance that the Canadian government was expected to go to bat for you, and far more often than not they did,” said Falconer, citing Mohamud, Arar, and Omar Khadr as examples.

Falconer also referred to recently prorogued legislation related to the international transfer of offenders, which deals with the treatment of individuals in custody abroad and their right to return to Canada. He expressed dismay that the amendments proposed by the government would further limit the rights of Canadians, and give the executive branch the discretion to deem someone unworthy of assistance.

The post Civil liberties under threat appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Gilbert spoke to students Friday night at an event hosted by the McGill chapter of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights. Gilbert described the interwoven nature of politics and medicine, and his belief that health is the most important foreign policy issue of our time. Gilbert’s political opinions stand out in a profession where neutrality is often the expected norm. But in his view, to be neutral would be tantamount to complicity – putting his patients in further danger. He has argued that the wall separating Gaza from Israel is a dividing line between those who have the right to health care and those who do not, and that pushing for an end to violence and the blockade of Gaza is just “good preventative medicine.”

McGill Daily: Can you describe the scene at al-Shifa hospital once the first casualties started to arrive when the bombing began last year?
Mads Gilbert: We were coming at New Years Eve, and at that time the damage from the bombing had been going on for days already, and we knew the first day, December 27, had been a complete nightmare with many injured going to the hospital…. The bombing of the al-Shifa mosque nearby had shattered all the windows in the surgical block. They were lacking everything and the patients kept pouring in, in waves, up to three, four, five hundred per day.

It was a huge trauma, very painful trauma for us. I really can’t fully understand what kind of trauma it was for our colleagues. They had all their own people coming in, so devastated, so torn apart. But they had their own family members too, friends, neighbours, working colleagues killed, paramedics. I had the deepest respect for their courage and persistence….I don’t think many Western hospitals – my hospital – would have prevailed [through] three weeks of this enormous flow of victims coming in, and lacking so much equipment and capacity.

MD: How were people getting to the hospital? Were ambulances and emergency vehicles able to move freely?
MG: No, ambulances were being shot at. They were not able to move freely. People were carrying children in arms, in private cars, any transport that was available. Often the injured could not [be brought in] because Israel was attacking the ambulances. It was complete chaos. It was mayhem, I would say, outside the entrance to al-Shifa. There were stretches of quiet…but we never knew if they would bomb or attack the hospital. They did bomb hospitals, the al-Quds hospital.

MD: Did you treat individuals who were victims of the use of unconventional weapons? What are their noticeable effects?
MG: We were treating people who we think were victims of new weapons. The first time they were used was in Lebanon in 2006 – DIME weapons – dense inert metal explosives. They are a new generation of bombs that are highly explosive, very short range of action. But if you are in the range of action you are torn apart. A fair amount of children sustained these injuries, and it completely ripped off their arms and legs. Some of the adults could survive it with amputations.

MD: There have been claims about Israel using white phosphorous gas, which results in severe chemical burns. Did you deal with any of these casualties?
MG: I didn’t see any myself, but there were casualties. But phosphorous grenades are not illegal and can be used as smokescreens under international law, although they should not be used against civilian targets. I think all the focus on phosphorous bombs is a little bit ill-informed, and not the main issue.

The most important weapon that Israel is using, and has used against the Palestinians, is the siege of Gaza – that is illegal, against international law, and needs to be lifted immediately. As we are speaking, Israelis are still sieging Gaza, and it is a huge blockade. No building material is coming in, no food, cement, schoolbooks, pencils – security for the people.

MD: What effect has the siege had on the medical infrastructure in Gaza, before and after the war?
MG: First of all, it has caused a very severe and worrisome decline in the health condition of Gaza, stunting amongst children, malnutrition, anemia, and a general exhaustion. People are exhausted, the lack of freedom to move around…. The fundamental condition of health has been weakened by the years of siege…. The hospital health care is deficient of important supplies, maintenance, spare parts, which makes it difficult to work as a doctor and nurse.

MD: Do you believe that medicine and politics can be separated?
MG: As a medical doctor it is my duty to see the world from the angle of my patients and to try to safeguard their fundamental needs for health…. If the first provisions are not in place, then as a doctor I have to talk about their living conditions so that they can change. It goes without saying that if you have unsafe water in Montreal, the general surgeon has to talk to the government, and that is a political process.

All the patients who came in came in because of Israeli bombings. That was the main medical problem. It was not lack of materials, a lack of doctors. It was the ongoing destruction of human life, at the hands of the Israeli government and army…. Bear in mind that 13 Israelis were killed, whereas 1,400 Palestinians were killed. That is 13, and 1,400 too many.

[The] power distribution in society, the distribution of access to health care, human security, all these aspects of life are political aspects. I think the medical community has a responsibility to take part in the decisions that affect the power distribution, and the distribution of wealth, access to fundamental provisions needed for a good life.

So I think politics and medicine are interwoven and that health is currently the most important foreign policy issue of our time.

MD: Why did you feel it was important to report what you were witnessing as a medical professional?
MG: We had to tell the world what was going on in order to stop that, so as to safeguard the safety and living conditions of our patients, and we did what any doctor has the obligation to do: to be a spokesperson for the voiceless, to be a defender of the patients’ interests, and that is an outstanding tradition, and we did our best to inform the leaders of the world, so that they could see what was going on. Unfortunately they didn’t act, but we are convinced to this day that it was right of us to talk about this.

MD: You have been criticized by the Israeli government, among others, for providing one-sided criticism while concealing your political stance. Should people see you as an objective, third party observer?
MG: Yes, we are being criticized by the Israeli government and by the Zionist lobby for being liars and what not, and that is an interesting illustration that medicine is indeed political.

The doctor and the medical community should be concerned with prevention, with changing fundamentally the conditions for health that will only treat the patient. If we were to only stand there and patch up people and stop the bleeding, and not say anything about the causative factors, we would betray our patients. So it was our duty to speak, our duty to tell the world, why all these patients, why all these children were coming in and were dying, were so injured. It was not an earthquake, not a natural disaster; it was a deliberate man-made disaster, planned meticulously, and executed by the state of Israel.

Nobody is neutral, really. While we have chosen sides with the Palestinian people, that does not mean that we won’t treat an Israeli soldier coming to al-Shifa. At the individual level we will always be neutral. But at the system level we went to Gaza…because we think the Palestinian people have a just cause, that they are being occupied and that that is unjust, simple as that.

What is the difference between me and Erik, and the Israeli doctors working in the army? They have chosen sides in their government, and for the oppressor, and for the occupant, and well, that is their decision. But it is a political decision too. Why should only we be criticized of being one-sided? Where are the discussions about the duties and the responsibility of the Israeli medical associations, Israeli medical community, of all the Israeli doctors who joined the army? Where is that discussion; where is the discussion about their medical ethics?
All that happened in Gaza could have been prevented if the world had not kept silent, if the American administration did not keep silence, if the world had not keep silent, but told Israel to stop it, stop it, stop it. You have to come to the negotiation table, we have to find a solution, you can not kill all these civilians – period.

The post Emergency in Gaza appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The ruling overturned two lower court decisions that ordered the government to request Khadr’s repatriation.

The Court denounced Canadian authorities’ role in Khadr’s interrogation at Guantanámo Bay as a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the Court did not request his return to Canada.

The Court’s ruling said that the involvement of Canadian officials in Khadr’s interrogation “offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.”

The justices also found that the request of repatriation was a remedy “sufficiently connected to the Charter breach,” but added that it was up to the federal government to determine how best to respond, because foreign affairs fall within its purview.

Dimitri Soudas, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has said that the federal government’s policy on Khadr has not changed. He added that Khadr faces “serious charges” and that he should stand trial in the U.S.

The government released a statement yesterday, however, that it will consider undisclosed alternatives that may compensate for the violation of Khadr’s rights.

Khadr’s Canadian lawyer, Nathan Whitling, said he was disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling, and that he did not expect any significant change in the government’s position.

“We’ve been trying to [lobby the Canadian government] for roughly six plus years now, and, so you know, frankly I am getting a little tired of it,” Whitling said.

Khadr is accused of having thrown the hand grenade that killed an American army medic in Afghanistan in July of 2002. Khadr, now 23, was 15 at the time of arrest, making him a minor under Canadian and international law.

McGill law professor François Crépeau disagreed with the Court’s decision that Khadr’s case was a matter of foreign policy.

“The Court did not have to dictate the foreign policy…. Here they agreed there was a rights violation and I think they should have imposed a sanction. If there is a rights violation, it is within the Charter, and the Court has a right to enforce the Charter,” said Crépeau.

“[Khadr’s case] shows that the Canadian government cannot go in and interrogate someone that has been tortured, subjected to inhumane and degrading torture. That is against the Charter. In that sense, a small part of Canadian foreign policy is [now] constrained by the Charter, which is new. It didn’t exist in international law,” Crépeau said.

The Court’s ruling concludes years of litigation in Canada; Khadr’s legal battle in the U.S., however, is far from over. He will face a U.S. military commission in July, and his lawyers will now shift their focus to prepare for the trial in Guantanámo.

Whitling expressed concerned about the lack of due process in the military commission system.

“The Charter doesn’t apply to those proceedings, and the U.S. prosecution takes to the view that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t even apply. His rights are limited to what is recognized by the Military Commissions Act, and they are very limited,” said Whitling.

Crépeau said that the military commissions, though slightly improved, were still not normal criminal tribunals, and in that sense did not offer proper procedure for trying individuals.

“This is a convoluted and protracted process and we don’t know how they are going to behave, especially with someone who was a minor, who I think, as many others do, was a child soldier,” said Crépeau.

The post Khadr to remain in Guantanámo Bay appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Court’s condemnation of Canada’s complicity in Khadr’s detention and torture at Guantánamo Bay is unambiguous. In a unanimous ruling, the judges declared that Canadian officials violated Khadr’s right to life, liberty, and the security of the person as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s time the government cease its stubborn opposition and respect Khadr’s rights as a Canadian citizen.

The court ruling may have left the task of conducting foreign affairs up to the executive, but they have cleared the only ethical route: repatriate Khadr now. Now it’s up to the Harper government to conduct foreign affairs in a manner consistent with the Charter and uphold the basic standards of human rights that most Canadians hold dear.

Ball’s in your court, Stephen.

The post Harper: respect human rights appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The case, which began last Monday, will challenge Proposition 8, or the California Marriage Protection Act. The legislation reinstated a ban on equal marriage in the state when it was approved by 52.3 per cent of California voters in November 2008.

A plaintiff’s witness list includes Katherine Young, a professor in the McGill Faculty of Religious Studies, who “purports to be knowledgeable in comparative religion and on what universally constitutes marriage.” Paul Nathanson, a researcher in the same faculty, is also included on the list and is described as someone who “purports to be knowledgeable about religious attitudes toward Proposition 8.”

Both may be called to the stand to present academic testimony on the effects of legalizing equal marriage. But if history is any indication Young and Nathanson may not make it to the witness box.

The expertise of the two academics on equal marriage was called into question in 2007 when they testified with McGill law professor Margaret Somerville in the Iowa district court case Varnum v. Brien – which paved the way for equal marriage in the state.

Polk County Judge Robert Hanson rejected their testimonies because he found that neither Nathanson, Young, nor Somerville met the criteria for the admission of expert testimony.

In a written statement, Hanson pointed to their absence of expertise in sociology, child development, psychology, or psychiatry. “Though they may have expertise in certain areas, such expertise is insufficient to qualify Ms. Somerville, Dr. Young and Dr. Nathanson to answer the particular questions that they are asked.”

Hanson further explained that Young’s testimony was disallowed, since she claimed to “[pull] together factors from many academic disciplines, including sociological, economic, political and religious factors, though she does not profess expertise in these areas,” and Nathanson’s for failing to support his observations empirically. Somerville was also prevented from testifying on the grounds that she “eschews empirical research and methods of logical reasoning in favor of ‘moral intuition.’”

Hanson went on to state that “The views espoused by these individuals appear to be largely personal and not based on observations supported by scientific methodology or based on empirical research in any sense.”

Somerville admitted that as a specialist in the field of ethics, she did not have any expertise in the areas of child development and psychology when asked by the plaintiff’s lawyers.

“They asked me about all the things I didn’t have,” said Somerville. “It is perhaps unfortunate that it was so out of context, but I take it very seriously that you must be very truthful…. [They] set me up to get that answer, and that is good lawyering on their part and bad luck for me.”

However, from an academic’s tandpoint, Nathanson, Young, and Somerville are considered controversial within Canada. Young and Nathanson have been criticized for their methodology in their writings on misandry, where they argue that men are victimized by various forms of feminism and popular culture. In 2006, faculty at Toronto’s Ryerson University turned their backs on Somerville at a ceremony granting her an honorary doctorate in protest of her opposition to equal marriage.

Young declined to comment on her testimony in Varnum v. Brien and on her involvement in the California case.

The post McGill profs to testify against equal marriage appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The new grants program allocates $500 million in financial assistance to post-secondary students across Canada each year, replacing the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation (CMSF), whose mandate expired on January 5.

Quebec opted out of the federal program since the province already administers Aid financière aux études, a loans and bursaries program for Quebec students. The province also opted out of the Millennium Scholarship, instead receiving an average of $70 million per year to support the provincial program.

No agreement has yet been reached to settle the terms for a fund transfer from the Canada Student Grant Program. According to Concordia Student Union president Amine Dabchy, negotiations between the federal and provincial government have failed to make progress. Until an agreement is reached, Quebec students are ineligible to access the new funding.

Dabchy condemned the federal government for withholding the funding that is due to Quebec students, as well as the provincial government for failing to reach an agreement with Ottawa.

“When the Millennium bursary was closed, the $118 million which belongs to Quebec was not given to the government. That means that a lot of Quebec students are missing out on the funds, which could go toward loans and bursaries. We have all the rights to these funds,” he said.

Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan, SSMU VP External, said that a cash transfer should be reached since the Canada Student Grant is funded by taxes paid by Quebeckers as well.

“The program as it stands right now does not provide eligibility for Quebec students, but it is of course coming from tax dollars that are provided from all different Canadians, from all different provinces. The province is not getting its tax dollars back for education programs,” said Ronderos-Morgan.

The demise of the CMSF resulted in a shortfall in student aid available in the province, which was made up for by funding provided by the provincial government.

According to Christian Pépin, secretary of coordination in l’Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ), however, additional investments made by the Quebec government would not excuse the federal government from making a contribution toward education in the province.

Provincial student lobby groups have demanded that the federal government not only make up for the shortfall, but also transfer funds from the grant equivalent to the per capita percentage of aid due to province of Quebec.

“New investments from the Quebec government shouldn’t substitute the money that should already come from the federal government. There should be some other money to improve student access, and financial aid for students, since there are lots of problems going on, and the money that is given now is below the rate of poverty,” said Pépin.

“Right now we are asking students to live with $200 per month, and that is below the decent revenue for students, students who work lots of hours, and it constrains them. By the end of the month they just can’t survive,” he added.

On December 2, 50 members of ASSÉ staged a protest in downtown Montreal to draw the attention of both levels of government. The protesters attempted to enter the Revenue Canada building and later tried to occupy the office of Quebec’s Finance Minister, Raymond Bachand.

“[The federal government] should transfer the money that is available with no conditions toward the Quebec government.… We will put pressure that the money [is used by the province] at the right place so that we can address the more deep problems about financial aid needed for students,” said Pépin.

Olivier Gégou, spokesperson for the Table de concertation étudiante du Québec, said that the federal transfer to the province would strengthen the financial aid mechanisms that already exist.

“If the federal program is not repatriated then there will be two programs for Quebec students, and every student from Quebec should do two applications for two different loans and grant programs,” said Gégou.

The protracted negotiations between the two levels of government have led student lobbies to demand a quick resolution to the issue so that Quebec students do not lose out in the semesters to come.

The post $118 million withheld from Quebec students appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Early this month, the administration announced that it would lift regulations on military-related research. The Daily asked the principal to account for the change in policy, and to explain why regulations which were previously accepted would no longer be applied.

Munroe-Blum responded that the policy change would bring McGill in line with the practices of other research-intensive universities, the majority of which do not apply unique conditions to research funded by military-related bodies.

“The line on military research [does not] appear in [any] other research policy guidelines at the federal level, or with any of our peer universities,” said Munroe-Blum. “We have so many protocols that govern the ethics of the research that we do, that it would take the onus off of us to review our own research proposals thoroughly if we just defaulted to a line and a policy on who the sponsor of the research was. And secondly, it is inappropriate in our view, including mine, to say that the sponsor of the research is what dictates the usefulness of the research.”

According to the principal, the research restrictions’ impact on McGill’s ability to competitively secure investment in science and scholarship influenced the policy change. The countries that invest heavily in basic science under a defence-related framework have also been those that invest the most in the fundamental sciences, Munroe-Blum said. She cited the U.S. as “the best example of that.”

Munroe-Blum added that the policy on military research “has no good policy bearing and it provided a false sense of reassurance on something that has to be at the end of the day [a matter of] good judgment and good process.” She stated that while this may not satisfy students, she felt “much more comfortable” with the new policy than with the prior one.

The principal also commented on the University’s efforts to address underfunding. The University has already raised $500-million through the Campaign McGill fund-raising drive, while McGill’s MBA program switched to a self-funded model, increasing tuition to $29,500 – a jump of 1,663 per cent for Quebec residents. The Daily asked whether increasing tuition was part of the University’s long-term plan.

Munroe-Blum responded that the University needs stable and effective levels of public investment. “With respect to tuition my view is that we should not be aiming to have American tuition rates, [and] that we have a completely public university system,” said Munroe-Blum.

She added, however, that low tuition did not equate to a better system of education, and criticized the framework used to determine tuition levels and distribution in Quebec.

“Quebec has the lowest tuition fees in all of Canada…. We have the lowest degree completion rate, and the lowest participation rate in all of Canada, so it is not a success story,” said Munroe-Blum.

“If you come to McGill from outside Quebec and Canada…[your] fees just don’t come to McGill. Those fees go into a pool that funds the whole Quebec university system…so our students don’t get the benefit of the tuition fees they pay if they come from outside of Quebec. I think there is a principle of fairness that is unjustly applied there,” she added.

The principal also said that while she was proud to be leading a public university, she did not believe it was fair that those who could pay a fairer share of the costs pay such low fees, and advocated that Quebec tuition be raised to the Canadian average.

“If you are really lacking funds, you don’t need free tuition. You need a grant or a loan or some combination of things…because the only way you are going to get both accessibility and quality is by having enough revenues over all, and having a commitment to providing support for those who are qualified to come but don’t have the support to do it themselves,” said Munroe-Blum.

Munroe-Blum was also asked when McGill will realize its goal of becoming a car-free campus. While she declined to give an exact date, the principal stated that it was “a big desire” for the administration to carry out the plan, and hoped that the campus would be vehicle-free by the end of the year.

“We are going as fast as we can, and we are going faster than we thought we would be able to…. I would say a vehicle-free campus is not just about sustainability, but safety as well, and the culture, and sense of community,” said Munroe-Blum. “We seem to have stronger than ever engagement with the local government on it. We’ve got the bike path in, and these are all steps to getting there.”

The post Principal talks on military research and tuition appeared first on The McGill Daily.