“I honestly am very optimistic that it will be changed within the next month. In any other circumstances I wouldn’t believe this to be true, but I really do think that we’ve crossed our t’s and dotted our i’s here,” explains Tomas Jirousek, a varsity athlete, SSMU’s current Indigenous Affairs Commissioner, and a major figure behind the Change the Name Movement. “I think this current manifestation of Indigenous students pushing on the R*dmen name is one of the best shots we’ve taken at changing it in quite a while,” he added.

The Change the Name movement has received overwhelming support from the McGill community during this academic year. On October 31, hundreds of students supporting the #ChangeTheName campaign participated in a demonstration in front of the James Administration building. During the 2018 SSMU Fall Referendum, 80 per cent of students said they were in favour of renaming the men’s varsity teams. More recently, a large banner that read “Change the Name” was hung from the roof of Leacock before being removed by security in a matter of minutes.

“The type of support we’ve received really shows how powerful we can be as a community when we stand together,” says Jirousek. The banner drop took place during the voting period for the proposed Athletics Facility Improvement Fee, a fee to which the Indigenous Student Alliance, and other equity groups on campus, are strongly opposed to.

The Athletics Facility Improvement Fee, included in the Winter 2019 SSMU referendum, asked if students are willing to continue paying ten dollars per semester for Athletics Facility Improvement, justifying the fee by arguing that “athletics and recreation is an integral part of student life on campus.” The “No” campaign pointed out that “the approval of the Athletics Facility Improvement Fee would only enable McGill athletics and further limit Indigenous students from using facilities which are meant to be open and accessible to all McGill students.” Fifty-eight per cent of students voted “No,” 42 “Yes,” and 20.7 per cent abstained.

“Part of the reason why I pushed so hard for this ‘No’ vote was because I don’t think it’s fair or appropriate that Indigenous students are left out in the cold while the other students move forward without us. If we are going to invest in renovating and fixing the athletics facilities it should be done in a way that’s equitable, in a way that’s open to all students,” explained Jirousek.

At the March 28 meeting of SSMU Legislative Council, former VP External Conor Spencer read a statement on behalf of Tomas Jirousek, and Christelle Tessono, president of the Black Students’ Network. The statement explains that by letting this question be a part of the winter referendum, SSMU has failed “in its mandate to stand as an ally with Indigenous students at McGill.” By including the question, SSMU failed to realize that “McGill athletics complexes exist as physically hostile environments for Indigenous students […] [the racism of the R*dmen name] is physically manifested in these athletic facilities.”

“Reconciliation sometimes requires sacrifice,” Spencer concluded.

While they attribute most of their success to the widespread support they have gathered on campus, Change the Name leaders recognize that the increasing awareness surrounding the need for reconciliation at a larger scale has given them precious momentum.

“Voices are starting to come out. In recent years, we’ve seen Indigenous voices really coming through in the media. It’s a time when we had the right people in the right place. You had a team of students that were really passionate about it and they saw an opportunity, in this day and age where we can actually talk about these things,” points out co-chair of the Indigenous Students Alliance and varsity athlete Vanessa Racine.

The post “Change the Name” Movement Recap appeared first on The McGill Daily.

“The SUS refused to appoint a replacement after Moses Milchberg resigned, and when I pointed out that they were violating their constitution, they sent me a vague email that didn’t even mention the constitution,” explained Kohn. “There seems to be a common belief among student society executives that the provisions of society constitutions can, and sometimes should, be taken as suggestions,” he added.

After unfruitful discussions with SUS executives, Kohn submitted a referendum question to the SUS Chief Returning Officer (CRO) on February 18. The question asked undergraduate students of the Faculty of Science to voice their opinion on whether or not the nomination of an interim SUS representative to SSMU should be undertaken by the SUS Executive Committee. Ultimately, the question was deemed invalid by the current CRO and SUS President Reem Mandil, and was not included as an SUS referendum question. According to Mandil, the course of action taken by the Executive Committee was the appropriate response given the time at which the resignation occurred. She also asserted that Milchberg’s seat was not vacant as proxies were being sent to Legislative Council.

“As an executive team, and also among discussions at our General Council, we decided that the best way to deal with the resignation was to send proxies of elected executives to fill his place in Legislative Council meetings at SSMU. We formally passed a motion at Legislative Council approving this decision and ever since then we’ve been handling it through proxy,” said Mandil.

When asked about the logic behind their decision, Mandil highlighted time constraints. Considering the date of the resignation, the by-election for the SUS representative to SSMU would have been held only a few weeks before the scheduled full election. “This would have been a complicated timeline. In addition, holding a by-election requires approving dates and setting campaign periods. This would’ve delayed that election for a certain period of time where we would’ve had to send proxies anyways. Hosting an election takes a lot of time and resources that we felt were better used when sending a proxy,” added the SUS President.

Dissatisfied with the position upheld by the SUS Executive Committee, Kohn filed a petition to the SSMU Judicial Board in early March. In his 96-page document detailing the situation, he requested that the decisions made by the SUS Executive Committee be judged unconstitutional. Almost three weeks after filing the petition, he is still not aware of its status.

The post Students Call for Interim SUS Representative to SSMU appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post Divest McGill’s Fossil Free Fridays appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post SPVM Decides Against Body Cameras appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The lawsuit currently seeks to overturn numerous articles of Quebec’s Civil Code, namely articles 59, 62, and 71. These changes would give greater recognition to various groups within the trans community, including minors and non-citizens.

“In 2015, the government […] removed the surgical requirement needed to change a gender marker, but this only applied to adults who are citizens. That left a lot of people out in the cold,” explains Julie Michaud, the CGA’s Outreach Coordinator.

The Attorney General, on behalf of the Directeur de l’État Civil, agreed to implement these new administrative measures. A person can now choose to remove all mentions of their gender on documents such as birth or marriage certificates. Although this is a step forward, it is far from the outcome sought by the plaintiffs.

“These are just surface measures, it’s not a legal recognition that non-binary people exist. That’s what we want; we want that recognition,” said Michaud.

The CGA is concerned that these changes are administrative rather than legal; without legal changes, this newly acquired recognition may not be permanent.

“If these are just administrative or operational changes, they’re subject to the whims of subsequent governments. That gives a lot of power to government officials,” clarified Michaud.

The CGA is also concerned with the limited freedom offered to trans youth during key steps of their transition. Article 62 of the Civil Code, which currently prohibits a minor from legally changing their name without the approval of a legal guardian, is one example of these barriers.

“We all know that when most trans youth come out to their family and loved ones, they are very often met with rejection and anger. We knew that [getting a parent’s approval] was a pretty unreasonable burden to have to bear in order to be eligible for a name change,” explains Michaud.

Noting that “this court case is just part of a continuum of trans rights activism that has been going on for decades,” Michaud nevertheless hopes that this initiative will establish a legal precedent for other cases regarding trans rights.

“The lawsuit […] that we have against the Attorney General is an example of advocacy and work that is carried out by trans communities, trans organizations, and organizations that are allied with trans people,” states the Centre’s current Trans Advocate, D.T.

For more information, visit the Center for Gender Advocacy’s Facebook page.

The post The Centre for Gender Advocacy Sues Quebec Government appeared first on The McGill Daily.