“We as a student body have no obligation to blindly follow rules that undermine our freedom of expression.”

Nadir Khan, “Organizing against free speech.”

Student politics is one of the most intriguing aspects of our life on campus. Every undergraduate student at McGill’s downtown campus is a member of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), which is not without flaws. Last year, a referendum question to increase the building failed, and all hope was lost. The real problem, though, was that last year’s SSMU executive shifted the burdens of a failed lease negotiations onto students. As such, Laurent Bastien Corbeil argued in “It’s not too late to cancel the lease” (September 29, Commentary, page 9), it was the lease that was wrong, not our vote.

We later had the infamous Fall 2014 General Assembly (GA), where a group of students chose to shut down conversation rather than taking a stance, by indefinitely postponing a motion to stand in solidarity with the people of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Staying silent in the face of blatant injustices does nothing but perpetuate harm. Such conversations must take place on our campus, and SSMU is precisely the forum in which we can have the dialogue we need. If not SSMU, then where? Injustices do not simply go away if we ignore them.

The problem with student politics at McGill is apathy. Turnout at elections has not surpassed 31 per cent in the past five years. Yet still, people blame SSMU for focusing solely on ‘esoteric activism.’ If you do not vote, you do not get to complain. Even student representatives tend to be apathetic – but it is the constituents’ responsibility to make their representatives aware of their interests. As Lauria Galbraith argues in “End your apathy” (March 30, Commentary, page 22) student politics are in students’ hands, and they are our responsibility.

—Cem Ertekin

“Even when student voices are heard, and their initiatives are considered, the administration is very reluctant to implement them fully.”

Ella Belfer, “Sustainable for whom?”

McGill has always had trouble seeing itself in the context of a larger Montreal society, and this year has posed particular barriers to establishing a relationship with it. The responsibility for reaching out falls into the hands of students and university administrators alike. Regardless of the reason, students have difficulty bursting through the metaphorical ‘McGill bubble.’

On the other hand, the administration, despite spouting rhetoric of ‘community involvement’ and ‘helping others,’ has done little to listen to student interests. Take, for instance, the massive student push for sustainability in the form of divestment from fossil fuels. As Ella Belfer wrote in “Sustainable for whom?” (January 12, Commentary, page 11), often the University provides nothing but empty words, and co-opts the successful grassroots efforts of its students. In Belfer’s words, “dedicated students do the labour-intensive research, campaigning, and legwork, often mobilizing student funds in the process, at which point the University green-lights a less ambitious incarnation of the project.”

The University’s detachment from the rest of Quebec is also discernible by its complicity in the provincial government’s austerity cuts. In their article, Rachel Avery and Mona Luxion explored how these cuts relate to military research, and have found that austerity increases the University’s ties to military contractors (“Austerity and the war machine,” January 12, Commentary, page 10). Yet, the University ignores the harmful nature of its actions. Similarly, Jasreet Kaur brought up the issue (“Decolonize McGill,” March 16, Commentary, page 10) of the University failing to acknowledge its own colonial history. McGill is a privileged institution in that its inaction in addressing these issues directly makes it complicit in social injustices. We must, thus, hold ourselves accountable, and take steps to improve.

—Jill Bachelder

“It’s time for a general strike: for workers and students to unite in fighting back against damaging cuts.”

Daniel Huang, “Toward a general strike.”

Last October, thousands took to the streets to protest against the austerity measures announced by the newly-elected provincial Liberal government led by Philippe Couillard. The determination of those who oppose these measures has not faded; anti-austerity mobilization has picked back up in early 2015, paving the way for a general strike. In February, Daniel Huang asked for McGill students’ solidarity in “Toward a general strike” (February 2, Commentary, page 11). Now spring has finally come, and CEGEPs, other Quebec universities, and even some McGill student associations have joined the fight against austerity.

Unlike the 2012 student strikes, the main stakes of this year’s battle are no longer bound solely to the Quebec student body – the government’s planned austerity measures will reach all the vulnerable parts of our society, from students and marginalized communities to the dwindling middle class. George Ghabrial wrote about Plan Nord, which is inextricably tied to the Liberal government’s austerity measures (“Exploitation in disguise,” March 16, Commentary, page 11. Presented as “an exemplary sustainable development project” by Couillard, Plan Nord completely disregards Indigenous rights and makes environmental commitments that are really promises of destruction in disguise.

The far reach of austerity measures also manifests itself through deep cuts in the social safety net – healthcare, education, and other social services – that took us decades to acquire. No one is safe from the devastating effects. Despite this, the usual opponents of anti-austerity demonstrators – the police – are fighting the exact same system, since the government’s Bill 10 on pension plans is an outcome of austerity. Yet, they choose to side with the government that is enforcing said system. Igor Sadikov highlighted this extreme hypocrisy (“No solidarity for the police,” February 9, Commentary, page 11) and urged us to ask ourselves why the enforcers continue to enforce when they’re quickly joining the victims’ ranks. In his words, “we cannot allow police to play both sides of the field.”

—Marc Cataford

“There comes a time when civil disobedience is not only acceptable, but necessary. That time is now.”

Fatima Boulmalf, “Resistance as justice”

“It is critical that the current government rethinks its priorities and strives to be consistent with its historical role as a humanitarian country.”

Alice Escande, “Two step backward, one step forward”

“In some nightmare scenarios, children have been told that they would be reported to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada if their parents did not pay the fees demanded.”

Atmullah Reage, “Reading, writing, rights”

Canada is a nation that prides itself on its multiculturalism. However, while all those who live in Canada deserve equal treatment, few actually receive it – The Daily’s coverage has attempted to bring to light the injustice and inequality suffered by marginalized people in Canada at the national level.

As exemplified by its heavy promotion of the Enbridge pipeline, the Conservative government has continued to support corporate interests over the demands of the public. In doing so, it has entirely disregarded environmental concerns and Indigenous rights, ignoring the plight of the most marginalized in Canada. That is what Fatima Boulmalf had in mind when she wrote “Resistance as justice” (October 20, Commentary, page 11).

Migrants, too, especially refugees, are targeted by Conservative legislation, which has targeted their access to education and healthcare, and made Canada a far less friendly home for those in need of one. Amtullah Reage, writing under a pseudonym, exposed the abhorrent injustices faced by migrant students by sharing the their own experiences in this system (“Reading, writing and rights,” September 8, Commentary, page 8).

This year, the Conservative government has put forward a number of bills that seemed to align with its own private interests over those of the public. Among them is the controversial and unabashedly Islamophobic “Anti-terrorism act,” Bill C-51, which was called out as hypocritical, and fearmongering (“Who watches the watchers?, March 23, Commentary, page 11). Similarly, Bill S-7, the “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act,” sought to institutionalize xenophobia, as explained by Gavin Boutroy (“X is for xenophobia,” January 22, Commentary).

—Katherine Brenders

“We can, and should, attempt to be as sex work-positive as we can, but after centuries of shaming and degradation, sex workers can’t help but internalize some of that shame.”

David V, “Toward (in)visibility”

Issues of social justice cannot be constrained by spatial limitations. McGill students come from all walks of life and from all over the world. As such, we talked about issues from all over the globe. Our authors wrote pieces that spoke to their own experiences of issues distorted by so-called authorities.

The Conservative government criminalized buying the services of sex workers this year by passing Bill C-36. A student sex worker writing under a pseudonym, David V, argued that the bill effectively pushed their work underground, ultimately making it unsafe (“Toward (in)visibilty,” November 17, Commentary, page 9). They also pointed out that to combat the centuries-old ‘shame’ associated with the profession, people should become sex work-positive. This includes supporting the clients of sex workers.

Further afield, the world was rocked by the brutal murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in France, and Muslims were painted with the same brush as the murderers in the wake. In a beautifully-written piece, Omar Eidabat made clear that violent crimes are against everything for which Islam stands (“An ignorance that misinforms,” January 22, Commentary). He also argued that Charlie Hebdo’s racist cartoons incited the Islamophobic attacks that followed the murders.

While the Charlie Hebdo murders shook people to their core, many overlooked the 43 students disappeared by the police and the Guerreros Unidos, a drug cartel, in Mexico. Writing under a pseudonym, V explained how the disappearance was triggering country-wide mobilization against narco-politics (“Against the dying of the light,” November 24, Commentary, page 15). Crucially, V also called out the U.S. and Canada for their role in sustaining the drug war.

—Cem Ertekin

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

At the time of publication, the bill has passed its second reading, moving into parliamentary committee hearings following a Conservative motion to limit debate after only three days. The hearings – which had initially been allotted only a meagre four meetings – were expanded to eight under pressure from the New Democratic Party (NDP), and will allow up to fifty witnesses to speak on the bill.

The hasty treatment of such an important bill certainly backs up accusations that the Conservative government is using fear as a tool for re-election and turning terrorism into a wedge issue. While an ‘anti-terror’ bill has long been on the Conservative agenda, recent events have made it a key element of their platform. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders this past January, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that “the international jihadist movement has declared war,” and noted his government’s plans for legislation that would give security agencies more power. Taking advantage of the insecurity felt in the wake of the October 22 shooting at Parliament Hill, the government has grossly exaggerated the threat. In this case, it is using a rhetoric of ‘jihad’ and ‘terror’ as a scare tactic, and a means by which to convince voters that the excessive measures of Bill C-51 are necessary to ensure ‘safety.’

Government rhetoric often refers to the term consciously to evoke horrific imagery of bombings and unwarranted deaths – scenes that the vast majority of Canadians are wildly unlikely to experience.

The bill also establishes the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which requires all governmental organizations to freely share information; and the Secure Air Travel Act, which allows the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to draft a secret list, on which Canadians’ names and other private information may be collected in order to prevent ‘suspicious persons’ from travelling by air. Bill C-51 also amends extant legislation, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Information Sharing Act, described by the first part of the bill, seeks to open communication between all federal government institutions, so that any institution can request information from another on “reasonable grounds.” It involves, among other things, amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Customs Act, such that any taxpayer information or confidential business information – or, any information obtained by any federal agency – can be disclosed and circulated upon request. This section completely disregards citizens’ expectations of privacy.

Further to the Conservative-driven Islamophobia that surrounds (and has been cited in support of) the bill, Bill C-51 has given Canadians reason to fear their own government. As some critics, including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, have pointed out, Bill C-51 turns the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) into a ‘secret police’ that can act freely and without oversight. In fact, CSIS’ power would be limited only when its actions directly violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in which case its agents would simply require a warrant to proceed.

The possibility of prosecution under an unclear law is enough to silence voices that may have otherwise spoken out on important issues, and to limit dialogue that the federal government might find objectionable.

To justify the expansion of CSIS’ reach, there are new, broadly-defined ways in which the ‘security of Canada’ can be threatened, including communications that could potentially lead someone to commit an act of terrorism, or any proliferation of terrorist propaganda. The language is so expansive that innocent people wishing to weigh in on current events may find themselves accidentally incriminated. The possibility of prosecution under an unclear law is enough to silence voices that may have otherwise spoken out on important issues, and to limit dialogue that the federal government might find objectionable.

The very existence of Bill C-51 is an affront to the Canadian Charter, as well as to moral good sense. Criminalization of communications of any sort is contemptible; more importantly, the major breaches of privacy that Bill C-51 will allow should never be tolerated. That our elected representatives have both proposed the bill and tolerated it for so long should be a matter of national embarrassment. Further, the fact that even the Liberal party, which should be expected to contest such legislation, has expressed support for the bill (with amendments) for fear of seeming ‘soft on terror’ is a testament to the efficacy of the Conservative party’s fearmongering. In reality, Bill C-51 will be more likely to undermine Canadians’ confidence in their own government, than to deter the ‘jihadists’ with whom we are allegedly ‘at war.’

A simple definition of ‘terrorism,’ according to the Oxford English Dictionary, involves “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” But “violence” is not only physical. The legal definition, as it exists in the Criminal Code, is far more expansive, but still encompasses anything that “intimidat[es] the public […] with regard to its security.” According to the law, then, Bill C-51 could be making itself illegal.

Any suggestion that the Conservative government could be unaware of the implications of its bill is naive – Bill C-51 is a deliberate move that, through fear, allows the Conservative majority’s ideology to exert power over all the lives of people in Canada.

Terrorism implies the propagation of fear, with the aim of controlling or directing people’s thoughts. Bill C-51 has already generated national outrage – on March 14, people in cities across Canada, including Montreal, gathered to protest the bill. While these protests were ‘lawful,’ Bill C-51’s phrasing is such that it could render similar demonstrations punishable, if they were judged to interfere with ‘Canada’s interests.’ As a whole, the bill is clearly designed for control.

Even if we assume the best intentions, the bill is sloppily written, leaving significant detail open to the interpretation of the person in power; at worst, the ambiguity of its language shows that the government is not focused on ‘terrorism’ alone. In fact, despite the misleading title, measures described within the bill do not apply exclusively to ‘terrorism’ at all, but condemn anything that threatens the security of Canada, whether that be “interference with the economic and financial stability of Canada” or even “an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.” The Conservatives’ unwillingness to entertain any amendments betrays their true intentions.

Any suggestion that the Conservative government could be unaware of the implications of its bill is naive – Bill C-51 is a deliberate move that, through fear, allows the Conservative majority’s ideology to exert power over all the lives of people in Canada. In fact, rather than deterring terrorism, the bill’s condemnation of anything interpretable as terrorist ‘propaganda’ is likely to be counter-productive, prosecuting legitimate dissenters and making real threats much more difficult to detect. The hypocrisy and superficiality of the clause in Bill C-51’s enactment that “there is no more fundamental role for a government than protecting its country and its people” is clear – the government will not protect Canadians from itself.

Katherine Brenders is the Design & Production editor at The Daily, but the opinions expressed here are her own. To contact her, please email katherine.brenders@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Who watches the watchers? appeared first on The McGill Daily.