“[Court cases] often [have] substantive evidence…[not] simply a case of one party’s word against the other’s.”

“Condemning the (disgusting) nature of the sexual assault does not mean that we ought to be prejudicially condemning individuals who have not yet been convicted of it.”

“If these guys get prosecuted and are found guilty with just a word of mouth, it’s going to send [sic] a dangerous precedent which is that women are not [sic] longer responsible for their actions.”

The above statements are taken from comment sections of various online publications relating to the sexual assault charges posed against the three Redmen football players. All echo the sentiment often expressed of ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ implying unquestionable faith in the legal system and its ability to achieve ‘justice.’

The notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is systematically flawed, not only in the aforementioned case, but in most that go through the legal process. First, it assumes that the laws under which people are tried in this system are just, simply because they exist. There are countless examples of laws throughout history and at present that most would consider unjust: slavery, residential schools, spousal sexual assault, and criminalization of homosexuality are among the acts condoned by historical Canadian laws, for example. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ enforces the idea that crimes are only to be taken seriously when laws are broken; what of crimes or harm where no law is broken? Within our existing criminal-legal framework, these behaviours are given no legitimacy.

The idea that courts and legal systems are the best and only methods for holding people accountable to their harmful actions ensures that the state is the only judge for deciding and maintaining social values. Laws are decided above the general population. The state, through legal structures and other institutions, acts as an authority on what are considered ‘real’ crimes and harm, thus ensuring that the state has control over people’s behaviours and social values more than the communities actually affected by them. Not only does this disempower real people from determining their own values and implementing them in their communities, it also assumes that the state and its legal system are inherently just.

Any look at the disproportionate number of people of colour incarcerated in Canadian prisons, for example, indicates the racial biases of our so-called ‘justice’ system. Racial bias is one of many well-documented biases that permeate the criminal justice system: classism, transphobia, and sexism are others. The idea that an unjust system is the only authority on harmful behaviour belittles people’s own experiences and notions of safety.

Putting blind faith in the notion of a fair process for the accused centres the perpetrator of harm in any accountability process. It forces those who have been victimized or harmed to be put on trial, placing more trust in those who have negatively affected others than those who are negatively affected. This can easily shame, blame, and attack those who are victims. This is one of the many reasons why so few sexual assault cases are legally reported.

Accountability for harm that is caused to others is a necessary process for any community or society. However, that process must give legitimacy to any and all expressions of harm, regardless of whether they traverse existing laws or established rules. It hurts when someone takes advantage of me, and that must be addressed regardless of whether the specific actions are defined by the state as a ‘crime’ or whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove their guilt. Guilt and innocence are ideas designed to perpetuate the status quo, and fail to take seriously the complexities and realities of violence and community relations.

Lily Hoffman is a member of the Union for Gender Empowerment Collective at McGill. They can be reached at lilysimon1@gmail.com.

The post Realities of harm appeared first on The McGill Daily.

McGill’s international status makes it easy to feel isolated. Academics and students come from all over the world to study here and in turn a lot of things about McGill are cosmopolitan – they would be the same wherever the university was located. We’re rightly very proud of that, but there is also a need for balance. Attending university shouldn’t just be about classes and books, as the hundreds of people at Activities Night would agree. McGill is a public university expected to serve the community and the pursuit of knowledge, and the University’s prestige should serve to further these goals, not hinder them.

In an attempt to arm students with tools for social change, and to fight trends of McGill insularity and elitism, QPIRG (the Quebec Public Interest Research Group) was formed in 1980. In 1988, a student referendum made QPIRG-McGill the first autonomous student-funded PIRG in Quebec. QPIRG-McGill is part of a network of PIRGs across Canada dedicated to community engagement and activism under the mandate of social and environmental justice, building stronger links between universities and the communities and societies around them.

Over the years QPIRG-McGill has accomplished this by coordinating the Convergence undergraduate journal and the Study in Action conference, providing discretionary funding for small events and projects in Montreal, hosting Rad Frosh, and working with SSMU on lecture and workshop series like Culture Shock and Social Justice Days. As well, QPIRG supports around a dozen working groups in which students and community members work together, ranging from the very local, like the Committee to Save Parc Oxygène (you can find the park at Hutchison and Prince Arthur), to the global, like Climate Justice Montreal. Some groups are more academic, like the KANATA journal, and some focus on needs outside the University, like the Immigrant Workers’ Center. However, one of the criteria for any funding from QPIRG is that the group has not received much from larger donors, fostering a diversity of small activist groups that often go on to grow and become more independent. It is solidarity, not charity.

And yes, QPIRG is political. Being engaged means having an opinion about how things should be, and working with others to build it. QPIRG is dedicated to giving students and community members the tools of knowledge and information, community, resources, and support with which to enact change and fight for one’s passions, within and beyond the McGill gates.

Lily Hoffman, Holly Nazar, and Shyam Patel are writing on behalf of the QPIRG Board of Directors. You can reach QPIRG at qpirg@ssmu.mcgill.ca.

The post Bridging campus and community appeared first on The McGill Daily.