Long QT syndrome and diagnosis

Long QT syndrome is a rare inherited disorder that causes abnormal heart beats, and affects three-and-a half to seven million people per year, 80 per cent of which are children. When properly diagnosed, it can be preventable. CHEO used to be able to provide full diagnosis, but is now severely restrained by the unrestricted flow of U.S. genetic patents entering Canada.

“[Gene patenting] is in direct opposition with what the public interests may be.”

There are 13 genes that contribute to long QT syndrome, and CHEO used to provide medical diagnosis by sequencing all the long QT genes without restraint. However, it is now unable to do so because five of the thirteen genes have been patented by a group of organizations in the U.S., chiefly led by the University of Utah, Genzyme – a biotechnology company in Massachusetts – and Yale University. For these 5 genes, both their genetic sequence and the method of diagnosis for those sequences are patented. If the organizations with those patents wished solely to monetize their patented technologies, then the problem would only be a financial one. However, they are also refusing to share information, thus forcing those wishing to undergo full diagnosis to do so at appointed places in the U.S..

Even if CHEO accidentally stumbles upon the patented genes during sequencing, they cannot report the diagnosis to the patients. Richer, as well as other doctors at CHEO, can circumvent this problem by scanning for snippets of genes rather than full gene sequences. And though this method can be fairly useful, it can by no means be an adequate replacement for proper medical diagnosis.

The Liberal government of Ontario did not resist when these U.S. organizations sought to exert their genetic patent claims here. But Gold believes that challenging the patents in Canada will be successful – firstly, because CHEO is presenting a concrete case of the adverse consequences of genetic patents on long QT diagnosis, and secondly, because of Canada’s vested interest in public health, which is threatened by gene patenting.

Methods of gene patenting

Moreover, Gold and Richer argued that there are strong counterarguments involving the methods used for patenting.

There are two ways through which long QT genes can be patented. In the first, the gene itself is patented. For this to be done, the patented gene must be artificially isolated and artificially constructed. Gold argued that long QT is a naturally occurring gene, and cannot adequately fit in either camp.

Richer agreed, stating that “DNA is discovered, not invented. […] I don’t like the idea of someone else owning a part of me.”

“DNA is discovered, not invented. […] I don’t like the idea of someone else owning a part of me.”

In the second, the method of diagnosing a gene is patented. In order to challenge this type, Gold argued that “all the power is in the interpretation,” noting that the patents can be interpreted to apply only to an old method of diagnosis. Thus, while it is a valid patent, it does not cover newer technologies in the market today that can do the same job. If the companies interpret their patent as applying to the concept of gene sequencing in general, rather than to a specific method, Gold argued that the patents would be invalidated because abstract concepts cannot be patented.

Massimo Orsini, co-host of the panel and first-year Law student, spoke to the Daily about his concerns with the tension between private patents and the public at large. “[Gene patenting] is in direct opposition with what the public interests may be. […] One of the things we need to figure out is what public benefit means and what its relation to patents is, particularly [a patent] that is shown to hinder innovation and accessibility to health care.”

“It’s the role of students, biologists, lawyers, and practitioners to realize these tensions and work through them together.”

The post Genes as private property appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Arturo’s* first lawsuit against McGill University and his director (who has since quit and now resides in Toronto) is for discrimination based on language, ethnic background, and age, and is under review by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (CDPDJ), the Quebec commission on human rights and youth rights. Arturo will be represented by the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR). The second lawsuit, through the Commission des normes du travail (CNT), Quebec’s labour board, is for psychological harassment against McGill University as an employer. The first hearing was on May 1, and Arturo was represented by CNT.

Arturo, who has a doctorate in oncology and is originally from South America, was in his fifties when he immigrated to Canada. Shortly thereafter, he was employed at McGill’s Faculty of Medicine as a project administrator at the Rossy Cancer Network (RCN) in March 2012. Following a positive evaluation of his performance in July 2012, he was given the title of Medical/Clinical Liaison.

According to Arturo, everything was going well until February 2013, when a new director of operations was installed at the RCN. Allegedly, after this appointment, discrimination began, continued, and intensified for the next six months until he was fired.

“[The former director] basically marginalized him and practically downgraded him not only in his job, but in the eyes of his colleagues,” said CRARR Executive Director Fo Niemi, Arturo’s representative in the CDPDJ case.

In May 2013, Arturo was stripped of his title of Medical/Clinical Liaison and demoted to project manager. In an email, the director cited inadequate English for this decision, despite Arturo’s 90 per cent score on an English proficiency course at Concordia. As project manager, he cannot be reconsidered for the position of project administrator.

Arturo suspects that his accent, rather than his English proficiency, was the cause of the problem. Niemi agreed that accent was the likely culprit. “Accents are often used as a proxy for racial and ethnic discrimination,” Niemi told The Daily.

Arturo was also systematically excluded from events and activities. “The new boss didn’t talk to me, and the new ones [who were hired by the director] didn’t talk to me,” Arturo alleged. He was kept out of project meetings, even though he was a project manager.

“Accents are often used as a proxy for racial and ethnic discrimination”

Shortly after, through an accidentally leaked email, Arturo discovered that he had the lowest paid salary among his peers. “People who [held] similar positions and some even [employed] later than me had more pay. It’s unfair.”

Arturo’s attempts to contact those at higher positions were not successful and most of the tasks and decisions were handled by the director alone.

“That’s why when they took away from me the position of medical liaison, nobody [said and] will say nothing, and I can say nothing,” said Arturo.

Arturo suspected that the director wanted him to resign, but refused for the sake of his family. “I can’t resign because I need the job. And so [the director of operations] decided to make my life impossible. He told me, ‘things will be worse.’”

“And at the end because I didn’t resign, they fired me.”

In November of 2013, following roughly half a year of job discrimination, the director terminated Arturo’s contract – but not before asking Arturo to hand over information on new projects he had been working on. The director named “restructuring” as the reason for Arturo’s termination, though he never clarified this to Arturo.

“The funny thing is, when he fired me, I felt relieved. I was free, because I had pressure, pressure, pressure at work,” said Arturo.

Arturo developed mild anxiety and depression due to the ongoing harassment at work, and unemployment and his dire financial situation worsened his mental health. He is currently still in counseling and taking prescription drugs for his mental health.

Arturo knew during his employment that future legal action would be taken, so he gathered documentation during his employment for evidence. In January 2014, he took the first steps to file lawsuits against McGill and his former director, who now resides in Toronto but cannot escape these charges.

Arturo is aiming to ensure that the McGill reference in his CV, which has since barred him from pursuing employment, will no longer negatively impact him. He is also working to obtain compensation for unemployment and mental illness, as well as secure job integration at a  position suited to his educational background.

An attempt by the Quebec labour board to secure a meeting between Arturo and McGill for a resolution in regards to psychological damages was unsuccessful. “What McGill proposed did not live up to his needs – not just [his] wants. This man needs a job to support his family and to be reintegrated in the job that he did well and lost simply because of harassment,” Niemi told The Daily.

The first hearing on May 1 was inconclusive; several hearings will be held later this summer. The lawyer representing the University declined to comment on this story.

*Real name has been changed

The post Former McGill employee sues University for job discrimination appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Current status
The report declared, “We see the widespread adoption of AVs as being a matter of ‘when,’ not ‘if.’” It predicted that AV technology will sweep across the world in as little as five years – in fact, the first generation of AV technology is already upon us. Two-seater vehicles are on the streets of California by way of Google’s ‘Chauffeur Project,’ and in Alberta, Suncor is already using autonomous large dump trucks on private properties for work in the oil sands.

The state of Nevada has passed legislation to allow AVs on highways, while the governments of Singapore, the European Union, and the U.K. are actively promoting the testing of AV technology. Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, Nissan, and Tesla are all developing AVs that can rival a human-driven car in all functions and capabilities.

Semi-automated cars, such as the Mercedes Benz S-class, are already commercially available.

Car manufacturers plan to add Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) to familiar vehicle models, rather than create fully autonomous vehicles from scratch. Current ADAS technology includes lane-keeping, intelligent cruise control with braking, and automated parking. ADAS systems will first appear in higher-end models, with the goal of being universally implemented in all models in the near future.

The current research behind AV technology is keen to keep it a modifying technology rather than a replacement technology, for easier integration socially, economically, and infrastructure-wise. It could also be useful for legal purposes – for example, the current technology favours retaining a driver for purposes of private ownership of vehicles. However, legislation is predicted to move toward giving greater freedom and scope of AV technology, and thus full automation amongst other vehicles remains an eventual possibility.

The potential benefits
There are a host of benefits, the most significant one being safety. AVs are expected to eliminate traffic accidents caused by human error, which account for 93 per cent of all traffic accidents, and, as a result, could save up to 1,600 lives in Canada every year.

AVs can be considered as one of the first classes of autonomous robots that could potentially be owned by the masses, and they could replace conventional cars in the taxi industry. Barrie Kirk, co-founder of the consulting company Canadian Automated Vehicles Centre of Excellence and one of the authors of the report, told The Daily that “if you have your own car, for most people that car sits idle for 95 per cent of the time. It’s very inefficient.”

Kirk believes AVs could generate interest in the transportation-as-a-service model, where cars are rented rather than owned. The overall effect would be to reduce the number of conventional cars on the road, meaning decreased space needed for parking, a smaller ecological footprint due to the reliance on electricity rather than oil, and reduced traffic. AVs can also free up time spent at the wheel, as people will be able to perform other tasks while travelling; according to Statistics Canada in 2011, Canadians spent on average 32 days in traffic.

Kirk notes AVs would reduce the cost of transportation by introducing a shared ownership model for cars through transportation-as-a-service. Instead of a conventional car, people would use driverless taxis and pay a monthly or daily rate, and since the cost would be distributed over many different customers, it would be cheaper than owning a car.

Concerns with the new technology
Wajeeh Syed, mechatronics engineer intern at Tesla, noted some challenges facing AV technology, such as “detecting construction areas […] reading the speed limit, if signs are dirty [the AV] wouldn’t pick up the right speed. Heavy weather conditions are also proving to be difficult.” Kirk, however, is confident that with time the challenges will be overcome. “The technology is moving ahead very well.”

If AVs were to be fully implemented, the job losses would be monumental. It could severely affect the livelihood of more than 500,000 Canadians who rely on conventional cars to earn a living. There are also concerns regarding the security of AVs; as the technology becomes more complex, it also becomes more vulnerable to bugs and being compromised by third parties. Finally, there is also the risk of future generations becoming too dependent on the technology and thus being unable to function without it. It is evident that AVs will become a reality within the decade, this is all the more reason to start considering the implications and possible ethical issues now.

The post On the road with a robot appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Researchers from Cornell University have proposed that life could exist without oxygen. Life on earth requires lipid bilayer membranes, that only form in liquid water. In space, where it is extremely cold, water turns into ice. But liquid methane, devoid of any oxygen and composed of only hydrogen and carbon, remains in liquid form. And there is plenty of it to go around: Saturn’s moon, Titan, hosts seas of liquid methane. Consequently, the research team inquired as to whether liquid methane can sustain life.

The astrobiologists at Cornell discovered that indeed liquid methane can give rise to ‘azotosomes,’ which are membranes that can function in extremely cold temperatures and retain their flexibility and stability as lipid membranes. Flexibility allows membranes to be responsive to environmental changes, and stability allows it to retain its ability to compartmentalize materials. This groundbreaking theory means that future exploration of life forms in space could extend beyond merely the ‘habitable zone,’ where liquid water exists, and farther into planets rich with liquid methane.

In the early years of research on the molecular origins of life, scientists established the ‘RNA world’ hypothesis, which stated that the biochemical processes that ribonucleic acid (RNA) undergoes were precursors to terrestrial life. These processes require the molecular machines, like enzymes, to be in close proximity to the RNA, which is achieved with the help of lipid bilayer membranes. Compartmentalization encloses some molecules together and keeps others out, so processes can occur without external disruptions – in essence, it keeps order in the cell. Since lipid membrane compartmentalization was the first requirement for the origin of life, scientists theorized the ‘lipid world’ hypothesis, which replaced the ‘RNA world’ hypothesis.

Cell membranes compartmentalize through their interactions with liquid water. Water is polar as a result of an unequal distribution of charges. Polar molecules attract other polar molecules, whereas nonpolar molecules attract nonpolar molecules. Liposomes, which are spheres of lipid bilayer membranes, form in water due to favourable polarity interactions. Since membranes are composed of two single layers of phospholipids, which are made up of a polar oxygen-containing ‘head’ and a nonpolar hydrocarbon ‘tail,’ they naturally form into lipid bilayer membranes in water, with the polar portions of the molecule shielding the non-polar portions. However, unlike water, liquid methane is nonpolar. As a result, it is a poor environment for the formation of the bilayer lipid membranes which are required for life.

Moreover, phospholipids do not exist in liquid methane because the chemical components needed for their composition cannot be found in atmospheres of planets rich in liquid methane, such as in Titan. Even if phospholipids existed in liquid methane, they would not form into liposomes due to unfavourable polarity interactions, but instead into reverse membranes, where the tails face outward and the heads inward. These long tails (consisting of 15 to 20 atoms) are easily made rigid by the cold temperatures, decreasing the flexibility of the membranes.

The researchers discovered that ultraviolet light interacting with the methane- and nitrogen-filled atmosphere on Titan produces molecules called tholins, which are similar to phospholipids in that they contain shorter nonpolar tails and polar nitrogen-containing heads.

Adjusting for a much colder climate in space, the team created a computational simulation of a membrane model consisting of tholins. Their polar nitrogen-containing heads, called ‘azoto’ groups, keep them in reverse membrane form compared to the lipid bilayer membrane. Because the tails are short, they are not made extremely rigid by cold temperatures. This self-formation parallels that of a lipid bilayer, except that the directions the heads and tails are facing are reversed. This new membrane is termed ‘azotosomes.’ Computer simulation has concluded that azotosomes satisfy the conditions for a membrane that sustains life — namely, that it is flexible and stable.

Azotosomes seem to be membranes that can feasibly exist at extremely cold temperatures and could in principle sustain life in extremely cold climates and without liquid water, and consequently, without oxygen. The search for life-sustaining planets has always been fascinating, and this groundbreaking research could greatly expand the currently defined habitable zone and propel it to never-before-seen territories.

The post Meet the azotosomes appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Moderated by Rachel Zellars and featuring McGill art history professor Charmaine Nelson, Saint Mary’s University sociology professor Darryl Leroux, and Montreal historian Frank Mackey, the event was attended by over 300 people. Mackey filled in for renowned scholar and writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, who could not attend due to an emergency.

Nelson explained that the erasure of Canada’s history of slavery is caused in part by the failure of early education.

“The education system here is broken, because all of [the students] come in knowing about the Underground Railroad […] but not that Quebec, or New France, practiced slavery since the 1600s for roughly two centuries,” she said.

For Nelson, a large obstacle to educational reform is the academic research that forms the basis of what is taught. Although historical records detail the enslavement of black Canadians, those specifics have been ignored in academia. “The early secondary sources are horrifically racist, because they are not at all interested in the lives of the African slaves suffering,” said Nelson. “The issue is not the archives in themselves, it’s what our approaches will be, and how can we ask new questions of those archives?”

“Defenders of blackface would have us believe that anti-black racism is an American affair, something that we simply cannot be guilty of.”

Mackey argued that Canadian black history should be studied independently from black history in the U.S.. “There is a big difference between Canada, Quebec, and the States,” he said. “We have to stop seeing it on American terms.”

Some of Mackey’s comments, however, angered audience members, and prompted Zellars to later write a response on her blog. According to the blog post, Zellars took issue with Mackey’s distinctions in kind between slavery in the U.S. and in Quebec – namely, his qualification of slavery in Quebec as temperate – as well as his view that “the failure of knowledge and historical accuracy about Black life in Montreal was attributable to Black people.”

“In stating that we are responsible for our own historical absence, you are overlooking the politics and histories of white domination and control of Canadian academic life and scholarly production,” wrote Zellars.

“We cannot be referred to as ‘problems,’ as you did Monday night when […] you uttered a sentence that began, ‘The problem with the Blacks…’” added Zellars, addressing Mackey’s comments during the panel. “It was degrading, and it must be named as such.”

Leroux linked Quebec’s unwillingness to own up to its history of slavery to the recent resurgence of blackface in Quebec, where a satirical play by the Théâtre du Rideau Vert featured a white male actor in blackface playing the part of Montreal Canadiens player P. K. Subban.

“Defenders of blackface would have us believe that anti-black racism is an American affair, something that we simply cannot be guilty of,” said Leroux. “They believe themselves to be victims of colonialism, themselves innocent in the contemporary racial role.”

Nelson added to this argument that Quebec francophones’ perception of themselves as victims contributes to the erasure of black history, and is a key reason for this incident.

“We have been trained that to talk about race is to be racist.”

“There is a way in which white francophones mobilize their marginalization and not their privilege in a way that shuts down conversation about race,” remarked Nelson. “That’s why you can have the director general of a legitimate theatre company coming out and saying that she feels humiliated, when she authorized performance of a white male actor in blackface to play a black male.”

Leroux agreed, and thought it “quite an impressive feat” that the beneficiaries of French slavery can now confidently assert in the public sphere that they have no history of anti-black racism because they were conquered by the British.

“Quebec’s racist discourse relies on a heavy dose of victimhood mixed with equally strong amounts of innocence,” said Leroux.

According to Nelson, racial reconciliation in Quebec is inhibited by social conventions. “We have been trained that to talk about race is to be racist,” said Nelson, “so you get shut down very quickly if you want to start that conversation.”

Leroux added that the language used in this conversation is laced with racism. “We must avoid engaging with the discursive frameworks that currently exist because not only do they normalize the erasure and the ways in which anti-blackness has been fundamental to the foundation of Quebec, but perhaps more seriously legitimize its denials today.”

Zellars later told The Daily, “I’m grateful for the way the conversation moved between all the panelists, and I knew in choosing them that they would each offer their perspectives to make the conversation complete.”

BSN Political Coordinator Isabelle Oke found the event eye-opening. “There is more than meets the eye in this whole narrative that we try to bring up on race,” she said.

U3 Arts student Alex Langer from the McGill Debating Union concurred. “Canada has its own history and its own ways of oppressing black people, and we should remember that and learn from that.”

The post A history of anti-blackness appeared first on The McGill Daily.

“We really wanted [the events] to be a celebration of talent in McGill and the black communities,” said BSN Internal Coordinator Richenda Grazette.

Black History Month begins as the BSN’s longstanding efforts to stimulate campus discussion about race continue, especially after the events surrounding Ferguson, and organizers hope the panel will help to stimulate discussion. “We talked a lot about police brutality, specifically last semester, and now we are looking at anti-blackness more generally,” Grazette told The Daily.

Events include “Soul Food Friday!” and “Fro-back Thursday” (an open-mic night), which aim to celebrate black culture and entertainment. Others, such as Children’s Day, are geared toward contextualizing blackness in Canada for Montreal youth.

Grazette said that Children’s Day is geared toward students from Westmount and James Lyng high schools. “We are hoping that they will walk away with new ideas about what they can do after high school, and [learn] about black history and black innovations,” Grazette explained.

“The black Canadian historical absence is so stark and so blinding that black children can still go to school in Quebec for an entire lifetime and never hear about themselves in their history texts,” Rachel Zellars, a moderator of one of the upcoming Black History Month panels, told The Daily.

“I am concerned with the psychic violence that this entails, as well as the emotional and physical violence that lands on black children’s bodies within our public schools […] it is a kind of violence that happens very broadly in this city.”

“One of my greatest hopes is that we can start questioning, as a normative practice, what Canada says about its history and its relation to its black population; that is, who Canada holds itself out to be nationally and internationally,” Zellers added.

On February 16, BSN will host a panel called “Discourses of Race: The United States, Canada, and Transnational Anti-Blackness,” as part of the David A. Freedman Speaker Series. Renowned scholar and writer Ta-Nehisi Coates will be one of the speakers.

“We are hoping our audience walks away with greater knowledge about the way anti-blackness manifests in North America and new perspectives on the black experience,” said Charmaine Nelson, a professor with McGill’s department of art history and communication studies and a speaker at the event.

Nelson asserted that the “failures of early education” contribute to ignorance by not offering the opportunity to learn about black history. “If you look at Canadian education from kindergarten to university, how many people of colour are actually teaching, are principals, are deans?” Nelson asked.
“There is institutional racism in the fabric of our educational systems in Canada which means […] that our questions aren’t being asked.”

Nelson explained that these discussions are crucial, given the existence of institutionalized racism in Canada. “Most Euro-Canadians, most white Canadians, do not understand the deep colonial history of the country […] because they come from a position of white privilege, which means that they don’t have to know that history if they don’t want to.”

She noted that the very existence of Black History Month signifies racism on a deeper level. “Not even 11 months a year, but 12 months a year, we are always being given what is really white history or Euro-Canadian history in the context of this nation,” Nelson argued. “But the problem is that we don’t really call it that.”

“My wish is, of course, that Black History Month becomes obsolete because black histories are so a part of the narratives that we tell ourselves and a part of the national consciousness that that we don’t need to set aside a month just to do that,” Nelson expressed. “But we are far from that [reality].”

The post Students kick off Black History Month appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The government has one year to rewrite legislation to comply with the decision. When it comes into effect, Canadians will have a legal right to demand assisted suicide under the condition of a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” They must also be “competent” and consenting adults.

“I put it alongside the abortion decision of Morgentaler and the decision on same-sex marriage as an important moral step that Canadian societies are ready to take,” McGill law professor Daniel Weinstock told The Daily.

The court ruled that sections 241(b) and 14 of the Criminal Code, which prohibit physician-assisted suicide, infringed upon Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

Further, the Court decided that the prohibition’s infringement on Section 7 rights was more than minimal. Extensive evidence convinced the Court that the objective of the prohibition, to protect “vulnerable persons” from committing suicide, could be met by less drastic means, and that physicians could reliably assess patients and apply the informed consent requirement. The prohibition therefore could not be saved by appealing to Section 1 of the Charter, known as the “reasonable limits clause.”

“[The provinces] will very likely look to Quebec for ideas.”

The ruling is also favourable to provincial Bill 52, “An Act respecting end-of-life care,” that was passed into law last June, legalizing physician-assisted suicide in Quebec.

The Court credited Bill 52 as an influencing factor in the decision. “It forms part of the context in which the judges took their decision,” Weinstock noted. “The judges know that this legislation exists and that it has very broad support among the population.”

Massimo Orsini, a first-year law student at McGill, agreed that Bill 52 will be an important blueprint for future legislation. “The Supreme Court [gives] provinces time to draft appropriate [legislation], and they will very likely look to Quebec for ideas,” Orsini told The Daily.

Orsini also said that the impact of the decision is important for law students. “It reminds us to be humble, that the law isn’t something divorced from social life but rather something that applies in some of our most intimate moments,” he told The Daily.

Kyle Ng, a first-year medical student at the University of Ottawa with experience in bioethics, agreed that this verdict will have a great impact on the medical community.

“This decision has far-reaching consequences in every field of medicine from birth until death,” he told The Daily. “I can’t think of anything more impactful to medicine today.”

Ng was, however, skeptical of the Court’s ruling against blanket prohibition.

“I can’t trust that the medical profession will get this entirely right, 100 per cent of the time,” Ng said. “We have to come to grips with the fact that the medical profession is not perfect – there will be mistakes.”

He also emphasized that mental health problems that lead to thoughts of suicide should be addressed adequately.

“Cases untreatable and unresponsive to palliative care are exceedingly rare compared to suicidal ideation,” he said. “I’m not going to say the Supreme Court is wrong, but we are going to suffer a huge loss in society if we don’t figure out problems of mental health and palliative care in advance, before this decision gets implemented.”

The post Supreme Court strikes down physician-assisted suicide ban appeared first on The McGill Daily.

“We should be doing as much as we can on the world stage, but we are sitting on the sidelines,” said Neve at the conference, hosted by the McGill Centre for Human Rights & Legal Pluralism.

Canada has ratified the 1984 UN Convention against Torture, but not the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) – which aims to prevent torture by strengthening oversight of detention centres and has been signed by over seventy countries since 2002 – despite repeated recommendations from the UN.

“The [Canadian] government isn’t a strong believer in international law,” Neve told The Daily, “[and] it is not receptive to UN scrutiny.”

Neve stressed in the conference that Canada can strengthen its stance against torture by addressing four areas: detention practices of solitary confinement, complicity in torture elsewhere in the world, justice for torturers and survivors of torture, and oversight and review to prevent torture.

According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, solitary confinement that extends beyond 15 days is considered torture and must be prohibited. Canada’s practice of solitary confinement – officially called “administrative segregation,” – is then classified as torture, Neve said, because the average length of stay in segregation is forty days, which is well beyond the 15-day threshold.

Turning to complicity, Neve argued that “we have been, and we continue to be, complicit in torture […] in other countries.”

“Torturers are able to do the despicable things […] and get away with it, not because they are lone wolves, but because they are supported and protected often by a cast of hundreds […] and the same thing applies at the governmental level,” Neve said. “Governments are able to preside over and allow extensive torture in their countries because they are supported and protected by other governments.”

An example of Canada’s “institutionalized complicity” is the ministerial directions given to Canada’s intelligence services, border services, police, armed forces, and Communications Securities Establishment, according to Neve. Neve said that these regulations allow Canada to receive and use information obtained through torture in other countries and to provide information to other countries that could give rise to risk of torture.

“Canada also falls short in ensuring the criminal accountability of torturers and justice for survivors of torture,” said Neve. “We are pushing problems off our doorsteps.”

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, individuals residing in Canada can be deported to foreign countries even when there is a clear risk that the individual will be tortured there, Neve said. Further, as per the State Immunity Act, foreign governments cannot be sued on grounds of Canadian victims being tortured, even though they can be sued on other grounds, such as for commercial reasons.

Canada has ignored the recommendations from the UN, as well as from former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci and former Ontario Associate Chief Justice Dennis O’Connor, to address Canada’s widespread usage of solitary confinement and to overhaul foreign policies regarding torture.

According to Neve, Canada’s domestic problems hinder its voice on the international stage. “We cannot push others [to combat torture] until we have done so ourselves,” he said.
“The bottom line is that there is much Canada can and must do in significantly increasing our contribution in ending torture.”

U2 Arts student and McGill Students for Amnesty International organizer Emma Jackson expressed surprise after the talk. “I think that [Canada not ratifying the OPCAT] is just astounding,” she said. “You think of Canada as adhering to human rights and not doing torture, but then […] the Canadian government isn’t acting on it.”

U2 Science student Ahmed Khan, also from McGill Students for Amnesty International, emphasized the need to raise awareness. “Most students are aware that torture is happening and that we should take action, but implications of Canadian government in torture are not as well-known,” Khan said. “Making these small actions in mass quantity helps make a difference.”

The post ‘A human rights scourge’: Canada’s role in the struggle against torture appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The centrepiece of the event, and the main subject of Jahanbegloo’s memoir, was his harrowing experiences in section 209 of Iran’s infamous Evin Prison where he was detained for four months in the summer of 2006, under the rule of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Jahanbegloo was imprisoned for allegedly conspiring with other countries with the intention of causing a “soft overthrow” in Iran, among other accusations. Jahanbegloo denied this accusation, noting that it was incompatible with with his philosophy of non-violence.

“Non-violence actually tells you how to fight for justice not only in the books and going to tribunals […] but at the same time through educating the citizens,” said Jahanbegloo, emphasizing the need for critical thought.

Jahanbegloo emphasized his struggle in day-to-day solitary confinement, which he said increased the risk of “losing your mind.” Jahanbegloo’s only connection to the outside world was access to a rooftop terrace during a weekly 15-minute break, and he also had access to a few philosophical texts. “[I would] read out loud […] to hear myself speak,” he said.

“Non-violence actually tells you how to fight for justice not only in the books and going to tribunals […] but at the same time through educating the citizens.”

Jahanbegloo also spoke of his experience being interrogated while in prison, describing being blindfolded during interrogation and being continually under heavy pressure to make false confessions. Not being allowed a lawyer or any outside contacts, he eventually confessed to false claims.

“In a country where having a law doesn’t mean anything,” Jahanbegloo said, “there is no way to defend yourself against a system like that.”

Jahanbegloo’s confession was ultimately not used against him after international pressure and UN-led negotiations resulted in his release.

Jahanbegloo said that despite his experience, he remains faithful to his philosophy of non-violence.

“I am even more convinced of non-violence,” he declared. “It is the most pragmatic response to violence in our societies.”

Jahanbegloo connected this view to contemporary Canada and what he referred to as “Bruce Willis” or “Die Hard” syndrome. “[People think] there are the good guys and the bad guys and the good guys destroy the bad guys,” he said, adding that education and critical reflection should be used to combat such sharp dichotomies.

Some audience members found Jahanbegloo’s call to question ideas very applicable to their own circumstances. “We are inculcated in law in a certain way without questioning,” Amanda Ghahremani, a third-year law student and one of the event’s organizers, told The Daily. “Law isn’t just about what’s in the books, but is also about how people organize themselves and how people live.”

“To be able to question what you are doing and question what you are learning and be critical is important,” Ghahremani continued.

Arash Aslani, an Iranian who was held and tortured at Evin Prison for two years before coming to Canada in 2004, where he was detained at Laval’s Canadian Immigration Prevention Center for 11 consecutive months, concurred with Ghahremani’s interpretation of the talk.

“Canadians believe that the government is right,” Aslani said, “and nobody asks questions. […] I tell people my story and they are so surprised, because they cannot believe that it is the government doing that.”

Having had his own experiences of discrimination from the Canadian government, Aslani said he does not live under an illusion of security and freedom granted by the government.

“Trust in the government is the worst,” Aslani told The Daily. “Always question; don’t just accept.”

The post Philosopher reflects on experience in Iranian prison appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post Unions, communities unite against austerity appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On December 17, the Liberal government drafted regulations to put Bill 35 into effect, more than a year after the bill was passed into law by the Quebec National Assembly on December 6, 2013. Bill 35 struck down several requirements of the Quebec Civil Code for trans people who wish to legally change their gender marker on official documents.

An earlier version of this article stated that prior to Bill 35, legislation required a person who wanted to change the gender markers on their official documents to publish their old name, new name, and civic address in a local newspaper and the official Gazette of Quebec. In fact, that was a requirement for a name change. The Daily regrets the error.

The post Over a year later, Bill 35 remains unimplemented appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Entitled “An Act respecting end-of-life care,” the bill was passed into law by the Quebec National Assembly in June, legalizing physician-assisted suicide in the province of Quebec. Quebec became the first province to legislate the right to assisted suicide in Canada.

Weinstock, a member of the Royal Society of Canada expert panel on end-of-life decision making, defended Bill 52 on moral grounds.

He first argued that we must situate physician-assisted suicide as part of a continuum of end-of-life care along with palliative care – or care that relieves symptoms, as opposed to the actual ailment – as specified by Bill 52. He clarified that “requests for euthanasia come at the very end of that continuum for a very restricted pool of patients” only after palliative care has exhausted its viable options.

Patients then must also be sufficiently competent in their decision-making abilities. This “autonomy-based justification” of physician-assisted suicide is Weinstock’s main argument for Bill 52, and he argued that the right to make momentous life decisions by ourselves as autonomous citizens, including how one should die, follows the spirit of Canada’s constitution.

In contrast, the UK justifies its assisted suicide practices on a “well-being justification,” which states that life should be lived at a certain quality, which is not met by the suffering of the terminally ill. The problem Weinstock identified in this case is that a third party makes the call for euthanasia, maybe a health expert or a judge, which takes the decision away from the patient. This approach is incompatible with the value we give to autonomy embodied in the constitution of Canada.

As an involved member of the drafting of the bill, Weinstock finally praised the process as “exemplar law-making” involving “intense democratic debate and deliberation.”

Vinay challenged Bill 52 from the perspective of doctors in charge of palliative care. He believed the criteria specified in Bill 52 for physician-assisted suicide are difficult to enforce, such as incurability and suffering. It is never certain that the illness is incurable, and suffering is always subjective and in flux.

Speaking in French, he argued that the law will also be encroaching on the “professional liberty of exercising medicine,” by subjecting doctors to either assist the patient in dying, or referring the patient to another doctor who is willing to assist them.

Moreover, euthanasia, an irreversible act depending solely on the patient’s competent decision, is against the essence of practicing medicine in palliative care, which is continuous engagement with the patients, said Vinay.

“We must have trust and faith in the practice of medicine rather than surrendering to physician-assisted suicide,” Vinay concluded.

Even though many audience members differed on their opinions on Bill 52, the question-and-answer period was conducted respectfully, with no major tensions between opposing sides. The audience members were also diverse in their educational or professional backgrounds, and each found Bill 52 to be relevant for different reasons.

“For students in the faculty of law, it is important for us to explore these ethical questions,” Kendra Levasseur, a co-host of the event and a first-year law student, told The Daily.

Diana, a first-year nursing student, found the event particularly relevant to her program. “At the end of the day, who is going to be administering the shot?” she told The Daily.

Massimo Orsini, a co-host of the event and a first-year law student, summed up the event. “I think this is a pertinent issue, since we are always talking about the intersection of law, politics, healthcare, and health policy,” said Orsini. “It’s always important to realize how certain theoretical issues actually influence tangible legislation that has real and profound impacts on human beings and society.”

Current situation of Bill 52

Bill 52 has yet to be fully implemented, and is currently facing legal challenges from Quebec-based movements who argue on federal grounds that it infringes sections of the Criminal Code and section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life.

Its fate is also pending on the Supreme Court hearing of an appeal of the separate case of Carter v. Canada (Attorney General). In the Carter case, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (B.C.) originally ruled in 2012 that outlawing assisted suicide violated the rights of the terminally ill Gloria Taylor, and thus is unconstitutional.

The trial decision was appealed by the federal government, and subsequently overturned by the B. C. Court of Appeal in 2013, which upheld the existing prohibition on assisted suicide. This decision was in turn appealed and is now in the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada, which began its hearing this October.

The Supreme Court decision on Carter v. Canada is expected to be released to the public in several months.

The post Examining the right to die appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This year, two speakers were invited: Alan Ojiig Corbiere, from the M’Chigeeng First Nation, and Aaron Mills, from the Couchiching First Nation. Both are dedicated both professionally and emotionally to Indigenous advocacy. This is a significant improvement over last year’s talk, where a Bay Street corporate lawyer flat out ignored the only Indigenous person who was courageous enough to speak during the Q&A. Then, to add insult to injury, he decided along with almost everyone in the audience to opt for the champagne reception afterward instead of addressing that person’s questions.

Of the two speeches, that of Mills, a legal scholar working at the Indigenous Bar Association, was the most thought-provoking. He gave a passionate talk about the future of Indigenous people living under the shadow of the Canadian legal system. Instead of talking about the legal details of the treaties easily found online, he instead offered an original and compelling account of the tension inherent between Canadians and Indigenous peoples, and provided some practical advice for resolving this problem.

In a nutshell, Mills argues that we must recognize that what law means for Canadians is different than what law means for Indigenous peoples.

In a nutshell, Mills argues that we must recognize that what law means for Canadians is different than what law means for Indigenous peoples. This is a result of their fundamentally different belief systems, systems that give meaning not only to law, but every other aspect of life, such as friendship, hunting, and religion. Canadians see law under a Canadian constitutional framework, and because of that, are prejudiced toward a constitutional view of the law. But we, as non-Indigenous Canadians, have to recognize that this is simply not the case for everyone.

Canadian law was often used to serve the goals of colonialism. To reconcile past wrongs, Mills suggests traditional Indigenous legal practices should operate alongside constitutional law. This would right a system that is often seen as having power over Indigenous peoples. Currently the two views of law are irreducible to each other – Canadian law forcefully imposes its rationale onto Indigenous legal thought. For Mills, it’s a blatant injustice done in bad faith to Indigenous peoples.

So as a preliminary step toward reconciliation, Mills asks that we revise our previous legal interpretations of these treaties between Canada and First Nations peoples so that they can be given a fair ground and representation in the legal sphere. Instead of seeing those treaties as contracts, we should see them as a symbol of friendship. But why should we put a stop to reconciliation at the legal sphere? Why not have peace and harmony in our daily lives through our voluntary actions?

 Canadian law forcefully imposes its rationale onto Indigenous legal thought. For Mills, it’s a blatant injustice done in bad faith to Indigenous peoples.

In fact, Mills believes we must apply this reasoning to all aspects of life. If we don’t in everyday life sincerely believe in the possibility of harmony and consensus between different peoples, then even if harmony in the legal sphere is achieved, it will only be temporary. And, to the extent that legal disputes are enforced by the threat of sanctions, the consensus will not be sincere. He believes we must, outside the legal sphere, recognize and respect the differences of Indigenous peoples by not imposing our ways of thought onto them again, but instead learning from them. This is the only way to have a stable, long-lasting harmony between peoples.

Mills then told the audience that coming to the event was in itself a gesture of hope of rebuilding our relationships. There was actually a very important take-home message from this: we already have the power to practice building friendship with each other. We need not, and should not, wait for officials or legislators to initiate this friendship. We, as non-Indigenous settlers in Canada, ought to go out in good faith and rebuild this shattered relationship into the friendship that was present in spirit in the original treaties of Niagara.

Just how plausible is this view? We must keep in mind that it takes the willingness of both parties for a real reconciliation and acceptance of differences. Even if we grant that non-Indigenous peoples are willing to take these steps (despite government officials being unwilling), some Indigenous people stand firm in their conviction that Canadians are just colonizers. The Indigenous person last year who asked the question of the Bay Street lawyer actually used the word ‘thieves.’ He said that we, as settlers, are fundamentally in the wrong, and there is just no bargaining with thieves. To be fair, he was justly aggravated by the talk, in which there was definitely no proposal of reconciliation. Rather, the proposal from the Bay Street lawyer was to leave room in our legal system so that Indigenous peoples can represent themselves legally, but only in the constitutional sense, and only at bargaining tables concerning oil companies and the sudden destruction of their homes.

We, as non-Indigenous settlers in Canada, ought to go out in good faith and rebuild this shattered relationship

But as non-Indigenous Canadians, we cannot blame some Indigenous people for thinking this way. We have to realize that so much injustice was done to them that it’s completely understandable that they might not be inclined to trust us.

Just to remind you, they were colonized and then called to fight for the colonizers, at least during early wars and up until the war of 1812 between Britain and the U.S., when Indigenous forces still had military significance to the great powers. Subsequently, realizing we didn’t need them for military purposes anymore and seeing them as no significant threat, we broke the good faith in the original treaties and introduced shameful laws to bend this relationship solely to our benefit. To point to them sheepishly and say, “Well, you are not trying as hard as we are in making peace, so really the fault is yours that reconciliation is not happening” is quite simply unfair. They are justified in their mistrust, and it is up to us to show them that a trusting bond can be developed again.

So, building on Mill’s vision, we must not only be willing to attain harmony between the two groups but also tolerant of mistrust, if it comes from Indigenous people. And a note to the next year’s host: please, stop saying “thank you so very much for letting us use this land to host this talk.” As pointed out by a very sharp student, “thank you” is not appropriate when the colonizers forcefully conquered the land their ancestors lived in and subjected them to the crap end of the justice stick for the past few centuries.

Peter Zhi is a U4 Arts student specializing in Philosophy. To contact him, please email commentary@mcgilldaily.com.

The post Reconciling past with present appeared first on The McGill Daily.