Behind most idealists, there’s a pragmatist – for us, that’s Boris Shedov. He’s been selling The Daily’s ads for over 20 years and he’s loved the paper for even longer. And I’m glad, because it’s Boris’s work that keeps our paper alive and kicking. Along with his co-workers Geneviève Robert and Letty Matteo, Boris sells the advertisements that have sustained a paper that’s offered generations of students an education in journalism.

He slogs away at the business end of things so that students can slog away producing copy and photography and illustrations. He’s proud to support a paper that’s truly a critical alternative to other news media. He respects our boycott of advertisements from big oil and the military and the pharmaceutical industry. Boris shares a lot of our ideals, and his willingness to incorporate them into his work is the reason that the paper you’re holding doesn’t look like The Mirror or The Hour. And his work ethic is a big part of the reason that the paper exists at all, with advertising revenues the way they are.

This kind of relationship between editors and advertising folks is uncommon. But I’m confident that whoever thought up The Daily’s structure was equal parts brilliant and near-insane. Because half of our funding comes from student fees, the paper is driven by students’ interests. McGill students elect editors, make up the editorial board, and staff the Board of Directors of our non-profit parent corporation, the Daily Publications Society. Major changes to our organization have been run by the student body via referendum for the past few decades. And every five years, we go to referendum where students can affirm or deny their support for the continued existence of The Daily and Le Délit.

But sometimes that can be scary. This year, we felt the tension between The Daily and its student stakeholders more than ever. When Drew Nelles, the coordinating editor in 2007-2008, began his final comment piece with “Some of you hate The Daily,” I thought he was being melodramatic. I was wrong – some of you really, really hate us. What makes this hate hard to stomach is that most of the shortcomings people point out are things we struggle with on a regular basis: we argue over whether our reporting is as accurate and clear as it could be, if we’re covering everything we should, and if we’re reaching a diverse enough base of readers. We care as much as our critics do, and we work constantly to change things for the better.

Some of the criticisms levied at The Daily this year are valid. Some are not. Queer rights are not “obscure human rights issues.” Neither are the rights of McGill’s workers or people fighting for equal access to abortion. These are issues that students care about. We know this because it’s students who write the stories. Past editors have pointed out that there is a distinction between being mainstream and being accessible. And while accessibility remains our goal, we choose not to restrict ourselves to writing only about the things almost every other newspaper devotes its pulp and ink to.

But people are right when they say our writing doesn’t always engage students. We need to do a better job of covering stories in faculties underrepresented on The Daily’s staff, and of making the relevancy of each issue to the McGill community immediately clear. You can help us by getting in touch and telling us what you want to see. What newsworthy things are going on in your faculty? What’s affecting your campus group? What kind of issues are we missing?
But, at the end of the day, there’s something that won’t change. We’re always going to maintain our grounding in a conception of social justice – the idea that in the society we occupy, some people are up, others are down, and that’s not right. The Daily is yours, and it’s your tool for challenging what you see as unfair or wrong or unjust.

We want you to get involved, because it’s your paper, and people are still fighting to keep it alive.

Stephen Davis is The Daily’s coordinating editor and soon to be dropout from the Faculty of Religious Studies. The words here are his own. Write him at sspencerdavis@gmail.com.

The post Why your hate is hard to stomach appeared first on The McGill Daily.

For the large part of this year, McGill’s fledgling pro-life group, Choose Life, has opted to deal in moral absolutes, rather than acknowledging the lived experiences of the students around them. And this might be why they haven’t accomplished much of what they set out to do.

Their moral absolutes led them to pursue shock tactics – forget the individual women, they seem to be saying, there is a greater truth here: abortion is killing, killing is wrong, and we will do whatever it takes to spread these truths.

After a year clouded in controversy, they’ve re-plotted their course. But it remains to be seen where next year will lead.

The club’s history: digest version
Choose Life gained interim club status in October 2008. And after holding some successful events and jumping through a few administrative hoops, they gained official club status at a Council meeting in February 2009. Official club status comes with certain privileges, including the ability to book rooms and set up displays on campus.

Students were anxious and frustrated. At the October Council meeting, a student called the pro-life perspective “inherently violent against women and against human rights.” The February meeting was the most well-attended Council session in almost a year.

The anxieties expressed at Council did not go unaddressed. The group was subject to certain restrictions, including a prohibition on the use of graphic imagery.

In the lead-up to gaining official status, the group had proven itself to be a polarizing force on campus. Despite the restrictions on imagery, they tabled at the crossroads with pictures of fetal development in November 2008. Then they invited Mary Meehan, a speaker who compared abortion to eugenics. The audience in the room was literally divided, with pro-lifers on one side and Choose Life’s opponents on the other.

In September 2009, the club hosted the Silent No More Awareness campaign. Demonstrators stood on campus with signs reading “I Regret My Abortion” – actions which some criticized as intentionally targeting women who’ve had abortions to make them feel ashamed. Fliers handed out at the event made the dubious assertion that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Things became tense on campus, but Choose Life pushed forward. In October, they invited a speaker who compares the language used to justify abortion to the language that has been used to justify genocide. The Students’ Society censured the event, fearing it would create a hostile environment on campus.

Choose Life went ahead with the event. Student protesters shut it down. Police escorted two protesters out in handcuffs. At a Senate meeting, Principal Heather Munroe-Blum said the protests had cast a “dark cloud” over campus by trying to censor the group.

Soon after, SSMU Council voted to suspend Choose Life’s club status. Over the coming months, members of the club’s executive met with the Society’s Equity Committee to discuss how Choose Life could conform to the Society’s Equity Policy. This document binds the Society to “Creating, promoting, and engaging its membership in an environment that fosters respect.” After a few meetings and agreements on new restrictions for the group, a vote at Council in early April reinstated Choose Life as an official SSMU club.

The promise of dialogue
When you speak with Choose Life president Natalie Fohl, she talks about a lot of things – women’s rights, Canadian law, and freedom of speech.

But more than anything else, Fohl’s preferred topic is dialogue. I’ve interviewed her several times this year – after the group’s first event of the year, in the lead-up to their suspension, and following Choose Life’s reinstatement.

At the Silent No More event, three speakers – two women and one man – shared stories of how abortion affected their lives.

Afterward, when protesters had packed up their signs and guitars and left, Fohl told me that the event was “a great opportunity for dialogue.”

In January, Fohl was tabling at the crossroads and speaking with students about abortion. Her club was still suspended, so she wasn’t allowed to be tabling under the name Choose Life. But she contacted Conservative McGill, and they booked a table under their name. Late in the day, someone came along and flipped over Fohl’s table. But she was optimistic, and said that Choose Life, as always, was “here to raise awareness but also to promote discussion.”

And recently, with her club’s status reinstated, she said “We do try and have a variety of events to make sure that a lot of different people are engaged in…dialogue.”

Fohl’s professed love for dialogue is bizarre, since for a brief period this year, it seemed that Choose Life’s tactics had destroyed any hope of a meaningful discussion of reproductive rights on campus. When you confront a woman with a sign reading, “I regret my abortion,” for instance, you cannot expect students to eagerly engage in dialogue.

Fohl seems to have realized this. Her plans for the club have shifted away from inviting incendiary speakers and toward research and activism.

She explained that future initiatives would include a research group that will assess the resources available for parents and pregnant students at McGill.

“We’re going to compile that information, [first] to make it available, but also to assess the situation, see if it’s adequate, and, if it’s not, advocate for changes,” Fohl said.

After a rocky year, she seems more aware than ever that pregnancy is a particularly weighty issue for students, one that the administration fails to address.

“If I were to get pregnant, randomly, unexpectedly…that would be my school career, all of my plans, out the window. And I don’t think that needs to be the case…. The University structure should be set up to accommodate that and make it so that women don’t have to choose between their studies and their child’s life,” Fohl said.

She didn’t mention any concrete plans Choose Life has to accomplish these goals – and they have their reputation working against them. Their rhetoric earlier this year was divisive – not the kind of talk that encourages students to get involved with any sort of grassroots initiative advocating for pregnant students. Through their actions – their signs, their underhanded tactics, their shock tactics – Choose Life has alienated the very people they want to advocate for.

A look ahead
I recently read a Maisonneuve article in which the pseudonymous author wrote about her own abortion. She mentions Tisdale’s piece, and toward the end, she quotes British writer Fay Weldon:
“Abortion is sometimes necessary, sometimes not, always sad. It is to the woman as war is to the man – a living sacrifice in a cause justified or not justified, as the observer may decide. It is the making of hard decisions – that this one must die so that one can live in honor and decency and comfort. Women have no leaders, of course; a woman’s conscience must be her General. There are no stirring songs to make the task of killing easier, no victory marches and medals handed around afterwards, merely a sense of loss.”

The Maisonneuve writer goes on to say that women who choose to obtain abortions open up an aftermath that they must face alone. So far, Choose Life has only made the situation worse, reinforcing the view that abortion is absolutely wrong, but the factors that compel women to make that choice aren’t worth challenging.

After Council voted to impose new restrictions on Choose Life, Fohl accused the Society of applying a double standard. Choose Life is the only club on campus that must abide by such stringent guidelines, she said. This is true. But no other club on campus deals with issues with as much potential to alienate students as abortion. As VP (University Affairs) Rebecca Dooley said after the vote, “You can’t talk about this issue and not talk about women’s bodies. You can’t talk about this issue and not talk about a difficult experience.”

Choose Life VP (Internal) Paul Cernek told me that, “We have the best interests of everyone at heart, including women.” If this is true, Choose Life should acknowledge that women who choose to end their pregnancies do so for reasons that a campus club could actively combat. They must focus less on the how of abortion – the surgical procedures, the gory details – and more on the why: those factors that compel a woman to seek an abortion.

If women are ending pregnancies because they must choose between a child and paying rent, the group could campaign for improved access to social housing. Or they could advocate for McGill post-doctoral students to receive benefits like subsidized child-care or paid maternity leave. Currently, maternity leave is negotiated with the post-doc’s supervisor. And then there’s contraception and sex education, both of which are lacking across the country and around the world.

As a SSMU club, they stand to benefit from the funds that the Society collects from its members (all undergrads and law students). Choose Life owes students more. If they are as concerned about women’s welfare as they claim to be, they need to prove it next year.

The post The abortion debate in context appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On Thursday night, SSMU Council voted to add an appendix to Choose Life’s constitution, ending the group’s suspension while placing restrictions on their activities.

Rebecca Dooley, VP (University Affairs) presented the appendix to Council. She said the appendix was intended to foster an environment that is welcoming to students and conducive to dialogue.

“We don’t want [Choose Life] to be going around…trying to shame or shock students with graphic imagery,” said Dooley.

“We want to be able to have a lot of different groups under the SSMU. However, the way in which you express these views has to be respectful,” she added.

Among other restrictions, the group cannot display images of private medical procedures in public.

The group can, however, display images of such procedures in a private space, provided they can prove the images were obtained legally.

“If people want to consciously seek out information, we don’t want to restrict their ability to go and seek that out,” Dooley said.

The group is also forbidden from participating in “the production or distribution of falsified health and safety information.”

The appendix was drafted last week by the Student Equity Committee, which has been meeting with members of Choose Life since their suspension.

The Committee aimed to allow Choose Life to remain on campus without violating the Society’s Equity Policy, which outlines SSMU’s formal commitment to “Creating, promoting, and engaging its membership in an environment that fosters respect.”

The policy also states that a commitment to equity should not stifle debate or “detract from the right of members to engage in the open discussion of potentially controversial matters.”

Paul Cernek, Choose Life VP (Internal), said that while he was satisfied with the overall outcome of the process, it was grounded in assumptions contrary to Choose Life’s principles.

“The framework that they’re asking us to work within is pro-choice – [it is a] pro-choice understanding of bodily sovereignty,” Cernek said. “I think it’s important to emphasize that bodily sovereignty does not equal a right to abortion.”

Students recently voted to add an obligation to respect bodily sovereignty to the SSMU constitution.

Cernek added that Choose Life has struggled against misconceptions this year.

“People see us as a hostile group, as perhaps a patriarchal [group]…. We have the best interests of everyone at heart, including women,” Cernek said, adding that he is the only male of the club’s seven permanent members.

Choose Life is also prohibited from using SSMU resources to lobby or advocate for the criminalization of abortion.

Dooley said this restriction is partially intended to act as a check on how the fees students pay to SSMU are used.

“Students pay us money, and we have our resources because of our students,” Dooley said. “We have to be sensitive to the most marginalized of our students, and that includes post abortive students. And they should not be concerned that an organization that they are a part of is giving resources to a group that is trying to take away their rights.”

Dooley said that the appendix cannot be seen as a comprehensive solution to the controversy surrounding Choose Life and added that no discussion of abortion on campus will ever be an easy one.

“You can’t talk about this issue and not talk about women’s bodies. You can’t talk about this issue and not talk about a difficult experience,” she said.

The post Choose Life regains full club status appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Presidential candidates Stefan Link and Sarah Woolf have been slapped with censures from Elections McGill for a variety of violations. Woolf was censured after Elections McGill chief electoral officer Mike Vallo was informed that Woolf’s campaign site and YouTube videos were online at 11 a.m. Tuesday – two hours after the deadline for the removal of campaign materials. Link was also censured for leaving his Facebook group and YouTube videos online after the 9 a.m. deadline.

Vallo sees Link’s recent violation as proof that the presidential candidate did not actually know the election regulations. “I still don’t think…he’s intentionally breaking the bylaws as much as he can. He just doesn’t know the bylaws,” Vallo said.

Link deleted himself as administrator of his Facebook page, rather than taking the page down. Facebook groups without administrators can remain online indefinitely.

VP (Clubs and Services) candidate Anushay Khan has had similar problems. Khan said she logged onto Facebook recently and was surprised to find that she had somehow been deleted as administrator of her own group. She has since removed all content from the group, though it remains online.

In addition to his online violations, a memo from Elections McGill also attributed Link’s censure to his “persistent disregard for the bylaws.” Last week, members of Link’s campaign violated bylaws by writing his name in chalk and handing out campaign flyers outside the McLennan Library.

SSMU electoral bylaws forbid flyering outdoors, as well as the display of campaign materials outdoors.

In response, Link pointed to discrepancies between the online version of Elections McGill’s bylaws and the hard copies given to candidates. Vallo acknowledged that the online version of the bylaws are outdated and limit candidates to 400 posters, while the updated hard copies given to candidates limit them to 200.

Vallo added that Link is not alone in his lack of familiarity with the bylaws. “The overwhelming majority [of candidates] did not read the bylaws at all…and then were surprised when they got in trouble,” he said.

Vallo said that Woolf has adhered to election bylaws throughout the campaign period, with the exception of her recent violations. “She’s run a really clean campaign so far,” Vallo said.

Link has said that he is convinced the bylaws limit voter turnout and awareness of the election among students.

Keeping things under wraps
Campaign violations are not the only thing troubling candidates in the final stretches of the election.

Presidential candidate Zach Newburgh has had to explain a Facebook profile photo that shows him wearing a scarf wrapped around his head and holding a knife. One commenter expressed concern that Newburgh appeared to be “mocking Arabs and/or Muslims.”

Newburgh said that he is wearing “Moroccan dress” in the photo, which he has removed from his profile.

Woolf said the image could undermine Newburgh’s promises to promote dialogue between polarized communities. “I think that it certainly shows a serious lack of good judgment,” Woolf said. “But it is especially disappointing coming from a candidate who has based his campaign on building bridges,” she added.

The photo has been sent to The Daily by both students and a McGill alumna.

Newburgh referred to the photo as “a joke that was taken way too far.” He also emphasized his track record as president of Hillel Montreal, where he says he has stood for diplomacy among disparate groups.

“I have always stood for dialogue and always stood for bridge-building,” Newburgh said, pointing to his work with Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights. “I am absolutely, without question, sorry if I offended anyone in any way as a result of a joke that really went too far.”

Link had not seen the photo. Presidential candidate Trip Yang had seen the photo but declined to comment.

The gloves come off
An unidentified person punched Link in the stomach while he was campaigning in Gerts this past Friday.

He believes it was a response to the strength of his campaign. “We were gaining a lot of support in the bar that night,” he explained, adding that he is convinced he will win the election.

Link dismissed the possibility that the attack was a random act of violence. “There is no way [the attacker] was just drunk and violent. That’s not a possibility,” he said.

Initially, Link denied that other candidates were involved in the attack. When questioned further, he speculated that Woolf may have enlisted someone to attack him. “The person who did it was Asian, so it kind of makes it look like she would be the least likely person,” he said, adding, “If you want to cover something up, that’s a good way to do it.”

According to Link, people would likely attribute the attack to Yang’s campaign team, because Yang has “a lot of Oriental [sic] support.”

Yang called the speculation “ridiculous.”

The next night, Link was spotted at Verdun venue Clap Trap, where he says he was invited on stage by performers. Vallo explained that campaigning off campus would constitute a serious bylaw infraction. However, he has been unable to corroborate the story. “Most of [the people present] said they were too drunk to tell me what happened,” Vallo said.

Link said he cannot clearly remember the evening’s events. “I was actually drinking alcohol and I can’t tell you exactly what it is that I said,” he explained.

Election results will be announced this evening in Gerts.

The post SSMU elections turn aggressive appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Presidential candidates Stefan Link and Sarah Woolf have been slapped with censures from Elections McGill for a variety of violations. Woolf was censured after Elections McGill chief electoral officer Mike Vallo was informed that Woolf’s campaign site and YouTube videos were online at 11 a.m. Tuesday – two hours after the deadline for the removal of campaign materials. Link was also censured for leaving his Facebook group and YouTube videos online after the 9 a.m. deadline.

Vallo sees Link’s recent violation as proof that the presidential candidate did not actually know the election regulations. “I still don’t think…he’s intentionally breaking the bylaws as much as he can. He just doesn’t know the bylaws,” Vallo said.

Link deleted himself as administrator of his Facebook page, rather than taking the page down. Facebooks groups without administrators can remain online indefinitely.

VP (Clubs and Services) candidate Anushay Khan has had similar problems. Khan said she logged onto Facebook recently and was surprised to find that she had somehow been deleted as administrator of her own group. She has since removed all content from the group, though it remains online.

In addition to his online violations, a memo from Elections McGill also attributed Link’s censure to his “persistent disregard for the bylaws.” Last week, members of Link’s campaign violated bylaws by writing his name in chalk and handing out campaign flyers outside the McLennan Library.

SSMU electoral bylaws forbid flyering outdoors, as well as the display of campaign materials outdoors.

In response, Link pointed to discrepancies between the online version of Elections McGill’s bylaws and the hard copies given to candidates. Vallo acknowledged that the online version of the bylaws are outdated and limit candidates to 400 posters, while the updated hard copies given to candidates limit them to 200.

Vallo added that Link is not alone in his lack of familiarity with the bylaws. “The overwhelming majority [of candidates] did not read the bylaws at all…and then were surprised when they got in trouble,” he said.

Vallo said that Woolf has adhered to election bylaws throughout the campaign period, with the exception of her recent violation. “She’s run a really clean campaign so far,” Vallo said.

Link has said that he is convinced the bylaws limit voter turnout and awareness of the election among students.

Keeping things under wraps
Campaign violations are not the only thing troubling candidates in the final stretches of the election.

Presidential candidate Zach Newburgh has had to explain a Facebook profile photo that shows him wearing a scarf wrapped around his head and holding a knife. One commenter expressed concern that Newburgh appeared to be “mocking Arabs and/or Muslims.”

Newburgh said that he is wearing “Moroccan dress” in the photo.

Woolf said the image could undermine Newburgh’s promises to promote dialogue between polarized communities. “I think that it certainly shows a serious lack of good judgment,” Woolf said. “But it is especially disappointing coming from a candidate who has based his campaign on building bridges,” she added.

The photo has been sent to The Daily by both students and McGill alumni.

Newburgh referred to the photo as “a joke that was taken way too far.” He also emphasized his track record as president of Hillel Montreal, where he says he has stood for diplomacy among disparate groups.

“I have always stood for dialogue and always stood for bridge-building,” Newburgh said, pointing to his work with Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights. “I am absolutely, without question, sorry if I offended anyone in any way as a result of a joke that really went too far.”

Link had not seen the photo. Presidential candidate Trip Yang had seen the photo but declined to comment.

The gloves come off
An unidentified person punched Link in the stomach while he was campaigning in Gerts this past Friday.

He believes it was a response to the strength of his campaign. “We were gaining a lot of support in the bar that night,” he explained, adding that he is convinced he will win the election.

Link dismissed the possibility that the attack was a random act of violence. “There is no way [the attacker] was just drunk and violent. That’s not a possibility,” he said.

Initially, Link denied that other candidates were involved in the attack. When questioned further, he speculated that Woolf may have enlisted someone to attack him. “The person who did it was Asian, so it kind of makes it look like she would be the least likely person,” he said, adding, “If you want to cover something up, that’s a good way to do it.”

According to Link, people would likely attribute the attack to Yang’s campaign team, because Yang has “a lot of Oriental [sic] support.”

Yang called the speculation “ridiculous.”

The next night, Link was spotted at Verdun venue Clap Trap, where he says he was invited on stage by performers. Vallo explained that campaigning off campus would constitute a serious bylaw infraction. However, he has been unable to corroborate the story. “Most of [the people present] said they were too drunk to tell me what happened,” Vallo said.

Link said he cannot clearly remember the evening’s events. “I was actually drinking alcohol and I can’t tell you exactly what it is that I said,” he explained.

Election results will be announced this evening in Gerts.

The post SSMU elections turn aggressive appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Since SSMU acquired the bookstore in 2007, it has suffered from low visibility, restrictions on campus advertising, and general indifference from students.

SSMU VP (Finance and Operations) Jose Diaz and Haven manager Ben Paris have scrambled to bring the struggling store out of the red since last summer.The two have had little success. While the final numbers are not in yet, Haven is on track to run a deficit once again this year, adding to the $196,000 figure.

McGill’s memorandum of agreement with SSMU prevents Haven from advertising on university property. Paris believes this ban prevented the store from being successful.

“If I can’t advertise to my general student population, then it’s sort of like Tim Horton’s not being able to advertise in Canada,” Paris said.

Diaz agreed, pointing to the successful Haven franchise in Ottawa, which advertises on the Carleton campus.“They are sanctioned by the university and it’s well-known among the student population…. It’s not a big place, but they go through a lot of books basically because they have the visibility that we do not have,” Diaz said.

But Paris is not convinced any amount of advertising would have helped the store to transcend its less-than-ideal location on Aylmer, just south of Sherbrooke.

“People know about the McGill Bookstore. People see it all the time; it’s the one that the tours show,” Paris said. “This location sucks. The only way you know about it is if you are told about it.”

Diaz searched for solutions to Haven’s financial woes, including advertising during Frosh and researching ways for the store to make money after the peak buying periods of September and January. In the end, Diaz explained, the efforts did little to improve the store’s financial status.

But Paris believes SSMU made the decision to close the store in order to placate the administration during negotiations concerning the Society’s lease of the Shatner building.

“SSMU is negotiating for the building [and] McGill has never liked the existence of Haven…. Rather than continue an operation that is potentially detrimental to operations with McGill…they decided just to close it,” Paris said.

Diaz acknowledged that before taking office, he read a number of memos from the administration to his successors, which explained that classroom announcements and advertising were prohibited.

But while Diaz said the administration has always been stringent in its enforcement of the memorandum of agreement, Haven has not been a major subject of their concern this year.

“Our discussions with the University have centred around different things this year…. Haven hasn’t gotten much attention” Diaz said.

Diaz plans to implement a book swap this coming fall as a way to provide students with affordable used textbooks. He hopes that if a student is unable to swap their books, they will allow SSMU to donate them to charity. He believes the University will appreciate a focus on something other than profit.

The post Haven Books a financial failure appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Conference events will range from the practical (a panel on acing your LSATs) to the political (a discussion of the killing of Fredy Villanueva).

The national conference has grown from its modest beginnings in 1992, when the conference was attended by Ontario law students and a handful of delegates from outside the province. This year, law students, journalists, and high school students will attend.

Speakers from fields as diverse as criminal law and post-secondary education will deliver presentations on racial tensions in Montreal Nord, poverty, and globalization. The speakers’ docket is an impressive one: the first appointed black judge of the Court of Quebec, district of Montreal, a Grenadan senator, and a Montreal Gazette photojournalist who’s reported from Haiti and Rwanda.

An essay by BSLA McGill’s VP (internal) featured on the group’s web site slams the McGill Reporter’s recent coverage of student internships in impoverished regions of Africa. The essay’s author, Annamaria Enenajor, laments the Reporter’s simplistic story, which fails to offer the “possibility of feelings more complex than pity.”

In the conclusion of her essay, Enenajor writes, “Race matters, history matters, wealth matters” – the feel-good journalism offered by the Reporter ignores the influence that these factors have had on Africa’s development, and its continuing struggles today.

The conference – and Enenajor’s essay – speaks to BLSA McGill’s goal of examining the lived experience of the legal system: how it affects minorities, who it benefits, who it hurts, and how it is far more than just rules written in dusty books.

The conference runs from today through Sunday at the downtown Best Western.

—Stephen Davis

The post The lived experience of law appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Since the Society acquired the bookstore in 2007, it has suffered from low visibility, restrictions on campus advertising, and general indifference from students.

VP (Finance and Operations) Jose Diaz and Haven manager Ben Paris have scrambled to bring the struggling store out of the red since last summer.

The two have had little success. While the final numbers are not in yet, Haven is on track to run a deficit once again this year, adding to the $196,000 figure.

McGill’s memorandum of agreement with SSMU prevents Haven from advertising on university property. Paris believes this ban prevented the store from being successful.

“If I can’t advertise to my general student population, then it’s sort of like Tim Horton’s not being able to advertise in Canada,” Paris said.

Diaz agreed, pointing to the successful Haven franchise in Ottawa, which advertises on the Carelton campus.

“They are sanctioned by the University and it’s well-known among the student population…. It’s not a big place, but they go through a lot of books basically because they have the visibility that we do not have,” Diaz said.

But Paris is not convinced any amount of advertising would have helped the store to transcend its less-than-ideal location on Aylmer, just south of Sherbrooke.

“People know about the McGill Bookstore. People see it all the time, it’s the one that the tours show,” Paris said. “This location sucks. The only way you know about it is if you are told about it.”

Diaz searched for solutions to Haven’s financial woes, including advertising during Frosh and researching ways for the store to make money after the peak buying periods of September and January. In the end, Diaz explained, the efforts were unprofitable.

But Paris believes the decision to close the store was made by SSMU to placate the administration during negotiations concerning the society’s lease of the Shatner building.

“SSMU is negotiating for the building [and] McGill has never liked the existence of Haven… Rather than continue an operation that is potentially detrimental to operations with McGill…they decided just to close it,” Paris said.

Diaz acknowledged that before taking office, he read a number of memos from the administration to his successors, which explained that classroom announcements and advertising were prohibited.

But while Diaz said the Administration has always been stringent in its enforcement of the memorandum of agreement, Haven has not been a subject of concern their this year.

“Our discussions with the University have centered around different things this year…. Haven hasn’t gotten much attention.”

Diaz plans to implement a book swap this coming fall as a way to provide students with affordable used textbooks. Diaz hopes that if a student is unable to swap their books, they will allow SSMU to donate them to charity. He believes the University will appreciate a focus on something other than profit.

“The University really likes to see things that are student-run, that are not-for-profit, that are a service for students,” he said.

Paris is not confident that SSMU will be able to tackle the logistics of a book swap.

“Could it work? Yes. Will it work? Probably not,” he said.

The post Stuck in the red, struggling bookstore to close its doors for good appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In an email sent on February 2, McGill events administrator Debbie Yacoulis asked SSMU VP (Clubs and Services) Sarah Olle to provide advance warning of any events held by QPIRG, Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR), and the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA). Yacoulis claimed that advance time was needed to grant these groups security clearance for their events.

Olle forwarded the email to members of the three organizations mentioned. The message came as a surprise to the MSA. The group is currently drafting a request for a formal apology.

“Our events are never controversial and we never have problems. Most of our events are [attended by] Muslims coming for more knowledge,” said Anais Massot, VP (External) for the MSA.

Massot has been with the MSA for three years and could not recall any group events where extra security was needed.

Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson explained that the email did not reflect University policy, which mandates that security needs are to be determined on an event-by-event basis
“I don’t see it as being an issue; I see it as being a mistake,” Mendelson said.

Yacoulis emailed Olle after learning that the MSA planned to host a lecture entitled “The Essentials of Islamic Knowledge and Practice.”

Olle is familiar with the University’s event-by-event policy and said that the email from Yacoulis was confusing.

“It’s always been on a per event basis, which I think is a good system because you can’t assume that just because a group is a certain group, its events will be a certain way,” Olle said.

Jim Nicell, McGill’s Associate Vice-Principal (University Services), echoed Mendelson’s statement, reaffirming the University’s per event security policy.

“The message that was delivered was incorrect and did not represent in any way the position of this University in the way that we deal with events,” Nicell said.

Khaled Kteily, SPHR VP (Membership and Development) believed the three groups were singled out because of their pro-Palestinian stances on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

“The only commonality that I can see here is that these [three] organizations are supportive of what is happening in Palestine,” Kteily said.

Massot saw a similar trend. “SPHR is pro-Palestinian, QPIRG does a lot of events that are [pro-Palestinian]…and we’re Muslim, so I guess we fall into that category as well,” she said.

Anna Malla, QPIRG’s internal coordinator, was upset but not particularly surprised upon reading the email.

“I know that we do get profiled to a certain degree, but the degree to which this is a situation of actual racial profiling of speakers really shocked me. They specifically have been flagging events that have Palestinian speakers,” Malla said.

Rebecca Dooley, VP (University Affairs) indicated that other groups have been profiled by the administration. Dooley described a “human tunnel” of security guards at the Senate meeting where the university’s research policy was discussed. The issue attracted students opposed to military research on campus. Dooley said the increased security presence was likely brought in to restrain these students.

“They weren’t violent, but it was just assumed that students with that sort of opinion were going to be aggressive, and violent, and disruptive,” Dooley said.

When security is required at events, the club must cover the additional costs.

Kteily said this was an unfair burden to place on clubs.

“If they are going to mandate additional security guards, the very least that could be done is that McGill cover these costs. Realistically, we are dealing with a budget that is in the thousands of dollars at best,” Kteily said.

Nicell stood by the University’s policy.

“At a certain point, if there’s no subsidies available for carrying out those events, it’s going to have to be carried by the group itself,” Nicell said.

For Olle, the initial email points to problems with the University’s policy that extend beyond the cost of security. Olle explained that since policies are developed by high-ranking administrators, the actual regulations are not always communicated effectively to the people who help clubs book events.

For instance, Olle also mentioned an email she received from an administrative assistant who referred to Choose Life as “Abortion McGill.”

Olle said she sees this as indicative of inadequate knowledge of clubs among lower-level administrators.

“The knowledge trickle-down about what’s happening gets very convoluted when it gets to those lower levels,” Olle said. “I hope that this does continue to push the University to come up with a more comprehensive, clear policy about events on campus…because I just think this is just another example to show that what they’re doing right now doesn’t work.”

The post Administration denies unfair profiling appeared first on The McGill Daily.

SSMU Council voted to suspend the club’s status on November 12. Since the suspension entailed the loss of Choose Life’s tabling privileges, Conservative McGill booked a table for the pro-life group to feature their display at the Y-intersection.

Choose Life president Natalie Fohl explained that the decision to team up arose out of discussions between the groups and Conservative McGill’s sympathy for Choose Life’s precarious place on campus.

“Conservative McGill – of which I am a member – booked this space. That doesn’t mean that they endorse [Choose Life],” she said. “Conservative McGill was willing to [book a table] because they believe that we should have a space on campus, and since we don’t right now, they were willing to help us out with that,” Fohl added.

Fohl also explained that despite the suspension, Choose Life continues to exist as a collective of like-minded students.

“If you want to think of Choose Life as just a group of pro-life people right now, that’s probably a more accurate way to think about us,” she said.

The table was staffed exclusively by members of the suspended club. They began tabling at 10 a.m. and continued into the early evening.

Sarah Olle (VP Clubs and Services) was unaware of the collaboration until she was notified by a text message from a SSMU councilor at 2:32 p.m. Although Olle works closely with student clubs, tables are booked through a separate body.

Olle explained that while Conservative McGill’s decision did not violate any policy, she was frustrated with Choose Life’s tactics.

“That definitely is frustrating and I would say that [Choose Life has] used Conservative McGill’s club privileges to their advantage,” Olle said. “I think that they are still very determined to question abortion and are still definitely making a splash on campus. Even though their club status is suspended, they found another group who may be allied with their views and are using that [to their advantage],” Olle said.

The SSMU Equity Committee has met with members of Choose Life three times to discuss how the club can abide by the guidelines of SSMU’s constitution and equity policy. Their most recent meeting was this past Friday.

But Sarah Woolf, an Arts Senator who sits on the Committee, thinks Choose Life’s recent acts will impede the process.

“What this demonstrates is that Choose Life is willing to act in a roundabout way to act as a club…. It just does not demonstrate good faith in the equity process that we’ve all come to the table for and I’m disappointed that they’ve chosen to do that,” Woolf said.

“I think the Equity Committee will be very firm about the fact that that was an unacceptable move on their part,” Woolf added.

The Committee’s January 21 report was written by Jonathan Hann, the SSMU Equity Commissioner. In the document, Hann wrote that he was “very confident in the abilities of the Equity Committee and Choose Life to create a solution to the equity complaints we
have had thus far and foster an environment of respect and safety for all students in the future.”

Thursday’s display featured poster boards with information on abortion in Canada. One board was reserved for students to post sticky notes voicing their opinions on the abortion debate.

Fohl said the display was intended to be thought-provoking and foster dialogue.

“The Morgentaler decision…means that at the federal level, there’s a vacuum in terms of abortion law: it’s neither legal nor criminal and that persists today and I think a lot of people don’t know that. We’re here to raise awareness but also to promote discussion,” she said.

Not all students were interested in discussion. Fohl said that around 4:15 p.m., a passerby turned over the table, damaging the display.

Fohl added that future initiatives for members of the suspended club include a research group that will assess the resources available for parents and pregnant students at McGill.

“We’re going to compile that information, [firstly] to make it available, but also to assess the situation, see if it’s adequate, and if it’s not, advocate for changes,” Fohl said.

The post Choose Life Reappears on Campus appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Director of Food and Hospitality Services Mathieu Laperle sent a letter on December 18 notifying residents that the cafeteria “[would] not be opened and fully operational in January as…originally anticipated.” In the letter, Laperle expressed hope that the cafeteria will be open by the middle of this semester, but could not specify a date.

The council responded by sending an email survey asking RVC residents if they would sign a petition calling for rent reimbursement. They also included a message claiming Food Services had broken a promise to have the building’s dining hall up and running by October 2009, expressing frustration with “the way the project has been managed, and the lack of information provided by Food Services prior to the…letter.”

One hundred seventy-eight individuals of a possible 266 – some leaving their names, others voting anonymously – have responded to the survey. All one hundred seventy-eight voted in favour of a petition.

The survey signals growing dissatisfaction among RVC residents over renovations that have lasted several months, slowed by bureaucracy, bargaining, and outdated infrastructure.

Susan Campbell, manager of McGill’s residence dining halls, pointed to the building’s plumbing as an early and unexpected hindrance to construction.

“All of the plumbing had to be changed, and [contractors] didn’t know that until they actually got in and started to tear things apart,” Campbell said. She also noted problems with excavation and ventilation that appeared during construction. “They couldn’t predict these things when they were first looking at the project,” she said.

Campbell added that contractors seldom give clients firm completion dates. “We had hoped [the cafeteria] would be ready for September, then October, then November…. It’s the contractors…. They can only [say] ‘This is what we’re hoping for.’”

Grab and go someplace else
When choosing residences in early 2009, students were unaware of the renovations or the possibility that the project could last through the fall semester.

Hélène Thorel, VP External of RVC council, was upset administrators did not communicate with students more effectively.

“Part of the reason that we pay such high rent is that we have a seven-day meal plan,” Thorel said, pointing to RVC as among the most expensive of McGill’s residences.

Incoming students were formally notified over the summer of the ongoing renovations.

Some of the building’s dons were unaware of the construction until their orientation at the end of the summer.

“You wouldn’t rent an apartment without a kitchen…. It’s kind of a fact of life now, but I’m still pretty upset about it,” said Kelly Stephens, an RVC don.

In lieu of an open cafeteria, Food Services granted RVC residents the freedom to spend all of their money at any McGill-managed cafeteria on campus. Typically, students must spend 85 per cent of their money at their home cafeteria, with the option to spend the remaining 15 per cent elsewhere.

A “grab and go” snack bar was also constructed in the building’s lobby. Students were able to purchase mainly cold and some hot food until the early afternoon. The snack bar was also open on weekends from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

This semester, Food Services extended the snack bar’s hours, and added a greater number of dishes.

Laperle sees this added flexibility as reasonable compensation for RVC residents and says it coincides with Food Services’s goal of increased variety for all students in residence.

“Our goal and our vision was…offering more and more options,” Laperle said.

Campbell agreed. “Once we realized it wasn’t going to be open in January, we knew we had to kick it up a few more notches,” she said.

Though it is a provisional measure, Campbell said she has received positive feedback regarding the snack bar and increased flexibility.

“If you were to take students…at the end of [this year and last year] and say which was the better experience…I think they’d be fairly close,” Campbell said.

Marlene Benavides, president of RVC council, said students appreciate the effort, but won’t be completely satisfied by anything short of a fully functional cafeteria.

“We’re extremely happy to see that the grab and go has been improved from last semester. But it’s still not a cafeteria,” Benavides said. “I suppose the definition of ‘variety’ is based on personal opinion…. They don’t have to live here and eat these meals.”

Stephens also said that during finals last semester, many residents opted to skip dinner rather than travel to other cafeterias after the snack bar had closed.

Long term vision, short term problems
The problems extend beyond what Benavides and others see as a lack of variety. Students view the closed cafeteria as a detriment to the communal aspect of residence life that first-year students look forward to.

“Community building has been a much bigger challenge…. Last year, the cafeteria was a big meeting place,” Stephens said. “Because everyone’s constantly out of the building for meals [this year], it hasn’t come as easily.”

The slowed renovation process may be indicative of a vision for food services that is too broad to conform to neat timetables.

“We don’t want to have something similar [to] what is available [at other universities],” Laperle said. “We’d like to create something different…. When you go to Douglas Hall you [should] feel there is something different…versus Bishop Mountain Hall, versus RVC, New Rez, and Carrefour Sherbrooke,” he added.

Still, some wish more discretion had been used in making a major decision at a time of significant changes for McGill residences.

“Among other things, the prolonged construction could be a result of them having to take on too much at once, with major construction in both Carrefour Sherbrooke and RVC, at the same time as dealing with all of the challenges of serious administrative changes,” Stephens said.

With colder temperatures and hot meals hard to come by, the call for rent reimbursement promises to be a persistent one.

“It’s getting darker and colder and [rent compensation] would make us feel a little bit better about the situation,” Benavides said.

The post RVC residents may demand refund appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Twenty-one members of the opposition are supporting the Conservative Party’s bid to pass Bill C-391, a move that would eliminate the federal long gun registry.

Supporters of the bill say the registry is overly complicated and punishes responsible hunters in rural communities, where stringent registration is unnecessary.

C-391 passed its second reading November 4 with support from all Conservatives, as well as eight Liberals and 12 New Democrats. The bill will now be reviewed by a group of parliamentarians.

New Democrat Nathan Cullen, who represents a riding in northern British Columbia, echoed the view that the registry is difficult to navigate when he explained why he voted to eliminate the registry. “The people that I listen to are what I would call the more reasonable elements of the gun community…. They hunt once a year. They bring me these stories of trying to register a weapon four, five, six times,” he said.

If passed, the proposed legislation would eliminate the 10-year-old long gun registry, along with all existing information on approximately seven million long guns – weapons like rifles and shotguns. The registry for handguns, however, would remain in place.

Larry Bagnell, the Liberal MP for the Yukon and the official opposition critic for northern affairs, also voted to scrap the registry. He spoke of his constituents’ difficulties registering long guns. “[When registering a car] you spend about 30 seconds at the counter and it’s done. To register a gun, some of these people have had to run around for months and months,” Bagnell said.

Wendy Cukier, president and co-founder of the Coalition for Gun Control, contended that supporters of C-391 have misrepresented the registration process. “[Registry opponents have] successfully conflated licensing – which is more cumbersome – with registration,” Cukier said.

Obtaining a firearm license involves classes, written and practical examinations, and background checks, while registering a firearm involves filing forms that can be submitted online or by mail.

Still, Bagnell’s and Cullen’s views are illustrative of strong opposition to the registry in rural communities.

Many members of the opposition who voted to scrap the registry represent ridings outside of major urban centres.

The long and short of it
Cullen distinguished between handguns and long guns based on utility. “We deem handguns to have a different purpose than a long gun,” he said. “A handgun…is not a tool – it’s a weapon.” However, the Commissioner of Firearms’ Annual Report of 2008 casts this distinction in doubt. The report states that outside urban centres, long guns are the most common weapons used in homicides.

Heidi Rathjen, co-founder of the Coalition for Gun Control, who became an involved gun control activist after being present during the 1989 massacre at École Polytechnique, said the current distinction between long guns and handguns fails to account for particularly dangerous weapons.

They both pointed to the Ruger Mini-14, the semi-automatic rifle used by Marc Lépine during the massacre at École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989.

Classified as a long gun, the Mini-14 is capable of firing the same ammunition as the M-16 rifle used by NATO troops. The Mini-14 is regularly stocked at firearms stores in the Montreal area.

“If this legislation becomes reality you will be able to buy not one but 50 Ruger Mini-14s and no one will know you have them,” Cukier said. “Something like the RM-14 uses NATO-standard ammunition and…we saw the results at [École] Polytechnique.”

Rathjen expressed similar frustration and anxiety. “We believe this is a military assault weapon…. What kind of a hunter needs 30-bullet ammunition clips?” she asked.

Those backing C-391 point to the high cost of the gun registry.

A 2002 report from the auditor general showed that the cost of gun registration would hit $1 billion by 2005.

But Cukier emphasized the significance of a 2006 report from the auditor general, which stated that since most guns in Canada have already been registered, eliminating the gun registry would only save taxpayers $3 million a year.

“Most of the cost is associated with licensing and registering gun owners,” Cukier said.

Bagnell added that despite the costs, his constituents are not worried about money.

“It’s not the money. It’s a point of principle. They see it as an infringement on their freedoms and their rights,” Bagnell said.

Hunting for hits
Cullen stated that there is an important difference in the way members of rural and urban communities handle firearms. “For somebody who hunts…they associate to [firearms] differently. They’re part of their set of tools…. It’s something I’ve had to learn as an urban-born Canadian,” he said.

Closer to home, proponents of gun control contend that the dissolution of the registry will endanger members of both urban and rural communities. Rathjen said that she sees the registry as a useful tool in reducing gun violence, especially violence against women.

“The long gun registry is one of the reasons why…murders of women with firearms have decreased substantially,” Rathjen said. She pointed to a Statistics Canada report, which states that murders of women with firearms per year decreased from 85 in 1991 to 32 in 2005.

The online registry also allows police to search for a person’s name, address, firearms’ license number, or a firearms’ serial number, and access other relevant information. However, Bagnell, who expressed doubt that the registry is an effective means of curbing firearm violence, was unconvinced of the important role it could play as a consultative tool for police officers arriving at a potentially dangerous scene.

“They always have to assume that there could be firearms there,” said Bagnell.

Cullen agreed. “When you talk to a lot of the police that work in my part of the world, they always assume a weapon is in a home that they are being called to,” he said.

The Commissioner of Firearms’ 2008 report stated that the online registry was consulted by law enforcement 3,441,442 times that year. Supporters of C-391 claim these numbers are inflated, because a hit is counted anytime the police use the registry – even for license plate numbers.

Earlier this month, journalists in a media scrum criticized Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan for releasing the report two days after the House voted on C-391. The registry contains information on the 6,659,534 registered long guns and 478,487 registered restricted firearms in Canada.

For Rathjen, the number of firearms and consultations provided sufficient reason to maintain the registry. “[Police] say they need the registry and that they use it on a daily basis for a range of reasons. That’s good enough for me,” she said.

Opponents of the registry maintain that it is ineffective in quelling firearm violence.

“No one’s offered one shred of evidence…in my riding…that it’s effective at reducing gun crime,” Bagnell said.

Mark Holland, the Liberal opposition critic for public safety and national security, voted against C-391. He pointed to the fatal shooting of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta in 2005.

“That conviction was made possible because of the gun registry,” Holland said.

Cukier was concerned that support will continue for C-391 as those supporting rigourous long gun control remain apathetic. “If I came to McGill and I said…‘How many think we should license gun owners? How many think we should register guns?’ most people would raise their hands. And if I said ‘How many have done anything about it?’ most people look at their shoes.”

The original version of this article included the line: “Both Holland and Cukier argued that a registered firearm left at the scene was instrumental in convicting the shooter.”
Holland and Cukier were referring to the convictions of two men following the Mayerthorpe incident. While the two men were convicted for involvement in the incident, neither was the shooter. The shooter, James Roszko, was a convicted felon, but he committed suicide at the scene and was not convicted.

The post Long gun registry under fire appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Students entering the Shatner Building Thursday afternoon were greeted by demonstrators with signs reading “I regret my abortion” and “I regret lost fatherhood” alongside about a dozen pro- choice advocates protesting their presence on campus.

SSMU club Choose Life invited three representatives of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign (SNMAC), a non-denominational Christian organization that shares testimonials and aims to discourage women from obtaining abortions, to speak in the Lev Buhkman room.

Nancy Garez, a member of SNMAC who had an abortion in 1982, was grateful for the presence of pro-choice advocates. “I want to talk to them. I was like them before I had my abortion – we were all for choice in my family.”

President and Choose Life founder Natalie Fohl (U3 Political Science and Biology) also saw the interac- tion as a positive experience.

“[It was] a great opportunity for dialogue,” said Fohl.

However, one protester who asked to remain anonymous was upset by SNMAC’s use of signs on campus, as well as Choose Life’s display of fetus photographs at the crossroads last November.

“I am deeply disturbed…that someone might walk to class and encounter signs that target a dif- ficult decision that they had to make…. Whether they are made to feel ashamed for a minute or for the rest of the year, it’s not okay,” they said.

Arts Senator Sarah Woolf (U2 Political Science and Women’s Studies) student participated in the pro-choice protest and agreed that Choose Life’s activities, including hosting SNMAC, are offensive.

“As a woman on campus, their activities are offensive to me. Within the context of their current activi- ties, I don’t want them on campus,” Woolf said.

Woolf added that she would be interested in hearing proposals from students on why Choose Life’s club status should be revoked.

Critics questioned other tactics of SNMAC, including the implications of their emphasis on testimony.

“I think that this kind of pro- life activism is actually a lot more dangerous than traditional pro-life activism because it dresses itself up as being…non-judgmental. But it is,” said Erika Pierre (U4 Cultural Studies), who attended the event.

“By presenting themselves as saying…‘We regret our abortions, therefore, you will also regret your abortion. We know better than you.’ They’re being a lot more sly and a lot more manipulative than traditional pro-life [activists],” Pierre added.

Woolf echoed Pierre’s views.

“The manipulation of personal – obviously tragic – stories to convince people that abortion is wrong on all fronts…[is] unacceptable,” she said.

SNMAC eventually moved to the Lev Buckman room, where Garez, fellow member David MacDonald, and the campaign’s national coordinator, Angelina Steenstra, shared their experiences with abortion.

The three spoke once at 1 p.m. and again at 2:30, each time to a group of around twenty students, while protesters sang songs and played guitar outside the room.

Woolf described the demonstration as “A joyous protest,” adding, “You can have protests about things you’re angry about but still do it in an upbeat manner.”

Inside, Garez described her life after her abortion.

“My life became a mixture of broken relationships, anxiety crises, and heavy smoking,” Garez said. “[Abortion affected] my life and the life of my children. They have a sibling missing.”

MacDonald explained that his views on abortion were derived wholly from his personal experiences with two abortions.

“I came to my views on abortion long before I picked up a Bible,” he said, adding, “My position on abortion came really from a whole bunch of messed up stuff.”

Steenstra spoke of choosing to receive an abortion after she was a victim of date rape at 15.

“Abortion did not solve my problem. It ended it,” Steenstra said.

Steenstra recalled the pressure placed on her to obtain an abortion by a coworker.

“I didn’t know that abortion was an industry…my fears were used against me,” she said.

Steenstra dealt with psychological problems for 14 years following her abortion. She explained how accepting that “[her] abortion had taken a human life” was vital to her healing process.

“It’s the truth that set me free. Not euphemisms, not band-aids, not cover-ups,” Steenstra said.

MacDonald expressed simi- lar views, asking, “What is it that’s killed? Is it a blob of tissue? Well, there’s not a biologist on the planet that would say that.”

U3 Arts and Science student Miranda* took issue with Steenstra and MacDonald’s lan- guage, asking if women who sought help from SNMAC would be encour- aged to view their abortions as killing.

Steenstra responded by saying, “They would be encouraged to tell their story.”

While speaking with The Daily after her testimonial, Steenstra elaborated: “When I talk about abortion in the context of killing, I’m talking about my own revelation.”

Fohl supported Steenstra’s and MacDonald’s language, saying “It would be bizarre…if not dishonest, for them to use any other lan- guage.”

Steenstra asserted that SNMAC’s only goal is to share testimonies and offer support to women and men. “Our goal is to reach out to people, one person at a time. We’re not political,” she said.

But SNMAC is is not without some political interests. In a January 2007 issue of The New York Times Magazine, Emily Bazelon reported that the campaign’s co-founders, Georgette Forney and Janet Morana, participated in a rally near the US Supreme Court with banners reading “I Regret My Abortion.”

SNMAC is funded partially by Priests for Life, whose web site encourages readers to “Help with voter registration and distribution of voter guides. Become involved, as citizens, in political campaigns. Vote in such a way that will advance the protection of life.”

Fohl said that Choose Life plans to host a pro-life speaker in two weeks and is currently looking for a pro-choice speaker to participate in the event.

CORRECTION: In a recorded interview with The Daily, Nancy Garez stated that she received an abortion in 1992. After this article went to print, Garez called The Daily and said she had misspoken – she received her abortion in 1982. As well, due to an editing error, the original version of this article incorrectly stated that Sarah Woolf is a U3 student. She is, in fact, a U2 student.

*Names have been changed to protect the identity of the student

The post Speakers share abortion experiences appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Current MBA students will not be affected by the increase, and will continue paying regular rates of $1,672.80, $4,675.68, and $19,890 for Quebec, out-of-province, and international students, respectively.

The tuition increase is part of a move by the MBA program to become self-funded. Under the new model, the University will forego government subsidies in order to maintain autonomy in dictating tuition fees. Melville’s email also stated that the decision to shift to self-funding was made based on feedback from both alumni and students.

“Such a change will allow us to invest even more in student services, the curriculum and the external reputation of the program,” Melville wrote in the email.

Professor Susan Christoffersen, Academic Director of the MBA program, said that following the 2008 overhaul of the MBA curriculum, it was clear that greater financial support was needed to provide students with certain resources for seeking employment.

“[The faculty] didn’t have the resources to support our students,” Christoffersen said.

She was hopeful that higher tuition fees would allow the program to begin devoting the same attention to career planning services as other leading business schools.

“We want to make sure our students can get superior jobs,” Christoffersen said.

While Ron Duerksen, Director of Marketing and Communication for the faculty, said that the MBA Student Association was consulted in the decision, Post-Graduate Students’ Society President (PGSS) Daniel Simeone said PGSS should have been involved in the process.

“I think that the PGSS, as a representative of all graduate students, should most certainly have been consulted,” he said.

McGill’s reputation was also a factor in the decision to adopt the self-funded model.

Christoffersen expressed cautious support for attention to McGill’s ranking in publications like the Financial Times. “You don’t want to be driven completely by the rankings, but they matter a lot in terms of your ability to attract the best students…. We’re sensitive to [the rankings] and I think rightly so.”

Simeone, though, was wary of an emphasis on reputation, claiming that the Financial Times and other publications often overlook valuable measures of the quality of education.

“The current way in which these metrics are calculated is fundamentally at odds with the quality of education,” Simeone added.

In an email to The Daily, Duerksen acknowledged that these rankings are “not entirely valid,” but added, “the reputation of a business school is driven by the reputation of its MBA program.”

But the accessibility of the MBA program – among the most expensive graduate degrees but with one of the highest financial returns – remains a point of disagreement for the administration and PGSS.

Simeone maintained PGSS’s support for a system of regulated, frozen Quebec tuition that allows for changes in accordance with inflation.

“I think it’s clear that [charging] $30,000 a year…for anything impacts accessibility,” he said, adding that McGill’s current policy of contributing 30 cents of every dollar to student aid from increased tuition fees is inadequate.

Duerksen, though, was confident that the program would remain accessible, explaining that, “The self-funded model will enable [the faculty] to increase…scholarships ten-fold.”

Still, Duerksen admitted that a higher tuition rate may deter a small number of applicants, but added that students should expect to pay high fees in exchange for the financial security of “high graduating salaries.” Barbara Dourley, U3 Management and President of the Management Undergraduate Society, acknowledged the financial security that an MBA can provide, but expressed concern that such high fees might discourage students from pursuing less lucrative careers with not-for-profit organizations.

“I don’t think [McGill] has realized that there are a lot of different students that want to do an MBA,” Dourley said. “I think in the future there is going to have to be a way for the MBA program to somehow involve that kind of student.”

In his email, Duerksen promised the faculty would plan specific scholarships for students intending to work for non-profit organizations.

Duerksen added that many prospective students expect to pay high tuition fees for an MBA. “This is not news to the rest of the world,” he said in his email.

Due to other commitments, the dean and associate dean of Management were unavailable for comment. The MBA Student Association was unable to respond to The Daily by press time.

The post MBA fees jump to $29,500 appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Among religious conservatives, Farrow’s concerns are nothing new. The reasoning often goes like this: heterosexual marriage involves the two roles of husband and wife. Each of these roles entails cultural mores and duties. But if we include homosexual couples in the institution of marriage, these two roles are replaced by the single role of spouse. Gay marriage, you see, spells the end of gender roles, which some conservatives would argue are valuable, even sacred. I would like to think that Farrow’s palpitations are the result of similar reasoning, and not ignorance or hate.

But he makes this tough to believe. Farrow sounds more surly than scholarly. He explains that gay rights activists are intent on “sanitizing” homosexuality, implying that homosexuality is, well, dirty. Farrow doesn’t explain, however, just what kind of dirt these activists are intending to wash away. In painting an adequately chilling portrait of the modern homosexual, Farrow points to a two-decades-old book that refers to “the vicious heterosexual enemy.” Of course, this rests on the assumption that only one homosexual identity exists, one adequately summed up in an obscure four-word quotation. Generalizations like this don’t make for a very compelling – or fair – argument. After all, few would appreciate the image of the modern heterosexual being reduced to, say, the folks at Penthouse.

But let’s not sell Bastards short just yet. Farrow’s concerns are legitimate: he worries that people no longer examine politics critically, having been coaxed into believing that the redefinition of marriage will not affect them. Very well then, Professor: bring on the statistics and nuance. Unfortunately, these are nowhere to be found, in Bastards or Divorcing. Instead, Farrow and Cere claim that the majority of Canadians oppose the redefinition of marriage. They do not offer a source for this statement, and ignore the polls that suggest the opposite. For good measure, Farrow quotes The Book of Genesis, Frank Sinatra, and obscure gay rights activists from the eighties. Bastards provides ample room to everyone but a credible sociologist, psychologist, or political scientist.

If the end of marriage is imminent, we should provide a statistic or two to fill in the gaps in Bastards and Divorcing. Yale professor William Eskridge and New York attorney Darren R. Spedale looked to Denmark, which has recognized gay and lesbian partnerships since 1989. At the time of the legislation, they explain, few people were getting married, lots of people were getting divorced, and a large number of children were born out of wedlock. Taking Farrow at his word, we would expect to see these trends pick up after 1989. They didn’t. The divorce rate decreased, the marriage rate rose, and the out-of-marriage birthrate fell for the first time in 50 years. And while same-sex marriage is in its infancy in Canada, the marriage rates on this side of the Atlantic have held steady since the unions were made legal.

In lieu of statistics, Farrow cites scripture: Jesus was raised by heterosexual parents, and he turned out alright. The New Testament also suggests that Jesus, a bachelor his entire life, was indifferent to traditional notions of family: he considered anyone who pleased God to be his brother or sister. And the Apostle Paul – the Karl Rove to Jesus’ George W. Bush – used his letter to the Corinthian church to endorse marriage mainly for those who could not remain celibate. In other words, it’s not perfect, but it’s preferable to impure thoughts and cold showers.

Since Bastards devotes little room to either statistics or scriptural interpretation, I’m curious what makes it worthy of display in our religious studies building. I’ve been told that the building’s receptionists feature the books with the most appealing cover images. But given the diversity of students who attend classes in the Birks building, perhaps some tact is in order when choosing whether to display a work that refers to gay partnerships as hedonistic fornication.

Most of all, it seems nearly impossible to give Farrow the benefit of the doubt I initially thought he deserved. Bastards provides no reason to fear same-sex marriage. So perhaps we should celebrate it. Common sense suggests as much. So do statistics. And Farrow has yet to prove otherwise.

Stephen Davis is a U3 Religious Studies student, The Daily’s photo editor, and all-round stand up guy. Tell him all your thoughts on God at photos@mcgilldaily.com, and feel free to call him Spencer!

The post Comment: Terrified without reason appeared first on The McGill Daily.