McGill professor accused of sexual misconduct

Islamic Studies Institute in the spotlight following abuse allegations against professor

On September 2017, stickers warning students about a McGill Islamic Studies professor’s alleged history of sexual misconduct began to appear in women’s’ washrooms across campus. The stickers, put up by a group called Zero Tolerance McGill, prompted readers to send any testimonies of abuse at the hands of other faculty members, noting that the professor named in the stickers was up for tenure.

The professor agreed to answer some of The Daily’s questions on the condition that he remain unnamed. He claimed that the allegations were “categorically untrue” and that he was “deeply committed” to doing his part in order to “make every student feel safe in [his] classroom and on McGill’s campus.” He made no further comments to the Daily.

The World Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies Student Association (WIMESSA) executive team for 2016-17 previously wrote an open letter to Robert Wisnovsky (director of the Institute for Islamic Studies) addressing the reputation of the professor. The letter, signed by roughly 50 students, accused the Institute of failing to take allegations of misconduct seriously and urged the administration to not reward the professor with a tenured position.

After The Daily published the first article in relation to this issue, the current WIMESSA executive team released a statement on Facebook expressing solidarity with those affected, and detailing their frustrations with institutional barriers to robust accountability. The WIMESSA VP Finance eventually resigned from her position, citing a mishandling of the professor’s actions as her reason for leaving the exec team. It also came to light that the president of WIMESSA was an employed research assistant of the professor accused. Thus, she decided to remove herself from any further conversations on the matter.

The incident brought attention to the lack of regulations on student-professor relationships as well as the lack of sufficient student consultation in the tenure process.

WIMESSA pledged to organize an open forum on the issue of sexual misconduct wherein students are able to voice their concerns to the administration.

Bill 151/survivor bill of rights

Gaps in Bill 151

SSMU Council unanimously passes Survivor Bill of Rights

In December 2017, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 151, mandating that all educational institutions, including CEGEPs, must propose a policy addressing sexual assault, including relationships between students and teachers. The Bill was developed in collaboration with student organizations like the Association for the Voice of Education in Quebec (AVEQ), Our Turn, a national student-led action plan to end campus sexual violence, and the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU). The policy required that authorities be notified of any sexual relations between a student and someone who may have an influence on their education, like a professor.

However, not all recommendations made to protect the rights of the survivors were included in the final version of the bill, such as a “Defined Stand Alone Sexual Violence Policy,” which would discontinue processing sexual assault cases through the Student Code of Conduct. McGill’s sexual assault policy was graded a C- as it is not a stand-alone policy, and does not provide any avenues for justice if someone is assaulted by a faculty member.

The gaps in Bill 151 prompted community members, including AVEQ’s Coordinator of Mobilization Kristen Perry and SSMU VP External Connor Spencer to write an open letter criticizing the bill, which was later signed by 20 student organizations and 300 individual students. The letter calls for the introduction of “rape shield protections” to protect the privacy of the survivor’s sexual history, student representation of 30 percent on committees, as well as the students being made aware of sanctions put into place for their case.

Measures to ensure reasonable and defined timelines were recommended, such as a complaint process which does not exceed 45 days, and accommodations for survivors to be arranged within 48 hours of sending the complaint. The letter also suggested the creation of an independent oversight body, which would serve to listen to individual complaints put forth on the violation of their safety and/or rights by the institution.

Some of these requests were later adopted by SSMU in the unanimous passing of the Survivor’s Bill of Rights on January 25 2018.

Task Force

Task Force on respect and inclusion addresses free speech

Task Force on respect and inclusion addresses free speech

In November 2017, the Principal’s Task Force on Respect and Inclusion was created. The Task Force was aimed to create “respectful and inclusive debate” in the university context, and how the university can develop “best practices” to handle conflict over issues of speech.

The task force is organized under the office of the Principal, and reports to Senate to provide recommendations after the completion of its research. While the Task Force does not have direct power to enact policy change, it serves as an advisory body to the Principal moving forward. The Task Force is composed of two McGill professors who serve as co-chairs, one undergraduate representative from the downtown campus, one undergraduate representative from the MacDonald campus, one graduate representative, two faculty members and two staff members.

On December 2017, the Task Force held a survey to the McGill community members regarding their experiences on respect and free speech. The language used in the survey prompted criticism, with only a few questions asked about inclusiveness. The consultative process included five closed-door focus groups around different themes throughout January, each composed of twenty students. Group submissions regarding the Task Force was accepted from the general public until the end of January.

In September 2017, the SSMU Board of Directors unanimously voted that the BDS movement violated SSMU’s constitution. Again, in January, an Open Forum on Campus Culture was the site of a discussion on whether or not the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement should be given on campus. Laila Parsons, a professor specializing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at McGill, spoke in support of students’ right to mobilize around the BDS movement, and criticized Principal Suzanne Fortier’s statement condemning the BDS movement after SSMU’s motion to endorse the movement did not pass in 2016.

The Task Force is expected to deliver a final report and submit their recommendations by the end of April 2018, then released to the public by mid May at the Senate.

Colten Boushie

February 2018 saw the acquittal of Gerald Stanley, the man accused of killing Colten Boushie. Boushie was a 22-year-old Indigenous man from Red Pheasant First Nation, who allegedly drove to Stanley’s farm to ask for help with a flat tire. Stanley then shot Boushie, later claiming his actions were the result of a “freak accident.” The acquittal garnered widespread outrage from Indigenous communities and settler allies, with demonstrations across the country demanding justice for Colten.

“How First Nations are treated in the justice system is not right,” said Boushie’s uncle Alvin Baptiste, speaking to the Toronto Star. “A white jury came out with a verdict of not guilty [for] Gerald Stanley, who shot and killed my nephew. This is how they treat us First Nations people. It is not right. Something has to be done about this.”

A vigil commemorating the life of Colten Boushie was held at Norman Bethune Square in Montreal near Concordia University to raise awareness about the injustice of the trial. The vigil was attended by over 100 people, policed by around twenty SPVM officers.

Two weeks after the acquittal of Stanley, Raymond Cormier was acquitted of the murder of 15 year old Tina Fontaine. The not-guilty verdict came even after Cormier’s apparent admission of guilt, caught on tape by the RCMP.
Another vigil was organized in response to Canadian institutions’ denial of justice to Indigenous people.

The post Year in Review appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Tre Mansdoerfer has been elected Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) President for the 2018-2019 academic year, winning against his opponent Corinne Bulger by a mere 69 votes. Out of six positions, SSMU President was the only contested position with a close 50.7 percent of the vote with a total of 7100 votes cast.

All candidates running unopposed have won their respective elections, including Jacob Shapiro for VP University Affairs with 90.5 percent of the vote, Sophia Esterle for VP Student Life with 88.4 percent of the vote, Matthew McLaughlin for VP Internal with 87.3 percent of the vote, Marina Cupido for VP External with 62.9 percent of the vote, and Jun Wang for VP Finance with 82.6 percent of the vote.

All questions in the Winter 2018 Referendum have also passed with a majority “yes” vote, including a motion to renew the Black Students’ Network fee and adopt a fee increase, a policy which now mandates SSMU to lobby the administration for a Fall Reading Week, and ECOLE’s existence referendum. Motions to amend the SSMU Clubs fee, the University Centre Building Fee, and the SSMU Campus Life Fee have also passed.

The post Tre Mansdoerfer elected SSMU President appeared first on The McGill Daily.

A lack of support from the School of Social Work

Matthew Savage, VP External of the McGill Social Work Student Association (SWSA), read a prepared statement addressed to members of the SSW’s faulty.

He detailed how he had been overjoyed at being accepted by the SSW as a mature student, but had grown to become disillusioned with the faculty, having heard testimonies from students surrounding stage placements [i.e. field placements students in the SSW need to complete in order to graduate], inappropriate relationships between students and the stage supervisor, students being forced into doing additional hours, or claims that students were not receiving support from the school, despite years of advocacy from SWSA representatives.

“Students are still reporting not feeling supported by the faculty, [and are] being told to ignore problematic behavior from supervisors and/or clients, and are left feeling trapped in a toxic environment. […], says Savage. “Although we have nothing to report to you in writing, I can guarantee you that everyone in Wilson Hall has experienced or has had a friend experience one, if not all, of these situations.”

“Students […] are being told to ignore problematic behavior from supervisors and […] or clients, and are left feeling trapped in a toxic environment.”

“Students are afraid to come forward,” Savage continued, “[and fear] being reprimanded by the School for making a complaint, due to the culture of inaction and history of lack of support for our students.”

SSW has faced criticism from students for internal practices: in 2013, course lecturer and doctoral student Woo Jin Edward Lee filed a human rights complaint against McGill, alleging systemic racism on the part of the school, specifically that the Employment Equity Guidelines of the SSW perpetuated “practices that discriminate against racialized persons for faculty positions.”

“Students are afraid to come forward […] due to the culture of inaction and history of lack of support for our students.”

Savage stressed the need for the SSW to establish a “bank hours” policy vis-a-vis stage completion in light of students feeling a lack of support from the administration, wherein “one hour of work meant one hour completed,” giving students “a measure of safety,” knowing that if they no longer feel comfortable in their current stage, they can transfer without fear of the hours they had already completed.

De-gendering the bathrooms

Savage also stressed his frustration with the issue of de-gendering Wilson Hall’s bathrooms.

The School has already degendered all of its bathrooms except for those on the second floor, in response to allegations of one student who had been followed into the bathroom by a member of McGill security, who told them they were going into the wrong bathroom.

The School had agreed to make existing gender-inclusive bathrooms more accessible, but failed to redesignate other gendered bathrooms, leading members of the SWSA to organize protests outside the school and sticker campaigns to push the School to comply with student wishes.

“I am disappointed that it took stickering and protesting to get a seat at the table to address these issues,” expressed Savage. “I am disappointed and embarrassed that a respected and sought-after member of the community addressed all of our classes about the changes occurring within our schools in order to promote an exclusive environment, just to be informed in a meeting held on the 31st of January, that the Faculty would not be complying with degendering the bathrooms on their own floor.”

“I am disappointed that it took stickering and protesting to get a seat at the table to address these issues.”

Later on during the townhall, SSW Director Nico Trocme was asked to clarify the current situation regarding the Wilson Hall’s bathrooms, answering that seven out of the eight signs for degendered washrooms have been ordered. When asked specifically about renovations, Trocme conveyed his own frustrations.

“You can’t have an employee of the university or a tradesperson going into a [McGill] building and touching a pipe or anything if it’s not code,” he explained.

“I’m not very hopeful to be honest,” Trocme continued. “When talking to [contractors], one thing that became clear, which I didn’t know [was that] once you touch something, not only does that washroom have to be code, but the whole floor has to be code. So that means we would have to add a wheelchair-accessible washroom on the 3rd floor as well.”

“What I keep hearing when we talk about the gender neutral bathrooms,” said Mariana Sosa, the SSW’s elected representative to the McGill Senate, “is that the comfort of cis people is being put at the forefront before trans and gender nonconforming individuals and that this is unacceptable coming from a school that loves to pat itself on the back when it comes to social change. […] This is a super simple issue. We’re just trying to have anyone use whatever bathroom they want to go in.”

“What I keep hearing when we talk about the gender neutral bathrooms […] is that the comfort of cis people is being put at the forefront before trans and gender nonconforming individuals.”

Issues with the curriculum

Over the two and a half hour town hall, a number of issues were addressed, but one that was mentioned several times was student’s concerns with the SSW’s curriculum.

One student, Andy, spoke about his experiences in a prepared statement.

“In my first year I did expect repetition,” said Andy, a student in his third year completing his BSW with previous education in social work. “I knew that I was going to learn a bit of the same thing, that was no surprise. But I still had hope that I would learn from all of the smart students and teachers around me.”

“In my second year,” he continued, “I started to understand that I saw the same thing with less practice and even more theory.”

Andy shared concerns that the SSW fails to integrate the practical side of social work, notably “intervention processes,” into the curriculum and certain SSW cohorts’ feelings of disillusion with the program.

Other participants in the town hall, like Shimmon, voiced similar concerns, expressing that they feel that a “lack of communication” exists on all sides.

“One of the things that I haven’t seen too much of are those practical aspects,” explained Shimmon, “actually sitting down and doing a one-on-one interview with somebody [and] getting to understand how you physically, mentally, emotionally react in a situation” is critical for experience. Once you’re in the field, there is more of a likelihood that you’ll react with a more clinical response,” Shimmon concludes.

“Sitting where I’m sitting, in terms of social work, I didn’t actually come [to McGill] expecting it to be a safe space in a lot of those ways,” said one participant, “but I did expect to learn more […] than […] theory, [like] about what to do when there’s a literal human sitting in front of you who is having a certain type of issue and I feel it’s been very lacking in that.”

“I didn’t actually come [to McGill] expecting it to be a safe space in a lot of those ways […] but I did expect to learn more than theory.”

Another townhall attendee, Marie, who holds a technical degree in the field of social work from Dawson College said, “for someone like me, who has a technical degree, that might be okay, but for someone who has never done social work, it’s difficult because, going into the field, they are not going to know how to do certain things.”

“Going out into the field, and not knowing how to do an intervention,” they continued, “not knowing how to ask questions, not being able to practice certain skills […] we can keep the theory, we can keep the critical, but there needs to be a real portion focusing on the how-to.”

“We can keep the theory, […] but there needs to be a real portion focusing on the how-to.”

The post Students in the School of Social Work voice concerns at town hall appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Relations between North Korea and South Korea remain fragile despite their recent agreement to march under one flag for the opening ceremony of the 2018 Winter Olympics taking place in South Korea from February 9-25. The two Koreas have agreed to compete together in women’s ice hockey in Pyeongchang, announced by the South Korean Unification Ministry.

This is not the first time North and South Korean athletes have marched together. In 2000, the two Koreas marched under the Unification Flag at the Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia, but competed separately. The administration of Moon Jae-in, the incumbent South Korean president, has long supported Korean unification, and hopes to move in that direction by defusing the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. In his New Year’s press conference, Moon said that his goal was to “resolve the North Korean nuclear problem and solidify peace during [his] term.”

However, Moon’s goal of reunification faces challenges. Recently, North Korea cancelled a joint cultural performance event, planned for February 4 in Pyeongchang, after blaming South Korean media for encouraging offensive messages regarding the north. South Koreans’ concerns regarding such challenges are reflected in the 2017 Unification Perception Survey conducted by Seoul National University’s Institute for Peace and Unification Studies; while 53.9 per cent of South Koreans believe reunification is necessary, only 24.7 per cent believe unification is possible.

In addition to the animosity from North Korea, the unified inter-Korean women’s hockey team at the Pyeongchang Olympics has sparked controversy, with over 47,000 signatures signed in a petition against the team to the Blue House. Meanwhile, President Moon Jae-In’s approval rating is below 60 per cent for the first time since he took office in 2017. Issues such as the joint hockey team, and mandatory military enlistments have proven to be a sensitive issue among the younger generation, which may reflect on the survey results.

Shooting in Calais leaves four teenage migrants in critical condition

At least 18 migrants have been left injured following violent clashes in a migrant camp near the port city of Calais, in northern France, on Friday February 3. Four of the migrants, aged 16 to 18, are in critical condition. This week’s brawl represents ostensibly the worst violence in migrant camps since clashes in July 2017, which wounded 16 migrants. Clashes from the previous year, in June 2016, injured at least 40 people. Police reinforcements have been sent in response to the heightened tensions, a decision many local and international observers say will do little to solve such tensions.

Human rights workers in the country have asserted that the French government has imposed tougher attitudes towards migrants. Meanwhile, migrants’ chances of reaching Britain, the final destination for most asylum seekers in Calais, are reaching new lows. Four days prior to the attack, Theresa May pledged an extra £44.5 million to strengthen border security in the area.

Calais notably gained international repute in October 2016 with the French police’s dismantling of an area known dimunitively as “The Jungle,” a refugee encampment in the city which was once home to between 6,000 and 10,000 people before the dismantlement.

“Under no circumstances will we allow the Jungle to come back,” President Macron said in early January of 2018. Since his acceding the presidency, Macron has ramped up expulsions, put pressure on economic migrants, and allowed for divisive ID checks in emergency shelters. Now a mere 500 to 800 migrants remain in Calais.

Reports by Human Rights Watch denounced the scope of police brutality in the encampments, where there is frequent use of pepper sprays, daily identity checks, confiscation of items, and harassment with provocation. The conditions in Calais have been described as “inhumane living conditions” for asylum seekers, due to degrading treatment and disruption of humanitarian aid.

Written with material from the NY Times, BBC, ABC, and The Telegraph.

The post International news briefs appeared first on The McGill Daily.

It was announced in December that Ollivier Dyens’ will not pursue a second term as McGill University’s Deputy Provost Student Life and Learning. After his now-infamous “hygiene de vie” comments, there has been renewed interest in the state of mental health care on campus, which up until now had seemingly taken a backseat to other controversies on campus.

Of note is the conversation surrounding McGill’s implementation of the “stepped care model,” a “two doors, one service” system wherein students can visit the university’s Counselling and Psychiatric Services after being “processed by a single combined system” meant to appraise their needs.

Changes in McGill Mental Health

Many have criticized the reorganization of McGill’s mental health services, amongst them Norman Hoffman, a Montreal-based psychiatrist and former Director of McGill Mental Health Services from 1992 to 2007. In an interview with the Daily, Hoffman talked about recent changes in McGill Mental Health, comparing the “stepped care model” reforms to the way the service was previously organized when he was the Director.

While the stepped care system was created with the aim of eliminating waitlist times, Hoffman says the older system demonstrated a steady and sustained increase in the number of students treated, and the new triage-based system of the stepped care model can fail to do so by referring students to non-clinical resources, such as counselling and online support programmes.

“Between the years of 1998 to [19]99, and 2006 to 2007, McGill Mental Health had a 300 per cent increase in the number of students seen,” Hoffman explained. “We went from 800 students a year to 2,400 students a year over a nine-year period, and during that period […] everybody was seen one to one [and] expert level psychotherapy was the primary treatment. Medication was used only when necessary.”

Hoffman emphasized that 85 per cent of the time, the first psychiatrist a student saw continued the student’s treatment.

“We did not have a triage system, it was direct to care services. You called up, you got an appointment with a psychiatrist. When our waiting list built [to] more than two weeks […] when we had usually more than 25 people on the waiting list, we had a [weekly] team meeting […] where we discussed clinical care, [so] when our waiting list built up to more than 20 to 25 people […] we would cancel our team meeting and have what I called a flying triage. […] If we had 18 people working on staff, we would book in 18 people.”

“When our waiting list built up to more than 20 to 25 people […] we would cancel our team meeting and have what I called a flying triage. […] If we had 18 people working on staff, we would book in 18 people.”

The stepped-care model, as seen by a student

However, not everyone feels the same way Hoffman does. The University has stood by the stepped-care model to this day, believing it to present students with a more straightforward approach to mental health, in which they don’t have to worry about where specifically they have to go to receive treatment.

The Daily spoke with Susan*, one student who has experienced both the stepped care model at McGill and the previous organizational scheme, and asked how she felt about the reorganization.

“My personal experience [with the stepped care model] has been relatively positive and I have found that since having the stepped care program, it’s been easier to get appointments. There’s less of a wait,” she continued, although she admitted that her being in the system prior to the transition might have helped her.

Susan has explained how prior to the stepped care model, the process of booking appointments was rigorous and required students to immediately book an appointment in the same month they had reached out.

“Recently [with the stepped care model, students] didn’t have to book an appointment in a certain month, and then everybody has to kind of quickly call in that first month,” she elaborated. “That actually made me stop calling in and I became very unwell because I would miss an appointment, and I wouldn’t be able to make another one, and there was such a huge waiting list that if I was in crisis, waiting three weeks to a month if not longer, that was just simply too long.”

Susan also praised the supplemental tools that the stepped care model have instituted, including Therapist Assisted Online (TAO) and the Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) program, which consists of group sessions led by a staff member of McGill’s CHMS and a student, with eight to ten students in each group. However, she agrees with concerns though that such supplemental resources should be accompanied by more concrete access to counselling.

“I think it’s more effective as a supplemental tool,” she began. “I think if you need to wait for a clinician, as least the TAO can be useful because it goes into why you experience the symptoms the way you do and it allows your clinician to read the responses, and have a really good idea of where you’re coming from, so you’re not starting from base.”

“Definitely individually, it’s not going to solve your crisis,” she clarified, “but pairing that with action-based programs like WRAP or a therapist, I see it as a very useful tool.”

Raised concerns over the role of the administration

However, the implementation of the stepped-care model still raises question about the extent to which the administration has its hand in access to treatment. “With the creation of the office of the Deputy Provost Student Life and Learning,” said Hoffman, “McGill took away administrative and financial responsibilities from the director of Mental Health.”

“With the creation of the office of the Deputy Provost Student Life and Learning, […] McGill took away administrative and financial responsibilities from the director of Mental Health.”

Touching on how the work environment at McGill Mental Health Services has changed since the reforms, Hoffman mentioned the palpable effects such an atmosphere could have on the quality of treatment: according to Hoffman, a tense working environment at McGill Mental Health promotes a stressful working culture, which undermines the quality of the treatment.

“One person who still works at Mental Health now calls the atmosphere within student services ‘paranoid.’ Everybody is […] frightened to talk,” said Hoffman. “People were told after they fired Nancy Low last year, […] ‘Nobody has the right to object to anything that we do. You object to anything, you’re out.’”

“One person who still works at Mental Health now calls the atmosphere within student services ‘paranoid.’ Everybody is […] frightened to talk,”

Last year, Nancy Low, the former Director of McGill’s CHMS was suspended, apparently for insubordination. A representative for the administration told The Daily then that “the University cannot comment on the personnel dossiers of employment records of any of its staff members,” so much remains unclear about how the reorganization of CHMS has impacted access to treatment.

According to Hoffman, the administration’s involvement in Mental Health services is the initial cause of apparent tension in the department.
McGill however still touts ever-increasing numbers of students seen each year of the program’s effectiveness. Many have pointed to the difference between students seen and students treated as reason for this not being conclusive however.

Moving forward

Many questions remain unanswered regarding the implementation of the stepped care model; Susan feels that the implementation meets the needs of students requiring immediate attention, but might overlook those with ‘less-serious’ need for treatment.

“If you’re having a severe crisis, [the stepped care model] is getting the help that you need quicker, but I think for milder cases, it’s maybe more difficult,” she explained, “especially during crunch times [midterms or finals]. They should remind students who are likely to experience it to get into the system quicker so you don’t have to wait so long.”

“If you’re having a severe crisis, [the stepped care model] is getting the help that you need quicker, but I think for milder cases, it’s maybe more difficult, […] especially during crunch times [midterms or finals]. They should remind students who are likely to experience it to get into the system quicker so you don’t have to wait so long.”

*Name changed to preserve anonymity

The post McGill Mental Health faces continued criticism appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The reference was the result of tensions on campus following the Winter 2016 GA voting in favor of ratifying a motion in support of BDS. The BDS movement advocates for economic pressure against the state of Israel, in order to bring about a nonviolent end to the occupation of the Palestinian territories. While the GA vote was overturned, the BDS motion failed the school-wide online ratification process.

A dangerous precedent

According to SSMU President Muna Tojiboeva, the BoD’s ratification vote was not facilitated in a confidential session. Eleven out of twelve Directors voted in favor of ratification, with only one abstention. While the decision was nearly unanimous in procedure, many on campus remain unconvinced of the reference’s validity.

The JBoard reference concluded that “SSMU’s commitment against discrimination in favour of creating ‘safer spaces’ renders motions similar to the BDS Motion, which specifically compel SSMU to adopt a platform against a particular nation, unconstitutional.”

However, Sydney Lang, a member of RadLaw, a social justice-oriented group of law students at McGill, has specific objections to section 33 of the reference.

“Their end reasoning,” Lang explained to The Daily, “is that yes, SSMU can take positions against nations but under certain circumstances, if it’s phrased in certain ways, and only in extreme cases. […] What I’m most concerned with is that they’re giving the Judicial Board in the future the ability to determine what’s an extreme case. They’re technically saying that we could hypothetically do this if it was a really extreme case and we would do it in a certain way. That’s not based in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t set that out. They’re creating this idea that they’re the ones who get to gauge the extremity of an issue before SSMU can take a stance on it.”

“What I’m most concerned with is that they’re giving the Judicial Board in the future the ability to determine what’s an extreme case. […] That’s not based in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t set that out.”

“They’re making decisions about what’s an extreme international conflict,” continued Lang, “or what’s extreme for the lives of Palestinians or other people around the world who are facing occupation, but how are they the ones to determine what’s extreme?”

Conflating the state and its citizens

“By adopting official positions against certain nations,” reads part of section 33, “as the BDS Motion aims to do with Israel, SSMU would be placing Members from those nations at a structural disadvantage within McGill’s community […] In essence, SSMU signals to those Members from the very beginning that it is hostile towards their country thus, indirectly, them. Motions which compel SSMU to do so threaten the fragile bonds which hold McGill’s international community together.”

“They’re conflating the political state of Israel with individual Israelis citizens,” said Lang in response. “They’re making this connection between the two that isn’t factually grounded. Look at any other [case] in history; McGill took a stand against South African apartheid, but weren’t against South Africans. Similar examples are when students in HK protested against the Chinese government or Indigenous peoples challenge the state of Canada. You are critiquing a system of governance, oppression, or occupation, not individual citizens”

“In essence, SSMU signals to those Members from the very beginning that it is hostile towards their country thus, indirectly, them. Motions which compel SSMU to do so threaten the fragile bonds which hold McGill’s international community together.”

BDS has yet to put out a statement following the Board’s ratification vote, but in an interview with The Daily, BDS member Maia Salameh gave some insight into how members of McGill’s BDS Action Network are feeling.

“We’re gonna fight it, but it is a huge blow obviously and a disappointment,” said Salameh. “That doesn’t mean it’s over. […] the whole problem stems from the structural nature of SSMU,” said Salameh. “To fight this, we need to […] reform [the structure] because right now there are unelected members that are making these huge decisions without any accountability or transparency.”

Currently, the JBoard, a body of the BoD, is composed of seven SSMU members appointed by the Nominating Committee. JBoard decisions are then ratified or rejected by the BoD, with decisions never being reviewed by an elected SSMU body.

“We are forming a new campaign called Democratize SSMU,” explained Salameh. “It’s going to be a coalition not just of BDS members because we don’t think this decision just affects BDS. We want to mobilize student groups and student activists in general because we want institutional change. We’re going to go through Equity complaints because [we] think there’s been a gross injustice here and we will be staging protests just to make people aware of this decision and why it affects them.”

“Right now there are unelected members that are making these huge decisions without any accountability or transparency.”

Many questions left unanswered

The minutes from the September 17 BoD meeting have yet to be released. As of publication, none of the BoD’s members-at-large have responded to comment regarding the ratification vote.

The post Board Directors ratifies BDS reference appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The motions included a “NO” endorsement for the referendum on an increase to the Athletics and Recreation ancillary fee, a motion regarding continued SSMU participation in the Association for a Voice in Education in Quebec (AVEQ), a motion regarding revisions to the Equity Policy, and a motion regarding undergraduate senatorial elections, all of which passed. Council also heard reports from committees and executives.

Saying “NO” to fee increases

A motion was presented to Council which would endorse a “NO” vote in the upcoming referendum question regarding an Athletics and Recreation ancillary fee increase.

Earlier in March, a Winter 2017 SSMU General Assembly (GA) motion was presented which, if enacted, would have mandated SSMU to reject referendum questions seeking to raise ancillary fees until McGill acknowledged students’ concerns with these fees. Moreover, the motion demanded that McGill provide yearly financial reports to SSMU executives about the allocation of ancillary fees, and that a moratorium be imposed on increasing overhead charges.

Simply put, overhead charges are incurred when the University bills student-fee-funded units for central administrative services, which are automatically provided through the operating budget.

Overhead charges were vehemently contested during the 2012 Quebec student protests, and yet despite years of student advocacy, little has been done to curb them at McGill.

Although it initially passed at the GA, the motion concerning the Athletics ancillary fee was invalidated when SSMU learned of a pre-existing contract with the administration, negating their ability to enact such a motion.

At Thursday’s council meeting, movers of the motion to endorse a “NO” vote said that “recent Athletics and Recreation budget numbers indicate that it is within the university’s financial capacity to not only reduce overhead charges, but to increase funding transfers from the central operating budget to fee funded units.” They felt that a “NO” vote would send a clear message to the administration that students were no longer comfortable with overhead charges.

“[The administration] has set up this unsustainable budgetary model where every few years, their costs are increasing, and every few years, they come back to us for [a fee] increase, and they say ‘Don’t you care about these services? Give us an increase,’ and they have no incentive to change their budgetary model around the overhead charges,” said Sobat, in defense of the motion.

“[The administration] has set up this unsustainable budgetary model where every few years, their costs are increasing, and every few years, they come back to us for [a fee] increase.”

“They have a blank slate, or a free pass basically, to keep increasing [overhead charges and ancillary fees] because we’ve never rejected that kind of increase,” he continued. “It’s in the interest of showing the administration that as a collective student body, we are not in support of this funding model, and want to see a reinvestment – not even a reinvestment – but a reduction of those overhead charges, so that the money that we pay to Athletics actually goes in fact to Athletics and not back to the central administration to redistribute elsewhere.”

However, Athletics Representative Yue Jiao raised concerns with the motion.

“Why is it the understanding that having a ‘NO’ vote will result in the [administration] understanding that these overhead charges are too much?” she said. “The reality is that a ‘NO’ vote is actually going to cause Athletics and Recreation to put themselves in a situation where they have to re-evaluate their budget and that will affect the services that are being provided to students.”

“Especially if a ‘NO’ vote is associated with a strong message over overhead charges,” Sobat responded, “it is sending a message to the University that actually their financial practices do need to change. We’ve seen from the Athletics budget that they at times have been able to reduce those overhead charges or increase the transfers of money that they’re giving back to Athletics for particular initiatives.”

“[A “NO” vote] shows that students want to see that kind of funding model, and it is not the same thing as us just wanting to cut services,” he added. “This is a better message than us just saying, ‘No, we just don’t want to increase the fees.’”

“[A “NO” vote] shows that students want to see that kind of funding model, and it is not the same thing as us just wanting to cut services. […] This is a better message than us just saying, ‘No, we just don’t want to increase the fees.’”

A number of councillors agreed with Sobat. Science Representative Caitlin Mehrotra said that the administration’s demand for fee increases does “kind of sound like a threat,” and Senate Caucus Representative William Cleveland agreed that the administration had to be shown that “this is not acceptable.”

In concluding the debate, Jiao asked Sobat “Who do you think would benefit from the fee increase?” Sobat simply answered, “the administration.” The motion endorsing a “NO” vote passed with 13 in favor, four against, and five abstaining.

Restructuring the Equity Policy

Council approved a motion regarding revisions to SSMU’s Equity Policy, which had been tabled since February.

“[The motion] was primarily a restructuring of the policy to make it more clear and accessible to people trying to access it, as well honestly to interpret it for the Equity Commissioners,” explained Sobat. “The next step once it’s approved will be to develop some new communication tools around it: we’d like to have to flow chart to clearly outline the process, and some resources to make it as accessible as possible because we don’t want people to dive into this document as a first step if they’re looking for recourse in SSMU.”

Sobat explained that the motion also outlined the scope and jurisdiction of the Equity Policy, clarifying plans when issues outside of SSMU in other faculty associations arise, and how to refer said issues to other faculty equity committees. The motion passed unanimously.

SSMU participation in AVEQ

Council also approved a motion regarding SSMU participation in AVEQ. Last year in referendum, the student body rejected an offer to join AVEQ, but SSMU nonetheless serves as an official observer to the student federation. SSMU executives have argued that joining a student federation would greatly influence the Society’s ability to influence provincial and federal politics at a higher level.

Despite the student body voting “NO” to joining AVEQ, more students voted to abstain in the referendum than voted for or against, with some positing a “lack of awareness of the role of student federations in general and of the AVEQ in particular.”

The motion approved at Thursday’s council will allow SSMU to remain an observer at AVEQ until the end of 2017, and allow SSMU delegates to continue attending AVEQ member assemblies. The motion also stipulated that SSMU will continue to “educate its members regarding the existence and role of AVEQ,” and bring another referendum question regarding affiliation to AVEQ to Council for consideration in the Fall 2017 semester.

The motion passed with 14 in favour, six against, and three abstaining.

Senatorial elections

In November, Council allowed undergraduate Engineering senatorial elections to be organized by the Engineering Undergraduate Society (EUS) rather than by Elections SSMU. At the time, it was argued that holding senatorial elections alongside the election of EUS executives would increase voter turnout and interest in Senator positions, without overburdening the EUS.

“[The motion] was primarily a restructuring of the policy to make it more clear and accessible to people trying to access it, as well honestly to interpret it for the Equity Commissioners.”

During the Winter 2017 senatorial elections, this was expanded to all faculty associations. Senate Caucus Representative Joshua Chin presented a motion to standardize this practice, officially amending both the Internal Regulations of Representation and Advocacy, and the Internal Regulations of Elections and Referenda.
The motion passed with no debate, 22 in favor, and one abstention.

The post SSMU says “NO” to fee increases appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The recent resignations of two Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) executives – former President Ben Ger and former VP External David Aird – over allegations of gendered violence have sparked intense criticism of SSMU’s nominal commitment to transparency and accountability. Moreover, many are calling for the Society to adopt a sexual assault policy (SAP) which would apply to its Executive Committee.

While the University did recently adopt its own Sexual Violence Policy (SVP), which applies to all students registered at McGill, a SSMU SAP would in theory give undergraduates at the University more recourse in holding their elected officials accountable.

The SVP cannot be used to suspend or remove SSMU executives from their positions. This means that if any future executive were to be accused of sexual assault, SSMU members would have to wait for the University to take action against that executive as an individual – something McGill has historically been reluctant to do.

A SSMU SAP, or more administration involvement?

Nevertheless, many students have argued that it should be McGill’s administration, rather than SSMU, which takes a larger role in countering sexual violence on campus.

In a letter published on March 2, 2017 in The McGill Daily, 18 SSMU representatives, all of whom sit on the Society’s Legislative Council, addressed McGill’s administration. The letter recognized the “insufficiency of the SSMU executive team in the handling of their response,” but felt that this didn’t excuse the Administration’s silence on the matter.

“The problem of sexual violence is not limited to the SSMU,” reads the letter. “It affects everyone on campus, especially those survivors that have come forth. Principal Fortier, the administration is accountable to every one of its students and shoulders the burden of the responsibility to take action. The silence from the Administration throughout this process is alarming.”

The letter called on the administration to collaborate with SSMU to “to emphasize section 8 of the sexual violence policy and push the active working group to hold workshops and presentations concerning sexual violence at McGill residences and campus as a whole for the remainder of the semester.”

The letter also called on the administration to follow and adopt the CDN’s demands, and “to take direct measures to ensure the continued safety of students and survivors on and around campus.” Measures listed included timely disclosures, safety planning, section changes. Most importantly the letter called for “screening of [SSMU] executives.” Nowhere in the letter is there a call for SSMU to adopt its own SAP to counter its own shortcomings.

Hence, a large part of the debate over a SSMU SAP revolves around how much independence SSMU and its members should have in regulating its own Executive Committee, and when the University’s administration should step in.

The Executive Committee talks a SSMU-specific SAP

VP Student Life Elaine Patterson, who has taken on the role of SSMU spokesperson following Ger’s resignation, told The Daily in an email that there “have been conversations amongst the SSMU executives regarding a policy and a set of protocols that can be put in place in order to create a structure to better manage reports of disclosure of sexual harassment to an exec.”

“In terms of first steps,” she added, “we hope to organize a time for the current executives and the [newly elected SSMU] executives to attend a workshop on reports of disclosure offered by Consent McGill. Additionally, [VP University Affairs] Erin Sobat is in touch with representatives from the Community Disclosure Network (CDN) to ensure consultation while this policy and these protocols are in development.”

In a statement to The Daily, Sobat spoke about the process of creating such a policy. “By their request I am working […] to help meet the requests in [the CDN’s] statement, re: sexual violence in general not just harassment,” he explained. “However this is really […] labour of policy/protocol development based on consultation and outreach to different groups and oversight from our governance bodies.”

“We are looking into the best ways to facilitate sensitive consultation and dialogue on moving forward, through CDN and staff resources,” he added. “We recognize that people do not necessarily feel comfortable reaching out to the executive right now and that there need to be multiple avenues for involvement and input.”

“Well intentioned but dangerously half-baked”

While many on campus have called for such a policy, some students feel that this simply isn’t enough.
Silence is Violence (SiV), a survivor-led collective of community members at McGill which “advocate for institutional accountability and tackle rape culture on campus” released a statement last Thursday detailing their thoughts on a hypothetical SSMU SAP.

While the collective expressed outrage at Ger and Aird’s behaviour, and understood the calls to action, they expressed concerns that calls for a SSMU-specific SAP are “short-sighted, narrow and lack adequate context.”

“Since the adoption of SVP last winter, and, indeed, in the past few years when a SVP has been under development at McGill, [the] McGill Administration has constantly used the SVP to make a show of its supposed commitment to responding to sexual violence – and shut down any criticism of its shortcomings in that regard,” reads the statement.

“While a policy can indeed provide structure for addressing sexual violence,” the statement continues, “calling for the creation of a policy without holistically confronting – in this case – the dynamics that encourage, sustain and tolerate abuse in activist communities is a cheap way out of assuming liability for past incidents and committing to their prevention in the future.”

SiV also raised concerns about whether or not this meant that clubs, faculty and departmental associations, and other groups on campus would themselves also adopt a sexual assault policy of their own.

“How much time and resources would that take?” SiV wrote. “How many sexual assault policies does this institution need?” SiV stated that, instead, they felt McGill would “benefit more from a campus-wide initiative to use already existing structures to extend the SVP to all other separate legal entities at McGill.”

The collective cited the Office of the Dean of Students signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Management Undergraduate Society to extend the Code of Students’ Conduct and a variety of other forms of oversights to Carnival, an event which involved heavy drinking. “Participants would hence be subject to this Code in case they cross the line,” the statement reads.

Disagreements between the CDN and SiV

In an email to The Daily, the CDN confirmed that the Network was working with SSMU in the hopes of creating a stand alone “Gendered and Sexualized Violence Policy,” or a GSVP.

“Our goals in working with SSMU are to create a pro-survivor document that protects the SSMU community, and also to ensure that resources and outlines of procedures are made as accessible as possible to survivors without them having to disclose anything,” the CDN wrote.

“This requires a dialogue within the creation of a policy of what these processes or a recourse of action will look like,” the email continues, “and how SSMU can work with other student groups on campus to make sure that such a policy and the procedures it outlines are implemented properly.”

When asked how the Network felt about SiV’s comments on a SSMU-specific SAP, they responded that they had been in contact with SiV but didn’t share the collective’s feelings.

“We reached out to them as soon as we saw [SiV’s] statement, to inquire that they remove [CDN’s] name,” explained the Network. “As their statement outlined that the creation of a SSMU GSVP would not be useful (we think it is crucial), and that we are calling for an apology or further accountability on the part of Erin Sobat (we are not), we did not want to be perceived as sharing these concerns. They responded quickly to our communication and have since rectified their statement.”

At the time of publication, the Sexual Assault Centre of the McGill Students’ Society (SACOMSS) had yet to sit down with SSMU executives to discuss the Society adopting a sexual assault policy, and hence were not comfortable speaking with The Daily about their recommendations on the subject.

The post Will SSMU adopt a sexual assault policy? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post Meet your SSMU Executive Candidates appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post Winter 2017 SSMU GA appeared first on The McGill Daily.

A variety of speakers addressed the crowd, both in English and French. Many had come with signs and candles, and a large group of people gathered on top of a small snow hill stood with a sign that said “Make Racists Afraid Again.” Others walked around with their own signs, such as one that said “I’m Muslim, I’m Quebecoise, I’m Human Too #UnitedForPeace.”

Vigil speeches touched primarily on inclusivity. One speaker, who did not provide their name, began by saying, “I truly did not expect this. I thought half this crowd would be Muslim […] but that’s not the case.”
They then highlighted the need for unity and solidarity, a common theme throughout the night.

“We are one people, and when one of us are hurt in society, all of us get hurt. And that’s why we are coming together today, all of us together, […] to say that an attack against one of us is an attack against all of us,” they said. This was met with loud cheers from the crowd.

They emphasized that everyone has a part to play in fighting against racism and Islamophobia, and highlighted the need to make Muslims and other marginalized groups feel included, in the face of events that threaten their communities.

“We are one people, and when one of us are hurt in society, all of us get hurt.”

“We must call for the positive contributions of Muslims and minorities in our society to be celebrated and recognized, and it is only then that we will have positive discourse and that we will move away from the types of problems we are seeing today,” they said.

One speaker, Abdul, took the time to recognize everyone in the crowd.

“To those who lost someone dear to them, Assalamu Alaikum,” he began in French. “To those who this day are between life and death, Assalamu Alaikum. To those Muslims present here today despite the cold and the fear, Assalamu Alaikum. To all our fellow citizens, who took time out of their days to gather with us, Assalamu Alaikum. To those elected officials of Quebec present here, Assalamu Alaikum.”

“We must call for the positive contributions of Muslims and minorities in our society to be celebrated and recognized.”

“Dear brothers, sisters, friends, and comrades, we are gathered here today during difficult times, and our message is clear,” he said in French. “We are gathered to remind terrorists that you will never divide us […] to remind those who would profit from our fears, from our worries, those who would condone violence against Muslims, in our places of worship, you will never divide us.”

“Dear brothers, sisters, friends, and comrades, Quebecers have congregated today to show that they are united against adversity,” he continued. “They’ve come together in Chicoutimi, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivieres, to make clear we condemn violence and hate. Quebecers here in Montreal have come out to remind us that our battle is one to co-exist. […] Despite our differences, the ideology that will unite us, the doctrine that we live by without hesitation will be one of peace, justice, equality, and liberty.”

Similarly, another speaker, who identified herself as a “an anti-racist, feminist, queer, South-Asian Muslim woman,” highlighted the importance of Muslim and other marginalized communities’ voices.

“I acknowledge […] the greed and injustice that this land experiences and witnesses on a daily basis, including ongoing systemic oppression against Indigenous and black nations, against migrant or racialized communities, including Muslim communities, and again, queer, trans, women identifying people who are part of these communities.”

I want to say that this injustice stops here and now,” she continued. “That systems based on oppression, power and privilege, leading to the tragedy that we are trying to grapple with today must end now, it must.”

“I also know that so many of us have been saying this for far too long, including protesting state sanctioned white supremacy and xenophobia, like the racist and misogynist unreasonable Accommodation Commission and the so-called Charter of Values,” she went on to say, again receiving loud cheers from the audience.

The speaker then invited everyone to “take a moment to reflect on our humanity and to keep holding each other in all of our complexities, lived realities and our identities, to keep holding each other as community, to keep holding each other in space, in words, in art, in conversation, in breath, with deep love, care, and compassion.”

“To my family, to my friends, to communities who are living in fear and sadness, let us breathe in resilience and let us breathe out resilience. We will make it through, even through the haze of our tears, in solidarity in our fight for social justice and liberation,” she concluded.

This particular speaker seemed to resonate deeply with the crowd. In an interview with The Daily, one attendee, Kasha, noted that this speech was most memorable for her.

“I also know that so many of us have been saying this for far too long, including protesting state sanctioned white supremacy and xenophobia, like the racist and misogynist unreasonable Accommodation Commission and the so-called Charter of Values.”

What stood out about her speech simply was that I think she touched upon all marginalized populations and all marginalized communities and […] set a message and a precedence of inclusiveness. So I think that whoever you are, wherever you’re coming from, if you’re here, you felt that you were part of this communal energy,” she said.”

Other attendees also highlighted the sense of solidarity at the vigil.

When asked how she felt about the event, one attendee, Manaima, said, “I think it’s really sad […] not just for us [Muslims]. It’s not just for Muslim people because everybody’s going to be sad and everybody’s going to be affected by it. I don’t know how to explain it but it’s very sad for me.”

After the speeches ended, several hundred attendees remained in the square chanting slogans such as “Musulmans, bienvenue [Muslims welcome]!” for at least another half hour.

The post Montrealers gather in solidarity appeared first on The McGill Daily.

He apparently told members of the group last Wednesday that he has agreed to their request, and will “hold consultations on opening a specialized centre for the needs of Indigenous people in Montreal,” according to CTV News Montreal.

Needed: 15,000 signatories

Unlike many other prominent Canadian cities, including Toronto and Ottawa, Montreal does not have an Indigenous Health Centre.

Volunteers under the MUAHC Board of Directors (itself associated with the Montreal Urban Aboriginal Community Strategy, or NETWORK) were attempting to rectify this, petitioning across Montreal to gather the 15,000 signatures necessary to secure official public consultation on an Indigenous Health Centre.

Efforts included visiting local university and CEGEP campuses, and a petition drive on the McGill campus last Friday, January 20.

The mayor’s decision could potentially be seen as a victory for petitioners, primarily because of the sheer difficulty of obtaining 15,000 signatures before the previously established deadline of February 25, 2017.

“We’re not allowed to get electronic signatures,” said Pascale Annoual, a member of NETWORK who was present on the McGill campus to obtain signatures, in an interview with The Daily. “The city doesn’t trust [those] signatures.”

Annoual explained that the city is working on making petitioning more accessible in a more technology-driven world, but as of now, petitions like this one are “bound by the old laws.”

In addition to that restriction, only residents of certain municipalities could sign, with residents of other municipalities unable to because they fall under the category of “independent cities,” or separate municipal jurisdictions. For example, residents of Montreal Nord-Centre could not sign the petition.

The disproportionality of Indigenous health concerns

Currently, many Inuit and First Nations people seek support at the Native Friendship Centre and Projet Autochtone du Quebec, but go to the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) for medical help.

Those who were petitioning campaigned for a new Indigenous Health Centre in Montreal on the basis that Indigenous communities in Canada face higher barriers to health care and are disproportionately affected by certain medical concerns.

In 2013, the National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health released a report detailing specific health issues faced by Indigenous communities in Canada.

“Even if the health of Indigenous communities has improved over the last few years, the state of health of First Nations, Inuit, and Metis people continues to be considerably inferior to those of other Canadians,” reads the report in French. “According to multiple indicators of health, the burden of illness or health disparities affecting First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples are still disproportionate.”

Volunteers who petitioned for signatures handed out press releases which in part detailed those disparities, explaining how “while Aboriginal peoples comprise 3.8 per cent of Canada’s population, they account for 8 per cent of people living with HIV and 12.5 per cent of new infections.” They also detailed how Indigenous people are at higher risk of developing tuberculosis, diabetes, and related complications.

“Greater effort is needed to provide Aboriginal people with culturally sensitive, inclusive health policies, and targeted health programs,” reads the press release.

Annoual detailed the challenges faced by Indigenous communities in Montreal, which comprise an estimated total of 20,000 people.

“You have a lot of provincial health services that are mostly in French, and they’re not holistic enough,” she explained, “so you [see] services for part of the population, but not all the population. […] Montreal, being more of a cosmopolitan city, could and would have to go beyond the provincial model, which is mostly francophone.”

Annoual also explained how provincial health services don’t cater to Indigenous needs.

“[In Quebec, there] is only one model: the pharmaco-medical model,” she said. “Basically, it’s highly specialized. If you have an earache, you go to your GP [General Practitioner] and they give you a reference to see your ENT [Ear Nose and Throat doctor]. If you hurt your right foot, you go back to your system, you see your GP, get a referral, and you go see another specialist.”

“If you have a different belief as to why you’re having those ailments, and how to get better for those ailments, let’s say that includes a spiritual belief, then you’re […] on your own,” she elaborated. “An Aboriginal Health Center model answers to physical, emotional, mental and spiritual perspectives on health – a holistic and integrated model, all under one roof. That doesn’t exist in Canada.”

Past Indigenous community centers

The proposed health center wouldn’t be the first center in Montreal dedicated to addressing Indigenous-specific issues.

In 2010, the Ivirtivik Center (South) opened in the Montreal neighborhood of Verdun. Its goal was to aid Inuit participants in integrating into the workforce or to assist them in going back to school, offering activities, services, classes, and counseling in French, English, and Inuktitut.

However, while the center’s aims were admirable, this didn’t prevent some from campaigning against it during its initial construction. Certain locals in Verdun passed out flyers with “Not in my backyard,” written on them, objecting to the center’s construction for transparently racist reasons.

“Basically, it’s the same barriers as health services,” explained Annoual. “There’s a huge amount of stereotypes and misconceptions, and misinformation about [Indigenous peoples].

Annoual feels it’s important to remind Montrealers of the medical barriers Indigenous peoples face and the racial politics that might accompany those initiatives to solve them.

Moving forward

In an email to The Daily, Jasmine Ramze Rezaee, a project administrator at the McGill Centre for the Convergence of Health and Economics (MCCHE), as well as a member of NETWORK, emphasized that while recent developments with Coderre indicate a positive shift in the status quo, it is still just one component in the fight to aid Indigenous health issues in Montreal.

“Despite the Mayor’s promise to hold consultations on the issue,” she wrote, “we must not forget why culturally sensitive medical care is important. Aboriginal peoples face barriers to accessing health services that non-Aboriginals often do not, such as racism and discrimination, jurisdiction and eligibility issues, and lack of clarity and advocacy.”

“Only by addressing these issues in a collaborative, inclusive, and participatory manner can they be resolved,” she continued. “In this way, I hope that the public consultations headed by the Mayor will include strong Aboriginal representatives and produce concrete results.”

In her email, Ramze Rezaee highlighted the role of non-Indigenous allies in the struggle for better health.

“To clarify, I am an ally,” she wrote. “For me, it’s important to remember that I am a settler on this land, that I’ve benefitted from the history of colonialism – whether directly or indirectly – and that it is in my power to honour Aboriginal resilience through my support.”

The post Health centre petition suspended appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Duclos answered questions on topics ranging from the federal government’s National Housing Strategy, homelessness, First Peoples issues, mortgages, and urban housing, all of which fall under his portfolio.

Urban housing

One attendee, Jesse, reminded Duclos that in a country like Canada, the cost of living varies a great deal between urban areas like Vancouver and Toronto, and certain regions like rural Alberta and Ontario.

“What is the government doing to […] compensate for that difference?” he asked. “In Vancouver, the living wage […] is $25. There are massive discrepancies, so I think there is a middle class that now can have a $100,000 dollar income, and still not be able to afford a home in Vancouver.”

“The housing needs and the housing circumstances of Canadians vary quite a lot,” responded Duclos. “This being said, not all Canadian regions display this wide range of housing conditions, and it’s true that in Toronto and Vancouver in particular […], the regions where both the cost of housing is high and rising, those communities present specific challenges.”

“In Vancouver, the living wage […] is $25. There are massive discrepancies, so I think there is a middle class that now can have a $100,000 dollar income, and still not be able to afford a home in Vancouver.”

“Unfortunately, despite the tools that the Canadian government can use, through the CMHC, Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation, in particular, through regulations, through housing insurance, and mortgages […] it’s very difficult to address the localized tensions [that] these communities face.”

As a result, municipalities are best equipped to address these issues, Duclos said, stressing municipal planning, development of public transportation, and economic and demographic growth as key issues to address in supporting middle-class Canadians.

Youth homelessness

Another attendee, Meghan, asked, “What is the government doing to invest in the prevention of youth homelessness?”

“Unfortunately, despite the tools that the Canadian government can use, through the CMHC, Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation, in particular, through regulations, through housing insurance, and mortgages […] it’s very difficult to address the localized tensions [that] these communities face.”

Duclos stressed the importance of fighting homelessness at the local level, using the example of Montreal as a city where a number of organizations have an ability at the local level “to understand how to protect the youth against homelessness, and to look at the problem in a broad manner.”

Duclos also highlighted that addressing youth homelessness doesn’t solely revolve around housing concerns.

“What is the government doing to invest in the prevention of youth homelessness?”

“You need to provide [homeless youth] with physical safety, mental health, physical health, and then you can start to develop a relationship, build emotional capital that we need to interact with the homeless youth, provide them with hope,” he said.
“Hope is critical in assisting homeless youth,” he continued, “and then slowly, with confidence and appropriate support, to develop the other dimensions of their life, such as training […] the ability to participate in […] the labour force, and slowly to develop their social and other forms of capital.”

Duclos clarified that the best way the federal government can assist localized homelessness initiatives was through adequate resource support.

“Hope is critical in assisting homeless youth.”

“Last March, the federal government announced for the first time in seventeen years an increase in funding to fight homelessness across Canada,” he told attendees. “A fifteen per cent increase, which is making a big difference across Canada […], but what is even more important is the ability of organizations and communities to make the best use of these additional resources in pushing ahead their assistance to homeless populations.”

Northern housing crises

Another attendee asked what the federal government was doing to address “Northern housing crises in Nunavut and northern Quebec.”

“There are two elements to that,” answered Duclos. “The first is the obvious greater needs and greater costs associated to housing in the North, which has to be acknowledged: again, in last March’s budget, transfers to the Territories and northern communities were adjusted to [reflect] greater need and greater costs.”

“The second thing is the fact that in Northern communities, we find in greater numbers, Indigenous families and communities, and there is an opportunity in re-engaging the federal government in assisting the housing need of Indigenous families,” continued Duclos. “The nation-to-nation agenda is ‘Can we in part implement it through strong active and respectful relationships with Indigenous organizations and governments?’”

Indigenous homelessness

“Are there any plans to specifically address the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples within homeless communities?” asked an attendee.

“The nation-to-nation agenda is ‘Can we in part implement it through strong active and respectful relationships with Indigenous organizations and governments?’”

“It is such a dire state of affairs,” responded Duclos, “including here in Montreal, but even more so in Western Canada to recognize this failure […] of building a proper relationship between the federal government, and other governments, and Indigenous communities, [which] has led to all sorts of evils, including that of many homeless Indigenous peoples in cities across Canada.”

“Building that relationship is, among other things, through supporting housing ambitions of our Indigenous families through resources, but also equally importantly through appropriate relationships,” he went on. “It’s not just money that matters, it’s also the ability of Indigenous governments and communities to feel and be empowered when it comes to aiding them.”

The post Minister Jean Yves Duclos comes to McGill appeared first on The McGill Daily.

“I speak today as a Montrealer of North-African origins, as an immigrant who grew up here, but above all as a person who support the Indigenous people of this land, on unceded Kanien’kehá:ka lands,” said Anas Bouslikhane, one of the event’s speakers, to the crowd in French.

“If [the far-right] wants to build a wall which would block Mexican immigrants, as well as instate immigration policies that target North African Arabs and Muslims, we come here to question the legitimacy of closing those borders,” continued Bouslikhane. “Borders of a country that is closing in on itself and its bigoted ideologies.”

“We must today more than ever act in solidarity across borders, and categorially refuse, [Trump’s] racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, and nationalistic agenda,” he concluded.

Present in the square were a number of anarchist, marxist, and other anti-capitalist groups. Large signs were displayed, many with “Make Racists Afraid Again,” written on them.

“[Trump] and his cabinet have come to power on an explicitly racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, and anti-immigrant platform,” stated Eamon Toohey, another event speaker, “and […] their victory has rung out far beyond the U.S.-Canada and the U.S.-Mexico border.”

“If [the far-right] wants to build a wall which would block Mexican immigrants, as well as instate immigration policies that target North African Arabs and Muslims, we come here to question the legitimacy of closing those borders.”

“As we speak, allies in Washington are disrupting the inauguration of Trump to fight for a world free from oppression, free from fascism,” Toohey continued. “Standing together here, as an expression of solidarity with our American allies, and against the far-right in Quebec and Canada, against Kellie Leitch, against Kevin O’Leary, against PEGIDA [Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West], against all those that threaten the well-being of the oppressed.”

“We can’t allow Canada’s extractionary industrial policy or the congratulatory tone Trudeau has taken with the American far-right to stand,” Toohey concluded. “If we do, we put ourselves down the same path of fascism on which America is already embarking.

Marching down Ste. Catherine

After speeches by demonstration leaders, protesters walked west down Ste. Catherine, chanting: “1,2,3,4, this is fucking class war! 5,6,7,8, organize and smash the state!”

“As we speak, allies in Washington are disrupting the inauguration of Trump to fight for a world free from oppression, free from fascism. Standing together here, as an expression of solidarity with our American allies, and against the far-right in Quebec and Canada, against Kellie Leitch, against Kevin O’Leary, against PEGIDA [Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West], against all those that threaten the well-being of the oppressed.”

“As a trans, non-binary, queer person, if I didn’t join into the revolution, if I didn’t join into the history being made around me, in the place that I live, the place that I call home, and the place that I wouldn’t be able to call home if it wasn’t for the awful colonial past that is on this land, then I would just be contributing to more and more oppression by my silence,” said Asher, one of the marchers, to The Daily.

“Our responsibility [by marching in Montreal] is showing solidarity with those who are directly affected,” Asher continued. “I feel like it’s not just showing [those in the U.S.] one march. It’s not just one march, one movement in [Washington D.C.]. It’s movements all around the world, and we support what they’re doing. We support their opposition, we support their strength and their courage.”

Some protesters shouted at Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) officers, with many bystanders on Ste. Catherine staring in either disbelief or shock. Some bystanders gathered inside businesses, either out of fear of marchers, or because private security guards had advised or forced people to stay inside.

At the corner of de la Montagne and Ste. Catherine, one protester tagged “Fuck capitalism” on a department store window.

“Our responsibility [by marching in Montreal] is showing solidarity with those who are directly affected.”

A few protesters banged or threw objects at the windows of large department and retail store chain locations, attempting to break them. At least one protester succeeded, putting a large hole in and shattering an American Apparel window.

Encounters with the SPVM

Near the corner of St. Bishop and Ste. Catherine, officers had gathered outside their SPVM station, Poste de quartier 20.

Police stood with their bikes to ostensibly prevent protesters from damaging the station, some standing in riot gear. The majority of protesters walked by the station without incident.
However, after a number of projectiles thrown by protesters partly shattered the SPVM station’s window, officers charged the protesters, releasing pepper spray into the crowd.

In the street, St. Matthieu Street

While initially a portion of the march’s route had been clear, eventually protesters began to walk down Ste. Catherine alongside cars and buses, eliciting some annoyed honks from drivers.

“As a trans, non-binary, queer person, if I didn’t join into the revolution, if I didn’t join into the history being made around me, in the place that I live, the place that I call home, and the place that I wouldn’t be able to call home if it wasn’t for the awful colonial past that is on this land, then I would just be contributing to more and more oppression by my silence.”

Around 7:00 p.m., protesters reached St. Matthieu. One SPVM van was hit by a protester, the driver subsequently driving down Ste. Catherine to get out of the way.

At that exact moment, riot police walking behind the march began to bang on their shields, chasing protestors and forcing them up St. Matthieu. Demonstrators running up the street quickly dispersed, with other officers following in pursuit on foot.

That same riot line then came down St. Matthieu, preventing press or bystanders to walk up the street. Many, out of fear of arrest, whether they were demonstrators or not, hid in businesses at the intersection.

Soon after, two large vans pulled up to the intersection, vans intended to transport ‘kettled’ protesters, i.e. protesters who had been rounded up and arrested. Over the loudspeaker, police informed those standing on the sidewalks that “this protest is over,” ordering them to leave. It is unclear how many people were arrested and how many were hurt in clashes with the SPVM.

The post Havoc at anti-Trump protests appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Absences from Council

During question period, VP Internal Kira Smith raised what she called an “impromptu question.”

“You can get back to me in email or in person, but we’re noticing that there are quite a few absences from [AUS] council,” she said. “If there’s something that we can do that can make your time easier, so you’re not missing Council, or not forgetting reports, please let me know.”

“If there’s something that we can do that can make your time easier, so you’re not missing Council, or not forgetting reports, please let me know.”

“I don’t really want to have to follow up with you,” she continued, “and I’m sure everything will be fine in the end, but it’s really important to me that people are at Council, and you are submitting your reports, and you don’t have to be penalized, so let me know if there’s a way to make anything easier in regards to that.” Smith suggested deadlines as a potential measure to help councillors better manage their time.

New business

The motion to create a SNAX committee was tabled until next Council meeting. AUS President Becky Goldberg moved to table the motion to allow for “more consultation to reflect the committee membership.”

Council also heard a motion to hold the Winter general elections.

“Last year, we pushed up the elections for executives to give them more time to transition into their roles before the new year,” said the mover of the motion, “so we’ve kept that updated timeline for this election cycle.” The motion passed with no objections.

While new executives will be allowed to campaign between February 13 and 23, with polling stations open from the 16th onwards, departmental elections and the referendum period will remain on the same schedule, to better allow departmental executives to finish the projects they’ve been working on.

Changes to ASEF bylaws

AUS VP Academic Erik Partridge spoke about changes to the Arts Student Employment Fund bylaws.

“In the past, the Arts Student Employment Fund has given each new professor in the Faculty of Arts $5,000, […] to spend on undergraduate casual research assistants’ [salaries] for the first three years,” Partridge explained.

While new executives will be allowed to campaign between February 13 and 23, with polling stations open from the 16th onwards, departmental elections and the referendum period will remain on the same schedule, to better allow departmental executives to finish the projects they’ve been working on.

He then explained how, in the past, after those three years, those funds seemed to “have just been going back to McGill, into their bank account, and we [had] nothing to gain from those funds.”

Patridge said this seems to have been happening for a “shockingly long time,” and since those losses have been discovered, a great deal of that money has been recovered.

In addition to amendments to ASEF allocations and working with Associate Dean Engle-Warnick (Research and Graduate Studies) over the last nine months, Patridge says he’s been working on a proposal to make the ASEF “one general fund.” This fund would employ people at the discretion of a committee, headed by the Dean of Arts, which would include four student members.

Patridge said this seems to have been happening for a “shockingly long time,” and since those losses have been discovered, a great deal of that money has been recovered.

Partridge highlighted that under the new proposal, AUS would allocate money twice a year, once in November, and once in February. Eventually, however, AUS would reclaim money that wasn’t spent to benefit other professors. Partridge and the Speaker then invited people to discuss this proposal before it eventually makes its way to Council in the coming weeks.

The post AUS holds first Council of 2017 appeared first on The McGill Daily.