Fortier also brought up the conflict between Canada and Saudi Arabia arising from a Twitter dispute between Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the subsequent effect it has had on students, particularly on postdoctoral fellows and graduate students at the University. Fortier stated that approximately 350 McGill students were forced to return to their country following the declaration from the Saudi Kingdom.

In addition, Fortier announced that McGill and other universities up in the Bureau de coopération interuniversitaire (BCI) have scheduled meetings with the leadership of all political parties in preparation for the upcoming Quebec elections on October 1. Fortier stressed the importance of this meeting, saying that the universities will “do our work to put on the agenda the important role that higher education plays in this province.”

The central topic of the Senate meeting revolved around the motion set forth by Professor and senator Gregory Mikkelson, an associate professor in the School of Environment and the Department of Philosophy, regarding the possibility of McGill fully divesting from all fossil fuel companies.

In May 2018, the Steering Committee reviewed Professor Mikkelson’s motion and agreed to defer the question of divestment to the Senate during the September meeting. The Committee then decided to propose their own motion inquiring into whether Senate members believe it to be “necessary or desirable to express an opinion on a matter that has been considered by the Board [of Governors] (BoG),” and whether it was within their responsibilities as a Senate.

“ This is a matter that is both outside the authority and confidence of the Senate” said Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) Christopher Manfredi. He did not believe Senate should hear the issue of divest “because there already exists a clear mechanism in the Board’s own procedures through which members of the McGill community can bring this matter to the Board’s attention.” He continued, “I’d argue that action by the Senate is undesirable because it would violate a fundamental aspect of the division of authority on which the bicameral nature of the university’s governing structure depends.”

In an interview with the Daily, Jed Lenetsky, one of the chief organizers of Divest McGill said, “I think the overwhelming interest in the vote and in the issue, and […] also the passion that so many people had about this issue” make it important for the motion to be brought to the Senate. Lenetsky also spoke of McGill’s past instances of divestment, including McGill’s apartheid divestment, which was carried out in Senate. “Senate does have a historic role in these discussions at McGill […] Given that the Senate is a larger, more diverse body and [its] stronger connection to the McGill community it definitely made sense for the Senate to step in,” explained Lenetsky.

After many questions and comments regarding whether this motion proposed by the Committee was to be applied to all future issues or topics, Professor Mikkelson read the motion. Citing three circumstances over the past decades in which McGill chose to divest from problematic investments, the motion urges the current Senate to follow suit. McGill divested from South African companies, including fossil fuel corporations in 1985, and then again during the 2000’s from corporations doing business in Myanmar, as well as from tobacco companies in 2007. Mikkelson urged the university to reconsider their “current policy of investing endowment funds in fossil fuel corporations.”

Mikkelson expressed his desire for the board to go into more detail into how divestment should be executed at McGill once the motion passed. Important questions that need to be answered, such as the feasible time frame for divesting, were the subject of his questioning. Mikkelson also brought up more logistical issues, like whether or not McGill should divest immediately, or start with a subset like the University of California system, who are now selling off all coal and tar sand stocks.

McGill is among many universities in Canada that have not yet divested; the University of Laval being the only university in the country which has committed to divestment. During the meeting, Mikkelson pointed out that McGill currently invests in 29 corporations, nine of which are in coal, and eight of which are in tar sands.

“In the Canadian context it’s especially important for public institutions to insist on targeting both ends of our fossil-fuel problem, […] the consumption end by working toward carbon neutrality, and the production end through our investment policy,” stated the Senator.

“[In the winter 2015 semester] [Canadian financial magazine]Corporate Knights came out with a study showing that if the Board had divested when students first asked them to and re-invested the money in greener stocks the university already owned, McGill would have made a profit of $40 million dollars,” Mikkelson pointed out.

While McGill as a university has not yet pledged to divest, the issue of divesting brought to the Board’s Committee to Advice on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR) initially in 2013 by Divest McGill, is strongly endorsed by the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), the Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS), the McGill Association of University Teachers (MAUT), and the faculties of Arts, Law, and Environment.

Fortier, who sits on the Investment Committee, was asked if the motion passing in Senate would incite the Board to take any definitive action. She said that it would, and that she “[thinks] it is not accurate to say that the Board is not concerned, […] in fact our investment practices and policy have very much focused on these questions.” Fortier continued, “The Board now has a mandate in sustainability. […] [We] are not ignorant to these issues.”

Another Senator weighed in on the discussion, pointing out the reality of investment. Senator Bouchon explained, “we don’t control the companies in which [our managers] invest and in some of the investments we have to lock in those investments for five or ten years, so even if we decide tomorrow to divest we won’t see the impact [soon].”

The motion was subject to a last minute amendment in its wording, altering the original intention of forcing the Senate to create a committee on outlining how to divest, to one that has the Senate simply advising the BoG to divest from all fossil fuel companies.

Lenetsky explained what he believed the passing of this motion meant in the broader scheme of divestment at McGill. “The main significance is that it really showed how out of touch the BoG’s decision was in terms of where the McGill community is at on this issue,” he told The Daily. “If anything we’re more invigorated to do whatever it takes to make the will of the McGill community manifest itself in the BoG deciding on divestment. […] We have never had more of a community backing behind us.”

The post McGill one step closer to divestment appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In July 2018, McGill University’s Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy (GSVP) Report was released to the public following a series of related events over the past year: the implementation of Bill 151, the open letter drafted by former Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) VP External Connor Spencer, Coordinator of mobilization for AVEQ Kristen Perry, and Co-Founder and National Chair of Our Turn.

The writers of the GSVP report are Caitlin Salvino, the coordinator, with Bee Khaleeli and Priya Dube, acting as advisors for the report. The report breaks down the history and continued advocacy of gendered and sexual assault and violence at McGill as well as recommendations to the administration to integrate into the GSVP. Over the last two years at McGill, there have been many publicized gendered and sexual misconduct and assault allegations. Allegations against VP External David Aird and former SSMU President Ben Ger arose in early 2017, leading to their resignations. In addition, sexual misconduct allegations were made against Assistant Professor Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim by activist group Zero Tolerance last fall. These events led to a student walkout last April, and the drafting of this report.

On May 10, 2018, the Provost and Vice-Principal Professor Christopher P. Manfredi, also sent out an email to McGill students, faculty, and staff introducing the new Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Teaching Staff-Student Intimate Relationships headed by Chair, Sinead Hunt. The Committee is in charge of gathering online testimony where students and staff can either submit their personal opinions, or discuss their own lived experience(s) of sexual violence and assault which will be sent to the Chair. The committee is fairly confidential, due to it technically being under the McGill Senate, as a result the transparency of its progress is limited. However, a final report of the Committee’s work will be produced and shared publicly sometime during December 2018.

The Committee is in charge of gathering online testimony where students and staff can either submit their personal opinions, or discuss their own lived experience(s) of sexual violence and assault which will be sent to the Chair.

In addition to the Chair, the Committee is composed of three members of the academic staff, Professor Debra Titone (Psychology, faculty of Science), Professor Jean-Jacques Lebrun (Medicine, faculty of Medicine), and Professor Brian Lewis (History and Classical Studies, faculty of Arts). There are also three students, Safina Adatia (Medicine), Bee Khaleeli (Arts), Naomi Vingron (PhD program in Psychology) as well as two alternate student members who may substitute for a student member during Committee meetings.

Manfredi explained that until the work of the Ad Hoc committee is complete, the Guidelines on Intimate Relationships between Teaching Staff and Students, a more detailed draft of existing regulations and policies, would continue to be in place as the working policy at McGill. But this may still lead to some issues, as report advisor and student representative on the committee Bee Khaleeli said in a phone interview with the Daily: “the McGill Sexual Violence Policy it says that a relationship between a professor and their student is non-consensual but that isn’t necessarily [made clear] across the board and in other McGill policies […] [we need to be] explicit in what we expect from people”.

Khaleeli also explained that although the committee members are “not very representative of […] the people who are [generally] more vulnerable to sexual violence and more vulnerable to the abuses of power that produce the types of violence that this committee [typically] deal with” there is a high level of ‘consciousness’. The GSVP report emphasizes the importance of acknowledging that people of colour as well as those who identify as non-binary have experiences with sexual violence which oftentimes go unrecognized.

“I think that it’s very regrettable that the committee is a little bit more homogenous [but] I think that there is a consciousness [of this reality internally].”*

The report includes recommendations in terms of training members of the McGill community in “general anti-sexual violence training,” “in depth disclosure and investigation training,” as well as “training for members of the GSVP Committee.”

“I think that it’s very regrettable that the committee is a little bit more homogenous [but] I think that there is a consciousness [of this reality internally].”*

Khaleeli, the implementation coordinator of these training sessions, is also in charge of drafting the policy of training, as well as conducting “pilot sessions” with members of legislative counsel and SSMU executive members. Currently, only SSMU employees including members of the Board of Directors, and members of the legislative counsel are mandated to undergo training; however, there is a hope that in the upcoming year, training will be required for either five members or fifty percent of a club’s membership of all SSMU clubs and services.

The training sessions currently scheduled for this year will be approximately one and a half hour workshops that will be “very interactive because I think that it’s always more valuable to do a dialogue based peer to peer [interaction] rather than just lectur[ing] at someone,” says Khaleeli. These workshops will focus on “broadly defining sexual and gendered violence on a wider spectrum of what race culture produces and contextualizing that [with] various forms of oppression […] like racism, transphobia, transmisogyny, class relations.”

“It’s very much like a collaborative workshop […] just because I find that otherwise people don’t really gain as much […] it’s always good when people are producing the answers themselves,” explained Khaleeli.

Priya Dube also expressed a hopefulness about the training sessions. “I’m most hopeful about the bystander intervention component of the training process because then it creates a community of accountability where everybody participating in these spaces [whether it be] in a club be it [during] orientation week be it in a classroom be it in a study group […] you have become a part of a community of accountability.”

Bystander intervention, says Dube, is “the idea that we are all part of a broader community and everybody should be caring for one another and if you see something wrong and even if it’s not your friend and you don’t know that person you can tell right from wrong you’re a moral being who has that conscience [and] you should take action because of you don’t then who will.”

“[bystander intervention] creates a community of accountability where everybody participating in these spaces [whether it be] in a club be it [during] orientation week be it in a classroom be it in a study group you have become a part of a community of accountability.”

While the creation of the Committee, as well as the establishment of the Office for Sexual VIolence Response, Support, and Education (OSVRSE) in March 2018, are important responses from the McGill administration as a result of last year’s events, both Khaleeli and Dube expressed the importance of further change.

“I think often it’s easy to feel like ‘oh this Committee happened so there has been an administrative solution so we are good’ but I think something that’s going to come out of this is also we cannot just produce a report with recommendations […] it needs to be received and taken into account and […] subsequent work needs to be done [and] needs to be identified,” says Khaleeli.

Dube explained how there is hope that more people in the McGill community will become involved in advocating for change with how sexual assault is currently handled at McGill.

“What was exceptionally interesting to me was how many people came out the day of the walkout [and who] did not participate in anything else and even though that showed solidarity and support and [was] very important I just wish that the community at large would make use of the spaces and channels available to them to actually advocate and make concrete changes and not just take a Snapchat about walking out of class.”

Dube went on to explain that “one of the three pillars of the report like support report and advocacy so the advocacy portion has an Our Turn Task Force it’s whole point is to educate raise awareness not only about the policy but about prevention measures [and] support measures really grassroots taking more action and I think that’ll give more opportunities to people to engage and be involved.”

“I just wish that the community at large would make use of the spaces and channels available to them to actually advocate and make concrete changes and not just take a Snapchat about walking out of class.”

“Ultimately I think it comes down to the people in the positions of power themselves” Dube continued, “[and these people] having the willingness to take a survivor-centric approach rather than a scandal-minimization approach so it’s a culture change that’s required.”

*original quote has been shortened to preserve confidentiality

Statement of Retraction: In the original version of this article, published September 4, 2018, it was stated that “Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim […] was accused of sexual assault this past July.” While Assistant Professor Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim has not been charged with, or legally accused of, assault, there have been serious allegations of sexual misconduct made against him. It is important to us to use accurate language while supporting survivors and holding abusers accountable.

The post “Survivor-centric approach” must come first appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Open Door, a drop-in centre which provides services to homeless and low-income people located in St. Stephen’s Anglican Church, is scheduled to relocate to Notre-Dame-de-la-Salette in Milton Park near the end of October. The shelter, which was started in 1988 and has been operating for the past thirty years, was recently sold to a condominium developer which is forcing The Open Door to move locations. According to its website, The Open Door helps between 1800 and 2200 people per month, some of those people being either regular, occasional, or one-time visitors. The center is open every day from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday to Friday but there are hopes that the new move will help facilitate an extension of the hours the centre is open during the day.

The Open Door provides several services for it’s visitors. They cater to “immediate needs” offering breakfast and full course meals from the morning until its closing time, as well as a clothing depot, and the services of a retired nurse who works on site every operating day. It also provides visitors with hair cuts every Friday, a laundry room, a free phone line, free eye glasses, spiritual counselling, as well as a worship team which engages people with live music as part of its goal to “build up the self worth” of those staying at The Open Door.

In an interview with the Daily, David Chapman, the director of The Open Door, explained that one of the unique aspects of The Open Door is that “we also have a policy where if we know that someone’s working through a trauma and they’re really at their wit’s end we will make it so that the rest of the community adapts themselves to that person.”

To put it another way, says Chapman, “it’s the only place in the city of Montreal where you can come in and scream and yell for 25 minutes […] if we know that someone has just lost a loved one or who is at their wit’s end we’ll make a way [for them to work through their trauma].” There is a psychologist who comes in and meets with people individually.

The Open Door does not have an emission policy. While the centre is not technically a wet shelter, as they do not serve alcohol to visitors, it does admit people who are highly intoxicated and provide them with the same services. At larger centres, if someone is visibly intoxicated, they are not allowed in, explained Chapman.

“we also have a policy where if we know that someone’s working through a trauma and they’re really at their wit’s end we will make it so that the rest of the community adapts themselves to that person.”

In terms of reintegration into society, The Open Door has a Job Search Centre which helps people with writing cover letters and resumes, and which also has volunteers who help search databases for temporary, seasonal, and part time jobs. A training program in conjunction with Emploi Quebec which provides an income increase to participants; however, Chapman explained that this program is not usually as helpful in practice than it is in theory. Many of these applications require extensive paperwork and identification, which does not take into account the difficulty of the situations of many of those who are homeless, where many of them have had their identification paperwork stolen.

Chapman says that it is an easier process for many of those who are homeless to apply to jobs at The Open Door itself. The whole center is run by the homeless community themselves including the laundry service, the kitchen, and the front desk. This aspect, explains Chapman, breaks down categories of volunteer, employee, and visitors. The Open Door operates with the idea of “the homeless serving the homeless.”

James, a volunteer with The Open Door explained to the Daily how he started off helping out at the centre by doing his community hours there from November 2017 to February 2018 before becoming a full-time volunteer in March 2018.

The Open Door operates with the idea of “the homeless serving the homeless.”

“I was having a lot of problems with my back […] I had an infection from drug use and it resulted in surgery […] so I was having a hard time walking so I figured if I could come here and do my community service it would be easier when I finished that I decided to stay on because […] Zack and David who were running the place […] they’re authentic [in what they say and do] and it really inspired me and I started feeling really good about being here with them and learning from them,” said James.

“I stayed on as a volunteer here and I just recently applied for a grant so that the government would supply my wages and they agreed to it so I’ll be able to stay on […] I want to stay on for as long as possible.”

Chapman also explained how many people of Inuit background he has met at The Open Door come to Quebec from Northern Canada in order to obtain medical services and choose to stay in the province. However, due to the requirement of those who work in Quebec to speak French, many are unable to find permanent jobs. According to a document written by Donat Savoie and Sylvie Cornez, advisors to the Makivik Corporation (one of the partners of The Open Door), other reasons for migration include physical and sexual abuse, primarily of Inuit women.

Anna*, an Inuit woman staying at The Open Door, was one of the most recent visitors who was given a plane ticket back to her home community in Northern Canada, returning home after leaving an abusive relationship. Anna was one of the twelve visitors who was able to be flown back to her community, a program which Chapman provides for visitors who have experienced extensive hardship acclimating to life in Montreal.

The centre also has a housing program primarily for its Inuit visitors. In September 2016, The Open Door received approval from the Government of Canada’s federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy for a grant which enabled the center to house and support up to 16 Inuit men and women in a permanent housing location. As of April 30, 2017, ten individuals have been given housing.

In terms of its own housing, The Open Door has been operating in St. Stephen’s Anglican Church for the most part of the last 30 years. However, its move to the new location has its logistical as well as its emotional challenges. Many of the visitors of The Open Door have been living in Atwater and will find it difficult to get to the new location in Milton Park.

Kevin, a regular visitor to The Open Door explained to the Daily, “when they move I don’t know what these people in Atwater are going to do.. […] .unless they’re going to go all the way to Parc Avenue […] maybe they’ll be able to get a bus from here to go there.” For the first few months, The Open Door is planning to have volunteers waiting in Cabot Square near St. Stephen’s Church who will help people get on the metro to go to the new centre.

The new location is expected to also include essential renovations.

Chapman expressed some of his hopes for renovations in the new space, which included a commercial kitchen with walk-in fridge, laundry facilities, private offices for counselling, and a dedicated shop for the centre’s Soapstone Carving Program where Inuit peoples show Inuit peoples how to carve soapstone, a native cultural practice.

In the current location, “you can get clothes or get washing done […] the only thing they don’t have [which] they used to [have] and [which] the new one [will have] I think is a shower […] [currently there is also] only one bathroom […] and nine out of ten times you go to the bathroom there’s someone there,” says Kevin.

James also explained how the new space will also hopefully allow The Open Door to extend their hours in order to house more visitors during the day.

“These people are left out on the street […] then they get tickets for loitering and they get tickets for this and that but what do you expect them to do? If they had day centers to go to there would probably be a lot less loitering in the parks.”

Chapman explained that the new move has been in the works for the last two years, during which he has visited forty potential spaces for the new location. He has faced the same response: “Not here please…we like what you’re doing [but] not here please.”

“These people are left out on the street […] then they get tickets for loitering and they get tickets for this and that but what do you expect them to do? If they had day centers to go to there would probably be a lot less loitering in the parks.”

“When you’re a homeless center it’s actually quite complicated because no one really wants you in their neighborhood. Most people like the idea of having services for the homeless and having resources like intervention workers [who] take people to detox and rehab […] and access to healthcare and housing and this sort of thing but […] when it comes to actually having it in their neighborhood all of a sudden there’s a new spirit that emerges so […] this is something we have seen firsthand.”

Throughout its years of operation, The Open Door has received mixed responses from nearby residents. People have different reactions to the “exact same phenomenon”, says Chapman.

There are some people who think “‘here’s a complicated human problem called homelessness [and] we should pitch in and do something about it’ and they’ll come in and make soup and volunteer and [then] we’ll have others who simply complain about the inconvenience of it to their life.”

James, however, has another outlook to services to The Open Door. “I think [my favourite thing about volunteering here] is the people and the connections that I have it’s being able to help people…I go home at night and I feel good”

There are some people who think “‘here’s a complicated human problem called homelessness [and] we should pitch in and do something about it’ and they’ll come in and make soup and volunteer and [then] we’ll have others who simply complain about the inconvenience of it to their life.”

“You really realize the importance of relationships because you never know what’s going to happen…twenty-four hours can change a lot.”

*name has been changed to preserve anonymity

The post The Open Door shelter awaits relocation this October appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On Tuesday, April 17 the executive members of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) and Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) sent a letter via email to Quebec’s Minister of Higher Education, Hélène David, reporting McGill University’s failure to uphold the mandates of Bill 151. Bill 151 mandates that, “higher education institutions must, before 1 January 2019, adopt a policy to prevent and fight sexual violence” and “specifies the procedure for developing, disseminating and reviewing the policy and requires institutions to report on its application in accordance with stated parameters.”

The open letter to Madame David asks the Minister to open an “external investigation on the handling of complaints against academic staff by the Dean’s office over the last five years.” SSMU and PGSS write that this request follows the circulation of SSMU’s open letter, signed by over 2,300 students as well as around 100 student groups and organizations, which was released earlier this month on April 4 and followed by a student walk-out co-conducted by SSMU and the Concordia Student Union (CSU) on April 11.

SSMU and PGSS wrote that “[d]uring the consultations on Bill 151, we expressed our concern: without accountability mechanisms supported by your cabinet, we have no way of ensuring that our institutions respect their own policies, or the law itself.” The McGill Daily spoke with SSMU VP External, Connor Spencer, earlier this year regarding gaps in Bill 151 and its policies.

In the letter, Madame David is urged to uphold Chapter IV of the Bill entitled “Surveillance and Accompanying Measures,” which states that “the Minister’s Office has the ability to impose surveillance and monitoring measures…on institutions that do not enforce the provisions of Bill 151.”

SSMU and PGSS wrote that “[d]uring the consultations on Bill 151, we expressed our concern: without accountability mechanisms supported by your cabinet, we have no way of ensuring that our institutions respect their own policies, or the law itself.”

SSMU and PGSS further cite Section 17 of Chapter 4, which states: “If an educational institution fails to comply with its obligations under this Act, the Minister may, at the institution’s expense, cause those obligations to be performed by a person the Minister designates.”

The email also contained an attachment with a letter from 148 faculty members of McGill University, expressing support for SSMU’s Open Letter.. In the letter, the undersigned members of faculty wrote, “As teachers, we have a commitment to upholding a learning environment where students feel safe, supported, and able to challenge themselves. It would be in violation of this duty for us not to add our voices to those of the students. We believe that sexual relationships between students and faculty who are in a position to influence their academic and professional progress should be banned.”

The letter further states that the “lack of transparency concerning how complaints are handled against faculty members who abuse their positions of power in this way creates a toxic work and learning environment, and often places an invisible burden on other faculty members.”

The signatories include faculty members from the departments of World Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, History, Political Science, Philosophy, Psychology, departments which the student open letter specifically addressed as having certain faculty members who are known to be perpetrators of sexual violence towards students. However, the letter also includes the signatures of faculty members from other departments such as Medicine, Mathematics, Chemistry, Social Work, Education, Environment, and Law.

“I’m here standing in solidarity with close to forty percent of students who have experienced some form of sexual violence at their time in university [a] large majority of them Black, Indigenous and racialized women, trans folk, and gender non-conforming people.” -Sophia Sahrane

Faculty members, like SSMU and PGSS, also call for the launch of an external investigation: “We believe it is not only important for McGill to launch the external investigation called for by the SSMU and the 2000+ individual students who signed the open letter, but to also publicly acknowledge the fact that this issue affects the entire McGill community and the university’s public reputation.”

The open letter to Minister David affirms the commitment of SSMU and PGSS in following through with this request and putting the thoughts and experiences of survivors of sexual violence at the forefront of the movement. “We are ready to meet you in person to discuss this problem in more detail, and we encourage you to put the voices of students and survivors of sexual abuse at the heart of all discussions about violence on campus,” the letter states.

In an interview with the McGill Daily, the VP External of SSMU, Connor Spencer, explained, “we also really need to intersectionalize those conversations […] a lot of the stories that have been getting media attention are the ones led by white women […] and it’s historically not been an issue that white women are leading on […] so there’s a lot of work that needs to be done on that level.”

During the walk-out, Sophia Sahrane, the Research and Education Coordinator of AVEQ, reiterated this point: “I’m here with you all today standing in solidarity with SSMU and the CSU [Concordia Student Union] with CASE [Concordia Association of Students in English] but more importantly I’m here standing in solidarity with close to forty percent of students who have experienced some form of sexual violence at their time in university [a] large majority of them Black, Indigenous and racialized women, trans folk, and gender non-conforming people.”

In a joint interview with CKUT and the McGill Daily, Spencer also explained the nature of McGill being used as an example in the drafting process of Bill 151.

“We are ready to meet you in person to discuss this problem in more detail, and we encourage you to put the voices of students and survivors of sexual abuse at the heart of all discussions about violence on campus,” the letter states.

During consultations regarding the drafting of the Bill, McGill students as well as a McGill administrator in one case, explained to Minister David how certain mandates and mechanisms of Bill 151 failed at McGill, such as the absence of a definite timeline for the survivor whose report is being processed. Spencer said that the Minister responded to these accounts by saying that these McGill representatives should adopt a broader view of things, and not limit the discussion to McGill. Spencer counters, “we do need to talk about McGill and Concordia to see how these policies are working on the ground because there’s still […] that misconception that once we have a policy all the sexual violence goes away.”

“There needs to be accountability mechanisms through Bill 151, because the students don’t trust their institutions to uphold their policies, and the students [who] were telling [Minister David] […] were Concordia and McGill students who already had policies against sexual violence that were not working,” she explains.

“We do need to talk about McGill and Concordia to see how these policies are working on the ground because there’s still […] that misconception that once we have a policy all the sexual violence goes away.” -Connor Spencer

She continued, “I get upset a little bit when the first question [from the media] is always ‘what specifically did they do’ and the sensationalization […] around that. We need to focus on the fact that there […] are complaints processes that are supposed to help folks but instead are retraumatizing them and leaving them abandoned […] I’ve just lost too many friends to this complaint system now […] I know so many people who have dropped out or like stopped their academic careers completely […] because they could not come to this campus anymore. […] I just really don’t want that to keep happening.”

The post SSMU and PGSS call on Minister David to launch full investigation into McGill appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In November 2017 the minimum number of voting members required to be present at the GA for motions to implemented, or quorum, was increased to from 100 to 350 people through a motion to SSMU’s Board of Directors (BoD). The reason for the increase was supposedly “to prevent any vocal minority from unilaterally controlling and undermining democracy in GA votes in the future,” as explained by the McGill Tribune. Others have voiced concerns that the increase in quorum is unrealistic and would make the point of GAs irrelevant.If quorum is not reached, the motions move to SSMU’s Legislative Council, where 30 representatives from faculties vote on them

This term’s GA failed to meet quorum with only 65 people present. The meeting focused on the “Motion to Organize the Fight for Free Education and Cancellation of Student Debt” proposed by McGill’s Socialist Fightback, and on the “2018-2019 Executive Goals” of the newly elected SSMU representatives.

This term’s GA failed to meet quorum with only 65 people present.

The Free Education motion calls for the SSMU to build and support the ongoing campaign for free education and the cancellation of student debt under the responsibility of the Office of the Vice-President Student Affairs and support aone day student strike in the upcoming Fall 2018 term. This motion was proposed due to the frustration of students regarding increasing educational costs and the commitment of SSMU to work in conjunction with student movements in Quebec and across Canada.

The clause concerning free education was explained by Socialist Fightback to apply to Canadian students at the moment, as this effort is more attainable at the onset. Nevertheless, they believe in the solidarity of students in a collective effort to achieve free education beyond the borders of Canada.

The motion triggered debate.Andrew Figueiredo,student at McGill, and small group of students,argued against the motion. Figueiredo asked Socialist Fightback if they had spoken to government officials or if the strike and the motion as a whole which he called a “pipe dream” was proposed “out of the blue.” This question was repeatedly asked by these students in conjunction with questions as to why Socialist Fightback had not aimed their efforts at electing someone in the government to support the Free Education motion.

Socialist Fightback responded by saying that the best way to fight and sustain rights was through “mass action,” citing the 2012 student strikes as an example.The massive protests fought against the increase of tuition fees in the province were successful, showing that the government responded to “pressure,” not to their own accord according to club representatives. .

Other students asked if there was a firm fiscal policy in mind in order to organize funding for free education, to which a student said that provincial and national budget concerns are outside the scope of SSMU pointing that the motion was specifically aimed at showing solidarity in the fight for free education. The same group of students claimed it was not very difficult to apply for financial aid and other means to cover tuition.

Socialist Fightback responded by saying that the best way to fight and sustain rights was through “mass action,” citing the 2012 student strikes as an example.

A representative from Socialist Fightback responded to these comments claiming that having to go through a “means test”, which is a way of checking that a person qualifies for financial aid,was a degrading experience. He stated that he would love to discuss plans with the government if given the opportunity.

In response to comments made that the strike would disrupt class time and cause problems, the representative stated that the “whole point of a strike is that it is disruptive.”
When voted on, the Free Education motion passed by a two-thirds majority: it will be presented at the next legislative council meeting on Thursday, March 29.

A representative from Socialist Fightback responded to these comments claiming that having to go through a “means test”, which is a way of checking that a person qualifies for financial aid,was a degrading experience.

Next, newly elected SSMU President Tre Mansdoerfer presented the “2018-2019 SSMU Executive Goals” which included objectives to improve communications and partnerships with faculties, increase the transparency and accessibility of SSMU, and increase its social media presence. Mansdoerfer also explained his hopes to address equity concerns within SSMU by working with Equity Commissioners as the council for 2018-2019 is “predominantly white and male,” and enhance the interpersonal dynamics within the executive council.

This motion passed unanimously.

The 2017-2018 SSMU Executives also presented their annual reports regarding their accomplishments and what they hoped to pass on to the next executive members.

VP External Connor Spencer explained her role in supervising the campaign coordinator and her support for the SSMU campaigns McGill Against Austerity, Divest McGill, and Demilitarize McGill. Spencer has also dedicated much of her personal efforts towards improving sexual violence policies at McGill through attending discussions revolving around Bill 151, a sexual assault policy, passed by Quebec in December of 2017.

VP Finance Esteban Herpin also announced the movement of many clubs to a new building on 3501 Peel St. following the closure of the University Centre in March. A student asked Herpin about the reasons for which a building inaccessible to disabled students was bought without student consultation. Herpin, who took the position two months ago, responded that the decision was already proposed when he was consulted and that there are efforts being made to increase its accessibility.

The post Socialist Fightback expresses confidence in student solidarity for free education appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post Winter 2018 SSMU General Assembly Liveblog appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Since being taken from her home by the CBSA, Grandos has been held in the Laval Detention Centre, and a review hearing for her case occurred during the support rally. Results of the hearing, revealed later, declared that Granados will be deported back to Guatemala on March 27.

Carmelo Monge, a man involved in advocating for people without status in the Mexican community within Montreal, explained that “it is evident that […] there is a total discrimination […] for all the people who live without status […] like Mrs. Francineth Granados.”

“It is necessary that [people without status] live a life […] with all services [made available to them:] […] the service of education, […] health, […] [and] a secured job,” Monge stated.“We have the right to live with dignity. It is important for us to remain humane, and organize […] [in order to resist] this type of violence.”

Mary Foster, a community organizer for Solidarity Across Borders, explained that “the situation of Lucy is […] extremely […] disturbing.”

“The city of Montreal making this decision to call itself a sanctuary city, […] [but] since Lucy has been arrested the response [of the city legislators] has been, ‘that’s a federal matter, there’s nothing we can do,’” said Foster.

“If us as individuals here can do a lot, and can think of a lot of things to do, I think the city of Montreal, with all its wealth and all its power, can find a couple of things to do to stop Lucy’s deportation, and ensure that she’s released from detention.”

Foster explained how Granados filed a humanitarian application for permanent residence in order to regularize her status in Canada, after her refugee application was refused upon entering Montreal nine years ago. She has remained in Canada without documentation in order to support her three children who have grown up here.

“The reason this [seizure by the CBSA] happened to Lucy is because she was trying to regularize her status,” explained Foster, “and it seems to be because of that they started to look for her and track her down.”

A representative from the South Asian Women Community Center explained that “Lucy is a mother, and like a lot of parents, she will do whatever is needed to support her family and her children, even if it means […] embarking on a very long, dangerous journey to come here and find work to support her family, and then living the hardship of being considered illegal.”

“As a temporary worker,” she continued, “[Granados] is a worker who’s contributing to society and the economy of Canada, and we need to inform the Canadian state and demand that we are not expendable. The Canadian state and the Canadian economy would collapse without the work and the hard labor of people like Lucy Granados.”

The representative further explained that “immigration is used to exclude people, and to bring people who are considered beneficial because of their money, their skin color […] and so we are calling everyone to write to Prime Minister Trudeau […] that here is a mother who is here because of her children.”

“He should act now, as somebody who presents himself as representing Canada which likes to present itself as a bastion of law and order,” she elaborated, “and we need to tell Minister Hussen [Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship for the Government of Canada] this is violating Canadian law itself because Lucy has every right to be here, not only as a human being, but also under Canadian immigration law […] [as] she has filed a humanitarian application and she is entitled by current Canadian law to be here.”

She concluded by saying that the rally in support of Lucy is in order to “send a message to Lucy to say that we’re shouting through the walls of Guy-Favreau. We are here for you, we want you to be liberated, and we are sure that you will be joining us in our homes, in our arms, in Montreal again, outside the horrid walls of prison. So, Lucy, love and solidarity to you.”

The post Rally in solidarity with Lucy Granados appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Langri began the presentation by explaining the need to recognize Palestine and Canada as both occupied territories.

“In order to resist colonization abroad, we must first address how we are complicit in the continuous colonial process in Montreal,” explained Langri.

She established that although there is a “universal perception within university settings that we have entered the age of postcolonialism […] colonialism is not only alive but is thriving in the modern age” as exemplified by the occupation of both Palestine and Tibet.

The NGO Freedom House, which according to its website is “an annual comparative assessment of political rights and civil liberties,” ranks the political rights and civils rights of the occupied territory of Tibet at -2/40 and 3/60, those of the occupied West Bank at 6/40 and 24/60, and those for the occupied Gaza Strip at 3/40 and 9/60, respectively. In comparison, Canada is ranked at 40/40 for its political rights and 59/60 for its civil rights.

Portrayal of child prisoners

Langri compared the occupations of Tibet and Palestine first in terms of child prisoners held in both regions. The eleventh Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, a “high reincarnate Lama,” an important religious leader in Tibet, was recognized by the Dalai Lama on May 15, 1995 and was subsequently rejected by the Chinese government which “abducted both [the Panchen Lama] and his family,” explained Langri. Neither him nor his family have been heard of or seen since and no charges have been exposed nor have any trials have been held.

“[The Panchen Lama] was […] removed from Canada’s list of prisoners last year” which is a list of different prisoners compiled by Canada used in order to lobby against certain countries, stated Langri. “The list that was […] for China […] omitted the Panchen Lama so clearly China’s winning here since [Canada doesn’t] remember him anymore.”

This example was juxtaposed with the situation of Ahed Tamimi, a sixteen-year old child prisoner facing eight months in prison after slapping an Israeli soldier who trespassed onto her home in the occupied West Bank, and consequently is being tried in an Israeli military court.

“Because Tammi is portrayed as an adult in mass media and […] the Panchen Lama’s identity as a tuku […] a high reincarnate Lama […] are the forefront of any discussion involving these two people they are not allowed to exist as children in the popular psyche,” elaborated Langri.

“It’s important to talk about them even if they’re politicized so we can’t let the fact that […] many are perceived as being […] very controversial figure[s] […] to stop us from talking about them because this politicization does not [take away from] their childhood.”

Ecology of occupied land

Langri also discussed the concept of China’s “greenwashing” of the occupation in Tibet. Greenwashing is “the act of packaging something to make it seem eco-friendly and thus more acceptable to mainstream media,” she explained. This concept is part of China’s “Ecological Migration Scheme” which displaces Tibetan nomadic families and relocates them to “ghettos called ‘Socialist New Villages’.” These nomadic inhabitants do not have skills for the labor market, are not offered education, and face an increased living cost, Langri explained.

“What’s ironic is that […] the Food and Agricultural Organization of the U.N. has recognized the role that pastoralists play in preserving the environment so in terms of Tibet the nomads […] were very crucial in maintaining […] soil carbon because the animal’s waste added nutrients to the soil […] maintaining fertility and also the hooves would aerate the soil by pressing in seeds and trampling dead plants.”

This concept of ecological manifestation of colonialist occupation is also present in Palestine. Langri used the example of the establishment of the “South Africa Forest,” a tree-planting initiative by the Jewish National Fund in the destroyed Palestinian village of Lubya published in article by Heidi Grunebaum.

“By using nature against indigenous people we can […] erase their narratives,” said Langri.

“Changing the land [of native peoples] physically […] translates into […] [a change in the] conception of national homelands.”

Apoliticism of traditional symbols

Langri explained how “we as a consumer culture really enjoy indigenous aesthetics but that means on the one hand as we consume them we render them apolitical.” She explained how in the case of Tibet, “Tibetan struggles [are] consistently erased from news struggles and has been substituted with this fascination for the Dalai Lama [the spiritual leader of Tibet] as a media personality.”

“As a society we are charmed by him but we don’t want to engage in Tibetan issues because they’re not very savory.”

For example, the use of Tibetan prayer flags, flags which contain mantras which are believed to blow in the wind and spread compassion and peace and the usage of the keffiyeh, a symbol of Palestinian nationalism and protest against Israeli occupation, as decoration and fashionable pieces is testament to a “love for Tibetan and Palestinian aesthetics but [a lack of] […] love for the people themselves.”

Tourism as a “tool of occupation”

In terms of tourism, Langri discussed how “tourism is in fact the tool of occupation.” She explained how in the case of Palestine, Birthright trips to Israel which are offered to Jewish young adults ages 18-32 “erase all traces of the land’s original […] inhabitants.” These trips represent an “unequal spreading of […] touristic resources” because Palestinian refugees cannot return to their homeland in the regions of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Israel’s prevention of Palestinians from returning to their homeland is parallel to China’s prohibition of movement for Tibetans even though China advocates for tourism within Tibet. All Tibetan passports have been confiscated by the Chinese government and only government-affiliated individuals are offered “semi-official public affairs passports,” Langri explained. Additionally, traditional Tibetan “sky burials,” a religious and sacred Tibetan custom, are being advertised as a tourist attraction and are being photographed and recorded.

Mobilization

Anna* a student who attended the workshop explained that “Tibet has now officially stopped requesting to be an independent nation and now wants […] political recognition […] these rights are inscribed in the Chinese constitutions and so it’s simply asking that China now respect these rights to autonomy […] but they’re not [upholding these rights] […] [and] in fact nothing is really being respected on paper.”

“That’s […] the political way that we could mobilize,” Anna continued. “Canada for example hasn’t taken a stance […] with regards to recognizing Tibet’s desire to […] have these autonomy rights respected and that’s something that the [Canada Tibet Committee] tries to do […] to [get] the Canadian government to take a stance.”

The post Workshop held on Tibet and Palestine appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Treatment of child prisoners

“Israel does not differentiate between the child, the elderly, the women,” said Omar Ben Ali, a speaker and Palestinian refugee participating in the event. “In the eyes of the Israeli occupation, every Palestinian is an enemy. Every Palestinian must be punished.”

Ben Ali, who is from the Jenin region of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, is currently stateless because of the Canadian government’s refusal to recognize his claimed refugee status.

Ben Ali emphasized that the Ahed Tamimi case is not an isolated incident, as all Palestinians under occupation, including his wife and children in Palestine, are at risk of violence.

“When I see Ahed al-Tamimi, I see five daughters of mine”, said Ben Ali. “Every second, I have a fear that my daughter will be subjected to what Ahed al-Tamimi is subjected to. Not just my daughters, but […] all Palestinian children.”

According to the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, approximately 700 children are put on trial in military courts each year. Recent cases include the detainment of Abdel-Raouf al-Bilawi and Razan Abu Sal, two 13-year-olds, who were sentenced to four months in prison in January this year for throwing stones at occupation forces. They are reportedly the youngest Palestinian prisoners to date, and the youngest prisoners in the world.

Both al-Bilawi and Abu Sal live in the occupied West Bank, like the Tamimi family members, where Human Rights Watch have documented multiple cases of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) being physically abusive, and where the Tel Aviv based Haaretz has reported on allegations of IDF officers purposefully disabling Palestinian youth.

“With Ahed Tamimi we have a young person who happened to be born Palestinian, who happened to be born into occupation of her land, who happened to be born into the resistance struggle of her people for freedom and justice,” said Dolores Chew, another speaker at the event told the audience.

In Israel, there are two distinct legal systems in operation: the civilian legal system applied to Israeli citizens and a military court system applied to the Palestinian population.

According to the prisoners rights group Addameer, there are currently 350 Palestinian children in Israeli detention. According to a study published on October 2017 by Israeli rights groups HaMoked and B’tselem, the Israel Prison Service (IPS) incarcerates Palestinian youth under harsh conditions, such as night interrogations without the presence of a guardian or a legal counsellor. The report states that 91 per cent of interviewed minors were arrested at night, and minors were not made aware of their right to remain silent, or their rights to counsel. Such detainment is unlawful: Israeli law prohibits night interrogations.

Moreover, Israel, as a signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991, is obliged to uphold international juvenile justice standards which mandates that “[t]he arrest, detention, or imprisonment of a child […] shall be used only as a measure of last resort.”

Chew noted that while minors are unlawfully arrested and interrogated, “soldiers […] have authority from the Israeli state to invade homes regularly, vandalize the contents, destroy food, terrorize children asleep in their beds and shoot them in the head. All this with absolute impunity.”

A report published by Breaking the Silence, a non governmental organization (NGO) run by former Israeli soldiers, mentioned the discretion given to soldiers to open-fire and identify targets, which led to massive casualties of unarmed Palestinians.

“It is the Israeli state declaring ‘we can do this to you and get away with it’,” said Chew.

“With Ahed Tamimi we have a young person who happened to be born Palestinian, who happened to be born into occupation of her land, who happened to be born into the resistance struggle of her people for freedom and justice”

Right to resist

This state-sponsored military campaign on Gaza operates in areas which are legally under Palestinian authority. Most of the attacks perpetuate the persecution of Palestinian children in villages within the West Bank.

The Palestinian West Bank is currently separated into three administrative divisions: Areas A, B, and C. Each division operates under varied levels of civil control by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israeli occupation forces. Areas A and B comprise respectively of only 18 and 22 percent of the West Bank, and are supposed to be administered under the PA. The remaining 60 per cent, Area C, is occupied by Israeli forces, and is considered to be illegally administered under international law. Nabi Saleh, the village where the Tamimi family resides, is part of the former division under PA control. However, the Israeli state maintains de facto authority and governance through raids conducted by Israeli soldiers to arrest and detain Palestinians. Chew stated that Palestinians under the occupation have the right to resist these actions.

“The […] Zionist state of Israel flagrantly violates international law,” she said. “The occupation of Palestine is the longest military occupation in modern history. Under international law, people under occupation have a right to resist. Therefore what Ahed and other Palestinians do to resist occupation is their legitimate right under international law.”

*Anna, a Palestinian student present at the rally told the Daily in an interview, “International law grants Tamimi, and many other Palestinian activists placed under PA division control the right to legally resist the presence of Israeli soldiers […] on their land. It is important to distinguish ‘aggression’ from ‘legal resistance against colonialism.’”

According to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, the definition of aggression does not “prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence […] particularly [of] peoples under colonials and racist regimes […] nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support.” Moreover, the UN has recognised the right for occupied populations to use legitimate armed force to see “liberation from colonial and foreign domination” in numerous occasions.

“The Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegal, and has always been colonial,” said Anna, referring to the Israeli state’s decision not to withdraw from Palestine in 1967 despite a unanimous decree of the UN Security Council to adopt Resolution 242, which called for the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied.”

Under international law, people under occupation have a right to resist. Therefore what Ahed and other Palestinians do to resist occupation is their legitimate right under international law.”

Inaction from the international community

“As Western governments are supporting the Israeli occupation, what will become of us?” asked Ali. Ali claimed refugee status on arrival in Canada almost ten years ago, a status which has been denied despite being unable to return to Palestine due to the occupation. He subsequently applied for immigration status under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, but that however was too refused.

One of the speakers, Andrew Welsh pointed out that Canada currently does not recognize the existence of a Palestinian state.

“It is not a coincidence that in 2016, the Trudeau government passed a motion condemning the BDS [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions] movement,” said Welsh.

In February 2016, Canada’s Parliament passed a motion condemning the BDS movement, a grassroots movement seeking a peaceful resolution to the Israeli occupation.

“We need to be in solidarity, with those that are fed up,” said Welsh in French. “Fed up by the lies of the government, that claims to have no money to finance the creation of jobs, but has the money to build new weapons. Canada is going to increase its military budget by 70 percent. A part of this budget will go in the support of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.”

Anna explained in an interview to The Daily how the extent of apathy of Palestinian human rights is reflected in the international responses towards cases like Tamimi’s.

Anna stated that the content and amount of information, or lack thereof, published in Western news sources such as the New York Times and Newsweek further reflects the inaction of the international community.

She explained how, for example, Tamimi’s trial was postponed from January 31 to February 6 and finally to February 13, but “Western news sources have, for the most part, refrained from publishing the news of this postponement.” Anna illustrated her point by noting how an article published by the New York Times (NYT) on February 4 regarding the change of date of the trial was taken down.

In an article published in December 22, 2017, the NYT included the perspectives of several Israeli figures, such as Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, a Jewish research and education institute, who stated that “when you see yourself as under permanent siege, your greatest fear is the loss of deterrence.” However, Anna told the Daily that this statement does not reflect the experiences of Palestinians because “Israeli occupation forces control the movement of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, and Palestinians are thus the people under siege.”

Active support and worldwide protest

“For those of us living at a great physical distance from Palestine where we don’t experience the heel of a military boot on our necks,” stated Chew, “it might have seemed that things were relatively quiet, relatively peaceful but the […] [Israeli airstrikes] on Gaza just a few hours ago are a reminder that this is a state of continuing war and civilians including children are the targets.”

On the day of the rally, the Israeli military carried out multiple strikes overnight in the Gaza strip, killing two Palestinians in an Israeli tank fire. The same day, two Palestinian teenagers were killed near Rafah, the southern region of the border, for approaching the border in an allegedly “suspicious manner.”

“We need to make people aware that even when Palestine drops out of the news for us over here, Palestinian people have to live the daily indignities of occupation,” continued Chew.
“You are the ones who have to stand for the Palestinians,” continued Ali, echoing Chew’s words and stressing the importance of international solidarity. “Because even Palestine’s children no longer trust in these [Western] governments.”

“Palestine’s children only call for the people, those who are free all over the world,” said Chew, quoting resistance movements such as “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS),” which have been “called for by the people of Palestine.”

“We need to make people aware that even when Palestine drops out of the news for us over here, Palestinian people have to live the daily indignities of occupation”

BDS was formally nominated for the a Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian parliamentarian Bjornar Moxnes, backed by the support of his party, the Rødt (Red) Party. BDS is currently active in Montreal among other resistance groups such as Tadamon, an organization in support of Palestinian human rights.

“We must continue the pressure, there is an end in sight. […] Ahed, we send you our love and deepest solidarity,” concluded Chew.

*Names changed to preserve anonymity.

The post Public expresses outrage at Ahed Tamimi trial appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Gretel Kahn, the McGill Drama Festival Coordinator, said in an interview with The Daily: “The theatre was seized from us on Monday. […] we didn’t know what we were going to do. […] We still had the hope that they [were] going to fix whatever was wrong with the theatre, […] but […] yesterday we [found] out that we were going to do [the play] [in the SSMU cafeteria].” Kahn said that executives found out that day when they went to the office only to find the locks being changed.

“Yesterday we [found] out that we were going to do [the play] [in the SSMU cafeteria].”

The Players Theatre holds the McGill Drama Festival annually, showcasing “entirely student-written, -directed, -produced, and -performed shows on campus.” The event is usually held between March and April; however, Kahn stated that she purposely scheduled the festival in February this year in order to work within the restrictions of the SSMU building closure.

In October of last year, McGill announced the closure of the University Centre building, which was scheduled to start in March 2018. The closure is due to repairs needed on the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system, the rebuilding of the electrical system, and asbestos abasement, among other repairs.

Jemark Earle, SSMU’s VP Student Life, stated to The Daily in an interview that all student organizations were notified of the building closure in July 2017, which despite being a fairly short notice, gave groups such as the Players Theatre enough time to schedule their showtimes accordingly. Earle says that an email notifying organizations was sent out “to let [all McGill organizations ] know that someone is going to be entering their space to conduct tests [on the condition of the space] not that […] it could possibly result in [their space being closed down].”

Asbestos contamination

Ahead of the building repairs, environmental companies have tested locations within SSMU to see where asbestos is concentrated and whether certain rooms have been “disturbed.” The term “disturbed” refers to when the toxic fibers of asbestos are released into the air, contaminating not only the location, but the contents of the location.

The Players Theatre, situated in room 309 on the third floor of SSMU, was found to be disturbed and subsequently closed off to the public, as well as members of the Players Theatre by the General Manager of SSMU, Ryan Hughes.

In an interview, Earle stated that, “as soon as we know or are aware of anything like [rooms being disturbed] we are going to close down the area. We don’t want to put any of our students or people at risk. That’s not what we’re going to do.”

“We don’t want to put any of our students or people at risk. That’s not what we’re going to do.”

Due to the closure of the theatre, set pieces and costumes left within the room were deemed “disturbed.” Therefore, cast and crew were unable to access much of the equipment essential to their performance and set up, such as sound and light equipment and light cues used to illuminate the stage.

Many personal items, including instruments belonging to students in the Faculty of Music were also left in the room. When asked by the Daily how the administration will respond to the loss of such belongings, Earle said that, “McGill’s supposed to cover the cleaning cost right now […] and so I would assume that McGill would [compensate] students for everything that they […] lost if it’s not […] recoverable or even if it is recoverable.”

According to both Kahn and Earle, SSMU’s Security Supervisor Wallace Sealy was immediately in communication with the Players Theatre, and helped them with the relocation of the space for their upcoming performances.

Earle also said to The McGill Daily that he and Hughes spent all of this past Monday through Thursday trying to coordinate with Concordia University and other theatres within Montreal, in order to secure a space. They also tried working with McGill’s Savoy Society because the Society have Moyse Hall booked. However, Earle and Hughes were ultimately not able to find an alternative place for the performance.

The SSMU cafeteria was secured and booked for the use of the Players’ Theatre until Saturday, February 17, the last day of the festival. However, the group had to cancel their show on February 14, because an alternative space had not been found in time. The cast and crew were unable to carry out a full technical run in the new space due to the short notice concerning the relocation.

The cast and crew were unable to carry out a full technical run in the new space due to the short notice concerning the relocation.

Kahn stated to The McGill Daily, “[we] have people coming from Toronto, New York, [and] Philadelphia that come to see their children act, that come to see the plays […] so obviously cancelling was not an option for us.”

Earle explained to The Daily that “[McGill] is […] contracting out jobs […] they’re deciding who’s going to […] take the project right now and so I think it’s just kind of like they’re getting the basic stuff done so that they can give that information to the contracted employees.”

“Cancelling was not an option for us.”

Earle further stated that he is waiting on the report regarding the extent of the asbestos contamination. He noted that further information cannot be sent out to the public regarding the safety and accessibility of rooms, due to SSMU not yet receiving such reports.

When asked what the SSMU has planned in response to potential health issues that may arise, Earle stated, “I personally would say that it’s a McGill’s building so […] when […] SSMU is made aware of that [asbestos contamination] I would think that we would make the request to McGill and then it would be their prerogative to get someone in here as soon as possible to fix the situation. I don’t that that’s how it plays out in reality, though because […] I don’t know where their priorities lie.”

“It should be McGill’s responsibility, but I think SSMU does do a lot [of that work].”

“It should be McGill’s responsibility, but I think SSMU does do a lot [of that work].”

The post Players’ Theatre forced to relocate appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Yagayandi, a second-year social work student, began the discussion by recounting his childhood in a refugee camp in Malawi. He described his first-hand experience with volunteers who oftentimes came to the country with “good intentions,” but approached their experience in a way that does not take into account their “positionality”.

“When you are going there as a white person, you have power,” he said.

Yagayandi mentioned the importance of being mindful of such power dynamics when asking for consent from a local community member. “Now, if you ask a kid, ‘can I take your photo’?, they are not going to say ‘no’, they are going to say ‘yes'”.

“But do they actually mean the ‘yes’? […] Check consent vis a vis [their] positionality and power,” in order to respect the community they are working in.

“But do they actually mean the ‘yes’? […] Check consent vis a vis positionality and power.”

Yagayandi emphasized that people engaged in voluntourism (described as a form of tourism where travelers participate in volunteer work) should be aware that realistically, their short period of time overseas will not make a significant difference on the state of the country or its people.

“I was in a class once when someone gave a presentation saying, ‘I was in Kenya for four months, empowering people’, but […] how is this even possible? […] You empower people by knowing their strengths, but how do you know their strengths and expect to empower them in four months?”

Yagayandi stated that McGill should focus on ensuring that students are aware of the space they are occupying within the country they are touring, and the reality of their impact. In order for volunteers to recognize their place in a foreign community, they must acknowledge that they do not have the power to “empower” people in the community in a short period of time.

Yagayanandi described this rhetoric of “facilitating empowerment,” which requires volunteers to answer the question, “Did you actually empower people, or are you fitting the narrative?”

“Did you actually empower people, or are you fitting the narrative?”

Mackenzie, a fourth-year Sustainability, Science, and Society student, described how the “origins of international development [comes] from colonialism,” and how, “Development still focuses on western powers bringing change and development to its former colonies.”

Mackenzie discussed the inherent problem with language used by Western powers such as “developed or developing” when referring to countries overseas. She mentioned that such categories indicate that “Western superiority is still present”. Mackenzie noted that regions deemed as “developing” have been, “actively underdeveloped by the people who prospered”.

Mackenzie, like Yagayandi, also expounds on the importance of volunteers situating themselves and their experiences in the context of the community they are touring. “The biggest impact you can [have] is absorb[ing] what you learn and apply[ing] it… You are going to get infinitely more than you can give,” says Mackenzie.

She also mentioned the importance of working with organizations that focuses on local social enterprises or businesses.

Mackenzie spoke about the Kumvana program, which translates to, “unite so we may discuss and understand” in Chichewa, which, “facilitate[s] cross-cultural understanding and leadership understanding for…African… social entrepreneurs.” The Kumvana program is different from traditional fellowships because, “it actually brings people from the Global South to the Global North,” explained Mackenzie.

“The biggest impact you can [have] is absorb[ing] what you learn and apply[ing] it…you are going to get infinitely more than you can give,”

Lasnes, a member of the Tanzanian Tourist Board, recently spent three months in Tanzania with the organizations Village Monde and Uniterra working with local ethnic groups to help develop cultural tourism in the region. He spoke about how tourism can work as a development tool, but how it can also be harmful to the local economy, especially in the form of voluntourism.

People come to the country to see the “national parks,” for example, but oftentimes the guided tours are run by large companies from the United States or Europe, and the money does not stay in the country, which perpetuates the dominance of large corporations in foreign regions.

“A good tourist is better than a voluntourist,” concluded Lasnes.

“A good tourist is better than a voluntourist.”

The post McGill discusses ethical volunteering appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Prior to the adoption of the policy, the Health and Safety Committee at McGill held consultations concerning the policy which involved students, faculty, and staff from both campuses, which, according to McGill, “indicated that a significant majority of the McGill community [ … ] support the creation of smoke-free campuses.” Such a policy was put into place in compliance with the Tobacco Control Act of Quebec, which requires college- or university-level educational institutions to “adopt a tobacco control policy geared to establishing a smoke-free environment.”

Under McGill’s definition of smoking, i.e. “the usage and consumption of any product whether or not it contains or otherwise utilizes tobacco or tobacco-derived substances, and emits a vapor or smoke,” e-cigarettes would be banned on campus.

Furthermore, Section 1.1 of the Tobacco Control Act states that “tobacco” also includes accessories such as “cigarette tubes, rolling paper and filters, pipes […] and cigarette holders,” which will also be prohibited. It remains unclear whether McGill will comply with this extension of the definition of tobacco.

In an interview with the Daily, Isabelle Oke, SSMU VP University Affairs, explained how McGill’s smoking policy was originally brought forward by a medicine senator a couple years ago, who subsequently passed around a plebiscite asking how people felt about banning smoking on campus.

Oke explains there were some concerns about the effectiveness of implementing the policy due to McGill’s campus not being a “contiguous space.” Oke further states that, “there is a limit to what a ban can accomplish or how functional [it is and] how it can be implemented.”

“there is a limit to what a ban can accomplish or how functional [it is and] how it can be implemented.”

“Implementing a ban on campus is tricky, so there were a lot of logistical questions that came up because, for example, McTavish isn’t […] campus property, so if you’re going to ban campus areas, it doesn’t mean no one on campus is going to be exposed to smoke anymore because there are a lot of spaces that are still city property”.

The line between campus property and city property on streets such as McTavish, Doctor-Penfield, Peel, and University, remains unclear, leaving many wondering how bans on smoking around certain buildings could be enforced.

Nonetheless, the new policy mandates that smoking will be “prohibited outside of designated smoking areas” on the downtown and Macdonald campuses and at the Gault Reserve; the designated smoking areas are marked on a map provided on McGill’s Environmental Health and Safety webpage describing the policy. The policy specifically outlines that “smoking will no longer be permitted on the west side of the Redpath Library Building.”

In the Procedure Concerning Smoking at McGill University, section 4.2 states that the “University is not attempting to stigmatize those who smoke, nor create conflict within the campus community,” however this statement, under the Compliance heading of the procedure document, is not present in the policy provided on McGill’s website outlining smoking on campus.

section 4.2 states that the “University is not attempting to stigmatize those who smoke, nor create conflict within the campus community,”

Oke expressed her thought to the Daily that the university integrated this statement in the procedure in order to signal to students that “this policy doesn’t allow for discrimination,” in regards to concerns brought up around the overrepresentation of “queer, trans, [and] people of colour in the population of smokers.” Due to these advertising practices, queer populations, ethnic minorities, and those with a lower socioeconomic status are oftentimes targeted and overrepresented within the smoking population.

Section 4.1 of the policy states that it will provide “educational campaigns, outreach, communication and the promotion of tobacco cessation treatment options” as the “primary means to promote compliance.” Additionally, the university reiterated its commitment to providing “referrals for cessation,” and has delineated resources available which include counselling from McGill Counselling & Mental Health Services.

Oke also explains that there is a “peer-policing-peer” model to be put in place which would involve students regulating the smoking habits of their peers on campus. According to the procedure, the policy will be self-endorsed by community members which includes “trained McGill security agents”, “student outreach teams […] activated every September,” as well as “University directors and managers.”

A U2 student in Gender, Sexuality, Feminism, Social Justice (GSFS) at McGill, who wished to remain anonymous; who has smoked regularly for three years and still occasionally smokes, offered their thoughts on the policy.

“I think you have to look at [… ]why people are smoking, and it’s because they’re really stressed,” they began, explaining their concern that McGill needs to be aware of how one of the largest contingent of student smokers belong to marginalized communities.

“It’s kind of […] another way that McGill gets to control those bodies instead of actually addressing the root cause,” they continued. “I think if they actually were worried about the welfare of students, then they would […] put more resources into for example the mental health.”

“It’s kind of […] another way that McGill gets to control those bodies instead of actually addressing the root cause”

They further stated that they think that “students are coming out of classes not feeling supported, […] not feeling […] included in the community, […] feeling like they don’t belong, and all those things contribute to stress which could lead someone to smoke.”

According to the document, the goal of the policy is for the campus to become completely smoke-free by the next five years (i.e. by May 1, 2023) from the effective date of the policy. The “designated smoking areas” on campus are referred to as transitory measures.

The post McGill to be smoke-free by 2023 appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On January 25, the SSMU Legislative Council convened to discuss motions and address a range of topics. The council first heard a presentation by Sustainability Director Francois Miller and Communications Officer Toby Davinee from the McGill Office of Sustainability (MOOS).

Councillors then discussed the Faculty of Dentistry’s response to the sexual assault allegations made by a student towards a faculty member. Three motions were passed, including a rescheduling of the Winter 2018 General Assembly and nominations to the SSMU Board of Directors (BoD). The motion to endorse the SSMU Survivor Bill of Rights, headed by VP External Connor Spencer, was passed unanimously.

The bill to endorse SSMU’s Survivor Bill of Rights articulated survivors’ rights in the “immediate aftermath of an instance of sexual violence,” “during the process of disclosure,” and “in seeking accommodations within their communities and institutions.” The amendment to the fourth clause was put in place in order to specify the accountability of the Legislative Council and individual councillors in “advocating for the rights enclosed in this bill within their associations and larger student and McGill communities.”

McGill Dentistry Graduate Student Society responds to sexual assault allegations made against dentist

During question period, councillors discussed the sexual assault allegations made against a member of the Dentistry faculty by a former student, reported by CBC in December 2017. The incident in question occurred on November 2016, and was reported to the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) the following day. A complaint made to the faculty of Dentistry yielded no clear results following an investigation conducted by the dean.

The incident in question occurred on November 2016, and was reported to the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) the following day. A complaint made to the faculty of Dentistry yielded no clear results following an investigation conducted by the dean.

When asked what steps the Dentistry Student Society (DSS) has taken, or is planning to take, in support of students regarding “sexual violence, academic harassment and intimidation,” Councillor Ryan Siciliano read a statement prepared by the President of the McGill Dentistry Graduate Student Society (MDGSS), Ninoska Enriquez, which stated that the society “takes very seriously reports of harassment or violence against any member of the university.”

“Above all, students have access to the UGME [Undergraduate Medical Education and Dentistry] and WELL [Wellness Enhanced Lifelong Learning] office which is an excellent third-party system to report mistreatment safely, rapidly, and with anonymous action,” said Siciliano. According to CBC’s coverage of the incident, the faculty member accused of the assault has been allowed to return to work, under conditions unknown to the victim.

The MDGSS’s statement emphasized a close community between student groups and faculty members: “We [MDGSS] are a very unique faculty in the sense that we spend at times 12 hours a day seven days a week with each other, so I know students very, very well.”

The faculty member accused of the assault has been allowed to return to work, under conditions unknown to the victim.

The statement then read, “We as the DSS and me, as the President […] don’t feel that we have a fear of harassment or something more systemic than these allegations made by the two individuals … This is simply not representative of dental students at the moment. Students have a very strong and active relationship with faculty members and feel like we have adequate outlets if any inappropriate situations should arise.”
However, in contrast to the statement, the university-appointed harassment assessor, Adrienne Piggott, reported the existence of harmful systemic problems, including “management and governance issues.” In response, McGill Provost Christopher Manfredi agreed to work with the dean to address the systemic issues.

Siciliano mentioned that that the Dentistry faculty, the Order of Dentists in Quebec, and the police were investigating the situation, and that “the Dental Student Society was happy with the way that [the investigation] was being conducted.” The report made to the faculty is still currently under investigation, well after a year of filing the complaint.

When asked by VP Connor Spencer and faculty of Medicine representative Councillor André Lametti about what further actions would be taken not for the majority but for individuals feeling unsafe, Siciliano responded that “we [DSS] are satisfied with the outlets that are currently being explored and we won’t be taking any further action regarding the current allegations.”

Presentation on Climate and Sustainability Action Plan

The council heard speakers Miller and Davine present long-term and short-term goals of the Vision 2020 Climate and Sustainability Action Plan. The lan includes twenty-two short-term targets to be achieved by 2020 and two long-term targets: first to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040 and second, for McGill to attain a platinum sustainability rating by 2030. The plan, which started consultations in fall 2016, was approved in December 2017.

Miller explained that the approach to carbon neutrality was through the three pillars of priority; reduction, carbon sequestration, and carbon off-setting. To reach the platinum sustainability rating the MOOS will be using the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, & Rating System (STARS), which is a “self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure their sustainability performance.” Given that the STARS measurement is based on self-reported surveys, VP External Connor Spencer and Councillor Vivian Campbell asked Miller and Davine how McGill would be accountable toward their targets if MOOS were to self-report their own progress.

Miller responded that “just in terms of accountability, one of the measures that we did [in regards] to the Board of Governors is a series of key performance indicators […] We’ve [also] headed three sustainability key performance educators so the Board will be also informed on a yearly basis on the progress that the university is making towards these long-term targets.”

We’ve […] headed three sustainability key performance educators so the Board will be also informed on a yearly basis on the progress that the university is making towards these long-term targets.”

When asked by Councillor Campbell about the accountability of smaller groups affiliated with McGill, Davine responded that although decentralization of the campus makes complete transparency difficult, there is a sustainable-labs working group, for wet-labs in particular, to manage sustainability.

Motions passed

A motion was presented by Spencer to move the Winter 2018 G.A. to March 26, 2018 after the SSMU elections was passed. Spencer mentioned that the new date would “ensure that the new executive is accountable to the goals that they … were elected upon; that they then would have to work with the current executive” to work on how to efficiently achieve goals in place, and to have the members prioritize as a group those goals.

A motion concerning nominations to the SSMU Board of Directors was passed unanimously, making Connor Spencer the fourth Officer to sit on the BoD. The motion was prompted by the inability for Esteban Herpin, the newly elected VP Finance to sit on the BoD as he is neither a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident. Herpin stated that although he will not be able to sit on the BoD, he still plans to “begin working with the Funding Commissioner and Funding Committee closely to see what [they] can do to improve funding for, not only SSMU clubs but other initiatives around campus and make those more accessible” and to also “make students more aware that this funding exists.” Herpin stated: “my main priority for this semester will mainly be to get a budget report presented to Legislative Council.”

The post SSMU Council unanimously passes Survivor Bill of Rights appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Tunisia’s recent implementation of the 2018 Finance Act has sparked intense protests among the country’s youth: the unpopular finance reforms entail a rise in the value-added tax of cars, alcohol, phone calls, internet coverage, and hotel accommodations, among other things, inciting many to take to the streets. Government officials have stated that the tax hike aims to cut down on the country’s deficit in accordance to the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) conditional $2.8 billion loan program tied to the Tunisian government’s implementation of socioeconomic reforms.

The Tunisian economy has been characterized as unsteady since the Arab Spring protests in 2011: nine separate governments have come to power since the toppling of President Zine el Abedine Ben Ali, few of which have made concrete improvements to the country’s economy since. Terror attacks in Sousse and Tunis did little to help tourism revenue, and with general inflation in Tunisia averaging 6 per cent a year and youth unemployment sitting at twice that of the general population, the country has seen a rise in youth activism. One of the prominent groups, Fesh Nestannew, which translates to “what are we waiting for?” primarily consists of young citizens from disenfranchised suburban communities, where they struggle to find work. Speaking to Al Jazeera, one 24-year-old man has asserted that “either they employ us or it’s better that they kill us.”

Thus far, around 800 demonstrators have been arrested, most of whom are under twenty years old, and at least one person has been killed. In an effort to appease protesters, the government has announced new social reforms which include free medical aid for unemployed youth, better state pensions, assistance to poor families, as well as housing funds. However, demonstrations have continued throughout the country: last weekend, protesters in the southern town of Metlaoui were hit with tears gas canisters. A resident of the area told Reuters: “There is feeling of injustice and marginalization here. […] We’re only asking for jobs and development.”

Operation Olive Branch

On January 20, 2018, Turkey launched Operation Olive Branch in the city of Afrin, located in the Western region of Syria, in order to to “destroy all terror nests.” The operation is currently being carried out on the ground by 10,000 Syrian opposition forces.

This campaign is Turkey’s second initiative in Syria, the first of which was in August 2016 following the launch of the Euphrates Shield offensive, also led by the Syrian opposition, to oust ISIS forces in the region.

Turkish officials are currently advising Syria’s opposition forces to wage an armed campaign against the Syrian Kurdish militias, prioritizing this initiative over the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In interviews with the Guardian, Syrian opposition forces stated that they will stand with Turkey, which is the only country providing support and training for their forces. This extensive training provided by the Turkish government garnered hope from some citizens that these actions may lead to a unification of the opposition forces, thereby increasing their chances. As of now, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) controls most of the border between Turkey and Syria, a massive point of concern for Turkish officials. Turkey believes that the YPG is smuggling artillery across the border to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Action has shifted towards the border cities of Afrin and Manbij, as they are both Kurdish enclaves with a strong YPG presence. The Turkish-led Syrian opposition forces currently control the land between the two cities, and Turkey is sending more reinforcements to prevent the YPG from having autonomous control over the entire length of the border between the two countries. The UN estimates that Turkey’s offensive has now displaced 5,000 civilians living in the Afrin region.

Operation Olive Branch was launched in response to the U.S. announcement that it would construct a border of 30,000 forces including the YPG. This force was deployed in order to patrol Syria’s borders and prevent the reemergence of ISIS. However, the Turkish government regards the proposition as a national security threat with potentially severe repercussions for Turkey. This stance is in direct opposition to the US support of the YPG, posing a potential future conflict between Turkey and the U.S., who are currently NATO allies.

This issue has international consequences. In response to the enactment of this operation, Germany has suspended an upgrade of tanks that was previously approved to send to Turkish forces. This suspension came after images surfaced of the tanks that Germany had donated to fend off advances from ISIS instead being used for Operation Olive Branch.

Written with material from the CNN, the Guardian, the Reuters and Aljazeera.

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

On December 8, 2017, Bill 151, an act aimed to prevent and fight sexual violence in higher education institutions, unanimously passed in the Quebec General Assembly. The bill was developed in consultation with various groups, including the Student’s Society of McGill University (SSMU), the Association for the Voice of Education in Quebec (AVEQ), and Our Turn, who presented their thoughts on the proposed bill to the Commission on Culture and Education at the National Assembly on November 21. Under the bill, all education institutions in Quebec, including CEGEPs, must propose a policy addressing how to approach cases of sexual assault, including student-teacher relationships. At minimum, the policy requires the dean or another higher authority to be notified of any sexual relation between “students and persons having an influence over their academic progress.” The policies must be put forth by September 1, 2019.

At minimum, the policy requires the dean or another higher authority to be notified of any sexual relation between “students and persons having an influence over their academic progress.”

While the bill was drafted in consultation with various local community groups including organizations representing survivors, not all recommendations were taken to secure the rights of the survivor. This prompted SSMU VP External Connor Spencer, Coordinator of mobilization for AVEQ Kristen Perry, and Co-Founder and National Chair of Our Turn (a national campaign addressing campus sexual violence) Caitlin Salvino, to draft the open-letter criticising the content of the bill. The letter was signed by over 300 students and twenty organizations, including McGill’s sexual assault support group, the Sexual Assault Centre of the McGill Students Society (SACOMSS). The letter was also signed independently by members of the McGill Daily editorial board. The letter outlines recommendations for the Bill, which include “A Defined Stand-Alone Sexual Violence Policy;” an approach which would discontinue processing sexual assault cases through the Student Code of Conduct.

Additionally, the letter suggests the introduction of “rape shield protections” to protect the privacy of the survivor’s sexual history, student representation of 30% 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 goes on to stipulate that the government must create 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. “There seems to be a lack of understanding from the commission on how wary students are to trust their administrations to be the one enforcing the standards for the policy, or that they would properly consult their students during the creation of a policy,” said Spencer in an email to The Daily. The letter emphasizes that the process for students coming forward about sexual assault “must include the ability for the Minister to hear the concerns of students and then place requirements and/or sanctions on specific institutions for failing to adequately respond to sexual violence on their campus.”

“There seems to be a lack of understanding from the commission on how wary students are to trust their administrations to be the one enforcing the standards for the policy, or that they would properly consult their students during the creation of a policy.”

In her email, Spencer highlighted the necessity of involving external third parties to review the cases, such as an independent oversight body, especially when dealing with cases involving “faculty or persons in relative positions of power on campus,” a suggestion also found in the letter. As of now, McGill does not forthrightly condemn student-teacher relationships. On McGill’s webpage of Conflicts of Interest under Student Rights and Responsibilities, McGill writes that the “staff member or teaching assistant shall decline or terminate a supervisory or evaluative role with respect to the student,” but that “alternative arrangements for supervision and evaluation shall be made in confidence and shall not prejudice the status of the student, staff member, or teaching assistant.”

Spencer told The Daily that according to Quebec law, the administrators of the sexual assault case are “unable to tell the survivor what the result of an inquiry was or what sanctions if any were put in place for confidentiality reasons”. Spencer mentioned that the survivor ultimately does not know if the “case was treated fairly or if they are safe from this person on campus”.

Bill 151 does not aim to ban these sexual relationships between students and teachers. Instead, it aims to delineate more specific and concrete approaches to processing accounts of sexual assault. Associate provost of McGill, Angela Campbell, wrote in a statement that “the definition of consent in the policy against sexual violence states that consent cannot occur ‘where the sexual activity has been induced by conduct that constitutes an abuse of a relationship of trust, power or authority, such as the relationship between a professor and their student.’” Section 4.1 of Bill 151, which defines the concept of consent, is the only mention of student-professor relationships in the policy. The approach of processing accounts of sexual assault when it involves a student-teacher relationship are only one of the elements Bill 151 fails to address in great depth.

“The definition of consent in the policy against sexual violence states that consent cannot occur ‘where the sexual activity has been induced by conduct that constitutes an abuse of a relationship of trust, power or authority, such as the relationship between a professor and their student.’”

Sophia Sahrane, the Research and Education Coordinator of AVEQ, says that two of AVEQ’s main issues with Bill 151 include the suggestion of police as an external resource under Chapter II, Art. V of Bill 151 as well as the complete disregard for the diversity of sexual assault experiences based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability.

On the issue of police intervention Sahrane stated, “we [AVEQ] believe that police have no place in university” and that the “policing of already marginalized bodies” should indicate the ineffectiveness of using police as an instrument to aid sexual assault survivors. Groups such as Concordia University’s Sexual Assault Resource Centre (SARC) and Le Regroupement Québécois des Centres d’aide (RQCALCS) accompany students to the police; however, although it is important to spread support for sexual assault survivors beyond the scope of their institution, Sahrane reiterates that “not everyone has the privilege of trusting the police.” In a press release by AVEQ, Sophia Sahrane writes that “as long as there is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and mistreatment of the Quebec population and Indigenous people by the police, AVEQ opposes the active participation of the police force in preventing and fighting sexual violence in our universities.”

Before the passing of the bill, consultations with larger groups such as SSMU and AVEQ were held, yet groups representing the voices of marginalized peoples and minority groups were not included in the discussion.

Another element disadvantaging students, especially those attending educational institutions affiliated with the University of Quebec system, is the lack of adequate funding for sexual assault support groups and programs. For example, at l’ Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, there is only one social worker for the whole university because the administration did not replace the only other staff member on leave. This instance of a gross understaffing of professionals with proper training to fully support survivors is not a rare one in Quebec educational institutions. Sophia Sahrane emphasized that this inadequate level of funding necessitates the existence of a “minimum of resources all across the universities in Quebec that must be offered to students”.

Sahrane told the Daily, “the Bill presented sexual violence as a very singular, non-dimensional issue, which it’s not.”

“The Bill presented sexual violence as a very singular, non-dimensional issue, which it’s not.”

The post Gaps in Bill 151 appeared first on The McGill Daily.