Nearly a year after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, a delegation of the United Nations’ Security Council visited the country for the first time ever. Stéphane Dujarric, a UN Spokesperson, optimistically declared that “[the UN] hope[s] that this visit will deepen the dialogue between the United Nations and Syria.” This visit marks the end of Syrian international isolation, a goal the interim government led by Ahmed al-Sharaa is striving for. In fact, this establishment of global relations is something al-Sharaa had in mind before he came into power: his Islamist military group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), was supported from its early days by Turkey, which sought to make post-Assad Syria an ally on the international scene. In light of this, UN officials and organisations, like the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), are now authorised within Syria after being banned under Assad. 

Syria’s return to the international scene is also motivated by economics: the US and the European Union, aiming to discourage the formation of alliances between Syria and countries like Russia and Iran, have now lifted most of the sanctions that once strangled Damascus and the Syrian economy. Yet, the main supporters of the young Syrian government are in the Persian Gulf: Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s capital cities settled the 15$ million debt Syria had accumulated with the World Bank. This bridging of relations with the West culminated in al-Sharaa’s visit to the White House and meeting with US President Donald Trump on November 10th. On the other hand, Syria’s increased interaction with the West has weakened ties between the new Syrian government and Russia. Severing  economic contracts, Damascus has stopped printing its money in Russia. Tensions have grown around Russian bases in Syria: attacks, disavowed by the Syrian government as efforts by an individual initiative of militants, targeted the Russian base of Khmeimim in May. Despite the historic hostility of HTS towards Moscow, as Russian forces frequently attacked them during the civil conflict that divided Syria from 2011 until the collapse of the Assad regime, al-Sharaa’s approach in relations with Russia seems to remain rather pragmatic. 

Despite recent efforts, rebuilding the Syrian government is not only a matter of international relations. The progress of al-Sharaa’s government has been inconsistent  within Syria itself – not unsurprising considering the difficulty and immensity of governance after five decades of crushing dictatorship. Even while looking to attain international legitimacy, al-Sharaa and new Syrian authorities have been unable to prevent outbreaks of violence over the past year as sectarian tensions linger in Syrian society. The Assad regime favored the Alawite sect of Shia Islam from which the family hailed, and advertised itself as protecting the Druze and Christian minorities. Since the regime’s fall, fears have risen of Sunni Muslims and Bedouins expressing their resentment through violence, attacking the aforementioned sects favoured by the regime in which they were oppressed. In March, those fears came to fruition: intercommunal violence sparked in Alawite-majority coastal areas after clashes between remnants of Pro-Assad military and new Syrian authorities, leaving over 1,400 people dead, most of them civilians. In July, clashes between Bedouin and Druze communities in southern Syria led to massacres. When government forces intervened, they showed biased support towards Bedouin Sunnis, giving them weapons and executing Druze members in an “extrajudicial manner”, according to an Amnesty International investigation. In response to the situation, central authorities put in place investigation committees and set up a trial – yet, many Syrians denounced this as merely a masquerade. Out of 300 affiliated officers and 265 paramilitary accused in the affair, only 14 were placed on trial, 7 of which were members of HTS. So far, none of them have been convicted. This has sparked serious concerns over the independence of the judicial system, shaping a budding perception of the new regime as a government that prioritises the Bedouin Sunnis over all others. Some Alawites even say that al-Sharaa’s coming to power is simply that “we’ve changed the driver of the bus…but the passengers are the same.” In contrast, when a Bedouin couple were killed south of Homs, Syria’s third largest city, with sectarian slogans scrawled on the walls next to their corpses, government forces successfully worked with tribal leaders to diffuse the situation and prevent new conflicts. 

The resurgence of ISIS attacks after the fall of the Assad regime has only exacerbated Syria’s domestic instability. The power vacuum left after the dictator’s forced departure on December 8th, 2024 enabled ISIS cells to move more freely within the country and recruit members more easily, while simultaneously gaining easier access to larger quantities of arms after the dismantlement of pro-Assad forces. Indeed, despite the defeat of the “caliphate” more than half a decade ago, ISIS cells have continued decentralized, underground operations, maintaining a notable presence in Syria to this day. Nawaf Khalil, director of the Kurdish Center for Studies, an independent research center in Germany focusing on Kurdish history, explains that “ISIS benefited greatly from the fall of the regime.”  The number of attacks this year seems to corroborate this: according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 224 attacks were carried out by ISIS, killing 68 soldiers of the Syrian Democratic Forces and 15 civilians. 

In addition to this, despite claims by al-Sharaa’s government that they avoided engaging in conflicts with Israel, Israeli raids and incursions have plagued the south of Syria. On the 28th of November, an Israeli raid on the countryside town Beit Jinn in southwest Damascus killed thirteen people, including two children, just weeks after locals resisted an incursion by the Israeli army. Israel has argued that the raid was meant to target members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Lebanese branch, which rebutted that “it was not active outside of Lebanon”. This is a recurrent pattern: Israeli forces frequently attack Syria, with over a thousand such attacks having occurred since the fall of the Assad regime. These strikes are carried out in spite of the UN Security Council’s demands that Israel respect the 1974 agreement and not infringe on Syrian territory anymore. The agreement had implemented a zone of separation between Syria and Israel, after the disengagement of their troops and the release of prisoners. 

Even while violence continues to affect much of Syria, the interim government of al-Sharaa seems to be keeping its promise to orient the country towards a more democratic regime. The Syrian parliamentary elections held in October, while being an indirect vote, saw the casting of ballots by 6000 electoral colleges across Syria to elect two-thirds of Parliament, even without proper political parties in place, with President al-Sharaa selecting the remaining third –  representing a first step towards democracy. Despite concerns over growing presidential power and inclusivity in the newly elected parliament (consisting of a nearly homogenous group of Sunni Muslim men), the recent election remains a display of the will to move away from the Assad dictatorial structure. That being said, the concerns of insufficient political representation remain non-negligible: Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid reported such concerns, writing that “If you ask the Druze in the south or the Kurds in the north, they [will] say [that the elections] were not representative.” Yet, “If you ask people in major cities, like Aleppo, Damascus, Hama, and other parts of the country, they’re hopeful that this is the first taste of a real election.” In other words, there remains a lot of work to do to attain popular representation and a democratic regime in Syria, and international attention should remain on the new regime to ensure it does not deviate from this path. 

Crises in Syria are far from settled, and continued humanitarian aid to alleviate the effects of political conflict is still needed: the OHCHR now has a permanent office in Damascus to operate on the ground. However, as Mohammad Al Nsour, Chief of the Middle East and North Africa Section at OHCHR, says, “There is a political will from the government to improve,” igniting hope for the future of Syria.

The post Syria: A Year After Liberation from the Assad Regime appeared first on The McGill Daily.

A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect on Friday, October 10, the first step of a US-brokered plan that ties phased Israeli withdrawals and a major prisoner/ hostage exchange to a sharp increase in humanitarian access. While the deal has paused full-scale warfare, it has not ended violence. Strikes, shootings, and movement restrictions continue to occur, particularly around a newly demarcated “yellow line” inside Gaza. This is a boundary, now being physically drawn on the ground, used to mark areas from which Israeli forces have partially withdrawn but still maintain control nearby. Phase one refers to the initial stage focused on halting large- scale fighting, releasing hostages, and enabling limited humanitarian relief.

The ceasefire agreement is structured in three phases: Phase One pauses large-scale hostilities, facilitates hostage releases, and allows limited humanitarian access; Phase Two envisions wider Israeli withdrawals and the deployment of an International Stabilization Force; and Phase Three outlines a transition toward a longer-term governance and security arrangement. Before the ceasefire, Israeli airstrikes and ground operations were killing hundreds per day, with entire neighbourhoods in Gaza City, Jabalia, and Khan Younis flattened and aid almost completely halted.

What the ceasefire says

The text released by the Times of Israel — the version approved by Israel’s cabinet — sets out the core commitments of the ceasefire. The agreement was conveyed to Hamas through Qatari, Egyptian, and US mediators, who announced Hamas’ acceptance. Israel was required to withdraw to mapped lines inside Gaza within 24 hours of cabinet approval. Within 72 hours of that withdrawal, Hamas would release all living hostages, return the remains of deceased hostages it holds, and share information on those it could not immediately recover. Both sides also agreed to facilitate an information-sharing mechanism via the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The annexes reference “humanitarian aid and relief implementation steps” and attach maps of the withdrawal lines. Israel staged its initial pullback on October 10; Hamas released a second batch of living hostages on October 13 as the first exchanges began.

The withdrawal lines marks a boundary from which Israeli forces have partially withdrawn under the ceasefire’s first phase while maintaining control over nearby zones and all border crossings. Al Jazeera’s explainer, which includes the map presented by US officials, estimates that nearly 60 per cent of the Gaza Strip remained under Israeli control during this initial phase. Future phases envision further Israeli pullbacks, the deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF), and a transition arrangement, though the mandate and authority of the proposed force are still being negotiated.

How the truce is unfolding

The ceasefire has been repeatedly stress-tested by violence. At the end of October, Israel launched air and tank strikes in Eastern Gaza, citing Hamas violations and a deadly incident involving an Israeli soldier; those strikes killed more than 100 people, according to Gaza health authorities, before the truce was restored. US officials, speaking anonymously, have pressed both sides to prevent the collapse of the deal and have warned that an overly harsh Israeli response or repeated Hamas violations could unravel the truce.

Independent monitors and media reports have tracked a steady pattern of violations despite the truce. By mid-October, local authorities in Gaza had recorded at least 47 Israeli ceasefire breaches, including airstrikes, demolitions, and shootings, that killed more than three dozen people, according to reporting from The Guardian.

Across the Gaza Strip, skirmishes and lethal incidents cluster around the “yellow line”; Israeli forces still conduct targeted strikes and demolitions near their positions; while Hamas and other fighters test the boundary with probing attacks, leaving civilians caught in the middle. UNOCHA’s updates describe “daily detonations of residential buildings” in areas where the Israeli military remains deployed, with casualties reported in Gaza City, Deir al-Balah, and Khan Younis. The agency also notes the installation of yellow-painted concrete blocks to mark the line as ordered by Israel’s defence minister. Meanwhile, despite some humanitarian improvements, UNOCHA’s Gaza Humanitarian Response (Situation Report No. 24), notes that although relief partners delivered more than 1.3 million meals on 15 November alone, critical needs such as adequate shelter, clearance of explosive remnants, and access to damaged cropland remain severely under-addressed.

International coverage corroborates this yellow demarcation’s emergence and the confusion around it. France 24 describes the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) beginning to physically mark the line “behind which it must withdraw,” even as many displaced residents cannot safely return to homes east of it.

Hostages and prisoner releases

The hostage/prisoner track serves as both the humanitarian core of the ceasefire and its political trigger point. According to UNOCHA’s Humanitarian Situation Update #331 on 13 October the ICRC facilitated the return of 20 Israeli hostages, 1,809 Palestinian detainees, and four deceased Israeli hostages to Israeli authorities. Gaza Humanitarian Response (situation report No. 9 from October 30) notes that the bodies of two more deceased Israeli hostages were handed over, and that the remains of another 11 hostages were then believed to still be in the Gaza Strip. By November 5, however, Situation report No. 14 records that Gaza’s Ministry of Health received 15 additional bodies of deceased Palestinian detainees, bringing the total since the start of the ceasefire to 285, of which only 84 had been identified, and that the remains of six Israeli hostages were still thought to be in Gaza. Disputes over remains and sequencing of exchanges have repeatedly spiked tensions and prompted Israeli reprisals, yet each successful turnover has also helped restore momentum to the deal.

Humanitarian aid

Humanitarian access has improved relative to the pre-ceasefire period, but still falls far short of need. According to UNOCHA’s latest updates (Gaza Humanitarian Response (Situation Report No. 26, from November 20), crossings remain limited, shelter materials remain scarce and large-scale debris clearance and explosive- remnant work are still unmet. Aid partners have delivered tens of thousands of tons of food and other supplies, but significant delivery bottlenecks persist. Reuters reported on November 21 that the World Food Programme has brought in 40,000 tons of food aid, reaching only about 30 per cent of the people in need, and that heavy rain has already damaged stored food as winter approaches.

Earlier UNOCHA updates show the depth of the gap: as of November 6, only 4 per cent of Gaza’s cropland was undamaged and accessible, and aid was entering through just two crossings (Kerem Shalom/Karem Abu Salem and Kissufim). Between October 10 and November 3, UN partners collected over 32,500 metric tons of aid at Gaza’s crossings, yet bureaucratic rejections, convoy impediments, and limited warehouse capacity throttle delivery. UNOCHA also reported 107 relief-item requests rejected during this period, severe damage to water and sanitation systems, including seven wastewater plants out of service; as well as continuing restrictions on essential items such as generators and spare parts. Across the strip, safe access to shelter, water and sanitation, debris-clearance and damaged cropland remains severely under- addressed. Without heavy machinery to clear rubble and explosive remnants of war, many communities remain unable to return or begin rebuilding.

What lies ahead and what will shape the outcome

Key challenges now center on three interconnected issues. One, boundary management: whether both parties will implement a clear, monitored ceasefire zone with visible markers and safe civilian corridors or allow the so-called “yellow line” to persist as a shifting, opaque no-go zone; human-rights groups such as Refugees International and Medical Aid for Palestinians warn such ambiguity risks transforming a temporary security line into a de facto border. Two, humanitarian access: the majority of reconstruction, aid delivery and movement of civilians hinges on unfettered access, bottlenecks and denial of service continue to erode trust in the truce. Three, international oversight: the November 17 UNSC resolution authorizing the ISF and a transitional Gaza governance apparatus raised the stakes for the next phase of the deal, but without credible deployment and accepted engagement rules the architecture remains fragile. Meanwhile, reporting from Gaza shows dozens of Israeli strikes and incursions since October 10, underscoring how contested the deal remains.

Observers now say the sequencing of hostage/prisoner returns is the immediate litmus test of the deal’s credibility, a successful exchange could unlock phase two, while delays or disputes over identity and timing risk reigniting violence.

Bottom line

The October 10 ceasefire is holding in name but contested in practice. It has saved lives by halting the worst of the bombardment, enabling the return of some hostage remains, and creating limited space for aid. However, lives remain at acute risk, particularly along the yellow line and in areas where the IDF is still deployed. The stakes around Phase Two, which is expected to bring broader Israeli withdrawals, an international stabilization force, and a larger humanitarian-access package, have risen since November 17, when the UN Security Council adopted a resolution endorsing the ceasefire framework and authorizing the proposed ISF. Although mediators have framed the truce as a possible foundation for a longer-term arrangement, previous lulls have repeatedly collapsed, and without these steps it risks becoming yet another temporary pause.

The post Ceasefire on Paper appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On November 10 the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) gathered in Belém, a Brazilian city situated within the Amazon rainforest, for discussions  running until at least November 21. The COP is the annual climate change conference organized by the UN, bringing together nearly all world nations to discuss, negotiate, and assess  the response to climate change as well as  the current environmental situation. 

Despite the absence of US Federal Governmental presence at COP30, with the Trump administration having sent no representative, over 100 subnational US officials are attending the Conference; including representatives from climate coalitions, state governors, and city mayors. The European Union delegation was able to attend, bringing a last minute deal involving lower climate ambitions after opposition to stronger  climate efforts led by Italy, Poland and Hungary. On the other hand, the presence and dedication of important world leaders such as Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva, President of Brazil, and of Xi Jinping, President of China — a country responsible for about a third of the world’s entropic C02 emissions —  shows their consideration for COP30’s organization and decisions. Their presence also gives hope regarding the ambitions of the conference. Many diplomats hope that this COP summit will be historic in developing  solutions to the climate crisis. André Aranha Corrêa do Lago, Brazil’s Vice-Minister for Climate, Energy, and Environment at the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and COP30 President declared that he wants this year’s COP to be “genuinely transformative” rather than “business as usual.”

The United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), a think tank that  researches and provides policy advice on human security related to  natural hazards and climate change, wishes for  a genuinely transformative conference. The UNU-EHS is hoping that COP30 can reach milestone decisions by the end of the conference. As the Paris Agreement entails, the UNU-EHS expects that countries will scale up their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): the plans for each country to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by the 2025 deadline. If countries manage to obtain this at COP30, it will spark a positive pattern, inciting countries to aim for higher ambitions in the future, and enact a “ratchet-up mechanism” as the UNU-EHS describes it. 

The UNU-EHS also expects COP30 to implement further Adaptation Plans. These are processes established during  COP16 that specifically help Least Developed Countries (LDCs) achieve their climate goals, and reform climate finance to increase participating nations’ capabilities to commit to their climate efforts. COP30 is also expected to increase the  efficiency and capacity of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) which addresses  climate change related damages. Finally,  COP30 marks the ten-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement, allowing for a symbolic occasion to renew pledges and commitments to climate efforts. 

Despite high expectations, many still doubt COP30’s ability to succeed. Protesters in Belém denounced world leaders’ ignorance of COP decisions and displayed their disdain toward the climate by posing as caricatures of Lula and Trump. Last year’s COP29 in Baku was deemed a disappointment by many for not producing the breakthroughs in climate action it had promised beforehand, like a new commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. 

Finally, though COP’s setting in Belém this year symbolizes climate protection, the conference’s  location poses an additional number of challenges. Despite the COP organization claiming to further include indigenous populations in climate negotiations, an issue of  particular importance to Belém as a city located on indigenous Amazonian land, attention to indigenous representatives’ demands have seldom been listened to. Furthermore, as Belém is a relatively small city, expensive accommodations for the conference risked excluding poorer delegations and  NGO representatives. The city’s limited space has additionally caused the deforestation of a section of the Amazon for the event, as the state government cleared the forest to allow for the construction of a four-lane highway in expectation of the COP for example; sparking criticism towards the organization meant to protect the environment. 

Overall, COP30 is an event that holds ambitious promises for now. Still, early problems within its organization already question the dedication of the COP to combat the climate crisis, and put into question the efficacy of the summit. Indeed, how can we expect nations to follow COP guidelines and deals when the organization itself clears the Amazon for the sake of its event

The post Cop 30 in Belém: Challenges, Ambitions and Concerns appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On October 28, Hurricane Melissa, a Category Five storm with winds exceeding 295 km/h (180 mph), struck Jamaica. The hurricane was among the strongest ever recorded in the Atlantic since records have been kept, according to AccuWeather meteorologists.

The Prime Minister of Jamaica, Andrew Holness, described the situation as catastrophic, warning that “there is no infrastructure in the region that can withstand a Category 5.” According to AP News, the storm’s slow movement compounded its destructiveness, allowing intense rainfall of up to 50 cm or more in some areas of Jamaica.

For Jamaicans, this hurricane was unprecedented, its destructive unlike that of any other storm in living memory. In the aftermath of Melissa, one hospital lost power, and three others suffered damage. This is because much of the island nation’s infrastructure was not built to withstand such strong gusts of wind.

The impact of the hurricane was not limited to buildings: in St. Elizabeth — the southwestern part of Jamaica — where Hurricane Melissa first struck, villages were decimated and residents were either trapped or displaced. More than 500,000 people, roughly one-sixth of the population, were left without power on October 28. As of November 1, the number of people killed in Jamaica as a direct result of Hurricane Melissa had risen to 28, according to the Prime Minister’s office. This number may still grow in the coming days as rescue teams continue to assess remote and severely affected areas. The storm will be particularly devastating for Jamaica’s agricultural and tourism sectors, as both will likely face lasting economic consequences.

Furthermore, with Jamaica’s renown as a tourist destination in the Caribbean, many tourists were also affected by Melissa. Approximately 25,000 international tourists were trapped on the island as airports closed due to the hurricane. According to Tourism Minister Edmund Bartlett, no tourists were reported to have suffered casualties.

While Melissa weakened following its peak on October 28, it was still producing winds of around 130 km/h (80 mph) on October 30 as it hovered over the Atlantic toward Canada. On Halloween night, parts of Quebec, including Montreal, were affected by steady rain and cold winds, the same that had passed through the Caribbean earlier that week.

Though Melissa’s influence was only minimal in Canada, it echoed a growing trend of intense storms affecting the Maritimes provinces. Two years earlier, in 2023, a powerful winter windstorm swept across the Maritimes, cutting power to over 100,000 Nova Scotian residents and leaving parts of the region plunged in darkness for days. Crews worked through fallen trees and flooded roads to restore electricity, while families gathered in community centres that had been turned into emergency shelters.

Still in 2023, wind gusts reached 120 km/h at the Eskasoni First Nation in Cape Breton and 102 km/h at CFB Greenwood. In Cheticamp, temperatures rose to 18.5°C, breaking a record set in 1966, according to Environment Canada. The storm plunged parts of the Maritimes into darkness, serving as a sharp reminder of the region’s vulnerability to the growing instability of Atlantic weather.

Meteorologists have emphasized that Hurricane Melissa’s rapid and unusual intensification reflect a wider trend in tropical storm behaviour. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) noted that rising ocean temperatures and shifting wind patterns in the Atlantic are creating conditions for more frequent Category Four and Five hurricanes. Researchers from Environment and Climate Change Canada added that these same atmospheric forces can amplify fall and winter storms in Canada, underscoring the interconnection of climate systems across the region.

Ultimately, Hurricane Melissa sounded the alarm on how smaller nations — despite contributing significantly less to climate change — are bearing the heaviest burden of climate disasters. From the devastated communities of Jamaica to the power-less communities of the Maritimes, these meteorological events call attention to the shared consequences of a changing climate and the growing urgency of resilience and mitigation efforts.

The post Hurricane Melissa Sounds the Alarm on Climate Change appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The full outline of the budget is assumed, if done accordingly, to be presented and outlined by the Prime Minister on November 4. Until then, the Department of Finance Canada has made remarks outlining what Budget 2025 will consist of, including its four main objectives which are quoted below:

1. To train the newest generation of Canadian builders, and expand the Union Training and Innovation Program, in the hope of having many more Canadian workers to build major infrastructure and millions more homes across the country.
2. To recognize “the vital role of personal support workers” and introduce a temporary five-year Personal Support Workers Tax Credit. Eligible workers will be able to claim a refundable tax credit equal to 5% of their eligible earnings, providing support of up to $1,100 per year.
3. To protect workers’ rights, promote labour mobility, strengthen competition, and amend the Canada Labour Code to restrict the use of non-compete agreements in employment contracts for federally regulated businesses.
4. To invest $97 million over five years to create a Foreign Credential Recognition Action Fund, and work to make credential recognition “fairer, faster, and more transparent,” helping “qualified foreign trained professionals” contribute expediently to Canada’s workforce.

Some have praised and supported the new budget. Patty Hajdu, Canada’s Minister of Jobs and Families, stated in a press release that this is the time for Canadians to build a future together, lift each other up, and invest in their country. Hajdu believes now more than ever is a moment to invest in the workers who build Canada.

Carney’s budget proposal comes at a time of increasing national debt, projecting an annual $68.5
billion this year, up from $51.7 billion last year, and was met with opposition from the Conservative Party. According to the CBC Carney met privately with opposition leader Pierre Poilievre about the budget on October 22 after meeting with the leaders of the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party. Liberal House leader Steven MacKinnon claimed that there are currently not enough votes for the budget to be passed, with the vote set to be held on November 4. If not passed, calls for a federal election could be imminent.

Within the last year, uncertainty in the Canadian real estate market has led housing to become a major public concern. For many Canadians, finding affordable housing within major cities has become increasingly difficult. Budget 2025 aims to address this issue by expanding the Union Training and Innovation Program, which will promote the addition of new workers to build more housing. Carney praised the Build Canada Homes program and policies he implemented upon winning last year’s election: “we cut taxes to reduce the cost of housing for first-time homebuyers — immediately making the goal of home ownership a reality for more Canadians, especially young families.” The program’s goals are to double the pace of housing construction within the next decade by using new technologies; potentially cutting building times by 50 per cent, reducing costs, and lowering emissions by 20 per cent.

Along with the fiscal investments, Budget 2025 will continue to seek improvements in trade relations, self-defence/military spending, the protection of marginalized communities, healthcare, and immigration, which were mentioned in the prime minister’s address. Carney reaffirmed in his address that the government will continue to protect against both Islamophobia and antisemitism, both of which have been topics of recent national discussions. It has been a little over a month since the Prime Minister’s formal declaration of Palestinian statehood, and the introduction of legislation in September to combat hate crimes, and Carney claims there is more work to come through Budget 2025 in combating discrimination in the country.

Criticism from the Conservative Party continues over immigration, as it is unclear whether the amount of immigrants entering Canada will increase due to the fourth objective of Budget 2025. According to a CBC survey, the amount of Conservative voters who believe there is too much immigration doubled from 2020 to 2025, from 41 per cent to 82 per cent.

Prime Minister Carney’s address also highlighted his desire for independence from the United States economy, a key talking point for the Liberal government. Carney recognized the possible short-term struggle of breaking away from Canada’s largest trade partner but, nevertheless, promised to double non-U.S. exports over the next decade. “As Canadians, we have re-learned some key lessons over the past year. We have to take care of ourselves because we can’t rely on one foreign partner,” said Carney. He continued by asserting that “we are masters in our own house. It is Canadians who will decide what happens here. It’s our country. It’s your future. We are going to give it back to you.” Carney later added that this pushback is not just referring to trade relations with the United States, but also securing the border. The Prime Minister deemed that his party had introduced “the strongest legislation in Canadian history” to protect the Canadian border from gun trafficking and illegal drugs like fentanyl.

These remarks signal that the Carney government will continue pursuing Canadian-independent
policies, even as U.S.-Canada trade talks remain at a standstill with President Trump not pleased with new negotiations. Tensions are still running high, exacerbated by a controversial advertisement using a speech by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Audio from a speech Reagan gave against tariffs was used in the advertisement by Ontario Premier Doug Ford and sparked outrage from the Trump administration, leading to possible increases in tariffs by the U.S.

Among Canadian McGill students who plan to stay in the country after they graduate, reactions and concerns differ. When an anonymous U1 student from St. John’s, Newfoundland was asked about how her life after graduating would be affected by the four main objectives of Budget 2025, she responded: “That’s what I’ll be doing [after graduating], supporting trade unions, and trade workers … the newest generation of Canadian builders, like expanding union trading and innovation programs.” She
continued: “I have no qualms with immigration… I’m pro supporting the economy with immigrants as long as it’s ethical and legal and fair.

“We’re the second largest country in the world with like a third of the population of some of the largest countries. We have the space for new people. [Yet] there is a housing crisis. Canada’s never been good at addressing its housing crisis… So I do think there needs to be more done, not even just on a national level, but also like municipal level when it comes to anti-homeless infrastructure [being harmful], homeless support systems, drug support systems, and that needs to be rolled out on the local level. So I’m not the hugest fan of Carney.”

After discussing why Carney might have done this speech in front of college students, she remarked, “Carney’s government does not care. They’re saying this to students because [they] are at the forefront of protests. They are at the forefront of social movements to address Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti Zionism, Palestinian resistance, you’re seeing the most reform and protests from students on college campuses, like what just happened this past October 7th. 80,000 Montreal students were on strike and protesting. So he’s [Carney] saying it to be like, “hey, this is something we care about.”

A U0 student from Regina, Saskatchewan was also asked about policies towards immigration and Budget 2025. “Always the provincial government changes things and then jobs security goes,” he stated. “Immigration and not being able to find jobs… that could have gone to people who were born in Canada, that’s quite prevalent in … my hometown. [Saskatchewan has] been said to be the easiest place to get your permanent residence … [T]here’s a constant coming and going of the immigrant people, they, you know, come to Regina first and then they move elsewhere, so lots of temporary positions go to them.”

When asked about the “qualified foreign-trained professionals” outlined in Budget 2025, he responded, “I’m pretty much ambivalent towards the hiring of trained foreign professionals, if they need to or if they are needed here, if that is the direction the Canadian thinks is the best way to go. I think they are fine to do so I don’t have any problems with it.

“I am in support of immigration, and of refugees to Canada. They need a place to stay, obviously, but there are other issues, of course, with the housing now and all that sort of thing. So I think if the housing problem were to be fixed then that would create more opportunities for jobs for those that are coming here.”

Though Carney may have spoken to college students in Ottawa to relate to the audience who will eventually be at the forefront of the Canadian economy, he will have to work to make sure Budget 2025 effectively speaks to the concerns of young people. That same kind of outreach will also have to happen towards the opposition in parliament on November 4.

The post Budget 2025: Carney’s New Fiscal Plan appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Many activists at the No Kings protest located in Longmont, Colorado were dressed up in animal and character costumes. The impetus behind activists donning these disguises was a viral TikTok video of an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agent spraying pepper spray into the air vent of a protester’s inflatable frog costume in Portland, Oregon on Oct 2. In response, Chewbaccas, squirrels, unicorns, dinosaurs, and of course more frogs began to make their appearance.

“I am definitely standing with the Portland frog right now,” said Michelle Pulley, a Colorado teacher. She was dressed as Tigger from Winnie the Pooh, symbolizing her goal to “bounce [Trump] out of office — legally.” 

This whimsical energy coursed throughout the event, and protesters believed it to be a radical form of resistance. Dressed in a unicorn costume, a protester who chose to remain anonymous said “Power wants to be respected and feared. They don’t want to be laughed at. So bringing the absurd and joyful to situations like this is one of the most powerful ways to protest hate and fear.” 

While dressing up in playful costumes may seem trite to some, protester Jen Stewart spoke to the long history of “using humor to diffuse authoritarianism,” by describing the No Kings movement as a display of “tactical frivolity,”  meaning activists were using humour to disarm the targets of their protest. 

These costume-clad protestors believe this tactic shines a mirror on the Trump administration, forcing them to confront the absurdity of their own actions. A protester dressed as a T-Rex, who wished to remain anonymous, spoke to the idea that costumes make it difficult for the administration and police to justify acts of violence against protesters. “I mean come on, it’s an inflatable costume,” the protester said. 

While the joy around the animated culture of activism in this small Colorado town was palpable, anxiety for the future of the United States persists. Many are convinced that the next target of the Trump administration will be the US system of presidential election itself. This fear emerged after Trump’s recent allusions to the possibility of extending his limits of his presidential term. Aboard Air Force One on Monday, Oct. 27, the US president said he “would love to do it” in reference to a third term. “If we’re allowed to have [an election], then yes I’m hopeful,” the T-Rex costumed protester said. When asked if she was hopeful for the next election Pulley also said, “if we get to have one.” Gavin Newsom, governor of California, seems to share these same fears. In August, he posted a Youtube video to raise awareness for Californian voters regarding Prop. 50, the Election Rigging Response Act, which aims to prevent Republican gerrymandering. 

In the face of these worries, activists seem to believe hope is essential. Protestor Sam Williams, from  inside his inflatable frog costume, said that he has “more hope than [before].” His partner Stewart, who was also dressed as a frog, added: “this is fun and I think fun fuels you, but at some point we’ll have to take some serious actions.” 

While joy was certainly an effective energizer for these protesters, it also reaffirmed their understanding of the need for sustained action if they hope to see the No Kings Day mission statement (“No Thrones. No Crowns. No Kings”) through. But the activists in Longmont, Colorado are no strangers to making this effort. They’ve hosted and will continue to host weekly vigils in protest of injustice, now with the added implementation of tactical frivolity.

The post No Kings Day protesters use joy as a tool for dissent appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Author’s note: Bill 97 was abandoned by Legault’s government on September 25. This article was written prior to the government’s decision. This reform proves the importance of uplifting Indigenous and environmentalist voices to protect our land.

In April 2025, Quebec Minister of Natural Resources and Forests Maïté Blanchette-Vézina pushed forward Bill 97, a large reform aimed at Quebec forestry, arguing it would modernize the forestry regime and be more sustainable in the long term. The Act proposed to reform supply licenses from five years of validity to ten years, claiming that it would allow for more sustainable approaches by encouraging longer term investments from forestry exploitation actors: having a longer license, they will by default look further in the future when drafting exploitation regimen. Bill 97 also granted more flexibility to local actors to adapt to the local factors more efficiently. The main component of Bill 97, titled “An Act mainly to modernize the forest regime” is its introduction of the ‘triad-zoning model.’ It would divide Quebec Forestry into three zones: conservation areas where logging is strictly limited, multi-purpose areas which allow for tourism and other activities alongside forest exploitation, and finally “priority forest-development zones” meant for intense timber exploitation.

However, Blanchette-Vézina’s bill was met with much resistance. The only ones who who have
approved of the government’s bill are the industrialists of the forestry, with the Quebec Forest Industry Council claiming it offered more predictability while still blaming it for being “too prescriptive” according to the President of the Conseil de l’industrie forestière du Québec, Jean-François Samray.

As soon as the bill was released, First Nations representatives contested it. Regional Chief Francis Verreault-Paul of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador (AFNQL) said Bill 97 was both “extremely surprising and disappointing.” Recommendations made by the Indigenous representatives were not considered at all and Lucien Wabanonik, chief of the Lac-Simon Anishnabe Nation, even called the proposal “an insult to our intelligence.” Indeed, not only did the Minister ignore her constitutional duty to collaborate and concert with Indigenous Peoples in the drafting of a bill that directly affects their lives, livelihoods, and ancestral lands, she also drafted a bill that places the industry above Indigenous rights. Chief Wabanonik explains the bill authorizes traditional activities “only if they do not harm logging,” showing the little consideration this bill, and the way it was written, has for Indigenous Peoples’ rights and ancestral lands.

The “triad-zoning model” planned to grant at least 30 per cent of public forestry in all of Quebec for exclusive exploitation by the industry by 2028. This is not taking into account the ‘multi-use’ zones where logging is also permitted alongside other activities. Because of this, the AFNQL has accused the government of privatizing nearly a third of First Nations territories for industrial interest.

This not only impacts traditional and legal rights of the First Nations, but also the survival and livelihood of communities in addition to the preservation of the environment. While Quebec’s forestry is already more fragile than ever, the Bill places industry over conservation of its natural forests, which have already been compromised as authorities currently authorize clear-cutting far too often. Furthermore, the increase of industrial exploitation will mean the increase in monoculture, which is the direct loss of biodiversity and exposure of the forest to increased risks of fire and disease.

Alongside the AFNQL’s immediate condemnation of Bill 97, the MAMO/MAMU alliance of several Indigenous nations took up protest and blocked forest exploitation by writing letters of expulsion to 11 forestry companies. Environment activists and First Nations members actively protested, even in the streets of Montreal-South. The Cree Nation government also threatened to take legal action using the “Paix des Braves” agreement of 2002. This legally binding treaty protects Cree rights, obligating the Quebec Government to consult them before developing or using Indigenous lands in the North of the province. After the Quebec Ministry conceded to look at proposed amendments over the summer, the AFNQL demanded the complete withdrawal of Bill 97. The only solution would be to draft a bill alongside the First Nations and conservationists, as Chief Verreault-Paul stated, “Only through the full withdrawal of Bill 97 and by returning together to the drawing board can we begin a true co-construction legislative process and envision a balanced future for our forests, while reducing the tensions currently observed on the ground.

The post Contempt for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and the Environment appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Thousands of young Nepalis have flooded public squares and government complexes, refusing to back down. This is no longer just about a ban or even corruption. It’s a generational uprising redefining what dissent looks like in South Asia.

Background & Triggers

Nepal has spent the past two decades trying to reinvent itself. After a brutal civil war between Maoist insurgents and the Nepali Kingdom ended in 2006, the country abolished the monarchy and became a federal democratic republic. The abolition of the monarchy and adoption of a federal democratic republic carried promises of peace, equality, and development. This was supposed to be a new beginning. But nearly twenty years later, many young Nepalis see only broken promises.

Nepal’s postwar governments have been marked by instability, elite entrenchment, and a political system that feels increasingly out of touch; elements demonstrating that the democratic experiment has failed to deliver. The federal system, once imagined as a way to decentralize power and ensure inclusion, now feels bloated, unaccountable, and designed to protect elite interests. Gen Z Nepalis were raised in the shadow of civil conflict, promised democracy by the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Accord and subsequent political leaders. But now the gap between expectation and reality, what was promised and what people now live with, has become impossible to ignore.

The spark that gave rise to the protests came from a viral “nepo baby” campaign: a series of online posts exposing the lavish lifestyles of politicians’ children – from foreign vacations to luxury apartments. This campaign fuelled suspicions that public money and state resources were being siphoned off to bankroll their privileges. In a country grappling with youth unemployment, inflation, and mass migration abroad, the images struck a nerve. Then came the tipping point – Nepal’s government abruptly banned 26 social media platforms, including Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook after they failed to register under new rules backed by an August 17 Supreme Court order. Officials said registration was needed to curb fake accounts, hate speech, and online fraud. Human rights groups have condemned the move, labelling it as censorship.

Though the ban was lifted just days later, it had already done its damage. By then, protests had erupted across Kathmandu and other major cities. The movement quickly morphed into a full-scale reckoning with power, privilege, and the political system itself.

The Protest Culture

This uprising doesn’t look like the protests of the past, such as the 2006 People’s Movement that ended the monarchy, or the 2015 demonstrations during the constitution-writing process. This time, there are no formal parties leading the charge and no clear figureheads delivering speeches from podiums. Instead, this is a decentralized, youth-driven movement with a language all its own – part meme, part manifesto.

Protesters carried everything from sarcastic meme posters to TikTok-themed placards, turning the symbols of banned platforms into emblems of defiance. This was a rebellion wrapped in pop culture: at once familiar and irreverent. Others wore cosplay or livestreamed the demonstrations on TikTok. The tone of these demonstrations were marked by both biting humour and deep frustration.

This is protest as performance – both online and off. Nepal has one of the highest rates of social
media use per capita in South Asia, and platforms like Instagram and TikTok have become key organizing tools. Young people use viral videos, satirical hashtags like “#NepoKids,” and memes to narrate the movement in real time – framing dissent with irony and creativity.

In recent days, the youthful defiance has collided with government resistance. Security forces have responded with live ammunition, rubber bullets, water cannons, and mass arrests. Yet as tear gas clouds rise and gunfire echoes through the streets, the One Piece flag still waves; just this time over barricades, burning buildings, and bloodstained pavement. What began in memes has now become gravely serious.

The Deeper Crisis

The Nepal protests have suddenly become one of South Asia’s most urgent crises. What began as an online revolt has spiraled into the deadliest protest Nepal has seen in decades. Security forces opened fire on demonstrators, killing at least 70 people and injuring hundreds more. The military now enforces curfews, soldiers patrol Kathmandu, and protesters have torched government buildings including Parliament, government ministries, the offices of Kantipur Media Group, and even the Prime Minister’s residence.

Although this generation doesn’t remember the monarchy firsthand, they’ve inherited its aftermath: broken infrastructure such as long-delayed irrigation projects, limited opportunities with a youth unemployment rate of over 20 per cent, and a state where nepotism permeates job opportunities, land deals, and contracts. Calls to reinstate the monarchy, heard at some protests, aren’t necessarily about loyalty to kings. Instead, they’re a rejection of the current system’s hypocrisy which limits opportunities for the masses.

On Tuesday September 9, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli resigned under pressure, alongside several senior ministers. On September 12, former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was appointed as interim Prime Minister while resistance continues in the streets. Parliament is paralyzed after the lower house’s dissolution and courts are silent as the Supreme Court is now damaged. In Kathmandu, ministries, the president’s residence, and police stations have been torched as curfews and soldiers replace civic order.

At the same time, no unified ideological platform has emerged among protesters. Some want reforms, others want revolution. What unites them is a loss of trust – not just in politicians, but in Nepal’s entire architecture of power.

This situation is not unique to Nepal. Across the Global South, Gen Z is mobilizing outside of old ideologies and institutional frameworks, not because they don’t care – but because they’ve stopped pretending these systems ever worked.

The post The Revolution Will Be Memed: Nepal’s Gen Z Uprising and the Collapse of Political Trust appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In August, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) talks held in Geneva with the goal of drafting a global legally binding document on plastic pollution, failed to yield any results after ten days of discussion.

The lack of consensus, and thus of issuing any plastic production and pollution global regulation, poses serious problems as the environmental plastic emergency becomes more and more pressing. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) warns that, unless an international accord is reached soon, plastic waste is projected to triple by 2060. Tuvalu, convention delegate speaking for fourteen small island states in the Pacific, declared that “millions of tonnes of plastic waste will continue to be dumped in our oceans, affecting our ecosystem, food security, livelihood and culture.” Indeed, of the 500 million tons of plastic consumed in 2024, 399 million went to waste.

Plastic pollution invades the food chain and provokes biodiversity loss in the oceans. This ripples into human health. Researchers have studied the impacts of plastic pollution in the ocean: amongst others, the transmission of toxic chemicals into the oceans. These are integrated into the food chain and, at some point, in our plates, affecting our health after having affected that of countless marine fauna and flora species. Dioxins or PCBs are some of the chemicals released by plastic waste, with causal links to cancer having been found among humans.

Global efforts are underway to mitigate the plastic pollution crisis, like the work of The Ocean Cleanup, an international non-profit cleaning up plastic waste from our rivers and oceans. However, the long term solution remains reducing plastic production. As UNEP Executive Director Inger Anderson stated, “We will not recycle our way out of the plastic pollution crisis.” Anderson’s concerns have been echoed by countless environmental activists and advocacy groups, including GreenPeace, which has called for the reduction of plastic production by at least 75 per cent by 2040.

If hopes were high at the beginning of the talks in Geneva, the failure to reach consensus over the drafting of a global legally binding document has disillusioned many. The outcome was characterised by The Guardian as a blow to multilateralism, demonstrating that looking for consensus among nations to act collectively is not efficient. The Geneva summit was the fifth occasion on which countries gathered to discuss the plastic pollution document. The original deadline to draft a document was set to December 2024, making August 2025 an already late solution. The consensus has become a “veto tool,” according to Down to Earth journalist Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh. The necessity for all members to agree means only a few countries voting against a decision can block the negotiations.

In light of this, petroleum-producing countries, those who call themselves the ‘like-minded countries’ led by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, the US, Russia and India, blocked all the processes by voting against all beginning drafts. Colombian delegate Sebastiàn Rodriguez stated that the negotiations were “consistently blocked by a small number of states who simply don’t want an agreement,” while French Environment Minister Agnès Pagner-Runacher blamed the delay on countries “guided by short-term financial interests.” Hence, the reaching consensus appears to be blocking any advancement to solve the plastic pollution crisis: because of countries who fear caps on plastic production affecting their economies. At this point, abandoning a global approach and considering meeting without the participation of “petrostates,” as coined by Micronesia delegate Dennis Clare, could prove more efficient in reaching a decision.

The post Plastic Pollution: Geneva Meeting Failure appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The August 28 protest was initially organized by the Indonesian Labour Party, Partai Buruh, and grew in size as the night went on. This was the second wave of the mass protests which have been growing in Indonesia since August 26.

The initial riots are a culmination of months of economic and political frustration after it was announced mid-August that the 580 members of the House of Representatives (DPR) would receive a monthly housing allowance of 50 million rupiah (approximately 4,207 CAD) in addition to their salaries. This allowance would make their earnings about 10 times the monthly average minimum wage.

The protests have gotten increasingly violent and clearly defined as protesters are taking to the streets to voice their demands and express their anger against police brutality. Following Kurniawan’s death, demonstrators have consolidated their demands and are protesting with clearer objectives. As of September 2, 20 people have been reported missing, and over 3,000 people have been arrested. The police have continued to fire tear gas and rubber bullets at protestors in the streets, homes, and institutions. Two universities in Bandung have seen violent clashes between the police and student protestors. The total death toll of the demonstrations has amounted to at least ten people.

Over the last few months, Indonesians have suffered from mass lay-offs and a sharp decline in purchasing power. Unemployment in Indonesia ranks highest among all Southeast Asia. Furthermore, the government has been considering increasing taxes and lowering wages for teachers, with propositions such as a 250 per cent property tax hike in Central Java, which was later withdrawn.

All this is happening in the background while the government announced that the DPR’s wages and allowances were being raised to 100 million rupiah (about 8,415 CAD) a month total. Critics argue that the new allowance is not only excessive, but also insensitive at a time when most people are already struggling due to government policies.

Human rights organizations in Indonesia have spoken out against these protests, with Wirya Adiwena, Deputy Director of Amnesty International Indonesia, saying that the government has been “bringing back old playbooks” from the New Order by blaming the protests on foreign intervention, as well as plans to slowly reintegrate the army into civilian lives by allocating more civilian posts to military officers. These policies already sparked protests in February 2025 during the “Indonesia Gelap,” or “Dark Indonesia” protests, which had also grown to include social issues such as police violence, inefficient state projects, and large scale corruption.

On August 29, several informational Indonesian social media accounts released the “17+8 demands” from the people, summarizing demands that have been circulating among demonstrators. The government has been given a deadline of September 5, 2025 to address the 17 short term demands, and until next year to fulfill the final 8. The 17+8 paper has been reproduced and used as a symbol of the protests not only in Indonesia, but by the Indonesian diaspora all around the world, from New York to Berlin to Melbourne, giving a clear and concrete voice to the demands of the Indonesian people.

Overall, these demands include a more efficient and transparent use of state budgets, for government officials to take accountability and listen to their people, and to officially and thoroughly investigate Kurniawan’s death as well as those implicated. The list also calls to reveal the DPR members’ involvement in corruption, reform the DPR and police, and facilitate “open dialogue” with the protestors and organizations. This paper has been received and is currently being reviewed by the president Prabowo Subianto.

Prabowo Subianto served as a high-ranking military general under ex-dictator Suharto’s bloody regime (1967 to 1998). He has been accused of human rights abuses, being involved in the disappearance of pro-democracy activists, and perpetuating the East-Timor genocide. He has still never been held accountable for his actions. Today, he is the president of the world’s third largest democracy.

Even though Prabowo was democratically elected, his rise to power has also been seen as somewhat undemocratic, as the constitution was amended so that his vice president, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, would be able to run at his side.

Upon being elected, Prabowo promised to “work democratically,” but warned that he would not be afraid of taking “decisive action” if necessary, raising concerns that he might resort to autocratic or military means to remain in power.

In the streets, people are demanding an end to the use of military and police forces against civilians and to withdraw soldiers from security operations during the protests, as well as a release of the arrested protesters. Civilians are further pushing to denounce the criminalisation of the right to assemble, associate, and protest peacefully.

Following civilian outrage, the Indonesian National Police’s Code of Ethics Committee (KKEP) has dishonourably discharged Commissioner Kosmas Kaju Gae on September 3, after finding him guilty of his involvement in the death of Affan Kurniawan. The same day, Sufmi Dasco Ahmad, the deputy speaker of the DPR, announced that he would discuss the 17+8 demands of the people with faction leaders following an audience with student groups.

The protests were especially successful in forcing Prabowo to backtrack on his plans to increase the benefits for members of Parliament, although he also ordered the military and police to take action against rioters and looters after state buildings and homes of political party members were ransacked or set on fire during the demonstrations, comparing these elements of violence with acts of terrorism and treason.

These protests serve as an important trial for Prabowo’s crisis management, and have so far been the biggest test to Indonesian democracy in recent years.

Editor’s Note: The print version of this article contains multiple misprints. This is the correct version.

The post From Taxes to Tear Gas: Democracy on Trial in Indonesia appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In an unprecedented display of transnational solidarity, more than 150,000 people across Europe and North Africa mobilized over the past week as part of the Global March to Gaza – a multi-pronged civilian initiative calling for the release of detained humanitarian workers and the immediate delivery of critical aid to Gaza.  While mass street protests surged in cities from Paris to Athens, thousands more joined caravans and convoys aiming to reach the Rafah border crossing through Egypt and deliver aid directly to Palestinians trapped under blockade.

One key branch of this effort, the Sumud Convoy (Arabic for “steadfastness”), launched from Tunis on June 9 with over 1,000 participants from the Maghreb region. Unionists, doctors, students, and activists from Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, and Morocco traveled eastward by road, hoping to cross into Egypt and reach Rafah on foot. Coordinated marches from Cairo to El Arish were also planned. However,  by June 16 both routes had stalled — blocked by Libyan forces loyal to General Khalifa Haftar, who maintains close ties with Egypt and Israel and had frequently opposed pro-Palestinian mobilizations in the region – and refused entry by Egyptian authorities citing permit issues. Several marchers were arrested, over 400 were deported, and dozens remain in custody in Egypt.

Still, the broader march initiative brought together over 4,000 international activists from more than 80 countries, including healthcare workers from 54 nations and delegates from the Palestinian Youth Movement, Codepink, and Jewish Voice for Labour. Protesters have emphasized that their demands extend beyond humanitarian access — they seek political accountability for the blocaked itself. “No to the blockade, no to normalization, yes to Palestinian freedom,” declared one Tunisian organizer, echoing calls from London to Cairo.

Canadian solidarity groups have been prominently involved in the Global March to Gaza. Two days before the march’s start, on June 10, Members of Parliament from three Canadian parties stood alongside organizers from Palestine Vivra (Palestine Will Live) in a press conference hosted by Liberal MP Salma Zahid on Parliament Hill to promote the initiative. According to Palestine Vivra representatives, nearly 700 people in Canada applied to participate in the march. The Canadian contingent included medical professionals, students, and activists from across the country.  

“Liberation is good medicine,” said Dr. Yipeng Ge, an Ottawa physician who announced he would take leave from his practice to join the march. Ge said he felt compelled to do “everything possible to stop the genocide in Gaza.” The June 10 press conference also underscored growing political pressure within Canada over the Gaza crisis. That same day, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government announced limited sanctions – travel bans and asset freezes – against two far-right Israeli ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezaalel Smotrich. The move, which aligned with coordinated actions by the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Norway, was hailed by Zahid as an “important first step,” though she and others urged more forceful actions.

While marchers struggled to reach Gaza by land, a parallel drama played out at sea. The March to Gaza coincided with a seaborne mission by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) – a grassroots alliance of international civil society organizations advocating for the rights of Palestinians. The Madleen, a 18-metre sailing yacht bearing the British flag, set out from Sicily on June 1 – the latest attempt in a series of maritime efforts (2011, 2015, and 2018) to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid. 

On board of the FFC were 12 passengers (11 activists and one journalist) from a dozen countries. Among them were high-profile figures like Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg and the newly elected French MEP Rima Hassan. The volunteer crew carried a modest cargo of relief supplies – baby formula, rice, flour, diapers, water purifiers, medical kits, crutches and children’s prosthetic limbs – intended for Gaza’s beleaguered population. While limited in scale, the mission was largely symbolic, aiming to “break the siege” by delivering a “small shipment of humanitarian aid” and more importantly, to refocus global attention on Gaza’s plight. 

While the Madleen crew was unarmed and acting in full accordance with international and maritime law, Israel’s government vowed to stop the flotilla’s advancement. On June 8, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (also cited as Israel Katz in some official statements) publicly ordered the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) to block the Madleen’s voyage. “I say clearly: Turn back because you will not reach Gaza,” Gallant warned, instructing the navy to take “whatever measures are necessary” to stop the flotilla from reaching Palestinian shores. 

In the early hours of Monday, June 9, Gallant’s orders were carried out. Around 2 a.m, approximately 185 kilometers from Gaza – Israeli naval commandos intercepted, boarded and seized the Madleen in international waters. As Israeli naval forces intercepted the Madleen, the FFC released a pre-recorded video message from Thunberg on social media – to be published if Israel raided the boat – ensuring that her plea “Stay focused on Gaza and our mission” reached the world even as she sat in detention. Israeli officials pushed back, framing the capture as a legitimate enforcement of its naval blockade. 

The Israeli Foreign Ministry confirmed that the yacht was towed to the port of Ashdod, stating that “all aboard are safe,” and undergoing medical checks in Israeli custody. On social media, however, the Ministry mocked the Madleen as a “selfie yacht of ‘celebrities’” seeking publicity. It also released photographs of the detained activists – most notably one of a smiling Greta Thunberg in a life vest receiving a sandwich from an Israeli officer – seemingly intended to counter allegations of mistreatment.

Following the seizure of the Madleen, Israeli authorities detained all 12 passengers for allegedly violating the blockade. The activists,  who hailed from Sweden, France, Spain, Brazil, Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland,  were taken to Givon Prison in Ramla, Israel. At this prison, the detainees were quickly given a choice: sign deportation orders and waive any legal recourse, or remain in detention and face possible prosecution.

Within a day, on June 10, four activists, including Greta Thunberg, agreed to deportation and were flown out of the country. “We have been deported from Israel after being abducted in international waters,” Thunberg tweeted upon arriving in Europe, calling the experience “surreal” and urging continued attention to Gaza. By June 12, facing legal and diplomatic pressure, Israeli authorities deported six of the eight holdouts. By June 17, all 12 activists had been released and were returning to their home countries via Jordan, according to the Freedom Flotilla Coalition.Reports emerged of harsh treatment during their brief detention. According to the legal advocacy group Adalah, flotilla volunteers suffered “mistreatment, punitive measures and aggressive treatment” while behind bars, with two activists being placed in solitary confinement – Rima Hassan for writing “Free Palestine” on a cell wall, and Brazilian activist Thiago Ávila after he launched a hunger strike to protest Gaza’s starvation blockade. These accounts have further intensified scrutiny of Israel’s conduct, with United Nations officials and legal experts warning that the operation may constitute both a violation of international humanitarian and maritime law.

Israel justified the seizure by reiterating that Gaza has been under naval blockade since 2007, with unauthorized vessels barred from approaching due to security concerns. Former Israeli Navy commander Eli Marom defended the intercept as necessary, warning that letting the ship through would “undermine the blockade” and “open the door” to more blockade runners, which Israel fears could include arms shipments. 

Yet the seizure of the Madleen drew sharp criticism from international human rights groups and legal experts. In a joint statement issued on June 2, ten UN human rights experts, including nine Special Rapporteurs, had called on Israel to allow the flotilla’s safe passage – an order echoed by the International Court of Justice. According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), civilian vessels in international waters are protected from interference except under limited circumstances such as piracy or during armed conflict. The experts underscored that under international law, humanitarian missions, particularly those aiming to deliver essential aid to besieged civilian populations, are entitled to protection,  warning that obstructing it could constitute collective punishment. Israeli courts, however, summarily dismissed these arguments and upheld their government’s actions.

Meanwhile, governments in Sweden, Spain, Ireland, and Brazil issued diplomatic protests – including summoning Israeli ambassadors to express disapproval over the flotilla’s interception. But broader institutional responses — especially from European Union bodies and North American allies — remained largely unfounded.

Online global support surged under the trending hashtag #FreeTheMadleen. As photos of the interception spread, many criticized Israel’s attempt to portray the boat as a “selfie yacht,” calling the statement dismissive and in poor taste. Even some Israeli media outlets questioned the tone of official communications.Still, the most powerful reaction may have come from the coalition itself. The FFC announced plans to launch more missions, declaring that Israel’s actions had only strengthened their resolve. “This isn’t the end,” they said. “It’s the beginning of something much bigger.”

In Canada, the response to the Gaza crisis has been particularly intense.  In the past year, Canadians have held some of the largest pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the West, and that trend continued this month. On the evening of June 9, hundreds of Montrealers  poured into the streets less than 24 hours after the flotilla’s capture, in a spontaneous show of support for the detained activists. The crowd gathered outside of the Israeli consulate to chant “Enough is enough!” to echo a rallying cry against Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza. Some protesters resurrected chants from January 2024 –“Justin, Justin, shame on you!”–echoing earlier criticism of his silence on Gaza during pro-Palestinian rallies.

Solidarity demonstrations in solidarity with the Madleen also took place in Toronto, Yellowknife, and Ottawa, where local activists and community groups rallied to demand accountability and stronger government action. These events built on momentum from the June 10 Parliament Hill press conference, signaling that the flotilla incident had reignited public outrage across the country.

As one Montreal organizer put it: “Everyone has a role to play, even if that’s as simple as being on a boat or protesting. This is just the start of what we can do when we’re organized.”

The convergence of the Global March to Gaza and the Madleen flotilla affair appears to be a watershed moment, shining a spotlight on efforts to end Gaza’s humanitarian emergency and testing the international community’s resolve. By the end of the week following the events of June 9, the marchers in Egypt were regrouping after many had been detained and deported, uncertain how close they would be allowed to get to Gaza’s restricted border. The Freedom Flotilla’s next moves were also uncertain – their boat had been impounded, but their campaign was anything but over. The coalition declared that Israel’s “piracy”  had only strengthened their determination to challenge the blockade.

For Gaza’s two million residents, these acts of solidarity have delivered a rare bit of hope. “The message of humanity reached the world,” said Madleen Kulab in response to the voyage, who is the young Gazan fisherwoman for whom the ship was named. Though the Madleen did not reach her shores, Kulab told Al Jazeera she was “deeply moved” that activists around the world would risk their own freedom for Gaza’s sake.Moving forward, the FFC says it will launch more boats to deliver aid to Gaza. On land, activists promise to keep organizing caravans and marches until the siege is broken. Whether these efforts will spur international government action remains to be seen. But for a week this June, the world’s attention was fixed on a group of ordinary people who took extraordinary steps – walking, sailing, and protesting – to demand humanitarian support  for Gaza, adding new urgency to calls for an immediate ceasefire and the lifting of Israel’s blockade.

The post From the Streets to the Sea: International Mobilizations Converge to Break the Siege on Gaza appeared first on The McGill Daily.

President Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January has ushered in a blitz of hardline immigration measures. In his first days back in office, Trump issued 10 executive orders on immigration, reviving many of his first-term policies and adding new ones. He declared a national emergency at the southern border to unlock funds for extending the border wall and even authorized military involvement in enforcement. Thousands of US troops (about 10,000 service members) have since been deployed along the frontier. 

The administration also suspended refugee admissions and abruptly ended humanitarian parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans, leaving more than 500,000 would-be migrants in legal limbo inside the United States. At the same time, asylum processing at the US–Mexico border has effectively been shut down. A reinstated “Remain in Mexico” rule now forces most asylum seekers to await US immigration hearings on Mexican soil, adding to already dire conditions in border camps.

Trump has vowed to ramp up interior enforcement as well, seeking to triple deportations to about one million per year, far above previous records. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been given an unprecedented mandate, with reports of daily arrest quotas to accelerate removals. As of June 10, reports indicate that agents now face a formal 3,000-arrests-per-day  quota, triple last year’s target. Agents have also been unleashed at sensitive locations like schools and churches that were previously off-limits. This aggressive approach has spread fear through immigrant communities and triggered a flurry of legal challenges. 

Within weeks, federal judges blocked Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented migrants – calling it unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Civil rights groups have filed dozens of lawsuits against various crackdowns. On 13 June, the Supreme Court sided with the White House for the ninth time this term, letting Trump revoke several humanitarian programs while litigation plays out. Despite the court orders and growing civilian outcry, the White House has pressed on, insisting its hardline stance is necessary to restore “law and order” in immigration.

These tactics have driven unauthorized border crossings down to their lowest level in years — March 2025 saw a 95% drop in apprehensions compared to a year earlier — but have overwhelmed Mexico’s shelters and courts with stranded migrants. Major human rights organizations, including ACLU, Human Rights First, and Amnesty International, have since raised grave concerns about due process violations and the treatment of vulnerable people; particularly children and asylum seekers with medical needs. These groups have organized legal clinics at border camps, launched lawsuits, and staged protests in cities like Washington, D.C., and El Paso. The aggressive enforcement of these strict policies has sparked mounting backlash from civil society and international observers, warning that the United States risks trading security for fundamental human rights.

High-profile raids and draconian enforcement in early June ignited public backlash in Los Angeles, as the city has become spotlighted in the national debate over Trump’s immigration clampdown. On June 6, ICE launched a major sweep downtown, arresting 44 people outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building. Protests by Mexican-American and immigrant communities erupted almost immediately, with demonstrators waving Mexican flags, throwing concrete, and even setting Waymo self-driving cars ablaze. Riot police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash-bang grenades.

Over the next four nights the protests swelled, resulting in over 100 arrests and the declaration of a tactical alert that flooded the streets with armored vehicles and federal agents. President Trump, calling the protesters “insurrectionists,” deployed the California National Guard and  ordered 700 active-duty Marines from Twentynine Palms to join the deployment. Up to 4,700 National Guard troops were deployed to quell protests amid the immigration raids. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that the Marines and National Guard will remain in Los Angeles for at least 60 days, with an estimated cost of $134 million, confined to protecting federal buildings and personnel rather than making direct arrests. Late on 12 June, the 9th Circuit issued a district-court ruling on troop control, keeping the National Guard under federal command, for now.

California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass denounced the military presence as “illegal,” “un-American,” and a dangerous federal overreach. California has already filed a lawsuit against the federal government, with Newsom calling the deployment a “trampling of state sovereignty.” While protests have since cooled slightly, solidarity marches and smaller clashes have erupted in at least nine other US cities, including New York, San Francisco, and Austin. Critics warn that this domestic use of military force, the first in Los Angeles since 1992, sets a chilling precedent for civil liberties and signals an alarming expansion of executive power. 

The fallout has rippled across the border as well. Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum publicly condemned the violence in Los Angeles, calling for US authorities to respect due process for detained migrants. Mexico’s foreign minister confirmed that at least 42 Mexican nationals were swept into detention during the Los Angeles operations, with some already deported. In Mexico City, small solidarity protests have gathered outside the US Embassy, underscoring the deepening alarm south of the border over Washington’s actions.

As Washington clamps down, Mexico is contending with a surge of migrants and deepening humanitarian strain. Daily asylum applications have tripled to around 1,000, overwhelming Mexico’s already fragile refugee agency and border shelters. UNHCR data show Mexico recorded 16,100 new asylum claims by early March 2025, after already receiving more than 78,900 asylum applications in 2024, following a record-breaking 140,000 claims in 2023. Many of these migrants were en route to the US and became stranded amidst Trump’s crackdown, while others were deported and now fear returning to their home countries.

This influx comes after the  Trump administration’s January decision to freeze approximately $2 billion in humanitarian aid for Mexico and Central America for 90 days. These cuts to vital USAID funding have forced many shelters and legal aid centers in Mexico to scale back or shut down altogether just as demand is skyrocketing. The aid freeze also slashed funding for Mexico’s own refugee agency, which had relied on U.N. contributions underwritten by US dollars. “This is worse than anything I’ve ever seen,” said Gretchen Kuhner, a veteran migrant advocate and director of the Institute for Women in Migration, referring to the collision of new US border policies and the sudden withdrawal of support.

Canada has upheld its record-high immigration targets by welcoming nearly 500,000 new permanent residents in 2025. However, Prime Minister Mark Carney, who took office in March, is moving to tighten the country’s borders in response to US pressure and shifting domestic sentiment. In early June, Carney’s government introduced the Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2), proposing sweeping changes that critics warn could dramatically reshape Canada’s humanitarian image. Bill C-2 is now being considered by the House public-safety committee, with first witness testimony pencilled in for late June.

The bill would bar asylum claims from migrants who have been in Canada for over a year or who entered the country irregularly, being applied retroactively to those who have arrived since mid-2020. It also expands the Coast Guard’s authority to interdict and search along waterways, permits mail inspections, and grants sweeping new powers to cancel or suspend immigration documents “in the national interest.” Supporters, including Carney and Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, argue these measures are vital to “combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, and crack down on money laundering,” all safeguarding Canada’s borders in an era of heightened migration flows.

However, the Strong Borders Act has faced immediate backlash. Critics, including MP Jenny Kwan, the Migrant Rights Network, and refugee advocates, say the bill mimics Trump-era US tactics and risks violating Canada’s international obligations to protect refugees. 

“It’s an alarming shift,” Kwan said, describing the bill as a “massive rollback of rights” that can erode Canada’s long-standing humanitarian commitments.

The US factor looms large. President Trump has repeatedly accused Canada of failing to stop the movement of illicit fentanyl and irregular migration across the northern frontier. In February, Trump threatened and implemented short-lived tariffs on certain Canadian exports, rattling Ottawa and adding impetus for Carney’s government to show it can police its own borders more strictly. 

“There are items in the bill that have been irritants for the US, so we’re addressing some of those issues,” Anandasangaree acknowledged, even as he insisted the bill is about Canadian security first.

The Strong Borders Act has already sparked protests and is mounting legal challenges in Ottawa and in major cities like Montreal and Toronto. Critics argue that Canada, long seen as a beacon of openness, is at risk of abandoning that tradition in the name of security. For Carney’s government, the challenge remains how to reassure a skeptical public that the system is both secure and fair without sacrificing the country’s humanitarian identity.

Across North America, the current wave of immigration crackdowns has revealed a continent both divided and united, 

In the United States, President Trump’s militarized enforcement has fueled fears of creeping authoritarianism and abandonment of civil liberties. Critics see echoes of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, once used to target immigrant communities, and warn of the dangers of unchecked executive power in an era of deep political polarization.

Meanwhile, Mexico is absorbing the brunt of these shifting dynamics. The nation’s already strained asylum system faces record-level migrant claims, while Washington’s aid freeze has left shelters and legal aid groups teetering. Despite these challenges, President Claudia Sheinbaum has tried to chart a course that balances cooperation with the United States against Mexico’s own humanitarian obligations.

Legal challenges against the Liberal Party’s proposed Strong Borders Act have ignited protests from Vancouver to Montreal, highlighting the country’s internal struggle to balance openness with control.From the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles to the steps of Parliament in Ottawa, civil society groups are mobilizing. They’re fighting not just against new policies, but to protect the very notion of asylum and the principle that migration can be managed without erasing human dignity.

The post The Continental Mosaic: Immigration Sparks Unrest and Policy Shifts Across North America appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Clauses regarding the proliferation of hate speech are notorious for how contestable, narrow, or vague they are. In Kenya particularly, the criminalization of criticism deemed as vilification has harmed activists in the name of quelling anti-government propaganda. Just last year, the Kenyan Police Department, as well as the National Guard, injured 361 people and killed 39 during the national #RejectFinanceBill2024 protests. This wave of demonstrations was one of the largest Kenya has seen since the 2007 election crisis, with protestors from 35 counties participating in the movement. Kenyans in Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, and more took to the streets to reject the government’s proposed tax increase to pay off government debt to the International Monetary Fund. These tax reforms would have increased the prices of everyday essentials, such as a 25 percent excise tax on vegetable oil and a 16 percent value-added tax on transportation. With a poverty rate of 38.9 per cent, and many employed citizens belonging to the informal sector, the added financial burden of these taxes would have been detrimental for many Kenyan families. 

The current president of Kenya, William Ruto, ultimately retracted the bill, as Kenyan mobilization proved to be stronger than its police, military, and governmental opposition. Through social media, younger generations promoted popular education programs and organized crowdfunding initiatives to help those without transportation reach protest locations. With the help of Google, activists were able to translate the bill into local languages and utilize artificial intelligence to understand the bill’s provisions that contained complicated legal jargon. However, employing the internet to combat oppression has seen its own set of complications, such as the content moderation and systems of surveillance that arose following the Arab Spring, a movement of protests and revolutions in North African and Levantine countries in the early 2010s. The enhanced governmental monitoring of journalists and social media users put many activists in danger, forcing them to alter their original methods of spreading awareness on social issues in fear of government retaliation. 

Despite these consequences, the lessons from the Arab Spring uprisings influenced the current use of the internet to protect protestors today. In Kenya, the internet and social media have been utilized to simplify the sometimes intimidating entry into political activism. Activists such as Boniface Mwagi have become outspoken about the violence and intimidation the government has used against Kenyans who’ve exposed administrative corruption. In addition, bloggers have routinely used their platforms to inform new protestors about safety measures. 

Despite these successes, this June, a year after the #RejectFinanceBill2024 movement began, the sight of stones thrown in exchange for bullets and the sound of chants for justice silenced by tear gas have once again flooded the streets of Nairobi. The current wave of protests has emerged to demand justice for Albert Ojwang, a father, teacher, and blogger who was found dead in the hands of the Kenyan police force this month.   

On June 6, the Kenyan Police arrested Albert Ojwang in his hometown of Kakoth, near Homa Bay, and transported him to Nairobi as a result of Ojwang’s social media posts criticizing the Kenyan Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eliud Lagat. The following morning, Ojwang was found unconscious in his cell, and after being rushed to the nearest hospital, he was pronounced dead. The same day, the Kenyan Police Department announced that Ojwang’s death was a result of self-inflicted injuries. However, suspecting foul play, on June 9, thousands in Nairobi began to demonstrate, demanding justice for Ojwang and denouncing the police brutality in Kenya. Chants exclaiming “Stop Killing Us”, accompanied by signs displaying the same words flooded popular streets. Soon after, on June 11, these statements were verified to be rooted in truth when a pathologist’s report confirmed Ojwang died as a result of external injuries to the head, neck, and body. Investigators also verified that CCTV footage was tampered with on the night of Ojwang’s death. As of June 16, Eliud Lagat has stepped down as deputy chief of police, five officers have been removed from active duty, and 23 have been questioned for their involvement in Ojwang’s murder. 

The issue of police violence in Kenya, however, did not begin or end with Ojwang, nor did it arise as a result of Finance Bill protests. Kenya’s administrative service police was originally established in 1896 by the British Foreign Office to act as a colonial police force and has historically used extreme violence to suppress human rights and protect taxation laws. During the colonial era, the police aggressively cracked down on land protection uprisings, placing many in concentration camps. The police also enforced hut taxes on rural peasantry, which financed colonial infrastructure and administration. Over time, like most sub-Saharan countries, more Kenyans migrated to urban centers following rapid industrialization and as a result, police forces naturally began to subjugate those in large cities as well. In their research on the role of the police in Kenyan cities, Professor Kristine Höglund and Professor Emma Elfversson found that urbanites in Kenya tend to hold less trust in the police, as the over-policing of many communities has resulted in violent conflicts. 

Today, the protection of the elite and the silencing of civilians is still a major concern amongst Kenyan society. Isaak Hassan, Kenya’s Policing Oversight Authority chairman, stated that the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) has reported over 20 deaths in police custody in the past four months. This, in addition to the 72 disappearances and the 104 cases of extrajudicial killings that took place in 2024 — mostly including people outspoken about the repression in Kenya — raises serious concerns about the validity of freedom of speech that the state claims to protect. 

While President Ruto publicly denounced the police brutality witnessed during the Finance Bill protests, the only changes in response to Kenyan police brutality have included the resignation and replacement of individual officers, with few structural changes addressing the culture of police violence taking place. Still, despite the slow administrative changes to policing, the general conviction of Kenyans has remained unchanged. Protestors, activists, and all who have witnessed the impoverishment, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings at the hands of the police remain steadfast in their demands for justice, with the state’s violent suppression doing little to curtail the stamina of Kenyan resistance. 

The post When Freedom in Kenya Kills appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As a hub for student activism in America, particularly regarding pro-Palestinian resistance on campus, Columbia University has been the first of many higher education institutions in the U.S. targeted by the Trump administration. For example, on March 20, Trump announced the suspension of 175 million USD in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania for allowing transgender women to participate in women’s sports. The Trump administration has also called for an investigation into the University of California (UC) system in the wake of allegations of antisemitism. As a result of these threats, the UC system has also banned ‘diversity statements’ from their faculty hiring process amidst a federal crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, showcasing how the Trump administration’s goals will leave lasting impacts on both students and staff.

The cuts in Columbia’s federal funding mark the first of many initiatives that the U.S. government is taking in stripping private and public institutions of their autonomy, in curriculum, admissions, and hiring processes. Critically, it has also created a shift in the exercise of First Amendment rights in spaces where free thought has traditionally been welcomed. As the number of campus protests
has exploded in the past year – with over 3,000 protests logged by Harvard University Ash Center’s
Nonviolent Action Lab – the Trump administration is adamant to control many of the country’s
leading universities. Trump has carefully crafted a route to justify restrictions on free speech, such
as by equating pro-Palestinian activism with anti-semitism, setting a dangerous precedent for
future leaders.

Amid the protests at Columbia, Trump dispatched federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into two university residences, as revealed in an email sent out to students from the Interim President Katrina Armstrong on March 13. These agents, alongside U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, had been assigned with arrest warrants, one for Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil, his detention being met with massive outcry across the country. Following his arrest, Trump vowed to deport pro-Palestinian activists, claiming that they support Hamas and are antisemitic. Despite the extreme circumstances that students across the country have been met with, protestors have refused to back down.

Universities across Canada and the U.S. have already been experiencing massive budget cuts, curtailing many PhD programs and even rescinding acceptances, as reported at the University of Pennsylvania. Now, with the threat of additional cuts looming over American universities, higher
education has become an instrument to Trump’s agenda to lead the country down a path of anti-intellectualism. As demonstrated earlier by the UC system’s banning of ‘diversity statements’ (despite California being a forerunner of readjusting to restore diversity in its admissions after the banning of affirmative action in the 90s), universities have preemptively changed their policies to align with the Trump administration’s values in order to protect themselves against retaliation.

The many arguments that Trump has used to silence or control universities, such as punishing antisemitism due to anti-war protests, have been used as scapegoats for their broader mission of destroying “wokeness” in the U.S. In 2021, J.D. Vance declared that “the universities are the enemy.” This was not just an empty statement, as indicated by Trump’s recent executive order to shut down the Department of Education. Along the campaign trail, Trump and the Republican Party argued that the department should be under state control and that it has become dominated by liberal ideology. This anti-woke agenda is a symptom of the accelerating democratic backslide in the U.S., as well what many scholars deem to be an element of a developing fascist regime. In its self-declared war against “woke” culture, the Trump administration has actually been fighting against political opposition, resistant strains of thought, and values that do not directly align with its own.

On Friday, Columbia announced that it would concede to the requests from the federal government, which includes placing the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department under academic receivership, making protest rules on campus more strict, and increasing law enforcement authority. In the coming year, more and more universities will have to face a decision to either retain their institutional independence or to make concessions to the Trump administration and fundamentally restructure university policy.

Columbia University protests during its first encampment in April 2024.

The post Activism as a Scapegoat appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On March 18, they flooded the streets again, at the same starting point. But the general sentiment wasn’t joy: it was outrage.

Early Tuesday morning, the clock read 2:10 AM when the people of Gaza woke up to the deafening sound of air strikes — sounds they didn’t think they would have to endure any more.

Israeli raids targeted the northern, central, and southern governorates of Gaza. According to Al Jazeera Arabic, Israeli tanks also shelled the town of Abasan in Khan Younis. The world awoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcing that the war on Gaza had resumed.

By Tuesday afternoon, Gaza time, the Palestinian Health Ministry reported “404 martyrs and 562 injuries arrived at Gaza Strip hospitals so far,” adding that “a number of victims are still under the rubble.”

This continuation of brutal attacks comes two weeks after Netanyahu blocked aid from entering Gaza, just as Gazans were preparing to celebrate the holy month of Ramadan.

As of March 21, the rising toll of martyrs has reached nearly 600, with the majority of casualties being children.

The Islamic resistance group Hamas stated that “Netanyahu and his extremist government are making a decision to overturn the ceasefire agreement, exposing prisoners in Gaza to an unknown fate.” They called on people in Arab and Islamic nations, as well as the “free people of the world,” to take to the streets to protest the assault.

On Tuesday afternoon, at exactly 5:00 PM, Montreal4Palestine (M4P) rallied up Montreal residents in front of the U.S. consulate in response to this call. They expressed their frustration and anger concerning the escalation.

“Brothers and sisters, we are standing here today as a show of dignity, because we cannot just stay at home, and watch as these atrocities happen,” said one of M4P’s chanters. “I am fasting, and many of you are fasting right now, but that doesn’t stop us [from showing up]. Whether we’re fasting, whether it’s cold, whether it’s raining, we will continue to resist, we will continue to fight, because that’s what Gaza teaches us.”

“Today marks day 528 of the ongoing genocide in Gaza,” stated one of M4P’s organizers, noting that while the ceasefire technically went into effect on January 19, the aggression never stopped. “Only one truth stands clear: this is not a war on Gaza, this is an American-backed genocide. The Zionist enemy’s renewed aggression is not an isolated event. It is part of an ongoing war of extermination, targeting our people, targeting our cause, [and] targeting our resistance.”

Reports have suggested the Israeli government alerted the White House before launching the attacks, completely breaching the ceasefire agreement. U.S. President Donald Trump purportedly gave a green light to Israel’s moves.

“This is not ignorance, this is complicity!” continued the organizer. “The United States has once again proven that it is not a broker of peace, but a partner in war crimes, and genocide. Because with every
bomb that falls, every child under the rubble, every mother holding her dying baby, they all bear the fingerprints of American weapons.”

Montreal residents’, rejoicing only a few months back, now carried the weight of dozens of news headlines reporting rising death tolls. People screamed “shame!” in condemnation of the attacks, affirming the message of M4P’s organizer’s speech.

One speaker took the mic to say her piece in French, listing previous U.S. acts in complicity with Israeli aggression and violence towards Palestinians: “On December 6, 2017, Trump, then also President, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the so-called State of Israel. And yesterday, he gave the green light to resume attacks on Gaza. So to try to separate the U.S.’s actions from what is happening in Gaza is to veil your face and deny that the so-called State of Israel is nothing more than an American colonial project.”

Many hecklers tried to disrupt the demonstration, yelling out obscenities at the chanters. They were met with M4P’s popular chant that goes, “All the Zionists are racist. All the Zionists are the terrorists,” to the beat of White Stripes’ “Seven Nation Army.” The chant has been a crowd favourite, used as rebuttal whenever Zionists attempt to cause chaos and invalidate the peaceful protest.

“They have tried and failed to crush our resistance, they have bombed our hospitals, they have wiped entire families,” said M4P’s organizer. “But they have not, and they will not, break our people and our resistance.”

Prior to the resumption of the war in Gaza, U.S. aggressions on Yemen have escalated, with the U.S. bombing Sanaa — the capital city controlled by the Houthis — and its surrounding areas, as well as the northern governorate of Saada and the port of Hodeidah. The U.S. government claimed to have been targeting Houthi leaders, their attacks resulting in the death of 53 people so far, including children, and nearly 100 injured.

Abdul Malik al Houthi, the leader of the Houthi movement, stated that the U.S. and Israel were “seeking to impose the equation of permissibility on the region and its people.”

“We will respond to the American enemy with missile strikes and targeting its warships and naval vessels,” he said.

The Houthis have been launching attacks on shipping containers along the maritime corridor in the Red Sea since 2023, in solidarity with Gaza, and had stopped when the ceasefire was announced in January.

However, ever since the breach of truce, and the Israeli blockade of aid, they resumed attacks. They have declared they will not stop until aid deliveries in Gaza are allowed back in. They have also carried out a missile attack on Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. Hamas also launched three rockets into the city, their first counterattack since Israel’s breach of ceasefire. No casualties were reported.

The post Montreal Stands in Solidarity with Gaza appeared first on The McGill Daily.