The president and CEO of LaSalle College, Claude Marchand, told CBC that negotiations between the school and educational ministers have been delayed since August 2021. Marchand hoped to negotiate with the new minister Premier François Legault before August 18, when faculty returned to the college. The lack of negotiation prompted a cancellation of the first day of classes on August 25, which resumed the next day in order to catch the minister’s attention. In the meantime, the institution is challenging MEES’s fine of $30 million in a case submitted in July 2024 to the Quebec Superior Court. The college further challenges the data used in MEES’s decision. LaSalle claims this challenge was indirectly validated by Superior Court of Quebec Judge Éric Dufour’s 2023 verdict that out-of-province tuition hikes triggered by Bill 96 at McGill and Concordia were “not justified by existing and convincing data”. In the case of LaSalle College, a student expressed concern over the government’s financial threat, admitting in an interview with CityNews, “I’m worried that either they’re going to shut down the school because of lack of funding or make our tuition much higher, which is obviously going to be higher on everyone,” not exclusively for international /out-of-province students.

As the only private CEGEP penalized by the government, “[i]t’s really our belief that we did nothing wrong,” said Marchand in an interview with the CBC. However, other private CEGEPs negotiated their quotas, and LaSalle College did receive warnings concerning the penalization of their misconduct. On one hand, LaSalle College defended themselves on their website, explaining that the timing of the February 2023 quotas followed after the admission of international students, which are done a year prior to the commencement of the school year. Thus, applicants had already been legally admitted for the fall of 2023 prior to the quota amendments, and as a result, the institution had a responsibility to not cancel the students’ contracts. On the other hand, the college also admitted on their website to having prior knowledge of the quotas and exceeding them. This is in line with MEES’s statement to CBC that the college “knowingly broke the law.” In other words, the court must now decide if LaSalle College’s misconduct with Quebec’s language laws warrants avoiding the potential illegality of rejecting students after their admissions contract.

Moreover, the monetary penalties totaling $30 million threaten the institution itself, as the sum makes up almost half of the college’s annual $70 million budget. The penalty for 2023-2024 totals $8.7 million and just over 21 million for 2024-2025 , as confirmed by the Minister of Higher Education in letters dated June 28, 2024, and June 30, 2025, to LaSalle College, which can be found on the college’s website. The college responded on December 9, 2024, asking the government for an “impact analysis” and a “rescue plan.” They explain that, under fines, the students’ education would suffer as collateral and the staff’s employment would be at risk, threatening the service of specialized programs like hospitality services, as well as fashion and video game programming, which they claim are rarely offered in other CEGEPs and feed into Quebec’s labour force. Fewer international students would also decrease Quebec’s footprint, particularly in the African Francophonie and in the LCI Education network that spans across ten countries.

Marchand further described the MEES’s monetary penalties as “abusive,” while the Minister of Higher Education, Pascale Déry, described the college’s protest as holding students “hostage,” especially after the MEES offered alternative negotiations that did not involve delaying the first day of school. Nonetheless, the College sent a discretionary email to its students on August 25 to inform them of the cancellation of classes and that despite this, the campus would still be open. The notice explained that, as a private institution subsidized by the Quebec government, LaSalle College could not continue to service their students when the government “assumes 40 percent of the cost for each Quebec student” and would not continue doing so to the same extent considering the penalties imposed. It is important to note that, according to LaSalle College, the CEGEP has not asked for additional subsidies for international students, which was disclosed in a letter to the Minister of French Language.

While the CBC reports that LaSalle College has adjusted their numbers for this fall per Bill 96’s quotas, negotiations regarding penalties are still underway as Minister Déry called Marchand back to negotiations as classes resumed.

The post Balancing Bilingual CEGEPs’ Institutional Autonomy amidst Bill 96 Language Regulations appeared first on The McGill Daily.

For over 500 days, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a Sudanese paramilitary group, have besieged the city of el-Fasher in North Darfur, Sudan. The siege has resulted in an unprecedented human crisis, beginning in April 2024, symptomatic of the violence of the civil conflict that broke out a year earlier.

In 2019, Sudan was left in turmoil after the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) overthrew dictator and President al-Bashir, who had ruled over Sudan since 1989. The leaders of the coup, namely General Abdel Fattah-al-Burhan, head of the SAF and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, or ‘Hemedti’, leader of the RSF, rejected civilian rule and overturned the government together in 2021. Burhan became the head of government with Hemedti as his equal. As allies, the RSF and the SAF fought off rebel groups in North Darfur jointly, but were already showing a tendency for excessive violence, notably against civilians. When collaborating, both groups were accused of perpetuating war crimes, including genocide and ethnic cleansing, notably targeting non-Arab populations of North Darfur or Kordofan. Yet the eventual merging of the RSF into the Sudanese Army began to create tensions between the two men over who would lead the united force, and thus hold power in Sudan.

Hence it was not long until hostilities began in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital. On April 15 2023, the first shots of the civil war were fired, with the RSF and the SAF each accusing the other of firing first. The conflict rapidly spread to Darfur, North Kordofan, and the Gezira – strongholds of the RSF. Khartoum is in the hands of the Sudan Armed Forces after seizing it in March 2025, even if the city is not unscathed.As the SAF were forced to retire from the capital, the army of General Dagalo took revenge on civilians, as witnessed by Anne Applebaum, journalist for the Atlantic. Dalago’s RSF forces not only looted and destroyed the city’s infrastructure, but turned their artillery towards residential neighbourhoods as they were losing ground in the capital throughout March. Furthermore, the conflict incited new waves of ethnically motivated attacks, and violence directed towards non-Arab communities has sparked up, with accusations on both parties of the civil war.

The siege of el-Fasher illustrates the extent of the disaster the conflict has on the Sudanese
population. While over half of Sudan suffers from malnutrition – with 24.6 out of its 46 million
citizens exposed to acute hunger and 637,000 people on the brink of famine – the situation is only amplified in el-Fashe. Supply lines have been cut by the RSF siege on the city, leaving UN food and supply convoys vulnerable and unable to reach their destinations. Human Rights groups like the Committee for Justice and Amnesty International and UN experts accuse the RSF and SAF rebels of weaponising food. UN experts predict that the situation is bound to get worse over time, especially considering the effects of environmental instability – such as recent severe droughts and floods in Sudan – on the ongoing hunger crisis.

Though 600,000 people, over half of which are children, were able to flee el-Fasher, 260,000 people, including about 130,000 children, remain trapped in the besieged city. UNICEF chief Catherin Russell warns about the extent of children’s rights violations in el-Fasher, expressing that “the lives of children are hanging in the balance” amidst the blocking of aid and the continued food scarcity. Since the beginning of the siege, UNICEF have registered over 1,100 grave children rights violations, including the killing and maiming of children but also sexual violence and abduction by different armed groups.

Contaminated water sources have led to a historic outbreak of cholera in Sudan, the worst in decades. There are over 100,000 suspected cases in the country and 2,400 cholera-related fatalities with an epicentre in el-Fasher. The current siege in addition to subsequent power and electricity cuts renders the healthcare system in the city completely inoperant, worsening the epidemic and the conditions of citizens.

Those who have managed to escape el-Fasher are not necessarily better off. The conflict’s rapid spread from Khartoum to other cities in Sudan has led to mass displacement. According to the last available data, over 12 million people have been forcefully displaced in Sudan, not including the refugees already living in neighbouring countries, making this the worst displacement crisis in the world.
Displaced people from both el-Fasher and Khartoum face epidemics, hunger, and other hardships while having access to little or no aid.

The RSF has also besieged the city of el Obeid, a key entry point into central Sudan, as well as Dilling and Kadugli in Kordofan – and the limited aid coming into Sudan can no longer suffice. Despite the gravity of the humanitarian situation in Sudan, the international community remains silent, according to officials from the UN and Amnesty International. UN Health Chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus condemned the lack of interest in Sudan’s situation, telling the BBC “I think race is at play here.” Amnesty International has described the international response to the crisis as “woefully inadequate.”

Until 2024, USAID was the main support Sudan received. Therefore, US President Donald Trump’s recent decision of cutting aid directly impacts Sudan. The cuts were radical, with 83 per cent of the staff of USAID dismissed. For its part, the Canadian Government claims to engage itself deeply in humanitarian aid through UN agencies and trusted partners. However, that has been largely insufficient to solve the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.

Though the Sudanese conflict has been cast into the shadows in the international press, humanitarian activist groups like UNICEF, Amnesty International, and the International Rescue Committee continue to act to ensure that civilians receive dire aid amidst the siege.

The post Highlighting Sudan’s Humanitarian Crisis appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Thus, the possibility of a ceasefire in Ukraine did not bode well. Even thoughUkrainian forces had stabilized their front after Russian assault groups penetrated Ukrainian territory near Dobropillya, the invaders achieved consequent gains in Pokrovsk and Velykomykhailivka. Thus Russia arrived at the Alaska summit with the upper hand, after a “sudden breakthrough” of their troops in Ukraine days before. Consequently, this advantage did not incite Putin to lower his demands, but instead put him in a position of power  at the negotiation table. 

Indeed, Putin demanded as a condition to end the war that Ukraine surrender Donetsk and Luhansk, giving Russia complete control of the Donbas region. This position was condemned by Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky who, while not present at the summit, has “consistently rejected” the idea of giving up sovereign Ukrainian territory to achieve peace. A peace that would not even last, according to the Ukrainian President, as securing the Donbas would give Russian forces an efficient platform to attack Ukraine further. 

After the summit, President Trump affirmed his belief that he wanted to directly reach a full-fledged peace agreement, deeming an immediate ceasefire unfruitful, despite it being the main demand on Ukraine’s part. However, Trump changed his demands and the following morning announced on his social media, Truth Social, that he was abandoning  his goal of obtaining a ceasefire. He declared that the meeting had been “extremely productive” and did not impose any sanction on Russia. This was after the US President left the meeting without even securing the “easier concessions” he could have squeezed out of his Russian counterpart, such as the release of the abducted Ukrainian children and prisoner exchanges. Trump, despite routinely recognising his disappointment with Putin during peace talks, does not seem to have changed his strategy, and declared before the summit that “I believe he [Putin] wants to get it over.” No significant advance was made regarding peace in Ukraine, and some online have reduced the summit to an unfruitful disappointment. Ivan Us, from Ukraine’s Center for Foreign Policy of the National Institute for Strategic Studies, states that the Alaska summit was only for show, a way for Putin to end his international isolation and return to the world diplomatic stage triumphant. He criticized the “red-carpet welcome” Putin received during the summit as doing  just that. Mustafa Nayyem, Ukrainian ex-Parliament member and Senior Anti-Corruption & Reconstruction Advisor at Pro-Integrity US/UK project, warned about the distinction between diplomacy and “complicity in crime”, condemning the warm welcome Putin received in Anchorage despite being considered a war criminal by the International criminal Court (ICC) since March 2023. 

Despite critiques and confusion after the summit, sources report that President Trump seemed unaffected upon not obtaining a ceasefire. He appeared surprised when Putin mentioned that the next meeting might occur in Moscow, showing how much of an upper-hand the Russian leader had in these negotiations. Moreover, Trump stated that  sanctions were not an urgent matter, and declared that if he had to think about it, it would only be “two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don’t have to think about that right now.” He declared on Fox News that his advice for Ukraine and Zelensky was to “make a deal.” adding, “Russia’s a very big power and they’re not – suggesting  the US President  had little intention of using US power to weigh in at the negotiating table. In other words, President Trump appears to have shifted the responsibility of a peace agreement to Ukraine by not organising a trilateral meeting in the first place. 

Trump later met with Zelensky on Monday August 18 in Washington, DC. Received more courteously than his February visit, President Zelensky was adamant to please President Trump by bringing a gift for the first lady, Melania Trump, saying thank you numerous times and wearing a suit, a change from his usual military attire. This attitude seemed to have a positive impact,  as Trump warmly received his Ukrainian counterpart, even complimenting his suit. 

The main takeaway of Zelensky’s visit in Washington is the potential of direct talks between the Kremlin and Kiev, to which both parties seem to agree for now, despite not guaranteeing any generative  results. This is especially the case with the position of strength – both diplomatic and military –that Russia stands in now. 

The Anchorage summit has left Europeans worried about the extent of US leverage over their security, as testifies Kirill Shamiev, Policy Fellow for the European Council on Foreign Relations. However, last Monday, European leaders Ursula von der Leyen, Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Mark Rutte, Friedrich Merz, Giorgia Meloni, and Alexander Stubb accompanied Zelensky to Washington, stepping up to make their voices heard and acting as “bodyguards” to avoid the situation of  this past February, where Zelensky was mocked at his White House visit. If Trump did not outright promise security guarantees for Ukraine or Europe, he recognised the latter as the “first line of defense” and promised “we’’ll be involved.” 

In what way Trump will do this remains to be seen. Yet for now, the status quo is maintained and Putin’s Russia has come out strong in these few days of talk.

The post A One-Sided Russian victory at the Alaska Summit appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In the notice of default issued this past January, McGill claims that by supporting SPHR, QPIRG has broken its obligation to respect McGill policies, including the Student Code of Conduct, as stipulated in the MoA. By associating with a group that has broken this code, the university is accusing QPIRG of failing to meet their obligations by association.

To remedy QPIRG’s alleged violation of McGill’s policies, McGill ordered the organization to cease all association with SPHR. This entails removing mentions of the group on QPIRG’s website, revoking their working group status, and severing all financial and administrative support. If QPIRG does not redact their support for SPHR, the group’s finances will be placed into an interim trust – where the funds will be managed by McGill as an interim trustee – until the organization is “restructured and reinstated.”

The group plans to contest the notice and take the dispute to arbitration, a conflict resolution less formal than legal litigation. But as a small, student-funded organization, QPIRG is being financially burdened by legal fees. 

SPHR was condemned by McGill administration in the January notice as an organization that promotes “intimidation, harassment, and protest activities [resulting] in vandalism and violence on our campus.” In QPIRG’s statement on the update on the MoA with McGill, they maintain that the “spurious” allegations against SPHR have never been proven in a court of law. 

“Neither a court nor even an internal tribunal of McGill has found SPHR in violation of anything,” they write. “Instead, the university is scapegoating SPHR for the actions of individuals that McGill has failed to identify.”

Four of McGill’s unions, in solidarity with QPIRG, “condemn in the strongest possible terms” McGill’s notice of default, as expressed in their August open letter. They stress that QPIRG is an invaluable resource to students and staff at the university, and that its financial jeopardy poses a serious threat to many programs and initiatives that benefit the community. 

The unions express their concern for the “imminent threat” posed to QPIRG’s organizational autonomy, asserting that “any conduct that intimidates and threatens to dismantle a vibrant, positive student-centred campus organization is unwarranted.” The letter concludes by calling on the McGill administration to retract the notice and by underlining unions’ commitment to donate to QPIRG’S Legal Defense Fund. 

The statement was signed by the executive committees of AGSEM, AMUSE, AMPFA, and AMUSE. The aforementioned unions represent a range of McGill’s staff – from research employees to tenured professors – and amass a total membership of 7,000. 

At the time of writing, McGill communications has not responded to the Daily’s request for a written statement on the open letter.

QPIRG was founded in the 1990s as a student-run and student-funded organization. They have  provided free services to the McGill community, including “conflict resolution training, education on structural oppression, and other invaluable community resources.” They also run a textbook loan program, fund summer research projects, and founded the university’s first student housing co-op. They empower students to take action by funding and supporting over 15 social and environmental justice groups, including SPHR.  

“If QPIRG-McGill capitulates to McGill immediately, we would block off one of the last avenues for pro-Palestinian organizing on campus,” QPIRG wrote in their online statement. “But if we contest until they bankrupt us, students will lose one of the independent voices willing to fight for them on campus.” 

In an interview with the Daily, co-president of AGSEM Dallas Jokic stressed that McGill’s actions raise concerns for students’ freedoms of speech and expression. Jokic states that the unions decided to publish the letter as a response to “McGill’s egregious overreach.” 

“Because of how small QPIRG is, they are totally dependent on the MoA – if it’s destroyed, they can’t operate…McGill has money for lawyers, an organization like QPIRG is too small.”

“The reason we worked on putting this letter together is because McGill’s action fits into a broader pattern of how they’ve been approaching Palestine solidarity at McGill,” Jokic said. 

Jokic expressed that the unions have shared a sentiment that the university has been reaching against free speech, and are concerned with how McGill is affecting student rights on campus. The letter of default raises concerns for AGSEM, potentially setting a precedent for how McGill will deal with future pushback.

Jokic also stressed that this is a broader question of students’ rights to organize,  intervene, and speak freely – echoing QPIRG’s statement that the letter “is merely another attempt by McGill to suppress student activism towards divestment by removing pillars of material support for activists on the ground.”

“It is so striking to see how much money they are putting into legal costs to fight Palestinian speech and action,” Jokic added, referencing the budget cuts McGill has proposed in recent months. “It is unfortunate that that money, which could go to so many things, is instead going to these lawsuits, injunctions, proceedings, and legal actions.”

Jokic expressed hope that “McGill will take a chance to step back and reconsider the resources they are putting into suppressing pro-Palestinian speech.” They hope McGill changes course and becomes more responsive to the “demands of workers and students instead of using legal tools to suppress their voices.” 

QPIRG hopes to remain a voice for various forms of advocacy on campus – including groups in solidarity with Palestine – and will continue their attempts to source funding for legal support. 

“Only through support from the community will we have a real chance of fighting and winning,” QPIRG expresses in its written statement. The four unions will continue to support QPIRG as they “defend their organizational autonomy” and strive to “serve their community-based mandate without undue interference.”

Amidst criticism, SPHR continues to advocate for McGill’s divestment from weapons manufactures. In a June Instagram post, they stated that McGill invests seven million dollars annually into weapons enabling the “industrialized slaughter of innocent civilians” in Palestine by funding companies manufacturing F-35 bombers. The organization reiterates that they will not cease resisting until McGill divests fully from “all weapons complicit in genocide and occupation.”

For now, it is uncertain whether QPIRG will garner the support needed to challenge McGill in a court of arbitration, or whether the university will continue to move forward with their claims. As QPIRG writes, “the outcome of this battle will have a significant effect on activism at large in the community.”

The post McGill Unions “Condemn in Strongest Possible Terms” McGill’s Notice of Default to QPIRG appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Hundreds of McGill undergraduate students go on exchange every year. But until this summer, there was no centralized platform to help students sublet their apartments and look for living accommodations in another country. Enter: Exchange Sublet, a student-centric digital platform that serves as a reliable marketplace for students to list their homes while looking for new ones abroad. I spoke with CEO and Co-Founder Morgan Balkin, U2 student in International Development, Economics, and Social Entrepreneurship, over Zoom. We talked about the platform’s recent launch, its features, and how he hopes it will positively impact the McGill community.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Enid for the McGill Daily (MD): Exchange Sublet launched on Instagram in April. How did the project begin?

Morgan Balkin (MB): My friends in the year above were telling me how they were so excited to go on exchange but how they were really struggling and spending days on days on Facebook marketplace trying to find [subletters]. They made it seem like the most complex, horrible situation. I had also just started my minor in social entrepreneurship, and what they taught us in class was always, when you look for the little problems, a solution to those could be a business or an entrepreneurial venture. And then it was genuinely a shower thought, like, ‘what if there was an Airbnb for subletting?’

I shared my idea with my friend Rami, now my co-founder, and he was like, ‘dude, that’s a really great idea.’ From there it just took off. 

MD: If you were pitching your platform to an investor, how would you describe it? 

MB: We are hopefully going to be the Airbnb for subletting. We see ourselves as a platform that is very user-friendly, safe, secure, and centered around this niche study abroad period where students are going to leave their home city.

I would say the difference between us and what Airbnb or Facebook Marketplace is doing is that we have verified profiles with profile pictures, student emails and a safe and secure payment system. Really trying to minimize any scams and uncertainties. 

MD: How are you going to grow internationally so that students coming to McGill on exchange can use your platform?

MB: We’re going to start in Montreal and then find ways to grow at schools worldwide. We plan to launch an ambassador program where international students who went on exchange at McGill can spread the word at their own schools. And luckily we’ve grown our team a bit to have a good amount of international connections. We know people all over, and that’s the beauty of McGill, that you have such an international crowd that you can tap into. 

MD: What does the future of Exchange Sublet look like? Will it move beyond purely housing? 

MB: We have so many ideas on how to expand. Just a few are a Tinder-esque interface for roommates and having in-depth information about local bars, clubs, restaurants, cafés. We have a lot of excitement in terms of finding a way to implement AI into our platform, having these little quick questions about your city or the currency, the people, the language, whatever it may be. Oh, is that club good? You know, what promoter did you use? Or like, is this place gluten-free? Little stuff like that can really be helpful.

Having said that, it’s good to stick to your bread and butter at first. At our base, we’re a subletting service, an intermediary between subletters and listers. We want to get that cycle going a bit before we start introducing these new features, but honestly the sky is the limit.

MD: The theme of this column is “good people doing good things.” In the context of your work with Exchange Sublet, what does being a “good person” mean to you?

MB: I think everything we put into our site and our whole idea is really just to improve this stressful but exciting experience. We hope to reduce stress, increase security, and just ease everyone’s mind. So I think that’s what we try to do to help people and be good people in a way. 

Students can find Exchange Sublet on Instagram, @exchangesublet, and on their website, exchangesublet.ca.

If you know good people doing good things who you would like to see featured in this column, send an email to news@mcgilldaily.com.

The post Changing the Marketplace: An Interview with Morgan Balkin about Exchange Sublet appeared first on The McGill Daily.

These services are those deemed essential for the public, defined in s.111.22.3 of the bill as “minimally required to prevent the population’s social, economic or environmental security from being disproportionally affected.” According to the bill, in section 111.22.4-6, the government determines the essentiality and maintenance of the services by submitting an order to the Administrative Labor Tribunal. If deemed essential, services will be maintained for the public during the negotiation stage of strikes and lockdowns unless determined otherwise by the Tribunal, which has the power to “warrant suspension of the exercise of the right to strike or to a lock-out,” according to s.111.22.11.

McGill professor Barry Eidlin, the vice president of the Association of McGill Professors of the Faculty of Arts (AMPFA) and an expert in political sociology and labour, views this legal power as unilaterally forcing workers “to work against their will under conditions that are not of their choosing” – the very conditions they are protesting, he told the Montreal Gazette. 

Moreover, the Labour Code was amended to include “Chapter V.3.1 Special Power of the Minister,” where the Minister of Labour has the power to end a lockdown or strike if he believes that the union still poses a threat to public well-being after mediation. This intervention in labour disputes manifests the minister’s ability to unilaterally send the bargaining unit to arbitration – whose decision, like a court, is legally binding, meaning there will be penal consequences for non-compliance. However, it is important to note that while the provincial government can unilaterally send parties to the Tribunal, it does not unanimously make these decisions. 

In contrast, Richard Janda,  Associate Professor and chief negotiator in the Association of McGill Professors of Law (AMPL/AMPD), interprets the Minister’s power to send both parties to arbitration as the bureaucratization of the negotiation process, where arbitration is used as a tool for the government to avoid the legal and political backlash of back-to-work legislation. Eidlin shares Janda’s views, regarding the government’s imposition of service requirements and settlements as materialising a power imbalance between employees and employers. In an interview with the CBC, he said “[f]or meaningful bargaining to exist, the parties need to be on a level playing field,” particularly because “workers have only one tool…the power to collectively withhold their labour.”

According to the Montreal Gazette, Minister Boulet justifies the government’s intervention to “limit the length of labour disruptions.” This is particularly the Minister’s response to the province’s increasing labour strikes in Quebec. In May, Boulet cited Statistics Canada data claiming there were 759 strikes in 2024, an increase of 64 strikes compared to 2023. However, in July, CityNews reported that the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or the Federation of National Trade Unions (CSN), “found that data published by Statistics Canada concerning labour disputes in Quebec were false” and that there actually were 208 strikes in 2024. According to CBC, the CSN is not the only labour union with criticism. The Quebec Central Union of Trade Unions (CSQ), the Quebec Federation of Labour (FTQ), and the Central Democratic Trade Union (CSD) are also planning legal action against the new bill.

Labour groups are not the only associations entering legal action, as four certified faculty unions at McGill have formed the Confederation of Faculty Associations of McGill (COFAM). This coalition is composed of the AMPL/AMPD, the Association of McGill Professors of Education (AMPE), the AMPFA, and the Association of McGill Academic Staff of the School of Continuing Studies (AMASCS/AMPEEP). In their August 5th press release, COFAM announced their application for the judicial review of Bill 89’s constitutionality in Quebec Superior Court under the grounds that the bill violates employees’ freedom of association. The matter particularly affects McGill, as the bill expanded the definition of essential services from health and social services, per the Essential Services Act, to include manufacturing and education sectors and “any worker in Quebec”, including post-secondary faculty.

“As university faculty, we have a particular responsibility to defend constitutional rights and the rule of law,” said Professor Eidlin in COFAM’s release. “This legislation could subject universities to government-imposed service requirements during labour disputes, potentially compromising academic independence,” he continued. This directly affects students in terms of pursuing academic knowledge and freedom of speech without institutional intervention. While the bill does not directly target student protestors with arbitration, they may be legally vulnerable if the Minister deems “that a strike or a lock-out causes or threatens to cause serious or irreparable injury to the population,” as cited in s.111.32.2 of the bill.

In other words, freedom of speech and association are the reasons that COFAM is legally challenging Bill 98. This goes beyond McGill, as COFAM reiterated in their press release. The organization expressed that the provincial bill attempts to overturn the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2015 verdict in Saskatchewan Federation of Labor v. Saskatchewan, stating that s.2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom protects the “irreducible minimum” of the freedom of association. In contrast, Minister Boulet justified Quebec’s actions in an interview with the CBC as wanting for “Quebec to have similar powers to the federal government when it forced a return to work for striking Canada Post workers” last December. 

Ultimately, it will come down to a balance of powers whether or not strikes and lockdowns can be bureaucratized and settled faster with mutual consent – without infringing on employees’ Charter rights and freedoms as Canadian citizens.

The post McGill’s Four Faculty Associations Legally Challenge Bill 89 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.

Wildfire Context

By early June 2025, Canada’s wildfires were burning at a near-record pace. More than 3.2 million hectares (about 7.8 million acres) had already been scorched across the country — exceeding the full-season average. Around 200 active fires were burning, nearly half of them deemed “out of control.” Western and central provinces, including British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, have been especially hard-hit. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, multiple megafires exceeded 100,000 hectares (250,000 acres), with the Shoe Lake fire alone reaching over 500,000 hectares (around 1.2 million acres). Tens of thousands of residents, including many from Indigenous communities, were forced to evacuate. By June 9, Manitoba alone had registered over 21,000 evacuees.

​​As of June 13, the number of active wildfires has increased to 225, and total area burned now exceeds 3.7 million hectares — a pace that continues to outstrip seasonal averages. In Quebec, smoke from northern wildfires has raised concerns over air quality impacts on upcoming international events, including the G7 Summit, underscoring how Canada’s climate emergencies are now intersecting with global diplomacy. 

This crisis is not isolated. In 2023, Canada experienced its worst wildfire season on record, with approximately 17 million hectares burned — more than twice the previous record. The 2024 season, though less catastrophic, still ranked as the second-worst in history, and 2025 appears to be following the same trajectory. Satellite detections of fire hotspots are at their highest early-summer levels since the satellite era began, second only to 2023. In recent days, the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre had reported 1,874 wildfires ignited and 3.2 million hectares burned, already surpassing multiple provinces’ historical totals with the peak season still ahead.

International Fallout

By mid-May, smoke from Canadian wildfires had traveled across the Atlantic, carried by high-altitude winds and jet streams. It first reached southern Europe, and a second plume, larger and more concentrated, arrived in early June, drifting across Ireland, the UK, France, and Scandinavia. Initially suspended in the upper atmosphere, the smoke created an eerie visual phenomenon: orange-filtered light, muted sunrises, and milky skies. BBC meteorologist Matt Taylor’s 2023 analysis of Canadian wildfire smoke helps explain the eerie visuals seen again in 2025: smoke particles scatter blue light, allowing reds and oranges to dominate.

Smoke from Canadian wildfires — seen as grey plumes veiling parts of Western Europe in early June — was initially detected at high altitudes. NASA’s Aqua satellite tracked the plumes crossing the Atlantic, where they tinted skies and filtered sunlight across the continent. By mid-June, however, that smoke began to descend, prompting air quality alerts across Europe.

On June 10, wildfire smoke from Canada descended into the lower atmosphere over parts of Europe, causing a sharp deterioration in air quality. According to IQAir, cities like Vienna, Munich, Milan, Zurich, Geneva, Zagreb, and Ljubljana reported pollution levels ranging from “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” to “Very Unhealthy.” By June 11, several of these cities ranked among the most polluted in the world — not due to local emissions, but because of smoke that had traveled thousands of kilometers. While Saharan dust played a minor role in some areas, IQAir confirmed that Canadian wildfire smoke was the primary cause.

In North America, the impact was immediate: by early June, one-third of the United States — from the Great Plains to the East Coast — was blanketed by Canadian smoke. Air quality advisories were issued from Chicago to New York, and hospitals in cities like Minneapolis and Detroit reported a rise in respiratory complaints, especially among children. Schools kept students indoors, and residents were urged to avoid outdoor activity or wear masks . On June 12, parts of Minnesota reached the highest “maroon” level on the Air Quality Index (AQI) — the most severe designation — prompting urgent alerts from state health departments warning all residents to limit outdoor exposure.

In early June, NASA imagery captured a “long, unbroken river of gray smoke” stretching over 7,600 kilometers — from Canada to western Russia — blanketing vast stretches of the Northern Hemisphere. CAMS scientists described the transcontinental spread as “a reflection of the scale of the fires.” Even in locations untouched by flame, the evidence was clear: no region is insulated from climate-driven disasters.

Expert Insights

Scientists and public health experts are sounding the alarm about the broad and intensifying consequences of extreme wildfires. “Smoke knows no political boundaries — and neither does fire,” said Ecologist Dr. Lori Daniels of the University of British Columbia. She noted that Canada’s 2025 smoke patterns followed a vast diagonal trajectory, spanning continents. “We’re all struggling with this, not just in Canada and the United States, but worldwide.”

Dr. Paige Fischer, a professor of environmental sustainability at the University of Michigan, echoed this concern. She called the 2025 season “part of the new norm,” driven by hotter and drier conditions fueled by climate change. “The climate models are projecting that we’re going to have more frequent, more severe wildfires,” she warned — not just in boreal regions, but globally.

Public health officials are also worried. Fine particulate matter in wildfire smoke, especially PM₂,₅ — which stands for “Particulate Matter that is 2.5 micrometers or smaller in diameter” — can enter the bloodstream, aggravating asthma, heart disease, and respiratory issues. Environment Canada and the US CDC issued advisories urging vulnerable populations to stay indoors. Dr. John Balmes, a leading air pollution researcher UCSF, compared inhaling wildfire smoke to smoking cigarettes,  stating that “if you’re healthy, occasionally breathing smoke may only cause transient symptoms,” but repeated exposure carries serious risks, stressing the health implications of even short-term exposure. Beyond the physical risks, many experts pointed to the growing psychological toll: orange skies and burning smells in places like the UK, far from any fire, are creating a shared sense of climate anxiety and helplessness.

Mark Parrington, a senior CAMS scientist, emphasized that only extraordinarily intense fires could inject smoke high enough to circle the globe. According to IQAir, some plumes reached 9,000 meters in altitude before descending and settling over Europe. Canadian fire officials, including Liam Buchart, confirmed that exceptionally dry conditions in late May and June — driven by climate change — were a major factor in the fires’ rapid spread and scale.

Wildfire scientists are also warning that the reactivation of “zombie fires” — blazes that smolder underground through winter — could prolong the crisis. According to analysis reported by the Financial Times, as summer brings a return to warm and dry conditions, smoldering underground fires are expected to reignite and spread, potentially resurfacing as active, flaming wildfires. These reawakened fires can sustain smoke emissions for months, well beyond the normal fire season, keeping air quality threats active even after visible flames subside.

Together, these voices paint a sobering picture: wildfires are no longer local disasters. They are cascading effects linked to this atmospheric instability that threaten lives, economies, and ecosystems well beyond their point of ignition.

Climate and Global View

The 2025 wildfires have become a case study in climate feedback loops: warming temperatures increase fire risk, while the fires themselves release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, further accelerating climate change. Canada’s boreal forests, once seen as carbon sinks, are now emerging as major carbon sources. According to NASA, shorter winters and prolonged droughts are extending fire seasons — making them hotter, longer, and harder to control.

By early June, the fires had released 56 megatonnes of CO₂, second only to Canada’s 2023 fire season. The cumulative emissions from these two years now rival the annual output of some industrialized nations. While wildfire smoke can create short-lived cooling by blocking sunlight, its long-term climate impacts, particularly the release of carbon, are unequivocally harmful.

These fires have also strengthened calls for global cooperation. In June, Canada received firefighting aid from US states like Oregon and Idaho, as well as from Australia, which sent nearly 100 wildfire specialists, trained in direct suppression tactics and incident management. This kind of cross-border support is becoming increasingly critical as overlapping fire seasons stretch national emergency resources to the limit.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the current trajectory as “ever closer to the brink,” calling for a “fast, fair and funded” global energy transition. Experts agree that this must be matched by stronger mitigation efforts, such as reducing emissions, improving land use practices,  as well as large-scale investment in resilience like early warning systems, air quality monitoring, and sustainable forest management.

From firelines in Alberta to sunset watchers in Somerset, the signs of climate disruption are everywhere. The 2025 wildfires are not an isolated incident — they are part of a pattern. And unless that pattern is broken, the costs will only grow. Experts say the choice is no longer whether to act, but whether we will act together.

The post Smoke Without Borders appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This budget cut will have drastic impacts on McGill employment. Staff, whether it be teaching, researching, or maintenance, represent 80% of McGill’s operating expenses, as declared by Christopher Manfredi. That would lead, according to the Montreal Gazette, to about 250-500 jobs being cut. Furthermore, McGill confirmed in the May 16 town hall that it intends to continue its hiring freeze. Christopher Manfredi and Fabrice Labeau, while declaring that the university had to lay off 60 employees in April alone, said this relief was temporary.

In fact, the next few years will prove even more challenging for McGill. The full extent of these government decisions will be felt even more harshly in the next four years, which will be critical for McGill’s survival. “Because we have thrived for 200 years, it may be tempting to assume that no matter what happens, we’ll continue thriving for 200 more,” Provost Manfredi and VP Labreau declared during the May town hall. “But if our deficits mount, McGill’s core academic mission will eventually become untenable.”

Despite the gravity of McGill’s financial situation, the May 16 town hall provided more details on the solutions evoked in February. McGill administratives recognised that cuts and layoffs were needed in the short term, but that it was not a sustainable solution in dealing with the university’s financial difficulties. Thus they introduced the Horizon Plan, a wide initiative to reduce and optimise expenses while salvaging McGill’s finances.

According to the Town Hall meeting, the objective of the Horizon Plan is twofold: finding new sources for funding while using current funds more effectively. This plan poses a number of questions that remain to be answered, notably concerns about the raising of new funds. Focusing on how to most effectively utilize current funds, the town hall brought more insight on the actions McGill plans to take within the next year. Another large part of the Horizon plan is to find ways to streamline the process; to simplify, rationalise, and make more effective McGill’s spending while also avoiding unnecessary expenses.

McGill will be joining Uniforum, a benchmarking platform where universities can compare their service performances with each other. Featuring Australian, British, and Canadian universities, Uniforum will give McGill data to  optimize its use of  its current  expenses. Fabrice Labreau explains that Uniforum will enable McGill to reinvest resources and ultimately improve their services. Last February, McGill started gathering information and data for Uniforum, asking employees of over six months about their experience with  its services, prior to looking at “resource allocation” over the spring and summer. This will build a “clear picture of McGill’s resource usage” before the “first results on satisfaction and resource allocation” are published with Uniforum in Fall; upon which McGill will be able to make decisions regarding budget and finances. 

McGill’s goal is to make its core academic mission tenable again, and to make the university sustainable enough to thrive for many years to come. By “reinvesting,” the university will  shift money from one place to another—in other words, key groups will suffer from this financial plan, even though Fabrice Labreau remained evasive about such consequences in his interview with the McGill Reporter. He claimed we will know the first results heeding from McGill’s inscription to Uniforum in Fall 2025.

For now, it remains unclear whether some departments, services and staff will be durably cut or laid off in McGill’s future years – including student TAs and academic advisors. Yet Labreau remains optimistic despite current challenges. He stresses to students that generating spending efficiencies through the Horizon plan will free up resources to be reinvested into education and research. 

If the economic relief from staff layoffs turns out to be more than “temporary,” the loss of these jobs will durably affect the McGill staff laid off in the past six months. For now, the 60 people who lost their jobs in April will not be the last. While it is unclear how the Horizon Plan will affect student life, the new budget plan will certainly impact academic life for McGill students.

The post McGill’s Horizon Plan: Reinvesting in Our Future appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Gaza has been  experiencing a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, with their population now facing acute food insecurity. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), 470,000 people are in IPC Phase 5 (Catastrophe), over a million in Phase 4 (Emergency), and the remainder in Phase 3 (Crisis). The United Nations has declared Gaza as “the hungriest place on Earth,” warning of an imminent risk of famine for all residents.

The healthcare system has collapsed, with only a fraction of hospitals and clinics operational due to shortages of fuel, medical supplies, and staff. The World Health Organization reports that 57 children have died from malnutrition since the aid blockade began on March 2, 2025, and nearly 71,000 children under five are expected to be acutely malnourished in the coming months.

Despite some aid deliveries, the situation in Gaza remains desperate. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports that only around 200 truckloads of aid have entered Gaza in the past 12 days, constantly delayed at checkpoints and blocked by Israeli restrictions. The few convoys that make it through carry only flour, which must be cooked before eating — an almost impossible task for families without electricity, water, or fuel. Civilians have intercepted aid trucks, leading to cases where some were forced to loot essential supplies as aid convoys stalled for days at checkpoints.

This is not just a bottleneck — it’s a blockade that has sharply restricted the flow of vital supplies. There have been witness reports of civilians scrambling to seize food as it arrives, while Israeli troops have used tear gas, smoke bombs, and live ammunition to disperse crowds, leading to injuries and at least one confirmed death.

International Outcry: World Leaders Speak Out for Aid

Israel’s continued blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza has drawn sharp condemnation from international bodies and human rights groups. While the United Nations has managed to bring in only minimal quantities of food aid—just 4,600 tonnes of wheat flour over three weeks—much of these efforts have been met with persistent restrictions. 

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has described the situation as “the cruelest phase of this cruel conflict,” emphasizing the urgent need for unimpeded humanitarian access. He criticized the minimal aid allowed into Gaza, stating that Israel has only authorized a “teaspoon” of aid when a “flood” is needed. World leaders have echoed this alarm. Former UN humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths has described the conditions in Gaza as “apocalyptic,” highlighting that no place is safe — not hospitals, not shelters, not even schools. Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had also condemned the killings of aid workers and called for an immediate ceasefire to ensure humanitarian access. 

Human rights organizations have  spoken out as well. Human Rights Watch has described the blockade as a “tool of extermination,” while Amnesty International called it “a clear act of genocide and collective punishment.” Despite these urgent appeals, even as the flow of aid remains severely limited and sanctuaries shrink, Canada has responded. On June 10, Prime Minister Mark Carney, alongside leaders from the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Norway, announced sanctions—including travel bans and asset freezes—targeting far‑right Israeli ministers Itamar Ben‑Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, accusing them of inciting violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

McGill’s Neutrality Meets Montreal’s Unflinching Solidarity

On May 21, 2025, McGill University President Deep Saini addressed the campus community regarding the escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza. In his email, he acknowledged the profound impact of the situation, stating, “Many of us are watching the escalation of human suffering in Gaza with alarm.” However, he reiterated the University’s stance of neutrality, emphasizing that McGill “must remain mindful of its academic mission and refrain from commenting or taking a position on a geopolitical crisis.” He assured students and staff of the availability of support resources for those affected by international emergencies. 

The momentum of pro-Palestinian activism on McGill’s campus can be traced back to the Lower Field encampment, which began in May 2024. The encampment — dubbed the “liberated zone” by students — demanded McGill’s divestment from companies linked to Israel’s military operations and called for greater transparency in university investments. It quickly became a hub of political discourse and mutual aid, hosting teach-ins, cultural events, and communal meals. Media coverage was extensive, with national outlets picking up the story and sparking campus-wide debate on the role of universities in global conflicts.

Although the encampment was eventually dismantled following negotiations with university administrators, it was also forcibly broken up —with bulldozers and private security moving in during heavy rainfall, and protesters carrying their belongings out under pressure. This closure set the tone for a year marked by heightened student mobilization. This continuity of activism highlights that the current mobilizations — like the protests against the Gaza blockade and the continued calls for McGill to divest — are not isolated events but part of an evolving movement with deep roots in student-led organizing.

This past May, Montreal once again became a stage for global solidarity. On May 17, SPHR McGill and community allies marked 77 years since the Nakba by gathering in front of the Israeli consulate in downtown Montreal. The demonstration, endorsed by SSMU, included speeches, chants, and a call to “flood the streets until full return and liberation.” Images shared on social media captured the crowd’s energy, with Palestinian flags waving and banners demanding justice.

Just days later, on May 23, another protest unfolded outside the US consulate. Activists gathered to temporarily shut down the building’s operations to draw attention to American support for Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. Videos circulating on social media documented the protesters’ chants and confrontations with police, emphasizing the urgent tone of the demonstrations.

These events underscore the links between local activism and global solidarity, demonstrating how McGill students and Montrealers refuse to remain passive observers. Their message is clear: as long as Gaza’s crisis continues, the streets of Montreal will echo with calls for accountability. That momentum will continue this summer with the Global March to Gaza on June 15 — an unprecedented international mobilization that has already gathered support from more than 80 Canadian organizations, including Palestine Vivra and Labour 4 Palestine. The march aims to draw attention to  Gaza’s forced isolation and push for immediate, life-saving humanitarian access. In Montreal and beyond, the streets remain a powerful stage for voices demanding justice.

The post Gaza’s Worsening Crisis and Montreal’s Solidarity Movement appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between McGill and SSMU is a formal contract governing their relationship, dictating issues such as the SSMU’s ability to collect student fees, use McGill’s name, and access campus spaces. Under Article 10 of the agreement, either party may terminate the relationship, provided a mediation process is undertaken first. The current MOA, signed in 2022 and set to expire in 2027, has now been called into question due to what McGill administration views as SSMU’s failure to disassociate from activist groups. In the aforementioned email, Interim Deputy Provost Angela Campbell wrote that “SSMU allowed and, at least tacitly, supported a three-day strike that further divided a campus community already deeply cleaved and hurting,” referencing incidents during the April strike that the administration described as disruptive and unsafe.

The university’s decision came shortly after the end of the student strike. Endorsed by Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR), the strike was enacted through a motion passed at the March 27 Special General Assembly, where students voted in favor of divestment and public solidarity with Palestinians. Throughout the strike period, students organized picket lines, teach-ins, and demonstrations.

While many of these events were peaceful, some rallies brought demonstrable acts of violence and the obstruction of classes.  The administration cited an incident involving vandalism in the James Administration Building as an example of unacceptable behaviour. In an email addressed to all McGill students, Interim Deputy Provost Angela Campbell wrote that the strike created “a campus environment in which dozens of classes were blocked or interrupted.” She claimed that the university’s “goal is not to silence dissent, but to affirm that all students—whatever their identity or politics—deserve to live, learn, and express themselves on a campus freedom of fear, harassment, or violence, where their dignity is respected.”

In response to McGill’s notice of termination, Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights McGill (SPHR) – though not an SSMU-affiliated organization – issued a statement accusing the university of “attacking student democracy.” In an Instagram post on April 7, SPHR wrote: “McGill has once again attacked the pro-Palestine student movement, intending to crack down on democratic forms of protest like a strike.” They described the decision as a “strategy of extortion” and a response to “pressure from Zionist donors and our warmongering political class.” The group called on the SSMU to refuse further concessions during negotiations and to “stand firmly with Palestine and our democratically enforced demand for divestment.”

In a statement issued to the McGill Daily, SSMU President Dymetri Taylor reassured that organizational “operations are normal,” noting that SSMU-affiliated clubs, services, and staff employment will remain unaffected during mediation. Taylor emphasized SSMU’s commitment to advocacy and the democratic representation of its undergraduate constituency.

One senator from the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) also weighed in on McGill’s decision. Anzhu Wei, who attended the GA and supported the motion, called the university’s termination of the MOA “ridiculous,”  adding that students are being punished for their political beliefs.

The termination of the MOA places the future of SSMU in limbo. Without the agreement, SSMU could lose the right to collect fees, occupy space in the University Centre, and coordinate student services in their current capacity, per Taylor’s statement. Campbell stated that the university remains “fully committed to ensuring that students continue to have strong, democratic representation and uninterrupted access to critical services.” Still, for students, the structure of that future representation remains unclear.

According to McGill’s public letter, the university will enter mediation with SSMU within two weeks of the termination letter. Until June, both parties will attempt to resolve the conflict, with the possibility of renewing or restructuring their agreement.

As the mediation process begins, SSMU has committed to transparency and regular updates. Students are encouraged to follow SSMU’s social media platforms and official channels for developments. Campbell similarly assured students the University would “keep [them] informed as we navigate this process.” In the meantime, McGill students continue to express concern over the long-term implications of the termination.

SSMU’s ability to function as an independent student union, manage funding, and maintain club spaces depends on the resolution of this process. As such, both the administration and student leadership face a critical moment in reshaping undergraduate representation at the university. McGill’s decision to suspend its agreement with SSMU signals a new and uncertain chapter in campus governance. What began as a student-led strike has sparked a broader reckoning over the limits of protest and student power.

The Daily reached out to McGill’s media relations team to provide comment on the administration’s rationale regarding the termination, how it perceives its relationship with SSMU, as well as what they expect from the negotiations. As of publishing, McGill has not given the Daily a response.

The post McGill Terminates Agreement with SSMU Following Pro-Palestinian Student Strike appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Get Organized! is a workshop series launched by SSMU External Affairs earlier this year. The series offers students a chance to connect with local movements, learn political organizing skills, and build relationships rooted in action. 

“The workshop series started and was kind of inspired by a similar series at the CSU at Concordia that was called Get Radical,” shared Jamila, who works as the Policy and Mobilization Researcher at SSMU External Affairs. “It’s a really clear entry point for anybody at McGill who’s been looking to get involved but finds it overwhelming or doesn’t know who to reach out to or what to join.”

When she first arrived in Montreal, Jamila wanted to be politically active, but found it intimidating to join spaces without knowing anyone. “Get Organized has been a really, really wonderful way for people to just get to know each other and make friends with people that share an interest in being politically active,” she stated.

Each session  featured local grassroots organizations doing movement work, including SLAM-MATU, Students for Migrant Justice, the Immigrant Workers Center, and Mobilizing for Milton Park.

“Each workshop has one or multiple local organizations doing some kind of grassroots organizing,” Jamila explained. They noted how the workshops “make it possible for people to feel more empowered politically by making friends and comrades, learning about things that are already happening, and then learning skills so that they can start things autonomously if they like.”

Though McGill has cracked down on certain forms of campus advocacy, particularly around Palestinian solidarity, Pitre says Get Organized! hasn’t encountered those barriers.

“I think that we’ve been able to put forth some quite radical programming and have really candid discussions about things like protest safety and knowing your rights when interacting with the police, but also McGill security.”

For Pitre and her team, part of the series intends to introduce students to new avenues of involvement beyond what’s already visible. “There are so many other ways for people to get involved … and we wanted to broaden the different range of struggles and local groups that students are aware of so they can get involved in other things.”

Harlan Porfiri, a student from the US, shared that the political context at home deeply shaped their motivation to join: “In the United States, the rise of fascism is particularly concerning. The rise of anti-trans rhetoric and legislation as well as weaning access to reproductive healthcare immediately threatens the well-being of my friends and family.”

Harlan heard about the workshop series through McGill Students for Good Jobs and signed up right away. Sharing their experience, Harlan said they “feel more knowledgeable about the organizing happening in my community and how I can make an impact as a student. I am impressed and inspired by the number of people interested in organizing, as well as the resources available to us as students to do so.”

“The current state of the world often moves me to fear, but I can say with absolute certainty that putting my energy toward community organizing has given me hope and the strength to look forward. It’s a very powerful feeling to be in a room full of people who see some injustice or some lack in the community and agree that they want to do something to fight against or change it.”

When asked what she’d say to someone on the fence about joining, she replied:

“It just feels so empowering to get to know other people and skills that make it possible for you to just do something, without waiting for the opportunity to come up. You look around and see things that you want to change in your community … having other people and skills to make that happen is really empowering.” 

For future workshop or mini-series opportunities, follow @ssmu_ea on Instagram.

The post “Get Organized”: A Workshop Series for Students Who Want to Do More appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The following interview has been edited and shortened for clarity.

Aurelien Lechantre for the McGill Daily (MD): Could you begin by introducing yourselves and what you do for OSVRSE?

Jen Collins (JC): Yes, I’m Jen Collins. I’m the educational advisor for OSVRSE, the Office of Sexual Violence Response Support and Education. I’ve been here since August and I do programming, promote things for the office and manage the volunteer team, which are called peer educators. 

Alice Dautigny (AD): And I’m Alice Dautigny. I’m part of the peer educators team at OSVRSE: we are a team of seven student volunteers who give workshops to different groups and clubs from McGill, but  we’re trying to open it up to more students. Thus our work consists in helping organize events, managing the OSVRSE Instagram, and educating the community on how to respond to assault disclosure or situations of sexual violence.

MD: Then would you say the main activity of the office consists in the education aspect through such workshops? 

JC: OSVRSE is first and foremost a support space for those impacted by sexual violence. It’s a central spot on campus for that: we support anybody impacted by sexual violence by creating a safe space. We help people navigate receiving sexual violence disclosures from a friend, and support those who have experienced sexual violence themselves.  Even professors come in and ask about how to make their classroom a more safe and welcoming environment. So we help with accommodation, psychosocial support and counselling, safety planning, etc.

Then our student volunteers do workshops for clubs. Peer-to-peer learning is great because the students understand each other: they know what they’re going through and how to adapt presentations to the audience.

MD: What do these workshops mainly consist of, and what do they entail?  Is it like a class about the subject, the topic you’re about, or is it interactive? Who is your audience?

AD: Most of our audience, until now, is composed of clubs looking to organize events. Usually these events involve alcohol and drinking, so workshops are required for the audience to be able to respond if there’s any issue during their event. The workshops are educational content about several topics that can be interesting for student organizations to be aware of: being an active bystander and responding to disclosure (understanding how to behave if someone during an event comes to you for support). Our workshops are designed to be interactive, with lots of questions, simulations so people can put themselves in the place of an active bystander to prepare for real case situations, looking at real life scenarios, and always a 30-minute Q&A session.

MD: You mentioned active bystanders. What do you mean by that exactly? 

AD: In a workshop context, we like to use the term active bystander to teach participants how to behave when you’re a witness of sexual violence or sexual harassment. So usually it’s looking at our behaviour as witnesses in public spaces and can also be if you witness your friends in toxic relationships with dangerous sexual violence behaviors.

MD: Why do you think it important to comprehend this role of active bystander, specifically on campus?

AD:  I feel like McGill’s campus is both huge and very lively: partying, drinking and meeting people are an inherent part of campus life. Thus it is really important to have associations like OSVRSE and to make sure everyone is aware of the reality of sexual violence at our age.  There’s the beginning of many relationships and discovery of the dating world, so it is important to help prevent and educate people on what is a safe relationship and how to recognise abuse, sexual violence or toxicity — as, unfortunately, sexual violence is a reality for thousands of people, especially students 

MD: Do you think most McGill students are educated on such matters today? Are there other initiatives that OSVRSE has put in place to further education and awareness surrounding sexual violence on campus? 

JC: It is difficult to measure this precisely with stats, but I think “It Takes All Of Us” (“It Takes All of Us” is an online education program about consent and sexual violence, mandatory for every student entering McGill) is great in that aspect. It was created before I came here, but I got to take part in doing it and seeing it in the office. It’s really helpful: I wish I had it when I was in undergrad at my university.

AD: Actually, I heard about OSVRSE through the “It Takes All of Us” form. I looked up who the association was after seeing it in the form, then I saw they were searching for volunteers and  joined! But the other volunteers mostly heard of it through “My Involvement” or directly on the OSVRSE website. 

MD: How and where might we find you? If a student needs support or just wants to participate in a workshop, how can we get to know that? 

JC: You can go online at the OSVRSE website: you could book a workshop, you could see a response advisor, the different possibilities are all on our website and if you don’t see a time slot that works for you, you can always email the office, osvrse@mcgill.ca, and we’ll get back to you within our office hours. 

MD: Do you have anything to add? Perhaps an upcoming event or somewhere we might find you?

JC: Yes! On April 1, in honor of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we are holding a trivia event at Mac campus. There’ll be food and prizes, and it’ll be really fun. We got a lot of local businesses to donate gift cards for raffles and prizes. So we really want to end the year with a big, fun event –  I think everyone loves trivia.

AD: And follow our Instagram (@OSVRSEmcgill) if you want to stay updated and participate in future workshops and events!

The post Highlighting OSVRSE appeared first on The McGill Daily.