Journal des étudiant-e-s en droit de l’université...

Journal des étudia nt-e-s en droit de l’université M cGill

McGill Law’sWeekly Student Newspaper

Vo l u m e 3 3 , n 09

1 5 n o v e m b r e 2 0 1 1 | N o v e m b e r 1 5 t h 2 0 1 1

WHAT’S INSIDE? QUEL EST LE CONTENU?

WANT TO TALK? TU VEUX T’EXPRIMER?

ÉDITO 3PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN THE FACULTY 4IN SEARCH OF A “MUTUALLY FAIR SOLUTION” 4RESPONSE TO AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE 5REPLY TO PATRICIA NOVA 6FRAIS DE SCOLARITÉ 8UNINTENDED EFFECTS OF HUMOUR: THE IMPORTANCE OF TAKINGRESPONSIBILITY 8HAS A FORUM REALLY BEEN OPENED? 10POLITIQUE LINGUISTIQUE 11FROM THE DESK OF THE OMBUDSMAN 12CHRONIQUES FACULTAIRES 16UNE RÉPONSE À FRANCESCA TADDEO 18SPEED-MEET 2011 19THE OMNIBUS CRIME BILL IS A MESS 20LIBRARY NEWS 21OVERHEARD AT THE FAC 22

QUID NOVI

3661 Peel Street Montreal, Quebec H2A 1X1

http://quid.mcgill.ca/

EDITORS IN CHIEFAmanda PetrakisHélia TaheriThomas Gagnon-van Leeuwen

ASSOCIATE REVIEWERSKatherine AbarcaAlexandra Belley-McKinnonIvana CescuttiEliza CohenKelly CohenGiselle DavidianKai Shan HeAlexandra LazarAngèle Périllat-AmédéeCatherine HamillAudrey MayrandGolnaz NayerahmadiAnh Thang NguyenJames NowlanLaura ScheimDaniel Tsarevsky

LAYOUT EDITORSKatherine AbarcaJérémy Boulanger-BonnellyNicholas ChoinièreRodrigo A. GarciaKai Shan HeMaxime PuteauxGabriel Rochette

STAFF WRITERSLudovic BourdagesJonathan BrosseauDavid GrovesAlexandre MichaudVincent RangerMichael Shortt

CARTOONISTAndrew Baker

WEBMASTERJérémy Boulanger-Bonnelly

Envoyez vos commentaires ou articles avantjeudi 17h a l’adresse : [email protected]

Toute contribution doit indiquer le nom del’auteur, son année d’étude ainsi qu’un titrepour l’article. L’article ne sera publiee qu’a ladiscretion du comite de redaction, qui

basera sa decision sur la politique de redaction.

Contributions should preferably be submitted asa .doc attachment (and not, for instance, a“.docx.”).

The Quid Novi is published weekly by the students of the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Production is made possible through the direct support of students. All contents copyright 2011 Quid Novi.Les opinions exprimees sont propres aux auteurs et ne refletent pas necessairement celles de l’equipe du Quid Novi. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of the McGill LawStudents’ Association or of McGill University.

Vo l u m e 3 3 , n O9

1 5 n o v e m b r e 2 0 1 1 | N o v e m b e r 1 5 t h 2 0 1 1

J o u r n a l d e s é t u d i a n t - e - s e n d r o i t d e l ’u n i v e r s i t é M c G i l l

M c G i l l L a w ’s W e e k l y S t u d e n t N e w s p a p e r

É D I T O

QN • NOVEMBER 15 2011 • 3

EDITORSIN

CHIEF

We would like to once again address the Faculty on the issue ofthe cartoon by Ms. Nova that appeared in our November 1 issue.The situation has posed particular editorial challenges and ourgoal as Editors-in-Chief is to find and implement ways to betterdeal with similar situations in the future. We are also concernedwith fostering an amicable environment within our community.

We have asked Charlie Feldman, who graduated in May 2011, toreturn in his role as ombudsman, as an independent third party,to look at the matter and make suggestions for how the Quid canimprove its publishing practices in light of this situation. His re-view of the current situation is at p.12. We invite you to read it ifyou wish to further engage with Quid Novi policy concerns. Ifyou have any questions or comments about the situation, feelfree to contact Charlie Feldman directly [email protected].

By the time this issue comes out, us Editors-in-Chief, the authorof the cartoon and the Aboriginal Law Students’ Association willhave sat down together to discuss the situation on Monday, No-vember 14th. We believe that this is the appropriate forum fordiscussion. Although the Quid welcomes debate—and we feelthat the articles appearing in this issue provide valuable insightinto the question—at some point, certain debates are best resol-ved in more conciliatory ways than a back-and-forth in ourpages.

Finally, last Friday, we received a large number of responses tothe cartoon from some outside the Faculty after the submissiondeadline. We decided to privilege the voices of our peers fromMcGill Law. For more on outside submissions, see the ombuds-man’s piece on p.12.

NEXT WEEK!

The Quid’s last issue before the holidays will hit news stands onNovember 22, 2011. Vous avez des opinions à propos de lahausse des frais de scolarité? Sur les examens à venir? Exprimez-vous avant la fin de l’année 2011! Envoyez-nous vos contribu-tions avant le 17 novembre à 17h00.

EDITORIAL

4 • 15 NOVEMBRE 2011 • QN

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN THE FACULTy

I would like to express some thoughts andconcerns that go beyond the recentcartoon and the responses that followed,to the impact on us as a community. Thetwo principles that I draw on here aresocial inclusion and collegiality. Let memake my position crystal clear: I urge usto act in ways that facilitate each others’learning and our sense of being in ashared educational (soon, professional)community, of being in respectful andresponsible proximity to each other.

So, the heart of the matter: How do wewant to relate to each other ascolleagues? While I understand the role ofhumor in dealing with difficult subjects, Iinvite us to think through what it meansto share space with a group of people.Remember that many McGill law studentscome to this Faculty motivated by socialjustice and equity concerns. We want tochange the world or at the very least wewant to be appropriately respectfuladvocates and peers. Remember too theaxiom, “Think globally, act locally.” If eachmoment offers us choice - to act or not toact, to respond with compassion or withdefensiveness - how do we exercise thatchoice? Do we choose to act in solidaritywith colleagues and peers from

historically - or continuously - excludedgroups? When we err - for, as humans wewill - how do we make amends for ourmistakes?

Some discussions of offended persons’responses get framed in terms of theirunreasonable “sensitivities”. I would liketo draw an analogy in order to questionthis kind of characterization. A female lawstudent is at a law firm event talking toone of the major partners of the firmabout her work and educational history.Upon hearing of a legally related summerjob she received, he asks her (in a “joking”/ lascivious tone) “And what did you do toget that job?”

Readers, please pause and ask yourselves:If offended or humilitated, is our lawcolleague (because that is what thiswoman is) being “overly-sensitive”? Whatif she is a sexual assault survivor, or hasexperienced other incidents ofharrassment and exclusion? I suggest thatpersonal history is relevant to herresponse.

Any of us who have experienced exclusionon the basis of real or perceived groupmembership - be that gender, sexual

orientation, “race,” ability or any other -know the hot shame of havingstereotypes raised. Such stereotypes canbe invisible to people who stand on theprivileged side of the relevant identityaxis. There are various ways to respondwhen our privilege and its inevitableaccompanying ignorance are brought toour attention. I submit that, as colleagues,we should strive to listen and be receptiveto the broad range of experiences from allmembers of our community and toconsider adjusting our behavioraccordingly. This would serve us well inour future professional relationships withboth colleagues and clients, to whom wewill have ethical obligations as lawyers.

To conclude: What kind of Community areWe?

We are a community. We will continue tobe each others’ colleagues, employers,employees, adversaries, friends andpossibly romantic partners throughoutour lives. I love, trust and appreciatemany people in this Faculty, and - call meidealistic - I would like to love, trust andappreciate us all. I ask you: What kind ofcolleagues do we want to be for eachother?

On November 10, I witnessed aconversation between Joey Flowers andPatricia Nova regarding the cartoon fromthe November 1 issue of Quid Novi. Theconversation began with Joey trying toexpress to Ms. Nova the hurt and angerthat the cartoon had caused him, and

quickly escalated. At the time, noresolution was reached.

I hope, however, that the door to a“mutually fair solution” might not yet beclosed.

In the wake of this incident, I invite myfriends and colleagues in our communityto join in examining the followingquestion: When someone tells me thatsomething I have done has hurt them,how can I respond?

WHO DO WE WANT TO BE?

IN SEARCH OF A “MUTUALLy FAIRSOLUTION”

EMILYELDER

L a w I I

MARIMAIMETS

L a w I V


We all say and do things that affect thosearound us, and we all, from time to time,cross lines and cause pain to people thatwe care about. When the effects of ouractions are brought to our attention, wemust choose how to respond. We canignore, defend, or counter. Or we canlisten and try to empathize. Whether ornot we ultimately alter our position, wecan try to see the situation from anotherpoint of view. I would hope that ourfaculty is a place where we choose to seekunderstanding.

In their responses, Scott Horne and EdenAlexander went to lengths to find the

most benign interpretation they could ofMs. Nova’s cartoon, seeking to considerthe issue from another point of view, andgiving Ms. Nova the benefit of the doubt.In her response to Scott’s piece, however(she did not respond to either Joey orEden directly), Ms. Nova insisted that the“charitable” interpretation was the singlecorrect interpretation, and dismissed theother, uglier but arguably more obviousinterpretation as “a stretch”.

The publication of Ms. Nova’s cartoon inthe Quid has created a particularlychallenging situation because of thestrong emotions it has provoked for

Aboriginal members of the facultycommunity and for members of theAboriginal community at large. It has hurtand offended them, and I do not think it isa stretch to say that it has caused moreharm than good in the faculty. yes, it hasgenerated discussion, but it has alsocaused pain.

I hope that we may find a way totransform this painful experience intosomething that will make our communitystronger. Perhaps then, in time, we will allbe able to look back on this experienceand laugh.

Dear Ms. Nova,

I was surprised to read your response to ScottHorne’s article this week. As an Aboriginalstudent in this Faculty, I really wish you hadopted for the moral high road. Publishing a racistcartoon does not create meaningful debate. yourreasoning mirrors that of the Jyllands-Postennewspaper’s defence of its publication ofcartoons of the prophet Mohammed in 2005.They, like you, argued that the purpose of thecartoon was to spark a debate. I cannot agreewith this assertion.

you attempt to frame your cartoon as a debate,but it is more accurately characterized as anunfortunate and harmful misstep that should beresolved with self-reflection. The situation, andScott Horne’s pointed critique of it, merit

acknowledgment of the power operating behindthe caricature you provided. This is trueregardless of what you had in mind when you satdown with pen in hand.

While I know you meant no harm, I can tell youplainly that your response in last week’s Quidserved to exacerbate the problem that yourcartoon placed in our laps. There is a better wayforward. I urge you to think about the impactskirting the issue has on all of us, and themotivations that lie behind your decision tocontinue to justify what is clearly not justifiable.

Best,Katrina Peddle

C O N T I N U E D F R O M P R E V I O U S PA G E

RESPONSE TO AN ATTEMPT TOJUSTIFy THE UNJUSTIFIABLE

KATRINAPEDDLE

L a w I V

JOSEPHPAUL

FLOWERS


Patricia Nova’s cartoon (Quid Novi33:7 at 28), and her reply (Quid Novi33:8 at 5-6) left me dissatisfied. As anIndigenous law student, I feel a needto make my voice heard on thismatter.

First: your cartoon. Though it is achallenging task to rationallydeconstruct the elements of anoffensive act, it is not impossible.

(1) Inaccurate and inappropriatevisual representation of IndigenousPeoples. your cartoon depicts theIndigenous individuals who signedtreaties as wearing out-dated,stereotypical, cowboys-and-Indiansstyle clothing and weapons. your lackof knowledge of the treaty process isevident, since there are a variety oftreaties between Indigenous Peoplesand settlers, signed in different times,places, and circumstances. In 2005,the individuals who brought intoexistence the Labrador Inuit LandClaims Agreement (a treaty) certainlyweren’t wearing this type of clothing.

(2) Suggesting Indigenous people arepeople who were tricked into treatieswith settler populations. you suggestthat “treaties were instruments oftrickery exacted on a trusting andunsuspecting group.” How does theJBNQA (a treaty) fit into thisframework? Inuit and Cree werecertainly not trusting andunsuspecting in 1973 when Hydro-Quebec arrived and decided to floodthe land. It was due to their lack oftrust and deep suspicion of Quebecand Canada’s objectives that they so

expertly harnessed the power of theCalder decision in order to stop ahyper-Nationalist hydro developmentwhich “was regarded not only as aninexpensive, reliable source of energyin southern Quebec, but as a symbol,capable of galvanizing energy insouthern Quebec towards economicand social independence.1” Tosuggest that my Elders (or, forexample, the Tlicho signatories in2002, or the Tsawwassen signatoriesin 2007, or the Nisga’a signatories in1999) were trusting and unsuspectingis an insult to their passion, pride,dedication, focus, vision, and hardwork to negotiate a comprehensivetreaty with the provincial and federalgovernments. I would suggestcautious reflection instead of thecavalier dismissal of the agency of ourIndigenous ancestors who signed thenumbered and other pre-moderntreaties. Read “RethinkingCollaboration: Working the Indigene-Colonizer Hyphen” by Allison Joneswith Kuni Jenkins for an interestingperspective on questions of powerrelations and the myth of colonizertrickery when treating withIndigenous peoples.

(3) “Kill whitey.” My wife is “white”and I love her dearly. I don’t see yourpoint with this component of yourcartoon; it is confusing. On its face, Ifind it insulting to suggest thatIndigenous people want to kill“whities”. This fails to reconcileIndigenous and non-Indigenouspeoples in a productive andmeaningful way. It doesn’t help the

cause which you claim to care about.Instead of highlighting a violent pastbetween Indigenous-settler relations(which is only partially true), it ispossible to offer a constructivedialogue on how we can better worktogether.

(4) The idea that by offering thiscomic you are encouraging productivediscussion. you succeeded in sparkingdiscussion. But I ask you, what is thisdiscussion about? Precisely, whatwere the issues that neededdiscussion which heretofore weresilent but which now you havebrought to the surface? In my case, Ihave initiated discussion on improvingeducation policy through my researchfellowship. I address issues whichflow from unsatisfactory execution oftreaty rights under the JBNQA. I havedone this in a way that examines thelived experience of those who benefitfrom the policy, and offer concretesuggestions on how to improve it.

(5) The fact that I have to explain thisin the first place. In a public setting atthe Faculty, I had a strongly irrationaland illogical reaction to your cartoonand your subsequent actions. Ittriggered anger, sadness, frustration(see Mari Maimets’ submission in thisweek’s Quid). your failure to publiclyaddress my or Eden’s articles in lastweek’s Quid was further angering,saddening, and frustrating. you didn’trecognize that your poorly executedattempt at humour deeply saddened,angered, and frustrated individuals inour community. your poorly executedattempt to justify it added fuel to the

REPLy TO PATRICIA NOVA

L a w I V

1. Susan Gray Drummond, Incorporating the Familiar: an investigation into legal sensibilities in Nunavik (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Univer-sity Press, 1997) at 48.


fire. your requirement that Ilogically deconstruct your piecewhen you clearly saw that I was in ahighly charged emotional statecompounded the hurt. you insultedme, and asked me to talk about iton your terms. This episode hasbeen deeply troubling. It hassucked up a lot of my time. I feelpressure to reply, since I am one ofa handful (literally, you can count uson one hand) of Indigenous lawstudents at the Faculty. Besides thevery onerous obligations I have interms of studying for finals, writingpapers, preparing for a mock trial,and living a rich life of extra-curricular activities largely revolvingaround volunteering my services inthe productive analysis andimprovement of policies andprograms affecting Indigenouspeople in Canada, I now I feel anobligation to engage in a tiresomeand draining discussion aboutIndigenous-settler relations. Ithought that in 2011 we wouldn’tneed to have this kind of sensitivitytraining. This process gave rise tosignificant emotional stress, but Ihave worked past this in an attemptto relate to you on your proposedterms: intellectually carefulanalysis, backed up with carefulreasoning.

We had a second conversation onThursday, which I sincerely felt wasa genuine effort on your part andmine to heal from this incident. Inan attempt to bridge ourmisunderstanding, I came to you onyour terms, since you demandedthat I do so. This demand is thesame one that is placed on mewhen I try to explain thesignificance of treaty rights to non-Indigenous peoples. While manyIndigenous peoples have differentways of justifying claims, Euro-

Canadian legal and social structuresrequire Indigenous peoples tosubmit written, carefully craftedargument claims when arguing. Thisepistemology is foreign to manyIndigenous peoples, but as yourdemand illustrates, it is incumbentupon us Indigenous students tolearn these methods in order toengage in the “constructivedestruction of the status quo” asmy friend Zebedee Nungak wouldsay. I sincerely thank you forhelping me realize that and live thatreality.

Second: your defence of thecartoon. you point out yourexperience with IndigenousPeoples, and use that to justify yourcartoon. In one broad stroke, youunreflectively refer to the “White,liberal mentality that runs rampantin our society” and how this results,as Andrea Smith suggests, in theIndigenous Peoples being assistedin their plight by PhDs and MSWs. Iassume that you are suggestingthat the neo-colonial project isnurtured by well-intentioned, well-educated outsiders who claim toknow what’s best for Indigenouspeoples, and approach IndigenousPeoples on the neo-colonizers’terms. Obvious point: you areregistered in a LL.B./B.C.L. programat a prestigious university. Whatresponsibility do you have to informyourself about issues before youcomment on them? The way youhandled this is precisely the kind ofhyper-generalized, stereotypicalthinking that stops your commentsfrom being of any productive value.

you offer words of Mr. DrewHayden Taylor, who said that“humour is the WD-40 of healing.”Recently when I was at the Truthand Reconciliation Commission

National Event in Halifax, Iexperienced the healing power oftears, too. Listening to my fatherand my aunt speak of thediscrimination and hurt that theysuffered when he was belittled inthe foreign school that he attendedwas a deeply touching and movingexperience. It also reminded methat the lived reality of Indigenousstudents today is in some respectsnot too different from the culturalgenocide of our parents’,grandparents’, great-grandparents’generations. Ecclesiastes 3:1 & 4suggests that “to every thing thereis a season, and a time to everypurpose under the heaven… A timeto weep, and a time to laugh….”(Aside: I look forward to theconfusion created by an Indigenousperson quoting from The Bible.)Perhaps the author could haveadded a line about how to createconditions for laughter.

It would be irresponsible of me towrite without offering thoughts onactions which will fosterreconciliation. When I recognizethat a relationship I am in is nolonger a peaceful one, I take myshare of the responsibility to makeit peaceful again. I believe that if aperson with whom I have arelationship is not at peace becauseof something I said or did, then ourrelationship is not at peace. If ourrelationship is not at peace, then Iam not at peace. I take it uponmyself to do what I can to healfrom that. Usually, this meanslistening to the person on his or herterms. It is sometimes a long anddifficult process, but the results areworth it.



FRAIS DE SCOLARITéDOMINIqUEBOUTIN

L a w I I

40 étudiant-e-s de la Faculté de droit ont pris part à lamanifestation nationale contre la hausse des frais de scolarité le10 novembre dernier. Le 17 mars 2011, le gouvernement Charestdéposait un budget provincial contenant une hausse massive desfrais de scolarité; près de 1625 $ en cinq ans, au rythme de 325 $de plus par année, cumulatifs pendant cinq ans. Cette hausse,combinée à la précédente, de 500 $ supplémentaires entre 2007et 2012, constitue uneaugmentation de la factureétudiante de 127 %, c'est-à-direque les frais de scolarité aurontplus que doublé en 2017. Cettehausse touchera également lesétudiant-e-s hors province et lesétudiant-e-s internationaux.

Une telle augmentation aura desrépercussions majeures sur la viedes étudiantes et des étudiants,ainsi que leurs familles. En effet, enplus d'être une atteinte majeure àl'accès à l'éducation universitaire,ce n'est plus la capacité de réussirqui fait la différence entrel'admission et le refus, mais la

taille du portefeuille. La hausse des frais de scolarité aura aussides impacts sur l'endettement étudiant, déjà situé, en moyenne,à 14 000 $ au Québec à la fin d'un baccalauréat. Uneaugmentation de cet endettement est tout simplementirresponsable quand on connaît la situation économique desétudiantes et des étudiants.

NELLYMARcOUx

L a w I V

UNINTENDED EFFECTS OF HUMOUR: THEIMPORTANCE OF TAKING RESPONSIBILITy

Dear Ms. Nova,

Having followed the exchanges surrounding the recentpublication of your controversial cartoon, and beingamong the people who initially interpreted it as amisguided, distasteful but a potentially sincereattempt to offer a critique of treaty-making in thecontext of the colonial enterprise, I was surprised anddisappointed by both the tone of your response and

its emphasis on argumentation in defense of saidcartoon, to the expense of any form of learning oracknowledgement of mistake. More specifically, I wassaddened to find no apology to those people whohave been hurt, albeit inadvertently, by it.

There are many aspects of your response which arequestionable in my view:a title which, from the onset,potentially suggests irritation with some of the


reactions generated by your cartoon and the ensuingdebate; the fact that your text fails to address Mr.Horne’s basic critique and focuses on attacking his mosthyperbolic forms of expression; the questionable valueof invoking your own experiences with indigenous issuesas a guarantee of the relevance and appropriateness ofyour cartoon as an expression of your critique; yourdecontextualized appeal to humour as a survivalstrategy; your debatable assertion that the cartoon’sdubious satirical value was justified for “opening aforum,” “bringing important issues to the forefront” and“provoking thought” (as well as its underlyingassumption that there are not currently moreappropriate, inclusive and constructive forums whichcurrently fulfill these goals at the Faculty). However, Ithink it is less useful to linger on these variousarguments than to reflect on your overall approach tothis situation.

A few students in the Faculty recently had theopportunity to attend the Truth and ReconciliationCommission of Canada’s Atlantic National Event, whichtook place in Halifax from October 26 to 29. Thisexperience was extremely significant for me. Three daysspent listening to people sharing the stories from theirtime spent in residential schools helped me understanda little better what their experiences must have beenlike. Most importantly, it helped me start to grasp thedepth of their pain and the extent and significance of theharm done to their communities. The value of thisexperience was that it occurred beyond the intellectuallevel, through the heart. One of the things that wasmost striking to me was the extent to which, althoughmemories of the most egregious forms of abuse werevery present throughout the event, memories of “lesser”forms of abuse such as humiliations and insults alsooccupied a prominent place in people’s recollection oftheir experiences. During those three days, wewitnessed elders and grown women and men recall andsometimes painfully relive, decades later, dailyexperiences of racism, degradation, psychological abuse,insults and humiliation. I had never fully realized howdestructive these particular forms of abuse have provento be for the survivors and their communities, and theextent to which the individual and collective impacts ofthis abuse are still felt to this day. It was also anoccasion to experience how the acknowledgement andrecognition of survivors’ pain and lived experience canfunction as a vital step on the path to healing.

I am telling this story to make the point that the cartoonwas not published in a vacuum.Its imagery and contenthave the potential to painfully resonate in light ofindividual and collective experiences. But, even if wemade abstraction of this particular context, the fact is,Ms. Nova, that your cartoon was hurtful to some people.“Laughter through tears” indeed attests to the strengthand resilience of oppressed peoples around the world,including those members of your family. The power ofhumour in this type of context, however, stems from thefact that it is generated by those whose very survival orintegrity is at stake. your cartoon was not published incomparable circumstances and for many of us, did notcreate laughter. For some of us, it only added morepain to that which is created by an ongoing legacy ofassimilation, humiliation and oppression.

In light of this context, I believe you must ask yourselfwhether the approach you adopted in producing yourhighly intellectualized public response to criticisms aboutyour cartoon is enlightened. you have the choice toengage with these criticisms in a removed andadversarial fashion, or as an opportunity to openyourself to learn (and help the rest of us learn) from thisexperience. As individuals concerned with Indigenousissues in general but also with the well-being of ourfellow students and community, we must ask ourselveswhether our responsibility to others stops where we findsufficient theoretical justification for our words andactions, or whether we have the responsibility tosincerely and courageously listen to and acknowledgethe voices articulating the unintended and/orunforeseen effects of these words or actions. Will oursolidarity towards one another remain in the theoreticaland intellectual realm, or will it be lived and expressedthrough our daily relationships to one another and theway we acknowledge and respond to each other’sexperiences?

Most importantly, Ms. Nova, I believe you should askyourself the following question: what about this cartoonis so important that it prevents you from acknowledgingthe harm it may have caused to others and simplyapologizing for making a mistake?


10 • 15 NOVEMBRE 2011 • QN

HAS A FORUM REALLy BEENOPENED?

JOANNIEJAcOB

L a w I V

This is a comment on “Oh Fer Lawfing outLawd” by Patricia Nova and on thecritiques that ensued.

Ms. Nova mentioned in the conclusion ofher article that, at least, the controversyhas opened a forum and that in the end,this is good enough for her. However,having read her reply, I question whethershe herself is honestly open to a realdiscussion.

As I understood it, her position on thecontroversy caused by her cartoon is thatwe (the readers) all understood hermessage and that the only problem is thatwe are failing to appreciate her use ofhumor as a powerful tool of critique.Moreover, she tries to deny that hercartoon conveyed stereotypes ofaboriginal people by quoting a fewsymposiums she attended. To me, thisreflects an attempt to shut down thediscussion or, at least, to divert andminimize critique.

Now, let me start by saying that Iunderstand why Ms. Nova reply mighthave been so defensive. I do believe herwhen she says that she is interested inindigenous issues. I also believe that sheprobably did not intend to make any racistcomments on aboriginal people throughher cartoon. Keeping that in mind, I canunderstand that her first reaction, beinginformed of some of the critiques thathad been formulated, was one of surprise.I do not know how long after reading thecritiques she started formulating herreply, but I do think that taking a stepback could have helped her reply to themin a more constructive manner. First, I wasmyself confused and a bit insulted readingher cartoon for the first time, and it didtake me a lot of time before I could evenguess what she was trying to convey

through it. I think that it is insulting forher to assume that the readers makingthe critiques were in bad faith by“pretending” not to understand themeaning of her use of humor. Second,while I do understand now that hercartoon was meant to make somecomment on the bad effects of treaties onaboriginal people, I also believe that itwas accompanied by a depiction ofhurtful stereotypes. Surely, Ms. Nova wasunaware of that and did put some timeinto thinking about the cartoon. However,I think we have to accept that each of us,even if we try to be as sensitive andinformed as possible on issues like racism,can be holding stereotypes. Whenconfronted to critiques to a comment wemake or a cartoon we draw, we should, indue time, take a step back and try to thinkwhether maybe we did hold such astereotype or misconception. Granted, itis a very hard thing to do, and it is a realexercise in humility, but that is what willmake you a better citizen and will helpyou gain the respect of your peers. Third, Ido take issue with Ms. Nova tactic ofanswering the critique of her cartoon bydefending her knowledge of indigenousissues. While I have no doubt that she hasread a lot about the topic and assisted tomany talks, I am not sure how theexamples she gave show us that she has a“contemporary, empirical, grass-rootednature”. What does she mean bygrassroot? Has she lived in an aboriginalcommunity? Has she volunteered orworked with organizations ran by FirstNations, Métis or Inuit people? Empiricalis also a very scientific term; has she ledsome rigorous research on these issues?Regardless of whether her claim isfounded, I think that it is alwaysdangerous, as students, to assume thatwe have acquired a level of knowledge onan issue that shields us from critique.

Even experts can make mistakes. As lawstudent, it is important to remindourselves that a good dose of humilityand self-critique is always healthy.Moreover, when responding to critiquecoming in part from students havingfamily or being themselves First Nations,Métis or Inuit, the claim to knowledge onthese issues is tricky. For this claim towork as a rebuttal, there must be animplied assertion that either 1- saidstudents understood and agree with whatyou said and are making their critique inbad faith; or 2- that they know less thanyou do on the issue. The latter isespecially problematic in this context,considering Canada’s history of taking avery patriarchal approach and showing“ignorant savages” what is right and true.While I am sure that this was not Ms.Nova’s intention, it is always delicate for anon-aboriginal student to teach aboriginalstudent about their history.

All that being said, I am not sure whetherit was an entirely bad thing that Ms.Nova’s cartoon was published. Herself, aswell as others, were obviously not awareof the underlying stereotypes this cartoondepicted. Had she never make thiscartoon, or had it never been published,perhaps she would not have beenconfronted so directly with herstereotypes. I think that it is important forevery student and for the faculty as awhole to make sure that there are spacesopen for constructive discussion and theuncovering of stereotypes. I am not surewhether the Quid is the space that is mostconducive to such constructive discussion,but at least it may launch somediscussion. In any case, when such anopinion is voiced, in the Quid orelsewhere, I think that it is theresponsibility for each student feelingconcerned about it to answer in a

QN •NOVEMBER 15 2011 • 11

constructive way. While I am not sayingthat any of the critiques published lastweek did that, it would be dangerous forstudents in general to respond to Ms.Nova by calling her a racist and-or tryingto shut her down. This risk, if anything, topush her toward a more defensiveapproach. What might help is to offer tohave a discussion with her, away from the

“spotlight”, on the topic. In this sense, Isalute in particular the offer made byEden Alexander; it shows a true maturityin addressing this controversy. Moreover, Ithink that it would be very important forthe faculty to continue offering moreclasses challenging stereotypes andcommonly held views. Finally, I stronglyencourage students to read the following

article, which might make you think aboutstereotypes you may be holding: ShinImai, “A Counter-Pedagogy for SocialJustice: Core Skills for Community BasedLawyering” (2002) 9 Clinical Law Reviewpp. 195-227.

Chers amis et amies,

Depuis le début de cette année scolaire, plusieurs personnes ont partagé avec moi leurs préoccupations concernant lapolitique linguistique de notre faculté. Ces préoccupations m’ont incité à ajouter le respect pour le bilinguisme comme unpilier important de ma plate-forme électorale en tant que candidat pour le poste du coprésident de première année. Malgréle fait que le programme de droit à McGill ait été réorganisé en 1999 pour offrir « une approche transsystémique à laformation juridique », la politique linguistique n’a pas été mise à jour depuis 1992. À mon avis, cette politique ne reflètedonc pas la nature de notre programme « passivement bilingue » et elle ne répond pas adéquatement aux besoinslinguistiques du corps étudiant.

I am proud to say that on Monday, November 7, 2011, the LSA Council adopted my resolution to establish an LSA Committeeon Official Languages. This committee, which will be responsible for reviewing the Faculty’s Language Policy, will begin itsconsultations with students early in the Wwinter semester. Dean Jutras has expressed his support for the LSA to undertakethis initiative. This committee will be chaired by VP Academic Georgia Papadolias, with LSA President Catherine Coursol andmyself serving as Vice-Chairs.

Pour les étudiants qui souhaitent participer aux consultations, les renseignements concernant la première réunion serontdiffusés au début du mois de janvier prochain. Un exemplaire de la politique linguistique de 1992 est aussi disponible surdemande.

I look forward to an informed and productive discussion with all students abouton reviewing our Language Policy. Shouldyou have any questions about this process, please do not hesitate to contact myself, Georgia or Catherine.

Bien à vous,

Dominic DiFruscioCoprésident de première année et Vice-Président du Comité sur les langues officielles

DOMINIcDIFRUScIO

C o p r é s i d e n t e d e p r e m i è r e a n n é e e t V i c e - P r é s i d e n t d u C o m i t é s u r l e s l a n g u e s o f f i c i e l l e s

POLITIQUE LINGUISTIQUE


12 • 15 NOVEMBRE 2011 • QN

cHARLIEFELDMAN

O m b u d s m a n

FROM THE DESK OFTHE OMBUDSMAN

Dear Reader,In light of the current controversy surrounding the publication ofMs. Nova’s cartoon, I have been asked by the current Editors-in-Chiefs to reprise my role as Quid Ombudsman. For those new tothe Faculty or new to the Quid, I previously served in this capac-ity during the 2010-2011 year, having also worked at the Quid atvarious points as a Staff Writer, Layout Editor, and Associate Edi-tor-in-Chief.

The Ombudsman role is simple: Listen to student and Facultyconcerns about the Quid Novi, comment on situations involvingthe Quid, and make recommendations as necessary. The Om-budsman does not report to the Editors-in-Chief; he or she is in-dependent and responsible only to readers within the Faculty.

In this instance, my mandate is to address the issue at hand as itrelates to questions of the Quid’s scope, mandate, and publish-ing practices. you may certainly disagree with my findings andconclusions, and I invite you to make your views known to me ei-ther via article or e-mail [email protected].

It is unfortunate that this article has to be written before theQuid Editors-in-Chief are to sit down with students involved inthis issue (on Monday, after this will have gone to press for Tues-day). I certainly hope it is a productive meeting, and I regret thatI cannot be there.

With all that out of the way, I will begin by addressing the mostcurrent events first:

ISSUE: NON-MCGILL SUBMISSIONS Up to – but mostly after – the submission deadline (extensionswere given to some McGill students who requested them), anumber of submissions on this matter came in from studentswith no connection to McGill. The current Quid Novi Policy andOperating Guidelines (hereinafter ‘Policy’) does not specifywho may write in the Quid. This is problematic.

The Quid Novi is the student newspaper of the Faculty of Law.There are not the resources in place (both in terms of peopleand finances) for this publication to publish everything thatconforms to content guidelines, the only codified limits onpublication. While I do not feel an absolute ban on outsidevoices is appropriate, I do believe a change should be made inthis regard. Simply put, we have enough diversity of studentvoices in this regard that our pages need not be filled withcomments from outside to have multiple perspectives repre-

sented. Further, the intended audience of the Quid is limited.Certainly, we put issues on the web in PDF (a practice that hasbeen of perennial concern), but I truly believe authors intendtheir submissions to remain within the McGill Law family.

Of course, I am sympathetic that we do not live in a vacuumand the content on our pages has ramifications beyond thewalls of New Chancellor Day Hall. That said, everyone is free tocomment anywhere on the Internet; I don’t believe the Quid’spages (paid mostly by your LSA fees) should be serving a muchlarger community than that with ties to 3644 Peel.

Recommendation 1: The Quid’s Policy should be changed tospecify that only current and former students and professors ofMcGill’s Faculty of Law be permitted to submit articles for publi-cation. However, the Editors-in-Chief should retain discretion inthis regard to allow for solicited submissions, ads that otherwiseconform to the Policy, or items that – in their appreciation – areproper for this venue. An absolute ban would be too sweeping –if a guest speaker wants to write an article about his or her up-coming talk at the Faculty, this should be published (providedthe content conforms to the rest of the Policy). I trust either theEditors-in-Chiefs or a Quid Staff Member will propose the actualwording such that the Policy may be changed through theprocess it outlines.

Immediate Impact: I recommended that the Editors-in-Chiefhold off publishing the non-McGill submissions until such a rulechange is discussed within the Quid ranks. I realize this does notconform to the policy as written, but I believe the policy is silenton this issue not because the Quid was intended to be a free-for-all, but rather because it was assumed we would not have sub-missions lacking a sufficient nexus to the Faculty.

While I cannot claim to have read every external submission sentin this regard, it was apparent that some submitters were clearlyunaware what the Quid was (i.e. some suggested it was an offi-cial publication of the Faculty) or wrote in such a way that theitem would not be publishable. This is part of why I think a morerestrictive rule is necessary, not every outsider will understandthe Quid’s role and function nor be aware of Faculty dynamics.

As a related note, I think the case in point in this regard would belast year’s Skit Nite review written by a Queen’s medical student.While it had a close Faculty link (speaking about our Skit Nite),the tone of the article left a sour taste in many mouths and hadelements that were removed prior to publication. I think, had


the author read many issues of the Quid before writing, the tonewould have been vastly different. Limiting the Quid to those whoread it or encounter it more often I think would maintain thequality of the publication.

Again, to be clear, there is great value to be found in outsidevoices. However, from a publication standpoint I am not con-vinced the Quid is ideally suited to carrying all external submis-sions.

ISSUE: NUMBER OF RESPONSES – RISK OF ATTACKThe Quid’s Policy (as the Editors-in-Chief pointed out in lastweek’s Editorial) is designed in part to prevent students fromopening the Quid and feeling personally attacked. I doubt Ms.Nova can open this week’s Quid and not – in some way – feelpersonally attacked. Does that mean we silence all critique?Certainly not.

There is a balance to be struck here, and I feel many authorshave done a fine job in addressing the underlying issues –racism, the First Nations experience, what qualifies as humour,etc. – purely on the merits, or have written constructive andself-reflexive pieces that give us all food for thought.

The problem I am concerned about here is what is known as‘chilling’. We are, as you know, a submission-driven publica-tion. Students who open this issue and read it as a “smackdown” may be less willing to contribute their views and opin-ions in the future. This is problematic.

That said, I believe it would be more problematic to censor ar-ticles for being simply ‘one too many’ or to ask submitterscoming from the same side of an issue to get together andwrite joint submissions (something that is preferred when itoccurs organically).

Recommendation 2: It may be appropriate to consider a “total-ity” review test for each Quid. Simply put, the Quid Policy is ap-plied article-by-article, but there is no review of the publicationas a whole. I do not believe the Editors-in-Chief have erred, but Ido think it is important simply to bear this in mind in the future,such that the issue may be changed in terms of layout (such asspacing articles on the same topic apart) or allowing the authorto see all pieces and write a partial response in the same week(though this is also problematic). While it’s not clear what the re-sult of a totality test might be (even just the decision of the Edi-tors-in-Chief to have a “cooling off period” perhaps) it may beuseful to implement this as a safety valve.

Further, and relatedly, having the vast majority of a given Quidon one topic is arguably not ideal for the readership, which I be-lieve seeks some content variety in each issue. Certainly, theQuid cannot force people to submit items or censor what is sub-mitted if it conforms to the Policy, but a totality review may helpprevent an issue where the perception is that 99% of content ison one issue. I’m not saying this is the case here, but I could seethis happening and think it may be appropriate for the Editors to

have discretion – as a result of a totality review – to perhaps ex-tend the deadline that week to encourage a larger variety of sub-missions; or, more relevant to a case like this, skip publicationthat week and facilitate a face-to-face meeting between inter-ested parties. I believe such a “cooling off” period and face-to-face dialogue would be more productive and preferable to aprolonged back-and-forth in our pages. (and I certainly hopeMonday’s meeting may forge some consensus and the finding ofcommon ground).

All that said, if it remains that students want to continue writingon a given topic – and the submissions conform to the Policy –the Quid must publish what is received.

Immediate Impact: Here, I think the system is working as in-tended though I believe a totality review would be useful in fu-ture. I do worry about the potential for chilling. I also worry thatMs. Nova may feel attacked, but I am confident she will respond(as she did to Mr. Horne) as she sees appropriate. Again, hope-fully Monday’s meeting will bring this matter closer to some res-olution.

I am raising this issue because I do think it is an important onefor our readership and continued sustainability as a publication.And, much like not every dispute is appropriate for the legal sys-tem, I think it is worth remembering here too that prolongedback-and-forth in our pages is not guaranteed to “solve” prob-lems or bring everyone into agreement; no that a face-to-facemeeting is a cure-all either, but I do believe it is vastly preferable.Certainly, reasonable people can and continue to disagree, andcertainly the Quid will continue to publish responses to articles.

ISSUE: INITIAL PUBLICATION OF THE CARTOONWere the Editors-in-Chief correct in publishing the cartoon?

I have to remark here that I find most of this week’s issue to bein response to Ms. Nova’s response to Mr. Horne. Certainly,had Ms. Nova apologized or simply not written anything, Idoubt the pages would be filled with cartoon-related com-ments this week. I raise this as my starting point because itseems we have moved somewhat away from the core publica-tion question at issue.

The Editors-in-Chief outlined their reasoning in last week’s Edi-torial. While I may have argued the cartoon differently, I thinkthe only conclusion that could be reached under the currentPolicy is that the item is publishable. Whether the current Pol-icy needs to be changed is a separate discussion I will now ad-dress:

Recommendation 3: The Quid Policy be modified to clearly indi-cate it applies to all submissions, including visual submissions /cartoons.

Right now, the Policy uses “article” in some spots and “submis-sion” in other places. “Submission” should be the standardthroughout to remove ambiguity, and it should be noted that a

14 • 15 NOVEMBRE 2011 • QN

submission is anything sent for publication, including articles,cartoons, ads, and poems.

Recommendation 4: All cartoons should be sent to a reviewerfor initial application of the Policy.

The initial flagging that occurs during the review of articles byreviewers needs to be extended to cartoons, which have tradi-tionally just been inserted either without review or only after aquick check by the Layout Editor or an Editor-in-Chief – andthis is usually to make sure the item prints correctly ratherthan reviewing its content. As such, there isn’t a clearly de-fined process or moment for when a cartoon stars the reviewprocess. I would recommend the Editors-in-Chief send the car-toons to reviewers as if they were any ordinary submissions sothat potential problems much be caught and addressedsooner. I think this would happen as a matter of course if theprevious recommendation were adopted that would treat allsubmissions alike.

Recommendation 5: The third step of the process – consultation– should specifically include student groups with a tie to the con-tent.

As the Editors-in-Chief noted, the cartoon did not reach theconsultation stage. While I can’t say for sure whether or not itwould have in my estimation (since, in part, it depends on howand by whom it is flagged when and with what warning), if ithad gone for consultation, it is not clear that it would haveever been discussed with members of the Aboriginal Law Stu-dents’ Association. While the actual wording will need to comefrom someone on Quid staff, I think a sentence along the linesof “The Editors-in-Chief will also consult with relevant studentgroups tied to the content of a flagged submission” may beuseful.

To be clear, there are certainly students upset by the cartoonthat are neither Aboriginal nor have ties to the Aboriginal LawStudents’ Association. My concern is that, as the policy is writ-ten, we wouldn’t need to reach out to the Aboriginal Law Stu-dents’ Association when consulting on this content. I think isproblematic and should be corrected in the Policy.

Recommendation 6: The content review Policy should include vi-suals in its factors for consideration.

Right now, the Policy reads that the words are the focus of re-view (though “tone” is also an element). As such, the only“questionable” word (per the Policy) from the cartoon is“whitey”. Though there are questions that can be raised aboutthe word, I don’t think its use alone would have been a bar topublication. That said, the depiction and dress used in the car-toon should have been issues for potential consultation, and assuch I think the Policy should be clear that visuals are also is-sues for review.

Immediate Action: While I’m sure some people at the Quid wish

the cartoon had never been published, we can’t change history.Further, as the Policy is written, I have difficulty seeing how theitem would not be publishable. That said, I think the recommen-dations outlined above would help give the Editors-in-Chief morepause and allow the cartoon to be signaled sooner, such that abroad consultation would occur or so that the author could beinformed there were potential issues with the cartoon and askedif she wished to withdraw or revise it (as The Quid has askedpeople to do in the past, and most do so without any issues).

I think it would have been more problematic – particularlythrough a freedom of expression lens – to censor the cartoonand provide a notice to readers that it would not be running. In-deed, only ONE submission has been rejected in the last fouryears.

I think ideally, and as I see the revised policy working, the matterwould have been flagged as problematic through an initial re-view. The Editors-in-Chiefs would either report this back to theauthor and encourage consultation on his or her part while hold-ing the piece for the week (usually the Quid informs the authorthere is a problem and asks them reconsider it rather than re-wording something – submissions should be by the author’s pen,not those of the Editors). If the matter had gone for consultation,the Aboriginal Law Students’ Association surely would haveflagged it. The Editors-in-Chief would then have a better sense ofthe issue and could either ask the author to discuss the cartoonwith relevant groups or, if the author insisted on its publicationas is, at least be in a better informed place for decision makingvis-à-vis publication.

There is always the risk that an item works its way up the Quidchain without being flagged as problematic, or that even when itgoes for consultation the prevailing current is that it’s fine. Ithink more eyes seeing the piece – and in particular the additionof student groups to the consultation list – would better preventthis from recurring.

Conclusion: In light of the current situation, several shortcomingsof the Quid policy become apparent. I believe the six recommen-dations I have made are sensible and practical. In terms of im-portance, I believe adopting the one regarding externalsubmissions is most pressing.

While the initial cartoon appeared publishable under the Policyin place, I believe my proposed changes in this regard - addingmore checks and expanding the review process – will allow moretime for more reflection and a broader base for consultation.This would allow all parties to be aware of the issues sooner sothat appropriate measures may be taken. It is my sincere hopethat these changes will benefit you the reader as well as thepublication, and would ideally prevent a situation like this fromrecurring.

As always, I invite your feedback: [email protected].


Hilal ElverAdjudicating!Freedom!of!Religion!and!Secularism:!The!ECHR’s!New!HeadacheNov.!16!|!RM!16!OCDH,!Faculty!of!Law,!McGill!University!|!12:30!-!14:00

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!"#$%&'()*+,&-./0(%)&1/."2&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

&

1/."23&4 $5+(.%&3%&#$+(6/3&43&4/.(+,&43&7$&23/,.%%3&!!

McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism

Annie MacDonald Langstaff Workshop Series

16 • 15 NOVEMBRE 2011 • QN

Vive les snails!

« Mi-novembre. La pluie envahitMontréal. La fin de session se pointetranquillement le bout du nez. Les datesde remise de travaux approchent. La pilede choses à faire augmente. Pas le choix.Je dois encore passer ma journée à labibliothèque. Il faut bien faire ses lecturesun jour…

Mais, il est déjà 12 heures. Le stresscommence à m’envahir. Mon pas sepresse. Nahum Gelber est encore loin. Jemonte la rue Peel en ruminant toujours lamême inquiétude : vais-je avoir un bureauà la bibliothèque?

J’arrive afin à mon havre d’études et queconstatai-je? NON!! Tous les bureaux sontpris. Les snails ont déjà envahi tous lesétages !! Ces créatures immondes quienvahissent de plus en plus notre Faculté.Ils sont partout! Que vais-je faire pourétudier tranquille? J’essaie de me frayerun espace entre deux étudiants enéconomie. Rien à faire. Aucune place!Je m’assois dans les marches de la caged’escalier. J’enrage contre ces bestioles quiviennent voler mes bureaux à labibliothèque. Je pleure. Je crie. Je frappesur les murs. Ma haine envers ces êtresgrandit. Pourquoi ne restent-ils pas chezeux ces snails!!

Mais dans ma tourmente, je me perdsdans mes pensées. Je me questionne surl’origine de cette haine viscérale envers lessnails. Que m’ont-ils fait? Pourquoi lesdétestais-je?

Ils viennent peut-être simplement troublerla tranquillité dans ma Faculté à moi?Jamais dérangé par les étudiants du lowercampus, je vis ma vie d’étudiant en droit,paisible, sans être importuné.

Mais d’où vient donc cette attituderéfractaire aux autres? Les études à laFaculté de droit de McGill n’étaient pascensées m’ouvrir sur le monde? Me voilàaujourd’hui en train de rager contre lepartage d’un espace public avec d’autresétudiants tous aussi égaux que moi.Toujours absorbé dans mes pensées, aubeau milieu de la cage d’escalier duNahum Gelber, je réalise le cheminparcouru. Je réalise qu’idéaliste quej’étais, je suis devenu habitué à avoir monmonde à moi. Un monde où j’ai monpavillon à moi, jamais dérangé par devulgaires étudiants en sciences humaines.Un monde où, au bout de la rue Peel, onm’a habitué à ne pas être comme lesautres.

Je réalise aujourd’hui que toutes cesannées à la Faculté m’ont endoctriné. Ellesm’ont habitué à vivre dans un mondeisolé du reste du peuple. Un monde où ledroit triomphe et où la professionjuridique peut se sentir au-dessus de lamêlée.

J’ai mal. Moi qui ai toujours penséchanger le monde, je réalise que je ne faisque reproduire les clivages sociaux. Jeconstate que nous, étudiants de laFaculté, avons été habitués à regarder dehaut le reste de l’Université. Comme si lemicrocosme universitaire reproduisait lesdifférences de la société. Dès l’université,on nous a habitués à avoir l’impressionque nous sommes différents. Nous avonsdroit à notre pavillon; loin des autres.Nous pensons avoir notre bibliothèque ànous. Nous rechignons, lorsque d’autresétudiants, aussi égaux que nous, viennentsimplement étudier dans un endroit quileur appartient autant que nous.À ce moment, je sors tout d’un coup de matorpeur. Soudainement, je comprends! Lessnails qui m’envahissent ne sont pas que

de simples étudiants. Ce sont descombattants! Ils luttent! Ils luttent contreces juristes qui se croient propriétaires detout! Contre ces étudiants en droit quipensent pouvoir s’approprier unebibliothèque pourtant financée par desfonds publics.

Je sors alors immédiatement de ma caged’escalier pour aller à leur rencontre.N’hésitant pas une seule seconde, jegrimpe sur les tables de travail au milieudu 3e étage et je crie :

“Snails de tous les pays, unissez-vous! J’aicompris votre lutte. Derrière votre regardindifférent, vous protestez! Alors quecertains occupent Montréal, New York ouVancouver, vous, vous venez occuper labibliothèque de droit. Vous refusez delaisser les étudiants s’approprier unendroit qui ne leur appartient pas. Quelcourage!”

Je quittai alors la bibliothèque, serein. Cesbolchéviques des temps modernesposaient un acte simple, mais puissant.Jamais je n’avais réalisé que de traîner unlivre de biologie et d’aller sur Facebookpendant deux ou trois heures pouvait êtreaussi lourd de sens. Derrière son regardvide et son indifférence, le snail luttecontre la stratification sociale. Au lieu declamer haut et fort son indignation, ilprend tranquillement une place, là oùl’élite la lui croyait réservée.Poursuis ton combat snail. Un jour, tuobtiendras une société sans classe. »

***

De la démocratie

À moins que vous soyez sourd et aveugle,vous avez constaté comme moil’effervescence politique qui se déroule à

CHRONIQUES FACULTAIRESVINcENTRANGER

L a w I V

QN • NOVEMBER 15 2011 • 17

la Faculté. De semaine en semaine, lespages du Quid regorgent de débats sur lagrève des employés de soutien. Je n’ai pasl’intention d’écrire directement sur cesujet. Tout a été dit, et tout sera redit.

Par contre, je suis agréablement surprisde voir ce débat se tenir. Alors queplusieurs clament à la division de notreFaculté, moi, je constate qu’il est tout àfait sain d’avoir des débats, même s’ilssont parfois vigoureux. On étudie etdécortique ces nombreux jugements surla liberté d’expression, alors pourquoi nepas la mettre en action!

Mais ce qui me réjouit le plus ces jours-cic’est l’attitude du LSA. Il y a à peine plusd’un mois, l’exécutif du LSA avait discutéde la question des frais de scolarité et dela grève de MUNACA. À quelle conclusionétait-il arrivé? Réticence à s’opposer à lahausse de frais de scolarité et neutralitésur la grève de MUNACA.

Depuis ce jour, beaucoup d’eau a coulésous les ponts. Le LSA a tenu, débutoctobre, une rencontre pour discuter desfrais de scolarité avec les étudiantsintéressés. Le LSA Council a adopté une

résolution pour rester neutre face à lagrève.Où veux-je en venir? Au faitqu’aujourd’hui, malgré ce qu'il souhaitaitau départ, le LSA nous transmet desinformations sur la grève de MUNACA. Aufait que, la semaine dernière, nous avonsmanifesté contre l’augmentation des fraisde scolarité. Tout ça pour quoi? Parce quele LSA a discuté de ces questions enassemblée générale et que,collectivement, nous avons pris desdécisions. Les décisions n’étaient pasnécessairement celles que voulait le LSA,mais qu’importe. Ils les ont respectées.Ça peut sembler bizarre de le souligner,mais, dans l’état actuel de la démocratieau Québec, c’est toujours rassurant devoir que certaines personnes respectentla volonté majoritaire. Malgré l’oppositionprofonde de l’exécutif à prendre positionsur la question de la grève, il nous tient aucourant par le biais des courriels sur lesactions et manifestations à venir. C’estl’attitude normale à prendre. Je ne saispas pourquoi, mais, ces jours-ci, je trouveque c’est un comportement qui mérited’être souligné.

***

La politique des examens

Avez-vous lu comme moi le rapport denos conseillers facultaires la semainedernière dans le Quid? On y apprend enpage 17 que la Faculté s’apprêterait àmodifier sa politique d’évaluation, et ce,sans consulter les étudiants?!?! y a-t-ilseulement moi qui trouve qu’il s’agit d’unélément fondamental de la vieacadémique? Est-ce normal que, sur cesujet, nos représentants étudiants nesoient pas consultés? J’espère que laFaculté remédiera rapidement à ça etconsultera nos représentants sur toutequestion qui modifierait la politiqued’évaluation. Ça me semble le minimum àfaire!

Prenez une pause de vos études et pensez à l'été. Canadian Lawyer’s Abroad - Avocats canadiens à l'étranger McGill is again hostingthe CLA-ACE Internship Info & Trivia Night

Who: you and your friendsWhat: Learn about CLA-ACE, the summer internship program, and have some fun with a round of triviaWhere: Thomson HouseWhen: Tuesday, November 15th, 6:00-7:30 pmWhy: Proceeds will support McGill students who are selected to intern with CLA-ACE’s summer internship programHow: All you need bring is a toonie and your trivia skills!

CLA-ACE INTERNSHIP INFO & TRIVIA NIGHT

JéRéMYBOULANGERBONNELLY

18 • 15 NOVEMBRE 2011 • QN

UNE RéPONSE ÀFRANCESCA TADDEO

Chère Mlle Taddeo,

Malgré l’affirmation du contraire, vousavez adopté une voie personnelle dansvotre dernier article, et c’est pourquoi jevous réponds sous forme de lettre. Toutd’abord, je tiens à vous dire que vosarguments sont intéressants et portent àréflexion. Je crois cependant que vousavez mal interprété mon texte, déviantses arguments pour me faire dire deschoses qui ne reflètent pas ma pensée. Sicela est le résultat de mon expressiondéficiente, alors mea culpa, mais je croisqu’il est essentiel de rétablir ici mespropos.

J’apprécie grandement que vous nousrappeliez que la liberté d’expression estbrimée dans d’autres pays de façonmajeure et certainement beaucoup plusgrave qu’ici. Vous affirmez que les actionsde MUNACA sont une insulte à ceux quise battent vraiment pour leur libertéd’expression dans d’autres pays. Est-ce àdire que la liberté d’expression n’est pasici brimée ? Je ne le crois pas. En cettematière, comme en beaucoup d’autres,rien n’est blanc ou noir. La libertéd’expression qui a été bafouée à McGillest certes moins en péril que celle enSyrie, par exemple, mais elle reste tout demême bafouée et elle a été chèrementacquise au terme de plusieurs lutteshistoriques. Il ne faudrait certainementpas la prendre pour acquise, au risque dela perdre, et c’est une lutte quotidiennequ’il faut à mon sens continuer.

Vous répliquez également qu’un doublestandard s’applique aux travailleurs deMUNACA, dont ceux qui s’opposent à lagrève seraient bâillonnés. La mesure de «you must participate in strike activities inorder to get strike pay » est toutefois

cohérente avec les principes syndicaux debase. La grève a été obtenue par un votedémocratique tenu dans les règles et, àpartir de ce moment, les travailleurs sonttenus d’agir en solidarité les uns avec lesautres pour atteindre leurs objectifscommuns, bien que de façon personnelle,les membres puissent faire part de leursdissidences au sein de l’association. Qu’onsoit en accord ou non avec cette façon defaire, il reste qu’elle est essentielle pourassurer la cohésion de tout mouvementsyndical.

En ce qui a trait à ma demande d’êtreretiré de la liste d’envoi des courriels del’administration, il convient de remettreles choses en perspective. J’ai auparavantdemandé à l’administration à plusieursreprises de modifier le ton de leurscommunications pour être davantageobjectifs, ou même de simplementindiquer dans leurs courriels quel’information qui y est présentée estbiaisée. Après avoir reçu plusieurs refus,j’en suis venu à la conclusion que le seulmoyen qu’il me restait pour affirmer mesrevendications était de demander à êtreretiré de la liste.

Il est vrai que je n’avais pas à lire lescourriels, personne n’y est forcé. De lamême façon, lorsque quelqu’un se faitinsulter sur les ondes d’une radio, parexemple, il n’est pas tenu d’écouter lespropos qui lui sont préjudiciables. Il peuteffectivement décider de ne pas agir et depaisiblement laisser passer l’injure. Dansce cas-ci, j’ai considéré que lesinformations relayées par l’administrationpouvaient être préjudiciables pourMUNACA et j’ai donc décidé de m’yopposer plutôt que d’observer en silence.On pourra certainement m’accuser d’êtretrop activiste, tout dépendamment du

point de vue que l’on adopte sur la grèveet sur les courriels de l’administration,mais je préfère agir au risque de déplaireà certains, afin de respecter et défendremes convictions.

Vous affirmez de plus que tout étudiantqui veut ne plus recevoir de courrielsbiaisés devrait ne pas avoir d’opinion surle conflit. Je n’ai jamais dit que l’uniquesource d’information était les courrielsque nous recevons. Je m’informequotidiennement dans plusieurs sourcesjournalistiques locales, régionales etprovinciales, espérant ainsi avoir accès àune information impartiale qui me permetde me forger ma propre opinion. Mescritiques concernant les courrielsrévélaient plutôt une critique plusgénérale sur l’inégalité des forces dansl’ensemble de ce conflit, qui me semblaittout à fait inappropriée dans le domainedes communications. Nous avons passél’ère du patronat-tout-puissant et je croisque l’avantage que l’administrationobtient en utilisant des listes de courrielsa priori destinées à un usage purementacadémique et administratif portepréjudice à MUNACA.

Finalement, vous énoncez quel’administration « works so hard toprovide its students with anenvironment in which they can thrive andreceive a world- class education ». De cefait, vous semblez ignorer complètementle travail acharné que les employés desoutien procurent aux étudiants pourassurer cet environnement. Je n’ai eneffet pas bénéficié d’un diplôme depremier cycle à McGill, mais monexpérience dans les établissements post-secondaires québécois me permetd’affirmer avec assez de justesse, je crois,que j’ai toujours reçu davantage d’aide et

L a w I

QN • NOVEMBER 15 2011 • 19

d’accompagnement des employés desoutien que de l’administration au cours demes études. Bien sûr, l’administration joueun rôle important également, mais il nefaudrait pas diminuer l’apport des employésde soutien, ce que vous semblezmalheureusement faire tout au long de tonarticle.

Il est intéressant de noter, en terminant, queplusieurs étudiants de l’université ont

manifesté comme moi leur désaccord en lienavec les courriels de l’administration. J’ai étéravi, peu de temps après, de recevoir descourriels clairs, précis et objectifs de M. DiGrappa, qui correspondaient en tous pointsà ce que j’avais demandé. Ainsi, peu importeles arguments que l’on peut invoquer dansce passionnant débat, il n’en reste pas moinsque nos officiers semblent avoir reconnuleur faute et l’avoir corrigée. C’est trèshonorable de leur part et, sur ce point, je les

en remercie.

Je vous remercie donc sincèrement dem’avoir donné l’occasion de clarifier mapensée, je l’espère, et vous invite àpoursuivre le dialogue lorsque nous nouscroiserons à la faculté. Après tout, c’est biensouvent du débat qu’émanent les meilleuresidées.

Jérémy


On Tuesday November 1st, from 6 to 8pm, the Atrium wasanimated by the presence of thirty and some students, threejudges, one Commissaire à la déontologie policière, two federalprosecutors, three provincial prosecutors, one municipal courtprosecutor, 3 private defense lawyers, and one legal aid lawyer.All of these wonderful people were brought together to attendthe second edition of the Criminal Law McGill 6 to 8 Speed-MeetEvent. This event was aiming to offer a networking opportunityfor McGill students interested incriminal law, and a chance for themto ask questions about the specificexperiences of various criminal lawpractioners in an accessibleenvironment. The activity hadreceived great feedback last yearand it was a success again this year,slowly establishing it as a newtradition at McGill.

Le succès de cet événement est dû,selon moi, à deux facteursprincipaux. Premièrement, lagénérosité des individus travaillanten droit criminel à Montréal. Ceux-ci démontrent une passion pour leur travail qui est fortinspirante et ils n’ont pas hésité à donner de leur temps pourpartager leur expérience avec les étudiants. Deuxièmement, ungrand nombre d’étudiants à McGill sont intéressés où curieuxenvers le droit criminel. Bien que la faculté de droit de McGill

n’ait jamais été connue comme étant très portée vers le droitcriminel, je crois que l’importance de cette matière est de plusen plus reconnue à la faculté, comme le démontre le nombreaccru de cours en droit criminel qui sera offert en hiver 2012. Deplus, l’intérêt des étudiants a permis de faire de Droit CriminelMcGill un groupe avec une équipe exécutive dévouée (ChelseaMoore, Louis-Nicolas Gauthier, Rowan Kunitz et moi-même) etun grand nombre de membres étudiants.

Thank you to all the guests whocame: The Honorable Patrick Healy,The Honorable Allan Hilton, TheHonorable Richard Starck, MeShadley Battista, Me Me RobertIsrael, Me Isabelle Haché, MeNathalie Pépin, Me IsabelleSchurman, Me Geneviève Boutet,Me Anne-Marie Manoukian, MeMarie-Claire Emond, Me RachelPitre, Me Maurice Cloutier and MeDennis Galiatsatos. Thank you aswell to Dean Jutras who came tothe event.

Criminal Law McGill is a new student group dedicated topromoting and engaging student interest in criminal law, and toincrease contact between McGill law students and local criminalpractitioners. If you are interested by our events, send us an e-mail to join our mailing list: [email protected].

SPEED-MEET 2011JOANNIEJAcOB

C r i m i n a l L a w M c G i l l / D r o i t C r i m i n e l M c G i l l

20 • 15 NOVEMBRE 2011 • QN

DAVIDGROVES

A couple of days ago, I was lecturing myroommate about Stephen Harper’somnibus crime bill, C-10 (or the SafeStreets and Communities Act), and howthoroughly miserable it is. I deplored theexpansion of mandatory minimums andhow they force judges to hand outpunishments they may object to, abouthow the automatic sentence handed outto marijuana growers under the new lawis actually harsher than the one handedout to pedophiles, and about how the billlengthens and harshens prison terms onpretty much any Canadian citizen whowinds up in jail. My roommate listenedpolitely, thought about it for a second,and then archly told me that, for a guy inhis third month of law school, I certainlyseem to know a lot about criminal law.

I got the hint. He’s right – I can admit thattwo and a half months of law school doesnot qualify me to pronounce on whetheror not C-10 is a disaster. So don’t take myword for it. Here is a list of people whoknow a lot more than I do and also thinkthat the Safe Streets and Communities Actisa mess:

1.Statisticians: Justice Minister RobNicholson has stated that C-10 is anurgent counter to the growing threat ofcrime across the country (especiallyamong “out-of-control young people”),but, this July, Statistics Canada announcedthat our national crime rate is at its lowestlevel since 1973, continuing a 20-yeardownward trajectory. If there’s acountrywide emergency taking place, thedata isn’t showing it.

2.Victims’ Rights Advocates: The Harpergovernment has claimed that C-10 willensure justice and support for victims ofcrime. Writing in the National Post,

however, Steve Sullivan, executivedirector of Ottawa Victim Services, statedthat “There is no evidence that thebillions the [federal and provincial]governments are going to spend on thiscrime agenda will enhance justice forvictims.” Of thefew provisions within thebill that mention victim’s rights, themajority were first introduced in 2005 bythe Liberals. If anything, the harsher andmore rigid enforcement demanded by C-10 will overburden the justice system andlead to slower, more inefficient caseresolution.

3.Judges and Lawyers: B.C. SupremeCourt Judge Robert Bauman has publiclynoted that C-10 will put a significant strainon both Canada’s courts and prisons.Echoing that, Jamie Chaffe, president ofthe Canadian Association of CrownCounsel, stated that the justice systemcannot handle the increased workload thebill will inevitably generate. As a result,the bill will lead tomore plea bargains,more dropped charges, and far lessefficiency.

4.The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency: Inthe United States, 1 in 100 people arecurrently incarcerated, each at a cost tothe government of $18,000-$50,000 ayear. Asa Hutchinson, a former head ofthe DEA under George W. Bush, hasalready warned Parliament not to followin America’s footsteps, specifically when itcomes to mandatory minimums and theimposition of stricter rules for paroleeligibility. The result, from his experience,will be a greatly increased prisonpopulation, higher costs to manage thepenal system, and less fairness in thetreatment and rehabilitation of non-violent offenders.

5.Prison Guards and Experts on thePenitentiary System: As Hutchinsonpointed out, the burden of all theselonger and harsher sentencing strategieswill ultimately be placed on thecorrectional system. Howard Sapers, theCorrectional Investigator for Canada (aprison watchdog/policy review agency),pointed out that penitentiaries across thecountry are already overcrowded and,until new prisons are operational, the billwill only aggravate the current crisis.Overcrowding, Saper notes, “underminesnearly everything that can be positive oruseful about a correctional environment.”It promotes violence and diseasetransmission, and limits the efficacy ofrehabilitative training programs. TheUnion of Correctional Officers has alsobeen critical of the potential forovercrowding, something that makes theirwork considerably more dangerous.

6.Ontario, Québec, Newfoundland, andPrince Edward Island: The Canadiancorrective system is split between federaland provincial authorities, with theprovinces housing anyone with a sentenceof less than two years. While theexpansion of mandatory minimums underC-10 will move some offenders intofederal prisons, several provincialgovernments have recognized that they,too, will be facing a flood of new prisonersto pay for, but with no federalcompensation. Québec was the first torefuse to pay for these new costs, withProvincial Justice Minister Jean-MarcFournier calling the bill a “Band-Aidsolution” that is expensive, cumbersome,and with little benefit.

Lesson learned – when in doubt, turn toan expert. Better yet, several! Hopefully,someday, Harper will do the same.

THE OPTIMIST

THE OMNIBUS CRIME BILL IS A MESS(BUT DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT)

L a w I


LIBRARy NEWS

NEW! Rare Books Room Tours OfferedIf you would like to know what kind of treasures are kept inthe glass-enclosed Rare Books Room on the second floor ofthe Law Library, sign up for a half-an-hour tour of the LawRare Books. Tours will take place on Fridays at 12:00. To signup for a tour please send a request to Svetlana Kochkina,[email protected], and we will notify you whenwe will have a necessary number of participants.

Question – Answer-Do you have any language dictionaries in the Law Library?-We have plenty of them: first, in the Reference collectionon the ground floor; second, at the dictionary stands on 3rd,4th, and 5th floors; third, in the regular collection, mostly inthe P section (3rd floor).

More about dictionaries (and exams)According to my observations last year, many students real-ize that they need a PAPER language dictionary half-an-hourbefore their open book exam starts. One day last year, wecounted more than 20 students asking for French-Englishdictionaries (which were all gone by that time). The last dic-

tionary to be checked out the day before was published in1946, but the student who got it was delighted to have eventhat not-so-up-to-date dictionary. To avoid getting into asimilar situation this year, you could either buy a PAPERFrench-English/ English-French dictionary that you can usefor all your open book exams in Law School, and for manyyears to come after you graduate, or borrow one from anyof the McGill Library branches several days before your openbook exam.

New books stands movedWe have made some minor changes in our space arrange-ment at the ground floor of the Library, and the stands withnew books have changed their location. They are still on theground floor of the library, close to the right-hand corner ofthe glass wall.

In this column, we would be delighted to answer all your li-brary services related questions. Please send your ques-tions to Svetlana Kochkina [email protected],Liaison Librarian Nahum Gelber Law Library.

LAWLIBRARY

!RAPPEL : ENVOyEZ-NOUS VOS ARTICLES !Deadline is next Thursday at 5 pm.Important: include your name and year of study in the body ofthe Word document.

LAST ISSUE IN 2011!

22 • 15 NOVEMBRE 2011 • QN

OVERHEARD AT THE FAC

SEND YOUR OVERHEARDS!

[email protected]

1L, on Remembrance Day: It was a wildcoffeehouse last night. I lost my poppy.

1L: I still like law school.3L: GIVE IT TIME TO RUIN yOU.

3L: Don't you miss that trans-systemicbeer?3L: you're joking... right? I've tasted cour-sepack pages with more flavour.

3L: It sucks the Faculty only recognizesacademics with a gold medal -Jonny Asselstine really needs a brophy.That's right - a trophy forbeing a bro.

1L: Of course he would have a non-lawgirlfriend! Argh, I hate my life!

2L: I sometimes feel like we should getpress coverage since we'rebasically the 'Occupy Nahum Gelber' mo-vement...

4L: Who are these people? No. For real.WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

Prof. Jutras: Hier, mes filles regardaientOccupation Double. Elles parlaient dutriangle entre Dave, Odile et Christelle…On aurait pu utiliser ces noms pour le pro-blème, mais on va en rester à des lettres.

Prof. Jutras: Appelez vos amis de Regina etWindsor pour leur dire que vous êtes li-bres : le code n'est pas une cage!

Prof. Jutras: La banque dit: "Tigidou!" Çaarrive pas souvent que la banque dise "ti-gidou"...

Prof. [redacted]: you created this consti-tuency of cows and you can’t get rid of it…

Prof. Leckey: Death is always a reliableway to get out of a civil union.

Prof. Adams, re: nervous shock and requi-red relational proximity: Don't ever killanyone at a family reunion.

Prof. Adams: Nothing says "Come to thetable" like a 5-million dollar lawsuit !

Journal des étudiant-e-s en droit de l’université...

Documents

Transcript of Journal des étudiant-e-s en droit de l’université...