Volume 101, Issue 20November 14, 2011

mcgilldaily.com

Tearing up for 100 years

Published by The Daily Publications Society, a student society of

McGill University.

McGillDAILY

THE

RIOT POLICEON CAMPUS 3-7, 23

CANADA COLLEGEwww.collegecanada.com

Any Language Course: 7.00$/hourTESOL Certifi cation

Recognized by TESL Canada.TOEFL iBT, GMAT, MCAT,TEFaQ, TEF preparation.

Student’s visa, Visa renewal.

514-868-6262info@collegecanada.com

1118 Sainte-Catherine West, #404, Montreal, QC

Looking for a church home while attending University? Maybe we’ve got

just what you’ve been looking for!

Consider the Church of St.Andrew & St.Paul. We are a vibrant Christian community located in the heart of Montreal’s downtown. Our Generation XYZ group meets regularly for Bible Studies, social events, and retreats.

And if you visit us this November 20th we’ll treat you to lunch following the service!Church Services are held eachSunday at 11:00am.

(Sherbrooke St. @ Bishop)3415 Redpath St. Montreal, Quebec H3G 2G2514-842-3431

For more information :youthco@standrewstpaul.com

Check us out on the web :www.standrewstpaul.com

We want your art!

illustrations@mcgilldaily.com

Fill the form onmcgilldaily.com/

classifieds

Classifi eds are

FREEfor McGillStudents!(McGill StudentID# required.)

Advertise onour website!

mcgilldaily.com/classifi eds

The Jeanne Sauvé Foundation cordially invites you to its 2011 Jeanne Sauvé Address, to be delivered by Sally Armstrong, award-winning journalist, author and human rights activist.

THE NEW REVOLUTIONARIES: ACHIEVING THE ‘EQUALITY EFFECT’ FOR WOMEN AND

GIRLS AROUND THE WORLD

Women have been identifi ed by economists, social scientists, politicians and pundits as key to making progress on poverty, violence and confl ict. Ms. Armstrong will take us around the globe, where localized acts of female emancipation are improving the prospects for humanity at large.

Thursday 17 November 2011 - 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.Arrival of guests as of 5:30 p.m. The talk will begin at 5:45 p.m.

L’Ermitage, Collège de Montréal 3510 chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges

Ms. Armstrong’s address will be followed by a discussion and a vin d’honneur.

Kindly confi rm to rsvp@jeannesauve.org

www.jeannesauve.org

Want to have your cake and eat it too?

Become a Daily editor!We’re looking for a Health&Education editor and a Copy editor starting next semester.

Candidate statements are due Sunday, November 27, and elections are November 29 and 30. It’s a piece of cake!Email coordinating@mcgilldaily.com for more information (must enjoy puns)

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.comNews 3

McGill students violently forced off campus Demonstrators subjected to tear gas and pepper spray

Over 100 riot police stormed McGill campus last Thursday evening, forcing demon-

strators, who had gathered in front of the James Administration build-ing, off of campus. Police used pep-per spray, tear gas, and physical force against demonstrators.

The demonstration began as the earlier protest against tuition hikes concluded outside Quebec Premier Jean Charest’s office, at McGill College and Sherbrooke across from Roddick Gates. Several McGill students received text mes-sages informing them that 14 students had entered the James Administration building and were occupying Principal Heather Munroe-Blum’s office. The occupa-tion began at 3:45 p.m.

At 4:05 p.m., a group of approx-imately fifty students entered McGill campus.

Farid Attar Rifai, president of the Association of McGill University Support Employees, was one of the first people on the scene.

“I saw Security…were rushing towards the James building, so I knew [the students] were already inside at that point,” Attar Rifai said.

He explained that, upon his arrival, all entrances to the building were locked, and security guards were positioned outside.

Some of the demonstrators took a megaphone back to the Roddick Gates, where they encouraged oth-ers to join them. “We’re in McGill, we need more people,” screamed one demonstrator. The crowd out-side of James Administration grew to around 200 people.

Reports of violence used against the occupiers by McGill Security

reached those outside through text messages and phone calls. Demonstrators proceeded to form a human chain around the building, demanding entrance.

At roughly 4:50 p.m., four Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) officers approached the building from the Milton Gates and entered James Administration through a back door, where stu-dents attempted to block them.

“When we heard the cops were coming…we decided to delay them so people inside could have time to negotiate,” said Attar Rifai.

Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson confirmed that he had been inside the James Administration throughout the demonstration.

“There were four police who came to survey the situation. They at no time interacted with the peo-ple upstairs,” he told The Daily.

Mendelson noted that he did not know who had called the police officers. According to Mendelson, McGill Security is “mandated – or certainly allowed – to call the police when they feel that there is a threat to people or a threat to property… but I don’t know what triggered the decision to do that.”

Moments after the four police officers arrived, around twenty stu-dents entered through a side door for a peaceful sit-in on the second floor, with McGill Security supervising.

Just before 5 p.m., twenty police officers on bicycles approached James Administration from the Milton Gates. The officers spoke with McGill Security, but did not take action immediately.

Officers lined up, using their bicy-cles as barricades against the dem-onstrators. Some swung their bikes at demonstrators who attempted to push the police off campus.

A brief confrontation took place between demonstrators and police. Demonstrators pushed police back while officers dodged items, includ-ing sticks and water bottles, thrown by the crowd. The officers rode away, to the cheering of students.

Shortly after 5 p.m., about forty riot police entered the campus through the Milton Gates, beating their shields with batons. Police pushed the crowd towards the Arts and Ferrier buildings. Demonstrators were pepper sprayed after pushing back against the police lines in front of James Administration.

“The University did not call the riot squad. I can tell you that, unequivocally,” Mendelson said in an interview Friday afternoon. “I know that the police who were here called in [the riot squad].”

He elaborated on what led to riot police being called onto campus.

“[The four police officers] looked out the window, and they saw the crowd was growing – there were conversations, things seemed to be getting more heated,” Mendelson explained. “I don’t know why, what factored into their decision.”

Jean-Pierre Brabant, a member of the SPVM’s public relations team, declined to answer questions as to whether the riot police had authori-zation to enter McGill campus.

A second wave of over fifty riot police approached from the Y-intersection and surrounded demonstrators. At this point, stu-dents taking part in the occupa-tion on the second floor of James Administration exited the building.

One demonstrator, who was try-ing to cross police lines on the west side of the building, was picked up, dragged, and thrown to the ground. Police formed a line and began forc-ibly pushing demonstrators down the steps, towards the Milton Gates.

Dozens of demonstrators were pepper sprayed by officers while others carried water to those who had been blinded by the spray.

Gregory Mikkelson, an associ-ate professor in the Environment and Philosophy departments, was on his way to pick up his children from daycare. While leaving cam-pus he noticed the protest outside of James Administration and stopped to observe.

“Three Montreal riot police came at me, clubbed me in the ribs and stomach with a baton, knocked me over – I don’t know if it was a club that knocked me over or one of them pushing me, you know, it all happened so fast – I popped right back up and they pepper sprayed me in the face,” Mikkelson said.

“After I was attacked, my first thought was to check with the per-son I had been talking with shortly before that and see if he had wit-nessed it, and ask him if I could get his information so I could corrobo-rate if necessary,” he continued.

Anna Hermanson, a U2 McGill student who was involved in the demonstration, spoke to The Daily after the event.

“We were beaten in the ribs, in the back of the knees, on our shoul-ders, it was unbelievable,” she said.

“We decided to let go of one another and put our hands up, and say, ‘We’re standing here peacefully, this is our campus, we have a right to be here. Please.’ I’m sobbing at this point…asking, ‘Why are you doing this? We’re students, we can be here, we’re protesting peacefully, please don’t come forward,’” she continued.

Fleeing protesters were unable to enter McGill buildings, which had been locked. McGill’s emergency alert system was not activated.

Mendelson spoke to the activa-tion procedure of the system, which

is controlled by McGill Security. “The emergency alert system

would go out to all the members of the community, and there’s a trade-off whether or not that would have calmed the situation or fuelled the situation,” he explained.

Once protesters had been pushed off campus onto Milton, police shut down the intersection at Milton and University, while dem-onstrators lingered in the street. Shortly after, tear gas was deployed. The police proceeded to charge towards remaining demonstrators, breaking up the crowd.

U2 student Zoe Pepper-Cunningham, who had been walking through campus with her bicycle and was not involved in the demonstra-tion, was pushed to the ground by police in the intersection.

“I couldn’t run really because I had my bike, so while they were charging, they just pushed me down onto my bike and pinned me on the ground. It was kind of blurry for me but I felt kicking and hitting and they threw my bike – which is now broken, pretty badly – and dragged me by my arms,” she said.

Four arrests were reported from Thursday’s demonstration, two of which have been confirmed to be McGill students. U3 students Alex Briggs and Ariel Prado were arrested, separately, near James Administration. Both were released late Thursday evening, although Briggs has a pending court date.

Immediately after the dem-onstration ended, McGill student groups, including SSMU, QPIRG, and McGill Student Emergency Response Team began mobilizing to offer support to demonstrators who had been affected.

— with files from Henry Gass and Anthony Lecossois

Erin Hudson and Jessica Lukawiecki The McGill Daily

Photos by Victor Tangermann | The McGill Daily

News4

St. Denis

Mob Squad organizes picketers

in front of the Arts building in support of the Arts student strike

07:45

1

12:30

2

13:00

3

13:20

4

13:45

5

Dem

onstrators gather in front of Quebec Prem

ier Jean Charest’s office on M

cGill

College near Sherbrooke

15:15

6

15:30

7

The Association of Graduate

Students Employed at M

cGill

(AGSEM

) organize a dem

onstration at the Y-intersection

The McG

ill contingent of the Novem

ber 10 anti-tuition protest assem

bles at Roddick G

ates; over 1200 peo-ple w

alk down M

cGill College

McG

ill contingent is joined by over 1000 Concordia students at M

cGill College and Ste. Catherine

Over 30,000 demonstrators

gather at Place Émile-G

amelin

in a peaceful protest

Dem

onstrators move tow

ards the intersection of M

cGill

College and Sherbrooke

15:45

8

14 students enter James

Administration and

occupy the fifth floor

16:05 9

Approximately 50 dem

onstrators enter M

cGill cam

pus and gather in front of Jam

es Administration

Berri

Sherbrooke

St. Laurent

McG

ill College

Ste. Catherine

Maisonneuve

President Kennedy

Cherrier

1

2

3

4 5

6

Sherbrooke7

3

4

5

Arts

building

James Adm

inistration

8

911

12

13

15

I think they’re good people, they’re here for a cause, but there’s always one that likes instigating stuff and that’s always a concern of the police force. I think, thus far, it’s beautiful. It’s peaceful, and that’s what we want.He confirmed that at that point there had not been any conflicts that he knew of, around 2:45 p.m.

—Police officer outside Berri-UQAM Metro

The great thing about Montreal is that we have students from McGill, Concordia, and every other university, it shows that we can all come together and make a difference. We’ve done it so many times in the past, so you know, we shouldn’t doubt that we can make a difference today.

-—Maria Protopoulos, Psychology student at McGill

We’re here because the hike in tuition fees is a national problem. In Ontario we have the highest tuition fees in Canada, and we don’t want to see Quebec going down that road. We’re fighting really hard to actually make education much more accessible to everybody across the country. It just falls into what we believe in. A reac-tion from the Charest government wouldn’t be bad, maybe he can recon-sider his increase of tuition fees here in Quebec. I think that’s the overall objective. The average debt is some-thing like forty or fifty thousand dol-lars when you graduate as an under-grad in Ontario.

—Annemarie, University of Ottawa student

16:30Students sit-in on the second floor of Jam

es Administration

10

Victor Tangermann | The McGill Daily

Victor Tangermann | The McGill Daily

Andrew Gallai for The McGill Daily

Hera Chan for The McGill Daily

All graphics by Rebecca Katzman | The McGill Daily

10

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com 5

Almost 30,000 rally against tuition hikesMcGill students join the fight for acces-sible education

On Thursday afternoon, tens of thousands of stu-dents took to the streets of

Montreal in protest of the upcom-ing tuition hikes proposed by the Quebec government.

Led by the Association pour la solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ), students from different universities, CEGEPs, and their supporters rallied at Place Émilie-Gamelin before marching to the office of Quebec Premier Jean Charest to protest the hikes.

The Charest government first proposed the tuition hikes in the fall of 2007. This second round of increases will raise tuition costs across the province by $1625 over the next five years.

A McGill contingent estimated at over 1,200 gathered at the Roddick Gates at 1 p.m. before head-ing down McGill College to join the main protest at Place Émilie-Gamelin. The group consisted of campus unions, students, faculty, and striking MUNACA workers who could fulfill their picket duty by attending the march.

At the intersection of McGill College and Ste. Catherine, they were met by cheers from roughly 1,000 Concordia stu-dents, led by Concordia Student Union President Lex Gill and VP External Chad Walcott.

The march continued to Place Émilie-Gamelin, where the Anglophone students joined Francophone students from across Quebec in the square.

For Saurin Skah, a U0 Arts stu-dent at McGill, it was solidarity that pulled him into the street.

“The tuition hike may not affect me a lot, but I know that for the people of Quebec, and for every-one who chose to come to Quebec for their education, low tuition is what makes college and universities acceptable,” he said.

Although the thousands of stu-dents present at the demonstra-tion were united against tuition hikes, expectations for the day were varied.

Paula Furfaro, a Psychology stu-dent at McGill, expressed what suc-cess would be to her.

“If all we can accomplish today is for [the government] to second guess themselves, and take a min-ute or two more to finally think about the decisions they make, then we know we accomplished what we were here for. We have a voice, let’s use it,” Furfaro said.

Amir Khadir, a member of the Quebec National Assembly and spokesperson for Québec Solidaire, was also present at the demonstration.

Speaking to The Daily in French, he emphasized the impor-tance of accessible education, say-ing that “to improve access in a durable and promising manner, we need free education from pre-school to university… Education is liberty, and liberty is a right – it’s not a privilege. Education must be free,” he said.

For Khadir, the hikes reflect a problem within the Charest govern-ment. “It’s the ideological decisions that they make in favour of the one per cent,” he said.

Following the gathering at Place Émilie-Gamelin, volunteers from ASSÉ donned red pinnies and guid-ed protesters as they marched to Charest’s office on Sherbrooke and McGill College.

Hugo Laframeara, a Law stu-dent at McGill, was at the dem-onstration with a large group of McGill Law students.

Laframeara said he was con-cerned about the lack of opinion from the McGill administration around the tuition hike rally.

“When you are such a highly recognized university…you have to take a position in such a debate. I find it deceiving that there is no real will from the administration or from the SSMU to create a forum for this event,” he said.

SSMU President Maggie Knight told The Daily that SSMU stands by its official policy against tuition hikes.

“We think the march showed the power of the student move-ment and we think that the turn-out from McGill students was really solid. It was a strong spirit of solidarity between Anglophone and Francophone [students] com-ing together to express their con-cerns,” she said.

— With files from Laurent Bastien Corbeil and Esther Lee

Annie Shiel and Juan Camilo Velásquez The McGill Daily

16:40

11

16:50

16:55

12

Over 40 riot police enter McG

ill cam

pus through the Milton G

ates17:05

13

17:10

14

Dem

onstrators form a hum

an chain around Jam

es Administration

Responding to a call, four police officers enter M

cGill cam

pus and Jam

es Administration

Approximately 20 police

officers on bicycles enter McG

ill cam

pus through the Milton G

ates

A second wave of over 50 riot police

approach James Adm

inistration from

the Y-intersection

18:00

15

Dem

onstrators are pushed out of M

ilton Gates by riot police

and the crowd is dispersed

Milton

University

14 16

McConnell Engineering

Wilson H

allBirks building

16

15

Education is a right. When you start taking away the fundamen-tals of that, such as affordability of it, then you are taking away every student’s right to learn. The government’s always – the rich are always complaining about the middle class and the so-called lower class. They have no reason to complain because if this hap-pens, if the tuition increases, then it’s not our fault that we can’t educate ourselves from what the society wants.

—Vince, Université de Montréal student

All photos on page five by Victor Tangermann | The McGill Daily

16

News The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com6

Campus leaders talk tuition hikes

The McGill Daily: What are your thoughts on the tuition increases set to begin next September?

Roland Nassim: It is quite unfortunate that the government is taking such actions. At the PGSS, we believe that Quebec gradu-ate students should not pay any tuition, and we advocate for a freeze on the out-of-prov-ince and international tuition. We believe that, with this increase, many graduate stu-dents will be forced into a situation where they could be unable to pay for tuition along with their other fees. We do not have adequate graduate funding policies across

Quebec universities and our financial aid systems, either through the government or the universities, are not enough.

MD: What are your thoughts on the pro-vincial government’s general funding of post-secondary education?

RN: The provincial government’s general funding of post-secondary education (PSE) is about 10 to 15 years behind. The universities’ operating budgets are increasing with enroll-ment and growth in general, at a time when the government funding remains stagnant. This government needs to make education a priority again and come up with new models

of funding for PSE that are more in line with today’s reality.

MD: What feedback have you received from students about the tuition increases?

RN: Students are worried. Many do not buy the argument that this increase is some-how going to improve their education. They understand that this additional money will simply relieve the government from its fund-ing responsibility, including its responsibility to fund student aid. Graduate students are also very concerned with regards to their ability to survive through graduate schools, especially [since] those students enjoy less

parental support, have no guaranteed fund-ing packages to rely on at McGill, and have less opportunity or time for employment during their studies. Their average debts at the end of their studies are also an impor-tant factor. Overall, students are not happy.

MD: What action will you be taking on Quebec tuition in the near future?

RN: Our activities throughout the year continue with conducting the proper research on the topic, and disseminating the information to our membership. This should serve as an awareness campaign and a tool to better educate the membership.

The McGill Daily: What are your thoughts on the tuition increases set to begin next September?

Heather Munroe-Blum: I believe these are a necessity for ensuring the quality of higher education in Quebec.

Over the past years, Quebec’s low tuition policy has not improved accessibility or par-ticipation in post-secondary education in this province. Indeed, Quebec continues to have low participation rates and low univer-sity degree completion rates by Canadian standards, notwithstanding that it has the lowest tuition rates in Canada.

Having the lowest tuition rates has put uni-versities in Quebec – and, hence, Quebeckers – at a comparative disadvantage vis-a-vis our peer institutions in the rest of the country. Our universities are starved for funds to pro-vide adequate student aid, to improve facili-ties and patrimonial buildings, and to provide appropriate levels of student services.

Those who lack financial means require better financial support in order to support that cost of participating in the university degree – not low or no tuition fees. One means to achieve this is to have universities allocate some percentage of their net new tuition rev-enues to student financial support, as McGill does at the rate of 30 cents on the dollar.

MD: What are your thoughts on the provincial government’s general funding of post-secondary education?

HMB: Considering that Quebec currently ranks 56 of 60 provinces and states in North America in relation to its GDP per capita, one

cannot expect that the government will have the capacity, alone, to close the funding gap between us and our peers in the rest of the country to support high quality university programs and university accessibility.

As it is, the current plan, which will see tuition rise by $325 a year, will find Quebec universities charging a tuition fee in 2016-17 that is only two-thirds of the Canadian average tuition fees charged in the last academic year.

MD: What feedback have you received from students about the tuition increases?

HMB: Mixed. I am aware that many stu-dents oppose the planned increase and some, in fact, object to the idea of any tuition fees. Free university education sounds good, if one ignores the actual effect of underfund-ing on both accessibility and quality. There are also many students, and their families, who consider tuition a worthwhile invest-ment, and there are few places in the world where the tuition fees charged yield the value for dollar that these do here.

MD: What action will you be taking on Quebec tuition in the near future?

HMB: McGill has represented a com-mon position with respect to tuition fees over the last many years. It will continue to urge the government to support means to bridge the significant funding gap between Quebec universities and their peers in the rest of the country. This will likely best be accomplished by a combination of increased operating grant support and increased pro-grams of support for competitively allocated awards and grants to universities.

The McGill Daily: What are your thoughts on the tuition increases set to begin next September?

Maggie Knight: The tuition increases for Quebec students won’t pose a barrier to every student, particularly at McGill, where students on average come from relatively affluent backgrounds. However, a 2007 Quebec government report found that 12,000 students would choose not to attend university if tuition was raised to the Canadian average.

Access to a McGill education should be based on merit, not on means. While the University has pledged to use 30 per cent of every net new dollar for increased financial aid, this doesn’t address the issue of students who may not qualify for financial aid, but nev-ertheless face substantial financial barriers to pursuing their studies at McGill.

MD: What are your thoughts on the pro-vincial government’s general funding of post-secondary education?

MK: Given McGill’s budgeted deficits, it’s clear we either need to re-evaluate spending priorities to reduce costs, or we need to gain additional sources of funds. When it comes to finding more revenue, we would, of course, prefer that the University stood with its stu-dents who are demanding the government find ways of financing post-secondary educa-

tion in Quebec than raising tuition—through additional progressive taxation or through other means that respect the importance of publicly-funded post-secondary education.

MD: What feedback have you received from students about the tuition increases?

MK: There are many students who are very concerned, especially international and out-of-province students who don’t yet know what they can expect. McGill has a large num-ber of students whose parents help pay their tuition and/or their living expenses, as well as a large number of American students who see McGill as a comparatively cheap option; these students obviously aren’t as person-ally affected by tuition hikes and don’t always think the hikes are a big deal.

MD: What action will you be taking on Quebec tuition in the near future?

MK: I will be continuing to support SSMU VP External Joël Pedneault in representing McGill students’ interests on the tuition issue. The SSMU has a policy in support of acces-sible education and continues to work with the Quebec Student Roundtable to present our concerns to the Ministry of Education, Leisure, and Sport. It is important that McGill students realize how tuition hikes will affect students across the province, and consider what role we can play in helping improve access to Quebec post-secondary education.

Heather Munroe-BlumMcGill Principal

Maggie KnightSSMU President

Roland NassimPost-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) President

— Compiled by Henry Gass

Photos by Victor Tangermann | The McGill Daily

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com 7News

Fourteen students claim to have been assaulted by McGill Security while they

occupied the fifth floor of the James Administration building for two hours last Thursday afternoon.

The occupation coincided with a 30,000 person-strong demonstration against tuition hikes, which ended at McGill College and Sherbrooke.

The students occupied several rooms on the floor, including Principal Heather Munroe-Blum’s office, before negotiating an end to the occupation with Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson and Provost Anthony Masi. The protestors have been granted immunity.

“Each person occupied for their own reasons, even though those reasons intersected, I think,” said one of the students. All students involved in the occupation spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The OccupationAccording to an interview with

three of the occupiers, the stu-dents entered the building around 3:45 p.m. and encountered no security. Once they reached the fifth floor, four of the students occupied Munroe-Blum’s office, while three other students con-trolled the door to the main hall-way and two students controlled the door to the stairs. The remain-der of the students occupied the reception area on the floor.

Office staff videotaped the dem-onstration. “We informed them this was a peaceful occupation,” said one of the occupiers.

At a demonstration outside James Administration on Friday morning, Susan Aberman, chief of staff for the

office of the principal – who was work-ing in the office Thursday afternoon – told students and staff that she was threatened by occupiers the day before.

“I was in my office when people with hoods and masks broke their way into my office, they pushed their way through locked doors, they pushed my colleague, and they pushed me and they came into my office and they threatened me,” she said.

Upon entering the office, the students dropped a banner, reading “10 Nov – Occupons McGill,” from one of the fifth floor windows.

Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson was alerted to the situation and arrived on the fifth floor, where he said events were “already in prog-ress.” According to Mendelson, the students barged into the offices, some wearing masks and hoods.

Occupiers have said that some of them wore bandanas covering their faces, but that none of them wore masks.

“Security was called by the people in the office, who were quite disturbed by their presence,” said Mendelson in an interview Friday afternoon with reporters from The Daily, the McGill Tribune and Le Délit.

According to the occupying stu-dents, a security guard tossed an occupier to the ground and dragged him by the legs into the reception area. The student had been sitting in Munroe-Blum’s office chair.

“At some point during that alter-cation he was hit in the stomach, either by a leg or by an elbow, and he was injured,” said one occupier.

According to another of the occu-piers, the student who was hit in the stomach “went into mild shock for a while and was winded. Luckily, there was a person who knew first aid.”

One occupier, who spoke to The Daily, said he has osteoporosis. The

occupier said he was seized from behind by one security guard, and pushed and dragged by several securi-ty guards into the main reception area.

“I was dropped on the floor and he kept jumping on me,” he said, “and literally [they] like threw me out.”

“A single punch could probably break my rib cage,” said the stu-dent. “In the end I didn’t get much, I think I just got a little bruised on my right side, near the ribs.”

The student told McGill Security “very, very clearly” that he had osteoporosis. “They completely dis-regarded it and threw him out of the room,” said a witness.

Mendelson said that Security was “concerned about the safety of the situation.”

“You don’t think it’s confron-tational to storm into an office, to swing open a door, walk by people, have a mask on – you don’t think that’s confrontational?” he asked, in response to a question from the Tribune as to whether he thought Security had exercised their man-dated amount of force.

According to Mendelson, the University has the right to ask students to leave when they are “in an inappro-priate place.” According to several of the occupiers, the 14 students were not made aware of any rules or laws that they could have been violating.

“I’m 99 per cent sure that did not happen, and definitely no one read to me from the student handbook,” said one of the students.

According to Mendelson, “when a student was asked to leave and didn’t, the student was in violation of the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures.”

NegotiationsThe students said they were in the

main reception area for approximate-ly 45 minutes, during which Masi and

Mendelson came in to speak with them. Mendelson said he was the first to speak with the students, before Masi arrived on the fifth floor.

“They wanted to tell me what their position was on tuition. I reminded them what the University’s position is on tuition. They weren’t willing to listen to me. I have heard their position before. It’s clear that there wasn’t going to be a settling of that issue,” Mendelson said.

He said that, when Masi arrived,

they asked the occupiers what they wanted.

“We thought maybe they’d want to have a conversation, whatever, and at that point they said they wanted to leave, and we said, ‘Fine, we’ll take you out.’ And then they said they wanted to have some assurances,” said Mendelson.

According to both the students and Mendelson, the students asked to be allowed to leave without any arrests, charges, disciplinary action, or names taken. The occupiers also said they refused to leave unless students who had forced their way in to occupy the second floor of the building were allowed to leave under the same con-ditions.

According to the students, Masi originally stated that they wouldn’t be allowed to leave without non-academic probations or charges. However, Mendelson claimed that Masi never made such a statement.

According to Mendelson, talks between the two parties con-

cluded in less than five minutes, after Masi and Mendelson had consulted with each other and the Montreal police, and subsequent-ly accepted the students’ terms. The students on the second floor negotiated with a member of McGill Security and a Montreal police officer. One student occu-pying the second floor said later that the sit-in was non-violent.

The police assisted Mendelson and Masi in negotiations with the students,

though the officers never had any direct interaction with the students.

“They’ve had experience in this sort of thing,” said Mendelson. “We needed some advice about security in the building, because the building was surrounded... People were very disturbed. They offered some advice about what we should have people do.”

Mendelson added that, “What happened inside [actually] unfold-ed reasonably well.”

The students disagreed. One said on Thursday night that, “The only violence that we experienced was at the hands of McGill Security.”

Mendelson said he would not be obtaining the McGill Security report on the incident, as Security reports to Associate Vice-Principal (University Services) Jim Nicell.

“Obviously, we don’t know every-thing,” Mendelson said.

— with files from Queen Arsem-O’Malley and Erin Hudson

Henry GassThe McGill Daily

James Administration occupiers allege assault by securitySecond wave of occupiers reach second floor; all released without charges or punishment

Professors and students refused entry to the James Administration building Sit-in outside of building lasts five hours before moving to SSMU cafeteria

Early Friday afternoon, members of the McGill Faculty Labour Action Group (MFLAG) held a

sit-in outside of James Administration and attempted to deliver a letter to senior administration. The letter “condemn[s] the actions of police brutality against faculty and students,” deplores the actions and complicity of McGill security services in the events, and demands an inquiry into and offi-cial reports on the events.

After collecting signatures from students and faculty that were pres-ent, MFLAG members were refused entry to the James Administration building, and were told by Security

that they would be required to make an appointment in order to meet with administration.

While a member of MFLAG called the office of Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Michael Di Grappa in an attempt to make an appointment, two unidentified peo-ple not involved with the demonstra-tion were allowed to enter the build-ing through the front door.

A member of McGill Security offered to take the letter, which the group refused.

Julie Prsa, assistant to Di Grappa, told the group that he was not avail-able. “I can’t reach him now, so I’m going to have to pass it on,” she said.

Susan Aberman, chief of staff for the Office of the Principal, and Jim Nicell, associate vice-principal

(University Services) later arrived to address the crowd.

Will Roberts, an assistant professor in political science, asked Aberman why they were being denied entry. “Why is it that none of us can go into our own administration building?”

“We don’t understand why we can’t express our concerns directly to our employers and our adminis-trators,” he added, when Aberman said that she would be willing to deliver the letter herself.

At about 4:30 p.m., minutes after her email to staff and students was sent, Principal Heather Munroe-Blum sent word that she would meet with two representatives from the group. The two representatives – Adrienne Hurley, a professor in the department of East Asian Studies

and member of MFLAG, and Amber Gross, a U2 student who had been facilitating the sit-in – agreed to meet Munroe-Blum in her office.

However, members of the group opposed the idea of the two repre-sentatives engaging in discussion alone with the principal. Hurley and Gross agreed to relay a request for Munroe-Blum’s presence outside of the building to answer questions and participate in discussion.

After Hurley and Gross delivered the letter, Munroe-Blum told the representatives that, due to a preex-isting appointment, she would not have the time to meet with those gathered outside. Upon request for a meeting at another time, Munroe-Blum told the two that she would consider the proposal.

When she returned to the group of students and professors, Gross called the principal’s decision “extremely disappointing.”

According to Gross, Munroe-Blum told her that the investiga-tion into the events of November 10 would be a one-person inquiry – Dean of Law Daniel Jutras was named in Munroe-Blum’s email as conducting the inquiry – and that students would not be involved.

A group of about sixty students from the sit-in then moved to the SSMU cafeteria, where they held a meeting to discuss organization and action for today’s gathering at the Roddick Gates and James Square, as well as planning for a student-initiated inquiry into the police action on campus.

Queen Arsem-O'MalleyThe McGill Daily

“At some point during that alter-cation he was hit in the stomach,

either by a leg or by an elbow.”Fifth floor occupier

News The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com8

The results of the referenda questions determining the future of QPIRG-McGill

and campus radio station CKUT were announced last Thursday evening. Both organizations won an overwhelming ‘yes’ vote in favour of renewal of their student fees, and a move from online to

in-person opt-outs.According to Elections McGill,

5,245 students – amounting to 24.7 per cent of the student body – voted in the referendum. Of the voters, 72.3 per cent voted ‘yes’ for CKUT. 65.6 per cent of voters, voted ‘yes’ for QPIRG.

CKUT and QPIRG face exis-tence referendums every five years. These results mean that student funding for both organizations will be renewed. They also mean both organizations can begin renegotiat-

ing their Memoranda of Agreement with the University.

Adam Wheeler, co-chair of the QPIRG ‘yes’ committee, explained that, “We’re so elated…with the turnout, which is incredible, espe-cially for the fall referendum period.”

“It shows that students value the work that our organization does on campus in terms of providing pro-gramming, resources, and linking campus community,” he continued.

Rebecca Dooley, co-chair of the CKUT ‘yes’ committee and a news intern at the radio station, described the positive support of the student commu-nity. “I’m not that surprised, I’m just real-ly excited. The last ten days have been an outpouring of support from student groups and students,” she said.

For many members of QPIRG and CKUT, the results are a relief, and proof of recognition of their work.

Anna Malla, internal coordinator for QPIRG, said, “It feels like valida-tion for all that we thought was true and all the work that we’ve been doing for so long.”

A main component of the refer-endum, in addition to the renewal of funding, was the changing of the stu-dent opt-out system from online to in-person, giving the organizations more control over their refund systems.

The opt-out system was conducted in-person until 2007, when the admin-istration moved the system online.

“I think [the results] show that students are saying to McGill admin-istration, ‘Enough is enough, we actu-ally want control of our own organi-zations and services,’” Malla said.

According to Malla, “We put this question forward because we felt that the current opt-out system as it is doesn’t give students the information to find out about these services.”

However, in the November 7 issue of The Daily, Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson wrote in an email that a lack of clarity in a referendum question could lead to it not being implemented.

“Frankly, I find [it] to be put in a convoluted, confusing way,” he wrote. “When questions cannot be implemented because they are not clear, they aren’t implemented.”

SSMU VP Clubs and Services Carol Fraser said, “These organizations are obviously thriving, and students care about them. They’re not going away.”

Jeremy Singer, a U2 International Management student, just started working at CKUT this year. “I’m psyched that [CKUT] will [continue to exist], because I’m excited to keep working there,” he said.

Dooley also expressed her hope for the future of CKUT and QPIRG. “This is what I want to see every five years – students supporting student life.”

Neither Mendelson nor Elections McGill CEO Rebecca Tacoma could be reach for comment at press time.

Annie Shiel and Andreanne StewartNews Writers

CKUT and QPIRG surviveNearly 25 per cent of student body votes in referendum

Just over twelve hours after the room was occupied by student protestors, a group of

McGill history professors met with Principal Heather Munroe-Blum in her office Friday morning to discuss the tense campus discourse that has emerged from the MUNACA strike this semester.

The professors, who published a letter condemning the admin-istration’s response to the strike in the November 7 issue of The Daily, were offered coffee and sat around a large table in Munroe-Blum’s fifth-floor office in the James Administration building.

“The first issue was what had happened last night,” said Daviken Studnicki-Gizbert, an associate his-tory professor of Latin American history, referring to the Montreal police’s violent dispersal of student

protestors on campus Thursday night. At the time of the meeting – 8:30 a.m. – Munroe-Blum had not yet been briefed on Thursday night’s events, and was unable to explain why police had been called to campus.

The topic of the meeting, how-ever, was the administration’s handling of the campus environ-ment since the MUNACA strike began on September 1. In their letter, the professors accused the administration of “presenting a one-sided management view of the conflict at a time when other viewpoints are being suppressed.”

According to interviews with professors who attended the meeting, Munroe-Blum addressed her widely-discussed “We are all McGill” email, in which Munroe-Blum accused picketers of intimidating students and alumni. However, citing the privacy of the meeting, none of the professors interviewed went

into detail about the contents of Munroe-Blum’s explanation.

Studnicki-Gizbert said that, more broadly, “She acknowledged that there was a problem with communi-cation, that communication was not this one-way flow of demands com-ing from the administration.”

According to Studnicki-Gizbert, Munroe-Blum then asked pro-fessors what they would do to improve the campus discourse. He suggested a constituent assembly, in which faculty, students, admin-istrators, and support staff would gather to talk about the big issues facing the University.

A number of professors also discussed the strike in the context of labour history, noting that the administration’s use of injunctions was unusually harsh. “We’re all his-torians, so we gave her a historical perspective,” said Brian Cowan, a professor of British history.

The twenty professors who signed the November 7 letter

received an emailed invitation from Munroe-Blum last Tuesday, a day after the letter was published. “I don’t think we expected to get such a prompt response,” said Cowan.

According to professors, around a dozen of them attended the meet-ing Friday – and those who didn’t attend had teaching commitments or were out of town.

Several of them struck a con-ciliatory tone in interviews after the meeting on Friday. “We were received very courteously, in the spirit of frank and productive exchange,” said Suzanne Morton, a professor of Canadian social history.

Cowan echoed this, saying he believed Munroe-Blum was acting in good faith: “It really was designed to be an occasion for dialogue.”

“It was heartening to see that our collective cris-de-coeur had been heeded,” he added. “More dialogue will help calm tempers, and possibly help us become a community again.”

Eric Andrew-Gee The McGill Daily

Principal discusses administration’s handling of MUNACA strike with professors Discussion centres on how to improve campus discourse

Yes

NoNo opinion

CKUT existence referendum

QPIRG existence referendum

3792 (72.3%)371 (7.1%)

1082 (20.6%)

3442 (65.6%)

306 (5.8%)

1497 (28.5%)

Existence referenda results

Total votes:(24.7% of the student body)

5,245 Alyssa Favreau | The McGill Daily

We Are All McGillMonday, November 14 from 12:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

From Roddick Gates to James Square

In response to events that took place in front of James Administration on Thursday, November 10, students have organized a peaceful forum to exchange personal experi-ences and to discuss how to move forward. Food, tea, and coffee will be served courte-sy of Midnight Kitchen.

Women’s Canadian Club of Montreal 2011/2012 lecture series Monday, November 21 at 12:30 p.m.

The Unitarian Church (5035 de Maisonneuve West)

Journalist, author, and lecturer Wayne Larsen will be speaking on the topic of “A.Y. Jackson in Montreal: The Early Years,” a Canadian Group of Seven artist. The event is free for members of the Women’s Club, and $10 for visitors. A sandwich lunch will be served before the talk, with a choice of tea, coffee, and cookies.

Indigenous Rights Conference November 17 from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and 18 from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

McGill Faculty Club and Montreal Museum of Fine Arts

The conference is intended to start a process for understanding this complexity more fully by bringing together indig-enous peoples from Africa, Latin America, and North America, along with key actors at the national and international levels actively involved in trying to find practical solutions to prob-lems of poverty, exclusion, and victimization faced by indigenous peoples every-where. Speakers include Professor Philip Oxhorn, founding director of the Institute for the Study of International Development, and Willie Littlechild, member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Tech Think Tank November Meet-up

Thursday, November 17 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

CS Student Lounge, Trottier Building, Room 1060

Tech Think Tank is welcoming guest speaker Christian Lavoie, who worked at Google for six years, but now focuses his effort on Montreal start-ups. In addition, Wajam, a Montreal social search start-up, will be coming to demo their product and talk tech-nology with students. Think Tank meet-ups are an open forum for students’ ideas. All tech savvy and entrepre-neurial types are welcome.

Wh

at’s th

e ha

ps

Source: Elections McGill

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.comCommentary 9

Letter from the fifth floor occupiersW e are the 14 students

who occupied the fifth floor of the James

Administration building. On 10 November, we took over the office of Her Majesty Blum.

Events in our world this year, as always, have revealed the neces-sity for direct action. At McGill, the administration has used the law to silence MUNACA workers and security to intimidate students and professors. The further abuse of the lines of communication between members of this community have made the administration’s authori-tarian character explicit.

The charges listed above are not exhaustive, and we see them as symp-toms and reflections of greater prob-lems. Our society is controlled by intertwined bodies, predominantly government and for-profit interests. The for-profit system has hijacked our public education. Our research-ers work for corporate interests, and the links with capitalist exploiters run deep – see Barrick Gold, thermobar-ic weapons, tar sands.

Student and faculty represen-tation in Senate is tokenistic. Our Board of Governors, McGill’s highest governing body, is filled with those who will never act for people before profits. Who in this community does the administration represent? Professors, students, non-academic workers, teacher’s assistants, and the public at large are systematically excluded from the decision-making process. Dialogue on campus pro-duces zero meaningful results.

It is time to enter their space; occupation is a means of expressing our dissent outside of the bound-aries of what the administration deems acceptable. At a time when university students from across the province came to Montreal to demand their voice be heard, we felt it was critical to do the same.

On 10 November, we occu-pied the fifth floor of the James Administration building. At 3:45 p.m., we entered the building and climbed to the office of the HMB, encounter-ing no obstacles all the way to her front door. We knew her reception-ist’s desk would be vacant because she’s on strike.

We knocked on the door and announced that this was a non-vio-lent occupation. Using our feet and chests to stop the slamming door, we moved ourselves in.

At no point did we ever threat-en, injure, or intimidate anyone. Everything you have heard about our violence is a lie. We asked those there to leave or stay, as they saw fit.

We explored further into her laby-rinth and flew a banner out the win-dow: 10 NOV – OCCUPONS MCGILL!

We stress that the only aggres-sion that occurred on the fifth floor of the James Administration build-ing was by security personnel and directed at us. It was because of our non-violence that we were then so easily beaten and corralled by McGill Security.

The HMB said we were “ush-ered” from the room. In fact, one of us was scratched down his face and strongly hit in the stomach after being thrown and dragged. Others were forcibly expelled. We caused no ruckus, but only acted to protect.

We spread the word to our friends

outside. We asked them to come support us in solidarity to secure our safety. This is what galvanized those in the crowd, who we deeply love and thank. We are in absolute solidarity with the brave ones who fought for our release by regaining control of the building’s exits.

It was with outrage and disbelief that we heard of the cruel use of physical force and chemical weap-ons below. The police were not necessary. We were immobilized and surrounded. A brutal reaction to our attempt to put our bodies where they cannot be.

Mendelson arrived unobstruct-ed to talk with us. He left when we refused to “buy” his arguments.

We did not see him again until far later when he came with Masi, ready to negotiate. They tried to mislead us about the situation, but we were in contact with those out-side and downstairs.

We demanded unconditional amnesty from the police and the university for everyone in the build-ing. Their demands were to walk us out through the back entrance and for us to leave campus.

They conferred in private and returned to us. We all agreed, so they dictated the agenda to the police. We moved past the war zone they created to join the others who were downstairs and outside.

The events of 10 November make

vividly clear the strength and beauty of solidarity. To those fellow students ensuring our safety, who bravely amassed against police lines below us in James Square, we express our love and avow our determination to persist in this shared struggle. Your presence provided not only concrete assistance but knowledge of mutual support that sustained us mentally and emotionally.

By crossing the boundaries that authorities have forced on us, by taking up space where our presence is prohibited and our agency denied, we triggered a response that expos-es the necessary violence with which the hierarchical power structure confronting students is enforced.

The administration tells us that its private security agents are there to protect the campus community, just as the state tells us that its police forces exist to protect the popula-tion. 10 November revealed the absurdity of these claims as soon as the McGill administration chose to resolve the danger posed by peace-fully assembled students with the deployment of riot cops on campus. Outfitted in their dystopian armor, agents of the state violently attacked students of this university simply for standing in solidarity with us, their friends, family, lovers, and fellow stu-dents. The violence of the response betrays the real threat posed by direct action and demonstrates the strength that students exert when they collectively challenge authority and refuse to submit.

10 November marked the first presence of riot police on McGill grounds since 1969 (McGill Français), but violence at the hands of the state is a daily reality for many outside our gates. We must not accept police brutality against students. Pepper spray, tear gas, and batons are no more tolerable when deployed against demonstra-tors, workers, homeless youth, peo-ple of colour, anarchists, queers, indigenous populations, or other marginalized groups anywhere.

The narratives of the corporate media, the police, and the adminis-tration will aim at a common end: a return to the status quo in which they control our spaces and our bod-ies. But we are engaged in a struggle that is far from over. We must contin-ue to move beyond the liberal model of ‘discourse’ that has only served to maintain unjust power relations and control. Acting boldly and defying prescribed boundaries, we subvert the logic of submission.

We all can occupy. We all can resist. We all must act.

Farid Attar Rifai for The McGill Daily

Commentary The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com10

Open the door to QPIRGTwo Jewish students explain their support for this organization

Given the tense relationship that has existed between many Jewish groups and

students and QPIRG, we, as two Jewish students, wish to explain why we supported QPIRG in last week’s referendum and why we will continue to be involved with this group.

QPIRG is a diverse organization that funds and supports a huge range of social and environmental justice issues on campus. QPIRG actively empowers and gives a voice to many individuals and com-munities, especially those margin-alized by the status quo. Not only does QPIRG envision and inspire a diverse campus, it also encour-

ages critical thought, community organizing, and community build-ing. In addition, it funds alternative research, which supports students in pursuing academic ventures independent of a classroom set-ting. QPIRG is a necessary pres-ence on our campus and in the Montreal community.

Despite our strong support for QPIRG, we are uncomfortable with a small number of projects that it helps fund. Specifically, we have misgivings about QPIRG’s ongoing support of both Tadamon! and Israeli Apartheid Week. In our opinion, the use of the term “apartheid” is questionable, as it alienates individuals offended by the term who may otherwise have been interested in the con-tent of the Week. Furthermore, a term like this prompts people to

take a passionate stance on Israel-Palestine based primarily on the negative connotations of the word “apartheid”, rather than on a nuanced understanding of this protracted conflict.

Some of the organizing prin-ciples of QPIRG parallel values found throughout Jewish tradi-tions. Jewish history, like that of many others, has been charac-terized by critical thought and discourse – as the saying goes, “when you have two Jews, you have three opinions.” Jews, like other minorities, have experi-enced severe marginalization throughout our history, and have integrated fighting oppres-sion into our religious and cul-tural expressions, exclaiming every Passover that “we will not oppress the stranger as we were

once strangers in the land of Egypt.” Some of the fundamental aspects of Jewish culture are its commitment to discourse, free-dom, and community. This is part of why we feel compelled to be involved with QPIRG, an organi-zation with anti-oppression at the heart of its mandate.

Between the two of us, we have grown up with Zionist and Jewish identities, have spent a significant amount of time in Israel, have relatives in Israel, are employed by Hillel, and are active in building a Jewish community for students. Encountering events that challenge Israel’s identity is bound to cause confusion and discomfort. Yet, these events rep-resent only a small minority of the projects funded by QPIRG. To homogenize QPIRG because

of the actions of some groups is to do a disservice to the amazing work that QPIRG coordinates.

Believing in QPIRG does not necessarily mean that you agree with all of its politics or every-thing that it funds and supports. A couple of events that we find off-putting will not deter us from continuing to be involved in this vibrant and vital community orga-nization. We’re all coming at this from different places, and that’s the point!

Lily Hoffman Simon and Elaina KaufmanThe McGill Daily

Lily Hoffman Simon is a U2 Jewish Studies and Sociology Student. She can be reached at lily.simon@mail.mcgill.ca. Elaina Kaufman is a U3 Middle East Student. She can be reached at elaina.kaufman@mail.mcgill.ca

Amina Batyreva | The McGill Daily

Got an opinion on recent campus events?

commentary@mcgilldaily.com

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com 11Commentary

Beware of Straw MenA look at the counter-arguments against “Religion and Children”

B oth Zachary Sleep, and Abbie Buckman and Adam Winer mischaracterize

Davide Mastracci’s “Religion and Children,” (Page 10, October 17) presenting uncharitable readings of his position in their attempts to argue against his claims.

Sleep takes Mastracci’s argu-ment to be the following: logic is trumping blind belief, since the number of believers in the world is decreasing, while the num-ber of non-believers is increas-ing. Therefore, parents should not indoctrinate their children with their own religious beliefs. Sleep ridicules Mastracci, assert-ing that “he managed to situate a ‘therefore’” somewhere after his statistical observation, and pro-vides his own creationist themed counterexample to illustrate how Mastracci was misusing logic.

Mastracci’s actual argument had neither the form nor the content that Sleep imposes on it. Mastracci’s comments on log-

ic’s trumping blind belief came almost as an afterthought to his main thesis: that it is wrong to indoctrinate children with reli-gious beliefs because they are not old enough to come to those beliefs themselves, and that par-ents’ indoctrination of their chil-dren is an abuse of power. At no point does Mastracci infer from a statistical observation that par-ents should abstain from reli-gious teaching. His reiteration of his main point (in the pas-sage which Sleep analyzes) is not being entailed by the earlier points about logic, blind belief and statistics at all; he does not slip a ‘“therefore” in there, nor does he even imply that his thesis follows from those points. Sleep should recognize that yet and therefore are not synonyms.

Even if Sleep’s recounting were an accurate one, and Mastracci’s argument did take that form, Sleep’s creationist counterexam-ple doesn’t prove anything. Sleep asserts, “Amazingly, I was able to use the exact same applica-tion of logic that Mastracci used and yet, somehow, I arrived at a

seemingly opposite conclusion.” Despite Sleep’s enthusiasm, this isn’t amazing at all. Does he real-ly believe that using similar logic entails arriving at similar con-clusions? He is amazed that he “somehow” arrived at an oppo-site conclusion, but I don’t know what he was expecting, since he started with opposite premises. Sleep should ensure a proper use of logic himself before he alleges its abuse.

Buckman and Winer also mis-characterize Mastracci’s position. They accuse him of believing that “since all people are ratio-nal at their core, an authentic relationship to one’s self entails an automatic rejection of reli-gion,” and use this as a starting point to criticize what they see as an Enlightenment inspired artificial division between faith and reason. Mastracci simply did not make this claim in his piece. He clearly stated, with regard to children discovering their own views, “if this means [they] will continue to overwhelmingly believe in their parents’ religion, so be it.” Mastracci said nothing

about an “automatic” rejection of religion whatsoever, nor about a rational “core” or a “pure and logical self.” Much of Buckman and Winer’s response is devoted to rejecting claims that Mastracci didn’t make, under the guise of “unpacking” his assumptions.

Buckman and Winer also argue that in “asserting the supe-riority of his own notion of ratio-nality over religion,” Mastracci “has almost entirely replicated the logic of domination which he claims to reject.” Though clever, this attempt to turn the tables back on Mastracci fails. Asserting a viewpoint is not the same thing as imposing one. Mastracci did not reject a “logic of domina-tion” for viewpoints, but an act of domination – what he sees as the process of converting chil-dren to religion. Buckman and Winer surely recognize the dif-ference between asserting a view, and actually forcing that view on someone else. Mastracci does the former – as does anyone who gives an argument – and rejects the latter, and is consistent in doing so. Mastracci does not

advocate actually imposing his view on anyone, thus no accusa-tions of embodying “assumptions of superiority” or “imperialism of values” will illuminate a contra-diction on Mastracci’s part.

My point is simple, but important: be charitable. Misrepresenting your opponent’s views and then arguing against the misrepresentation doesn’t constitute an adequate rebuttal. Attributing claims or assertions where there aren’t any inevita-bly leads to bad argumentation, and is unproductive. Mastracci’s position is a controversial one, and so it is especially important that it be represented accurately. Being clear on exactly what it is your opponent asserts is the first step to meaningful debate – responses that neglect this point, like Sleep’s, and Buckman and Winer’s, accomplish little.

Evan Taylor is a U2 Philosophy stu-dent. He can be reached at evan.taylor@mail.mcgill.ca

Evan TaylorThe McGill Daily

A school with no student inputHow the administration controls all decisions

I couldn’t participate in the November 10 demonstration, because, unfortunately, I had

to work my minimum wage job. Hearing about it afterwards, it will no doubt be remembered for many years afterwards that McGill let riot police, who pepper sprayed and, by some accounts, beat protesters, on campus.

Though I couldn’t see it for myself, this is probably the climax of McGill’s primary tactic for deal-ing with students (at least over the past five years): stonewall students until they give in. This has hap-pened in a variety of shapes and forms – from the travel ban for research to moving opt-outs online. It’s been accompanied by a similar practice of releasing major deci-sions over summer vacation or win-ter break, which is nothing short of a hostile gesture as administrators are well aware active students are either too busy or out of town.

As a former Daily editor, I can think of perhaps only a few instances of the University relenting to student pressure: one of them being firing Former Chancellor Dick Pound for his inappropriate comments about First Nations individuals. More recent news show that instances like these are merely anoma-lies. They did not relent on the use of the McGill name, interna-tional tuition deregulation, the Architecture Café, cancellation of Echoes of the Holocaust, military research on campus, and, current-ly, on the issue of MUNACA.

While the administration has insidiously attempted to homoge-nize and sterilize student life, I have to echo McGill’s History Department and ask: who are they, those people whom we pay six figure salaries to, to run our institution and why do they have the monopoly on power? Sure McGill students have a union (SSMU), but, during major decisions, it feels like its relation to the admin-istration tends to reflect that of 19th century labourer and capitalist, not

the stronger 20th century incarna-tion of organized labour.

It’s not the fault – per se – of stu-dent leaders, but more often a reflec-tion of the fact they have only one vote on the Board of Governors and are outnumbered on senate. (I would like to note that, given the “moral fibre” of some past SSMU presidents, I could anticipate a BoG member asking them “what they were doing after gradua-tion,” to get them to cooperate much the way Congressmen are bought off by lobbyists).

The real problem on campus lies in the fact that decision-making is con-centrated in a body divorced from the realities of academic and student life. We have no say in who runs McGill from the top – how the principle, provosts, academic dean, or any of the other administrative top dogs are chosen – and I imagine that most fac-ulty are equally powerless. There is a very sharp divide on campus between the people with power, and those who don’t – but it’s one that is directly disproportional to who has a stake in what happens on campus.

Because of this, any sort of demo-

cratic decision making is, at best, nominal. Sure, they’ll let students pick a trash compactor, create an Office of Sustainability, and run other non-confrontational projects (which are helpful in their own way), but we don’t have any power where it really counts – what kind of research happens on campus or how much tuition we pay.

And that’s why McGill can sanc-tion riot cops to beat their stu-

dents, and, I assure you, nothing is going to happen. Because ulti-mately, the administrators always get their way – since, after all, you have finals to worry about.

Erin HaleThe McGill Daily

Erin Hale is a U4 Honours Philosophy student and a former News Editor for The Daily. She can be reached at erin.hale2@gmail.com

McGill can sanction riot cops to beat their students, and, I assure you, nothing is

going to happen. Because ultimately, the administrators

always get their way – since, after all, you have

finals to worry about.

Features12

I t’s late afternoon on October 24, 2011, the day after Tunisia’s first ever democratic elec-tion, and I’m sitting in the lobby of a swanky German-owned hotel in suburban Tunis,

looking out on the Mediterranean with my friend Yasmine.* Preliminary election results are trickling in, and she’s started chain smoking and sending dagger-like stares at everyone in our vicinity. “As I see it, right now I have two choices,” she says. “I can either leave the country, because I am lucky enough to be able to do that, or I can stay here and be one of the first people killed by the new regime. If they win, I will have no choice but to become militant, I will have no choice but to take the streets, I will have to start the second revolution.”

The “they” she is talking about is Ennadha, (“Renaissance” in English), a political party billed by its supporters as moderate Islamists. They gained over 40 percent of the seats in the upcoming National Constitutional Assembly (NCA); the next closest party won just over 13 percent. Although the NCA is only an interim body, Ennadha’s grand task is to redesign the Tunisian legal framework. This will demand working alongside others to draft a constitution and a new body of law, and to deter-mine the procedures for choosing a president, prime minister, and subsequent parliaments.

“I will not wear the fucking veil,” Yasmine continues. “I will not be some fatass’s fucking third wife – no one tells me what to do.” I like Yasmine. However, I have to admit, I don’t quite know how to respond.

Yasmine’s choice of words may have been a bit dramatic, but she was not alone in her confusion and disappointment. From the fragile Libyan bor-

der to the edge of the Sahara to the Mediterranean port cities, neighbours turned to neighbours to question the election results, and to discuss a shift-ing Tunisian identity. For many women in Tunisia, Ennadha’s decisive victory has led to fears that their long-protected rights, unique in the Arab world, would be rolled back.

However, based on the political environment that has reigned in the weeks following the elec-tion, these concerns appear preemptive, even rather unfounded. On the streets of Tunis, you can easily end up in line with a woman in the full niqab, but you also frequently dodge packs of giggling girls in skinny jeans and mini skirts, or brush past a business woman in a power suit and heels.

While many Tunisians are intrigued by the idea of Islamic politics, it appears that above all they are interested in a Tunisian flavour of Islamic poli-tics. Although what this would look like in practice remains to be seen, the mandate from the street remains clear – Ennadha must work with others, they must represent the people, and they must not repeal women’s rights. To understand why, you have to look back at the development of Tunisia’s domestic politi-cal culture, and its historical legacy in the region.

As a small nation perched strategically at the top of Africa, Tunisia provides a natural crossroads for European and Middle Eastern interests. From the days of Hannibal and the Carthegenians – whose empire was centered in Tunisia – until now, Tunisian society has been comprised of shifting groups and transient populations. This has left the country with a deep legacy of tolerance and cohabitation. When Tunisia gained its independence from France (in a mostly bloodless transition), the new country contained

thriving and intermingled populations of Arabs, Jews, and French Catholics, among other groups.

With the end of French colonial rule in 1956, and the escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict, many Jews and Europeans left for Europe, North America, and Israel. Over the subsequent decades, a subtle wave of Arabization took place, and the Tunisian political spectrum again shifted to better reflect the compo-sition and views of its populace, which now strongly sympathized with the Arab cause.

According to Khedija Arfauoi, a member of Tunisian feminist group AFTURD and a researcher of gender studies based in Tunis, the current wave of relative conservatism has roots in this period. “I believe it started as a reaction against the West for its strong support to Israel against the Palestinian people. It was a reaction against colonialism and injustice,” she said. “This conservatism has been in the country since the 1970s, but it was repressed by both Bourguiba and Ben Ali.”

Here, she was referring to independent Tunisia’s first and second presidents, whose poli-cies of aggressive, state-led, secular feminism led to the repression of more conservative voices for decades. The most famous – or notorious, depend-ing on your perspective – document from this era was the Code of Personal Status created the year of Tunisia’s independence. It has provided women with an impressively liberal set of rights, including legal abortions, marriage and divorce by mutual consent, universal suffrage, and an enforced ban on polygamy. The brainchild of Habib Bourguiba, a French-educated secularist and Tunisia’s first presi-dent, the Code was unique to the Arab world.

But while many believe he created the Code in

“They won’t touch our rights”Sarah Kerr reports from Tunisia on the intersection of Islam, feminism, and democracy

good faith, there is also speculation that he harboured other political motives. At the time, Bourguiba was attempting to court and please the West – especially France, Tunisia’s for-mer colonizer. And domestically, the Code’s protection of women served to disempower Bourguiba’s greatest critics – tribal leaders and religious conservatives. Whether or not the principles enshrined in the Code reflect Tunisia’s nation-al character in the 1950s, then, is debatable.

After 55 years, they have been fused into Tunisian society and are now vehemently defended as distinctly Tunisian. But despite legal equality, the social marginaliza-tion of women is still incredibly prevalent in the country. Although most women agree that they should have the same standing as men in the eyes of the law, different inter-pretations and gradients of Islamic belief have left Tunisian women divided on how – or even if they should – tackle sexism and constraining social expectations.

Indeed, until this year’s revolution, many Tunisians experienced the Tunisian brand of state secularism as a kind of leviathan, actively punishing religious expression. The state discriminated against veiled women – police were known to enter public primary schools and order girls to take their hijabs off. And the general secularist sen-timent meant that public figures who dared to speak about the intermingling of religion and the state were persecut-ed. Many members of Ennahda were among those arrested and often tortured by security forces under Borguiba and his successor, Zine el Abidine Ben Ali. The most prominent example of this is Rachid Ghannouchi, the founder and current head of Ennadha, who was tortured for years in Tunisian prisons before escaping to England in 1988, only returning to Tunisia after the revolution.

At the same time as the ills of state secularism have been largely remedied, worries have surfaced that rein-vigorated conservative forces are attempting to funda-mentally alter the fabric of Tunisian society – and espe-cially the space it allocates for women. This fear springs from the fact that, even in little Tunisia, the dissemination of Bourguiba-era principles often proved logistically dif-ficult. Many rural and nomadic communities remained largely untouched by the ideology of the state. In poor areas, children of both genders struggled to access public education, though girls had an especially tough time. As recently as 2008, 18 per cent fewer women in Tunisia were litterate than were men, according to UNICEF. In many areas of the country, the combination of low levels of edu-cation, high levels of religiosity, and isolation from the rest of the country led to many votes for Ennadha. Thus, as the old political order was swept aside this winter, the old tug-of-war between aggressive state protection of women’s rights and persistent conservativism sprung back to life, pitting sectors of Tunisian society against each another.

The Tunisian revolution started with a man and a match. On December 17, 2010, 26-year-old produce ven-dor Mohammed Bouazizi covered himself in gasoline and set himself on fire in front of the local governor’s office in Sidi Bouzid, an impoverished city in central Tunisia. His protest was motivated by his own chronic under-employment and frustration after a confrontation with a local police woman earlier that day. Upon telling Bouazizi that he needed a permit to set up his produce cart – a bla-tant attempt to receive a bribe, as no permits are required for street vendors in Sidi Bouzid – an argument ensued, which ended when the police woman reportedly slapped Bouazizi in front of a crowd of spectators.

Numerous aspects of the incident – Bouazizi’s frustrat-ing plight, the corruption of state agents, and the perceived humiliation of a woman slapping a man in public – added insult to injury. In the ensuing weeks, thousands of Tunisians took to the streets to protest everything from unemploy-ment to state corruption, and soon demanded Ben Ali’s res-ignation. Bouazizi died in the hospital on January 4, 2011, and Ben Ali’s government fell just ten days later.

Since January, Tunisian political culture has been cha-otically overhauled and reinvented. New norms regarding freedom of speech and freedom of organization have cre-ated something of an “insta-political culture.” From the guys who hang out all day at cafes on Avenue Bourguiba in downtown Tunis to intellectuals in the halls of universities

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com 13

to cleaning women, seemingly everyone is talking about the country’s future. It feels like everyone has a Facebook account (or multiple Facebook accounts), and is regularly consuming news on their newsfeeds and posting articles and tidbits from internet cafes and wifi hotspots. The fear of informants and secret police that prompted people to whisper when they talked politics is gone. Walking down the street, it is impossible to escape debates, conversa-tions, and headlines about any and all details of “the new Tunisia.” However, while the discourse is thriving, it is still saturated with rumour, speculation, and strong emotion. In other words, the environment is extremely combustible and people seem ready to leap back into protest at any moment to protect the spirit of the revolution.

Part of the reason for this persistent, nervous energy is that Tunisia wants so badly to be a success story – the little country that could. People are weary of letting any-one, Islamist or not, spoil their chances of success. So, when seats in the National Constituent Assembly (the body charged with drafting the new Tunisian constitu-tion) were recently revoked due to shady accounting, and then reinstated after the electoral commission admitted that they had almost no evidence for the decision, every-one seemed ready to forget the scandal and move on.

Unsurprisingly, this political upheaval has served to unearth divisions that have been festering below the sur-face of Tunisian society for decades. Falling loosely along lines of class and ancestral lineage, a well-developed dichotomy of “us and them” has become more visible in recent months, separating those who hold greater alle-giance to Europe from those who identify more strongly with the Middle East. However, while they may not agree on key policy points, their vision of Tunisian identity and its legacy of women’s right remains surprisingly similar.

The pro-Western bloc is largely made up of people in the higher tiers of society: professionals, intellectuals, and businesspeople. They tend to be wealthier, and occasion-ally foreign-educated. Many of them are functionally bilin-gual in Arabic and French (as opposed to just Arabic) and feel that, while Tunisia is now primarily made up of Arabs, it is not an Arab country in the vein of the Gulf States. In fact, many Tunisians are wary of Gulf countries, like Qatar, intervening in their affairs. Besides accusations that the Qataris are running weapons into North Africa, specula-tion exists that Al-Jazeera, the Qatari-based news network, is playing favourites amongst the Arab revolution in an effort to dispose of regimes they don’t care for.

Since the revolution, this pro-Western camp has vocal-ly opposed growing signs of conservatism, such as the increased wearing of the niqab – they assert that is not a traditionally Tunisian garment and has no place in Tunisian society. They say increased access to the Arab media is the main purveyor of new culture to the Tunisian mainstream, beaming in shows via satellite from Egypt, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. This Western-oriented elite also point out that many people, young Ennadha supporters especially, do not know what it is like to live in a non-secular environ-ment, and take much of what they have received in Tunisia for granted. As Arfaoui put it, “The young generations have always lived in a secular environment, although it has been slowly veiling itself for quite a few years now. They think that it is normal that there is no polygamy, and that the rights they have as women are granted. They may not [know] that we had needed a man like Habib Bourguiba, our first President after independence from the French to bring those changes.”

The other camp invests greater importance in Tunisia’s connections to the Arab world. By and large, they are not opposed to the entrance of Islam into politics, as it is part of their daily life and practice. In the Tunisian context, the support for political Islam is also a mild anti-Western state-ment, somewhere along the lines of, “we can fend for our-selves thanks; take your influence elsewhere.” Meriem,* a 32-year-old professor of engineering and Ennadha sup-porter, described her support as stemming from Ennadha’s overall message in an email: “They won’t touch our rights and they will make the society better. Every woman thinks like a mother. We think about the future generations. Women and I personally think that Ennahdha is the best for the future generation, for my future children and for the future society. They care about the poor. They care about our identity. We are Tunisia. We are Muslim and Arabs. We All photos by Sarah Kerr for The McGill Daily

Features The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com14

are open to Europe, but some of the European habits do not fit our society and can harm us.”

Indeed, many believe that, on election day, it was women who gave Ennadha the final push towards their overwhelming victory, although there’s no reliable polling data on the matter. In fact, in the National Constituent Assembly, the Islamist party will have more female represen-tatives than any other party, includ-ing the pantsuit-wearing, hijab-less Suad Abdel-Rahim. (Granted, some secularists maintain that Ennadha is using these women as fronts for a hidden, anti-woman agenda).

It’s easy to oversimplify the rea-sons so many women gravitated towards Ennadha, but any plausible explanation is full of nuance. Many women have indeed become more overtly religious (in line with trends throughout the Middle East in past decades), and do not see Islam as a threat to their livelihoods or in any way mutually exclusive to politics. But, in Tunisia, a vote for Ennadha is not just an attempt to become the next Saudi Arabia or Iran. “The his-tory of our country was always related somehow to women’s achievment,” Meriem writes. “Carthage was built by Elissa. The ‘Kahina’ was a Berber queen that fought against Muslims in the 8th century. In the modern era, Tunisia women acquired many rights that made us proud as a nation: right to vote, right to work. Even though the Tunisia society has a male dominance, the Tunisian women proved that they deserve a place in all domains, and we earned every inch of freedom that we have today. Women are free and eman-

cipated compared to our fellow sisters in other neighbour nations.”

In a way, after years of repres-sion and authoritarian governance, supporting Islamic politics is both reactionary and revolutionary. Now, Ennadha is doing double duty, as both the old underdog and the emerging political leader. As the primary opposi-tion party, they also had arguably the best name recognition in the dizzy-ing field of 116 parties and coalitions. And, like Islamist parties elsewhere that have spent decades furtively orga-nizing underground, Ennadha has an enormous party infrastructure. Many suspect that they received the most campaign donations from private donors of any Tunisian party, both nationally and from abroad.

However, Ennadha was also the subject of the largest numbers of com-plaints during the campaign, includ-ing allegations of vote buying with items such as cigarettes, phone cards, and straight-up cash. Independent election monitors (one of which I vol-unteered for) received reports that Ennadha attempted to sway illiterate voters in districts all over the coun-try. These accusations have seriously damaged Ennadha’s already tenuous credibility. Ennadha’s margin of vic-tory was substantial, but it may have been more a matter of luck and cir-cumstance than people realize.

So what does Ennadha’s rise tell us about the future of women in Tunisia? Some left-leaning Tunisians were quick to jump on the Ennadha victory as a cataclysm for Tunisian women. They worry that Ennadha will attempt to write certain clauses into the constitu-tion that either limit the rights of citi-

zens or keep the party in power for lon-ger than was originally stipulated.

But there is no strong indication that Ennadha’s intentions lie in limiting the rights of women, or that they would be able to do so if they tried. The politi-cal will is simply not there. And while that might not have mattered a year ago, political will is now undoubtedly the most important and vehemently defended currency in Tunisian society. The only thing that most Tunisians can agree on is that their government must design a new state using legal frame-works that maintains rights, especially those of women.

A number of days after the elec-tion, I came home from school to find my 11-year-old host sister smiling and eating her afterschool snack in the kitchen. “We’re moving to France!” she told me excitedly. The daughter of a businessman and a gynecologist, both educated in France, she had been privy to her parents’ conversa-tions about the potential ills posed by Ennadha. “Yeah, we’re moving to France because Ennadha won and they are going to make us all wear the veil. It’s gonna be awesome, but don’t worry, it’s not until after you leave.” I smiled and laughed politely.

This was neither the first nor the last time I heard this threat – everyone on the left seems to be spouting some-thing of the sort since the election. But the repetition only led me to reflect on how Ennadha’s election should really come as no surprise. While Tunisian feminism and political thought was repressed and guided by the state since

the 1950s, it did not stop evolving. Just as Tunisians have adopted their own stances on politics and religious prac-tice, and a version of Tunisian feminism that is not at odds with Islamic belief has emerged. As Meriem notes, “We made a revolution to push the coun-try forward and not to pull it back. The women[’s] status should be con-firmed and we should add more privi-leges and rights to women also. A big work should be done to get the society aware of women’s right.”

So I wouldn’t pack my bags just yet. While society is undeniably becom-ing more conservative, there seems to be very little interest in letting anyone inhibit anyone else’s rights. And while Ennadha is respected by many, they are now charged with the task of earning the trust of many Tunisians. To be suc-cessful in the future, they will have to prove that they understand the views and desires of the people, and will undoubtedly fight against better-orga-nized and consolidated political oppo-sition. As of yet, Yasmine has not moved to France, nor has she taken up arms to fight for her right to wear miniskirts. But she is ready, and she, like millions of other Tunisian woman, is watching.

*Names have been changed.

Sarah Kerr is a U3 Joint Honours Political Science and International Development student. She is spending her final semester studying abroad in Tunis, Tunisia with Portland State University (OR) and volunteering for an independent election observa-tion mission. All views expressed in this piece are her own.

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.comSports 15

Toronto’s $1.4 billon sideshow gamesCost of 2015 Pan-American Games worries citizens

The conclusion of a success-ful Pan-American Games – the world’s second largest

multi-sport event – in Guadalajara, Mexico saw the passing of the torch to the competition’s next host, Toronto. The Canadian city will host the Games, which will fea-ture athletes from North and South America competing in 359 different events in 2015. Toronto mayor, Rob Ford, was on hand in Guadalajara on October 30 for the closing cer-emonies as the preparation for 2015 officially began.

The Canadian team was rela-tively successful in Mexico, finish-ing fifth in the medal standings behind the United States, Brazil, Mexico, and Cuba. Highlights included gold medals in women’s soccer and men’s rugby. Despite these accomplishments, sports fans across the country could not

be blamed for being unaware of these Games. The Games are con-sidered a less prestigious version of the full Olympic Games, and of even the Commonwealth and Francophone Games in which Canada also participates. Now as the spotlight turns to Toronto, the media attention is focused on the costs of the event, which has sparked considerable controversy since Toronto was awarded the Games in November 2009.

The cost is an estimated $1.4 bil-lion, although that number is rapidly rising as 2015 approaches. In com-parison, the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver cost $1.86 billion. The outcry from the Toronto commu-nity – and from the Canadian pub-lic in general – is that this money is going towards a second-tier event.

The Olympics are seen as the largest sporting events on the planet. The media coverage is wall to wall, the impact it can have on a country is enormous. It is esti-mated that the 2010 Olympics increased British Columbia’s GDP by $2.5 billion. Toronto will not reap nearly as much economic

benefit or international exposure from the Games in 2015, and the citizens are well aware of this.

Toronto has undergone one major change since the successful bid process ended in 2009 – the city has a new mayor. Torontonians elected Rob Ford on the promise to cut spending on existing pro-grams in an effort to eliminate the city’s debt. With this $1.4 billion project, even more programs may now have to be cut.

Many Torontonians have expressed concern that, with so many cuts going on in the city, a $1.4 billion endeavor like the Games might be excessive. With all of the opposition, these games have been subject to the question: why make the investment? The answer may be a little more long-term.

Toronto clearly sees itself as a city capable of hosting a Summer Olympic Games. The city bid for the games in 2008, finishing as the runner-up to Beijing. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) clearly did not think they were ready, and, although the international community may not

be too interested in the Games, members of the IOC will certainly be watching.

The IOC was watching in 2007 when Rio de Janeiro hosted the Games. Two years later ,the city was successful in securing the 2016 Summer Olympic Games, beating out cities such as Chicago and Tokyo. The world’s eyes were not on Rio in 2007, but they cer-tainly will be in 2016. Toronto may be following suit, looking to show the IOC that it can now host the big show.

The Mayor’s Office in Toronto nixed the idea of bidding for the 2020 Summer Olympics, but, real-istically, these games were never going to be in Toronto. The host city for these Olympics will be decided before the 2015 Pan-Am Games, so a more realistic target for Toronto would be the 2024 Summer Olympics. Rio will host their Summer Olympics nine years after hosting the Games. If Toronto were to host the 2024 Olympics, it would also come nine years after hosting the Games.

While 2024 is a long ways

away, Allen Vansen, the head of the organizing committee for the Toronto Pan-Am Games, has hint-ed that the potential of a Summer Olympic bid is a very real proposi-tion. It is unlikely that Ford would support such a bid – based on his decision not to bid for 2020 – but a lot can change between now and 2017, when the host of the 2024 Games will be decided.

Recent public polls from the Toronto area suggest that citi-zens are not happy about the Games, but, of course, this pub-lic opinion may change drastical-ly if a Summer Olympic Games came as a result. On the other side of the equation, if Toronto fails to acquire the rights to host the Olympics in 2024, the 2015 Games may be seen as an incred-ible waste. The only certainty is that Toronto – and the greater Canadian community – will be anxiously awaiting the events of the next few years to see if the city’s massive $1.4 billion gamble pays off with another Olympic Games for Canada or just leaves a legacy of colossal debt.

Sports, eh

Sam Gregorysportseh@mcgilldaily.com

Julia Boshyk for The McGill Daily

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.comScience+Technology 16

Nirali TannaScience+Technology Writer

If you are anything like me, when the word evolution is used, it instantly makes you think of

monkeys, apes, and how we were once the same species, but have since evolved from our common ancestor.

Next, you might think of Darwin’s famous the-ory of natural selection. From

minute gene changes to differ-ences between dolphins and spi-ders, Darwin’s theory of evolu-tion proposes ideas that explain it all. The change of life over time, the origins of life itself, and consciousness – human or oth-erwise – are three conceptually vast and generally well-known ideas surrounding the topic of

evolution. Once upon a time, two schools of thoughts stood as pil-lars to explain these three ideas: neo-Darwinism and creationism. Since then, in the scientific comu-nity, natural selection has been widely accepted as a fact, and creationism has been discounted as baseless biblical literalism. However, as our understanding continues to evolve, the theory of evolution has mutated (pun intended) into a wide spectrum

of perspectives that offer more nuanced schools of

thought – from hard scientific models

to more spiritual ones.

One such perspective, which falls roughly in the middle of the two main models, is integralism, which offers a clear opposition to neo-Darwinism as an all-surpass-ing view of evolution. Integral the-ory is a general arena of thought that applies to many different fields – evolution being one of the core offshoots, and holistic consciousness being another core component of the idea.

Essentially, the argument behind the integralists’ beliefs of evolution begins with neo-Darwin-ism. Undeniably, the base biology is based on the natural selection of certain organisms, where gene mutation manifests itself in a dif-ferent physical characteristic, one that could be advantageous or disadvantageous given the envi-ronment. This core mechanism, however definitive in a scientific sense, is a far cry away from pro-viding an exhaustive paradigm to explain many fundamental ques-tions. What is life? Why has life happened? Or, even, what is con-sciousness? Although this gene-centred view of evolution – also known as the selfish gene theory – is a core part of understanding, it is only a piece of a greater puzzle.

The integralists argue that the gene is not the only causal determin-ing factor behind the explanation of how an organism expresses itself and experiences the world. Instead

of boxing our varied understand-ings and paradigms into separate categories, integralists see evolu-tion as a fundamental concept for the way in which we see not only biology and material change in

the human race, but also what we know about human life

and culture. To do this, they try to observe the

process and find a deeper integration

between science and spirit, so that understand-ing evolution can become a holistic, intrin-sic experience

that takes into account all dif-

ferent aspects of existing theories

and fuses them into a coherent picture of the entirety of life.

One way of looking at it is to imagine looking at the forest and not a tree. Integralists claim that no one really knows with defini-tive knowledge what exactly evo-lution is. Indeed, our definition of evolution, as a concept, is entirely arbitrary. As it stands, the concept of evolution encompasses the way in which organisms are physically changed over time, other ideas such as those surrounding con-sciousness, altruism and kindness, and societies are sometimes forc-ibly inserted into this paradigm – although not always with success. Integralists argue that this does not need to be the case. By looking at the various components of our existing knowledge – ranging from the selfish gene to more spiritual models – they want to provide a larger context that allows us to see the relationships between these evolutionary perspectives.

Essentially, evolution is becom-ing more conscious of itself. As we try to understand more about evo-lution and the origins of life, we are also led to further questions that require answers. Our own consciousness is evolving in circu-lar fashion of thought. A theorist by the name of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saw evolution as a road of consciousness, and prophesized that the all the diverse streams of some 14 billion years of evolution will one day converge or coalesce, following his law of complexity-consciousness. As a Jesuit priest and palaeontologist, it is obvi-ous that Teilhard’s beliefs are influenced by his faith. But, the important thing to take away from this is that, by opening minds to thoughts beyond the selfish gene theory, we can only be pushing the boundaries of our consciousness into a more conceptual under-standing of our world. Rather than fixating on whatever our current beliefs may be, we may be able to reach a greater understanding of man and his identity as a bio-logical organism but also as a con-scious and sentient creature.

Integrationalism

The Conversation is an explora-tion of various scientific and tech-nological subject matters. It irregu-larily runs in Science+Technology. If you have a subject matter you want to talk about, send an email to scitech@mcgilldaily.com.

THE CONVERSATIONEVOLUTION

Pushing beyond the selfish gene

Esma Balkir | The McGill Daily

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com 17Science+Technology

The most beautiful thing about scientific theories is that, like plants, animals,

and microorganisms, they evolve. The field of genetics is rapidly evolving in response to new infor-mation that contests the long held notion that heredity comes only from natural selection operating on random genetic mutations – a the-ory called neo-Darwinism. A more comprehensive theory is taking the stage which includes the genome’s remarkable inheritable regulation – a phenomenon known as epi-genetics – creating a new theory called progressive Darwinism. This renewed focus on the mechanism of evolution brings back philosophi-cal questions about the importance of evolutionary theories in the face of things such as altruism.

Darwin gave us the theory of natural selection – “survival of the fittest” – which proposes that individuals who are more adapted to their environment survive bet-ter, reproduce more often, and are able to influence the development of their species. Darwin’s ground-breaking theory is driven by sev-eral things: the variation between individuals, environmental stress, and how variations help or hinder individuals in the face of these environmental stresses. DNA can be thought of as a series of chemi-cal letters – A, C, T, and G – and is divided into hereditary units called genes. Every gene contains information required to make pro-teins and functional RNA chains. Even changing a single A to a G can result in a dramatically differ-ent protein. These changes occur all the time, and are the cause of variation within a population. The environment places stresses on the individuals of a population. Some of these individuals, by ran-dom chance, have an edge – one that is given to them by these vari-ations in gene mutations. These individuals survive and reproduce more than those who don’t have the same mutations. Over time, mutations can accumulate, and different environmental process-es can operate, and, ultimately, if changes are significant enough, an entirely new species can be created, each suited to the envi-ronment it was “forced” to con-form to.

Neo-Darwinism is convincing from a purely logical standpoint.

If an indi-vidual is better suited to its envi-ronment, it will necessarily be more likely to survive and reproduce and its genes, will necessarily be more likely to survive the test of time. Where neo-Darwinism falters, though, is in its simplicity. Take the human genome: we only have about 25,000 protein-coding genes – and we share large percentages of these genes with things like bananas and lettuce. Our DNA is about 99 per cent the same as a chimps. Where does that “human spark” come from, then? The answer hypothesized by some scientists is called progressive Darwinism, which is still a gene-centric view of evolution, but one with a significantly refined view of heredity.

Not all genes are equal; they don’t just produce proteins at the same rate all the time in all cells. That is to say, they can be switched on and off. This is why your muscle and liver cells are different – they have identical genomes, but have different genes switched on, which leads to their specific functions and shapes. The genome can respond to changes in the environment, to chemical messages from other cells, and to other regions of DNA – once thought to have no function and called junk DNA – now known to be regulatory regions. The regula-tion of gene switching is very com-plex, with different environmental signals, regulatory regions, and chemical messages cooperating and competing to determine what proteins the cells will produce, and, therefore, what its functions will be. So in addition to a unique genome, we each have a unique epigene, a pattern that dictates which genes are active and which are inhibited.

Recent studies show that the epi-gene can be transferred from par-ent to child, imbuing the child with the epigenetic patterns that the par-ent has acquired through a lifetime of environmental adaptation. This is essentially a method of “genet-ic learning”, a fine-tuning of the genome that creates a “memory” of the environment that is passed down. For example, an animal liv-

ing in a hot desert that has plenty of bugs to eat but very little water would switch on genes that helped it store water at high energy cost (with the extra energy needed pro-vided by the abundance of food). Put the same animal in a place with plenty of water and it would shut off the costly water storage gene. But the epigene can only do so much with the genes that are present in the individual. If that same animal were put in a cold environment, it might freeze to death.

The epigene plays an especially prominent role in development, and explains why we don’t look like chimps – though we may have largely the same set of genes. For example, the genes that code for, say, the jaw, are turned on for lon-ger in chimp fetuses than in human fetuses, which is why chimps have strong, large jaws and we have more brain room instead.

Ultimately, the epigene can be thought of as the brain of our genome. This brain is one that is set on its own survival, which begs the question: is there really a place for altruism in what is still ultimately a selfish gene model?

In reality a more accurate term

might be the indifferent gene. Without actually wanting any-thing, genes are thrown into an equally indifferent environment, and a simple game of cause and effect develops – the environment acted like a sieve – the genes that survive are able to live on. When cells are able to bind together into multicellular organisms, differen-tiation is possible. With the cre-ation of different types of cells, an organism is more likely to survive. It is not hard to see how this trend could lead to a highly developed nervous system – the functioning of which neuroscientists believe constitutes thought. The nervous system – which determines behav-ior together with the genome and its epigene – which determine the nervous system’s structure and function – could have evolved the capacity for behaviors like altru-ism. Altruism makes evolutionary sense on a larger scale than that of an individual and its genes. Cooperation can ensure that the genes of the community will sur-vive. Even if I help someone at my own expense, that might help them or the community survive, and, as long as the genes com-

mon to all of us survive, it does not actually matter which one of us passes them down.

What about the fact that we feel good when we help others? It may be as simple as the reason why sex is pleasurable – by creating a rewarding feeling, the genome has developed a clever way to guide us towards the things that ensure its survival. In this way, all goodness can be said to be based on greed.

Although there is a notion of transcending the basic greed that, by evolutionary necessity, moti-vates all aspects of our existence it is hard to determine if these efforts are successful. This raises many philosophical questions, such as whether actions alone can be grounds for being good, despite whatever selfish motivations may be there – consciously, subcon-sciously, or hidden deep within our genome. While this question will puzzle us for ages to come, a good place to start would be the analysis of the singular human ability for reflection and abstract thought. Since we are able to attempt an understanding of evolu-tion, we are in the unique position of being, possibly, the only species which can deliberately guide its own development. This knowledge may turn the tides of the hidden and subtle battle of sorts between our own consciousness and the epi-gene. Perhaps the epigene will be overthrown by its own creation: the human consciousness.

David BenrimohScience+Technology Writer

Progressive Darwinism

Edna Chan | The M

cGill D

aily

Neo-Darwinism evolved

Science+Technology The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com18

More questions than answersIs standardized testing really necessary or effective?

T he SAT, OSSLT, PAT, FB, IB, AP, ACT, TOEFL, TOEIC, LSAT, GMAT, GRE,

MCAT – you probably have or will encounter one of these neces-sary evils during your academic career. Besides being confusing acronyms and money-making opportunity for many institu-tions, all of them involve lengthy standardized testing.

Standardized tests are admin-istered according to strict criteria that must be the same for all test-takers. The material and environ-ment must be equivalent for all test-takers. Most of these tests call for months of preparation. Also, they are astoundingly expensive. Taking the MCAT, for example, can cost upwards of $300. So, why do stu-dents spend painstaking amounts of time and money for such torture?

Jon Bradley of the Department of Integrated Studies in the Faculty of Education at McGill points out that “tests test something!”

“Every test has a specific orienta-tion and a specific goal,” he explains. “Further, every test is aimed a spe-cific clientele; that is, a group of a certain age or experience.”

In this regard, standardized tests can be necessary as an objec-tive and comparable criterion that allows admissions officers to understand the applicants’ ability in a way that is free from the bias that might be a part of the non-standard grades that each teaching institution provides.

But, university should be a community of teachers and schol-ars. Not a place of test-taking experts and test-prep masters. Yet, most of us wishing to attend any highly ranked prestigious univer-sity, such as McGill, simply have no choice but take these tests – and to try to do well on them. Although some people are simply geniuses who can breeze through these tests, this is not the case for most. However, the continual per-petuation of these tests, as well

as their ubiquitous influence on admissions processes, leaves little room to doubt the validity and necessity of these tests.

Many tests are achievement tests that indicate how well students have mastered a specific subject. These include the SAT subject tests, GRE A-Level, AP, IB, the French Baccalaureate, Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test, the Provincial Achievement Test administered by the Alberta government, as well as the British Columbian Provincial Examinations.

Other standardized tests are apti-tude tests – they attempt to predict how well you will be able to succeed in whatever higher institution you are applying to. Most standardized tests fall under this category, includ-ing the TOEFL, the SAT reasoning Test (now known as SAT I), LSAT, and the MCAT. In most of these tests, examinees are not expected to truly understand all the material due to the predictive manner of these tests and the broad scope of their subject matter. However, many aspects of these tests depend upon the stu-dents’ past experiences and, in that regard, are more like achievement tests passing themselves off as apti-tude tests. For example, the MCAT has two sections just to ensure that students have sufficient scientific knowledge. These past experiences are not necessarily indicative of a student’s future abilities and apti-tude. In fact, this reliance on past achievements and opportunities simply continue the cycle of inacces-sible education.

Dana Simpsons, instructor of expository writing at Boston University, believes that graduate level standardized tests are neces-sary to ensure that applicants have the skills necessary for more spe-cialized education ahead. But she thinks otherwise for the under-graduate admission tests: “It is an oxymoron that a liberal arts pro-gram, which is supposed to devel-op universal competencies – criti-cal thinking, collaborative learn-ing, communication skills, prob-lem solving, and creativity – uses a standardized system to screen those who are competent in the

other intelligences.”To rephrase in a more blatant

manner – how can multiple choice questions even come close to dem-onstrating the true intelligence of an individual? The ability to circle the right answer in the multiple choice situation does not totally depend on the person’s under-standing of that topic. Luck and test-taking techniques are also important factors. Everyone knows not to circle an answer with gram-matical errors, to pick C when in doubt, or to not have more than four of the same letter in a row, et cetera. Since there is no way to show that we were just guessing on a question, two identical scores do not differentiate an individual who knows the material without hesita-tion from one who is simply a good test-taker (or really lucky).

And what if some people are simply not good test-takers? There is no way they could explain that through the test score, and it would be unprofessional to write that on the application.

An interesting phenomenon thus appears: teaching to the test.

Though companies such as Kaplan oversee the test preparation pro-cess for the graduate entrance tests, some high school standardized tests – most notably the AP and IB tests – are left under the purview of the instructors. Instead of actually teaching the AP and IB curriculum, many teachers are accused of focus-ing on materials that will be cov-ered on the test, as well honing test-taking techniques. And who can say that the blame truly lies with teach-ers? Few students exhibit interest in the subject matter. Many more students are much more concerned with what they will be tested on. If students are always asking for what will be on the test, it is only logical that teachers will teach for the test.

To this, Bradley responds: “A common complaint regard-ing specific academic tests is that teachers will “teach to the test”. In other words, it really does not matter what the overall curriculum states, teachers will want to make sure that their students do well on the test. However, is this such a bad thing? If the test is a true example of the overall curriculum,

then teaching to the test is actually teaching to the curriculum.”

In fact, though still hoping to have other options beyond stan-dardized testing, Simpsons notices that many standardized tests, espe-cially the AP program, are begin-ning to explicitly accommodate for the students’ multiple intelligence. “The SAT I now has a writing sec-tion that is graded holistically. The AP language tests changed from simply filling in the verb tenses to interpreting a picture in writ-ten and spoken words.” AP studio art has a portfolio aspect, as does AP music theory. These changes have also been observed with the TOEFL test, where students have to listen to mock lectures and answer questions regarding the information presented within.

Yet, no matter whether these tests are fair, Bradley is right on one thing: “There is no question that a test written by a student at a desk in a room is the work of that student, without help from outside sources, computers, friends and the like. Therefore, tests are sig-nificant measures of ability.”

Ethan YangScience+Technology Writer

Hate what you see?Make it better. scitech@mcgilldaily.com

Victor Tangermann | The McGill DailyOne McGill student experiences the joy of standardized testing.

Smoked meat: a sellout?Angus Sharpe bites into Montreal’s most distinctive delicacy

Smoked meat is a bit of a cult, if you ask me. On my first morning here in Montreal, I walked past

these tiny stores with lines snaking out the door. This didn’t seem too odd at first, but, when they hadn’t subsided a week later, I decided to ask someone about them. The reponse, a eulogy about the supernatural qualities of the “original smoked meat sandwich” left me skeptical. However, after the inevi-table curiosity visit, and my anoint-ment in an uber-meaty and under-breaded baptism, I prostrated myself at the foot of its altar, and bathed in the mustardy glow. To stretch this metaphor way too far, I committed myself to the clergy, preaching forth to the unenlightened, “You’re coming to Montreal? You must try the smoked meat. It’s divine!”

This most macho of delicacies is so symbolic of Montreal that it’s oldest surviving and most sancti-fied exponent, Schwartz’s on Saint-Laurent, takes a place of honour in our city’s Lonely Planet guidebook. Yes, it’s the first image to greet your gaze upon turning page one. The very first part of this city that some tourists will see is not, say, an aerial panorama of Place Des Arts, swarm-ing with tiny revelers bathed in the lights from some world renowned Jazz Festival; it’s not the Bell Centre, a sold out crowd erupting while some bearded bruiser starts throw-ing fists; it’s not even a gleaming, glis-tening, coronary baiting zoom shot of a La Banquise poutine. No, what we have is the inside of Schwartz’s Hebrew Deli. More accurately, it’s lots of old fashioned folks – cause smoked meat is so damn old – sit-ting on stools, backs to the camera hunched over something… Nope, can’t tell you what exactly. Whatever it is though, they are totally into it.

So, what is all this? And where did it come from? Wikipedia sup-plies various creation myths, but ulti-

mately calls it an “uncertain and likely unresolvable” mystery. Some say one Herman Rees Roth came over from New York in 1908 and opened his British American Delicatessen Store. Other sources point to Romanian migrant Aaron Sanft, who braved the Atlantic in 1884 and founded Montreal’s first kosher butcher shop. Better known is the tale of Ben Kravitz. He reached Montreal in 1899 “with fifteen dollars and a bul-let wound in his heel courtesy of a Polish border guard” and initially sold smoked meat, prepared in the style of farmers from his native Lithuania, from his wife’s fruit stand. And then there’s Levi Katz, a Latvian cow whis-perer. Banished from his village fol-lowing shadowy experimentation in bestiality, Katz washed up in the New World on a plank of wood with noth-ing but the clothes on his back and an ancient recipe tattooed to his inner thigh. That last one obviously isn’t true, but you get the idea.

The whole shtick is a heavily romanticized elaboration on the basic facts: smoked meat is a turn-of-the-twentieth-century Euro-Jewish thing, probably Romanian. It’s also sup-posed to be a family affair – a small diner with crowded chrome booths and menus on the wall next to photos of the storefront changing over time. For many slightly older Montrealers, Bens De Luxe Delicatessen & Restaurant was and will always be the archetype. Founded by the aforementioned Mr. Kravitz, Ben’s closed in 2006 two years short of its centenary under the ownership of his grandson, Eliot. It was a rather sad end, awash with union disputes and a waning fanbase disillusioned by rising prices and shrinking por-tions, while across town the enemy, Schwartz’s, seemed evergreen.

But the very fact that smoked meat is so renowned – the whole first page Lonely Planet factor – means one

thing: it’s been widely successful, and, with success, comes expansion from the family business blueprint, not to mention a predictable local backlash. So over a century on from its vague genesis, where does the Montreal smoked meat restaurant stand today?

For the less enchanting exam-ples, head downtown, where Dunn’s Famous has one of its six Quebec branches – with a seventh coming to Vancouver soon. Moved from its legendary spot on Ste. Catherine to the current haunt on Metcalfe, the focus has slipped quietly away from smoked meat to the more homog-enized feel of a North American steakhouse. But it’s not the Hard Rock Cafe by any stretch of your cynical imagination. Indeed, it’s still owned by the founding fam-ily, though the all singing, all danc-ing website – complete with TV spots featuring CGI mascot “Dillon Dunn” the dill pickle cowboy – is a far cry from the ideal, and is wholly geared toward the dreaded F-word: franchise. While we’re here, if you would like to start your own Dunn’s Famous restaurant – and why the hell not – please visit dunnsfamous.ca and apply online. Just make sure you have some idea on how you will “create a strong market presence for the brand,” as they so honestly put it.

Admittedly, it’s very easy, and pretty bitchy, to complain about a family business done well. But then, just think about the scene inside Schwartz’s. It’s so fantastically func-tional, isn’t it? There’s no need for any glossy trimmings, and most peo-ple don’t even look at the menu any-way. If the tourist masses and inflat-ed reputation put you off, however, then head up to Outremont and the sleepier Lester’s Deli. Another pillar of the old school, Lester’s has been a mere sixty years at its current address on Bernard. It maintains all of the comfy charm and warm

hospitality that my nostalgic mind impresses upon those pioneer-ing restaurants of the early twenti-eth century. Plus, it features a near offensive amount of meat on display to satisfy those carnivorous found-ing fathers, Messieurs Roth, Sanft, Kravitz and, of course, Katz.

A friend from Ottawa, when I asked if she had any memories of old school places such as Ben’s, warmly recalled family trips to Montreal,

stopping off for some smoked meat because it was “unlike anything we had at home.” That’s the crux; there are few things more Montreal than smoked meat, and how brilliant, if a little wishful, for that to remain the case. So, if you know of a small smoked meat place near you, then go along and support that little bit of meaty Montreal culture. Here ends my well-seasoned sermon for today. Amen.

All photos by Andrew Gillai for The McGill Daily

Montreal smoked meat delicatessens, Schwartz’s and Dunn’s.

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.comCulture 19

Culture The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com20

Do you remember April 1997? In those formative years, you were probably learning

to share. You were sent to school, brown paper bag packed carefully in your backpack, with a loving remind-er to treat others as you would like to be treated.

In April of 1997, McGill students, ironically, were learning the same les-son. Students occupied the fifth floor of the James Administration building to protest fee increases, and to request student representation on various University committees. In the lexi-con of a playground child, they were demanding their equal share of the sandbox. After three days, they were escorted out – peacefully – by secu-rity, treated with the same respect that they themselves exhibited. The occu-pation was one of 11 that happened at universities across Canada that spring.

Occupations, by nature, are non-violent. They are a symbolic demand to negotiate with authority. The peaceful nature of the 1997 occupa-tion, as well as that of the Dawson CEGEP occupation last week, show that there is, in fact, a precedent for students to take such actions when their voices are not otherwise being heard. Those who occupied James Administration on November 10 were acting on these principles. However, they were treated in a way that can only be described as brutal, relative to the events of 1997. In 2011, occupiers were treated as criminals rather than engaged members of a campus community. Times have changed at McGill – and certainly not for the better. This change can be summed up in a single moment. The 1997 occupiers flew a ban-ner from the James Administration

windows, relatively unhindered. In 2011, the banner released by the new round of occupiers was almost immediately torn down.

“Increased representation on key decision-making bodies...[is] the only way to ensure that our voices are not only listened to, but heard in the future,” said McGill occupier Mera Thompson to a Daily reporter in 1997. “We have tried the democratic pro-cess, and we got nowhere, so we’re using another means.” said another occupier, Mike Toye. Looking back at these interviews with McGill students of a decade past, and listening to the same sentiments being expressed on our campus today, it is easy to feel like not much has changed. However, the events of Thursday November 10, 2011, proved otherwise.

It may seem reductionist to compare the adult world to that

of children. But when such basic principles, like sharing and com-passion, seem to have disappeared from our vocabularies, a return to the lessons of grade school might be exactly what’s needed.

What makes the situation on our campus even more egregious is the example that other Montreal insti-tutions are currently providing. Last week, students at Dawson College occupied their Dean’s office for less than four hours, according to Concordia University’s newspa-per, the Link. One student tried to set up a tent. Through conversa-tion and compromise on the part of both sides, the Dean officially acknowledged and granted aca-demic amnesty to students partici-pating in the November 10 strike.

It is sad that only a few miles away, peaceful assembly bitterly

ended with police brutality and the forceful removal of students off their own campus.

These instances are proof that occupation of an authority’s office can be peaceful. Although the demands of the protesters in 1997 were not entirely met, something important happened: their protest was respect-ful, from both sides, and their bodies were respected. In light of the events of November 10, it is crucial to look back at McGill’s history. Our history. It is only by looking back that we can collectively move forward.

— Compiled by Christina Colizza, Fabien Maltais-

Bayda, and Shannon Palus

Occupying our history

Photos from the April 3, 1997 issue of The Daily (above and at left) as compared to the James Administration Occupation on November 10 (right).

Farid Attar Rifai for The McGill Daily

The authors of this article are the Culture editors and Web edi-tor of The Daily, and the opinions expressed here are their own.

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com 21Culture

The whirl-wind romance is a notion that has, for the most part, fallen under the cin-

ematic purview of cliched romantic comedies, and idealistic Disney-esque creations. As a result, the intense emotions anguish-inducing interactions that such entanglements can involve have rarely gotten their fair share of screen time. A rever-sal of this trend is one of the many qualities that makes Andrew Haigh’s Weekend, recently screened as part of Montreal’s Image+Nation Film Festival, so unique and powerful. The film follows the story of Russell (Tom Cullen) and Glen (Chris New), whose meeting at a bar begins an intense journey of sexual and emotional inti-macy that spans all of one weekend.

While the story itself sounded worthwhile, it was the palpable buzz surrounding the film that brought me down to the Concordia campus to see Weekend. After all, a movie that has collected awards and nominations at the likes of the South by Southwest Film Conference and Festival is not to be missed. This same hype is simulta-neously an important indicator of the film’s representation of queer cinema.

Of course, this isn’t the first film with a queer narrative that has garnered mainstream attention, Brokeback Mountain and Milk received Oscars. Both of these exam-ples, however, approach homosexu-ality in historical, and highly drama-tized, contexts. As a result, the rela-tionships they portray feel removed from quotidian contemporary life.

It’s much rarer to see widespread critical accolades for a film that pres-ents same sex relations in a generally unexceptional light.

This is not to say that Weekend is completely devoid of the particular Hollywood tropes of a plot centered on homosexual interactions. There were, of course, meditations on the significance of the coming out pro-cess, as well as a rather standard binary between a character who is comfortable with his sexuality and one who is less so. However, as an audience member, none of these

felt like the focal point of the film. Rather, the key element seemed to be the simple narrative of two indi-viduals navigating the tenuous trails of intimacy and attachment.

It’s this realistic story line that, for me, was the film’s strong suit. So often, the queer representations I have seen in film, and other media, seem exceedingly distant from my own queer experience. If I had a dime for every time I’ve watched Will & Grace and felt perplexed, alienated, and perhaps a little insulted... Well, you get the picture. I felt a refresh-

ing ability to relate to the characters and, in several instances, found that the film’s scenarios came surprisingly close to instances from my own life.

The notable realism of the nar-rative was accentuated by the films cinematographic and directorial style. The distinct rawness of the aesthetic enhanced the everyday nature of the plot line. The dia-logue, too, was highly naturalis-tic, and the nuances of Cullen and New’s performances were laudable.

While the film’s realism was unquestionably a large part of its

appeal, and represents a positive change in the positioning of queer cinema, it also beckons the question of what responsibility queer filmmak-ers actually have. The film’s level-handed representation of a queer narrative shows a new comfort with same sex relationships as a normal-ized part of society. However, with this acceptance also comes the risk of apathy. Real stories about lived expe-rience are certainly important, but can also make it easy to forget that these are the stories of groups who are, in many cases, still marginalized.

Fabien Maltais-BaydaThe McGill Daily

What are you doing this Weekend?A brief dose of realism at Image+Nation

As an art history student, inevitably ending up bewil-dered at the meaning of a

piece of contemporary art is a com-mon experience. Your immediate thought – though you would never admit it – is, “What the hell does that mean?” Upon an initial visit to Parisian Laundry’s new exhibit, which features a large, two-floor installation, titled Split, by Montreal artist Alexandre David, this bewil-dered thought came to mind.

Entering the main floor of the gallery, the viewer is confronted with two raised wooden plat-forms, constructed to undulate in a wave-like formation. In the middle of these platforms there is a low wooden ceiling supported by a single wooden beam. While gaz-

ing at the structure, a gallery assis-tant approached and informed me that visitors were encouraged to walk on the installation. My mind reeled – had I heard her correctly? You were allowed to step on the artwork? I cast years of museum etiquette aside as I placed my foot on the platform with trepidation. Fully stepping onto the installation, I expected alarm bells, sirens, secu-rity guards in ill-fitting blazers – yet, nothing happened. The beauty of this innovative, playful, and provoc-ative installation became clear, and the possibility of the artist’s inten-tions and motives began to present themselves.

David also plays with the view-er’s perceptions of space – defining and changing our interactions with the main and top floor of the gal-lery. By raising the floor and mak-ing a straight surface rise and fall, Split forces the viewer – or rather,

participant – to change the way they move about the room. No longer simply walking straight across, the participant ascends and descends, changing their viewpoint of the space within a short span of time. David’s low wooden ceiling also forces the participant to interact with the gallery in a different way, as the artist limits and restricts the viewers field of vision. He juxtapos-es this limited view with the free-dom and movement of the wooden platforms. This contrast asks the viewer to examine different percep-tions and viewpoints, and to consid-er how the place you are standing can affect your outlook.

Split allows the gallery to become a more playful and – dare I say – fun area, removing some of the barriers between art and life. These barriers often exist in insti-tutions, such as the museum and gallery, where art, contemporary

art especially, can become simply an object, and artistic intention can be merely a mystery. In these situations, art can be displaced from the meaningful reality of everyday life.

In addition to David’s installa-tion, Parisian Laundry is also cur-rently exhibiting the work of Paul Butler in the bunker of their gal-lery. While David’s work takes up a large part of the show, Butler’s What’s Within series of photo-collages and cut-outs are small bursts of color against the bunker’s cement walls. Butler has appropri-ated fashion magazine pages, in which he has cut out the central figure of the image, and replaced it with layers of images and collages. The artist’s cut outs question the viewer’s perception of magazine images, and comments on how quickly we glance at media images without absorbing social context

or detail. Butler’s works are all quite small in size (a bit smaller than a magazine page), acting as the perfect intimate counterpart to the large exuberance of David’s interactive installation.

Parisian Laundry’s exhibition is mischievous, provoking, and immensely enjoyable. David’s installation and Butler’s series of photo-collages ask the participant to change their perception of a normal moment in life, challeng-ing them to interact with space, art, and images differently. So if you’ve ever felt the urge to reach across a forbidding Do Not Touch sign at a museum or gallery, Split is the art-work for you. What better way to ponder contemporary art than sit right on top of it?

Victoria LessardThe McGill Daily

Art that moves you, literallyMontreal gallery’s latest exhibit transforms the viewer into a participant

The exhibit runs from November 5 to December 3 at Parisian Laundry (3550 St. Antoine Ouest).

Amina Batyreva | The McGill Daily

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.comCo m pen d i u m ! 22Lies, half-truths, and systemic bike violence!

Across1. Mixed breed5. Campaigner, for short8. Start of a refrain13. Biology lab supply14. Be a monarch15. Coil16. Sunburn soother17. Carbamide18. Draw forth19. Adjective for funds better spent on groceries than booze?22. Gets the picture23. Branch24. Refer27. Cute eating noise29. “Fiddlesticks!”33. Beauty pageant wear34. Pie cuts, essentially36. Bleat37. Sensibility, good judg-ment40. “Act your ___!”41. Matches with42. The E in H&E stain (histology)43. Desertlike45. Appear, with “up”46. Most recent47. Any car, affectionately49. Angler’s hope50. “Yikes!”58. Bitter59. It may be proper

60. Came down61. “Peer Gynt” composer62. Song and dance, e.g.63. Leuciscus leuciscus (kind of fish)64. Glove material65. Urinate66. Falling flakes

Down1. “Yes, ___”2. Grapefruit-orange-tanger-ine hybrid3. New Mexico art community4. Buried ___5. Runs smoothly6. Butter substitute7. Ballet move8. Not our9. Overhaul10. “Thanks ___!”11. Simile marker12. Canned14. Indian coin20. Bike parts21. Plant used for fiber in fabric production24. Book of maps25. Feudal lord26. Fashion historian James27. Civil rights org.28. “What are the ___?”30. Corpulent

31. Desert sight32. Lacks, briefly34. Ashcroft’s predecessor35. Conceive38. Abnormally active39. Things to scribble on44. Saw46. Encumbrances48. ___ fund49. Thug50. Binges51. Almond52. Niagara River source53. Become unhinged54. Apple leftover55. Distinctive flair56. Puerto ___57. One-dish meal

The Crossword FairiesThe McGill Daily

Remember, remember,the tenth of November

Intruders threaten students by defying biking-on-campus rulesMcGill pedestrians’ battle with cyclists reaches fever pitch

In the ongoing fight against the presence of wild and dangerous cyclists on cam-

pus, a violent outbreak occurred last Thursday night as a group of around Ten intimidating men dressed in black tore through the Milton gates and up past the James Administration building. Students just getting out of class around 4:30 p.m. were met by this would-be cavalry as they attempted to leave campus via University. Blocked on all sides from escaping, some stu-dents sat down in the pathway in sheer terror as their legs buckled beneath them. “I swear, I damn-near pissed myself as I saw them approaching,” reported one hap-less victim, “I mean, what’s a guy to do when he’s encountered by a gang of bikers dressed in blinding neon-yellow vests and protective white helmets, their powerful legs pumping hard at their emission-free vehicles? I just...I just sat down

and cried right there on the spot, man. I couldn’t take it.”

With the cyclists’ route blocked by trembling students, the gang proceeded to dismount and lift the front wheels of their bicycles high into the air, like a group of alumi-num-rubber mastodon perched high on their hind legs preparing to defend their territory. In a move of panic and desperation, a few in the cornered crowd tried to defend themselves by throwing class books and paints from art class, before attempting escape into the nearby James administration building. Once inside, they immediately ran to high ground, as far as possible from the menacing behemoths below. They found temporary ref-uge in a vacant 5th floor office, but their safety was soon compromised by a detachment of dismounted cyclists. One of them was reported to have said, “Occupy this, fuck-face!” before casting a student out the window in a fit of rage. Luckily, the student, known to dabble in amateur acrobatics, was able to break their fall without injury.

Videos clearly depicting the confrontation were quickly upload-ed to the internet and caused quite a buzz throughout the sphere of social media. Many expressed their support for the pedestrians, though a few trolls poked fun at the victims. “IF YOU DON’T WANT TO GET ATTACKED, DON’T WALK ON CAMPUS,.” one keyboard warrior exclaimed. An assembly of hundreds occurred the next day, where people from all over Montreal gathered to stand up against the scourge of campus bik-ers. “WE ARE MCGILL! WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS MOUNTED AGGRESSION!” shouted University Principal Pleather Bloomers. The rally ended with the thunderous roar of cannons, as the denizens plotted their retaliation. A police investigation is also pending in the matter. A phone interview with SPVM officer Antoine “Tony” Bologneux produced the following, “If I was there, I would have just got the whole lot of them in the face with pepper spray. Maybe some tear gas too for shits and giggles.”

Giles BraumeisterThe McGill Daily

Campus Bye! Bird Hunt escalates into a genocide of rare local breed of Redpath pigeonsPhoto by Bikuta Tangaman

In an effort to compete with the local charitable fight against the pigeon plague around downtown campus, flags have been raised by Group Undeniably Against Nightingale Oppression (GUANO). They argue that the local Redpath pigeon species (cleptomaniac reckles-sia) have been almost completely eradicated through heavy artillery usage. “Is this snow, or is it raining feathers?” asked a passerby.

— Compiled by Vicooti Tanga-tanga

The McGill Daily | Monday, November 14, 2011 | mcgilldaily.com 23

EDITORIAL

volume 101number 20

editorial 3480 McTavish St., Rm. B-24

Montreal, QC H3A 1X9

phone 514.398.6784fax 514.398.8318

mcgilldaily.com

coordinating editor Joan Moses

coordinating@mcgilldaily.com

coordinating news editor Henry Gass

news editorsQueen Arsem-O’Malley

Erin HudsonJessica Lukawiecki

features editorEric Andrew-Gee

commentary&compendium! editors Zachary Lewsen

Olivia Messer

culture editors Christina Colizza

Fabien Maltais-Bayda

science+technology editor Jenny Lu

health&education editor Melanie Kim

sports editor Andra Cernavskis

photo editor Victor Tangermann

illustrations editor Amina Batyreva

production&design editorsAlyssa Favreau

Rebecca Katzman

copy editor Peter Shyba

web editor Shannon Palus

le délit Anabel Cossette Civitella

rec@delitfrancais.com

cover designVIctor Tangermann

ContributorsEsma Balkir, Laurent Bastien Corbeil, David

Benrimoh, Juan Camilo Velásquez, Julia Boshyk, Edna Chan, Elaina Kauffman, Sarah

Kerr, Anthony Lecossois, Victoria Lessard, Michael Lee Murphy, Angus Sharpe, Annie

Shiel, Lily Simon, Colleen Stanton, Andreanne Stewart, Nirali Tanna, Evan Taylor, Ethan Yang

The Daily is proud to be a founding member of the Canadian University Press.

All contents © 2011 Daily Publications Society. All rights reserved. The content of this newspaper is the responsibil-

ity of The McGill Daily and does not necessarily represent the views of McGill University. Products or companies advertised in this newspaper are not necessarily endorsed by Daily staff.

Printed by Imprimerie Transcontinental Transmag. Anjou, Quebec. ISSN 1192-4608.

The Daily is published on most Mondays and Thursdays by the Daily Publications Society, an autonomous, not-for-profit organization whose membership includes all McGill

undergraduates and most graduate students.

3480 McTavish St., Rm. B-26Montreal, QC H3A 1X9

phone 514.398.6790fax 514.398.8318

advertising & general manager Boris Shedov sales representative Letty Matteo

ad layout & design Geneviève RobertMathieu Ménarddps board of directors

Marie Catherine Ducharme, Alyssa Favreau, Joseph Henry, Tyler Lawson, Sheehan Moore, Joan Moses, Mai Anh Tran-Ho, Aaron Vansintjan (chair [at] dailypublications.org), Debbie Wang

Changed, changed utterlyThe Daily, along with many students and staff, is still reeling from the events that

took place on our campus on the night of November 10. The Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) and McGill Security committed violence against students and professors on their own campus. The SPVM was using physical force, pepper spray, tear gas, and forcibly removing demonstrators from campus – a space that is rightfully theirs. Further, many members of the McGill community, some of whom were just bystanders, were assaulted and emotionally traumatized. Whether or not you agree with the demonstrators, these actions were surreal and appalling, particu-larly in a university environment. McGill is no longer the same.

James Administration is no longer just a building on campus. It is the place where you were pepper sprayed, the place where you were assaulted, the place where your sense of safety was violated. The emotional toll of these events will not soon be forgotten.

For the healing process to begin, the entire campus community must come together. Already, students are standing in solidarity and supporting one another after this traumatic event. A number of students convened in the SSMU office Thursday night, where SSMU employees offered assistance to those who needed first aid. Many other campus organizations – including the Sexual Assault Centre of McGill Students’ Society, the McGill Student Emergency Response Team, and the McGill Legal Information Clinic – are offering support to the individuals that have been affected. Students are leaning on each other, and uniting to overcome what occurred.

The administrations response was as disorganized as it was insensitive. It took 24 hours for the administration to issue a statement, and, when they finally did, it came in the form of an email from Principal Heather Munroe-Blum to the McGill commu-nity. The only reference to the violence that our Principal could muster was that the police dispersed the crowd “by its usual means.” This is a callous way to refer to the violence that has changed our community.

Students deserve to know exactly what happened that night, and why. The admin-istration must join students in investigating and assessing Thursday’s events. Munroe -Blum announced in the email that the Dean of Law Daniel Jutras will be complet-ing an “independent investigation of the events,” to be completed and sent to her by December 15. This is a necessary, but insufficient, step. Students and faculty must be involved every step of the way and must be privy to any evidence that comes to light, so that the investigation is not monopolized by an individual with vested interests in the University’s reputation. We hope that the inquiry is transparent and fair, and that the results are quickly made public. Moreover, the administration must acknowledge and denounce the brutality that took place Thursday night, and its severe effects on the McGill community.

Campus life should be built on trust between all of its constituent parts – that trust is now broken at McGill. The Daily only hopes that the administration, faculty, staff, and students can mutually support each other and rebuild a deeply shaken community.

Editor’s NoteIn the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that members of

The Daily’s editorial board were present at Thursday’s demonstration, some as reporters and some as active participants.