The McGill Daily Issue 107 Vol 9 by McGill Daily

McGill Daily THE

Volume 107, Issue 9 | Monday, October 30, 2017 | mcgilldaily.com Crêpe Zusanne since 1911

Published by The Daily Publications Society, a student society of McGill University. The McGill Daily is located on unceded Kanien’kehá:ka territory.

AfrotroniX broadcasts Afroturism PAGE 18

Contents

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

LeS

-En

EDITORIAL

Taking a stance against Bill 62

Divest book blockade protest Susanne Fortier interviewed by campus media SHERBROOKE ST-LAURENT

CAFECAMPUS.COM

LE PETERSON IS READY TO WELCOME YOU

art essay

Commentary

Against the theft of culture on Halloween

IN THE HEART OF THE QUARTIER DES SPECTACLES

What it means to democratise SSMU

MODEL LOFT AVAILABLE TO VISIT

Gift Bag for first

brides! 1-BEDROOM UNITS FROM

$ $

305,000

+ TX

LOFTS FROM

330,000

+ TX

PENTHOUSE FROM

794,500

+ TX

Brain-computer interface usage Sustainability and technology

sports

Exploring childhood sports memories

culture

Bianca Muniz performs live AfrotoniX: a review

Letters

Contact

DISCOVER EVERYTHING LE PETERSON HAS TO OFFER.

coordinating@ mcgilldaily.com

SALES CENTER

405, DE LA CONCORDE, 33rd FLOOR (SUITE 3301) MONTREAL 514-904-8855

to learn more.

LePeterson.com

Love photography?

Scitech

Write for the Daily.

100

Features

Healing after abusive relationships

NEWS

SSMU General Assembly

57 PRINCE-ARTHUR E

SUNDAY

Get involved with the Photos section at The Daily this year.

NOVEMBER 5

photos@mcgilldaily.com

1170 Peel Street, Montreal | 11am to 5pm Show your student ID and get in Free.

The Windsor Ballrooms

www.elegantwedding.ca

Or, drop by our office at room B-24 of the Shatner Building. No experience necessary.

EDITORIAL

Volume 107 Issue 9

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

editorial board

3480 McTavish St., Rm. B-24 Montreal, QC H3A 0G3

phone 514.398.6784 fax 514.398.8318 mcgilldaily.com

The McGill Daily is located on unceded Kanien’kehá:ka territory. coordinating editor

Inori Roy

coordinating@mcgilldaily.com

managing editor

Bill 62 is Islamophobia disguised as “religious neutrality”

Marina Cupido coordinating news editor

vacant

news editors

Rayleigh Lee Nora McCready commentary + compendium! editor

Jude Khashman culture editors

Caroline Macari Arno Pedram features editors

Vita Azaro Tai Jacob

science + technology editor

Tony Feng

sports editor

Louis Sanger multimedia editor

Julia Bugiel photos editors

Claire Grenier Adela Kwok illustrations editors

Laura Brennan Nelly Wat copy editor

Jenna Yanke design + production editor

Vacant

web editor

Vacant

le délit

Mahaut Engerant

rec@delitfrancais.com

cover design

Gloria Francois

contributors

Flora Aldridge, Emre Benoit-Savci, Nadia Boachie, Annabella Chen, Laure-Anne Dubuc-Kanary, Gloria Francois, Jason Gales, Norman Hoffman, Molly Picone, Tommy O’Neill Sanger, Jacob Shapiro, Ana Paula Sanchez, Denzel SutherlandWilson, Rosalind Sweeney-McCabe, Alex Vachon, Rahma Wiryomartono

n Wednesday October 18, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 62, called the “Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality.” The bill explicitly requires municipal and provincial public servants and those accessing public services to uncover their faces, in order to eliminate religious symbols from the public sphere. It includes services such as hospitals, libraries, universities, public schools, and public transit. Initially, Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée maintained that “as long as the [public] service is being rendered, the face should be uncovered;” she later softened her stance by clarifying that people are expected to uncover their faces only under specific circumstances—for example, when entering public transit. The major political parties most opposed to Bill 62, the Parti Quebecois (PQ) and the Coalition Avenir Quebec, argued that it “didn’t go far enough.” While Bill 62 targets those who wear the niqab and burqa under the guise of ‘religious neutrality,’ Quebec’s claim to be secular and religiously neutral is contestable. Religious neutrality stops short of removing Catholic symbols, like the cross in Quebec’s Assembly Hall, considered to be part of Quebec’s “cultural legacy.” Yet other religions are excluded from the “cultural legacy” claim. Bill 62 supporters are thus making a discriminatory distinction between which religious practices are accepted and which are not. Vallée has attempted to deflect criticism of the bill by maintaining that it does not target religious minorities and in fact prohibits all face coverings, such as sunglasses. Yet this bill for “religious neutrality” only addresses face covering, and in Quebec the majority of women who cover their faces for religious purposes are Muslim. In addition, supporters of the law have iterated the need for the bill as a matter of “safety and

respect.” Couching the bill in the rhetoric of “safety” indicates that it responds to a perceived danger; given the law’s clear discrimination against Muslim women, we can understand it to be responding to a constructed fear of Muslim people. While the bill doesn’t explicitly target those who wear the burqa and niqab, its ambiguity leaves room for law enforcement to apply it as they see fit. The bill sanctions state violence against Muslim women and emboldens regular citizens to commit acts of racial violence. Hate crimes against Muslims are already on the rise, up by more than 250 per cent in the past four years. This rationalization of state control over religious expression, specifically that of Muslims, also relates to the patronizing belief that such a bill “liberates” Muslim women. However, the bill that supposedly responds to the coercion of Muslim women to wear face coverings is in itself coercive by demanding that they take these face coverings off. Bill 62 is a direct threat to the safety of the Muslim community, and should be treated as such. We must not wait for it to be challenged in court, as the Parti Quebecois is calling for all such challenges to be automatically blocked. Instead, those who can should take action immediately by writing to their political representatives. Furthermore, we must speak up if we witness the harassment of women wearing a niqab or a burqa at the hands of law enforcement or civilians. There are Facebook groups such as “Faire le trajet ensemble MTL I’ll ride with you” for those willing to ride public transport with women who feel unsafe riding alone. We cannot speak on behalf of the Muslim community, and so we all hold responsibility to research and engage in strong opposition to this discriminatory bill. —The McGill Daily Editorial Board

ERRATum “Trash in Milton-Parc,” October 23, News page 4, stated that the only partners in the Community Actions and Relations Endeavours agreement were the Students Society of McGill University (SSMU) and the Milton Parc Citizens Community (MPCC). In fact, the Dean of Students Office of McGill University is also a partner in this agreement.

3480 McTavish St., Rm. B-26 Montreal, QC H3A 1G3 phone 514.398.6790 fax 514.398.8318 advertising & general manager Boris Shedov sales representative Letty Matteo ad layout & design Geneviève Robert

Mathieu Ménard

dps board of directors

Yves Boju, Marc Cataford (Chair), Marina Cupido, Mahaut Engerant, Ikram Mecheri, Taylor Mitchell, Hannah Raffin, Inori Roy, Boris Shedov, Rahma Wiryomartono, Xavier Richer Vis All contents © 2017 Daily Publications Society. All rights reserved. The content of this newspaper is the responsibility 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.

coordinating@mcgilldaily.com news@mcgilldaily.com commentary@mcgilldaily.com culture@mcgilldaily.com features@mcgilldaily.com scitech@mcgilldaily.com sports@mcgilldaily.com

Managing PHOTOs ILLUSTRATIONS DESIGN + PRODUCTION COPY WEB + Social Media MULTIMEDIA

managing@mcgilldaily.com photos@mcgilldaily.com illustrations@mcgilldaily.com design@mcgilldaily.com copy@mcgilldaily.com web@mcgilldaily.com multimedia@mcgilldaily.com

news

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Tense debate at General Assembly GA sees allegations of anti-Semitism; further criticism of President

Nora McCready The McGill Daily Content warning: anti-Semitism

he Students Society of McGill University (SSMU) Fall General Assembly (GA) convened on Monday, October 23. Over 200 students attended. The GA convenes once each semester and is the main forum in which students who are not directly involved in student government can make their voices heard. Motion of non-confidence in SSMU President The night began on a contentious note, with Arts Representative Kevin Zhou proposing a suspension of Robert’s rules in order to adopt all late motions to the agenda. Normally, this would not be in order, but due to a failure on behalf of the SSMU President, Muna Tojiboeva, to notify the public of deadlines for submitting motions, all of the motions were sent in late. The proposed motions included a motion advocating for SSMU to urge McGill to support and participate in the International Institute of Education’s Syria consortium for higher education in crisis, a motion for SSMU to condemn the disciplinary action which was then being taken against Masuma Asad Khan by Dalhousie University, a motion regarding changes to the SSMU Sustainability Policy, and a motion of non-confidence in the SSMU President. Later during the assembly a motion was proposed by a member regarding the SSMU building closure. The audience voted to suspend Robert’s rules and adopt the agenda as a whole, however, SSMU Director, Jonathan Glustein, took issue with the method of counting the vote and demanded a recount. This led to a protracted debate about the method of voting, Glustein asserting multiple times that he could not accept a vote that wasn’t counted by hand. Ultimately, after considerable delay and confusion, the vote passed and the agenda was not adopted. All motions were added to the agenda, however, except the motion of non-confidence in SSMU President Muna Tojiboeva. After a vote by secret ballot that took roughly half an hour to administer, the motion was rejected, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed to adopt it onto the agenda despite earning the support of more than half the students in the room. Some members expressed frustration with this decision, voicing concerns about the lack of information Tojiboeva made public about the deadline for submitting motions. Catherine, a U3 Arts student, urged the Speaker to reconsider the vote. “I’m wondering why this is our voting procedure when the only reason why we have to do this is

because of Muna’s incompetency,” said Catherine. “This reinforces the motion that was proposed because she messed up.” This proposal was not in order, however, and the motion of non-confidence was not debated. Nominating the new Board of Directors Following this contentious vote, the agenda was adopted, and the assembly moved on to ratifying the 2017/2018 Board of Directors. The Board of Directors is the highest governing body in SSMU, with the power to ratify motions passed in Legislative Council and references from the Judicial Board. According to the Constitution, it must be made up of 12 members: four SSMU executives, four legislative councilors, and four membersat-large. The question of whether or not this combination of Directors is the only permissible composition for the Board is currently the subject of a tense debate in the upper echelons of SSMU. This is because until late September, when VP Student Life Jemark Earle took office as a Director, there were only three executives and an overwhelming nine members-at-large serving, throwing the Board’s decisions during this period into questionable legal territory.

Due to a failure on behalf of SSMU President Muna Tojiboeva to notify the public of deadlines for submitting motions, all of the motions were sent in late. On November 15, however, the Board for the new academic year is scheduled to take office. As such, the nominations up for debate at the GA included President Muna Tojiboeva, VP Finance Arisha Khan, VP Internal Maya Koparkar, VP Student Life Jemark Earle, Vivian Campbell, Madeleine Kausel, Noah Lew, Mana Moshkfaroush, Josephine Wright-O’Manique, Jessica Rau, Alexandre Scheffel, and Kevin Zhou. The four executives are currently serving on the Board, as are members-at-large Lew and Scheffel. The President and the VP Finance are constitutionally mandated to serve on the Board, so the nominations of Tojiboeva and Khan were not up for vote, and they were automatically ratified.

Students vote at the General Assembly. What followed was a debate about whether or not to divide the question of ratification for the other ten nominees, meaning the audience would have to vote on each nomination separately instead of ratifying the list in its entirety. VP Internal Maya Koparkar motioned to divide the question, and despite vehement opposition from a few students, the motion passed. Vivian Campbell, Madeleine Kausel, Maya Koparkar, Jemark Earle, Mana Moshkfaroush, Jessica Rau and Kevin Zhou were all voted onto this year’s Board with overwhelming support. Noah Lew, Josephine Wright-O’Manique, and Alexandre Scheffel all fell short of the threshold to be ratified onto the Board of Directors. Noah Lew was the first contentious nominee. When the Speaker announced that he had not been voted onto the Board, a large group of people stood up and filed out of the ballroom. It was subsequently announced via social media that the group had left in order to protest the vote against Lew, which they perceived to be motivated by anti-Semitism. Other business Following the ratification of the Board of Directors, the audience voted in favour of the motion advocating for SSMU to lobby the university to provide scholarships and other educational supports to Syrian refugees. A U3 Arts student expressed support for the motion: “2.2 million Syrian students outside of the country are not in school. [...] It’s safe to say that the majority of refugees in the countries that are taking [...] refugees aren’t being educated properly. [...] You can understand why they are being called the ‘lost generation’ [...] and why

Claire Grenier | The McGill Daily

it’s being called an education crisis. And, despite these statistics, despite the fact that so many nations have taken refugees, there has been no form of institutional support for people who need to continue their post-secondary education.” The GA also voted with overwhelming support to condemn the disciplinary action being taken by Dalhousie University against Masuma Asad Khan. VP External Connor Spencer gave context for the motion.

The group had left in order to protest the vote against Lew, which they perceived to be motivated by anti-Semitism. “This is a student executive at the Dalhousie Student Union who had a formal complaint lodged against her for her activism work within the union, and the university decided to entertain it, [accusing her] of discrimination against white people that she has perpetuated by speaking of white fragility in the context of anti-colonial Canada 150 events.” The GA also voted to pass the motion amending the SSMU sustainability policy. After these motions pass, U1 Arts student, Nadine Pelaez, an exec from the Player’s Theatre, brought a motion to the floor asking SSMU to draft a concrete action plan for dealing with the building closure. They communicated feeling abandoned by SSMU

given the value of the Players Theatre to students, and stressed the failure of SSMU to make arrangements for temporary space during the scheduled Spring renovations. Pelaez quoted from the SSMU website to stress the importance of this motion: “SSMU’s primary obligation shall be to support affiliated student groups and [...] student endeavors shall be prioritized over any other sort of endeavor in SSMU’s space.” Anastasia Dudley, a U3 student and representative from Midnight Kitchen echoed these sentiments. The audience passed the motion with overwhelming support. During the question period, Arno Pedram, a Culture Editor at The Daily, asked President Muna Tojiboeva to respond to the fact that a majority of the students present voted in favour of bringing forward a motion of non-confidence in her. Tojiboeva responded by claiming that she is supported by the larger McGill community, and will not be influenced by the non-confidence of a comparatively small group, and then proceeded to accuse the audience of anti-Semitism. “There are 24,000 people at McGill so clearly 160 people at the GA are not the majority. I would also like to point out the fact that today 160 people voted no for a director only for one reason, because he was Jewish. [...] At the moment, I represent the minority in the student politics but I actually represent the majority at McGill. I’m sick and tired of the GAs being seen as the majority.” Pedram responded, “Yes, this body isn’t the majority of students, but it still represents students who care.” A longer version of this article has been published online at mcgilldaily.com.

Photo: Casey Kelbaugh

Essay Writing Contest for Engineering Students Wattco, manufacturer of electric heating elements and controls, is looking for submissions of 2000word essays on the following topic: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Different Types of Industrial Electric Heaters in Industries and their effectiveness in their applications.â&#x20AC;?

MA and PhD in Decorative Arts, Design History, Material Culture Students at Bard Graduate Center in New York City study the cultural history of the material world from the arts of antiquity to the

Address 38 West 86th Street, NYC

Open House November 6, 6 pm Application Deadline January 5, 2018

For more information admissions@bgc.bard.edu bgc.bard.edu/admissions

Papers should be submitted in Word file format (.docx) to contest@wattco.com. The student who submits the most interesting and accurate paper will be eligible for an apprenticeship at Wattco in summer 2018.

New deadline! November 30, 2017 WATTCO.COM All submitted work will be property of WATTCO INC. - For questions about this contest please email contest@wattco.com. Phone calls not accepted.

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

News

used book fundraiser part two! Grab a book from our selection of English and French books, including recent literature, essays, graphic novels, and more! DATE:

Tuesday, October 31

TIME:

From 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

LOCATION: William Shatner (University Centre) Main floor, entrance lobby PRICE:

Pay What You Want

All proceeds from the fundraiser will be donated to the Native Women’s Shelter of Montreal.

VOTE YES ! The Daily Publications Society (DPS) is holding a referendum between November 13 and 16 that will determine the continued existence of The McGill Daily and Le Délit. The student media is an important source for critical reporting and creative work on campus – vote yes for the press!

For more info: savethedaily.ca

McGill Daily THE

Divest McGill “book blockade” protest Former Petro-Canada executive appointed to university position

Ana-Paula Sánchez The McGill Daily

n October 25, around 30 students gathered outside the James Administration Building for a “book blockade” organized by Divest McGill. The group set up book stands in front of the entrance to promote awareness of fossil fuel’s role in climate change. The demonstration was planned strategically to precede the Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility’s (CAMSR) first meeting of the academic year. Divest McGill is a student run group on campus that demands the university divest from fossil fuel companies. The campaign at McGill has been running for the past five years. Morgen Bertheussen, a member of Divest McGill, told the Daily that “[we’re] here today, because CASMR. [...] decided to reject our [last] demand [to divest] because they had said the worst effects aren’t being felt today and there was no social injury to McGill’s investment into fossil fuels.” According to the terms of reference for CAMSR by the Board of Governors, “the term ‘social injury’ means the grave injurious impact which the activities of a company is found to have on consumers, employees, or other persons, or on the natural environment. Such activities include those which violate, or frustrate the enforcement of rules of domestic or international law intended to protect individuals against deprivation of health, safety, or basic freedoms, or to protect the natural environment.” “There’s so much evidence that proves [...] that social injury is happening. We’re meeting them today with books on the fossil fuel industry impact and [on] climate change.”said Bertheussen. “In a few steps, they have all this information to divest from the fossil fuel industry. The new chair worked for Petro-Canada for 18 years.” The new chair is Cynthia Verreault, who will serve on the Board until June 30th, 2020. An

alumni of McGill, Verrault also worked as the Director of Retail Services at Petro-Canada from 1982 till 2000. Another member of Divest McGill, Annabelle CoutureGuillet expressed that “We wanted something educational, it doesn’t always work to be confrontational. For me divestment is about talking about climate change, yes there’s the political side of it, but it’s really just bringing attention.” Couture-Guillet expanded on this by saying “Our goal is to interact with the community at McGill. [Climate change] is what many of us study every day in class. That’s maybe the most ironic part of the whole thing.”

“We wanted something educational. It doesn’t always work to be confrontational. For me divestment is about talking about climate change, yes there’s the political side of it, but it’s really just bringing attention.” –Annabelle Couture-Gulliet, Divest McGill member “The McGill administration is willing to set up meetings with us, whether these meetings are effective is another question. They

recommended a test fund for fossil free investment, and this fund has been implemented but it is very small, starting with five million,” noted Hala Fakhroo, a member of Divest McGill at the event. Comparably, McGill’s endowment is $1.6 billion.

“Our goal is to interact with the community at McGill. [Climate change] is what many of us study every day in class. That’s maybe the most ironic part of the whole thing.” –Annabelle Couture-Gulliet, Divest McGill member “It’s nice to see faces of friends who support this cause, and building a community of caring of this really relevant issue. We’re really dependent on our people power, we try to have an event once a semester but we meet often to engage. Small projects based on committee work are usually implemented,” Bertheussen later added. As members entered into the James Administration Building, many seemed surprised by the demonstration. Ram Panda, Chair of the McGill Board of Governors, and the new chair of CAMSR shook hands, smiled, and made some stifled small talk with Divest McGill members. Couture-Guillet commented, “it’s important we establish a relationship, rather than have a contrarian discourse. Obviously, it’s still very frustrating, but more progress can be done if we’re on good terms with each other.”

News

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Sitting down with the Principal Suzanne Fortier talks mental health, sexual violence, and fentanyl

Inori Roy & Rayleigh Lee The McGill Daily

n October 27, Principal Suzanne Fortier, Student Services Executive Director Martine Gauthier, and Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Ollivier Dyens sat down with campus media to answer their questions. Before the question period began, Fortier took the chance to discuss the importance of respect on campus, drawing parallels between conflict and lack of respect in the McGill context and her understanding of the Rwandan genocide. Speaking of her recent trip to Kigali, capital city of Rwanda, Fortier said, “It is impressive to see a country rebuild itself with a lot of strength and resilience. [...] it is a reminder for all of us to be vigilant about respecting other people, no matter what they come from, no matter what their religion is, no matter what their ethnicity is. We need to respect people as equal to us [...] when you go to a place like Kigali, or Rwanda in general, you see what happens when you let go of that vigilance, when you let go of those principles. [...] Whenever [....] a situation on our campus where I see any signs of this happening, I will not be there watching it passively. We all need to stand up, very clearly, to defend the principles of our university. [...] As principal, there is no role in my job that is more important than protecting the principles of our university and making sure that people who come to our university can be assured that they will be treated with respect.” Bull and Bear (B&B): In September of this year, yourself and Deputy Provost Ollivier Dyens came into a SSMU senate caucus to advocate against the idea of a fall reading week. Why, in your opinion, should McGill be one of the only major universities in Canada to not have a fall reading week? Suzanne Fortier (SF): We are not similar to many universities in that many students come from outside of the immediate community. [...] If you start the semester early or end it later, it has an impact on a very large proportion of our students, and [...] when we consult the students, we don’t have unanimous views on whether or not, and how to do it. Some students are worried about paying rent in August, or not having enough time for their holiday break anyway. [...] It’s not practical, this is not a cause for us because of practical considerations, and particularly [what] the students we consult share with us.

McGill Daily (MD): We recently recieved a concerning email regarding McGill Mental Health Services. The author says, “McGill has just about eliminated actual treatment services, especially expert psychotherapy services.[...] McGill Mental Health psychiatrists [...] are dismayed by recent changes, but are too frightened to act themselves, [therefore] have already left or are planning to leave.” While the new changes involved are well intentioned, students have also expressed discontentment. How does McGill’s administration respond? Ollivier Dyens (OD): [The author of the letter] has had problems at McGill, [...] and I think that would give you some perspective as to who this person is. [...] I would find it very interesting that this person tells us what to do at McGill when this person is not at McGill, doesn’t know what’s going on at McGill [...] I don’t put a lot of value on what this person is saying, you can look it up for yourself. Martine Gauthier (MG): Our counselling area is the area that really provides the support for our students, and we’ve increased capacity in that area. We’ve increased capacity for students, [...] we’re looking for different ways to expand our services. [...] We’d added two case workers [...] we’re also going to be adding triage advisors. Le Delit (LD): So McGill’s policy on sexual violence has been rated a C-, what do you think about this score and how do you plan on making it higher? SF: We now have a sexual violence policy approved by senate, we were one of the first universities in this province to have a policy. [...] It is essential to separate the support that people must recieve right away when they need it, [...] from the investigation that must occur. When you’re under a difficult situation, suffering, it’s not the time to assault you with an investigation. OD: For the first time in our history, there were no reported incidents of sexual assault at Frosh. Somehow, the things we are doing [...] are improving. There’s been [...] workshops across the university for students. [...] The Provost has created an office, we’ve hired another person, there’s an implementation committee that’s been struck, [...] there’s also a committee that’s looking at a survey [...] these two groups will come together, tell us their recommendations on how to implement many of the recommendations. My concern is not how we compare to other universities, my concern is having the

Suzanne Fortier, McGill Principal. best, safest, most welcoming environment for everyone. ‘ McGill Tribune (MT): In an email you sent to the entire student body, you announced an investigation into allegations of antisemetism at this most recent General Assembly. Can you expand on the mandate of that investigation, and also verify whether you are investigating whether SSMU breached it’s charters or bylaws? SF: It’s an allegation [of antisemetism], and we have to do the fair thing, and investigate. But I think we have to ask ourselves, how many people on our campus are subjected to situations that are discriminatory, disrespectful, and so that’s a longer piece of work that we need to do, and that’s why the task force has been set up. [...] We have a person with whom we will discuss the exact process of the investigation, and the scope of the investigation. [...] If a similar situation occurred where all the women had been voted out, I would do the same thing. B&B: Given the fentanyl crisis that’s currently going on, what steps have been taken to address the Quebec government’s policy on who can distribute Naloxone kits? MG: Dr. Hashana Perera, who is our director of Health Services, has been very active on this front, and actually began preparations this summer as she saw the trend moving east. So this week we actually finished training, we have as of this week trained a hundred people to actually administer Naloxone. [...] Our McGill Student Emer-

Claire Grenier | The McGill Daily

gency Response Team (MSERT), [...] security, [...] floor fellows, [...] residence life managers, [...] night stewards. We have over 100 [...] antidotes on campus. MD: Issues of allegations of sexual assault against a McGIll professor have been unresponsive, relatively, and students investigating sexual violence at McGill are constantly being stopped by the administration. Holding abusive professors accountable is just as important as investigating allegations of antisemetism, why is this not taking place? SF: People at this university are not fully aware of the laws of our country and province, regarding privacy and access to information. [...] When it comes to access to information, there are certain things that are to be kept private. You will not hear about investigations [...] the absence of information does not mean the absence of investigation. [...] If people ask us questions that we cannot answer, publicly, that is because we have privacy legislation that we must abide by. B&B: Accessibility is a major concern for students with injuries, or simply mobility issues on campus. What can be done to improve accessibility on campus? MG: In our OSD, McGill reinvested almost a million dollars. [...] We hired a number of positions, among them an accessibility officer. [He] knows our campus very, very well, and is working with another advisor, who is a gentleman who uses a wheelchair, and together they

have been [...] identifying areas that could be improved through very simple methods. MD: You mentioned that while we dont hear about [investigations regarding sexual violence], it doesn’t mean that there is no investigation. But we’re talking about multiple faculties, with a range of— SF: Let me put it very simply. If there is an allegation, a serious allegation, we do investigate. I don’t want to talk about a specific case here. I’ll talk in general. If there’s a serious allegation, we will investigate. Now, we will investigate in the context in which we live, which has a respect for privacy, and a respect for [...] universal justice. [...] Sometimes people in society in general, and at McGill, want to have a public disclosure when this is not allowed, not permitted, and not appropriate. MD: Yes, I agree with you that we should work within the rules, and privacy and rights are very important, but at the same time, what we’re seeing is recurring patterns of professors. It’s almost become common knowledge to students, and— SF: This is what you’ve heard. [...] If there are serious allegations, we will look into it [...] within the authority that we have in a university. We are not a court of law. We are a university. So let’s make sure we understand where we have authority, where we don’t, what we can do, what we can’t. This is the context here. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

ARt essay

‘Banff National Park,’ Inori Roy

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

commentary

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

I am not your dollar-store Indian Denzel SutherlandWilson Commentary Writer Content warning: anti-Indigenous racism

ne of my first memories is of my grandfather Ts’basa, a hereditary chief of the Fireweed clan, wearing his full regalia in the feast hall. I couldn’t have been more than three years old. In my memory his button blanket and head dress have the presence of a mountain. I would like nothing more than to gain the knowledge and respect necessary to become a chief, and wear traditional Gitxsan chiefly regalia. However, in Gitxsan culture, it is unlikely that someone like me, an aspiring anthropologist with an am’shu’wa

Alice Shen | The McGill Daily

Culture is not a costume

(non-Gitxsan) mom, will be chosen to lead. I respect this and would never knowingly disrespect Gitxsan protocol. I can understand why people who don’t understand the history and laws behind regalia would want to dress like one of our chiefs—even on Halloween. But please, don’t. This is just my story. I’m not the voice for Indigenous students at McGill, or my nation. I am only speaking on behalf of myself. I find it both funny and tragic how Indigenous people have to constantly clarify that. Because maybe there are Indigenous people who don’t really care how you dress up this Halloween, and they have every right to their opinion. I’m also fairly certain those people wouldn’t mind if you did not dress up like them. It would be nice if I didn’t need to have an opinion on a Halloween costume, but that’s not my reality. I have to take a stance on this—because of where I come from, and because of the hardships that my ancestors had to persevere. Because of this responsibility, I recently emailed someone at “Halloweencostumes.com” inquiring about why they still carried costumes that inaccurately (and disrespectfully) depict Indigenous people. The representative assured me that such “costumes” were mostly for theater productions and history projects. Firstly, I would be concerned to see a “sexy Pocahontas” in any school, both because of its reinforcement of the trope that sexualizes Indigenous women, and its legitimizing of inaccurate portrayals of regalia in a learning environment. Nevertheless, all I could think was how silly it was of me to assume that people shopping on halloweencostumes.com would be searching for Halloween costumes, when they are clearly looking for educational pieces on my culture. Usually, people would be quick to label this as “cultural appropriation,” but I loathe that term. What does it even mean? The first response to come up on Google is Wikipedia’s definition: “the adoption or use of the element of one culture by members of another culture.” When I see someone wearing an “Indian Brave” costume, it doesn’t feel like an “adoption” of an Indigenous

culture. However, it does feel like a disrespect and desecration of many Indigenous cultures. Those costumes do not represent Indigenous people, and they never have. They actually represent some am’shu’wa fantasy of how an “Indian” looks. Maybe the costumes are only supposed to honour the dead Indians that they allegedly depict.Wouldn’t that be ironic, eh? Disrespecting living Indigenous people in an attempt to honour the dead ones.

tification of Indigenous women. I find this especially disrespectful since, like many Indigenous nations, Gitxsan are matrilineal and have many female chiefs. Someone truly concerned with honouring Indigenous people would have the respect to not dress as a dollar store version of one. That is the part that never made sense to me. Indigenous peoples have been quite outspoken against the use of our identity as mascots or costumes, but still, certain am’shu’wa

Not only are the costumes disrespectful, they are a reminder of the genocide that needed to happen for am’shu’wa to feel legitimate on this land. Still, most often people claim that they are honouring Indigenous people by appropriating Hollywood iconography. In Grade 10, my French teacher wore a painfully inaccurate costume that was most likely marketed as “Reservation Royalty” or “Indian Maiden”. When I told her that I did not appreciate her costume, she insisted that it was meant to “honour Indians.” I thought, “Well, there’s a real life ‘Indian’ right in front of you, and I don’t feel so honoured.” It would be nice if I didn’t have to educate my own teacher on what’s honouring, and what’s insulting. It would also be nice if clueless retailers didn’t make any products that desecrate the power of regalia. Not only are the costumes disrespectful, they are a reminder of the genocide that needed to happen for am’shu’wa to feel legitimate on this land. The same genocide that led to me writing this article. These costumes usually depict a romanticized chief/warrior for men, or an eroticized Indigenous maiden/princess for women. Firstly, in Gitxsan culture, the regalia that people on Halloween (poorly) attempt to recreate is reserved for use in ceremony, and should only be worn by those with the hereditary right. I’ve seen more non-Indigenous people wearing headdresses as Halloween costumes than I’ve seen Gitxsan chiefs in their full regalia. Yet what angers me the most are the costumes meant for women. I do not identify as a woman, and I do not mean to speak on their behalf, but it feels obvious to me that these costumes stem from, and reproduce, the fetishization and objec-

Going up to an am’shu’wa person to confront them about their costume is and has been extremely stressful for me, and probably for other racialized folks as well. It’s funny how mad people can get when you take away their freedom to discriminate. Us Indigenous folks have a lot of other things to worry about, so I would really appreciate it if I didn’t see any dollar store Indians this Halloween. Sabax. (The end.) There will be a panel and discussion on cultural appropriation Monday, October 30th, 5-7 PM in the SSMU Ballroom. Check out the event on Facebook, Decolonizing Halloween: Culture Vultures & Us.

insist that they are honouring us. They don’t seem to think we understand identity politics, or, maybe they don’t believe we managed to survive the attempted cultural genocide. We are still here. If you’ve made it this far in the article, you’re most likely not the problem. At the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone in a poorly crafted Pocahontas costume this Halloween. I wouldn’t be surprised, but I’d still be sad. So please, for my sake and for the sake of many other racialized students on campus: go as a jellyfish or anything really. But please, do not dress up as an Indian, or wear blackface, or find some other new fun way to be racist. It is disheartening to see these costumes keep inexplicably popping up in stores. The only reason they are still there is that people keep buying them. The stores that sell them aren’t intentionally racist, they’re just ignorant and greedy. So, please don’t buy them, and discourage a friend or two as well. Don’t go as a jellyfish just because I told you to, or because going as an Indian is offensive or “not PC”. Wear any (non-racist) costume you want because you are a good person, have a strong sense of social responsibility, and because you can get a little more creative than that. Alice Shen | The McGill Daily

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Commentary

Let’s really democratize SSMU

Why student participation in SSMU today is as important as ever

alexandre vachon & jacob shapiro Commentary Writers Content warning: anti-Semitism

y way of introduction, we feel it is important to note that this article was submitted before the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) General Assembly (GA), which took place on Monday October 23. The original paragraphs below focus on the ways in which the Democratize SSMU campaign and President Muna Tojiboeva both undermine and co-opt democracy for their own political purposes. However, in light of recent events, we find it necessary to preface this article by highlighting that perpetuating modes of anti-Semitism under the guise of democracy is deeply offensive and destructive. There is a recurrent narrative that blames Jews for intentionally controlling and subverting the general will for their own purposes; these views should never be supported nor tolerated. While not directly related, it is important to note that the Daily was cited in a SSMU Equity complaint about anti-Semitism less than a year ago. Between the two of us, we have volunteered for and worked in different political parties, social justice organizations, and our local and campus communities. Within many of these spaces, both of us noticed widespread criticism of SSMU. Since arriving at McGill, we’ve heard talk of scandal and controversy; resignations and calls for public apologies.

The controversies surrounding the student union deferred us from participating in any of SSMU’s committees. The controversies surrounding the student union deterred us from participating in any of SSMU’s committees. So, like many students, we use SSMU’s services, join and even lead clubs, and go to Gert’s, all while having as little to do with our student union’s politics as possible. When we first heard of the recently launched “Democratize SSMU” campaign to “unite for a better [and fairer] student union,” we were inter-

ested, and maybe even a little optimistic. Having participated in Model UN, debate teams, high school student government, and riding youth advisory councils, we welcomed this call to action. We could not help but imagine a truly democratized student union: one with clear, accessible systems and rules that would facilitate better representation of our entire student body. The Shatner building would be the hub for exchange and innovation; a place where students in different faculties, from different backgrounds, and with different political opinions and visions of society could debate, discuss, and engage in open dialogue around how we can improve the institution for all. Through this process, we would hold our university and the student body accountable to the protection of all students, especially when certain events may render one group more particularly vulnerable or uncomfortable. Indeed, let’s democratize SSMU; we were sold. Yet, as we read through Democratize SSMU’s goals, we found that the campaign lacked commitment to a wholesale rethinking of our system. They do not engage with questions around making the student union more generally accessible, e.g. through reforming the GA, nor do they present a vision for increasing participation in SSMU’s elections. Instead, as the narrowly-defined two line “about” section on their facebook page suggests, they seem to be focused on “reacti[ng] to the unjust SSMU BoD ruling declaring BDS unconstitutional.” Their emphasis on reforming the Board of Directors and the Judicial Board– the two institutions in SSMU that have recently posed challenges to the BDS movement– also lends itself to the conclusion that they are most concerned with passing BDS at McGill, under the guise of broader democratization. Meanwhile, Muna Tojiboeva recently wrote an op-ed “setting the record straight” in the Bull and Bear that made an appeal to the average student, whom she claims to represent. However, this should be called into question. It seems that her self-appointed title as an “ideological outsider to the SSMU establishment” is her way of saying that she is against BDS. Her use of the term “SSMU establishment” seems to try to convince the reader that while the rest of SSMU is not democratic, she is different. Moreover, despite Tojiboeva’s suggestion that her releasing the minutes of certain Board of Directors meetings demon-

strates her commitment to transparency, she does not demonstrate any tangible ways through which she democratized or broadened student participation in SSMU. Additionally, Tojiboeva’s use of the term “establishment” serves to highlight and create division within SSMU, while absolving herself of responsibility for the organization’s problems. Blaming others through the use of the term “establishment” only grows the student body’s ambivalence for and distrust in our student union. Ultimately, the president needs to recognize that, along with the Executives, she is part of the “establishment” and responsible for the system’s improvement and democratization. Furthermore, while Tojiboeva seems proud of the “53 per cent of students who voted for [her],” she fails to consider, or even engage with, the four following facts on the last election.

Additionally, Tojiboeva’s use of the term “establishment” serves to highlight and create division within SSMU, while absolving herself of responsibility for the organization’s problems. Very few students voted in the last election, despite it being easy to vote. 21 per cent of eligible students voted in the last election for the SSMU executive, and in the last 13 years there has never been a turnout higher than 31 per cent. Yet, we have multiple days to vote, and the link is sent right to our inboxes. Tojiboeva received most votes cast for president, but not a majority. If you add in the 544 abstentions, Tojiboeva actually received 46 per cent of the votes cast for president. Less than half of the people who voted actually voted for her. Tojiboeva received only slightly more eligible votes than her competitor. Tojiboeva captured 10.1 per cent of eligible votes, while Helen Ogundeji received 7.8 per cent. It is not persuasive to claim that Tojiboeva represented the average student, and that Ogundeji was on the fringe.

Very few students actually ran for these positions. Five out of six VP positions were only contested by one person. This means that out of over 21,000 students, only nine were even interested in occupying one of the seven positions (including president) on SSMU’s executive. It is clear that the vast majority of students are not interested in standing for election; this calls into question the general strength of our system, and, as such, anyone’s claim to represent the majority of students. These four facts suggest to us that democratization– a robust restructuring of the processes that represent and support McGill students– is in order. We are deeply critical of those, like the President, members of Democratize SSMU, and others, who are willing to use “democracy” as their strategy to advance their own political goals, regardless of whether their goals are democratically supported. These small factions seem to place their goals ahead of creating a thriving, democratic student union that represents, serves, and is accountable to our diverse student body. Yet, despite our criticism, we also hope that, within these factions and our broader community, there are still people who are excited about truly democratizing SSMU. To democratize means to put the system ahead of particular political goals and to reform the structures of the (currently bureaucratic) student union so that they may be accessible and fair to all students. It is precisely because we both share this belief that the two of us- despite passionately and decisively disagreeing on BDS and a number of other issues- are confident in writing this argument together. Democratization begins with genuine discussion and consultation: we need roundtables, townhalls, and surveys. Secondly, it requires research: we need to identify systems that have worked best in similar contexts and think creatively to adapt them to our unique reality. Unlocking the democratization process starts with honest, broad discussion and creative, thorough research. Though not easy, neither of these steps is out of reach. While we are less optimistic than when we first heard about the Democratize SSMU campaign, we are, ultimately, left with the same conclusion: Yes! Let’s truly democratize SSMU.

FEATURES

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Finding peace after pain What it looks like to (begin to) recover from an abusive relationship

Frederique Blanchard

By Anonymous Content warning: physical violence, domestic abuse, alcohol, mention of suicide

FEATURES

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

recently ran into an ex at a party. It may not seem like a big deal because, sure, we all see our exes from time to time. But my ex was abusive. In Canada alone, domestic violence has been identified as one of the most common forms of violence against women. And, it takes an average of seven instances of abuse to leave an abusive relationship. This is rarely talked about, and yet abuse is incredibly common. While only a few months have passed since I officially left my abusive partner for the last time, I finally feel like I am able to breathe again. I can finally get out of the bed in the morning. But just a few months ago, I was a completely different person. I was irritated easily, found simple tasks difficult, and stayed in bed most days. During the most abusive parts of the relationship, I didn’t leave my bed at all. The most I could manage was to get to the bathroom where I would lock the door so my roommate wouldn’t hear my boyfriend yelling at me over the phone.

Every time I tried breaking up with him I was always met with a speech about how crazy I was acting, about how stupid I was to think he didn’t love me, about how difficult I was making his life. I wish I could say I ended it, so that I’d be able to look back and pat myself on the back for the strength I had during my darkest days. But the scariest part to all of this is that if he hadn’t decided he no longer wanted me, I might still be with him. I wouldn’t even have the words that I do now to describe how I was feeling. We weren’t married and we didn’t have kids, so there seemed to be no obligation for me to stay with him, legal or otherwise. And yet, I couldn’t leave. My confidence had been complete-

ly shattered, and I felt as though I had nowhere to turn. Some days I still hear his voice in the back of my mind, telling me no one will ever love me as much as he did. I now know this is a lie.

During the so-called “honeymoon phase” of our relationship, I felt so connected to John*. He seemed funny, charming, and sensitive. I felt like we really cared about the same things. Every single morning I would wake up, and feel centered. I could be failing a class, or fighting with a friend, but none of it mattered because I had a partner. Someone I could look to and feel so privileged just to be able to speak to. Boring events were suddenly exciting with John by my side. We would write letters for each other’s plane trips, and skip classes to spend time together. He would drive to my house just to see me for ten minutes, because we couldn’t go a day without being together. It was sickeningly sweet. So later, when I was ten months deep into what felt like my worst nightmare, I kept looking back on all the good times we once had and would think, “He’ll come back, the guy I love will come back.” But he never came back, because he never existed in the first place. He told me what I wanted to hear, gained my trust, and in the blink of an eye, he took all the romantics away. He once said to me, “The person you love the most is both your heaven and your hell.” I went from his heaven to his hell in the blink of an eye. Where I once received flowers upon him greeting me, I barely got a smile. He would take every opportunity he could to tell me everything I had done wrong that day. He would drive fast in cars to scare me, scream at me for wearing something sheer, ignore me if I made a joke he didn’t like in front of his friends. I was walking on eggshells every waking moment of the day.

My relationship with John progressed incredibly quickly. After two

weeks, he told me he loved me. One month later, he said that one day we would get married. Two months later, we were naming our kids. Things happened very, very fast. So fast that I hardly had time to catch my breath. I spent every moment with him. The one time we had to spend seven days apart from each other, we made sure to stay in contact constantly. It was so intense that the mere thought of not being able to contact him was daunting, almost as if we couldn’t breathe without each other. Key factors to abusive relationships are isolation and control. Without John, I had no one; without John what could I do? He didn’t like when I went to parties without him, he didn’t like it when I had fun without him. Being apart from John meant my life was on pause, until I was in his presence again.

Key factors to abusive relationships are isolation and control. Without John, I had no one; without John what could I do? Six months in, our relationship reached a turning point. We started arguing a lot, but we never went to bed angry. I was caught in a cycle of fighting, then crying, then apologizing, and finally going to bed. This became routine. Then one day I wasn’t allowed to cry when we fought anymore, because it made him feel too guilty. So I apologized, and tried to hold back my tears. I began to notice that I was apologizing for a lot of things, even for something as simple as buying a shirt without first getting his approval. However, he would impose his will very subtly, in a way that I now recognise as manipulative. He would ask, “Why would you buy something I don’t like? I only ever want to wear things you like. . . Don’t you feel the same?” My response became, “Yeah. . .I guess I do.” From there on out, any time I went shopping I would spend most of it in the changing room asking for my boyfriend’s advice. My clothes then turned into a plain and understated uniform: jeans, t-shirts, and

tank tops. Nothing that would show too much skin, just enough. Simple colours were allowed, but colours like pink were abhorred.

I think of all the things I’m capable of because I am no longer with John. I think of how strong I am, and how proud of myself I am. Once my friends started seeing how unhappy I was becoming, they suddenly became John’s worst enemies. One friend in particular, Matthew*, who had been my best friend for quite some time, caused serious issues between John and I, to the extent that even if Matthew’s name only briefly showed up on my phone, I would get in trouble. Anytime I hung out with Matthew, I would have to leave early, and I usually left crying. I ended up feeling torn between my friend and my boyfriend. However, this wasn’t exclusive to only guy friends; I had to cut out some of my closest girlfriends from my life, just to save myself from the obscenities John would scream at me whenever I spent time with them. The situation escalated to the point where I wasn’t allowed to be with one friend simply because she smoked. John would say, “You shouldn’t keep that kind of company in your life.” So, I cut them all off, one by one, cold turkey. To this day, there are friendships I’m unable to repair because of the damage that was caused to them during my time with John.

It wasn’t until nine months into my relationship that I had my first moment of clarity about my relationship, and I realized I had lost my voice. I mean, I would say nothing. I just followed his plans. I hung out only with his friends and his family. I couldn’t even remem-

ber the last time I had done something that didn’t revolve around him. Shortly after this series of realizations I had to go to a party with John because he made a point of never missing out on any social event. He spent the majority of the night ignoring me and flirting with someone else in front of me. This was routine for him. Nothing new. If I ever addressed his behaviour, he would say, “I’m a flirty person! You knew that going in.” I would nod my head in agreement, and feel stupid for even bringing it up. He was allowed to be jealous, but it came off as obsessive when I was. For John to appear to be the kind of cool person he so desperately wanted to be, his girlfriend had to be the “perfect” partner. Calm, casual, funny, but not centre-of-attention funny, because he always had to be the one to steal the show. I had to stay thin, but be down to eat two pounds of wings with the guys on boys’ nights. My makeup could never be over the top; I could only apply a simple cover up. I had to keep my hair down always; if I was in workout attire I could put my hair up, but it could never be in a bun, a simple pony-tail was all that I was allowed. So, on this particular night, when I drank too much and cried in front of his friends because I was so clearly depressed, I had broken this spectre of perfection, and it was insulting to him. I had embarrassed him. I believe this was the first night that John physically abused me.

It is so hard to explain the inner workings of my relationship with John. And when it comes to abusive relationships, walking away is the hardest and most inconceivable part. The next morning, I woke up to immediate guilt. I had drunk way too much, and I wasn’t allowed to.

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

FEATURES

And so I was the one who apologised that morning. Despite the fact that I felt aches all over my body, despite the fact that my legs and arms were mysteriously bruised and his story didn’t match my memory of the night, I was the one who woke up full of shame. For the sheer embarrassment I must have caused him. Months later, when I asked my friend about that party and the way I behaved at it, she told me that I was there for about half an hour before I went out onto the street to talk to John. No odd behaviour, no outburst in front of his friends. What my friend told me matched up with what I could recall from that night. However, John’s story was something like,“You yelled at me in front of everyone and could hardly stand up.” Wouldn’t I have remembered causing that much of a scene? But he insisted that my memories were wrong.

Months went on and things only got worse. I could hardly get out bed, I wasn’t engaged in any social or academic life. Anytime I went out I would leave early, usually crying. John would yell at me over the phone for going out with people. He didn’t trust other guys. And he didn’t trust me. He would tell me that the things that I wore when I went out were too provocative, that someone was bound to come up to me and do something, and who was to say I wasn’t going to let them? Let me be clear, this never happened. I was very faithful to John. And because my partying seemed to cause him stress, I stopped going out.

Abusive partners are obsessed with having the upper hand, with having control. They hate being outsmarted. Beyond my social life, the effect of my relationship on my mental health meant that even going to

class seemed like the most difficult task. I suddenly had no passion for anything. I stopped writing, which had always been a much-needed creative outlet for me. I couldn’t talk. I hardly ate. I was the clinical definition of depressed. From John’s perspective, I was being overdramatic. He didn’t believe in depression. He would say, “You want to be sad,” or “You want the attention.” I didn’t think I did, but I would end up believing that maybe he was right. After all, he was my boyfriend, he could only have my best interests at heart. Which is why when he manipulated me into dropping any theatre extracurriculars at university (I had been in shows and on film since I was ten), I willingly obliged because I would have done anything to salvage our broken relationship. And just like that, my lifelong career goal crumbled to pieces. I started thinking about a different career path entirely, one that would be more understood by the general population, and in particular, by John. I have never ever wanted to be a lawyer, but during my first year at university, I became convinced that that’s what I wanted. As the months dragged on, my situation got worse; every time I tried breaking up with him I was always met with a speech about how crazy I was acting, about how stupid I was to think he didn’t love me, about how difficult I was making his life. All he wanted was a normal girlfriend, why couldn’t I be that for him? And I believed every single word of it. By the time Christmas break rolled around, I couldn’t even recognize myself. However, I told myself that everyone goes through change at university and finds it difficult at times. I believed that’s just what was happening to me. But it wasn’t just difficult. Life itself became unbearable. I toyed with suicidal thoughts and while I never acted on them, I was desperate for a way out. It is so hard to explain the inner workings of my relationship with John. And when it comes to abusive relationships, walking away is the hardest and most inconceivable part. I couldn’t imagine life without him. I assumed, until recently, that I would never again have the kind of connection I had with John. I thought I would never find love or happiness again. I believed I had to stick it out with John because I believed that the person I loved was going to come back. He had to come back. But he never did, because the

person that I first fell in love with was never really who John was. The loving, caring guy I thought he was, turned out to be one of the most manipulative and controlling people I have ever met. John found my weaknesses and pulled at them when he could. He used my own thoughts against me. Anytime I felt low, he would push me even lower. Abusive partners are obsessed with having the upper hand, with having control. They hate being outsmarted. For John, I was nothing more than a tool in his life. He used me when he needed me, and when he didn’t I was just a nuisance he tried desperately to forget, until finally I became too big of a problem for him.

In Canada alone, domestic violence has been identified as one of the most common forms of violence against women. Really he just found greener grass. John hated my confidence, but what he hated even more was that I wasn’t confident—nevermind that he was the cause of my insecurity and had fuelled it purposefully. John would repeatedly tell me I was “not the person he fell in love with.” So, he began to move onto other girls, all while keeping me around because he wasn’t ready to lose control of me yet. Before he had completely let me go, on one of my last nights with John, I was pushed down a flight of stairs. He bit me (in a nonsexual way) and repeatedly verbally abused me. I woke up the next morning almost unable to walk. My arm was puffy and bruised, and I had scratches all up and down my legs. I couldn’t put the words together to explain what happened to me. When my mom asked why my arm was swollen, I shrugged. I really hope that one day I will be able to be more open about what happened this night, and that more people will believe me. There is no photo evidence, and my memory only retains snippets of the events from that night. But I know exactly

what John did to me. I know exactly when and how it happened. A few days after the incident I broke down to my sister on the phone and explained everything to her. I explained that the verbal and emotional abuse had been going on for months; I thought he had hurt me before, and I wanted out. Thus began the long and grueling therapeutic process of “un-brainwashing” myself. I wasn’t crazy and I wasn’t the problem—I had been a victim of abuse.

Months after John and I had broken up, we were still hooking up occasionally. He would promise me that this was just a stressful time for him, and that eventually we would get back together. We never did. John would contact me when the timing was right for him, which was usually when he was horny, and I would come running every time. And every morning I’d wake up hating myself a little bit more. How could I keep doing this to myself after what he’d done to me? Who was ever going to believe my story when I continued to go back? Eventually I cut off communication with him. In response, he recurringly sent me aggressive text messages insinuating that I was a whore and telling me that he was happy he had got out when he had. Then the messages stopped. I blocked his number and deleted him from my social media. To this day we are no longer in contact. But the fear still resides deep within me. The very idea of seeing

Thus began the long and grueling therapeutic process of “unbrainwashing” myself. I wasn’t crazy and I wasn’t the problem—I had been a victim of abuse.

him makes me shake. John is my boogey man. When I recently saw him at that party, it made me terrified to be alone. I ran to the bathroom to try and calm down, but found I could hardly breath. I felt as though my life were on the line. Even though we’re thousands of miles away from each other now, I still have nightmares about what he is capable of doing to me, just because he is bigger, stronger, and much, much angrier than I am. I wanted to share my story because I want survivors to know that they are not alone. But I’m afraid of what will happen if I use my real identity. I hope that one day I can be honest about everything, and delve further into a conversation about my experience with abuse. However, there are some things that happened that I’m not even able to admit to myself yet, let alone other people.

If anyone is reading this, and is in a similar situation, I urge you to seek help. You are worth it. You do not need your abuser. Abuse is complex and frustrating. It can be hard to pinpoint the signs, and if your story is anything like mine, you consistently think that you are the problem. But you are not, and there is help. Talk to your friends, family, find your support system and do whatever you can to get out, because your life is worth it. As I write this, I’m looking out at the view of a lake. I used to come here when things were particularly bad with John, to clear my mind. Now I look out onto this lake, and I think of all the things I’m capable of because I am no longer with John. I think of how strong I am, and how proud of myself I am. And I wish I could share this feeling with every single person who has ever experienced abuse, because it is such a beautiful feeling to know that you will be okay. Resources for Survivors Seeking Help: Femmes Averties / Women Aware Telephone Helpline: 1-866489-1110 or 514-489-1110 See Agression Sexuale Montreal for several resources See McGill’s List of Resources for Survivors for several resources.

SCI+TECH

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Risk-benefit analysis of braincomputer interface technology

Exploring the reality of widespread brain-computer interface usage Nadia Boachie Neuroethics

ntil recently, the concept of controlling your environment through thought was purely science fiction. It was only 1968 when Eb Fetz, a researcher at the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), first pioneered connecting machines to minds. He showed that monkeys can amplify their brain signals to control a needle that moved on a dial. Today, the field of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology has allowed people to functionally merge with electrical devices. BCI tech can assist individuals unable to speak in communicating, and those unable to use their limbs regain mobility. At the University of Pittsburgh, researchers used signals recorded inside the brain to control a robotic arm. At Stanford, researchers extracted the movement intentions of paralyzed patients from their brain signals, allowing them wireless control of a tablet. The most common BCI tech gadgets are cochlear implants, devices that assist with hearing. What is brain-computer interface technology? Matthew Sample, a researcher at the Institut de Recherches Clinique de Montreal (IRCM) notes that the definition of BCI is contested: “Even the name is in flux, with some researchers writing about ‘brain-machine interfaces’ and ‘neural interfaces.’” Some researchers only apply the label BCI to devices that require the users to “will” something, regulating their thoughts to consciously achieve some task with the help of a computer. Other BCI developers are more flexible in their definition and also include devices that only passively collect information from the user’s brain. Sample concludes that “definitional disagreement aside, we could safely say that BCI describes a variety of emerging technologies that connect brain tissue to computer hardware.” So by current definitions, BCIs include all devices that convert neural signals into purposeful movements, for both medical and non-medical purposes. Restorative devices like neuroprosthetics help paralyzed patients move robotic limbs. In gaming, BCIs can allow players to move around and manipulate objects within virtual game environments using thought alone. What’s more, BCIs also include

devices that enhance sensorimotor functioning past the typical range of human capacity (i.e. enhancement or augmentation). How does brain-computer interface technology work? Unidirectional and multidirectional transfers of information between the computer and the brain take place in brain-computer interfaces. BCIs can use a wired or wireless system to allow transmission of signals from the brain to a machine. Non-invasive BCIs like electroencephalogram or functional magnetic resonance imaging do not involve intracranial surgery nor any implantation in the brain. However, invasive procedures like electrocorticography usually involve the implantation of electrodes epidurally (under the skin), subdurally (under the scalp), or intracortically (recording within the cerebral cortex).

The field of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology has allowed people to functionally merge with electrical devices. With the invention and usage of such technology comes the discussion of its moral and ethical implications. There are challenges in translating BCI technology to practical clinical applications. Two of the major challenges in widespread BCI use are individual user risks and widespread societal risks and concerns. User risks Invasive procedures like electrocorticography carry risks of infection or hemorrhage. As a result, there may be scarring and immune reactions, and this can cause implants to lose effectiveness over time. Another major issue is the biocompatibility between the implanted objects and the surrounding neural tissue. The implanted object may cause changes in the tissues, in turn leading to neurological and psychological sequelae (a pathological condition

resulting from a disease, injury, therapy, or other trauma). There is also the risk of altering cognitive processes such as decision-making. Sample explains that how a BCI affects behavior, decision-making, and cognition is still largely unknown. But “the biomedical literature has some very striking examples of strange effects, like personality changes caused by particular uses of deep brain stimulation.” The uncertainty surrounding potential effects of BCI on the brain is a major concern because long-term effects to the user have not been thoroughly researched. There is a long standing debate about whether or not structural or genetic abnormalities in the brain can mitigate responsibility over our actions, leading to “my brain made me do it” arguments. The use of BCI technology can create nuanced claims: “my BCI technology made my brain make me do it.” BCI works to decode signals from the brain and translate them into commands to an output device that accomplishes the user’s intention. If the BCI malfunctions, it becomes difficult to determine if the user’s intentions were accurately translated into an action. BCIs may cause accidents. For example, if a BCI incorrectly interprets a wheelchair or prosthesis command and causes harm to another individual, it is difficult to pinpoint the true intent of the individual that caused harm. This would have an influence in legal disputes. There would have to be new laws and regulations to clarify policies regarding BCI technology and legal culpability. Legal cases would have to analyze the initial ailment (in cases of medical use), as well as the influence that a particular BCI technology has on cognition regardless of, or in combination with, a medical condition. Societal risks Invasive BCIs pose the most obvious risks to the users, but we should also ask whether the technology could be a threat to the body politic. Sample demonstrates that “just as we have asked whether the internet and social media have made us better, collectively, we can explore these questions for BCIs.” It is worth exploring the feasibility of integrating BCI seamlessly into medical treatment and healthcare systems. A specific example of a social concern of BCI implementation is the healthcare rationing of BCI technology. There may be risks to

Cassandra Ryan | Illustrator health care justice about the fair distribution of these very expensive technologies. Justice not only permits but in principle requires a national health scheme to deny some people of effective medical treatment they need. Rationing is unavoidable because need is limitless and resources are not. If there is widespread BCI use, questions about who to treat and what BCI technological services to offer will have to be addressed. How rationing of BCI technology occurs is important because it not only affects individual lives but also expresses what values are most important to society; for instance medical treatment of different disorders listed in order of precedence. Many of these risks are futureoriented and thus largely speculative, but Sample notes that “so is the act of imagining new neu-

ral technology; the question is whether we have speculated carefully and in cooperation with the people most likely to be affected.” There is no doubt that BCI technology can provide useful medical treatments, but it will require a lot of regulations. The concern lies with deciding if the risks of the BCI are worth the risks of detrimental neural changes. There also needs to be better evaluation of potential societal concerns. In this evaluation there needs to be inclusion of expert opinions as well as the opinion of the diverse public that will be affected. There is still a lot of research that needs to be conducted, but the hope is that before new BCI becomes routinely used, there would be proper analysis of both individual user risks as well as the broad spectrum of societal risks.

Sci+Tech

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Waste not, want not

The future of technology is increasing sustainability in all industries Laure-Anne DubucKanary Sci+Tech Writer

he future of our environment is not all doom and gloom. Although we have many complex and difficult problems, we can build a more sustainable future through the development of better technological tools. Some of the more environmentally destructive industries, like transport and mining for rareearth metals, may be greening at a much faster rate than we realize. With technological developments such as Apple’s new tech disassembly robots, as well as Toyota and Nikola One Motors’ hydrogen fuel-cell Class 8 vehicles, we are witnessing new advances that work to the advantage of our precious environment. Recycling rare metals Traditionally, the disassembly of electronics has not allowed for the recovery of rare and expensive metals. The process involves shredding computer parts

in industrial shredders, similar to those used for more conventional waste products. This type of shredding was intended for simpler electronic devices, using under ten different materials. Today, with a greater demand for precision products, a typical electronic device is composed of over 60 different materials. For these devices, disassembly via shredding involves loss of precious metals and rare-earth metals that are expensive and destructive to mine. Although electronic waste represents only a small percentage of global waste, electronic waste is far more destructive to the environment than common waste materials. Liam, a 29-armed recycling robot, was created by Apple as the initial phase of a larger solution. According to Apple, approximately 16 kilograms of gold, 4.8 kg of platinum-group metals, and 288 kg of rare-earth metals can be recycled and reused every year with one Liam robot alone. This represents a significant reduction in environmental damage from

mining these minerals. In addition, unlike traditional shredding techniques which result in a mixture of components that cannot be further separated and recycled, automation allows Liam to separate similar materials. Because this innovation in recycling rare and expensive materials has significant benefits to both the company and the environment, other companies will be quick to follow suit. The long-term benefit to creating a closed manufacturing loop by recycling expensive materials is a major reduction in the use of virgin metals and rare metals. As these new measures spread throughout the tech industry and towards other industries, we will see a decrease in the quantity of recyclable materials in landfills and oceans, as well as an important reduction in mining. Introducing hydrogen powered fuel-cell trucks According to the American Trucking Association, 70 per cent of freight transport in the United States is accomplished with

heavy-duty, on-road vehicles. According to Pollution Probe, a Canadian environmental organization, this form of freight transport accounts for 30 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions within the transport sector in Canada–a number that is rapidly increasing. Thus, there is an obvious incentive in the trucking industry to create vehicles that produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Electronic waste is far more destructive to the environment than common. waste materials. Researching clean and renewable energy brings improvements in the production and distribution of compressed hydrogen gas, which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the sector to nothing. A prototype for a Class 8 hy-

drogen-electric truck is currently in production at Nikola Motor Company. A similar prototype has been produced and tested by Toyota as well. In an interview with Forbes magazine, Giorgio Zoia, a worker for Toyota’s fuelcell development program, stated that fuel cells were expensive because of the quantity of platinum required to convert hydrogen to energy. However, according to Joan Ogden, Professor of Environmental Science at UC Davis, platinum companies are expected to drastically lower the cost of platinum by increasing their rate of recycling. As a secondary benefit to the environment, we will see a remarkable reduction in the mining of virgin metals. In conclusion, Toyota and Nikola One are reinventing transport, just as Apple is reinventing the game for recycling of tech materials. With the creation and implementation of these technological tools, companies are using intelligence to improve sustainability and move towards a greener future.

Emily Carroll | Illustrator

Sports

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Childhood games

The Daily’s readers explore their sporting memories

any of us have memories of playing sport as children. Whether it was little league baseball, peewee hockey, or house league soccer, childhood sports can be an important aspect of growing up. While they often provide a sense of community, sports can be a force for exclusion or trauma as much as they can give a sense of inclusion. We asked our readers to send in photos and memories of their playing days, and we received a variety memories both traumatic and comfortable.

Content warning: homophobia, transphobia, harassment “Sports and childhood are amongst my biggest sources of trauma. Early in my life, sports were a marker of difference and exclusion: I was probably the worst player at soccer in elementary school, which was the only sport boys would play. Girls and weirdos had more stationary activities — I would more often revert to playing card games or ball on the horizontal relief of the pipe gates with other weirdos or exchanging Diddles with girls. I was weird, but it was still ok. This had to stop when I entered junior high school. It became apparent that staying with girls was not an option — I was a ‘man’ and as such, was both kicked out of my women group of friends and received hateful comments from the boys who played sports during break for staying with women. I was quickly named ‘pédé [faggot]’ and bullied. I tried to fit in, and enlisted to play soccer after school with friends. The coach was horribly masculine, and used to verbally harass low-performing players (me), although we were just kids (is it even legitimate when older?) (people screaming at me have been extremely triggering for as long as I can remember). After 1 or 2 years of trying, I stopped. I couldn’t take the mud, the verbal abuse, the overwhelming masculinity standards. I started playing handball. The mud was not in the competition, but the masculinity and the verbal harassment remained “Our new jerseys didn’t match our old socks, but it was my favourite season of hockey — I don’t think we did very well, but my teammates and I were all very close that year.”

— I tried, still. After training, I was too shy to take showers with others — a ritual reserved for those who felt confident enough, which often rhymed with masculine enough. The locker room and the showers were open on each other, so people could change and shower in the same space. Something strange started to happen. The locker room became a place of dissonant feelings—one wanted me to change quick, ashamed of my naked not-masculine body. The other wanted me to take time, to feel a strange feeling that appeared. The undressing of one of my playmates stirred feelings I had never felt before. The silent feeling grew. I couldn’t tell and never told the boy about it. I had no words to tell it, and I was scared of the word I and he could find out. The locker room was the place of a series of internal distress — between escaping my shame of being naked and not masculine enough, and exploring what I didn’t realise until much later was gay desire. I saw the boy last year, maybe something like seven years later. I thought he wouldn’t recognize me, so I passed by him. I smiled at the reminder of this childhood game. This picture was taken during my handball phase, where I also changed programs and entered a bilingual class where I created a tight group of friends with whom gender rules were a bit easier to navigate. This is a picture of my (women) classmates playing handball.”

lambda.velorum

“

My little brother on the right here is the same age as his teammate. It was a difficult year for him, but now he’s a goalie.

Louis Sanger

”

Jason Gales Emre Benoit-Savci

SPORTS

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Flora Aldridge

“

Best night of my life.

”

Laura Brennan

Tommy O’Neill Sanger

Rosalind Sweeney-McCabe

“ ” Peep the shinpads outside the socks.

Annabella Chen

“ ” We had just finished running a triathlon. I was my healthiest self.

Molly Picone

culture

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

AfrotroniX broadcasts Afrofuturism The band fuses electronic music to Tuareg blues and African rhythms

Gloria François Culture Writer

ast Friday, October 20, AfrotroniX performed at the Phi Centre, and I had the chance to attend this wonderful event. Founded by the renowned Chadian guitarist Caleb Rimtobaye, AfrotroniX first performed during last year’s edition of AFROPUNK Paris, which is a festival centered around afro-punk music. AfrotroniX’s art, including music and dance, consists of an exquisite fusion between the traditional and the modern. The group’s goal is to redefine the meaning of Afrobeat while presenting “a new Africa,” which they accomplish by mixing African rhythms, Tuareg blues from Sahara, and Mandingo music from West Africa with electronic music.

The group’s goal is to redefine the meaning of Afrobeat while presenting “a new Africa.” L.Teez., based in Tio’tia:ke (also known as Montreal), is the young rapper who opened the set. His performance was dynamic, textually brilliant, and filled with emotions; his musicality and rapping skills blew the audience away. After this introduction, AfrotroniX started its set in front

of approximately 150 amazed people. I was taken by surprise by the ingenuity with which the musical formation blended tradition and modernity by utilizing various artistic mediums. In their song “Sinon le pays va tomber” (Otherwise the country will fall), traditional chants were smoothly mixed with the furious rhythms of Afrobeat, creating groovy music that made the audience dance furiously. Throughout AfrotroniX’s entire set, three dancers performed traditional dances on the furious and captivating rhythms of a renewed Afrobeat. Staring down at the audience, the dancers hypnotized the attendees with their sharp and smooth movements. Occasionally, a third AfrotroniX member would join the two others on stage with his djembe, and set fire to the scene by performing beats that I did not think were humanly possible. The visual spectacle was equally stunning. Various images and mini-clips were projected — some showed people dancing, while others showed stylized sequences of sound wave patterns. Towards the end of their set, AfrotroniX invited Senegalese singer and songwriter Seydina to perform various songs he wrote for his soon-to-be-released debut album. During this part of the performance, Seydina made the attendees sing, charming them with his impressive stage presence and voice. Seydina contributed to AfrotroniX’s project of representing the strong cultural bond linking countries of the African continent, while giving place for its diverse voices to speak up.

Kevin Mofo and PHI Centre | Photographers

AfrotroniX used art to make a strong statement and to present a “new Africa” while demystifying its current misrepresenta-

Seydina [one of AfrotroniX’s guest singers] contributed to AfrotroniX’s project of representing the strong cultural bond linking countries of the African continent, while giving place for its diverse voices to speak up. tions. Between the two parts of their set, the musicians played an instrumental while creator Caleb Rimtobaye addressed the audience and discussed the distorted ways in which the African continent is perceived in Western societies. Rimtobaye ridiculed popular stereotypes such as the one that states that all Africans allegedly look at pieces of wood and worship them. After showing the absurdity of such a belief, Rimtobaye continued by stating that it was

Kevin Mofo and PHI Centre | Photographers time for the African continent to be given its rightful image, and proposed his afro-futurist project in the visual and musical clashing of past and present. Caleb Rimtobaye’s speech was warmly received, and on the cheers of the audience, AfrotroniX proceeded to realize Rimtobaye’s words and Afro-futuristic promise. AfrotroniX’s performance resonated with Afro-Canadians in the room while also educating people who were not aware of how distorted their views surrounding the African continent were. As a Canadian born to Haitian parents, I particularly related to AfrotroniX’s message. Western perceptions of Africa and Haiti are similarly distorted. When I was younger, I remember being told by several of my teachers and peers that Haiti was and had always been a poor country. However, as I started researching and frequently asking my parents what their motherland was like, I realized how disconnected this perception of Haiti was. In fact, as explained by Roger Annis in a letter to The Daily (issue 7), Haiti’s present state is the result of centuries of imperialism, enslavement, coups, uprisings, liberations, and neo-colonial indebting caused by Western powers, including Canada. Haiti, like many other colonized coun-

tries, is culturally and historically vibrant, but has been misconstrued through colonial violence and erasure. In debunking myths surrounding Africa, AfrotroniX managed to relate to every people whose motherlands and/or parents’ motherlands are similarly othered and misrepresented.

Rimtobaye [stated] that it was time for the African continent to be given its rightful image, and proposed his afro-futurist project in the visual and musical clashing of past and present. Using different art forms in the space of three hours, AfrotroniX managed to give the African continent its rightful image, and it was simply wonderful.

culture

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Making music with scary dreams

~ talks music, family, and her experiences with cancer Bianca Muniz Inori Roy The McGill Daily

t is rare to describe an artist’s music as genuinely haunting, but Bianca Muñiz’s unique blend of jazz, pop, and rock fits the description in the best way possible. Muñiz, originally from New York, is an up-and-coming young musician working on her debut album, due for release in June. Her band — comprised of vocalist sisters Bianca and Jacqueline Muñiz, bassist Alex Talarico, saxophonist Baptiste Horcholle, and percussionist Michael Hojnacki — is currently on a one-week tour in Montreal, with performances at La Marche à Côté, Le Cagibi, and Barfly, where I caught her performance this Tuesday. I had met Muñiz and bandmates briefly earlier that day, when they performed at CKUT 90.3 FM’s Funding Drive live show at Dispatch, a coffee shop in the Plateau. Immediately, I was struck by the warmth they exuded as a group. Her percussionist, Michael Hojnacki, with whom I had spoken via email earlier in the week, seemed to be all smiles, all the time. His enthusiasm for the band’s music and their future was contagious — I was told, by both Bianca and Jacqueline, that it was his idea to come to Montreal for the band’s first international tour after he visited the city this summer and fell in love with it. At the time he proposed this idea, Bianca Muñiz was in treatment for breast cancer, having undergone a double mastectomy earlier this year at only 22 years old. This is her second battle with cancer — the first took place more than ten years ago, when she was 11. She is remarkably open about her experiences, writing regularly on her blog through her chemotherapy and actively working in advocacy for cancer patients and survivors. She discusses the bad days, when she feels she has no agency over her body, and the good, when she can see the end of her difficulties approaching. She even tells her readers about the Instagram message she received from a guy who wanted to know, “what went wrong on yo chest.” She replied, “cancer,” and promptly blocked him. “Absolutely nothing is wrong with my chest, I am perfect the way I am,” she writes on her blog. “My chest is a trophy of how amazing my body and I are and everything we’ve been through. My chest looks the way it does because the doctors saved my

life and that’s what had to be done. But I love my chest and the way it looks, my scars are badass and if anything, his question/comment made me love myself even more!” Through all of these trials, Muñiz describes music as part of her healing process — and while her story and experiences are what first drew me to her music, they are only the beginning of her artistry. The first thing that strikes you about Muñiz is her sheer talent; the second is how immediately likeable and kind she is. Standing next to her for a photograph, I jokingly said that I was really intimidated given her beauty (she is, undeniably, stunning) — her response was to immediately compliment me in return, with the joy and familiarity of an old friend.

“My chest is a trophy of how amazing my body and I are and everything we’ve been through.” –Bianca Muñiz Seeing Bianca, Jacqueline, and their mother standing side by side, one could not help but be struck by the family resemblance and bond between them. I imagine some artists would loathe to go on tour with their families, but remaining together is a natural thing for the Muñiz family. “I adore my sister,” Bianca says, “I love her so much; I love singing with her, I love hanging out with her, and she’s my best friend. This is just normal for us — being able to do what we love, together, all the time, and having this week dedicated to just that, what more could you ask for?” On stage, Bianca and Jacqueline sounded like magic. Bianca was on piano as well as vocals, given the absence of their pianist, and if you looked carefully, you noticed that percussionist Michael Hojnacki was playing with only one hand. He had mentioned to me jokingly before the show that he had fractured his left arm in a hit-and-run in New York; this fact didn’t seem to faze him in the slightest, and if it compromised the band’s sound, the audience certainly didn’t notice. The band has an eerie, insistent sound — I hadn’t really understood their self-description of “avante-pop” until I heard them

live. As I see it, the band’s sound isn’t necessarily about a genre as much as it’s about a feeling. For me, this feeling is a bit like running to catch a train that’s leaving the station: urgent, quick, full of longing and anticipation. There is a sense of drama to Muñiz’s music, consistently underlaid with intense percussion and bass guitar, taking breaks only to allow for lively saxophone solos. At one point, Hojnacki did a one-handed drum solo; at another, bassist Alex Talarico grabbed a drumstick and played his guitar in a manner vaguely resembling a xylophone. It was a sight to behold, and certainly not something I’ve seen before. Listening to the content of Muñiz’s music, it’s also easy to tell that she was a poet before she became a musician. My favourite song of the set, and the titular song in her 2016 EP, is titled “Scary Dreams.” Muñiz started the song by describing her inspiration for it — she once had a vivid dream that New York was under attack, and from it was born a chaotic, creepy, intense piece of music. She later told me that she has scary dreams all the time, but this one was a particular turning point in her songwriting. She woke up with the bass line in her head, and the song itself is a description of her dream. She recalls the ethereal “purple lights, sparkling lights, shining over my head,” the bloody water filled with bodies, and the feeling of free-fall right while New York burned behind her. These dreams are a recurring aspect of her life, perhaps paralleling the imagined attack of New York to the attack of her own body by cancer but this dream stood out to her, and grew into something beautiful. Muñiz’s experiences with cancer and the debilitating effects of chemotherapy haven’t diminished her ambitions in the slightest—if anything, they have lit a fire within her to go even further. “Honestly,” she says, “I feel like cancer and the treatment has had a really positive impact on my music. I feel like it was a real turning point in the way I sing, the way I write and perform.” She goes on to describe how the meaning of her music often dawns on her after the lyrics and sound have already come alive. “This is the first song I’ve written that is actually about myself,” she says, speaking of a new single to be released in December, which is about her experience with cancer. “I’m finally allowing the dark side

Photo by Larabelle | Courtesy of Bianca Muñiz of everything that’s happening to come out, but in a positive way—to explain how it really feels. I don’t see that a lot, and this experience has helped that happen.”

“I’m finally allowing the dark side of everything that’s happening to come out, but in a positive way.” –Bianca Muñiz Muñiz’s positivity is disarmingly genuine, especially for someone who has had to experience cancer twice before she’s even 25. Her blog speaks to her bad days as well, the days when chemo is particularly rough and she questions why this has to happen to her, why her body is outside of her control. But her band—her family—seems to provide a crucial support sys-

tem through difficult times. “We are literally family — we love each other! We understand that sometimes we’re going to step on each others’ toes, but we have so much fun together; our personalities and the ways we interact together are so important to me.” She pauses for a moment. “Maybe even more important than the music, because it really impacts how we’re going to play together.” Muñiz’s career is at its early stages, but the band-family has big plans for the future. Muñiz admits to the financial difficulties of touring with the band, but this doesn’t dampen her spirits. Currently, she mostly performs around New York, will be working on some new tracks in the studio throughout November, and planning a tour for next year. Until now, Muñiz may have sung about the anticipation of waiting for life to begin, but it’s clear that her adventure is already underway. To find out more, go to biancamuniz.com or check her out on Facebook, Spotify, or iTunes.

letters

October 30, 2017 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Submit your own: letters@mcgilldaily.com

In response to the editorial “Ollivier Dyens has failed you”

t is unfortunate that not only have things become so bad at McGill, but they are on the road to becominge much worse. Basically, McGill has just about eliminated actual treatment services, especially expert psychotherapy services. The Daily article is absolutely right in expressing that McGill is focusing only on waiting times, while making access to good service nearly impossible to access. A colleague and former Mental Health employee has recently told me that McGill Mental Health psychiatrists have urged her to write a letter of protest as they are dismayed by recent changes, but are too frightened to act themselves. Many of the top McGill psychotherapists have already left or are

planning to leave McGill. Psychiatrists will soon follow. In just a few years, the office of the Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning has destroyed mental health services, and it’s going to get much worse. If psychotherapy is not actively supported, then it will disappear. There are McGill academic staff who have questioned why McGill Counselling is hiring staff with little or no psychotherapy experience, while discouraging experienced psychotherapists from practicing their craft. The Office of the Deputy Provost has made a mockery of McGill’s mission statement. McGill claims dedication to the advancement of learning and in providing service to society. In academia, in order to

promote excellence, one turns to experts in a field who have a deep and informed understanding of research, and in medical fields, of clinical experience as well. The models that have been forced onto the McGill services, were done without no consultation with any of the experienced clinical staff within McGill and with no attempt to consult any true expert in student mental health, apart from inviting one individual who has been trying to sell his untested model. To abandon academic and clinical knowledge to serve one’s own political ends is a slap in the face to the whole McGill community. In addition, the Office of the Deputy Provost has created an atmosphere of intimidation, with staff

being directly informed that any protest will not be tolerated. How is this possibly in the interest in the advancement of learning and excellence? The tried and true best treatment for students with emotional problems is expert psychotherapy, and not dumbed down research models or superficial interventions. Providing expert psychotherapy requires strong leadership, ongoing teaching and a positive atmosphere. None of this is now present at McGill. Sincerely, Dr. Norman Hoffman Former Director McGill Mental Health Service , (1992-2007)

Independent Jewish Voices McGill statement on the SSMU Fall General Assembly Content warning: anti-Semitism

avigating the issues of anti-Semitism has been extremely polarising on this campus, and following the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) Fall Semester General Assembly (GA) that occurred on Monday night, Independent Jewish Voices McGill feels that it is urgent to make a public statement at this time. Prior to the GA, current SSMU President Muna Tojiboeva neglected her responsibility to communicate the call for motion submissions to the student body. Therefore, no timely motions were submitted and students were instead required to bring motions to the floor. Democratize SSMU brought forward a motion of non-confidence in the President, with the objective of promoting transparency in student governance. However, this motion was met with great dissent by students mobilising in support of Zionist/pro-Israel politics in SSMU debates regarding the constitutionality of the recent Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) ruling. The GA also saw similar controversy regarding the rejected appointments of Noah Lew, Alexandre Scheffel, and Josephine Wright O’Manique to the Board of Directors (BoD). As a voice for anti-Zionist Jewish folks, we strongly believe that we ought to begin any statement regarding what transpired at the GA by validating and offering our support to those Jewish students who are familiar with expressions of anti-Semitism on campus, evoked by the GA and surrounding initiatives. Our solidarity is not limited to anti- or non-Zionist Jewish folks, as combatting anti-Semitism is an integral part of our purpose on McGill’s campus. Anti-Semitism has many forms, from the institutional to the interpersonal. We, too, are going through a process of discussion and reconciliation, as we attempt to navigate the relationship between our antiZionism and the anti-Semitism which remains pervasive around us. We feel that it is important to extend our solidarity, as well as our resources, to the anti- and non-Zionist Jewish folks who were personally targeted Monday night, who had their Jewish and/or Israeli identities invalidated, and who were accused of being anti-Semitic. These tactics are not limited to the GA, and this invalidation and silencing of anti- and non-Zionist Jewish voices continues to exist on campus and in larger Jewish communities. We affirm

those identities, and also affirm that anti-Zionism comes from a place of Jewish ethics and morality, from within our Judaism(s) and the values it upholds. It is also essential for us to recognise that the people who were most targeted at the GA were women, people of colour, people who do not speak English as a first language, and other folks who are systematically oppressed on and beyond this campus. We urge everyone who was present to reflect critically on these power imbalances, to interrogate your own personal roles in the continued invalidation and marginalisation of these folks, and to hold yourselves accountable for the harm caused at the GA. We hold that the language used by the Democratize SSMU campaign in discussing Jewish students in positions of power utilised traditional anti-Semitic tropes. We believe that it is important to hold our allies accountable, even and especially when there is a divergence between intent and impact. However, we also maintain that Democratize SSMU’s specific reference to three BoD members was not contingent on their Jewish identities, nor was our shared opposition to the reappointment of Noah Lew. Rather, our concerns pertain to the persons in questions’ affiliations with external Zionist institutions. We oppose the projects of the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC) and Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). These are not simply Jewish organisations, but are Zionist lobby organisations that continuously fail to represent a plurality of Jewish opinions and falsely equates anti-Zionism with antiSemitism.Furthermore, the Democratize SSMU campaign addressed institutional flaws far larger than those which impact the BDS initiative on this campus. The lack of transparency, accountability, and democracy are systemic, and extend far beyond this specific issue. We, as anti-Zionist Jewish folks, acknowledge that Jewish trauma is real and rooted in concrete and diverse Jewish histories. We understand that this manifests in varying ways in Jewish people’s lives. Yet, we must assert our opposition to the reactionary drawing upon historical Jewish traumas to further claims of anti-Semitism regarding the General Assembly and Democratize SSMU. We believe that this minimises the magnitude of oppression in Jewish histories by applying them to support claims about the climate at McGill. We, as Jewish folks, mourn our traumas and their significance in our families

and histories. We urge the Jewish community to ethically consider and appropriately respond to these invocations. Furthermore, we cannot neglect the trauma of other peoples; those that have experienced oppression can also be oppressors. We affirm that the movement for Palestinian rights is not an act of violence against the Jewish people. Our solidarity with Palestine exists on a continuum of larger Jewish pursuits towards fighting for the freedoms of all peoples. This project ought to extend beyond the Jewish people: we must stand as allies to those folks around the world involved in anti-oppressive, decolonial, liberation-oriented struggles. Moving forward We acknowledge that as a group and as individuals, we are not the arbiters of what is or is not anti-Semitism. We encourage the Jewish community to seek us out, to have discussions about anti-Semitic tropes, and to be involved in the discourse around anti-Semitism and antiZionism on campus, as well as Palestinian solidarity. As an organisation on this campus, we are beginning to take concrete steps to move forward from the GA. In the past, we have engaged in smaller-scale popular education efforts, but we currently do not have the resources to organise a series of workshops that comprehensively grapple with anti-Semitism and the ongoing actions of the state of Israel. However, we plan to continue organising popular and accessible education to address these complex issues. We are working to compile tangible resources for navigating this relationship in pursuing anti-Zionist work, for Jewish and non-Jewish folks. We hope to engage in deeper dialogue with both the community and its organisations regarding the relationship between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. We are also committed to being active and engaged listeners in this continuing discussion: reach out to us, and engage with us in conversations about these issues as they arise in political initiatives on campus. Resources for further understanding There is a document on the Independent Jewish Voices McGill page - please check there for our growing list of resources. This list is still being developed.

–Independent Jewish Voices McGill