vol102iss37

Volume 102, Issue 37

February 28, 2013 mcgilldaily.com

McGill THE

DAILY

“A farce” since 1911

Published by The Daily Publications Society, a student society of McGill University.

Pg. 8

THURSDAY, MARCH 14 will elect

The staff of

the mcgill daily

the 2013-2014 editorial board Because we hope you’re interested in joining the non-hierarchical team, here’s a quick intro guide on how to become a Daily editor, how the election process works, and how to get in touch with us.

the basics Unlike most student newspapers, our editors are elected by Daily staffers rather than hired by committee. To run for an editorial position or to vote in the election, you must be Daily staff.

ANNUAL

GENEREAL MEETING The AGM of the Daily Publications Society (DPS), publisher of The McGill Daily and Le Délit, will take place on

Wednesday, March 27th Leacock, Room 232 5:30pm Members of the DPS are cordially invited.

The presence of candidates to the Board of Directors is mandatory.

To be staff, you must have contributed six points. Articles, photos, graphics, and illustrations count as one point each. Writing a feature or coming in for a production night counts as two points. If you’re not staff yet, there’s time before the election, so email an editor to get involved!

the positions Twenty editors share equal voting rights on issues, and work together to produce the newspaper every week. Each editor receives a small monthly honorarium.

For more information on individual positions, contact each section editor (emails can be found on page 15 of this issue).

You can also stop by The Daily’s office in Shatner B-24.

the editors Coordinating Coordinating news News (3x) Commentary & Compendium! (2x) Culture (2x) Health & Education Features Sports Science + Technology Multimedia Design & Production (2x) Illustrations Photos Copy Web

deadlines The Daily requires all candidates to submit a one-page application, including your qualifications and interest in running, as well as two samples of writing, photos, illustrations, or design. Email your application to coordinating@mcgilldaily. com by March 11 at noon.

Rundowns and elections are March 12 and 14, respectively, at 6:00 p.m. on both days.

For more information, please contact

chair@dailypublications.org

Does seeing this make you cringe?

Maybe design is right for you.

design@mcgilldaily.com

candidate statement

candidate rundown

election

MARCH

MARCH

MARCH

11

12

14

Submit a one-page application to coordinating@mcgilldaily.com.

All staffers who want to vote in the election must attend rundowns in Shatner B-24.

Candidates will interview in front of all voters at the election in Shatner B-24.

Noon

6:00 p.m.

6:00 p.m.

NEWS

The McGill Daily Thursday, February 28, 2013 mcgilldaily.com

3

03 NEWS SSMU holds Winter GA Protests mark education summit

$421 tuition hike by 2018

Panel on C-31 at McGill

06 COMMENTARY Occupations are a vital part of university life There is life outside of the academy

The PQ can’t subdue the student movement Photo Hera Chan | The McGill Daily

Library reference section to be downsized

08 FEATURES

Faculty and students not consulted

The education summit and its discontents

10 HEALTH&ED The value of life in the Quebec end-of-life care system

What birth control represents

12

CULTURE

Maintaining Montreal’s architectural history

Preserving the Empress

Docudrama for the undocumented

15

EDITORIAL

Propaganda in your inbox

16 COMPENDIUM! Dolphins are people now Seth MacFarlane’s Oscar jokes

Farid Rener The McGill Daily

T

he humanities and social sciences library (HSSL) reference collection is being downsized and moved from its current location to create study space, to the surprise of many students and professors.

By the end of the year, the collection will be removed from its current place in the southeast corner of the main McLennan floor.

Its “essentials” will be moved to where the periodicals are currently displayed, and the rest redistributed to the stacks or Redpath basement, according to interim HSSL head librarian Sara Holder.

The decision was made without consultation with faculty or students, and has been met with “opposition” and “widespread dismay” according to history professor James Krapfl.

“It is unfortunate that there was no consultation before this to find out what students and professors do need and want,” he told The Daily.

The relocation of the reference collection comes after the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) Improvement Fund gave the HSSL $68,255 to contribute to the refurbishment of the current reference area.

In total, the AUS Improvement Fund gave the HSSL $112,000 this year. $3,745 of this was used to purchase an online e-book collection of travel guides, and $40,000 was used to add 37 study spaces in the Cyberthèque in the basement.

AUS VP Finance Saad Qazi told The Daily by email that these amounts had been ratified by AUS Council after being allocated by the AUS Improvement Fund Committee.

However, for professors who use the reference collection, the situation is less than ideal.

“One of the benefits of having a good [comprehensive] reference section is that you go there looking for something, but then find other, very useful things because they are next to what one was looking for. If things are in the stacks then that possibility is diminished,” Krapfl said.

“It makes sense that all the reference books are in the same place in the library. Ideally they would be close to where there are reference librarians,” he added.

The space currently occupied by the reference collection is ideal for student study space, said Holder.

“That area is particularly nice because there are windows, so there will be natural light. It is a very nice space for students, which is why we wanted to use that space differently. By moving the reference section over, we will be able to make-over this space that students have requested and that they gave us money for,” she told The Daily.

However, professors and students have expressed concerns that the increase in study space should not come at the cost of such an important resource for research.

“If this is supposed to be one of Canada’s five major research universities, it seems absurd that we shouldn’t have a really good reference section in the humani-

ties library,” Krapfl said.

“One of my colleagues compared this to going into a science laboratory and removing all of the equipment, and then still expecting people to do research,” he added.

Krapfl and his students make extensive use of atlases and other reference material that will potentially be moved from the reference section to the stacks.

“I ask students to do assignments within a couple of days with books from the reference section. Given there are eighty students, it’s efficient if the books are in the reference section. If the books were in the stacks and were able to get checked out, I wouldn’t be able to run the assignments anymore,” he said.

On Friday, a committee of English and history professors met with Holder and other librarians to talk about the reference section’s relocation. Joanna Schacter, who is the library committee member for the History Students’ Association, was the sole student present at the meeting.

“The meeting was very final,” Schacter told The Daily. “The conclusion was basically that [the changes would be] happening, and they don’t really have a choice because there isn’t enough space… They said that they spent a lot of money on these online sources, and because of that, they want people to use them more – mostly because they paid for them and they don’t feel that people are using them properly,” she said.

Krapfl told The Daily by email

that he was not happy with the outcome of the meeting.

“The head [librarian] of McLennan made it clear that, despite the [English and History] departments’ opposition and widespread student dismay, the decision to downsize and relocate the reference section is not open to reconsideration,” he said.

Holder expressed a very different perception of how the meeting had gone. “There was no opposition expressed in that meeting. Everyone was in agreement that this was a good idea,” she said.

At the meeting, it was decided that professors and students would be able to contact their department’s liaison librarians to say which books they think should be included in the new downsized collection. By doing this, Holder, who inherited the planned relocation from her predecessor, said that the library was trying to make up for their misstep of not consulting with professors beforehand.

“I do agree with the professors that say that there should have been more consultation prior to this plan and that was a mistake on the library’s part. We are trying to make up for that while still providing the students with what they need,” she said.

Schacter believes that this is not enough.

“Not a lot of students know about this,” she said. “[The librarians] say they are consulting, but the library should find some way to get in touch with students to get their input.”

4

NEWS

The McGill Daily | Thursday, February 28, 2013 | mcgilldaily.com

Photo Sarina Gupta

SSMU Winter General Assembly fails to meet quorum Consultative body discusses ancillary fees, Idle No More Esther Lee and Dana Wray The McGill Daily

T

he SSMU saw lackluster attendance from the student body at its Winter 2013 General Assembly (GA) yesterday. The GA failed to meet its required quorum of 100 members from the beginning of its session.

The Winter GA was initially scheduled for February 4, with the motion deadline set for Monday, January 21.

Due to a lack of submitted motions, however, the GA was postponed to Wednesday, February 27.

SSMU President Josh Redel told The Daily that despite low attendance, SSMU doubled their efforts in advertising for the GA this semester. “We did 85 Facebook announcements, 59 class announcements, 8.5 hours of flyering in targeted buildings, 9.5 hours flyering outdoors.”

Redel acknowledged that the timing of the GA left much to be desired, especially with that day’s snowstorm. “It was a very weird mood [at the GA],” he said in an interview. “I’m glad we had conversation on things, but it didn’t seem like there was as much energy.”

At the beginning, the GA had approximately seventy active voters, a number that dwindled down to around thirty by the end of the evening.

In his President’s Report, Redel mentioned: “lease negotiations are currently underway…. There’s an interesting new model that we’re looking towards that will be beneficial to SSMU and the students…

Negotiations will be done in a month and a half – expect very big news in four or five weeks.”

The negotiation for the Shatner building lease with the administration has been ongoing for the last three years. The information has remained confidential to the student body thus far.

Lack of debate on motions The motion regarding support for the Social Equity and Diversity Office (SEDE) was one of the two motions submitted in time for the prior date of the GA on February 4.

VP University Affairs Haley Dinel explained that the GA’s approval would “[affirm] the work we want to do, and [are] doing.”

The motion seeks to secure a permanent funding structure for SEDE from McGill, and to ensure support from the university community. Dinel briefly alluded to concerns about the impact of the recent budget cuts.

“Where budgets are being cut, it’s always unclear what the status is of new offices,” Dinel said at the GA. In the consultative forum, the

motion passed with 55 votes for, seven votes against, and two abstentions.

The motion regarding support for Indigenous peoples and allies was also submitted before the original January 21 deadline.

The resolved clauses in the motion were divided at the Legislative Council meeting on January 24, and only the first resolved clause was up for vote at the GA. This clause asks SSMU to adopt a position in support of the Idle No More movement. At the Council meeting, the councillors deemed the clause “too external” for the body to simply rubber-stamp.

Although the motion passed in the consultative forum with 51 votes for and 12 votes against, it will be sent back to Council.

Neither of the motions inspired any debate in the dwindling crowd at the GA. A motion submitted after the postponement of the GA regarding conflict minerals did manage to pique some interest. The McGill chapter of STAND Canada submitted a motion to mandate the Financial Ethics Research Committee to “consider the role of conflict minerals in current and future investments under [SSMU’s] Five Year Ethical Investment Plan.

Two representatives from the

McGill chapter were on hand to clarify the intentions of the motion. Conflict minerals – specifically tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold – are traded in known conflict regions, fuelling rebel groups with their sale and export.

Recently, legislation was passed in the United States requiring companies to report whether their products contain conflict minerals. Canadian Members of Parliament are drafting a similar bill, and universities in the United States have passed motions on the subject of investment in conflict minerals as well.

The consultative body passed the motion with 54 votes in favour and three against.

Illegal ancillary fees at Uni-versity of Toronto An additional motion regarding “fair tuition and fee charges” was submitted from the floor

by SSMU’s Political Campaigns Coordinator Christopher Bangs.

Inspired by University of Toronto’s recent review of its ancillary fees based on student research, and aligned with Ontario regulation regarding tuition, the Motion to Ensure Fair Tuition and Fee Charges urged SSMU to “conduct a thorough review of all tuition and fees charged in all faculties or

schools…to ensure that all charges comply with regulations internal to the University and with the laws and regulations of Quebec…and to ensure that all charges are made known to students when registering for classes.”

Bangs explained that the motion also was a reflection of his own experience. “In a civil engineering class… there was a $90 fee to access the engineering lab. I reached out to the Dean of Students and…I was able to get the fee waived…They did not make [the fee] clear when we entered the class…A lot of people don’t have recourse to the administration.”

U1 Arts student Sam Gregory, a candidate for SSMU VP University Affairs, inquired why the motion was brought up to SSMU, as opposed to the Senate or the administrative body of the University.

“I don’t believe that some sort of legal [motion] would go through the Senate,” Bangs explained.

“Considering that student unions are here to make sure that we’re getting the most out of the University, and considering that we have mandates for [tuition], I think it’s important to make sure that the University is not getting more than what they’re legally capped at.”

The GA concluded with an interactive session regarding Space in the Shatner Building.

news

5

The McGill Daily | Thursday, February 28, 2013 | mcgilldaily.com

Tuition set to rise $421 by 2018 Hike based on projected 3 per cent rise in household income Laurent Bastien Corbeil The McGill Daily

A

s the government’s Summit on Higher Education ended on a sour note on Tuesday, the Parti Québécois reiterated its plan to implement an annual 3 per cent tuition hike per year.

It also established five committees to look into ways of improving universities in Quebec.

The 3 per cent tuition hike is based on the work of economist Pierre Fortin, a former professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). According to one of his papers presented at a preliminary summit meeting in December, the 3 per cent yearly increase stemmed from the hypothesis that average household disposable income will grow at an average of 3 per cent a year from 2012 to 2018.

“In effect, we see that the indexation of tuition to household family disposable income…either maintains the financial contributions of students at its current level or increases it slightly,” he wrote in French.

By 2018, tuition will grow by around $421 and reach $2,589 per year, according to Fortin. Conversely, a tuition freeze would have kept fees at $2,168 and diminished students’ financial contribution.

“To freeze tuition in a world where the cost of a university education increases constantly would gradually bring the system toward free education over the long term,” he wrote.

According to Fortin, a tuition freeze would lower students’ contribution to 6 per cent of the cost of their

Photo Hera Chan | The McGill Daily

education by 2022 and 4 per cent by 2032 if the cost of a university education increases by 3.5 per cent per year.

“Evidently, someone at some point will try to bring back their contribution to 8 per cent to solve the issue of underfunding and by doing so, create another social crisis,” he wrote.

The government has not specified whether the 3 per cent increase will remain in effect beyond the 2018-2019 period outlined in Fortin’s paper.

The committees are tasked with specific mandates, each reflective of the four themes discussed at the summit.

The first committee will be in charge of drafting a loi-cadre, outlining the mandates of universities in the province, while the second will look into creating a mandate for the National Council of Universities, a new government body created during the summit. According to the government, the council’s role will

mostly be advisory and will revolve around assessing the quality of higher education in Quebec.

In an interview with The Daily, Jérémie Bédard-Wien, a spokesperson for the Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ), a student federation representing 70,000 students, expressed skepticism toward the government’s plan.

“We’ll see for the council. It remains to be seen who will have a seat and whether or not it will be

composed of exterior members,” he said in French. “The Education Minister loves to pepper his declarations with vague promises.”

According to La Presse, the committee tasked with defining a mandate for the council will be headed by Claude Corbo, the former rector of UQAM. The other committees will seek to improve CEGEPs across Quebec, reassess university financing, and increase student aid and bursaries.

Human rights advocates slam Bill C-31 Refugees detained unconstitutionally, say panelists Cem Ertekin The McGill Daily

S

tudents and law experts convened at Chancellor Day Hall yesterday to discuss Bill C-31, otherwise known as the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, and its impacts on the asylum-seeking process.

Hosted by the Human Rights Working Group’s Immigration and Refugee Rights Portfolio at the Faculty of Law and the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Centre (MHMC), the discussion focused on the detention of refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants in Canada.

Bill C-31 was passed on June 30 and impacts how refugees are treated in Canada in a variety of ways, including by limiting access to healthcare following changes to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP).

According to Idil Atak, a postdoctoral researcher at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), while systemic detention of refugees is considered to be the norm in Europe, Canada is still a long way from the international exemplar it sets for itself.

According to Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers vice-president Mitchell Goldberg, someone can be detained only if that person is a danger to the pub-

lic, has a flight risk, or the authenticity of their identity is suspect.

The main issue of clarity of identity is nebulous, says Goldberg. According to current legislation, if an immigration officer of the Canadian Border Services Agency is not satisfied with the person is who they say they are, the person will be detained.

Another issue with Bill C-31 is that it allows for the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to deem some countries “safe.” Refugee-status claimants from those countries are given a shorter time period to prepare their claims and are not entitled to an appeals process.

One such country is Mexico, which was designated safe a week

ago. “Most people are safe there,” said Goldberg, “but there are also people being killed there by drug cartels and corrupt police officers.”

“It is quite complicated to understand the law, even for people with backgrounds in law,” said Jenny Jeanes, program coordinator at Action Réfugiés Montréal, underlining the need for helping refugees understand their legal rights.

Once detained, the refugees are subject to a review after 48 hours.

If that review fails, another one is conducted seven days later, and then repeated every other thirty days, until the detainee is released.

But in the end it is up to the immigration officer, and not to the board

member who does the review, to release the detainee.

When asked about the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs’ (CIJA) support of Bill C-31 by an anonymous speaker from the crowd, Goldberg said that he found it very disappointing as a Jewish person.

He added that many other organizations, including the MHMC, had been critical of it.

Louis-Philippe Jannard of the MHMC told The Daily that he had asked the government to participate in the panel.

According to Jannard, the officials responded, “we cannot be here, we are only applying the law so we cannot discuss the policy aspect of it.”

commentary

The McGill Daily Thursday, February 28, 2013 mcgilldaily.com

6

In praise of occupation Occupations are integral to the university’s vitality William Clare Roberts Commentary Writer

T

he ongoing debates about the administration’s Draft Protocol on Protests and the impending revisions of the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures circle round and round one issue without confronting it head-on: occupations. We are having these debates because of the two student occupations of James building offices last school year, and the central issue is whether such occupations are a form of peaceful protest or a noxious obstruction of University affairs.

The latter is the administration’s official position – for instance, Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson remarked during the #6party that occupations are never peaceful. This position is mistaken. The administration and the McGill community at large ought to appreciate the role occupations have in university life. To occupy the offices of the administration is the sacred right of students, and an indispensible means by which administrative authority is kept in check. To attempt to root it out is to attempt to eradicate student freedom as such.

The administration’s position rests on a certain reading of the Code of Student Conduct.

According to their reading, an assembly of students is no longer peaceful if students either knowingly obstruct University activities (Article 5) or “contrary to express instructions [...] knowingly enter or remain in any University building, facility, room, or office” (Article 6).

In other words, if a protest or demonstration violates any article of the Code of Student Conduct, then it is not a peaceful assembly.

The Code actually says just

the opposite: if a protest or demonstration is peaceful, then it does not violate any article of the Code. At the end of the article on disruption, the Code states: “Nothing in this Article or Code shall be construed to prohibit peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, lawful picketing, or to inhibit free speech” (Article 5c).

On the administration’s reading, this article is superfluous; a determination of whether an action is obstructive or “contrary to express instructions” is made prior to a determination of whether it is a peaceful demonstration, with the effect that any obstructive or disobedient action cannot, for that reason, be peaceful. There is no reason for Article 5c to be there, since it never comes into effect.

But 5c is a restriction on the application of the Code. The framers of the Code surely put Article 5c there for a reason, and presumably they meant it to say what it says. The reason that nothing in the Code “shall be construed to prohibit peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, lawful picketing, or to inhibit free speech,” is because peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, lawful picketing, and free speech are themselves essential university activities, and hence cannot obstruct those activities or be subjected to the commands of administrators.

A university can no more carry on without these activities than it can carry on without teaching and research.

If students are peacefully demonstrating their views, then they cannot disrupt the administrative activities of the University, no matter how many meetings are cancelled, because the administrative activities of the University are subordinated by the Code itself to the peaceful demonstration of views. The point of

Photo Victor Tangermann | The McGill Daily

administration is to help foster and facilitate such peaceful demonstrations. The purpose and highest calling of the University is to make possible the free and frank speech that is the essence of peaceful contestation and nonviolent coping with disagreement and conflict.

Being reasonable means being open to the giving and receiving of reasons, to the discussion and deliberation in which reasons can be given and received. And being peaceful means pursuing and preserving the conditions under which such reasonable discussion can take place. On these definitions, students can act – and have acted – reasonably and peacefully in occupying administrators’ offices. The students who entered Mendelson’s office last February were engaged in a timehonoured and traditional practice. They confronted the acts of

those possessing authority with the only kind of power that those without authority can muster: the power of appearing together and speaking in common, demanding that their concerns be taken into account. This is not merely one form of peaceful demonstration amongst others, it is the archetype of peaceful demonstration.

Such occupations cannot possibly disrupt University activities because they seek to compel administrators to explain and justify themselves, and to listen to the reasons and arguments of those who feel ignored or trampled on by their decisions. Hence, occupiers can also have good reason to ignore “express instructions” to abandon their occupation. Such commands are often attempts to refuse a conversation about the administration’s policies. As such, they are illegitimate.

It is a good thing for this uni-

versity, and for its officers, to expect that administrative decisions that fly in the face of the repeatedly and properly expressed wishes of groups of students will lead to the occupation of administrators’ offices. Administrators need to expect this because otherwise their power of decree will invariably lead them further and further away from the deeply held opinions and cherished wishes of students. Occupation and other forms of student and faculty direct action are crucial checks on administrative tyranny at universities. Remember, McGill wouldn’t even have systems of student and faculty self-governance without the direct actions, including the occupations, of the 1960s and 1970s.

William Clare Roberts is an assistant professor in Political Science at McGill. He can be reached at william.roberts3@mcgill.ca.

Be next year’s Commentary & Compendium! editor.

Candidate statements are due March 11 at noon. Rundowns and elections are on March 12 and 14, respectively. You must be staff to run.

For information on the process, get in touch at: commentary@mcgilldaily.com

commentary

7

The McGill Daily | Thursday, February 28, 2013 | mcgilldaily.com

So you didn’t get into grad school?

Congratulations!

Josh Mentanko Commentary Writer

B

oth the news that McGill will unilaterally cut dozens of courses in the Arts faculty and the looming austerity measures foreshadowed by the recent budget-crisis-town-hall have contributed to a worried conversation about the state of the humanities at the university. In this context, I would like to propose that the personal stories of graduate school rejection letters, and the dashed hopes they represent, comprise another part of the neoliberal assault on education, not because they are the result of inadequate funding, but because we have come to see our own intellectual development as wrapped up totally in the institutions we pay to attend and the careers we hope to build.

Arguably, most of us identify as students. This identity might conflict or coincide with our racialized, gendered, and classed identities, but it still takes up a sizeable chunk of who we think we are. And why shouldn’t it? We spend a lot of our time at the university, so isn’t it only natural that we start to connect our sense of self to our scholarly success? I would like to trouble the notion that intellectual exploration of the university is a universal good, not only because the university’s standards for measuring our development are absurdly narrow, but because it sets itself apart as

the site to learn and discover.

As neoliberalism advances, jobs in the arts, humanities, and education, which unite creativity and intellectualism, are being ruthlessly cut. While we can all admit this, it is more difficult to grasp how corporatism and managerial groupthink have rooted themselves in the few remaining jobs. Instead of creating intellectual communities, we are told to network. Instead of randomly curating our intellectual interests, we adhere to rote specialization.

We spend so much time writing applications to justify our existence that we become our worst critics. A related effect is that we refrain from research that granting agencies will not fund, and we begin to craft our intellectual pursuits to align with market imperatives.

The fight to preserve spaces like universities from the parasite of managerialism is a worthwhile one, but I am not convinced that it is the best use of our energy. We are not saving ‘intellectual life,’ but the ability of a privileged few to hold tenuous positions in a system that has already been refigured for the purposes of a neoliberal economy. Why should we direct the grassroots energy of so many of us to fight the battles that will only benefit the most privileged in our (intellectual) communities?

For working class students in particular, trying to explain how blue-collar work might be intellectually gratifying to economically-

Illustration Amina Batyreva | The McGill Daily

privileged students – who divide working life into a binary of “working with your mind vs. working with your hands” – is degrading and should be unnecessary. It doesn’t matter what your job is; you can still imagine a better world. In fact, those of us who have traversed the worlds of academia and low-wage labour already know that our best insights in the classroom are often thanks to our work planting trees or in the service industry.

Neoliberalism’s dirtiest trick was encouraging us to invest our creativity and love of learning into the indifferent machine of the modern research university, deluding us into believing that we could only find intellectual satisfaction in white-collar work. In an era where the possibility of finding the kind of work that aligns with our intellectual (nevermind our political) interests is increasingly out of reach for all but the privileged few who

can afford endless rounds of unpaid internships, or the uninspired few whose sense of self is determined by their GPA and CV. We need to imagine other ways to be creative and forge intellectual communities.

To this end, not getting into grad school might be the first step to a better future.

Josh Mentanko is a first-year Law student. You can reach Josh at josh. mentanko@mail.mcgill.ca.

Fuck you, PQ Fight the cuts to your education Davide Mastracci The McGill Daily

I

was one of the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets last year to protest the tuition increases proposed by then-Premier Jean Charest. When a provincial election was called for September 4, voices within the student movement, such as that of Martine Desjardins, president of the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ), called for students to stop protesting. The idea was that if we stopped protesting and voted for the Parti Québécois (PQ), who promised to repeal the tuition hikes, our problems would be solved.

I did not believe the PQ would cancel tuition hikes, and I was sure ending the strike would destroy any pressure we had put on the government. Though the PQ did in fact repeal the tuition increases on September 20, my pessimism was warranted as the PQ have embarked upon a path nearly as destructive as

Charest’s Parti Libéral du Québec (PLQ) since then.

For example, at the Summit on Higher Education on February 26, the PQ announced that it plans to increase tuition annually by 3 per cent, which means a raise of just over $65 for the 2013-2014 academic year. The summit was also boycotted by one of the main student unions, the Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ), after the government announced that free education would not be discussed despite the clear desire for it from a sizeable portion of society.

The student movement will not allow the PQ to continue in this manner without resistance.

We took to the streets in thousands last year, were arrested and assaulted, had arms and ribs broken, and even lost an eye. We will not allow those months of protest to go to waste, as was made clear by the protest involving nearly 10,000 people on the second day of the

Summit, as well as ongoing strike votes. However, with that said, if we are to have a more successful run this time around, we should change our strategy, and McGill students should be part of those new efforts.

While I will always support the idea of free education, both in theory and in practice, I do not think student groups should organize their efforts solely around this goal right now. So far, protests have focused on the claim that we currently receive a service, and the amount we pay for said service should not increase, and in fact should not even exist. Protests should now focus on the service we are getting for the tuition we pay. Of course, the two can go hand in hand, but the focus needs to be on the latter example as the attacks the PQ have proposed on university funding are quite serious.

Just after cancelling the tuition increases in September, the Ministry of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology retroactively cut uni-

versity funding by $124 million, $19.1 million of which were at McGill. The PQ expected university administrators to make these cuts in four months. A few months later, on February 8, the PQ announced that these cuts were to double, and if at least 50 per cent of the cut was not made by April of 2014, another $32 million would be cut from McGill alone.

As Principal Heather MunroeBlum stated in an email to McGill staff, students, and community members on February 19, “These unprecedented cuts are not abstract. They will hurt people we care about in our McGill community, and families across Quebec.”

Yet despite what the administration has claimed, it seems that these cuts have already begun to make their impact. Munroe-Blum has indicated that in the future McGill will start “eliminating positions and pulling back on services, supports and programs.”

While tuition increases will reduce accessibility for students

in the future, the massive cuts by the PQ will drastically reduce the quality of our education right now.

This is something that should concern all of the students in Quebec, even those at McGill who actively seek to separate themselves from Quebec politics. Rich students may not have cared about the possibility of tuition increases, as they could afford them. Yet can any of us truly afford to have the quality of our education further diminished while carrying the same monetary weight upon our backs?

We came together as students and fought the tuition increases – now we should come together once more to fight the cuts. The PQ has other ways to save money; they just believe we are the easiest to rob.

Let’s take to the streets once more until this belief is shattered.

Davide Mastracci is a U2 History and Political Science student. He can be reached at davide.mastracci@mail.mcgill.ca.

features

The McGill Daily Thursday, February 28, 2013 mcgilldaily.com

8

(clockwise from top left) A protester is arrested on Day Two in downtown Montreal.

A demonstrator in support of students hangs a red square out of an apartment window.

Art History and Communications Graduate Students Association is on strike in opposition to the Summit on Higher Education.

Police overlook the 10,000-person strong demonstration.

(clockwise from top left) photos by Shane Murphy, Laurent Bastien Corbeil, Jessie Marchessault, and Shane Murphy

features

The McGill Daily | Thursday, February 28, 2013 | mcgilldaily.com

THE EDUCATION SUMMIT

9

WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE, AND OUT

LAURENT BASTIEN CORBEIL, CHRISTINA COLIZZA, MOLLY KORAB, FARID RENER, AND DANA WRAY

T

he students are back on the streets again.

This time it is to protest the Parti Québécois’s (PQ) Summit on Higher Education, which took place on Monday and Tuesday. The oneand-a-half-day summit was a place for discussion about Quebec’s higher education system between 61 different organizations from the education and professional sectors, as well as leaders from student federations. Topics on the table included the quality of education and university governance, the research collaboration between schools and communities, the development of university funding, and strategies for the accessibility of education and student retention. The controversial topic of free education was taken off the table beforehand, prompting prominent student group the Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ), a student federation representing 70,000 students, to boycott the meeting.

This skepticism grew after the Minister of Higher Education Pierre Duchesne asked universities to retroactively cut $124 million from their budgets by April. McGill Principal Heather Munroe-Blum also said that the summit was a “farce,” and called the meeting “choreographed” in an interview with Le Devoir two weeks ago.

Last year during the student strike, the PQ showed solidarity with the movement and opposed the Parti libéral du Québec’s (PLQ) proposed tuition hike from $2,168 to $3,793 over the course of 2012 to 2017. The PQ won the provincial election on September 4, and immediately scrapped the proposed tuition hike and began planning the education summit.

On the second day of the summit, the PQ announced that they would be increasing tuition fees by 3 per cent annually, starting September 2013. According to Marois, this is the “most just” and “fairest” solution for society.

The increase would amount to $65, although many media outlets have reported a $70 indexation. In fact, the $70 figure is an average of the increases over the next five years.

During the Summit discussions, demonstrators took to the streets both days to show their grievances with what is perceived to be the government’s empty gesture. Violent clashes between riot police and demonstrators ocurred both days, with the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bangs. Altogether, 14 demonstrators were arrested.

Day One Inside the Summit, which was held at the Arsenal, a contemporary art gallery in Griffintown, civil society groups, student leaders, and representatives from professors’

unions and administrative bodies tackled the four aforementioned areas of discussion during the 12-and-a-half hour meeting.

Corine Trubiano, a student at the Collège de Maisonneuve who was at the protest, told The Daily in French that she did not feel the Summit represented the student population fairly.

“I’m here because I’m angry that the idea of free education is being excluded from the Summit. The ideas they are talking about have been pre-determined; I find that this isn’t including the entire population. ASSÉ and other student associations are not represented here today,” she said.

Over 1,500 protesters took to the streets to protest the two-day summit. The Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) declared the protest illegal before it started marching south from Cabot Square, where protesters gathered at 4:30 p.m. Riot police and police on bicycles flanked the march almost immediately, along with buses filled with more riot police.

The march snaked through residential streets in St. Henri before arriving at the Summit. SPVM and Sûreté du Québec (SQ) officers filled the parking lot in front of the Arsenal, blocking the entrance. A helicopter circled above, while peaceful protesters chanted anti-police slogans.

La Presse reported on Sunday that the SQ was present at the summit at the behest of Premier Pauline Marois and would be called on if the SPVM felt it needed reinforcements.

“The police presence is completely absurd here. We aren’t living in a police state. Their huge numbers are just increasing people’s anger. It’s brutal, and it’s creating a violent image for our society. That isn’t necessary,” Trubiano said in French.

According to SPVM spokesperson JeanBruno Latour, one person was arrested for armed assault after launching a projectile at police. Two people were fined – one for refusing to disperse, and another for putting stickers on a building.

While the SPVM had no information regarding the types of projectiles used, CTV speculated that the projectiles could have been snowballs and paint-filled ping pong balls.

Police chased protesters down to Place des Arts, where some were shoved aside from the Complexe Desjardins and held for a short time.

At one point, police fired a sound bomb, also known as a flash-bang, to try to get protesters to scatter.

There were reports that an SPVM officer was injured by tear gas, but the SPVM did not comment on this by press time. Several journalists, including a Concordia University Television (CUTV) correspondent, were pepper sprayed.

The majority of protesters dispersed by

around 7 p.m.; however, a group of around 100 protesters regrouped at Place ÉmilieGamelin and started another march east along Ste. Catherine. This protest was immediately declared illegal, and police announced over loudspeakers that everyone had to walk on the sidewalk, or would be “broken up.”

By around 7:15 p.m., this small protest scattered at Beaudry metro. Here, riot police took a break at a local fast-food restaurant and were met with jeers from onlookers.

Day Two In a significantly larger protest organized by ASSÉ, 10,000 students rallied against the government’s plan to raise tuition annually and were met with rocks, teargas, and flash-bang grenades.

“The Summit was definitely a failure,” Jérémie Bédard-Wien, a spokesperson for ASSÉ, told The Daily in French. “It failed to answer some of the questions that were raised during the Maple Spring and lacked any sort of depth.”

The demonstration was immediately declared illegal by the police. Approximately 3,000 protesters began to march despite warnings, as the crowd eventually grew to around 7,000.

Starting in Square Victoria, protesters marched peacefully past McGill University and up St. Laurent, before turning east on Pine.

Fights flared after demonstrators proceeded down St. Denis and launched snowballs at lines of riot police. Police responded violently and clashes continued near Square Saint-Louis, where demonstrators fought back by linking their arms in a human chain and advancing on police lines. Heavy reinforcement from the SQ intervened to disperse the crowd.

Demonstrators from multiple groups were present, including McGill’s Art History and Communications Studies Graduate Students Association (AHCS GSA). AHCS GSA originally voted to boycott the summit in solidarity with ASSÉ. It was the only student association at McGill to do so.

The protest eventually dispersed, and 13 arrests were made.

3 per cent?

The numbers and words being used by the PQ are misleading. The proposed 3 per cent indexation that many media outlets have reported is linked to the hypothesis that disposable household income will increase by 3 per cent by 2018. This will lead to a $65 increase next year, but the increase for the following years would be greater. By September 2018, the yearly increase will be at $75, and the total increase in tuition fees will be close to $421.

Have you ever experienced police brutality?

Let your voice be heard!

Share your story with us, to be included in a special online multimedia supplement to our upcoming police issue.

radio@mcgilldaily.com

Did you know The Daily makes radio?

If you answered no: well then, yes we do. Unfit to Print is our show, and it airs on CKUT and streams on our website.

Interviews, radio documentaries, poetry readings - we do it all.

If you answered yes: What are you waiting for? It’s time to give it a try. Radio is easy and fun to make, and its a great skill to add to your CV. The year’s winding down but its never too late - no experience is necessary.

radio@mcgilldaily.com

Daily Publications Society’s

STUDENT JOURNALISM WEEK 2013

2 !3 I D S B !N z b e t s v i !u P !U N P O E B Z !N B S D I !2 9 Panels

Career in journalism Journalism School - Freelancing Activism & Journalism Investigative Journalism

Workshops

Copy Editing Photo Editing Design Behind the scenes

The tradition continues. Watch out for further announcements!

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/sjw

le délit

Health&ed

The McGill Daily Thursday, February 28, 2013 mcgilldaily.com

ii

Illustration Amina Batyreva | The McGill Daily

The state of living The debate on end-of-life care in Quebec Hera Chan The McGill Daily

M

y partner told me he wanted to kill his father. The only thing in his way was the law. Terminally ill, his father had been occupying one of the 637 beds at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal for several weeks and had asked to be relieved of his pain during many long nights.

Euthanasia was and still is in the process of being decriminalized in Quebec. Doctor-assisted suicide is not even currently discussed as an option in the court of law. Naturally, there was no dignity in dying.

Quebec and the “good death” Euthanasia – derived from the Greek meaning “good death” – is defined as the practice of a doctor intentionally ending a life to relieve the patient of pain and suffering. The most common method of euthanasia is when a doctor increases the dosage of medication to a lethal level, such as raising the number of morphine injections to a patient. Doctor-assisted suicide, on the other hand, is when the doctor gives the patient the tools to end their life. For example, a patient could be given a button that, when pressed, would administer an overdose of a painkiller.

Presented to the National Assembly of Quebec last March, a detailed report entitled “Dying With Dignity” hopes to address concerns surrounding euthanasia and propose a system that would protect the rights of all terminallyill patients to end their lives. Legal experts say this does not include

doctor-assisted suicide.

The report discusses at length the state of palliative care in Quebec and how end-of-life care can be improved. Following these recommendations, the all-party select committee for “Dying With Dignity” proposes to expand the provincial healthcare system to include medical aid in dying on the grounds that “some suffering cannot be effectively relieved, and individuals who want to put an end to what they consider senseless, intolerable suffering face a roadblock that goes against Québec society’s values of compassion and solidarity.”

Euthanasia, if legalized, would not be accesible for everyone who requests it. The patient must fulfill the proposed six criteria outlined by the report to be able to make a request. The criteria propose that the patient must be suffering from a serious, incurable disease, is in an advanced state of weakening capacities with no chance of improvement, and is undergoing constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering that they feel cannot be eased. Legally, they must also be a Quebec resident under the Health Insurance Act, an adult able to consent to treatment under the law, and be able to make a free and informed decision to request medical aid in dying.

Ultimately, the report strives to create a system that gives agency back to the patient. Dr. Gaétan Barrette, president of the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec (FMSQ), said in an interview with the National Post: “It’s not the doctor’s decision, it’s not the system’s decision, but the patient’s decision.”

Currently, euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide are deemed crimes in the Criminal Code of Canada. But this means little when the enforcement of criminal law is up to each province. In addition, the committee is proposing provincial legislation to prevent the criminal prosecution of doctors if this act is carried out.

Though not officially ratified, many, including Dr. Catherine Ferrier of the Geriatrics department at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC), believe that Dying With Dignity will soon become a part of Quebec law.

Values and the meaning of life A philosophical debate over the meaning of a well-lived life and how individuals and society value life has arisen from the debate on euthanasia. Although Dignity for Dying makes a compelling case, there exists a strong opposition to the way enabling doctors to carry out euthanasia, will change the way we view medicine and value life, particularly for those Ferrier cites as traditionally marginalized in our healthcare system, such as the elderly.

In the Roman Catholic Church’s Declaration on Euthanasia, which was approved by Pope John Paul II, euthanasia is a “violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.”

Conversely, Dignity in Dying describes euthanasia as “compatible with changes in social values, medicine and the law.” The report adds, “our social values have shifted from religious or ideological beliefs to notions of personal liberty,

respect for autonomy, inviolability and integrity of the individual, all consistent with the concept of medical aid in dying.”

In a survey, conducted by the committee who wrote the report, of 6,558 people – nearly 50 per cent of which were from the administrative regions of Montreal, Montérégie, and Capitale-Nationale – 80 per cent feel that euthanasia should be decriminalized for people who suffer from an incurable illness or have unbearable psychological and physical pain.

The argument for euthanasia stems from the idea that if patients are legally allowed to refuse treatment, they should also have the right to doctor-assisted death for the goal of reducing pain. Inaction on the part of the doctor has as much of a direct effect on the patient as assisting a patient in performing euthanasia.

Professor of Law and founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law Margaret Somerville and Ferrier disagree with the leanings of the majority of the Quebec population, insisting that euthanasia is not a viable option in end-of-life care.

Somerville believes that “it is inherently wrong to intentionally kill another person and this is what euthanasia involves,” adding that “you can’t do [euthanasia] without harming the general value of respect for life in society.”

Ferrier said in a phone interview with The Daily that the likelihood of euthanasia being legalized could be attributed to negative changes in our society, which is “a lot more individualistic than it use to be” and being much less family-oriented. “There’s

nobody in society that is allowed to kill other people. If we make doctors an exception, we would be giving an awful lot of power to doctors and in my mind, [doctors are] not better than anybody else.”

This ignores much of the detailing of the report that constricts who can request and receive euthanasia.

Sommerville adds that the “appropriate charge would be first degree murder” for doctors who perform euthanasia or doctorassisted suicide.

Ashes to ashes When both were asked about how they value a well-lived life, they described a bleak existence devoid of pain. Both doctors had spoken to me at length about their experience helping patients alleviate their pain and increasing the quality of palliative care for patients. A strong voice for preserving the current methodology of end-of-life care in Quebec, Somerville even described herself humourously as “15 per cent of a journalist.”

I cannot position a doctor as a murderer for assisting a patient in euthanasia, though my own values are not intrinsically different from those of Somerville and Ferrier; we all value the quality of a person’s life. What differs is where we want to see those values upheld. A patient cannot determine if they will be terminally ill, but they should be able to determine when that pain should end. I watched a person lose his mind and body before his suffering ended in what anti-euthanasia advocates describe as a natural death. Only as the moon changed phases did we see his physical body go. All had turned to dust again.

12

The McGill Daily | Thursday, February 28, 2013 | mcgilldaily.com

It’s not just about the pill It’s what it represents Emily Saul The McGill Daily

I

am a cisgendered*, heterosexual woman, and during my short lifetime I have tacitly absorbed the assumption that I and other cisheterosexual women are expected, in this day and age, to take control of our sexual responsibilities and preclude the possibility of pregnancy.

It has come to my attention recently, however, that although I and others hold this expectation, the responsibilities we have are wholly subject to the amount of information we’re given by our educational systems, doctors, and the rights currently allowed us by the political system in which we live. From our induction into our potential to bear children, our hands are tied by sex education, doctor prescription bias, and the stance our government holds regarding women’s reproductive affairs.

From its medicalized, commercialized inception, contraceptionhas been available in very specific contexts. From the post-Victorian era to the sexual “revolution,” reliable forms of birth control were only available to women at their doctors’ discretion, and most physicians refused to prescribe it, particularly to unmarried women.

The introduction of the Pill in 1960 was nothing short of magic, and though everyone quickly remembered it was just another drug and suffered from archetypical drug problems, it seems to have rediscovered its reverence in the eyes of young women and their prescribers. Steeped in wonder once again, the pill has been reclaimed as a solution to any teenage ‘problem,’ and that’s how doctors sell it. Or, at least, that’s how my doctor sold me Yaz. Dual contraception and acne medications are dream drugs; brands like Yaz and Diane-35, originally oral acne medications converted to lower-dose hormonal birth controls, become a way for many heterosexual young women to covertly introduce contraception into their lives. They are incredibly popular, and are projected in ad campaigns as perfect for any ‘blossoming young woman.’ By my sophomore year of high school, every single one of my female friends was on a different pill. We all smoked, increasing our risk of blood clots or stroke; we all skipped it or took it irregularly, decreasing the effectiveness.

We saw no problem, we’d done our part; we were medicated, and felt like full-fledged sexual beings because it was now ‘safe’ to have sex with us. But like our foremothers before the revolution, our physicians still controlled our access

to contraception – just in a very different way. Instead of saying no, they said yes; but they only said yes to the Pill. Everything else was characterized as too painful (sub-dermal implants), too much upkeep (shots), too obvious (the patch), not right for women prechildbirth (IUD), or too clunky/ unreliable (barrier methods like the diaphragm or condoms); birth control pills were a first stop for prescription assignment, and every doctor I went to had first-month-samples of the bigger brands (like Yaz) on hand. When I wanted to ditch Yaz because of weight gain and chest pain, I was fought by multiple providers. I was told what I was looking for (a longterm non-hormonal form of birth control) didn’t exist, and I should just keep trying different pills.

I have a ParaGard IUD now, but only because one day I happened to Google “non-hormonal contraception,” not because any of the brigade of doctors I visited ever told me it was even an option.

Doctors, ad campaigns, and young women turned the Pill into encapsulated maturity and responsibility. Instead of bringing us liberation, it introduced us to a perpetual and systematized crutch and kept us from fully acknowledging all of our new and important duties as sexual actors with the potentiality to bear children. In our hands, the Pill became a way for us to have everything we wanted without contextualizing these expectations and their origins. My friends and I just took them, because they made us feel like we were in control.

It’s hard to think critically about the Pill, particularly because it marked an important milestone in women’s liberation, and its acceptance was an integral part of second wave feminism. It allotted for choice, freedom, and many of the gains women made regarding their sexual spheres. But it was also one of the first ever ‘lifestyle’ drugs to be released, and one of the first medications to ever be initially tested on human subjects. The drug was prescribed to women who were not told about potential side effects, and some died from drug-related complications. There were hearings about the deaths, led by male researchers, with no testimony from women who had survived their prescriptions. A group of women calling themselves D.C. Women’s Liberation protested the structure, and garnered national attention. The result of this intersection was that the hormone levels in the Pill were lowered to a fraction of the original dose and, more importantly for my point and all of womankind, these women actualized informed consent as a national issue. They contextual-

Illustration Amina Batyreva | The McGill Daily

ized it, and made nascent consumer involvement a conceivable idea. But despite that, young women today are not acting on this informed consent because they are only able to be passive secondary participants within the current framework.

There is a blatant paradox within this system of assumed social responsibility. We cannot be given incomplete control, still expected to be fully responsible, and yet not be given responsibility to make choices for ourselves. This drug cannot do its job (allow us control) if we are not actively involved. From selective information in sexual education, to the continual contestation of a woman’s ability to make choices that are right for herself, to what birth control is most “us,” somewhere along the line young women need to stop being told what is best for them and realize that they can, and need to be, a member in their own process, but also that they cannot be the only member. Inter-generational and inter-sex discussion is a must in order to be informed of our true positions and the disproportionate liability women still hold.

Give me less acne, give me bigger breasts, give me lighter periods or fewer or less-painful periods or the ability to have spontaneous sex without worry; but it’s unrealistic

to assume that taking one pill will do all of that, or that birth control in general will bring womanhood ‘glamour’ to every girl. We need to be aware about how young women are being taught to think about these drugs, and how these projections and expectations will play out later on in their conceptions of their gender or sexual roles.

In 1988, surveys showed that continual research into birth control methods and safety were no longer on the list of the top 35 priorities in medical research. Our society has accepted and presumed that women are in charge of their own pregnancy prevention, and there is no immediacy in continual research to quickly add additional long-term, reversible options that allow for a same-level role of responsibility for men in prevention of pregnancy.

For cisgendered heterosexual men and women, the concept of and role in pregnancy is differently and unequally conceived, and it colours the responsibility one assumes for the rest of their sexual lives. It contributes to a disproportionate sexually dimorphic conception of responsibility, and this is inaccurate. All sexual partners are equal actors in pregnancy, and pregnancy prevention, but those with uteri are assumed to be

and therefore held disproportionately accountable.

The Pill is great for some people; they’re on it because they chose it and they have no side affects. But it is not right for every woman who is on it because she received incomplete information or choice, and it is not right for every woman.

A part of being informed is being aware, and so we need to make sure that just because we’ve become more active in our process we don’t just forget that, fifty years later, informed consent is still an [inter]national issue. For all of humanity that identifies as female, cis or not, we need to make sure they know that they have options.

I completely and fully respect and encourage every single woman’s right to make informed, active choices about contraception and STI protection, and I fully and completely respect and encourage every man’s right to have access to long-term, reversible methods of birth control, and to continue to use condoms, but we need to make clear what the agenda of our birth control is, and the only way to do that is through discussion and a social recognition of mutual responsibility. *a gender identity where an individual’s self-identification of their gender matches their sex

culture

The McGill Daily Thursday, February 28, 2013 mcgilldaily.com

Conference explores the importance of heritage conservation Nathalie O'Neill The McGill Daily

W

hile few residents would protest the preservation of Montreal’s historical architecture, many important heritage sites are currently threatened, largely due to faulty municipal funding. The conference “Montréal, un patrimoine à preserver” (“Montreal, a heritage to protect”), hosted last Wednesday at Griffintown’s Centre d’art de Montréal by municipal party Projet Montréal, explored the importance and challenges of heritage conservation in the city. The conference featured Université de Montréal architecture professor Christina Cameron, Heritage Montreal policy director Dinu Bumbaru, architecture conservator Naomi Lane, and Projet Montréal councillor for Mile End Alex Norris.

“There are 500,000 buildings on the island,” explained Bumbaru in French, “and 45 per cent of these were built before World War II.” Heritage conservation traditionally focuses on important public buildings, yet the scope is broadening with the changing definitions of heritage. Cameron identified ‘vernacular’ architecture – buildings designed with localized needs, materials, and traditions in mind, such as the Plateau’s triplexes and Griffintown’s factories – as an important new category. “The Plateau Mont-Royal has the biggest concentration of vernacular heritage architecture in the world,” explained Norris in French.

The sheer quantity of these types of buildings may render them less important to jaded Montrealers, but it is this widespread iconic architecture that fuels gentrification and the tourism industry.

‘Immaterial heritage’ is another relatively new concept in the realm of heritage conservation. Immaterial heritage refers to cultural activity occurring on a given site, for instance, a neighbourhood’s traditional pointof-sale for Christmas trees. Bumbaru used a term borrowed from the Ontario government, describing the Mount Royal Cemetery as a “landscape of memories.” The recognition of immaterial heritage as protectionworthy reflects the flourishing role of conservation in preserving the city’s cultural heritage as a living and evolving force to be passed on to future generations.

A central tenet of all four speakers’ presentations was the use of Montreal’s heritage as a stepping stone to the future. Cameron proposed sustainability as one of the main challenges of heritage conservation, casting conservation agents as curators of the city for future generations. Bumbaru referred to

WHAT’S THE HAPS

Curating Montreal

i3

Light Company, Viljo, Trees

Barfly, 4062 St Laurent March 1, 9:00 p.m.

Free In their next stop in a four-date mini-tour, these three Canadian indie bands are coming to Barfly to offer an evening of experimental pop. Viljo, the local act, is composed of students from McGill, Concordia, and UQA M. With boys who sing like Peter Gabriel, the music promises to be good clean fun, despite the griminess of this amusingly-named venue. It’s free. What do you have to lose?

Nuit Blanche

Photo Robert Smith | The McGill Daily

this as “perenniality,” stressing the importance of balancing social, economic, and environmental considerations. As a wink to the provincial license plate, Bumbaru joked, “I remember and I envisage.”

By definition, curators of any kind must determine what to include in their collection.

Cameron adds nuance to this challenge, pointing to the “multiplicity of values” clamouring to define heritage status. Many aspects must be considered when according heritage status. Not only a specific building’s historical importance, but also its aesthetic context, should be taken into account. In China, vernacular buildings surrounding the Dalai Lama’s residence were removed and replaced by a parking lot, damaging the visual integrity of the site. Similar disruptions to the integrity of the urban landscape are occurring in Montreal. “Public access to city views is threatened,” said Bumbaru. “Walls of condos are selling the views.” In addition to determining what is worth preserving, conservation agents must also agree on the management process. One proposed solution to this issue is to consult the community when choosing which sites to focus on and how to manage them. Conference organizers described the evening as a step toward greater citizen involvement, providing popular education to community residents.

“The owners are the first preservers,” emphasized Bumbaru.

He lamented the current emphasis many owners place on restoration

at the expense of preservation.

“The first protection is maintenance,” he said. Lane echoed these ideas in her presentation. “Quebec’s climate makes water the number one enemy in conservation,” she explained. “Water infiltrates building walls and freezes, causing the most threatening damage.”

Collaboration with local communities is characteristic of Montreal’s heritage conservation movement, which often receives the cold shoulder from municipal government. There is little financial incentive for owners to put in any conservation effort; in fact, it is most advantageous for them to do nothing – “demolition by negligence,” as Norris described it. “There is a dilemma faced by property owners,” said Norris in an interview with The Daily. “If they let their building deteriorate, they can then get permission to demolish and build something cheaper.” Norris cited the Fonds du patrimoine culturel québécois, a provincial organization, as the main source for heritage conservation subsidies. However, the low amount of annual funding offered is quickly exhausted each year. Municipal employee Luc Côté said in a phone interview with The Daily that there are no subsidies for heritage buildings. “Montreal only had three or four public buildings that were recognized as heritage buildings and exempt from taxation,” he explained in French, “but this status was cancelled this year.

An owner can apply to get subsidies for renovations, but taxes on his property will also increase correspondingly with value.”

“Demolition usually means replacement with a building we could find anywhere,” explained Norris, “rather than something unique to Montreal.” Preservation of the city’s heritage was highlighted as an important goal for Projet Montréal. Party leader Richard Bergeron used the opportunity for a short promotional speech, explaining the ways he would use the information delivered in the conference to add heritage conservation measures to his platform. Bergeron described himself in French as “a champion for Montreal,” explaining his ambitions to be curator of the city rather than simply mayor of its residents, while Norris described the financial dilemma heritage owners face as “something we as a party are looking into.”

With a history plagued by threats of cultural erasure, provincial and municipal efforts for the preservation of a distinct heritage are a struggle closely tied to politics. The conference’s Griffintown surroundings offered a potent example of the multifaceted nature of heritage conservation. The neighbourhood’s industrial buildings – products of an earlier chapter of Montreal history – are in the process of being destroyed, or refurbished and rebranded, steering the neighbourhood away from its traditional working class demographic toward gentrification. The aesthetic of distinct heritage architecture is a potent economic force, drawing in tourists and investors. Heritage protection is not simply a nostalgic indulgence – it is the presentation of a historical and cultural narrative that extends into the city’s future.

The Plateau, Old Montreal, Downtown, and the Olympic Park area March 2, all night Many free events If you aren’t leaving for Reading Week, you’ll be around for one of the best nights of the year for cultural consumption. Nuit Blanche has grown into a huge affair: the metro runs all night, and dozens of individual locations, from Mile End to Pointe St. Charles to Hochelaga, are offering free events. Check out The Daily’s picks this Friday on our website.

Let’s Start a Country

MainLine Theatre 3997 St. Laurent March 6 to 9, 7:00 p.m. $12 if you bring your passport, $15 otherwise In this play, Gerard Harris and Shane Adamczak are declaring independence from Canada and starting their own country. Planning to declare “sovereign territory” within the theatre space, this fringe show will be recruiting citizens into leadership positions in parliament. Bring your healthy secessionist spirit and finally implement the political changes that are impossible under the oppressive, socalled “real” government.

Unruly Hockey Déréglé(e): Hockey Derby Disco Party

Mont-Royal Arena March 7 11:00 p.m. to 12:30 a.m.

Free The Facebook event for this party on ice invites us to “buck the norms of our national sport.” How, you may ask? By grabbing your skates and heading down to Mont-Royal Arena for a feminist shinny match, complete with costumes.

After the 11:00 p.m. game, the crowd is invited onto the ice to boogie.

14

culture

The McGill Daily | Thursday, February 28, 2013 | mcgilldaily.com

Empress underway Cinema NDG to bring movies back to the West end Alex Kasstan Culture Writer

A

fter twenty years of uncertainty, Montreal’s Empress Theatre in NDG now appears to have a secure future.

Last year, a partnership called Cinema NDG and a group with competing development plans, the Empress Cultural Centre (ECC), both submitted projects to the borough of Côte-des-Neiges– Nôtre-Dâme-de-Grâce’s Appel à projet publique, which asked citizens to submit well-formed and self-financing plans for the future of the theatre. Then, a jury selected by the borough administration analyzed the two plans and selected that of Cinema NDG, presumably because it appeared more financially viable.

Last month, Cinema NDG received their final approval from the borough council, who unanimously approved their $12-million project to renovate and repurpose the venue.

The original neo-Egyptian style Empress building, which first opened to the public in 1927, was one of the most striking examples of ‘atmospheric’ style cinemas in Canada, and remains one of the last remaining venues of this sort in North America. The lavish art

deco atmosphere, defined by a pastiche of ancient Egyptian-style motifs, has for the most part been erased by neglect and changing aesthetic tastes, although the original façade remains intact.

After going through many phases between 1927 and 1989, ranging from silent movies to vaudeville theatre to erotic films, plans to re-imagine the space as a first-run blockbuster cinema were ruined after a fire in 1992, leaving the Empress abandoned, until now.

Cinema NDG – which also re-established Cinema Beaubien in the Rosemont area – plans to install four movie screens on the upper floor, and to incorporate a commercial aspect that would see an artisanal brewery on the ground floor, as well as a bank around the rear side of the venue.

While Elaine Ethier of Cinema NDG admitted that the commercial aspect was necessary due to the funds required to renovate the building, which has considerable heating and water damage issues, she assured The Daily that the cinema would by no means “be at the mercy” of these financial agents, and emphasized their promise to keep the façade of the building banner-free.

Cinema NDG’s bid has faced noticeable opposition over the past year. In particular, the ECC,

Illustration Alice Shen | The McGill Daily

among other community groups, claimed that Cinema NDG’s plan failed to sufficiently incorporate the community aspect to the space. The ECC’s plan was community-oriented and envisioned multiple uses, including a space for local theatre groups, as well as a partnership with the McGill Conservatory. In response to whether or not the introduction of these commercial aspects encroached upon the potential community benefits, Ethier reiterated why she believes no other plan managed to receive the green light. Not only would the multi-dimensional aspect of the

ECC’s proposal be “very complicated to manage,” Ethier asserted, it would also fail to “render the cinema profitable in the long run.”

It is this emphasis on the longrun that Ethier and Cinema NDG must focus on, with a year to secure the funds in order to back their renovation plans. The key word that Ethier emphasized was “optimism;” she hopes that the construction will start by 2014.

According to Ethier, the content will reflect the multicultural character of NDG. “I think it will be [fun] to go out and find films from all over and bring them to this neighborhood in their origi-

nal language.” The challenge of sourcing and screening international cinema is made easier by the rapid digitalization of the film industry, which grants small cinemas access to cheaper digital copies of films and their subtitles.

While there is concern about the lack of a community aspect in their plans, Cinema NDG’s plan to resurrect the cinema has conjured a great deal of excitement within the local community. The new Empress will rehabilitate a popular long-lost institution on the West side of the city, while raising the cultural value of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Peshawar to London Michael Winterbottom’s hyper-realistic look at two refugees’ journey Lilya Hassall Forays into Film

A

s those of us who don’t live in a cave are aware, the biggest film event of the year took place last Sunday.

Gowns were donned, the red carpet was brought back to life, and one publicist was reported to have exploded, all in celebration of the small, golden, naked man that rules over Hollywood.

This week’s column, however, has nothing to do with the Academy. For us snooty folks who are more interested in alternative, political films, engaging with the Oscars tends to be a relatively masochistic pastime. It’s not that I don’t love a good blockbuster from time to time – some of my best friends are blockbusters – but watching people who are already swimming in money and recognition get heaped with more

of the same, while independent filmmakers struggle to get projects off the ground, is sometimes more than I can bear.

Instead of working myself into a frenzy of impotent rage over the red carpet, I decided to focus on something more positive. Last Thursday, Toronto became the first city in Canada with a formal policy allowing undocumented immigrants access to municipal services like shelters and healthcare without fear of being deported.

In honour of this historic legislation, this column will focus on In This World, a 2002 docu-drama about undocumented immigrants, directed by British filmmaker Michael Winterbottom in the same year he made 24 Hour Party People. Angered by the post-9/11 atmosphere and its increasing xenophobia toward undocumented immigrants, Winterbottom made a film about two Afghan refugees who make the overland journey to London.

The film begins in Peshawar,

Pakistan, to which Afghan refugees were first displaced by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s. After American involvement in the early 2000s, a voice-over tells us, the number grew to over one million. Here, we meet the protagonists, Jamal Udin Torabi and Enayatullah, refugee cousins whose uncle arranges their trek to London. On a journey increasingly fraught with danger, Jamal and Enayatullah are forced to shed their native language, clothes, and culture in hopes of establishing a better life.

Though ostensibly a work of fiction, In This World is in many ways a documentary. Winterbottom went to Peshawar and found nonprofessional actors to play the roles of Jamal and Enayatullah. Not only were the actors themselves Afghan refugees, they also shared the names of Winterbottom’s subjects. Winterbottom and his crew then took Jamal and Enayatullah – the actors – on the exact same

route taken by the film’s protagonists for the shoot. As the actors had never left Peshawar before, and the film was largely unscripted, their responses to new places like Tehran, Istanbul, and Italy are genuine. Furthermore, Winterbottom’s filming crew was often missing the necessary documents to get the actors across borders, and much like the smugglers in the film, had to resort to bribes and lies. At one point, a member of the Iranian border guard discovers Jamal and Enayatullah and sends them back to Pakistan. In fact, the Iranian border guard was playing himself – Winterbottom offered to pay him to demonstrate what he would do if he discovered Jamal and Enayatullah were illegal.

In addition to using nonprofessional actors, shooting on location, and relying heavily on improvised dialogue, the film’s cinematography and editing are entirely in documentary style.

The intense commitment to realism, though it sacrifices develop-

ment of Jamal and Enayatullah’s characters, lends an emotional urgency to the plight of refugees that extends beyond the film and into the real world. By putting a human face on perceived ‘outsiders,’ In This World works as a powerful rebuttal to the xenophobic sentiments that first inspired it.

At the end, when Jamal finally arrives in London, the film seems to suggest that his future there, as an undocumented immigrant with no friends or family, is highly uncertain. Indeed, for many migrants without papers, the end of a dangerous journey is only the beginning of a new struggle.

Toronto’s new legislation means that for hundreds of people in Ontario without documents, that struggle will be a little bit easier.

Lilya Hassall is a U3 Cultural Studies student. Forays Into Film is a biweekly column about alternative films. Email her at foraysintofilm@ mcgilldaily.com.

15

EDITORIAL

volume 102 number 37

McGill’s Ministry of Truth

editorial board 3480 McTavish St., Rm. B-24 Montreal, QC H3A 1X9 phone 514.398.6784 fax 514.398.8318 mcgilldaily.com coordinating editor

Queen Arsem-O’Malley

coordinating@mcgilldaily.com

coordinating news editor

Juan Camilo Velásquez news editors

Laurent Bastien Corbeil Lola Duffort Farid Rener

Illustration Amina Batyreva | The McGill Daily

commentary editors

Jacqueline Brandon Steve Eldon Kerr culture editors

Kaj Huddart Hillary Pasternak features editor

Christina Colizza science+technology editor

Anqi Zhang

health&education editor

Ralph Haddad sports editor

Evan Dent

multimedia editor

Kate McGillivray photo editor

Hera Chan illustrations editor

Amina Batyreva design&production editors

Edna Chan Rebecca Katzman

copy editor

Nicole Leonard web editor

Tom Acker le délit

Nicolas Quiazua

rec@delitfrancais.com

cover design Amina Batyreva contributors Cem Ertekin, Sarina Gupta, Lilya Hassall, Alex Kasstan, Molly Korab, Esther Lee, Davide Mastracci, Josh Mentanko, Shane Murphy, Nathalie O’Neill, William Clare Roberts, Emily Saul, Robert Smith, Dana Wray

Last December, the Parti Québécois’ (PQ) provincial government asked universities in Quebec to retroactively cut $124 million from their budgets for the current financial year. This announcement would become the first in a slew of continuing budgetary constraints for higher education in the province amid a large-scale program of austerity. At McGill, the cuts were swiftly denounced by the administration who, earlier that year, had lobbied for higher tuition rates to alleviate the burden of the university system, which they continue to describe as underfunded.

To be sure, the provincial budget cuts in question are reprehensible and will undoubtedly affect the quality and access to education for students in Quebec.

Furthermore, demanding universities to trim their expenses for an ongoing financial year is incredibly reckless, and it illuminates the hollowness of the government’s commitment to higher education.

The problem, however, lies in the way the administration is using these cuts to tailor their public relations strategy in favour of their political agenda. The PQ government and its cuts have become a scapegoat to further the argument of university underfunding: an argument university administrators – through CREPUQ, an organization that represents the administration of universities across Quebec, and its allies – have been espousing for years. The administration uses its abundant avenues of communication to victimize itself, and distract students and society from the issue at hand. Instead of trying to denounce austerity measures that affect education and society in the longer term, the University is using this opportunity to further their own message of privatization.

McGill’s argument is nothing new. Based on the dramatic tone of their recent MRO emails – let alone the McGill Reporter – the McGill administration would have us believe that these financial issues are both sudden and unique to McGill. What they’re not publicizing is that for years, McGill has been working towards relying less on federal and provincial funding and more on the private sector. One only has to look at how the Desautels MBA program was privatized in 2010.

Contrary to the administration‘s rhetoric about the recent cuts, seeking out different sources of funding by adopting a private model, instead of relying on government funding, has long been McGill’s priority.

It is telling that for years prior to the recent cuts, McGill has been in a process of “streamlining” the University. Their focus on eliminating and consolidating labour at the University echoes the austerity measures imposed by the government. That the administration demonizes on-campus unions, and, in some cases, resists unionization among its workers, is a testament to the University’s push towards privatization.

As the University expands its media efforts, it has called on students to denounce the budget cuts, and has used student societies to publicly disseminate its views.

For example, after McGill’s Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) passed a resolution supporting the view of university underfunding in Quebec, the McGill Reporter was quick to publish a news article, which was one of the few the publication has had on student councils this year. While the administration has been requesting widespread student support in opposing the PQ’s cuts, they were not at all supportive of students’ struggle for accessible education. Last spring, as hundreds of thousands of students were in the streets protesting against the tuition hikes, Principal Heather MunroeBlum was lobbying for higher tuition through CREPUQ and its pals at the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal and Quebec Employers Council.

Most members of the McGill community realize the negative impact of the provincial budget cuts and oppose them. Last December, after the cuts were announced, students attempted to enter a Board of Governors meeting to ask the administration to join them in strike against the cuts. The administration, however, refused to do so and continued to complain about them through their blogs, emails, and publications. The University needs to join its students and denounce the cuts for what they are, instead of opportunistically co-opting them.

— The McGill Daily Editorial Board

Errata 3480 McTavish St., Rm. B-26 Montreal, QC H3A 1X9 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 Queen Arsem-O’Malley, Erin Hudson, Rebecca Katzman, Michael Lee-Murphy, Anthony Lecossois, Matthew Milne, Sheehan Moore (chair@dailypublications.org), Joan Moses, Farid Muttalib, Shannon Palus, Nicolas Quiazua, Boris Shedov

All contents © 2012 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.

“Loi 14, or what Bill 14 would mean to you” (Editorial, February 21, page 15) stated that “the number of people speaking French in Quebec households has fallen from 46 per cent in 2001 to 36 per cent in 2011.” In fact, as of last year, 82.5 per cent of Quebec residents reported French as the language they speak most at home.

The Daily regrets the error.

CONTACT US NEWS COMMENTARY CULTURE FEATURES SCI+TECH HEALTH & ED SPORTS MULTIMEDIA PHOTO ILLUSTRATIONS DESIGN&PRODUCTION COPY WEB

news@mcgilldaily.com commentary@mcgilldaily.com culture@mcgilldaily.com features@mcgilldaily.com scitech@mcgilldaily.com healthandeducation@mcgilldaily.com sports@mcgilldaily.com radio@mcgilldaily.com photos@mcgilldaily.com illustrations@mcgilldaily.com design@mcgilldaily.com copy@mcgilldaily.com web@mcgilldaily.com For meeting times, check the “Contribute” tab at mcgilldaily.com

compendium!

The McGill Daily Thursday, February 28, 2013 mcgilldaily.com

lies, half-truths, and we <3 adrienne hurley

i6

Did anyone even ask the dolphins?

Euan EK The Twice-a-Weekly

A

t the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting, held in Vancouver last week, an international team of researchers announced that dolphins should be considered ‘non-human people’ and granted the same rights to life, liberty, and well-being as humans. To help us better understand our nonhuman people friends and open the way for future deconstructions of the human-dolphin hierarchy, the Twicea-Weekly, at great expense, and using your student dollars, bugged several dolphins last week. We now present below, in unedited form, a conversation recorded in the immediate aftermath of the AAAS announcement.

“We’re people now.”

“Like human people? Bro, I’m clearly a dolphin.”

“Yeah, you’re a dolphin, but you’re also a person.”

“Have you been swimming near those hydrothermal vents again? I told you that extremely hot mineral sulfides and dolphins do not mix well.”

“I’ve been off the vents for two years now. Stop bringing it up.”

“Quiet. I need to push this lever to indicate to this nice scientist that I do not know what sound he is playing me.”

“That’s it! Personhood. You’re doing it!”

“They gave me some fish.”

“But that’s why they think you’re a person.”

“Because I like fish? Fish is just tasty shit. I like eating tasty shit, so sue me.”

“You’re demonstrating superior intelligence to chimpanzees and awareness of your own consciousness.”

“I’m a smart dolphin, granted,

Photo pictures.4ever.eu

but I’m a dolphin.”

“But they’re saying that your self-awareness means you’re, like, a non-human person.”

“Who’s saying?”

“Scientists.”

“Human scientists?”

“Human scientists.”

“Fuck them.”

“Fuck human scientists?”

“Fuck humans.”

“Fuck all humans?”

“You remember Paul? You remember his smile? He had a smile like Free Willy. And you remember what he looked like in that net? All cut up like he a tuna or a mackerel? I’m done with humans. I’ll eat their tasty shit, but no more.”

“No but I think these scientists want to stop the nets. They made a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans.”

“Cetaceans? Now you’re just using their language.”

“But it gives us protections. It gives us rights to life and liberty.”

“Ha. What next, property?”

“Maybe. If we work toward it.

We’ll need to pull together, but…”

“I knew it.”

“What?”

“You’re ashamed to be a dolphin.”

“What? That’s fucked up.”

“No, you’re fucked up. You always wanted what they have. You love them. You’re always swimming near their boats, doing jumps, blowing water with your blow hole.

You don’t deserve a blow hole.”

“Take that back.”

“You’re ashamed of that hole in your head.”

“Brother?”

“Remember when you tried putting tape over your hole?”

“I was just young.”

“You couldn’t breathe.”

“I was just messing around.”

“You still wanted it. Even when you were a calf. I remember the posters, the magazines, the piecedtogether human skeletons on the ocean floor. Dolphin was never enough for you.”

“No. That is not fair. I want what’s best for all dolphins. Everywhere.”

“By being more like them? By having them label you? Labelling you just enough like them that you get some ‘rights?’”

“It’s all part of the process.”

“Non-human person? That’s second-class bull fucking shit if ever I saw it.”

“They’re saying it’s morally unacceptable to kill us.”

“You’re morally unacceptable.

You’re ashamed to be dolphin.

You’re ashamed of your fin, you’re ashamed of your tail, and you’re ashamed of that hole in your head.”

“I love my hole. I hate sharks.”

“I’d have two holes in my head if I could.”

“It’s all about the hole for you.

You’re a dolphin essentialist.”

“Run away. Run away, and never return.”

“You know I can’t do that.”

“Because of who you are.”

“I just wanted to help.”

“You want ‘liberty.’ You want property, you sell-out. And you want rights. Rights that only mark your absolute subservience to sovereign power, to the sovereign’s power over your life. They can give you their rights; they’ll still string you up in those nets like any old tuna.”

“But…” “You know who has rights?

Humans. Did you ever seen a dolphin with an atomic bomb? Rights mean nothing to those people.”

“But you’re a person now.”

“Get out of here.”

Seth MacFarlane’s funniest jokes from the Oscars

—compiled by Euan EK