2 10 29 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/ef5f8d0d63f8a85614b930d73268162b.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=e0Wa69ozof%7EH1zeh2Rj0F%7E2%7Ejb4yPxcu-MC0Lqi2mUBWg-S4aY9ZxcKDb5I%7ELgQ-wOj%7EFHI%7EWhZpO%7ESuj6qUj1XLAOikgT9MAUiSFreRwAYuMSs-NWBczlyd5U6BYLJTjCOoUNobfy%7E%7EatBC8h-DGXnmyz77PD2Ui3Tig83CLaUJvzkV2DbmCDNwbxFTv74FOh8Dny7U4TLlgOTZteBD2IulCoLCTWqw1M5MyquB77lB3aQK46BkhTS6Fxky0LP--%7E0TGp-GxxfmMX4amOG16ucxTixGupE0UrlQppC7YZeVy3e-EpICfYXOclDQRiBABVhzYjkGQNlETUapommgIA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 0f394b6befd5d9b6902da253f7cb19a1 PDF Text Text volume 99 number 10 editorial 3480 McTavish St., Rm. B-24 Montreal QC, H3A 1X9 phone 514.398.6784 fax 514.398.8318 mcgilldaily.com EDITORIAL coordinating editor Choose Life steps over the line Stephen Davis coordinating@mcgilldaily.com coordinating news editor We applaud SSMU Council’s decision to censure Choose Life’s event planned for this week, a talk given by anti-abortion activist Jose Ruba entitled “Echoes of the Holocaust.” In the aftermath of this resolution, Choose Life needs to re-evaluate its tactics and rhetoric. The most recent event hosted by the group – a presentation by the Silent No More Awareness Campaign – marked a break with the more subdued tactics Choose Life employed last year. Ruba’s talk would have been even more confrontational: Ruba is the co-founder of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, the organization behind the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP). The GAP campaign draws parallels between legalized abortion and genocides, most often the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide. By inviting and endorsing Ruba despite his ludicrous misappropriation of genocide, Choose Life has indicated that it is not interested in constructive dialogue about women’s choices, including non-abortion options. Instead, they appear intent on delegitimizing any potential dialogue and using shock tactics to silence possible dissent. Any comparison of your interlocutors to Nazis – implicit or explicit – invalidates all their arguments and effectively end the conversation. Simplistic rhetoric is nothing new to this debate. Last January, Choose Life hosted a talk by Mary Meehan, an anti-abortion activist who likened the practice to eugenics. But never before has a Choose Life event featured graphic images of aborted fetuses like those that Ruba typically employs in his speeches, images which surely would have been used at his McGill talk. What’s more, those pictures would have been juxtaposed with photographs of victims of the Holocaust and other genocides. Invoking memories of the Holocaust to shame women who have made difficult choices is both repulsive and misleading; it is a moral wrong regardless of the ideology behind it. Unfortunately, Choose Life has already earned a track record for misinformation this year. Choose Life members distributed pamphlets from the Silent No More Awareness Campaign claiming that abortion causes breast cancer, a notion thoroughly disproved by medical science. At the same event, other literature was handed out stating that abortion is a form of racism, because women from visible minorities have a disproportionately high rate of abortions. This argument is simplistic and false. Advancing this conclusion rather than questioning the socioeconomic factors that influence abortion rates in minority communities is intellectually dishonest and manipulative. In their mandate, Choose Life pledges to “[encourage] dialogue on life issues, such as sexual ethics, pregnancy, child development, abortion, adoption and parenthood.” Such a claim is disingenuous as long as the club’s invitation to talk compares pro-choice positions to Nazism. We suggest that in the future, Choose Life honour its own mandate and foster legitimate dialogue on campus. Erin Hale news editors Niko Block Humera Jabir Sam Neylon features editor Whitney Mallett commentary&compendium editor William M. Burton coordinating culture editor Amelia Schonbek culture editors Ian Beattie Nicolas Boisvert-Novak science+technology editor Diane Salema mind&body editor Braden Goyette photo editor Dominic Popowich graphics editor Sasha Plotnikova production & design editors Kady Paterson Aaron Vansintjan web editor Will Vanderbilt copy editor Hannah Freeman cover design Victor Tangermann le délit Stéphanie Dufresne rec@delitfrancais.com Contributors Quinn Albaugh, Shirine Aouad, Mallory Bey, Doug Breuer, Aleksiina Chapman, Rebecca Chapman, Emilio Comay del Junco, Caroline Dutka , Naomi Endicott, Allison Friedman, Marzieh Ghiasi, Riva Gold, Camilla Grudova, Preanka Hai, Brian Keast, Elena Kingsbury, Daniel Lametti, Kallee Lins, Laurin, Liu, Emma Mungall, Olivia Messer, Erin O’Callaghan, Victor Tangermann, Joël Thibeault, Lukas Thienhaus, Gavin Thomson, Laura Werschler, Miranda Whist, Justin K. Wong The Daily is published on most Mondays and Thursdays by the Daily Publications Society, an autonomous, not-for-profit organization whose membership includes all McGill undergraduates and most graduate students. 3480 McTavish St., Rm. B-26 Montreal QC, H3A 1X9 phone 514.398.6790 fax 514.398.8318 Boris Shedov Pierre Bouillon Geneviève Robert advertising & general manager treasury & fiscal manager ad layout & design dps board of directors Stephen Davis, Stéphanie Dufresne, Max Halparin (chair@dailyproductions.org), Thomas Kulcsar, Daniel Mayer, Will Vanderbilt, Alison Withers Erratum The Daily is proud to be a founding member of the Canadian University Press. All contents © 2009 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. On the masthead of the October 1 issue, The Daily misattributed our cover design to Dominic Popowich. In fact, the cover was designed by Sasha Plotnikova. The Daily regrets the error. Sasha Plotnikova / The McGill Daily 19 The McGill Daily, Monday, October 5, 2009 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Volume 99 Issue 10 Page Number(s) 19 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Choose Life steps over the line Description An account of the resource An editorial applauding SSMU's decision to censure Choose Life's event that drew comparison between the Holocaust and abortion. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource McGill Daily Editorial Board Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009/10/05 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Antisemitism Choose Life editorial events reproductive health reproductive justice SSMU https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/b3247dae8ee757600df57d7eaba60655.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=fdrjqpFDZQSsxHNdZXgskq74VOx3XPcH%7EcOhrgfBYc6IOALk9ehaq-KnAnBEfSDjG4LSGbR3Asnx5z2lYguC97ONTwgiewIy1sxfQ1dEis3KRaM3BYS4O%7EdOo7nPd03TPivOBMcTNO01CFV1vbfLpajibUl3cSOdizC4ZgfcFQnAZd02Ho6xPK-dYfm2-P-OPRBWbRrUKIc4dPVj5vHpzP7w3iwmyLLIoHIwORspVcjP1hWT6oYQ0Db9SYPnDG8lCpa6F0NBT3c4HGMcs7klP-k%7EdWVIHq7h-pbQYE4m9mB%7EQgZg5CihOoXcoPG8m-MSd2hMguUt15h16dWvRxlaXA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 6e802a277dd44af2dbe8f708daf4b5c9 PDF Text Text Commentary The McGill Daily, Monday, October 5, 2009 13 Ces sacrés jurons! Seeking: a new approach HYDE PARK to anti-abortion activism The French connection Laura Werschler Joël Thibeault V I Lukas Thienhaus / The McGill Daily Every other week, Joël Thibeault writes a column for French learners, as a way of encouraging them to practice their French. ous marchez sur Sherbrooke en direction de votre cours situé dans le pavillon des arts. Vous croisez deux hommes qui échangent quelques mots: -Esti qu’t’es cave! -Mon tabarnak, pour qui tu t’prends? -Tu m’as compris! T’es un câlice d’épais. Vous êtes persuadé qu’ils s’expriment en français, mais vous ne réussissez pas à comprendre ce qu’ils disent. Tout à coup, vous vous souvenez de ce qu’on vous a répété plusieurs fois avant de venir vous installer au Québec: «They don’t really speak French there. You should go to Europe if you want to learn real French». Le but premier de cet article n’est certainement pas de prendre part dans ce débat. J’ai plutôt employé cet exemple en tant qu’introduction aux jurons québécois qui font partie, qu’on le veuille ou non, de l’histoire et du patrimoine de notre province. La plupart des jurons utilisés au Québec sont tirés de termes religieux. Avant les années 1960, l’Église catholique était l’un des éléments qui influençaient le plus la politique québécoise ainsi que la vie des citoyens. Au début de cette décennie, cependant, des changements sociaux et politiques ont entrainé une diminution de l’influence ecclésiastique. Plusieurs linguistes croient que l’usage de ces expressions religieuses en tant que jurons a été un exutoire face au contrôle exercé par l’Église. Il est quand même très important de mentionner qu’encore aujourd’hui, ces jurons sont considérés comme étant très grossiers. C’est la raison pour laquelle chacun d’entre eux est accompagné d’un euphémisme, un mot similaire qui a une connotation moins vulgaire que l’original. Assez de théorie! Je vous présente quelques-uns des jurons québécois les plus employés, accompagnés de leur réelle signification religieuse, de leurs euphémismes et d’un exemple contextuel. Câlice. Ce mot provient de «calice», vase sacré de la liturgie catholique. Il est surtout utilisé afin de souligner la colère à la fin d’une phrase, exactement comme le fait le mot de quatre lettres en anglais. On note aussi quelques expressions figées: «Je m’en câlice», afin de dire qu’on s’en fout, et «Câlice-moé patience» pour exiger de quelqu’un qu’il ou elle nous laisse en paix. Son euphémisme le plus répandu est «caline». Tabarnak. Il dérive de « tabernacle» et peut également être employé sous l’influence de la colère à la fin d’une phrase. Les Québécois, en outre, utiliseront ce terme en tant que synonyme de «coup de poing»: «Je vais t’en donner un tabarnak». Parmi ses variantes adoucies, on compte «tabarouette» et «tabarnouche». Esti, ostie ou sti. Ces mots, dont la connotation et la signification sont égales, témoignent aussi de la fureur du locuteur. Ils proviennent de «hostie» qui représente le pain béni. De plus, on remarque l’existence de la locution «Ostie que…» qui renforce une affirmation. Quelques exemples sont «Ostie qu’il fait chaud», «Ostie que je veux y aller» et «Ostie qu’elle est belle». Les euphémismes que les Québécois emploient le plus sont « ostine » et «esprit». Finalement, la prochaine fois que vous entendrez quelqu’un dire «Esti de câlice de tabarnak», ditesvous que ces termes, dans un contexte différent, peuvent avoir une réelle signification. Par contre, si vous ne vous trouvez pas dans une église ou qu’il n’y pas de prêtre dans les parages, continuez votre route sans vous arrêter; cette personne ne désire très probablement pas être dérangée. Pour écouter Joël lire cet article, allez sur mcgilldaily.com/blogs. Vous pouvez également lui écrire à thefrenchconnection@mcgilldaily. com. Vous aimez lire en français ? Pourquoi pas lire Le Délit ? Cherchez-le sur le campus demain. speak for many of my prochoice colleagues when I say that we must gracefully decline Kathryn Sawyer’s invitation to be the pro-choice champion for McGill University’s campus abortion debate. While pro-life clubs all over this country yearn to debate resolutions like “abortion is morally wrong,” many of us who support a woman’s right to choose abortion are too busy working on providing sexual and reproductive health information, education, and services. We don’t have time to spare on debates so often orchestrated to become media spectacles. After all, debating abortion is a no-win situation for both sides. The typical premise of “for abortion” versus “against abortion” is at fault. Anti-abortion groups always seem history began, and they will continue to do so until human history ends. Neither legal status nor public opinion impact women’s decisions. Consider a study by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization published in October 2007 by the journal Lancet. It found that abortion rates in countries worldwide are similar regardless of whether the procedure is legal or not. “The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy,” said Beth Fredrick of the International Women’s Health Coalition commenting on the study. McGill’s pro-life club might also want to rethink the person they’ve chosen as their anti-abortion champion. Jose Ruba is from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, the organization responsible for bringing the Genocide Awareness Project Even Catholic bishops do not support this kind of anti-abortion activism to assume that pro-choice advocates are “for abortion.” If they want a black and white debate framed in this fashion, they will wait a very long time for a willing opponent. If debating “for” or “against” abortion is a useless pursuit, what might be of value is a commitment to contemplative dialogue around the issue. The word contemplative means to take a long, compassionate look at the real. And what is real about abortion? It is part of women’s lived experience. Women have chosen to manage their fertility in various ways, including through abortion, since human (GAP) to university campuses. Even Catholic bishops and anti-abortion commentators like Barbara Kay of the National Post do not support this kind of anti-abortion activism. The GAP is offensive to many; it is all about spectacle. If you read Canadian newspapers, it would have been hard to miss stories about the trouble University of Calgary (U of C) prolife club members are in for violating the university’s request to turn the GAP display inward so students and staff could make a choice about whether or not to view the graphic images. The students go to trial on trespassing charges this November. It is and was a spectacle, all about media coverage and free speech. What I suggest is that pro-life clubs – and those on campuses who oppose them – consider taking a different approach with their activism. Here’s another story from U of C that never made the papers. A volunteer for our organization, Sexual Health Access Alberta (SHAA), planned a film series hosted by U of C Women’s Resource Centre. In April 2008, two films about abortion were offered. The screenings coincided with the controversial GAP display on campus, sparking interest in the film event. Several pro-life club members came to see The Abortion Diaries. The post-screening facilitator skillfully guided the discussion around the pre-determined question: What are barriers to access to abortion services and sexual health education in Canada? An evening that could have ended in confrontation turned out to be one of respectful dialogue. Pro-life attendees urged improved access to support for young parents, while pro-choice participants advocated for better access to sexual health education and services. Both perspectives on abortion were presented and heard by all participants. Jose Ruba was there. There was no debate. Maybe it’s time for campus prolife clubs to eschew public debate in favour of smaller, quieter discussions of mutually agreed upon questions about abortion. They might actually find some pro-choice champions willing to sit down and talk with them. Laura Wershler is the executive director of Sexual Health Access Alberta in Calgary. Pursue polite dialogue with her at lauraw@sexualhealthaccess.org. Hey reader, Feeling lonely? Need someone to talk to? Why not send me a letter? Even if your “friends” don’t want to hear what you have to say about Daily articles, we do. Write back soon. love, letters@mcgilldaily.com � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Volume 99 Issue 10 Page Number(s) 13 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Seeking: a new approach to anti-abortion activism Description An account of the resource A critique of an abortion debate hosted by McGill. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Laura Werschler Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009/10/05 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Choose Life reproductive health reproductive justice https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/2d779e9073eb7d6b794b6217e6de22f9.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=rcioELESTOMyDV%7E-mwi37ZwEsM35CvbNg4jYECeblyBFm5pHZT%7EXhQOJw9ZZmQCAC4tiW0vXu6qy1Zf6AFo2%7EDeCy3uKjjWSEOiCKpiKboOPF2QaotpP-bm2OnHBNfBvAoWh3OsyXSZvgK5NZVUdD-ADI3TzGLCj9ZDgIFPA7H-9W00hEMcZ1hH8R43L-LnmYnTLjET%7E24R0lzxbawaL3eOmFDz5xgXHqADnENSmIT4PGEzue6MeYbAo9iB0iMbC1alXKsvGgy-3ORP7z9N%7ESN62SBcfJVkJxDYLalYaw0PVVEpSQmTsmFinXU7bSAKKp7I7wYia9%7Eox3pbmhTT05Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM dbbd576ac58501b47b3270732df7afe7 PDF Text Text 10 Features A threat to choice Darrah Teitel explores the larger implications of the abortion debate on campus U ntil 1969, the leading cause of hospitalization and death for Canadian women under the age of 30 was botched self-induced abortions, and today, the lack of safe, legal abortions continues to claim lives. According to the World Health Organization, 70,000 women die worldwide every year because of self-induced abortions. The Lancet’s study “Unsafe abortion: The preventable pandemic,” demonstrated that most of the women affected in Canada and the U.S. live in rural areas or are poor, immigrants, or aboriginals. The laws that protect the right to choose protect bodies, not political ideologies. This is not a philosophical debate or a matter of opinion. So long as people are dying, this is an issue of safety and public health. Judy Rebick, a matriarch of Canadian feminism, is not surprised that young women are taking their reproductive rights for granted: “We got the first Morgentaler clinic open in 1981 and they didn’t change the law until 1989. In ‘69 you could only get a safe abortion if the doctor wrote a note saying your life was in danger. So you basically had to convince a man you were ready to kill yourself. Of course this was really classist and racist as well, because most poor women weren’t connected to the right doctors. So women were dying all the time or being forced to bear unwanted, vulnerable children. I don’t think young women realize what a long and painful battle it was. I’m worried because we, who remember, will be gone soon and young women are not aware or active.” L ast winter amidst a flurry of free speech rhetoric, SSMU councillors gave full club status to an antiabortion activist group called Choose Life. The group aims to reignite the debate around women’s reproductive rights, to convince women not to have abortions, and to help the powerful anti-abortion lobby groups, who are their affiliates, gain legitimacy. Choose Life’s status seemed to have been granted in the absence of any real research into the club or the organizations that fund it, neglecting the fact that Choose Life is a part of an aggressive movement that threatens female reproductive rights in Canada. The club’s mandate and tactics also threaten student safety. On October 2, 2008, when it was decided to grant Choose Life interim club status, several students came forth and implored SSMU to reconsider. One woman said from the gallery: “This is a club which wants to spread ideas on campus that make me feel unsafe.” Perhaps because they were afraid to address this significant point, or perhaps because they were running out of time, no councillor paid heed to what the members of the gallery were saying, although 2008-09 VP External Devin Alfaro did offer this promise: “If something like that happens, we will act quickly to shut that down. There is a place of discussion, but if anything happens that interferes with students’ space, we know it is unacceptable.” During Choose Life’s three-month probationary period as an interim club, three equity complaints were issued against it. These complaints were addressed and brushed aside during the Council meeting on February 12 as SSMU granted Choose Life full-club status. No other probationary club has had three equity complaints brought against it and still managed to successfully obtain full-club status. The remainder of this meeting focused on whether the club had fulfilled its constitutional requirements and the fact that SSMU has no right to discriminate against a club based on ideology. There is no document that mandates SSMU to treat all ideologies equally, but there is a document that mandates SSMU to be anti-oppressive and to maintain an environment of respect and safety for students. Choose Life’s proliferation of graphic images of fetuses compromises the campus as a safe space for students, and specifically targets pregnant women. A uterus is not public space, and to see it used as a site for a political or philosophical debate makes many women feel harassed. Behind SSMU’s preferential treatment is the misguided assertion that Choose Life is just another club. Behind this assertion is a subconscious desire to normalize and de-politicize a historic struggle for reproductive freedom. It is easy for privileged “postfeminist” young people to behave condescendingly toward activists who, they might feel, are hyperbolizing their sentiments for the sake of left-wing politics. However, their concerns are hardly hyperbolic: female reproductive rights are more vulnerable than many realize. T hree clicks away from Choose Life’s web site is a group called REAL Women. They call themselves �The McGill Daily, Monday, October 5, 2009 11 Art and photos by Whitney Mallett / The McGill Daily an alternative women’s movement and their enemies are homosexuality, feminism, and abortion. REAL Women is one of the most powerful federal and provincial lobby groups in Canada. Due to their influence (millions of dollars’ worth of donations from REAL Women’s members go to the Conservative Party of Canada), Stephen Harper slashed 43 per cent of the operating budget of the Status of Women Canada (a federal government organization that promotes gender equality), in his first months in power. As a direct result, feminists and pro-choice organizations are barely staying afloat. Harper knows that the fight against abortion cannot be won in the Supreme Court, but that it can be crippled by misogynist policy. Abortion clinics have been closing, and hospitals that once performed abortions no longer do. According to the federal study “Reality Check” conducted last year by Canadians for Choice, women’s access to the abortion procedure is steadily on the decline. The province of New Brunswick will only allow abortions to be performed in a hospital if two doctors deem it necessary, and in Prince Edward Island, abortions are not performed at all. Nearly all Canadian abortion clinics are within 150 kilometres of the American border, leaving most rural Canadian women without reasonable access. When you type any word into a search engine pertaining to abortion, pregnancy, or pro-choice in Canada, the first ten pages that come up are carefully disguised anti-abortion propaganda because incredibly wealthy, international right-wing religious groups have purchased the right to dominate Google. Choose Life is not independent. It exists in the context of something much larger. By continuing to allow Choose Life to exist on campus, SSMU is complicit with this larger movement that aims to limit women’s reproductive rights – their choice to be apolitical has political implications. Instead of worrying about ideological relativism, they should take constructive action. J eanette Ducet is the Executive Chair of Planned Parenthood Canada, an organization that receives absolutely no government funding. She talked to me about why abortion rights are so easily eroded in Canada: “It’s because abortion was decriminalized, but not granted as a right, so this left a legal vacuum that can be filled with small bits of anti-abortion legislation.” Ducet was one of two women who debated a notorious anti-abortion preacher from the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform named Jose Ruba last year at Carleton University. When Choose Life announced that it would be hosting a debate with Ruba at McGill entitled “Echoes of The Holocaust,” Two weeks after this “debate,” Ducet learned that Carleton University revoked their pro-life club’s status. This angered Ducet because she felt that members of the student body who had invited her to debate knew in advance the kind of harassment she and the other women in the room would bear. She believes that they wanted the outrageous event to occur so that they would have an excuse to get rid of their anti-abortion club. A t last Thursday’s SSMU council meeting, a motion was passed by overwhelming majority to censure Choose Life’s event “Echoes of The Holocaust.” While it is a shame that it required an invocation of the Holocaust for SSMU to realize that they have an obligation to protect students from offensive material, it’s fortunate that students at McGill were not subjected to the offensive event Ducet regrettably described. Councillor Sarah Woolf made the most sense in Thursday’s debate when she stated that Choose Life directly violates SSMU’s own equity policy and that SSMU, being beholden to that policy, has no choice but to condemn the club’s event. In fact, SSMU was beholden to their equity policy when they created the club. The club should never have been allowed to exist in the first place. In any case, SSMU has now backed itself in to a corner where the only safe recourse will be to revoke the club’s official status. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Volume 99 Issue 10 Page Number(s) 10-11 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A threat to choice Description An account of the resource A feature about the abortion debate on campus. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Darrah Teitel Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009/10/05 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English accessibility Canadian Government Choose Life events reproductive health reproductive justice SSMU https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/fabb4ef53db85468f72a8ffdabafc2bc.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=iyrI4e44VbdI552dnqa7VoLb89C0ct5InM0ZqUb4Baof6fXmmQbJy3J1rS6K4aR8sUeNxvARmvqoQ5puFZXxSnkDQbER1nCizJ1B-hqDRkh2nBn0CT3WmGJiGownmM3gHmCu0NGNzb6lU%7EyoA38FBi3oKuW5phBojafuDF85NMioSFvwQA9zskXJtXiKtb%7EheIR0hJTbKkvG23yDYyfRddUTnZd73z9%7ERQsi-aRqa7966355fwOVQNt3tOcMYcNJHnLeUVGi0Q1qVIVVG92DBXi11G3VQlRBwf0l6yG48STydghnZEaGOKMFc98CKbzXNsxkgE8rZD97LhHi3O6NBA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM adccb2b6f589d6e8635e8a9cdf0c922a PDF Text Text 16Commentary Miranda Whist for The McGill Daily The McGill Daily, Thursday, October 8, 2009 HYDE PARK Choose Life digs its heels in Natalie Fohl and Richard Bernier W Choose Life’s event in Leacock 232 on Tuesday was disrupted by protests. OPEN LETTER SSMU responds to Choose Life event Ivan Neilson T he SSMU executive is incredibly concerned and upset about the response of McGill University to the recent “Echoes of the Holocaust” event, hosted by the SSMU club Choose Life. We feel that McGill University has not only disrespected the rights of the SSMU as the accredited representative body of all McGill undergraduate students, but also failed to protect students’ rights. McGill University has not respected SSMU Council and the SSMU executives as representatives of the McGill undergraduate student population. When the SSMU Council passed a resolution officially and publicly censuring the event “Echoes of the Holocaust”, the SSMU Council clearly stated that for Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson to permit it to go forward would disregard the desire of the Council. In response, Professor Mendelson argued that this resolution is a tyranny of the majority. Firstly, this is an offensive misrepresentation of the purpose of SSMU Council. The SSMU Council was acting on behalf of all undergraduate students, both in its representative capacity and in reaction to many conversations with students. Secondly, it is worrisome that the Deputy Provost interprets a large percentage of students being outraged and appalled at an event to be a tyranny of the majority. SSMU had hoped that Mendelson would consider the impact as well as content of the presentation instead of ignoring the formal intervention of students’ representative body by using the rhetoric of academic freedom. By ignoring the SSMU Council’s decision, McGill acted as an enabler for a group attempting to violate SSMU’s governing documents. The resolution regarding “Echoes of the Holocaust” was passed because the subject and format of the planned presentation violated the SSMU Constitution and Equity Policy. Council did not pass judgment based on individual opinions, but on the constitutionality of the event overall. SSMU did not censor Choose Life’s opinions, but the offensive format within which those opinions were being presented. Moreover, the SSMU Council, as the highest governing body of SSMU, has ultimate authority over SSMU clubs. McGill University must respect the right of SSMU to govern groups under its jurisdiction according to its constitution, by-laws, and policies. SSMU is also disturbed by McGill’s callous disregard of its need to protect students. The Deputy Provost has argued that the behaviour of the protestors was disappointing and appalling. SSMU understands that the disruptive behaviour of the protestors impeded on an event that the University had permitted to happen. However, the University has failed to address the concern that all other formal avenues had been exhausted, but to no avail. Vulnerable students tried to communicate their concerns to the University through the available channels: the SSMU executive, SSMU Council, AUS Council, the McGill Tribune, and The McGill Daily. There were no other avenues through which to stop this event, which they deemed victimizing, offensive, and stifling of educated debate, from happening. Furthermore, it is unfair to expect these student protestors to watch a presentation calmly and to engage with a speaker when such a presentation would make them feel violated, demonized, and silenced. In his February 27, 2009 article in the McGill Reporter, “Free and Open Expression on Campus,” Mendelson said that free speech should be permitted as long as “we do not create a hostile environment for members of our diverse community.” This event created a hostile environment and should not have been permitted. It is possibly most disappointing that when students peacefully engaged in a public response to this hostile environment, they were removed through a police intervention. Administrators did not intervene at all during the height of the event, even after requests from the SSMU executive to do so. Students felt entirely abandoned by the McGill administration upon seeing fellow students removed from the safety of the downtown campus and handed over to the Montreal police and the public media. SSMU has continually tried to serve and represent McGill undergraduate students in this situation, and will continue to do so. We will continue to engage in a conversation with the McGill administration concerning their respect for SSMU and our students’ rights. We will provide impartial information and guidance to any student defending any action to McGill or initiating a grievance with McGill. Most importantly, as the representatives of all undergraduate students, we will hold ourselves to the highest standard of accountability to our students and to the SSMU constitution, by-laws, and policies. We hope to work with McGill to address these concerns and formulate constructive solutions. If any students would like to discuss these issues with the SSMU executive, please do not hesitate to contact us. Ivan Neilson is president of SSMU and is writing on behalf of SSMU’s executive. Write the executive at pres@ssmu.mcgill.ca. hat are the features that define genocide, and can any of them be meaningfully applied to the phenomenon of abortion – or is that simply an unhelpful, even inflammatory suggestion? Are there any parallels between the language used to depersonalize victimized peoples during the Holocaust, and the language used today in legal and social discourse regarding the human fetus? How can we address the question of the human rights of the unborn in ways that do not jeopardize the rights of adult women? These are some of the questions that Jose Ruba wanted to discuss in his October 6 talk, “Echoes of the Holocaust,” organized by Choose Life. These questions are controversial. Some of them even divide members of the pro-life community. The event was attended by the curious and the questioning, by supporters of Ruba’s position, by opponents (pro-life and pro-choice) who came to listen and raise real objections and concerns. In the end, none of these questions were discussed, as a group of protesters drowned out all dialogue with a tiresome farce that lasted two hours. Despite polite and repeated invitations to leave or raise objections during the open discussion following the talk, despite the patience of those in attendance who came to engage with the issues and calmly waited for the lecture to proceed, the evening was entirely consumed by the churlish antics of a few. The title of the talk was controversial, and unquestionably open to debate. Concerns about the content of the talk were based on hearsay and innuendo, and Choose Life has been implicated by insinuation with any number of opinions that we explicitly repudiate. Despite intolerable and slanderous suggestions to the contrary, Choose Life does not believe and will never support the claim that Canada is like Nazi Germany, or that post-abortive women are in any respect like Nazis. Choose Life is committed to defending the dignity of human life from conception onward, and we will not be cowed by insults into keeping quiet, as long as a portion of the human family is marginalized by depersonalizing language and unjust actions. There are many pro-life students at McGill, completely committed to raising awareness about the oppression of the human person in the fetal stage. There are many others who are firmly pro-choice, who wish to hear what the other side has to say, or make the most of opportunities to change the minds of their opponents through rational discussion. A third constituency is the cohort of students who aren’t sure what they believe about the rights of the unborn but who want the chance to craft their own informed opinion. For these reasons, for these students, Choose Life isn’t going anywhere. We will not go away, no matter how often our right to engage in civil conversation is disrupted and violated.
 Choose Life appreciates the professionalism of McGill University’s administration, which made every effort to allow the event to proceed peacefully. We are vividly aware that some students feel nervous about the discussion of abortion, and are sensitive to the fact that some members of the McGill community feel unsafe or harassed by the presence of certain kinds of pro-life discourse on campus. Choose Life is absolutely committed to transparency and to respectful, civil discussion, and we welcome any suggestions or dialogue that will help us to occupy our place on campus in as constructive and non-threatening a way as possible. That civil, courteous, safe dialogue is possible and desirable, we have no doubt at all; we passionately desire peace of mind and a safe space for every single student. This is our commitment.
This is our commitment because we are here, and here to stay. We will not sit down and shut up. We will not allow others to decide before listening to us whether our contribution is legitimate or not. We will not try to drown out those who disagree with us. We will not be silenced. Natalie Fohl
is a U3 Biology and Political Science
student and the president of Choose Life. Richard Bernier
is a PhD IV Religious Studies student. Write them at natalie.fohl@mail.mcgill.ca. Reader, I still haven’t heard from you. Please – please – write soon. Desperately, letters@mcgilldaily.com � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Volume 99 Issue 11 Page Number(s) 16 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Choose Life digs its heels in Description An account of the resource Article from Choose Life president and another student about a controversial cancelled event. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Natalie Fohl, Richard Bernier Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009/10/08 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Antisemitism Choose Life events reproductive health reproductive justice SSMU https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/90672bf38b016128614c5e3ffd8fa7f8.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=TKz1MV6AC2KN-kQ0RqDYTQ%7EPnG4i8MMdvuo96ZLqH%7EwPqgSpYlB2zeCE6bN6I7dpG6xd7QySPFGTVhLU7T5jAE6MqlB1nsbbF2NpACdXzUb3w5uUhtK-om9iwPlZZp6MrgKstZvoAANp1zvyBx5JhVIuTDaRFt1oFsEGdTx%7E5TW%7EudqIoTFAp%7E0s22WZqo6ls8YRk5%7EnXvqV9I17jN4TOvutnbXdySSVjlo384A4hruW3YNeDflCZVkwSzFNEK94ijv%7EYBocv8F4OOJLZ9r5wS2%7ElqTOwotTZe6in1tSUVn4jzksMM9ceIQ4IIUigbqx3V4dqGE1P5yLo5OCay8rgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ee27747ea2ef3c18cceecbe7ac81ca99 PDF Text Text News The McGill Daily, Thursday, October 8, 2009 5 Miranda Whist for The McGill Daily Choose Life protest ends in arrests “Echoes of the Holocaust” called off following disruptions Erin Hale The McGill Daily M cGill students Fred Burrill and Elise Eisenkraft-Klein were arrested by Montreal police and charged with mischief Tuesday night while protesting the Choose Life sponsored event, “Echoes of the Holocaust.” The students were part of a larger group of about 15 protesters who attempted to disrupt the event. Despite police intervention, protesters persisted in interrupting the speaker, Jose Ruba of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, until Choose Life’s reservation on Leacock Room 232 expired at 9 p.m. and club president Natalie Fohl called off the event. Ruba attempted to link the process of dehumanization used to justify historical genocides to what he viewed as the dehumanization of unborn children used to justify abortion. Last Thursday, SSMU Council voted in favour of a resolution to censure “Echoes of the Holocaust.” The resolution also called on the University to prevent the event from taking place, and rescinded Choose Life’s ability to gain SSMU funding in the future, in case the event ended up taking place. At Council, Clubs and Services Representative Corey Omer noted that he had received petitions from several SSMU clubs, including Hillel McGill, who feared that Ruba’s reference to the Holocaust was an inappropriate comparison. Ruba had hardly finished the first sentence of his lecture when a protester near the front of the room stood up and announced that she believed he had no right to deliver his speech at McGill. The protesters proceeded by singing various songs, at one point completing an entire rendition of “99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall.” Protesters held their arms, jackets, and signs in front of Ruba’s video projections, which included photographs from biology textbooks, videos of the early stages of an abortion, and images of the Holocaust. McGill Security personnel were on site from the event’s beginning, but when they were unable to stop the protest, the protesters were warned that the police would be called. Sometime around 7:30 p.m., three officers arrived. Speaking on behalf of the officers, Sergeant Baccardi informed the students that if they continued to be disruptive, they would be arrested and charged with mischief and possibly obstruction of justice. “You’re going to have a criminal record, and I’m serious about this. I know your cause [is] a valid one, but I don’t think doing this is where you want to go with this,” Baccardi said. “I will call backup and they will come here and physically remove you. If it comes to that you will be identified, either by force…and fines, tickets, jail time will come with that,” Baccardi added. Arts Senator Sarah Woolf, who is a vocal opponent of Choose Life, stepped in and demanded that Principal Heather Monroe-Blum or Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson be contacted by phone before the police forcibly removed anyone from the room. “Many students here at McGill do not believe that this [presentation] is in accordance with the law,” she told Baccardi. Fohl said she was disappointed by the demonstration and felt the protesters’ behaviour limited dialogue. “I think it’s really unfortunate it had to come to [calling the police],” she said. “In a perfect world we’d be allowed to have an event [which] people are free to come to or not, free to disagree with or not, and there would be respectful dialogue on both sides, and people would allow that to happen. But that’s not the case at the moment.” The protesters accused Choose Life of trying to hold their event in secret, claiming Fohl had misled The Daily on Friday when she said the event would be cancelled “We were told the event was cancelled on Friday. Why? Because Natalie Fohl called The Daily and told them. She didn’t say that to SSMU! She just told them she wasn’t sure. That sounds like a lie.” said protester Darrah Teitel. Audience member Sarah Rohoman, U2 Arts, said that while she felt the contents of Ruba’s discussion were offensive, she also did not approve of the methods used by the protesters. “I don’t feel like what they’re doing is correct. I believe everyone should have their say. I appreciate what they have to say, but the way they’re doing it is not correct,” Rohoman said. Ruba told the protesters he was open to discussion, and that Choose Life had asked for a pro-choice speaker to engage in debate. Protesters, however, said that the presentation did not lend itself to dialogue. “The problem is you trick people into debating you, and then you show graphic images to scare them instead of using actual facts,” one said. “You pride yourself on scaring people out of having abortions.” “This event goes against the McGill Charter, SSMU’s Equity Policy, [and] Canada’s Charter of Rights, which protect my body and me from the harassment that you are trying to show in this video. We have no desire to see you speak because we don’t want the women in this room to suffer your harassment,” said Teitel. In the midst of the confusion, Ruba explained to The Daily why he felt it was important for protesters to hear his message. “A vagina is not public space. A uterus is not public space,” said Teitel as Ruba tried to resume his speech. Some of the audience members then began heckling protesters. “Why don’t you just shut your mouth!” a woman said in response to protesters’ complaints. Eventually, at least ten officers, two squad cars, two minivans, and two motorcycles arrived on McTavish. Officers waited outside the room as comments flew back and forth between protesters and the audience. Ruba attempted to deliver his lecture, while displaying photos of the Serbian, Armenian, Cambodian, and Jewish genocides. Baccardi and other officers, as well as Ruba, stayed to take questions from bystanders following the event’s abrupt ending. Outside, two students attempted to approach the squad cars containing Burrill and Eisenkraft-Klein. One of the students was pushed by one of the officers, while the other’s arm was bent back by another officer who warned him to keep his distance from the vehicles. “I will call backup and they will come here and physically remove you” Sergeant Baccardi, Montreal Police “[The protesters] have accused us of all these things, and frankly they haven’t heard this presentation yet. When people pre-judge someone based on heresy and rumours, that’s called prejudice,” Ruba said. “We don’t mind protests; that’s what free universities and free societies do. But they don’t censure people simply because they disagree or prevent people from sharing their ideas. That’s no longer what protests should be about. That’s censorship.” As Ruba attempted to begin his presentation for a second time, police escorted Burrill and Eisenkraft-Klein to waiting squad cars. Within a short time, disruptions resumed as protesters began to sing, shout, and ring their cell phones. In response to yesterday’s events, the SSMU executive issued an open letter Wednesday condemning the University’s refusal to cancel the event, which they felt violated the SSMU Constitution and Equity Policy. The executive, representing council, the highest governing body of SSMU, also asked the University to respect the decisions made by Council concerning its clubs. “Vulnerable students tried to communicate their concerns to the University through the available channels: the SSMU executive, SSMU Council, AUS Council, the McGill Tribune, and The McGill Daily. There were no other avenues through which to stop this event, which they deemed as victimizing, offensive, and stifling of educated debate, from happening,” the letter read. “Furthermore it is unfair to expect these student protesters to calmly watch a presentation and engage with a speaker when such a presentation would make them feel violated, demonized, and silenced,” the letter continued. “This event created a hostile environment and should not have been permitted. It is possibly most disappointing that when students peacefully engaged in a public response to this hostile environment, they were removed through a police intervention.” But Mendelson defended the administration’s actions. Following the event, he said that McGill chose not to intervene because the University did not see the SSMU censure as a reason to limit debate. “We want to foster debate, we do not want to restrict the expression of ideas.... As I said to SSMU when I was asked to intervene and cancel the event, I said ‘Look, debate free of constraint is important as long as the discourse remains civil, does not violate a law, or McGill’s code of conduct and disciplinary procedures’,” Mendelson said. “[The event] was scheduled in a room that was not a public space [and] not in an open public area. The publicity of the event advised individuals of the nature of the graphic imagery, and the graphic imagery was confined to the room. So in that sense, I felt the event was an appropriate event.” According to SSMU Equity Commissioner Jonathan Hann, only one equity complaint has been submitted this year against Choose Life, but he noted that he has received many informal criticisms of the club. “I’ve had a lot of students express concerns to me, not necessarily in terms of a complaint, [but] when it comes to [Choose Life] holding events, they feel that maybe it’s a violation of their rights as a student to walk through campus and be confronted with these signs and images they don’t necessarily find appealing while walking about doing their everyday business,” Hann said. Hann also noted that he had received complaints from the protesters, “They feel their right to assemble has been violated, and they were treated unjustly and unfairly because of it,” Hann said. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Volume 99 Issue 11 Page Number(s) 5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Choose Life protest ends in violence Description An account of the resource Discussion of a protest outside of a Choose Life event and police intervention. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Erin Hale Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009/10/08 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Antisemitism Choose Life events police protest reproductive health reproductive justice SSMU https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/52fea60000214790546534730392531f.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=nwfihzG2tXI8oVWpZgRWgx6P1AmDAF-DIwrY57p3gNukY7OTJh63ptsH1%7E38jkt-U%7EFEcYvuX6nU%7Egad2immhSk6Q8MCquykyxjSoldk2PwDY%7Eklmb-NNKCbMME1iBo2oxO7wG2bmG04yCrWMdt7VP68ANI8s9nyZUkgvWJib%7EtyIkWoEGPuB0hJyWmlP9Ks1%7ED10-BRdH%7EcO8S3YDkAO04eTiXKO-oqk9Zy8iqojrRNUHKxHofQd1mK2D8qJwVBXgYVWigJ3B6IvfYaXiEaUJkH2z1qxNbE0sLNRNiZ3EHbyweU4vMk8wUgyZEkPeF44i0jOT6HHRDy3DFgIOo%7E5g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM adccb2b6f589d6e8635e8a9cdf0c922a PDF Text Text 16Commentary Miranda Whist for The McGill Daily The McGill Daily, Thursday, October 8, 2009 HYDE PARK Choose Life digs its heels in Natalie Fohl and Richard Bernier W Choose Life’s event in Leacock 232 on Tuesday was disrupted by protests. OPEN LETTER SSMU responds to Choose Life event Ivan Neilson T he SSMU executive is incredibly concerned and upset about the response of McGill University to the recent “Echoes of the Holocaust” event, hosted by the SSMU club Choose Life. We feel that McGill University has not only disrespected the rights of the SSMU as the accredited representative body of all McGill undergraduate students, but also failed to protect students’ rights. McGill University has not respected SSMU Council and the SSMU executives as representatives of the McGill undergraduate student population. When the SSMU Council passed a resolution officially and publicly censuring the event “Echoes of the Holocaust”, the SSMU Council clearly stated that for Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson to permit it to go forward would disregard the desire of the Council. In response, Professor Mendelson argued that this resolution is a tyranny of the majority. Firstly, this is an offensive misrepresentation of the purpose of SSMU Council. The SSMU Council was acting on behalf of all undergraduate students, both in its representative capacity and in reaction to many conversations with students. Secondly, it is worrisome that the Deputy Provost interprets a large percentage of students being outraged and appalled at an event to be a tyranny of the majority. SSMU had hoped that Mendelson would consider the impact as well as content of the presentation instead of ignoring the formal intervention of students’ representative body by using the rhetoric of academic freedom. By ignoring the SSMU Council’s decision, McGill acted as an enabler for a group attempting to violate SSMU’s governing documents. The resolution regarding “Echoes of the Holocaust” was passed because the subject and format of the planned presentation violated the SSMU Constitution and Equity Policy. Council did not pass judgment based on individual opinions, but on the constitutionality of the event overall. SSMU did not censor Choose Life’s opinions, but the offensive format within which those opinions were being presented. Moreover, the SSMU Council, as the highest governing body of SSMU, has ultimate authority over SSMU clubs. McGill University must respect the right of SSMU to govern groups under its jurisdiction according to its constitution, by-laws, and policies. SSMU is also disturbed by McGill’s callous disregard of its need to protect students. The Deputy Provost has argued that the behaviour of the protestors was disappointing and appalling. SSMU understands that the disruptive behaviour of the protestors impeded on an event that the University had permitted to happen. However, the University has failed to address the concern that all other formal avenues had been exhausted, but to no avail. Vulnerable students tried to communicate their concerns to the University through the available channels: the SSMU executive, SSMU Council, AUS Council, the McGill Tribune, and The McGill Daily. There were no other avenues through which to stop this event, which they deemed victimizing, offensive, and stifling of educated debate, from happening. Furthermore, it is unfair to expect these student protestors to watch a presentation calmly and to engage with a speaker when such a presentation would make them feel violated, demonized, and silenced. In his February 27, 2009 article in the McGill Reporter, “Free and Open Expression on Campus,” Mendelson said that free speech should be permitted as long as “we do not create a hostile environment for members of our diverse community.” This event created a hostile environment and should not have been permitted. It is possibly most disappointing that when students peacefully engaged in a public response to this hostile environment, they were removed through a police intervention. Administrators did not intervene at all during the height of the event, even after requests from the SSMU executive to do so. Students felt entirely abandoned by the McGill administration upon seeing fellow students removed from the safety of the downtown campus and handed over to the Montreal police and the public media. SSMU has continually tried to serve and represent McGill undergraduate students in this situation, and will continue to do so. We will continue to engage in a conversation with the McGill administration concerning their respect for SSMU and our students’ rights. We will provide impartial information and guidance to any student defending any action to McGill or initiating a grievance with McGill. Most importantly, as the representatives of all undergraduate students, we will hold ourselves to the highest standard of accountability to our students and to the SSMU constitution, by-laws, and policies. We hope to work with McGill to address these concerns and formulate constructive solutions. If any students would like to discuss these issues with the SSMU executive, please do not hesitate to contact us. Ivan Neilson is president of SSMU and is writing on behalf of SSMU’s executive. Write the executive at pres@ssmu.mcgill.ca. hat are the features that define genocide, and can any of them be meaningfully applied to the phenomenon of abortion – or is that simply an unhelpful, even inflammatory suggestion? Are there any parallels between the language used to depersonalize victimized peoples during the Holocaust, and the language used today in legal and social discourse regarding the human fetus? How can we address the question of the human rights of the unborn in ways that do not jeopardize the rights of adult women? These are some of the questions that Jose Ruba wanted to discuss in his October 6 talk, “Echoes of the Holocaust,” organized by Choose Life. These questions are controversial. Some of them even divide members of the pro-life community. The event was attended by the curious and the questioning, by supporters of Ruba’s position, by opponents (pro-life and pro-choice) who came to listen and raise real objections and concerns. In the end, none of these questions were discussed, as a group of protesters drowned out all dialogue with a tiresome farce that lasted two hours. Despite polite and repeated invitations to leave or raise objections during the open discussion following the talk, despite the patience of those in attendance who came to engage with the issues and calmly waited for the lecture to proceed, the evening was entirely consumed by the churlish antics of a few. The title of the talk was controversial, and unquestionably open to debate. Concerns about the content of the talk were based on hearsay and innuendo, and Choose Life has been implicated by insinuation with any number of opinions that we explicitly repudiate. Despite intolerable and slanderous suggestions to the contrary, Choose Life does not believe and will never support the claim that Canada is like Nazi Germany, or that post-abortive women are in any respect like Nazis. Choose Life is committed to defending the dignity of human life from conception onward, and we will not be cowed by insults into keeping quiet, as long as a portion of the human family is marginalized by depersonalizing language and unjust actions. There are many pro-life students at McGill, completely committed to raising awareness about the oppression of the human person in the fetal stage. There are many others who are firmly pro-choice, who wish to hear what the other side has to say, or make the most of opportunities to change the minds of their opponents through rational discussion. A third constituency is the cohort of students who aren’t sure what they believe about the rights of the unborn but who want the chance to craft their own informed opinion. For these reasons, for these students, Choose Life isn’t going anywhere. We will not go away, no matter how often our right to engage in civil conversation is disrupted and violated.
 Choose Life appreciates the professionalism of McGill University’s administration, which made every effort to allow the event to proceed peacefully. We are vividly aware that some students feel nervous about the discussion of abortion, and are sensitive to the fact that some members of the McGill community feel unsafe or harassed by the presence of certain kinds of pro-life discourse on campus. Choose Life is absolutely committed to transparency and to respectful, civil discussion, and we welcome any suggestions or dialogue that will help us to occupy our place on campus in as constructive and non-threatening a way as possible. That civil, courteous, safe dialogue is possible and desirable, we have no doubt at all; we passionately desire peace of mind and a safe space for every single student. This is our commitment.
This is our commitment because we are here, and here to stay. We will not sit down and shut up. We will not allow others to decide before listening to us whether our contribution is legitimate or not. We will not try to drown out those who disagree with us. We will not be silenced. Natalie Fohl
is a U3 Biology and Political Science
student and the president of Choose Life. Richard Bernier
is a PhD IV Religious Studies student. Write them at natalie.fohl@mail.mcgill.ca. Reader, I still haven’t heard from you. Please – please – write soon. Desperately, letters@mcgilldaily.com � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Volume 99 Issue 11 Page Number(s) 16 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource SSMU responds to Choose Life event Description An account of the resource The president of SSMU writes about a controversial Choose Life event. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ivan Neilson Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009/10/08 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Admin Antisemitism Choose Life events police protest reproductive health reproductive justice SSMU https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/7047fd93a3c8f58faff6b577def6a285.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=a0Lqrh%7ET8CKBZ6SgKzyXo8Ypaw706uHQ6ZxROdjsu-Lb33Bpzhy2EtbBJMniM1SzbNytACU61Kmzhb7ZxNV7pe4BXDGgHxz2Tvr1%7EtdXU6et7zba1fDVkCd8e-VMR6XnFA4ukYOtNSx5k73H2QnQdyozAhXErTsicbCdEq-fWzSuhrzkgtxuAlWEun-FAyZ5bFYwLJuFzvwyfbCBwG1BsOlBcQDs-g53UzOIJNwuD20d6VbFbBnsSiPPQBhj4BEovtku4XH29jguyD-6ptkmXlLtBYGLvm3zY41sK-dQHQxkNwxM4kBGv7D3eu4ye8NcR5B2ZNIsIYjxxWmepNm87Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c14ebfad293a3d2b843e28f83e9cc991 PDF Text Text 8 Commentary Echoes of HYDE PARK Make up your mind, Choose Life Evelyn Lo C All Graphics by Sally Lin / The McGill Daily hoose Life can’t seem to decide whether it’s a SSMUapproved club or a hardcore propagandist society, and it’s shooting itself with indecision. Choose Life makes a habit of showing its commitment to open and civil discussion by creating opportunities for such discussions. Unfortunately, Choose Life has an equally longstanding habit of emotionally priming discussions and minds with provocative imagery and associations, with the aim to shock and provoke guilt. The photos at the crossroads, the signboards at the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, the images at last week’s event: each time, the words “emotional manipulation” come to mind. Moreover, Choose Life makes open and civil discussions less open, and markedly less civil. Emotional manipulation, reducing “discussion” to a one-way, imageheavy, guilt-causing proclamation: all this has vaguely propagandistic tones. But this isn’t propaganda; it’s all part of a respectful, civil discussion, which is what Choose Life is all about. We know this to be true because Natalie Fohl, the president of Choose Life, says so. Last week, Fohl and Richard Bernier, on behalf of Choose Life (“Choose Life digs its heels in,” Commentary, October 8), stated that “we are committed to … respectful, civil discussion.” Besides this, Choose Life also keeps trying to hold events to spur two-sided discussion. For that, Fohl is right to defend and define her group as a club, with a club’s commitments and right to protection of opinion. However, she forgets that everyone else has that right; Choose Life is expected to give others the same respect of opinion it receives. In persisting with its tried-and-failed method of discussion, Choose Life has shown it is not living up to this expectation. It is behaving as a propaganda group, a collection of people who don’t care what you think, just want you to think what they think, and don’t care how they make that happen: by putting up fetal photos, by toting signboards, by misusing history with a peculiar inability to foresee the offense that would be generated, and by gussying it up to be civil, thought-provoking material. In the same article, Fohl states, “We will not allow others to decide before listening to us whether our contribution is legitimate or not.” There’s a reason why such “others” exist. First, people do not need to listen to you before deciding the legitimacy of your contributions. They only need to see the tact, or lack thereof, with which you dress up your contribution. Second, Choose Life fails to uphold its commitment to civil discussion, and its obligation to respect other groups. It succeeds only in ruining whatever credibility the group had as one that encourages level-headed discussion and whose words are worth consideration. Choose Life thereby undermines its own official purpose, to “promote human life and rights from conception to natural death.” Its persistence in behaving the same way despite protest shows that, oddly enough, it really wants to commit club suicide. This is ultimately depressing because it is an example of how, even in a system that promotes diversity of opinion, people can still massacre their own beliefs simply by promoting them inappropriately. Choose Life is not promoting respect for human life – if anything, it’s promoting ridicule of the prolife stance – and it’s neither opening itself up to nor establishing its credibility as a proponent of civil discussion. Choose Life’s inconsistency – stating it would cancel “Echoes of the Holocaust,” then deciding to go through with it anyway – highlights the fact that the club does not know whether to cram its message down our throats via emotional manipulation and graphic images, or grow up into a club that gives others respect. Which is something that many are rapidly losing for Choose Life. Whatever has caused these antics – be it genuine identity crisis, disingenuousness, need for publicity, or total cluelessness – Choose Life’s maybeI’m-this-maybe-I’m-that dance has been going on too long. Likening abortion to the Holocaust is really just the icing on one huge self-defeating, split-personality cake. Evelyn Lo is a U1 Biology and Philosophy student. Write her at evekyn.lo2@mail.mcgill.ca. HYDE PARK Let Choose Life be Women need such a club on campus Andrea Paolucci T o make a true choice, one needs two things: information and resources. Without information on a given subject, one cannot make an informed, educated choice. We get up in arms when we feel as though our politicians have “hidden agendas,” precisely because in our democratic society that would mean our vote was an uninformed one: it might not have reflected our true opinions, and we might regret our choice of candidate. Secondly, we need resources. A choice made without access to real options is not a true choice at all. Twenty-one years ago, the last laws regulating abortion in Canada were struck down, making our country one of the few in the West with no restrictions on abortion. Finally, Canadian women had gained the right to chose whether or not to have a legal abortion. However, 21 years later, I question how far we have really come. Information about abortion procedures, the possible psychological side effects of abortion and its impact on fertility, as well as information about the development of the fetus, is not readily available to women. It is not readily available because this information is often considered “oppressive”; it is often thought that it will make women “feel bad” – rhetoric we hear all too often on our campus. At previous Choose Life events, members of the club shared information about abortion and fetal development. As in the past, the protestors at Jose Ruba’s presentation felt the need to censor this information. The protestors at Ruba’s talk said the images of abortion he projected were “disgusting.” What are we really saying? Women are too emotionally fragile to handle information about their bodies and about the important decisions they have to make? As a woman, I take great offense to that. The “abortion distortion,” a term coined by Rachel MacNair, a pro-life feminist and psychologist, describes the phenomenon where, when abortion is mentioned, a double standard comes into play, even when women’s health is at stake. The distortion happens when valid studies about the negative effects of abortion on women are ignored, when side effects of abortion are kept under wraps, and when dialogue on an issue affecting thousands of women and men is suppressed and labelled oppressive. Is not the suppression of this dialogue in itself oppressive? The abortion debate is far from settled in Canada. The uproar in the summer of 2008 over the awarding of the Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler, the physician and abortion rights activist, is just one testament out of many to that fact. SSMU should not allow themselves to be bullied into suppressing this dialogue on campus and oppressing women by denying their right to information about their bodies and abortion. Choose Life is a group on campus where women can get access to pregnancy information and resources – for example, through the organization Birthright International – that don’t rely overmuch on abortion. In the name of free speech, the freedom of assembly, and women’s rights to information and resources, Choose Life must be allowed to exist and hold events on campus. Both by providing women with support in their pregnancies through information and resources as well as by working toward putting responsibility back into sex, and thereby, working to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, we can continue to truly liberate women. This can be accomplished by protecting their reproductive rights in honest ways that do not interfere with the legal status of abortion. Andrea Paolucci received her B.A. in psychology in 2009, and is currently a special student. She’s also a Choose Life member. Write her at andrea.paolucci@mail.mcgill.ca. �The McGill Daily, Thursday, October 15, 2009 a protest 9 HYDE PARK No to hate speech The administration should protect its students Elaina Kaufman & Liam Olson-Mayes A fter exhausting all other possible recourse for preventing the event “Echoes of the Holocaust” from taking place on campus, we chose to participate in the disruption of the event. “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” and other exuberantly sung musical numbers are, in our opinion, a measured and appropriate response to the presence of that particular presentation and the organization behind it at McGill. Our action was not a prochoice protest, nor did we hope to convince anyone in the room to become or to remain pro-choice. We do not seek out anti-abortion events off campus in order to disrupt them, but we felt obligated to stop this event from happening on campus because it violated McGill’s policy on student rights. We do not presume to speak on behalf of all the disrupters at the event. However, we did consult with other disrupters in writing this article, and their responses are expressed here. We were not permitted to write this article anonymously, but wished to because of the backlash that our actions have already received. Disrupters whose names were published have been subject to angry messages from complete strangers, and have had their identities referenced on the National Post’s Full Comment blog (“McGill abortion advocates block opposing opinions,” October 9, 2009); videos of the entire event have been posted on YouTube against our wishes. YouTube comments single out individual protesters based on appearance and clothing, speculate about their sexualities, and say that the protestors deserve to be tasered or beaten. It appears that YouTube has removed the most threatening comments, but there are messages on other web sites saying that the protestors deserve to be punished and demanding that they identify themselves. Some of us had qualms about this action, as we had never chosen to cen- sor an event. We are not a club and did not have an organizer. In response to Jose Ruba’s allegation that we did not know the content of the event and were afraid of the truth, we would like to assure him that many disrupters had viewed Ruba’s material online and were familiar with the content of his presentation. Choose Life can thank SSMU’s trusting nature for its current status as a SSMU club. During the SSMU council meeting of October 2, 2008, which gave the club interim status, Choose Life President Natalie Fohl said, “We have decided against graphic images.” This should be viewed as a promise to SSMU councillors – no councillors at that meeting defended the proliferation of sensationalized abortion imagery on campus. The condition that Choose Life not use graphic images was paramount in the decision to grant the group club status. One year later, at the SSMU Council meeting of October 1, 2009,  Fohl asserted that what she said in 2008 did not amount to a promise. In our research, we found that Ruba, the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR), and Choose Life are all part of a larger phenomenon tied to the National Campus Life Network (NCLN). This organization operates across Canada, giving support and funding to start up pro-life clubs on university campuses, including Guelph, Carleton, the University of British Columbia, St. Mary’s, and the University of Calgary, among others. The clubs act as a foot in the door for events such as “Echoes of the Holocaust” and the “Genocide Awareness Project,” both of which are put on by the CCBR and rely on graphic abortion imagery to make their point. Often, the student governments are provoked to ban or withdraw support from the clubs because of the harmful effects on students. Human rights complaints are then filed against these student governments by anti-abortion groups. It is possible that Choose Life did not intentionally manipulate SSMU into granting them club status, but their actions resemble those of other student anti-abortion clubs rooted in the NCLN. What link is there between the NCLN and Choose Life? The club is listed on NCLN’s web site as one of their campus groups, and the club’s affiliation to the NCLN is stated in its constitution; at Choose Life’s events, free NCLN-produced anti-abortion pamphlets and flyers have been circulated. Furthermore, NCLN provides many resources to campus anti-abortion clubs, including a list of appropriate speakers and events – Ruba and the CCBR are first on the list of “Campus Speakers” on their site. What’s more, the NCLN’s web site acts as a conduit for Choose Life, instructing readers to consult NCLN for more information on the club. Now, some may find it surprising that Choose Life went ahead with “Echoes of the Holocaust,” despite threats that holding the event on campus would result in their inability to ever receive funding from SSMU. But since the event took place at McGill without funding from SSMU, it seems reasonable to assume that Choose Life members paid for Ruba’s speech out of pocket, that he came for free, or that Choose Life received some other form of external monetary support. In light of the fact that Choose Life was able to hold “Echoes of the Holocaust” without SSMU funding, it’s clear that the club does not require SSMU’s financial support. All the research we have done about the CCBR has shown that their primary goal is to remove abortion as an option for anyone (including survivors of rape and incest), permanently. Inciting hatred against any “identifiable group” is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Because of this law, the CCBR’s web site is meticulously worded to avoid overtly hateful speech. But the CCBR’s American affiliate, the Center for Bioethical Research is not subjected to these laws – their web site shows no effort to avoid hateful speech. A quick peek at the two groups’ web sites makes it abundantly clear that despite their differences on paper, they share the same goals and strategies. Because our university is a relatively liberal environment, many people who are pro-choice think that the fight for abortion rights is over in Canada and that it’s best simply to ignore anti-abortion activist organizations like the CCBR. To this, we point out that women die in large numbers when they are not granted access to safe and legal abortions. It’s also important to remember that the CCBR and its American affiliate are part of an extensive network of influential organizations that lobby to restrict access to abortion in Canada and the United States in view of eventually illegalizing abortion. The Canadian Constitution protects the right to safety of person; institutionally denying any woman access to abortion contradicts her absolute right to physical safety. Thus, the politics of the CCBR threaten the safety of women. They are unwelcome on our campus whether or not some students support their views. McGill students are not the first to have shut down Ruba’s speech. At St. Mary’s University in Halifax, students shouted down “Echoes of the Holocaust.” They disturbed the presentation for an hour and a half until the administration responded by ending the entire event. Organizers then moved the presentation to a nearby chapel – without any police intervention. At York University in Toronto, a unanimous student union vote in February 2008 resulted in the cancellation of an “abortion debate,” in which Ruba was to argue the “prolife” position. A member of York’s student union explained that the CCBR is a discriminatory organization, and that they felt accountable for keeping student-funded spaces free of discrimination and harassment. They viewed the event as carefully disguised anti-abortion propaganda. Ruba insisted on showing graphic abortion imagery at the event. What’s more, the web site of the CCBR, which Ruba co-founded and represents, lists “five types of abortion-minded women.” The fifth – supposedly the only one who will ultimately choose abortion – is the type of woman who goes ahead with an abortion even after being shown graphic videos. According to the CCBR, this type of woman has “hardened her heart to all information.” It follows that the purpose of showing these images is then not to raise discussion as they claim, but rather to scare and shame women out of having abortions. This promotes contempt toward those who are not moved to condemn abortion after they have seen the images. These images are used in a way that targets and discriminates against pregnant women. We are astonished that administration officials like Morton Mendelson ignored the policy documents that protect constitutional minority rights. McGill’s Handbook of Student Rights and Responsibilities lists pregnancy as one of the reasons for which an individual cannot be discriminated against or harassed. In response to those who have accused us of committing a crime against free speech, we remind you that Canada is a country where opinions that incite hatred are censored or curtailed in a public arena. For that, we are thankful. We are thankful that this protection is not up for debate and does not hinge on the opinions of the majority. On the contrary, it is promised by SSMU’s Equity Policy, McGill’s policy on student rights and responsibilities, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We do not know why our figures of authority failed to protect our rights as they are stipulated in these documents. Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that McGill will not remain a university where discrimination and human rights violations are tolerated. Elaina Kaufman is a U3 Biomedical Sciences and Middle Eastern languages student. Liam Olson-Mayes is a McGill undergraduate. Write them at liam.olson-mayes@mail. mcgill.ca. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Volume 99 Issue 12 Page Number(s) 8-9 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Echoes of a protest Description An account of the resource Multiple perspectives on a Choose Life event. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Evelyn Lo, Andrea Paolucci, Elaine Kaufman, Liam Olson-Mayes Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009/10/15 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Choose Life events protest reproductive health reproductive justice SSMU https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/791f2a2f0efdc3e3b2f651bb487aa939.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=uHF50hGtpo5QrMA-d9BXRnFhwTW6e-wLNg06tFFc5Xaf%7E13604rMQ5myqPgFAkbi0JRvPV0Yw0SLyU%7Ecg%7E3zHAV6KI-CrN%7ELt%7ESD6qJeLvDnjkFYfBQfkuZbwtGCwk%7Exs7jOdkxRbr8U3hhytMEMzBPoHzTCEwYuBMNTZOGWLN94lUpgCruDYNhzydchSxVLrcHt9XAG0BaztbRcwwCiiz31cTB8V7I%7E0s%7ENdEoQ9aWCRmYfWemMvTl-dV4OH%7EDBK1HMT0GbOYrxLrjbzFP6ts-X5uiqJ3%7EwPelvpYlrXi4sVmgodnUlUSq5Lof0n51GVpB2UmO7DYlylVFOl3SNDw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 673da59933e0811b31e233dbd15c4ea2 PDF Text Text Commentary The McGill Daily, Monday, October 19, 2009 7 “Don’t get arrested” The perils of police interaction when you’re trans Binary is for computers I was at Choose Life’s event two weeks ago. But I don’t want to write about “Echoes of the Holocaust” or Choose Life or abortion. Instead, I want to write about a text message my girlfriend sent me during the protest. It read, “Don’t get arrested.” Now, I wasn’t doing anything that would call for my arrest – I wasn’t even protesting. And the text message, knowing my girlfriend, was probably a joke. However, I hadn’t fully considered the implications of what would happen if I got arrested at this point in my life. First, I’m not a Canadian citizen; I’m not even a permanent resident. I’m an American citizen on a study permit. This puts me in a rather precarious position, since the Canadian government can deport me if I violate the terms of my study permit. That would mean leaving McGill, having to explain my situation to another university, and finding it difficult, if not impossible, to enter – let alone live in or immigrate to – Canada for the foreseeable future. Second, I’m a trans person. This is, astoundingly, even more significant than my nationality. As a trans person who has not changed any legal documents, any interaction I have with the state involves denial of my identity. The state doesn’t recognize the name I’ve chosen for myself and use in daily life; it doesn’t recognize any sex or gender for me other than the one I was assigned at birth. If I attempt to identify myself with my chosen name or gender, not only will the state refuse to recognize me, but it may accuse me of fraud – of lying about who I am. The irony of this is painful. I’m being far more honest when I tell people to call me Quinn and not to treat me as though I were male. It’s when I attempt to pass myself off as a male or use my legal name that I engage in fraud. The state, however, only cares about what the paperwork says, not what I say. Interactions with the police in particular can lead to problems for trans people. If I don’t represent myself the way they want me to, I face hostility. And because the state doesn’t recognize my gender, if it placed me in a segregated prison, I would be in a men’s prison, against not only my own self-identity but also my own safety. Justin K. Wong / The McGill Daily Quinn Albaugh Trans people, because of their precarious legal situation, often have trouble with the fuzz. This is particularly true because I’m a trans person in a physical transition. This means that my body, regardless of how I present myself using social behaviours, is somewhere “in between” sex expectations. Society already devalues the bodies of trans people by practically condoning systemic physical violence against us – I don’t even want to contemplate what that means in jail. When I realized all of this at “Echoes of the Holocaust,” I immediately became quite edgy, since I knew the police would come. I already don’t trust the police. I know the role that law enforcement has played in the institutionalized oppression of a variety of communities, based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, or a variety of other factors. I know how much power the police force has, which they could use to detain, assault, or even kill me. I know how dangerous having the police turn against me could be. However, this was the first time I felt all this actually sink in. And, to be quite honest, I’m still terrified when I think about this. Quinn Albaugh will be writing about trans people, legal documents, prisons, and police in the coming weeks – stay tuned! Write them at binaryforcomputers@ mcgilldaily.com. Obama wins peace prize: get over it It’s not his fault, OK? Little bitter Riva Gold W hen I was five, my friend got a holographic Pog in his loot bag at a birthday party. Bitter and resentful, I glared at him for a week, refusing to share my snacks with him at recess or look for him during our daily games of hideand-seek. He didn’t deserve that Pog, and I was convinced that if he had an ounce of integrity in his four-foot-tall body, he would have given it back. But I’m not five anymore, and I realize now how absurd it was to blame him for his unsolicited good fortune. So now that Barack Obama has found the Nobel Peace Prize in his loot bag, it’s time for us to stop blaming the man and get over it. Does bestowing the award upon Obama somehow delegitimize the Nobel Peace Prize? In short: no. I’m inclined to believe the title already lacks a whole lot of legitimacy. After being awarded to the likes of Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat, I tend not to take it too seriously. If we were to believe that despite being awarded to Al Gore for his care of trees, the prize is still important, we would also have to believe that no single recipient could delegitimize it, Obama included. Has Obama achieved world peace? No. But neither have most winners, and we need to reassess whether we actually want to treat the Peace Prize as a piece of post facto self-congratulatory pomp. A prize awarded to someone who has already finished their work vis-à-vis international solidarity does little good to foster actual prospects of peace. The prize is far more valuable as an expressive statement of the hopes and desires of the world, intended to guide those in power as they face tough decisions. Fact: Obama is president while Iraq and Afghanistan are in a state of total disarray. But we can hardly expect him to undo eight years of damage overnight or resolve bitter and bloody battles that reach far beyond his short term in office. If we look instead to the closing of Guantánamo Bay, his speech in Cairo, his dialogue with Iran, and Netanyahu saying the words “Palestinian state,” we can see that Obama has not just promised peace but is taking meaningful steps toward achieving it. It may be only nine months into his presidency, would be. Who would want to go down in history as the president who’s against peace? It’s not reasonable to expect anyone to decline this award. What we can expect is If you still think the Nobel committee was wrong, don’t criticize the recipient but he’s endured a lot of labour pains to birth a new era of diplomacy, and this award may be the breast milk it needs to develop. And if you still think the Nobel committee was wrong, don’t criticize the recipient; blame the committee. Sure, Obama could have declined the prize, citing his own unworthiness in some touching and well-delivered speech. But imagine the international PR disaster that for them to take its mandate seriously, and continue to work toward peaceful humanitarian ends. I have every reason to expect Obama to do this, and I’m not going to criticize his character in my Facebook status. Riva Gold is one of The Daily’s weekly columnists. Send her an aggregate of your Facebook statuses at littlebitter@mcgilldaily.com. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Volume 99 Issue 13 Page Number(s) 7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource "Don't get arrested" Description An account of the resource A discussion about interacting with police when trans. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Quinn Albaugh Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009/10/19 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Antisemitism Choose Life events police protest reproductive health reproductive justice SSMU transphobia https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/a923efd2536482fb1e525fbc857748bd.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=EJbBfbM6iioXjHC5J88i8zsUlGlHg3x%7EosfiEOTQjr7Y729PV6jovBwoYv2p8FEgtF9%7EKqjw7zTAKBIJoW0hGiXOHsbPrgG7-3QKTFAUb2XjeQYfsB1xSMSpe5Cy-ZPx5CUoDEAMVx%7E4YYvMjZytlwmu95UrvH-PlJbBCpz7tWROrUjIu1-FexHBUId%7EtD05%7EazkG8yVX-Z5nvwGKpH4edtCK61I67ESnHD1vH0knhW9oeLecms24ft3eWOVPV3lmP6WXyFFFoB9mjL8vLZxghr5Ld0cNhwQChslFcKFkuEX2JW-Ih%7EBK5IHHUaDBZ90n-Sy7hjrb7YPWdX4PIZtWA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 21eb7dc00f5f59272b2dfd56f4441549 PDF Text Text Science+Technology The McGill Daily, Monday, October 26, 2009 16 Abortion, scientifically speaking A look at the medical misconceptions within a moral issue Rhea Pavan Sci+Tech Writer A bortion. We’re no strangers to the arguments on all sides of the discussion, nor are we ignorant of the controversy surrounding the issue. Debates, demonstrations, and protests bring the subject to our doorsteps, right here on our own campus. But with everyone wanting to weigh in, a lot of facts and myths can be thrown around freely with little regard to their truth or relevance. How much of what we “know” is misinformation, or based on skewed or selective data? What do we really know about the science of abortion? Procedures explained A conversation with any MD or scientist will reveal that medical professionals divide abortion into two categories – medical and surgical. Medical abortion involves taking certain drugs to terminate a pregnancy while surgical abortion involves emptying the uterus with special instruments. A common misconception is that medical abortion can only be performed in the early stages of pregnancy, and that anyone further along has to opt for a surgical procedure. In reality, prostaglandin drugs can be used to induce labour in pregnancies that are up to 20 weeks along, and surgical methods, such as vacuum aspirations, can be used as early as five weeks. Although certain methods are more common at certain points in time, medical professionals often use their own discretion to accommodate each client based on situation and preference. One of the most common methods of medical abortion includes a combination of the drugs methotrexate (MTX) and misoprostol; the first stops the growth of cells in the uterus while the second causes uterine contractions, which expel the tissue. This method is used in the first eight weeks of pregnancy. You may have heard of the drug formerly known as RU-486 – infamously protested and campaigned against internationally after its initial release in France. Although not legally available in Canada, it is now called mifepristone, and is a common substitute for MTX. The emergency contraception drug Plan B, or the morning-after pill, is commonly known. Taken in the first three days after suspected conception, Plan B is, strictly speaking, not an abortion pill, but rather a pregnancy preventative. Surgical options involve using suction to remove the tissue (as with vacuum aspirations and Ipas syringes). In pregnancies that are further along, dilation and evacuation (D&E) can be employed. This method takes longer than other medical or surgical options because dilators are applied overnight to open the cervix and uterus entrance, and the next day, instruments are used to evacuate the tissue. Complications – Risky business? Both types of procedures carry some degree of risk. Some of the after-effects include pain, nausea, cramping, and bleeding, but physical recovery usually occurs within a few hours. With surgical abortion, the risk of damaging internal organs increases and an additional set of risk factors accompanies any procedure that uses anaesthesia. Even though there is a vast array of information available about abortion, especially on the Internet, there is almost as much misconception and speculation. Jacqueline Coté, the head nurse at Clinique médicale Fémina, attests that eight out of 10 patients know what procedures they want performed before they even enter the clinic, thanks to their own independent research, but that most women are also misinformed about the procedure’s side effects, both long- and short-term. “Everyone is surprised; the risks are over-exaggerated,” said Coté. “There is more danger [associated] with pregnancy and with childbirth than abortion.” One of the most widespread and false accusations against abortion is that it increases a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. A lot of research was carried out to determine the validity of this claim and while many older studies did seem to verify a tentative link between the two, review by the scientific community found these studies to be flawed and inconsistent. A World Health Organization (WHO) fact sheet entitled “Induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk” refers to a sampling bias in many case-control studies that attempt to relate abortion history and breast cancer prevalence later in life. These studies gathered results from an unrepresentative sample population and relied on the honesty of self-reports, limiting the reliability of the data. The WHO fact sheet states: “Women with breast cancer (cases) tend to truthfully report induced abortion while controls, who often are healthy women, have no ‘incentive’ to provide information about personal and sensitive matters such as induced abortion.” There are also countless arguments linking abortion to future health risks such as decreased fertility or riskier future pregnancies. Newer studies, for the most part, show no direct link between abor- Andrea Zhu for The McGill Daily tion and these medical issues. Coté dispelled the notion that any longterm medical effects are related to having an abortion. “There are no problems with the uterus, no birth issues, no cancer, no nothing,” she said. In the U.S., federal constitutional law gives adolescents the right to abortion, but certain states have tacked on additional barriers, such as requiring parental permission, that can lead to delays in obtaining timely abortions and even push some teens to opt for alternate solutions outside the official system. Anne Davis, an MD at Columbia University, acknowledges some of the common obstacles faced by teens when obtaining abortions in the U.S. “[Risks arise with] later abortions for this group, which are less safe, less accessible, more time consuming, and more expensive,” said Davis. Health risks associated with unsound practices and means of termination, in later stages of pregnancy for teens, can be overgeneralized when applied to abortion and then communicated to the population at large. In Montreal, there are a number of pregnancy support and crisis hotlines available for free, as well as confidential information services. Charlotte, a medical professional who volunteers for the pregnancy crisis line Grossesse-Secours (last name and position withheld for confidentiality purposes), urged that women should have access to accurate information. “Everyone should talk to a health professional. There is a lot of false information out there on the net,” she said. each abortion centre also has its own reporting requirements, thus making it difficult to compare much of the data. Results are then weight- “There is more danger [associated] with pregnancy and with childbirth than abortion” Jacqueline Coté Head Nurse, Clinique médicale Fémina Presenting the information – Aggregation, Manipulation Statistics can be easily manipulated to support either side of the argument – even something as simple as an accurate provincial or national abortion rate is difficult to determine. In developing countries, there are high numbers of under-the-radar abortion clinics and unsafe abortion practices, making it difficult to get an exact idea of each regional situation. However, around 70 per cent of abortions take place in developing countries, and there is still a large amount of confusion surrounding abortion rates and practices. Even government health departments are not considered a very reliable source of data on abortion. Their reach only includes certain registered abortion providers in the area, since they must operate within restricted geographical boundaries. Even within their jurisdiction, their ability to acquire reliable and accurate responses is limited. Each health department and ed differently, depending on population and region, causing variation when compiling statistics. Academics tend to turn to private agencies and institutes to compile information straight from abortion providers. These, however, can also be unreliable if they are rallying for funding, or pushing their own agenda. In a political and moral debate, knowing the scientific accuracies of “facts” and statistics is crucial. There are countless groups, institutions, and individuals that knowingly or unknowingly abuse flawed or skewed information to support their arguments. With the air around science and research becoming increasingly foggy, and false accusations and wrongly interpreted data appearing at every corner, hopefully we can remember to search for the medical realities in our arguments and not take others’ interpretations as the final word. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Volume 99 Issue 15 Page Number(s) 16 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Abortion, scientifically speaking Description An account of the resource A discussion of abortion from a scientific/medical perspective. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rhea Pavan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009/10/26 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Choose Life Repoductive health reproductive justice https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/1b50bdff06640db35a8d93d989adba8c.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=eRTbZH-tuybAE0taCVQxYOYQCJ5sQVDdkzaz020GyfPLu3-3FVbNytTbImZ6FNGij10pDCNND2hlSKflXeF9X-cyIMKDbzXIkV2MV5bkr5MQASe2%7E6lwPNun8tPJtWoN1dBCNVnqbybIdJ5sQiBelRc-HhECgzyG8%7EpT2Dr2vkwjJSeLgyoClwFf6nHNemIYVCPCaAMj5syv6aqXuaWV1zwvB4qrJudU%7EJ-TmaRnq887EK5h0sANBIyNTAYOkBFmE2-KEm0BJ12YsFf3dI70IFDDvtO%7EpEHG%7E93yqWwCyjyGYeEQIxYoHfHgYqiE6sZZnSPS-EI5mPMdkpXSaBCNPw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 61c1e79e6e1f178167ae509281bd5bda PDF Text Text Science+Technology The McGill Daily, Monday, November 2, 2009 10 Controversy clouds opinion Why it’s impossible to have a reasoned debate about abortion The Split Brain Daniel Lametti A couple of weeks ago, Natalie Fohl, the president of Choose Life McGill, stood up in front of a small crowd in Leacock 232 to introduce her club and the guest speaker she had invited to give a talk that night, anti-abortion activist Jose Ruba. “Our goal is to promote respect for human life,” she began, before adding that she hoped the event would “encourage discussion and thoughtful consideration of abortion.” It was a reasoned introduction, but 30 seconds after Ruba took the stage, he was suddenly interrupted by a group of protesters. Shouts of “Please go” echoed through the room in sync with the pounding of fists on desks. Ruba’s supporters began to get upset; a man in the audience compared the disrupters to the Hitler Youth. Campus security was called first, followed by the police. In the end, the talk was cancelled, two protestors were arrested, and McGill came off looking like a black hole for free speech. What the hell happened? Admittedly, the title of Ruba’s talk – “Echoes of the Holocaust” – sounded a little crazy, if not offensive. But even if Ruba had been giving a less controversial anti-abortion talk, does debating such a controversial topic in an environment of opinionated students actually lead to “thoughtful consideration” as Fohl and others had hoped? In 1978, Mark Lepper, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, ran an experiment to see if he could change the opinions that Stanford students held on the death penalty. Lepper surveyed a random sample of undergraduates and chose 24 that were strongly in favour of capital punishment and 24 that were strongly opposed to it. He then presented each of the 48 students with two written statements. The first detailed a study showing that murder rates were lower in states that had the death penalty; the second detailed a different study showing that murder rates were actually higher in states that had the death penalty. Given such conflicting information, one might predict that the students’ extreme views on the death penalty would be moderated, but this is not what Lepper found. After reading the statements, those that favoured the death penalty before were now more in favour of it, and those that opposed the death penalty before were now even more opposed to it: views had become more extreme, not less. Lepper concluded that the students simply believed information that confirmed what they already thought and ignored everything else. A 2004 study used brain imaging to examine Lepper’s finding, dubbed “motivated reasoning,” in more detail. Scientists at Emory University in Georgia put committed Republicans and Democrats in a brain scanner and presented them with information that showed then-Republican president George W. Bush and Democratic senator John Kerry committing acts of hypocrisy – a Bush quote, for instance, extolling America’s troops, followed by the revelation that on the same day he cut health benefits to thousands of war veterans. While still running the brain scanner, the scientists then asked each subject what they thought about the two politicians. Surprise, surprise – the Democrats labelled George Bush a hypocrite while excusing John Kerry’s actions, and the Republicans labelled John Kerry a hypocrite while excusing George Bush’s actions. What the brain scanner found, though, was more interesting. When the subjects were calling the politician they disliked a hypocrite, brain regions associated with normal reasoning lit up. But when they were excusing the hypocritical actions of the politician they favoured, brain regions associated with both reasoning and strong emotions lit up. The scanner had caught them in the act: when it came time to thoughtfully consider information that went against what they believed in, the subjects simply couldn’t – their reasoning was coloured by emotion. Daniel Lametti’s column will be back again in two weeks. In the meantime, send extremely emotionally-invested opinions only to thesplitbrain@mcgilldaily.com. Sustainable species only Motion aims to limit types of seafood sold on campus Stephanie Law Sci+Tech Writer W ill salmon and tuna sandwiches be banned from McGill cafeterias and vendors indefinitely? This is a question students have been asking themselves since the SSMU motion regarding seafood on campus was brought to General Assembly on October 21. Before the motion could be discussed, however, the GA lost quorum. Voting will now take place in SSMU Council on November 12. If the motion passes, it will call upon SSMU to “put their best effort into working with campus groups to pressure McGill administration to replace all of the ‘Red List’ fish species from the menus of all cafeterias and food vendors on the McGill Campus, as well as in McGill Residences.” Compiled by SeaChoice, a seafood markets program that supports sustainable fisheries in Canada and abroad, the Red List details which aquatic species are unsustainably fished and whose consumption should therefore be avoided. Specific fish on the Red List include, but are not limited to: haddock, lobster, scallops, albacore tuna, bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, Atlantic salmon, orange roughy, rockfish, Chilean sea bass, clams (arctic surf and quahog), Atlantic cod, king crab, sole, Greenland halibut, shark, tropical shrimp, swordfish, and tilapia. According to Sariné WillisO’Connor, organization coordinator and co-founder of Greenpeace McGill, unsustainable fishing has consequences that are often overlooked. “A lot of people don’t know about overfishing in general, and also how important fish are to the ecosystem and how it affects us. There are better ways to catch fish,” Willis-O’Connor said. “Most of the species listed on the Red List are either endangered, overfished, rapidly depleting, or are fished using unsustainable methods [like] bottom trawling and ghost fishing. “Bottom trawling essentially scrapes across the ocean floor, causing permanent damage to the seabed and catching many other species that the fishers were not targeting. These untargeted fish become by-catch and are thrown back into the ocean, dead.” Willis-O’Connor explained that ghost fishing occurs when fishermen lose or abandon their gill nets, entangling netting and other passive traps in the ocean. These leftbehind nets and traps continue to swallow up fish and other sea creatures. Willis-O’Connor argued that McGill can make a difference if SSMU passes this motion. “We are a very large community at McGill. Once we evict all the seafood products that are on the Red List from our community, our total consumption of these unsustainable products will dramatically decrease – we will have a huge influence. We will know exactly where our fish is coming from, and whether they are sustainable,” she said. When asked whether this would have a large financial impact on SSMU and McGill students, Jose Diaz, SSMU VP Finance and Operations, answered no, saying they would definitely be able to work out the details with the various vendors like Cultures and Café Suprême. Diaz is confident that if the motion passes, SSMU will be very efficient and successful in ousting unsustainable fish from campus. “If it passes, we will definitely be very proactive – you can see that happening with our water bottles. I can see this as being just like that,” Diaz said. “I cannot foresee whether there would be any opposition or not from our tenants. For Café Suprême, we usually review their menu prior to each school year. And with Cultures, I don’t think there’ll be any problems.” As to whether or not salmon and tuna sandwiches will be removed from all McGill menus, WillisO’Connor’s short answer was “No,” pointing out that there are still some species of salmon and tuna that are not on the list. “We will definitely be able to find sustainable alternatives and replacements for the products that are on the Red List,” she said. Miranda Whist / The McGill Daily Fish like salmon are sold in large quantities all over Montreal. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Coverage from The McGill Daily Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF Volume 99 Issue 16 Page Number(s) 10 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Controversy clouds opinion Description An account of the resource Discussion of how emotions impact debates around abortion. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Daniel Larretti Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009/11/02 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Antisemitism Choose Life events reproductive health reproductive justice