3 10 29 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/b0196099ce36d5a2745aaea8e0b62979.pdf?Expires=1792627200&Signature=LBRE0HKY5uLimmZwA8fd5SIQpc55ijVaIkCMUvrH4qA0sI%7Ei5L0jDemQ26MymUoOaz6SiH8ZP6ZSp3VxD4Aojv2NTAuVO15g0P4qlyfgHX7I%7E0AOyVqnte3QI0aut0iZ1CYm2ZI56ghGin5uB%7ElcifdYGHTNJtauy0hTXBjvMA-KA-M4M-burbIJo7ZC1aR0ff-1XbO3E5C045qDlKfImPlSATWwB7UmzdQYyCdyxFYiM6ImpvXaXVaQ7JA92mtejfxe4Y860ayRjFBE77MtHou2HhbHFFaUo%7Ec-oAkDjWMRnkNVsnkNrGwhkxxJBFgzyut7938VCtoCfXPLH8%7EHzw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 9ace7e954a6b64e0bf0bd45b773a2573 PDF Text Text Le Délit & The McGill Daily 30/11/2009 mcgill à montréal, au québec, au canada / mcgill in montreal, quebec, and canada Marguerite Bravay The McGill Daily I n late March of this year, 23-year-old McGill student Jackie Jones was apprehended by five Société de transport de Montréal (STM) security guards just after entering Peel metro station. The guards approached Jones, who is black, while she was standing at the top of the escalators with a Hispanic male friend of hers. They asked her in French to move out of their way. They became agitated when she asked them to repeat themselves in English. “They said ‘Move now!’ and it was a bit aggressive. I listened and was going to move on, but I told them that there is no need for the aggression. At this point they asked for my ID and were going to give me a ticket,” Jones told The Daily (“McGill student victim of racial profiling,” News, October 26). “When I started to question them about why I was receiving a ticket, one of the guards grabbed my arm and twisted it to my back. They called for three more male security guards, who slammed me onto the ground and handcuffed me.” Upon finding her McGill student card in her purse, the STM guards released Jones almost immediately. She subsequently sought assistance from the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) and filed a racial profiling complaint seeking $45,000 in moral and punitive damages with the Quebec Human Rights Commission. In August, Jones was charged for obstructing the work of civil servants, and fined $100. The preliminary hearing of her case was held Wednesday morning at Montreal’s municipal court. Now that the legal proceedings have begun, the impact of racial profiling on the McGill and Montreal communities is brought back into focus. While the McGill bubble is often seen as a safe haven, students have a different view of the rest of Montreal. One black student, who wished to remain anonymous, said that she had never experienced racial profiling or any other form of discrimination at McGill, though she explained that “it could definitely happen [in Montral]”. “[McGill’s level of tolerance] can be chalked up to an issue of education,” said Melissa Li, a U1 Pharmacology student. “Lack of education entails closedmindedness, which leads to discrimination and [here at McGill] people are fairly open to differences.” Li, who takes the metro every day, told The Daily about another incident of racial profiling she witnessed at Peel station over the summer: “The metro was stalled [at Peel] and there was a homeless black man sleeping on the car. All of a sudden, two intimidating-looking security guards stepped aboard and just sandwiched the man between them, before brutally dragging him onto the platform.” Indeed, the STM’s rough treatment of minorities has concerned CRARR workers for some time now. “We tend to see cases where STM inspectors overreact, fine and arrest or detain people... because [of] their race,” said Adrienne Gibson, a civil rights advocate at CRARR and McGill Mona Ghassemi for The McGill Daily Racism beyond the Roddick Gates Racial profiling might not affect us at McGill, but it’s very real in the rest of the city. Faculty of Law graduate. “[Their] use of force can be excessive and unwarranted.” She added that that many young people and minorities don’t speak up against the STM, “because they are not aware of their civil rights.” “In some cases, the STM [dis- courages] people from complaining, telling them they don’t have a good case,” she elaborated. Gibson urged all students to stand up for their rights, like Jackie Jones did: “If you feel you’ve been racially profiled or discriminated [against], make The Choose Life I’d choose Anti-abortion club should try supporting women for once Braden Goyette The McGill Daily S itting in on SSMU Council the night Choose Life’s club status got revoked made me think about how campus debates often boil down to two sides talking past each other, repeating the same things without much giveand-take. Here’s what I imagine giveand-take could look like, in the University I want. Choose Life: you want fewer abortions to be practiced. Speakers from the Silent No More Awareness Campaign said that if they could stop even a few girls from having abortions, that would make their efforts worthwhile. Why don’t you do this in a way that empowers women, instead of degrading them with signs designed to fill them with guilt? Specifically, by addressing the material conditions that make it difficult for women to keep their babies, by advocating for a publicly-funded national childcare program. Your signs don’t help preg- nant women keep their babies. Your pamphlets decrying abortion as racist don’t do anything to alleviate the deeply entrenched sources of economic inequality that contribute to higher rates of unwanted pregnancy or teen pregnancy among women of colour. Helping create the political will to form a national childcare program would benefit women from all backgrounds – would enable them to support their families and advance in the workplace – and would be a pro-woman way of helping individuals choose life. a complaint.... Too many people think that what happens to them is an isolated case.” Ultimately, Gibson reminded the McGill community that “there is strength in numbers.” —with files from Stephanie Law Tell us what you want, what you really, really want. Want to tell us how you feel about The Daily? Fill out our survey at mcgilldaily.com. 23 � 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 23 Page Number(s) 23 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 The Choose Life I'd choose Description An account of the resource A discussion of how anti-abortion groups could better support women. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Braden Goyette 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 2009/11/30 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 SSMU https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/20a909bb837f24ab7d894090b9c2100a.pdf?Expires=1792627200&Signature=ImvmtxB7LZqdnROK6w6zeBaSihN3bIk4naZOeQ2yiVBCCAzkuGJavOSzannpq%7EPy29dOveMnN6RPihhgWCWDXtNNMUXBra-bHgDTP03ioA6GpLXtDxueH4SAHIWwwTZvMqmq-q--k8DsCOybFH%7E4vU4VBJ6kOM3Ys5UDsWg1Wg%7EBHz6jn8NGbC1PgDx43So%7EyhJLaeFeVtQ32Vg5ai4401MxKtqs3FpbDCeW2rn0IPx5Vmr6j1E1pZBh8q0ESOD7OFkqGUDaij%7E80QPGlv8hEJISi-KLUBLi-VzUMVhQIAnU4BwQ0eWsXxlka4caz3G%7EtMil3Eb5IfC2bxQA3U4rIg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM a544fa7d5b8e8216cbaeb350bc72b0f0 PDF Text Text Commentary The McGill Daily, Thursday, February 4, 2010 5 In which I deconstruct the family jewels Dignity needs defending Radically reread Lisa Miatello T his past summer, I found myself at a party and in a bit of a sticky situation. Here’s the story: As I was walking down the hallway, out of the corner of my eye, I saw a small chalkboard hanging on the wall. Taking a closer look, its title read, “House Rules.” Here we go, I thought bitterly. Scanning the rules quickly, my eyes fell upon Rule #3: “No fat chicks.” And to drive this point home, #3 was accompanied by Rule #5: “Remember, no fat chicks.” Disgusted, I didn’t think twice before furiously rubbing that shit out with my palm. Meanwhile, some dude (let’s call him Dude for the sake of simplicity) had seen what I had done and didn’t take too kindly to it. So Dude started talking smack. He told me that I have “no right” to erase their house rules, about this being private property, that we live in a free country, and that everyone’s entitled to their (bullshit) opinions. Blah blah blah, enter ways to justify oppressive behaviour here. True to form, I started arguing with him. Our dispute rapidly descended into a series of verbal cheap shots aimed by Dude at yours truly. In a matter of minutes, I learned about his contempt for women, his aversion to fat people, and his distaste for lesbians. To add insult to injury, during his diatribe, he mocked me, mimicked me, and waved a pair of drumsticks in my face. It was straight up disrespect, and it infuriated me. This brief but heated interaction tapped into years and years of anger I had felt – still feel – toward our society’s homophobia, sexism, and fatphobia. Dude’s words and behaviour threw me back to the hordes of boys and men that I have known whose reactions toward women run the gamut from subtle disdain to sexual violence. I considered all the ways I had reacted to this sort of treatment in the past. Submitting to this disrespect had meant accepting the idea that women are inferior, worthless, stupid, and weak. It had meant internalizing the devaluation that men like this had impressed on me. Talking back when disrespected had meant being called a crazy bitch, being dismissed, getting reprimanded and punished, or being ostracized. It’s only through laboured politicization that I have come to understand the roots of this sort of violence and the anger it generates. We grow up learning that entire groups of people are deemed less valuable and less human than others. It sucks, to the say the least. With this truism in tow, I’ve become more and more convinced that when all else is lost, all we have left is our dignity. For that reason, preserving it, defending it, and fighting for it has become central to my actions. So how did this altercation with Dude end? I grabbed hold of his drumsticks and kicked the douchebag in the nuts. If I could do it again, the only thing I would do differently would be to kick him harder. Militant feminist: 1. Patriarchy: 0. A ill D aily LI’L HYDE PARK Setting the record straight on the Bookstore fter reading “Haven Books: a cheap alternative” by Ben Paris (Commentary, January 11), my staff and I felt compelled to address the errors and misinformation throughout the article. We think that this misinformation serves to hurt both the McGill Bookstore and the community at large. First, the McGill Bookstore is fully owned and operated by McGill University. It was, at one point, run by Chapters/Indigo for a five-year period that ended in May 2003. Since that time, the Bookstore has been self-financed and is not subsidized by the University. Not only do we autonomously finance all operating expenses of the Bookstore, but regularly deliver year-end surpluses to the University. Over the last three years alone, $1,125,000 ($375,000 per annum) has been transferred to Student Life and Learning and has been used for student financial support. We also support students sig- L McG Lisa Miatello pens a column on this parchment every second week. Dignify her at radicallyreread@ mcgilldaily.com. HYDE PARK David Strutz Sally he in | T nificantly in other ways. For example, we currently employ approximately 60 McGill students, and do so in a work environment that is sensitive to student schedules and academic work loads. Second, the mark-up charged on textbooks is not “huge.” Bookstores do not set textbook prices – publishers do. Our profit on the sale of each textbook is not 40 per cent, but substantially lower at an average of 23 per cent. That is, on a $100 book, the publisher receives $77, and the Bookstore, $23. Furthermore, a portion of this $23 is used to cover the day-to-day expenses involved in operating a bookstore; for example, shipping charges on received merchandise, salaries and benefits, and mortgage payments. Third, we offer students the opportunity to sell their used textbooks back to the bookstore year-round not only to meet our needs but also on behalf of some 20 other Canadian campuses. Although our cash-upfront buyback model differs from the one offered at Haven Books, students should be aware that the option to both sell and buy used textbooks exists here as well. Students are free to choose the option that best suits their needs. Finally, the restriction on advertising by Haven Books is related to a restriction on the use of University resources (such as email) to promote a commercial endeavour. However, nothing prevents Haven Books from buying ads in The Daily, the McGill Tribune, or other media. The McGill Bookstore is in a competitive market, and students will decide where to buy their new and used books. However, it is important for students to know the facts: the McGill Bookstore is here to support the academic mission of the University, is committed to serving student needs, and contributes to student financial support by transferring surpluses to Student Life and Learning. David Strutz is the Associate Director (Retail & Parking) of Ancillary Services. Write him at david.strutz@mcgill.ca. Stay classy, pro-choice crowd Dear campus activists who’ve opposed Choose Life this year: The kids behind Choose Life are in the minority here. They are small in numbers and, as events on campus have shown in recent months, there’s a strong consensus against their tactics and the way they do business. Even people who are generally opposed to abortion wrote into The Daily saying that Choose Life and their affiliates give the prolife movement a bad name, and are, on the whole, kind of tacky. Don’t encourage them. Given their numbers and the scale of their actions, without all the hype, the wind would have gone out of their sails a long time ago. Which is why I find this GA motion to categorically ban any pro-life group from SSMU particularly distressing. The wording of the motion defines groups with a pro-life ideology as inherently oppressive, a leap of logic that ploughs over any differentiation between all the people out there who aren’t too keen on the idea of abortion: “The SSMU further resolves to condemn any group, student association, or organiza- tion whose goals and methods compromise the safety and health of any person or engage in acts of discrimination such as but not limited to pro-life groups.” You are only giving the people behind Choose Life ammunition and legitimizing their claim to being oppressed by the Left. This idea is central to the way they’re framing themselves as conservative underdogs being put down by an intolerant pro-abortion majority. You glorify Choose Life by providing them with the epic, forceful opposition their self-image requires. Meet their actions with disregard and disinterest instead of indignation, and this self-image won’t hold water. If you think their tactics are beneath your dignity, do not dignify them. The best way to oppose people you violently disagree with is to put them in their place. You can achieve this, first, by staying classy and keeping your place firmly in the moral high ground. Proposing censorship has you losing it pretty fast. Please don’t let this lapse pass into policy. —Braden Goyette � 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 30 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 Stay classy, pro-choice crowd Description An account of the resource A writer urges pro-choice individuals to stop giving attention to a small anti-abortion group on campus. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Braden Goyette 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 2010/02/04 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Choose Life op-ed reproductive health reproductive justice https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/bbb28a092c62b4c025685fa428a05482.pdf?Expires=1792627200&Signature=jJRui3dni-h2w49klRRuzAUq5dePgVZ0MIieh8pF4YeAa6hs4n9oFdabPescVDDFjCM3VTHJu8DIb3XdjqKEFjIgTZGP237niI2WSJPspWwr1lV%7E1NAlHi0rQ9WK3h2R%7EqO4xMeJcdidWJybX8Ih%7EFfN8WBBIfs6MLm5lR3Kbolv5rGTjdF-qXPLhCI2DVblk8XAKxwRwt4yOFFToOVgXT-14tRSh16pRvYSjyPW0%7EU4FkqlDiSRWW3N4ffplO8j5lhm12NcjQLYj8cuEHRAi3%7EQln9rD0fJA7tzhNvtr3i29pG-TAb3iBDroYW2DQN6IxHUQAEPgUNWzbzEEnxCyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 05561fc018382a0231ce46f502350cd7 PDF Text Text 10Commentary The McGill Daily, Thursday, March 18, 2010 COMMENT Sally Lin | The McGill Daily Are we complicit in marginalization? The Daily’s Ian Beattie challenges the paper’s response to opponents of pro-life groups W hen Choose Life first appeared on campus last year, a significant portion of the student body reacted strongly against their application for club status. In a Hyde Park that appeared in The Daily in November 2008, the Union for Gender Empowerment Collective wrote that “by condemning abortion as an option, pro-life propaganda is targeting, alienating, and shaming a minority group within the student body – those who have had or are considering abortion” (“Pro-life education will endanger students”). When Choose Life gained club status and they revealed themselves as everything we were afraid they’d be, some students demanded the revocation of their club status – others even called for a ban against all future pro-life groups. The basic argument has stayed the same: that all pro-life groups, not just Choose Life, endanger the safety of certain students. Over the past few months, The Daily’s editorial board has said little on the topic, but has quietly opposed this movement in the student body. Sadly, we have done so in a disingenuous and inadequate fashion. We’ve either ignored or set up sham arguments in response to the anti-Choose Lifers’ concerns, and it’s been easy for us, since we hold the more widely accepted opinion. Take, for example, our condemnation of the Anti-Discriminatory Groups general assembly (GA) motion in November. According to The Daily, “this motion makes the faulty leap of logic that all pro-life groups are the same” (“The Daily’s GA Recommendations,” February 7). It is true that this generalization was made in the resolution. But we ignored the essence of this generalization – that pro-life groups aren’t just all “the same,” but are inherently discriminatory and hateful. As Liam Olson-Mayes, who co-wrote the motion, told me, “The term ‘pro-life’ is seriously rooted in this historical, political context, which has very much occupied itself with legal struggles and efforts to criminalize abortion.” By ignoring this premise and the varying implications of the term “pro-life,” we gave ourselves the freedom to speak in patronizing tones about “leaps in logic,” without engaging with the argument behind these connections. If The Daily doesn’t believe that pro-life groups are inherently dangerous to students, we need to explain why. More importantly though, this is an argument which ignores and thereby silences the anti-Choose Lifers. By opposing their positions but not engaging with any of their arguments, we eliminate them from the discourse. All along, anti-Choose Lifers have argued that pro-life groups are unacceptable on campus, not just for their actions, but for the very premise of their existence – that women should “choose life.” “I think that there shouldn’t be any organization [at McGill] that can advocate for this change in social conditions that would lead to the widespread death of women. I think that that’s totally inappropriate, and is not up for discussion,” Olson-Mayes said. “By having this organization, which is legitimated as it exists as a SSMU club, to me that’s just totally bizarre and totally wrong – that what we’re actually going to represent one side of the The Daily’s unsigned editorial content The topics of The Daily’s editorials are chosen by the editorial board on Mondays, written by one editor, and then revised collectively by the whole board on production nights. Because we’re a consensusbased body, we try to make sure as many of us as possible agree with what’s written – but obviously that’s not always feasible. debate which is advocating for social conditions under which women are going to die en masse.” No matter your politics, if a group engages in a politics of hate, it’s not okay for our student society to be giving them a home – even if they’re quiet about it. The Daily has yet to come up with a meaningful response to this argument. We said in our GA endorsements that “a pro-life group could exist on campus that respects students’ safety and provides beneficial medical services.” That’s not the point. According to anti-Choose Lifers, the problem isn’t just what pro-life groups do – it’s what they are. The very premise of their existence is hateful. Now, three months later, we’re making the same mistakes. This past week, in our referendum endorsements (Editorial, March 8), we again wallowed in the comfort of representing the status quo, instead of engaging with those who say we are wrong. Without qualification, we wrote that “if approved by students, [the motion on body sovereignty] should not be used as a way to categorically ban either prolife or pro-choice groups.” Such a connection would likely be controversial and unpopular on campus. But why would it be illegitimate? We have to start providing the other side with some answers, not just telling them to shut up. As an editor with nearly three years of experience with The Daily and having seen the paper go through some nasty political scraps, I have found our handling of this issue especially disappointing. We usually find ourselves strongly on one side of an issue, not, as we are now, standing in a position of political moderation, lecturing the fringes. Dailyites know better than anybody that there is nothing more stifling or frustrating in political discourse than coming up against the blank, indifferent wall of majority opinion. Yet as soon as The Daily has found itself in a moderate position, we’ve engaged in the exact same tactics that we always rail against. I did not write this article with the intention of advocating a ban of pro-life groups. I’m writing because I feel that regardless of the issues, my paper has engaged in institutional cowardice. The Daily’s moderate position may be tenable – but we have yet to justify it. We all know that abortion is a political minefield, and the easiest thing to do in debates surrounding it is to disengage or play the middle ground. But if students on campus are saying, loudly and clearly, that they feel they are being endangered and that marginalized groups are being discriminated against, we’d better have some pretty serious answers for them if we’re not going to back them up. Our response to this issue is not only a matter of abortion politics, it’s a matter of rhetorical domination and political suppression. The antiChoose Lifers are advocating a marginalized and apparently unpopular opinion. By glossing over their concerns and failing to respond to the questions they have raised, The Daily has not only disagreed with them, we’ve silenced them. Although The Daily often advocates for marginalized groups, we occupy a position of considerable power on campus. It’s absolutely crucial that we don’t use this position to rob the less powerful of their dissenting voices by not entering into dialogue with their concerns. Maddie Ritts, who wrote the GA motion with Olson-Mayes, told me that she found The Daily’s impact on the discourse around pro-life groups this year “really scary.” Having spent close to 40 hours a week with them since the beginning of the year, I can’t overstate my respect for this year’s editorial staff. But I do feel that in this instance, we’ve behaved irresponsibly and ignored the effects of our actions. I hope the anti-Choose Lifers continue to make their voices heard in our paper, and I hope that when they do, we as an editorial board will have the courage to engage with them. I can’t help but feel that doing so would make us change our position. At the very least, though, we have to stop making members of our paper feel like they’re yelling at a wall. Ian Beattie is a U2 English literature student. He’s also one of The Daily’s Culture editors. Engage with his views in a way that doesn’t marginalize or silence them at ian. beattie@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 39 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 Are we complicit in Marginalization? Description An account of the resource A commentary on the Daily's coverage on pro-life student group Choose Life. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ian Beattie 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 2010/03/18 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Choose Life op-ed reproductive health reproductive justice https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/dc50b45078770557855839ecd72ed952.pdf?Expires=1792627200&Signature=ojcbUa2FqFGAkZxWFgiicIBEXhqzNF69CejhVCZrxhn3Nnbcv8NHeqkKosPTaWwnoIMIY%7EFYYmOtYQSsnRZxvF7xbp-Tpw9A1UTw1Ag5JRJwTT0vV3rEaL9IFc0HdP%7E3Z%7EuvielmOpTTpY6oKXtPUMr33Kun8zZtUGk1gHUSurSIoBIwWn1YIduVLyzPSDKjLDGm%7EUIMWbj56aU45RcUGVDNEOUNAfgh49kouy90B1aTjE4jau8Mt1qFAWZoriRRkRmHC2p854pmrjcyaZPJx42qGfvbvi1gyWfSEBWZHYjKae9vrR2%7ELxgKqOIOJglWRY1-AYew0CPVvFbq-aY40A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c807a112d60ba6bbddc698c48fcce678 PDF Text Text 10News The McGill Daily, Monday, April 12, 2010 THINGS THAT MATTERED The abortion debate in context After a year of controversy, Choose Life will re-chart its course for the coming year. The Daily’s Stephen Davis reflects on what we have learned from the club, the debate, and dialogue. I n 1987, Harper’s published an article by a writer named Sally Tisdale, who had worked as a nurse in an abortion clinic. Tisdale explained how, “In abortion, the absolute must always be tempered by the contextual.” There are no absolute answers to the moral question of abortion, she argued, because our values should always be contingent on context. For the large part of this year, McGill’s fledgling pro-life group, Choose Life, has opted to deal in moral absolutes, rather than acknowledging the lived experiences of the students around them. And this might be why they haven’t accomplished much of what they set out to do. Their moral absolutes led them to pursue shock tactics – forget the individual women, they seem to be saying, there is a greater truth here: abortion is killing, killing is wrong, and we will do whatever it takes to spread these truths. After a year clouded in controversy, they’ve re-plotted their course. But it remains to be seen where next year will lead. The club’s history: digest version Choose Life gained interim club status in October 2008. And after holding some successful events and jumping through a few administrative hoops, they gained official club status at a Council meeting in February 2009. Official club status comes with certain privileges, including the ability to book rooms and set up displays on campus. Students were anxious and frustrated. At the October Council meeting, a student called the pro-life perspective “inherently violent against women and against human rights.” The February meeting was the most well-attended Council session in almost a year. The anxieties expressed at Council did not go unaddressed. The group was subject to certain restrictions, including a prohibition on the use of graphic imagery. In the lead-up to gaining official status, the group had proven itself to be a polarizing force on campus. Despite the restrictions on imagery, they tabled at the crossroads with pictures of fetal development in November 2008. Then they invited Mary Meehan, a speaker who compared abortion to eugenics. The audience in the room was literally divided, with pro-lifers on one side and Choose Life’s opponents on the other. In September 2009, the club hosted the Silent No More Awareness campaign. Demonstrators stood on campus with signs reading “I Regret My Abortion” – actions which some criticized as intentionally targeting women who’ve had abortions to make them feel ashamed. Fliers handed out at the event made the dubious assertion that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. Things became tense on campus, but Choose Life pushed forward. In October, they invited a speaker who compares the language used to justify abortion to the language that has been used to justify genocide. The Students’ Society censured the event, fearing it would create a hostile environment on campus. Choose Life went ahead with the event. Student protesters shut it down. Police escorted two protesters out in handcuffs. At a Senate meeting, Principal Heather Munroe-Blum said the protests had cast a “dark cloud” over campus by trying to censor the group. Soon after, SSMU Council voted to suspend Choose Life’s club status. Over the coming months, members of the club’s executive met with the Society’s Equity Committee to discuss how Choose Life could conform to the Society’s Equity Policy. This document binds the Society to “Creating, promoting, and engaging its membership in an environment that fosters respect.” After a few meetings and agreements on new restrictions for the group, a vote at Council in early April reinstated Choose Life as an official SSMU club. The promise of dialogue When you speak with Choose Life president Natalie Fohl, she talks about a lot of things – women’s rights, Canadian law, and freedom of speech. But more than anything else, Fohl’s preferred topic is dialogue. I’ve interviewed her several times this year – after the group’s first event of the year, in the lead-up to their suspension, and following Choose Life’s reinstatement. At the Silent No More event, three speakers – two women and one man – shared stories of how abortion affected their lives. Afterward, when protesters had packed up their signs and guitars and left, Fohl told me that the event was “a great opportunity for dialogue.” In January, Fohl was tabling at the crossroads and speaking with students about abortion. Her club was still suspended, so she wasn’t allowed to be tabling under the name Choose Life. But she contacted Conservative McGill, and they booked a table under their name. Late in the day, someone came along and flipped over Fohl’s table. But she was optimistic, and said that Choose Life, as always, was “here to raise awareness but also to promote discussion.” And recently, with her club’s status reinstated, she said “We do try and have a variety of events to make sure that a lot of different people are engaged in...dialogue.” Victor Tangermann | The McGill Daily Rebecca Dooley at SSMU Council, where Choose Life’s status was reinstated in April. Fohl’s professed love for dialogue is bizarre, since for a brief period this year, it seemed that Choose Life’s tactics had destroyed any hope of a meaningful discussion of reproductive rights on campus. When you confront a woman with a sign reading, “I regret my abortion,” for instance, you cannot expect students to eagerly engage in dialogue. Fohl seems to have realized this. Her plans for the club have shifted away from inviting incendiary speakers and toward research and activism. She explained that future initiatives would include a research group that will assess the resources available for parents and pregnant students at McGill. “We’re going to compile that information, [first] to make it available, but also to assess the situation, see if it’s adequate, and, if it’s not, advocate for changes,” Fohl said. After a rocky year, she seems more aware than ever that pregnancy is a particularly weighty issue for students, one that the administration fails to address. “If I were to get pregnant, randomly, unexpectedly...that would be my school career, all of my plans, out the window. And I don’t think that needs to be the case.... The University structure should be set up to accommodate that and make it so that women don’t have to choose between their studies and their child’s life,” Fohl said. She didn’t mention any concrete plans Choose Life has to accomplish these goals – and they have their reputation working against them. Their rhetoric earlier this year was divisive – not the kind of talk that encourages students to get involved with any sort of grassroots initiative advocating for pregnant students. Through their actions – their signs, their underhanded tactics, their shock tactics – Choose Life has alienated the very people they want to advocate for. A look ahead I recently read a Maisonneuve article in which the pseudonymous author wrote about her own abortion. She mentions Tisdale’s piece, and toward the end, she quotes British writer Fay Weldon: “Abortion is sometimes necessary, sometimes not, always sad. It is to the woman as war is to the man – a living sacrifice in a cause justified or not justified, as the observer may decide. It is the making of hard decisions – that this one must die so that one can live in honor and decency and comfort. Women have no leaders, of course; a woman’s conscience must be her General. There are no stirring songs to make the task of killing easier, no victory marches and medals handed around afterwards, merely a sense of loss.” The Maisonneuve writer goes on to say that women who choose to obtain abortions open up an aftermath that they must face alone. So far, Choose Life has only made the situation worse, reinforcing the view that abortion is absolutely wrong, but the factors that compel women to make that choice aren’t worth challenging. After Council voted to impose new restrictions on Choose Life, Fohl accused the Society of applying a double standard. Choose Life is the only club on campus that must abide by such stringent guidelines, she said. This is true. But no other club on campus deals with issues with as much potential to alienate students as abortion. As VP (University Affairs) Rebecca Dooley said after the vote, “You can’t talk about this issue and not talk about women’s bodies. You can’t talk about this issue and not talk about a difficult experience.” Choose Life VP (Internal) Paul Cernek told me that, “We have the best interests of everyone at heart, including women.” If this is true, Choose Life should acknowledge that women who choose to end their pregnancies do so for reasons that a campus club could actively combat. They must focus less on the how of abortion – the surgical procedures, the gory details – and more on the why: those factors that compel a woman to seek an abortion. If women are ending pregnancies because they must choose between a child and paying rent, the group could campaign for improved access to social housing. Or they could advocate for McGill post-doctoral students to receive benefits like subsidized child-care or paid maternity leave. Currently, maternity leave is negotiated with the post-doc’s supervisor. And then there’s contraception and sex education, both of which are lacking across the country and around the world. As a SSMU club, they stand to benefit from the funds that the Society collects from its members (all undergrads and law students). Choose Life owes students more. If they are as concerned about women’s welfare as they claim to be, they need to prove it next year. � 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 43 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 The abortion debate in context Description An account of the resource A Daily writer recounts a year of anti-abortion club Choose Life's existence. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen Davis 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 2010/04/12 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 SSMU Student Organizations https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/2d779e9073eb7d6b794b6217e6de22f9.pdf?Expires=1792627200&Signature=spi9hJDghDuy7QXG7fkx-V82jN23GuaNPpudTQ6EMYLDP7%7EaE5C0rjNzgu4w1pnHR51IdUOgCi11LswH1KHC82zpUYEZUz4WevLDP9rktmLbQ5vxxt2Awvtvcyv2AiH1i8LC75Gv5qUSVoeHYZMHJmsGPf8rwJKp%7Ezp1cisqpWVR31mRN483Fhp-YcioUB4jczhKzknADHcuTn4lFbM2e35JkCWKx6n-%7EZlMULgXZ4DVRftTsS%7E8OEBD%7E0i1bdEpm9fsx9FC5mfeLEPo5Z%7EMNvQpgkymPFQWgRJHd-Ykd0RzEHm3CcUhv2FWbyCR8QGTBtrTlxnZIfGlzKMFu9jv1A__&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/e62e9e9ef33604e39e55724730223bd2.pdf?Expires=1792627200&Signature=g5kTtgl3Oz88ddrpN7u30mkVTl1rTAvCV3Q0epTcxNp4bZ0DouA57s3U4vKp0mn4X1OC-ClLlvrIBYo6S49aSjWWq6S1mvIcqHB22hxahVvlg%7E7Vwg4ghUAa%7Eu0VEa1Bb-Nw%7E5avCZYqithM3S77-JcSMHHDtgcFA%7EtbgvJHe2b0w3F5rDu43cgtYIUGqqT%7Ezr6x4jNC13Vnq32Oo7q5Zg1s9d6WUkVq0QYUv-PNRAmfSRzilfM08hBNM98Ylt6Cd9AFbekCPWqE%7ET9BMpaBwi4KfvLa305oKKx8bi5iPY21xyylWtyxPMVdhKMp4YldSk7BsH2ozSeNf0nojcahpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 281e514a24836fc34f8e6700c8966ccb PDF Text Text � 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. Volume 100 Issue 3 Page Number(s) 6 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF 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/. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-09-13 Title A name given to the resource Why equity and social justice matter Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Emily Clare and Lynsey Grosfield Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Description An account of the resource A piece written by SSMU's equity team commenting on student groups' missteps and the need for equity on campus. Choose Life Indigeneity QPIRG racism reproductive justice sexism SSMU SSMU Equity Committee student government Student Organizations https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/ef3bea5d7f50ea086de97946f832f5e6.pdf?Expires=1792627200&Signature=CPwKogtPhZv5gqRYZ5hm%7E0VPA4bnlbZN7TtHfFe8sW5bxDRNpLcxpa1S9-nccLECVhTVhLEFdkx2JwvfSPCf%7EomthavVoiK88mrs5O3aB-B97CM6PhAfPIUxKJLbFBUWqLs0UvFxbOxONLLsUfw7UANTVgZkfX-4vBRdNODCizwuTrZYY52Uomq3j0xOh2HY5HD6jPRMEqVueH9V2Vo4Myc6IqnQ0ysVKbS8kdfbtAGClZ4PplyxNMIipepOnEc6pVOnZtAM0uYSuqQjFQKLO8N5VmZuyhVqGJ0vcy4D77dqhL%7ErCL6JPcyNIdlosZwMSf-1mTh1C4ADSMrqC5gxfg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM fef42f6a876533a863e33891f08cae91 PDF Text Text 12Commentary The McGill Daily, Monday, February 8, 2010 HYDE PARK Conservative McGill doth protest too much QPIRG opt-out campaign is hypocritical Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan T he QPIRG opt-out campaign led by Conservative McGill and other campus organizations premises itself on a load of BS. It’s motivated by a disingenuous and vindictive logic and lacks the self-awareness to realize its own contradiction. If only the pro-opt-outers weren’t too thick to realize that QPIRG is in fact a lot like SSMU. (Full disclosure: I am a SSMU executive.) QPIRG levies a fee from students, much like SSMU does, and then QPIRG allocates the money, in line with its policies, to different groups according to their needs and in the interest of diversifying student expression. SSMU does exactly the same thing. Many people argue that QPIRG funds a number of fringe groups that people don’t know about and that are too radical for their moderate or right-wing tastes. Again, through the Club Fund, the Campus Life Fund, and other means, SSMU (read: student money) funds a wide variety of groups, many of which are also seen, by some, as fringe and radical. The fact is that SSMU and QPIRG fund both uncontentious groups (although Campus Crops has always raised my ire) and groups that are both contentious and don’t appeal to everyone. What more do you want out of student life? A university is a venue for diverse expression, as long as it is safe. Brendan Steven’s ignorant column (“Opting out of QPIRG,” McGill Tribune, January 26) suggested that student groups should only receive money from students if they fundraise it themselves in hallways and on the streets. Now let’s apply that argument to his own Conservative McGill. This holier-than-thou club has been granted $750 of student money this academic year alone. They should give themselves a dose of their own medicine: they should spend days running around campus canvassing disinterested McGillians to give them a buck here and there. In order for Steven to avoid contradiction, I’d like to see cadres of blue-in-the face Harperites scampering around campus with buckets asking for money. What about bake sales with blue cookies that say “tax cuts” on them? How much time would their club members waste trying to raise money instead of engaging in activities that actually accentuate student life? Too bad all they seem to do with their time and their money is undermine groups like the Global AIDS Coalition’s access to funding. If Conservative McGill and their I don’t see Conservative McGill begging for funds. allies are so damn incensed by the fact that students pay relatively small amounts of money to organizations that, later, redistribute smaller fractions of that sum to some groups that may not appeal to all students, then maybe they should put more effort into an “Opt-out of SSMU” campaign. Too bad you can’t opt-out of SSMU. After all, full-time students pay approximately $40 per semester to SSMU, money that is spread out Sally Lin | The McGill Daily to a diversity of groups. Or maybe Conservative McGill has enjoyed the $750 SSMU (read: your student fees) granted it to finance its campaign against student life, among other activities. (By the way, they’ve also flagrantly violated SSMU Council’s supermajority decision to suspend Choose Life’s club privileges by providing a table for the group at the Y intersection.) I wish none of my money went to Conservative McGill, but it just so happens that in the interest of student life, pluralism, and their club’s budget, I pay my fees. Shame on you, Conservative McGill! of having an abortion regardless of personal circumstances. Personal circumstances are the only grounds for deciding what to do with an unexpected pregnancy. Our logic: Pro-life groups are necessarily opposed to abortion. Opposition to abortion necessarily consists of restricting women’s access to abortion services. By restricting access to abortion services, a woman’s right to decide what is best for her own body is compromised. This compromise affects more than morality: it affects a person’s health and life. We believe that any ban on abortion targets women who do not participate in their properly gendered positions as mothers. Throughout much anti-abortion dialogue, women who seek abortions are presented as uninformed or immoral figures who are going against their natural roles as women, as mothers-to-be, to give birth and reproduce “life.” This poses serious limits to a woman’s understanding of her own sexuality and her ability to have sex outside of heteronormative, monogamous, and economically stable relationships. Pro-life groups aim not to help women make a choice, but to promote and ultimately establish conditions wherein women are not free to have sex on their own terms, to retain sexual control over their bodies. This motion seeks a stance where women’s health is not brought under public scrutiny: protecting, not forfeiting dignity. Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan is SSMU VP (External), but the views expressed here are his own. Bash Conservatives with him at external@ssmu.mcgill.ca. HYDE PARK Against pro-life groups Anti-abortion organizations have no place on campus Liam Olson-Mayes & Maddie Ritts A s co-authors of the GA motion re: discriminatory groups, we feel obliged to respond to resistance to our motion, which has crept up through The Daily and in heated conversations across McGill. The argument with which we are often first confronted, articulated most recently by Braden Goyette in her article “Stay classy, pro-choice crowd” (Commentary, February 4), waves a disapproving finger and accuses us of “encouraging” Choose Life. If only we had let this club run its pro-life course, they would have recognized the apathy as a sign of the futility of their position. The problem with this logic is that it requires that we, in addition to ignoring Choose Life, turn a blind eye to the harms that Choose Life’s existence perpetrates, and disregard the precarious position in which access to abortion is currently situated. By not confronting those who seek to restrict access to abortion services, we would be further legitimizing the abysmal accessibility of abortion services in northern and rural communities. To expand on the idea that the very existence of Choose Life or any other pro-life’s group existence harms women, we thought a few definitions might be helpful. We define pro-life groups by their opposition to the accessibility of abortion services. We respect individual choice regarding abortion. We do not respect any organization, movement, or individual who tries to impose their decision regarding abortion on other people. We are not against people who believe abortion is the wrong choice for themselves; we are against people who believe abortion is the wrong choice for everybody. Abortion is an individual decision. By advocating against pro-life ideology, we are protecting each individual’s right to do what they will with their body and their right to feel supported and not judged by whatever decision they make in the end. We understand the following to be tactics used by those opposed to abortions: the criminalization of abortion; disseminating false health information; shaming women who enter abortion clinics; exploiting post-abortive women and simplifying their experiences as a way to manipulate women dealing with unwanted pregnancies; publicly casting abortion as immoral. By making public statements or mounting public displays decrying the immorality of abortion, women are presented with a moral judgment that tries to coerce them out www.mcgilldaily.com Liam Olson-Mayes is a U2 Women’s Studies and History student and Maddie Ritts is a U3 Cultural Studies and Political Theory student. 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. Volume 100 Issue 12 Page Number(s) 12 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF 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/. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-02-08 Title A name given to the resource Against pro-life groups Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Liam Olson-Mayes and Maddie Ritts Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Description An account of the resource Co-authors of the GA motion that disbanded Choose Life responding to criticism. Choose Life General Assembly reproductive justice SSMU student government https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/84cdef4e3c7ce157530932e640205acc.pdf?Expires=1792627200&Signature=NsnfejP6i-FH5Lzf1Jbw7LB8sbk299YAYBE4W8vw6Ou4g8Z6YvoMz9sM4Vd%7E%7EBnHNAj2GGsmUbsHGzY71QL%7E7rWp-2r7cmXHZ2Mop0nGUK5za7vY7fU3vIZLbviuPz9TAINTQsgUE513WJ8trx6v%7Ei9vHxtZsQL5gM-ROteUI06KDYGMANCw%7EWp03yaIA0tUyqwFESmKEIcPpSiSeOu3P26VH63jpd8o-n3l8NsTu3HnwucGUG55nHvrMczoFWpWNe9711WUmToTswBLwV0J%7EKHKupCZ8w4eJrpxgZbM4oidsuxtcR1Nty8vEccgUKqMFaBQgNG-MYfHRZUpG8noVw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 0e9a66300444af9129eaa2400ebdc82a PDF Text Text � 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. Volume 100 Issue 19 Page Number(s) 8 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF 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/. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-11-11 Title A name given to the resource Another choice Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mary Yang Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The McGill Daily Description An account of the resource Choose Life's Pregnancy Support Comittee co-chair explains how young women who have chosen to keep her child need support and resources. Choose Life reproductive justice https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/62030/archive/files/de2e3f4d57d5e37494262f0ce5be4c9d.pdf?Expires=1792627200&Signature=EamU7-n6-qKk4VqonIKEu9lVOOmZIPYPdrAVnkpUs-X-X3RDVJ%7ERzHY55r5CKT0j%7EoGM7p8aC5qDqUXGLaz9chagrMQyq3bAPw5t59eyRDeA%7EuP3kEhPzjn3tTRK8M8VDyMhdHVbxCaTpmoks75n6FNQATzIjYz0%7Eiu3q4pObqvhJKQLBk1a0E6E9%7E9jTfOENg7%7EGs3pxVEqmUvvue9oeq1NjnNHZmmfKTZndrFS26KVDtNuN%7EqvKYFqztKH1g08brVKx-dFzKPZKilJhddI4M5HYc1bSnjhI9slsPdK9CRdh5a15yTMnng1mHENk7P97KAQmfTqvLiJn1ZNjvI5Og__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c80bfd70dfcb342ad30410d19ffbc75a PDF Text Text Nouvelles nouvelles@delitfrancais.com CAMPUS Quelles limites à la tolérance? Suite à la polémique causée par les activités du groupe Choose life survenue il y a deux semaines, le professeur Morton J. Mendelson s’est joint à une table ronde pour discuter avec l’AÉUM sur la régulation des activités étudiantes sur le campus. Alexandre Ruiz de Porras Guédon Le Délit L e jeudi 8 octobre dernier, l’Association des étudiants de l’Université McGill (AÉUM) a tenu une table ronde pour discuter des critères déterminant si un événement peut avoir lieu ou non sur le campus, suite à une conférence controversée organisée par le club étudiant anti-avortement Choose Life. Le groupe avait suscité la polémique début octobre en annonçant une conférence donnée par José Ruba, co-fondateur du Centre canadien pour la réforme bio-éthique, intitulée «Échos de l’Holocauste». Au cours de sa présentation, M. Ruba a comparé la pratique de l’avortement au génocide perpétré par les Nazis pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. La conférence devait avoir lieu dans les locaux de l’AÉUM, mais elle fut censurée lors de la réunion bimensuelle du Conseil législatif de celui-ci le 1er octobre dernier. La motion de censure a été votée en réaction à ce que l’AÉUM craignait être un événement qui violerait sa Constitution et sa politique d’éthique. Faisant fi de ladite motion, le club Choose Life a quand même décidé d’organiser la conférence dans un local étant hors de la jurisdiction de l’AÉUM, dans le bâtiment Leacock, à la même date et heure et montrant le même contenu que prévus. En pleine conférence, l’AÉUM a sommé les organisateurs de clore l’événement et a fait appel à l’administration pour tenter d’y mettre fin. Cependant, l’administration a décidé de laisser libre-cours à la conférence. Le professeur Morton J. Mendelson, vice-principal exécutif adjoint à la vie étudiante et à l’apprentissage de l’Université McGill, a le dernier mot sur les événements qui se tiennent sur le campus. C’est pour cela qu’il a été invité à discuter avec les étudiants sur les «limites du tolérable». M. Mendelson a cependant dit ne «pas savoir où est la limite» raisonnable et acceptable pour un événement étudiant de ce genre, laissant aux étudiants le soin d’exprimer leurs points de vue sur la question. «Lorsque je n’ai pas la réponse, je consulte les autres», a-t-il fait savoir. Il a également tenu à préciser que «les limites sont vagues» et que «l’Université est apolitique, séculaire et ne suit pas une ligne idéologique, mais [comprend] que certains étudiants veuillent s’exprimer sur [des] sujets» tels que l’avortement. Dans cette perspective d’expression des opinions divergentes, Mohammed Ashour, étudiant à la maîtrise en neuroscience, a lancé qu’«il ne devrait pas y avoir de place pour la propagande sur le campus, mais plutôt pour un dialogue». Il a ajouté que «la polémique peut parfois être une bonne chose, mais qu’il ne faut pas mélanger l’émotionnel au rationnel». Sarah Woolf, sénatrice de la faculté des arts et conseillère de l’AÉUM, a jugé qu’«il n’y avait pas de place pour le dialogue [lors de la conférence du club Choose Life]» et s’est dite «profondément déçue par la façon dont l’administration a géré l’affaire». M. Mendelson a répondu qu’il n’y «avait pas de place pour le dialogue puisqu’il y avait des perturbateurs qui empêchaient le déroulement de l’événement». Il a déclaré partir du principe que la présence à la conférence était laissée à la discrétion de chacun. Corey Omer, conseiller de l’AÉUM pour les clubs et services, a dit souhaiter une «plus grande régulation» des activités et événements ayant lieu sur le campus. Il a noté que, bien que «la limite soit, au final, subjective, une limite devrait être fixée, tout en respectant la politique d’éthique» de l’AÉUM. À la fin de cette table ronde, l’AÉUM est revenue à son point de départ, n’ayant pas su prendre le toreau par les cornes et aborder directement la question qui faisait polémique. Le club Choose Life n’a pour l’instant subi aucune «sanction» depuis. Le débat sur la liberté d’expression et la liberté de rassemblement est relancé.x POLITIQUE MUNICIPALE Ivan Neilson, Sarah Olle et Morton Mendelson parlent aux étudiants Alexandre Ruiz de Porras Guédon Vous avez une opinion? Nous vous donnons une voix! Courrier des lecteurs: nouvelles@delitfrancais.com Depuis plus de 25 ans Toute la technologie à votre service Tous les services au mê me endroit Dre Joëlle Marcil Chirurgien Dentiste Dr Nicholas Poirier Chirurgien Dentiste URGENCE 514.524.6848 1823, rue Sherbrooke Est, Montré al (Qué bec) www.centredentairedehautetechnologie.com Membres de l’A.S.E.Q. Mé tro Papineau Mé tro Sherbrooke 45 coin Sherbrooke 24 est coin Papineau Ligne verte Ligne orange 2 Nouvelles De grands projets pour Montréal Comment vaincre les fantômes du passé? Vincent Allaire Le Délit L ’Expo 67, le métro de Montréal, l’île SainteHélène, le Stade olympique: tous sont des réalisations des années 1960 qui ont fortement contribué à former l’identité de Montréal. Mais le désastre financier du stade –un milliard et demi de dollars remboursés sur plus de trente ans– nous rappelle constamment les dérapages que peut occasionner un projet visionnaire teinté de mégalomanie. C’est d’ailleurs pourquoi Montréal n’a pas été le théâtre de ce genre de projets depuis au moins une quarantaine d’années. Par contre, cette campagne électorale municipale montre que les partis font preuve d’audace et recommencent à proposer des projets qui sortent du train-train quotidien. Pour commencer, les trois principaux partis que sont Projet Montréal, mené par Richard Bergeron, Vision Montréal, avec Louise Harel en chef de file, et Union Montréal, la formation du maire sortant Gérald Tremblay, se rejoignent sur certains points. Tous s’entendent sur la nécessité de démolir l’autoroute Bonaventure pour mieux l’intégrer au centre-ville. De plus, tous prévoient des célébrations en 2017 pour le 375e anniversaire de fondation de Montréal. Voyons maintenant les propositions originales de chacun des partis. Vision Montréal propose de mettre en candidature Montréal pour l’obtention de l’Exposition universelle de 2020. Louise Harel argumente que ce projet permettrait à Montréal de se positionner en véritable métropole de calibre international et contribuerait à sa relance économique. Elle promet aussi de recouvrir l’autoroute Ville-Marie, entre le Palais des congrès et le pont Jacques-Cartier. Selon Louise Harel, c’est l’endroit rêvé pour recevoir les deux manifestations majeures que seraient le 375e anniversaire de Montréal et l’Exposition universelle de 2020. Union Montréal est moins grandiose dans ses promesses. L’équipe de Gérald Tremblay propose plutôt de continuer à investir dans le Quartier des spectacles. À terme en 2012, tout le quadrilatère qui entoure la Place des Arts sera réaménagé en parcs et en promenades pour rendre plus propice la tenue des nombreux festivals annuels qu’accueille ce secteur. Union Montréal prévoit également d’investir dans un projet nommé «Muséums nature». La pièce maîtresse de ce plan sera la construction d’un nouveau Planétarium situé entre le Stade olympique, le Biodôme et le centre Jean-Pierre Charbonneau. Finalement, Projet Montréal innove avec son projet d’entrée maritime de Montréal. L’objectif est de redonner aux Montréalais l’accès aux berges du SaintLaurent. Le terrain visé est délimité à l’ouest par le bâtiment Molson, passe en dessous du pont JacquesCartier, et mesure 2,5 kilomètres de long. Richard Bergeron prévoit d’y aménager un ensemble immobilier composé d’habitations, de bureaux, de restaurants ainsi qu’une promenade qui longerait le fleuve. De plus, toujours pour le projet d’entrée maritime, M. Bergeron entend proposer la pointe nord de l’île Sainte-Hélène à un investissement privé majeur. L’urbaniste de formation considère l’endroit comme le plus beau site de Montréal et rêve d’y voir s’ériger une construction de l’envergure de l’Opéra de Sydney en Australie. Bref, tous les partis proposent des idées originales pour faire rayonner Montréal. Cela signifie donc que peu importe l’issue du scrutin, les Montréalais se retrouveront avec des dirigeants qui ne semblent plus être effrayés par les fantômes du passé. Une perspective réjouissante? À vous de décider le 1er novembre prochain.x xle délit · le mardi 20 octobre 2009 · delitfrancais.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 Le Délit 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. Volume 99 Issue 6 Page Number(s) 2 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data PDF 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/. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-10-20 Title A name given to the resource Quelle limites à la tolérance? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alexandre Ruiz de Porras Guédon Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Le Délit Description An account of the resource Coverage of an SSMU town hall on the topic of rules about discrimination that clubs need to adhere to, in response to the club Choose Life. Choose Life reproductive health reproductive justice SSMU