Roughly 100 students gathered last Friday, Jan. 27, in Shatner’s Lev Bukhman room to listen to speeches by Almas Jiwani, president of the UN Women Canada National Committee, and humanitarian activist Sophie Gregoire Trudeau. Hosted by the newly created McGill chapter of UN Women Canada, both Jiwani and Trudeau addressed the issues of gender inequality and raised awareness of UN Women Canada.  

Jiwani opened her speech with a fundamental question.  

“What is gender equality?”  she asked. “We hear this phrase quite often, but do we ever spend the time to figure out what this really means? It is a state of society in which men and women are able to share equally in the distribution of power and influence.”

She then discussed the economic and educational disparities between men and women.  

“Women account for two thirds of the 1.4 billion people living in poverty,” Jiwani said. “Women make up 64 per cent of the 774 million illiterate adults in the world.” She added that women around the world continue to be the victims of abuse, discrimination, and oppression.  

“Ignoring the rights of women is an inexcusable injustice against humanity,” she said. “Human rights are women’s rights. Women’s rights are human rights.”

According to Jiwani, respecting gender equality is more than a moral issue. She quoted a recent study which found that the Fortune 500 companies with the highest number of women on their board were significantly more profitable than those with the fewer women.  

“Make no mistake: it has been proven time and time again that the empowerment of women leads to tangible gains in society as a whole,” she said. 

Jiwani suggested that activists focus on creating space for women in political participation, in science and technology, as trade and peace negotiators, and as heads of corporations.  

“It is inconceivable to have progress without involving more than half of the population,” she added. 

Trudeau focused on Canada’s role in empowering women and addressing issues of gender inequality on home soil.  

She shared the story of an Iranian woman she met recently who had been forced into marriage at the age of 12 and was subsequently abused. This woman explained to Trudeau that “I have resilience, I have courage, I’ve seen what is out there, but [because] I’m a woman, I’m going to make it through anything, and I’ve found a new life here in Canada.”

Trudeau emphasized that problems such as sex trafficking aren’t limited to the third world, and can occur in places like Montreal.  

Trudeau concluded her speech with a line from the movie the The Help: “‘Sometimes courage skips a generation.’ I have chills thinking that this generation is not us and it’s not the generation that we’re going to raise as well.”

Celine Ciara, president of the McGill Chapter of UN Women Canada, noted Jiwani’s personal qualities and her ability to serve as an advocate for women.  

 “I was touched by her strength, tenacity, and passion, and I felt that she embodied the spirit and generosity of UN Women Canada.”

Speaking last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper announced his vision to “undertake major transformations to position Canada for growth over the next generation.” These include changes to pension funding and immigration policy, along with a shift in focus towards selling more of Canada’s natural resources to Asian markets.

Delivered in the remote safety of Swiss neutrality, his speech is another instance of the prime minister dipping his toes into controversial measures as far away from Ottawa as possible. Much like his speech at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum in Peru four years ago in favour of a controversial bout of Keynesian stimulus, his Davos address represents a foreshadowing of what will likely become a concrete set of policies. The Tribune believes this form of policy introduction is disrespectful to the Canadian public.

It is also an example of glittering rhetorical phrases being used as sequins to distract public eyes from cuts to core public services. It is not a tough task to see the intention for cuts nestled in euphemisms like these: “for those elements of the system that are not funded, we will make the changes necessary to ensure sustainability.” And it was just as disappointing to note that Harper remained vague about the exact measures he intends to put in place, preferring for the most part to blandly state generic platitudes like “innovation is going to be critical” and “a long term culture shift has to happen.” We hold that these methods of obfuscation are equally disrespectful to Canadians.

Furthermore, the Tribune believes Mr. Harper’s vision that he laid out in Davos is both narrow and flawed. His notion of raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 would further limit the job opportunities for young workers looking to get onto the careers ladder, leading to greater youth unemployment; it would create a less competitive environment where it is difficult to retire workers who are no longer at the top of their game as well as preventing those out of work at 65 from being able to start taking out their pensions. Through his new policy to “limit the growth of spending” on pensions, it’s evident that he is making overtures to cut back Old Age Security, a government benefit system for all retired workers. If he goes ahead with this, it will deprive many retired workers of a vital source of income. 

His plans to use the Asian markets as a motor for economic growth is also a problematic strategy. It is reliant on the continued growth of the Asian economies as well as on an outdated paradigm of fossil fuel energy use. Canada ought to be focused more on spearheading the renewable energy movement through research into alternative energy resources and more sustainable forms of infrastructure. Foreseeing the phasing out of oil in favour of cleaner, more efficient technologies would be a more prescient move and one that prioritizes a sustainable planet. 

Mr. Harper needs to realign his priorities towards a more far sighted and broader minded approach than what he has offered from the Swiss Alps. Research and development in new technologies are more important than oil exports if he really wants to create a long term plan of sustainable growth; fair distributions of pensions at a reasonable age of 65 is not only sustainable, it is also desirable out of a sense of decency. Harper’s ideas are outdated, restrictive, and punitive for those who, despite having worked for their pensions, are now vulnerable and exposed. Policies based on unfair and dated principles will not lead to long-term Canadian prosperity. 

On Tuesday, Jan. 24, SSMU, PGSS, MCSS and the Office of the  Deputy Provost held a consultation fair in the SSMU ballroom to facilitate conversations between students and school administrators on various campus issues, including personal safety, consultation methods, and free speech.

Participants were divided into small groups of around 10 to 15 people that rotated around different tables, allowing groups to concentrate on the topic of each table and to exchange ideas on how to improve the administration and campus life. While specific topics varied greatly, from the lighting on campus to safe spaces in the classroom, the events of Nov. 10 remained the key subject throughout discussions.

Several discussions became heated, including occasional accusations and table banging, but generally the dialogue was civil and constructive. Both students and the administration expressed a desire to improve upon the status quo, especially in light of the three-month-long MUNACA strikes and the Nov. 10 police presence on campus. 

Using a personal anecdote to highlight the problem, a student who preferred to stay anonymous explained his concerns.

“I was involved in the demonstration in November and afterwards I received a letter saying I was found in violation of certain codes. I was unaware of this code, and since it was the time of finals, this was quite stressful,” he said. “I think there should be more awareness and information given to the students on the part of [the] administration so that this sort of thing doesn’t happen again.”

This story sparked constructive feedback and encouraged a positive dialogue between the students at the table and Professor Jane Everett, the dean of students.

VP University Affairs Emily Yee Clare, one of the student organizers of the fair, commented on the effectiveness of the event.

“I think it’s going well. I think there are some heated tempers, as you witness … but I think that’s part of the process,” Clare said. “I don’t think you should come to a meeting like this and expect everyone to be happy. There are definite, real issues at McGill and people want to and have a right to be heard. This is definitely a very good environment for dialogue.”

Lily Han, an executive for PGSS, echoed Clare’s sentiments.

“I think it’s a good attendance and I’m happy to see all the tables are filled,” she said. “I think there’s been issues raised that there isn’t enough dialogues between the administrators and the students, so I think this is one of the things to change that.”

A series of brief sessions for the exchange of ideas took place during intermissions, where students discussed topics like the nature of the university and the McGill community’s aspirations for the future. Tension was palpable while participants discussed ideas such as the respect for student referendums and free education for all.

Many students cited their discomfort with some of last fall’s events, requesting to remain anonymous and not to be recorded. The events of Nov. 10, the MUNACA strike, tuition hikes, and the invalidation of the QPIRG referendum were mentioned as additional points of friction that had increased tension to levels unprecedented in recent memory.

“I don’t really want to speak and I think that is pretty representative of how uncomfortable free speech is on campus,” an anonymous student said in a discussion with Provost Anthony Masi. “I mean this is only 12 of us and it’s become this hostile. … I don’t feel comfortable enough to bring up my difference of opinion.”

Researchers from McGill’s School of Communication Sciences and Disorders have conducted research toward developing a prototype iPad application which focuses on interactive and participatory reading for children. The app was produced in partnership with Tribal Nova, a designer of online content for children, and Harper Collins publishers. It should be ready for testing in the spring.

The research was conducted by Dr. Susan Rvachew, associate professor at the School of Communication Sciences and Disorders at McGill, and her research lab. Tribal Nova approached Rvachew’s lab to develop e-books with interactive elements for parents because of Rvachew’s experience in teaching parents shared reading techniques.  

Shared reading is a collaborative reading approach in which a child reads with an experienced reader, usually aloud. The books contain animations designed to elicit responses from the children, so that parents can use the books as platforms for teaching language and literacy. This has been shown to be beneficial for the development of children’s literacy skills.  

The research was conducted in two randomized controlled trials with children at risk for delayed acquisition of literacy skills.  Parents were taught to use shared reading techniques with the goal of facilitating vocabulary learning and emergent literacy skills.  

“In these studies, it took many hours to teach the parents to use the techniques. We are hoping that the iREAD with books to be implemented on the iPad will encourage parents to use these techniques without having to learn the techniques in special classes,” Rvachew said.  

Research has shown literacy skills to be very important for children’s development in the long term, and that adequate language skills when entering school are crucial for academic and vocational success. Research conducted in Ottawa by Dr. E.B. Beitchman and colleagues found that children who start school with a language impairment are five times more likely to have a reading disability in grade three, two times more likely to have attention deficit disorder at age 12, and two times more likely to have been arrested at age 19, compared to children who have adequate language skills at school entry. 

As a speech-language pathologist, Rvachew aims to improve language skills in preschoolers.  

“We hope that new digital technologies might help families provide the best language inputs to their kids, so that they have the best chance to succeed at school,” she said. 

 

–Nathaniel Finestone

The White Panda

Telus Theatre, 

1280 St. Denis

Friday, Feb. 3, 10 p.m.—3 a.m.

The Science Undergraduate Society brings this Chicago-based duo to Montreal for a night  of mash-ups featuring the likes of Far East Movement, 2 Live Crew, and, amazingly, Rick Astley. Tickets start at $15.

The Great Digital Film Festival

Scotiabank Theatre, 

977 Ste. Catherine West

Friday, Feb. 3—Thursday, Feb. 9.

For a limited time, fan favourite movies will be returning to the big screen. Classics like the Back to the Future trilogy, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, The Big Lebowski, Scarface, and many more will be playing all week in crystal clear Cineplex digital. $5.99 general admission.

MEDIAFILM.ca’s Ciné-Bazar

Saint Stanislas de Kostka Church, 4816 Garnier

Saturday, Feb. 4,

9 a.m.—4 p.m.

MEDIAFILM.ca hosts their 5th annual Ciné-Bazar film fair. Film enthusiasts from across Canada will gather to buy discount DVDs, VHS tapes of rare films, vintage movie posters, and autographed memorabilia from Paul Newman, Joan Crawford, Brigitte Bardot, and more. Free entry.

Taking the stage to Jay-Z and Kanye’s “Niggas In Paris,” Chicago’s Smith Westerns’ performance on Saturday night oozed a casual confidence fitting of the entrance music. Drawing primarily from last year’s critically-acclaimed sophomore album “Dye It Blonde,” the band turned Il Motore into a sweaty dance party for the enthusiastic, and noticeably intoxicated, crowd.

Set highlights included “Imagine Pt. 3,” “Smile,” and closer “Dye the World.” The band played two new, as-of-yet untitled songs, which didn’t show any noticeable growth, but continued their style of glam-garage rock.

Their songs may nod to the past, but here’s hoping Smith Westerns continue on to the future.

Last Thursday, the SSMU Board of Directors (BoD) suspended the Judicial Board indefinitely due to legal issues arising from its current structure. 

The structure of the J-Board was reviewed by the Bylaw Committee Jan. 30, and the committee’s findings will be discussed in a meeting of the BoD this Thursday, Feb. 2. 

On Jan. 30, the J-Board was scheduled to hear a case proposed by students Zach Newburgh and Brendan Steven on the constitutionality of the fall referenda.

“We first went to talk to our lawyer about this case because [SSMU] had never had a case where a J-Board case had to determine whether a vote by members needed to be overturned or not,” VP University Affairs Emily Yee Clare explained to the Tribune.

According to the SSMU Constitution, the J-Board is the highest authority in SSMU, capable of overturning any decision made by any other body within SSMU. However, under the Quebec Companies Act, the Board of Directors has to be the highest governing body in SSMU and nothing can limit the power of the BoD.

If the J-Board had ruled to overturn the student referendum, the decision would negate the role of the BoD as maximum authority and therefore violate Quebec law. Because the structure of J-Board was not revised in the SSMU Constitution since the BoD was instituted as the highest legal authority by law, its existence has also been illegal since then.

Additionally, SSMU is bound as a student union by the Quebec Accreditation Act. Under this act, every member of SSMU has the right to a binding and representative vote through referenda. Overturning the vote would also involve retroactively taking away students’ right to vote. By invalidating a vote, any student who had voted in the referendum could sue SSMU for not following its constitution or Quebec law, Clare explained.

The Board of Directors was instituted as a separate body by the SSMU General Assembly in fall 2011 due to Quebec law, which requires a board comprised of only Canadian citizens or permanent residents for the society to retain its liquor license. Currently, the BoD is comprised of SSMU executives and council members, meets during SSMU Council, and typically ratifies decisions made by the Council.

Clare received a memo from SSMU’s lawyer on Wednesday Jan. 25 outlining the legal issues and decided to bring the matter to Council.  

During Council, debate centred on whether to allow the J-Board hearing to continue and then review the legality of the process, or to reform the structure of the J-Board first.

Law Senator Ian Clarke expressed concerns about suspending the J-Board.

“I don’t think we should set the precedent that whenever council feels uncomfortable with a decision they should just overturn it,” he said.

Other councilors argued in favour of suspending the J-Board.

“Currently our organizational structure is not legal … I don’t think we can just put that [on] the back burner,” Adam Winer, Clubs and Services Representative, said.  

“[We should] first clarify our constitution so everybody is aware of who has final authority, and if petitioners want to reapply to the J-Board, they can do so,” Sam Latham, management councilor, said. 

After much debate, SSMU Council voted to suspend the J-Board with 13 votes in favour, six votes opposed, and four abstentions. 

Clare emphasized that SSMU intends to restart the J-Board.

“It’s important to have some form of J-Board and we don’t want to completely remove that from SSMU,” Clare said. “We just want to make sure that it’s functioning, it protects our members, and it protects the interests of SSMU in the long run.”

The By-Law committee met Monday Jan. 30 to begin a review process to restructure the J-Board. 

SSMU President Maggie Knight outlined the commitee’s initial suggestions, which include a referendum question to amend the SSMU constitution and clarify the role of the J-Board, its relationship to the BoD, and its compliance with Quebec law. In the short term, SSMU intends to allow the current J-Board case to proceed soon, possibly before the referendum question that would amend the constitution. 

“What we’re trying to do is [reach a decision] in the shortest time possible so that everything can proceed in a way that is fair for everybody,” she said. 

 

Justices surprised by suspension

“The SSMU’s decision caught us off-guard.  Before receiving this email, we had no reason to believe that the J-Board would be suspended,” David Parry, Chief Justice of the SSMU J-Board wrote in an email to the Tribune on behalf of the entire J-Board. 

“We have requested justification from the SSMU for their decision, and are still waiting for a satisfactory explanation,” he added. “As more information becomes available, we will decide what steps, if any, need to be taken, bearing in mind that many people have put in extensive work in the case to bring it this far.”

Parry added that the members of the J-Board requested to participate in discussions regarding the J-Board’s future, but that SSMU requested that they only be present for the first portion of the discussion.

Petitioner Brendan Steven could not be reached for comment at the time of press. 

Case respondent and Elections SSMU CEO Rebecca Tacoma declined to comment on the suspension of the J-Board. She noted that the J-Board case may not affect the winter referendum period.

“It has to be kept in mind that simply because allegations are made, this does not necessarily mean they are valid,” Tacoma said.

 

–Additional reporting by Erica Friesen

This past week, the Independent Student Inquiry made available to the Daily, Le Delit, and the Tribune a set of eight documents from the Montreal police regarding the events of Nov. 10. Multiple police officers completed the documents, giving individual accounts of events. The Tribune has compiled the information to provide insight on the events of Nov. 10, specifically the use of tear gas on the McGill campus.

All information and quotations below have been translated from French.

5 p.m. Police were asked to perform crowd control manoeuvres at McGill University, and at the intersection of University and Milton. They reported around 200 “aggressive students and non-compliers.” Another report by Sergeant Martin Destrempes estimates around 400 individuals.

One officer, Mike Brown, recounts that a group of approximately 10 students started to resist police efforts. Some sat on the ground while others started to grab the shield of a police officer. He prepared to use tear gas.

5:15 p.m. At the east exit of the McGill campus and the intersection of Milton and University, Officer Brown used tear gas. 

“This action had the desired results,” he wrote in the report. “The individual released the shield and left with friends. He was bothered since he was coughing and rubbing his eyes.”

Sergeant Bruno Bolduc’s report gives further information regarding the use of tear gas toward protestors. He confirms Brown’s use of tear gas on the individual who grabbed the police shield.

A second usage of tear gas was described at the intersection of Milton and University.

“When we were making an advance on the south side of the road, there was a pocket of resistance that was using signs with pieces of wood and were pointing at the line of police officers,” Bolduc writes. “So, I used [tear gas] at this moment. The result was the same; the crowd distanced itself from our line.”

Sergeant Martin Destrempes describes observing a group of 25 individuals who refused to disperse. He describes the group as being made up of mostly men, aged 18-25. “I saw multiple individuals in this group push police officers with their hands against their shields, yelling at the police with their hands in the air and then hitting and grabbing the police and their equipment.”

He reports that the police gave at least 10 verbal warnings in both French and English for the protestors to move back. Following the verbal warnings, police are described as using their shields to push back the protestors as well as using batons to put pressure on the arms and shoulders of protestors.

All of this occurred at the upper level of the steps in James Square. Destrempes then reports that “considering that they found themselves on the highest level, and given that if the police officers effectively pushed the protestors they would fall to the lower level of the stairs and cause certain injury, I brought out my container of chemical irritants [section blanked in report] and I sprayed the group.”

Destrempes called for the arrest of these individuals, however they dispersed too quickly into the larger crowd and he was unable to proceed with their arrest.

6:30 p.m. The police operation ended.

In total, these documents reveal the use of tear gas in at least seven different instances by multiple police officers.

One document titled “Use of Chemical Irritants­—crowd control” reveals that the use of tear gas was authorized at 1:30 p.m. that day. In addition, it states that a total of 10 individuals were injured from these events. 

Television shows exist to make money, and critical acclaim or devoted fan-bases are poor substitutes for advertising revenue.  Number of viewers aside, here are five shows that didn’t deserve their cancellations.  All of these selections ran for twenty episodes or less; while shows like Arrested Development or Deadwood might have had plenty left in the tank, they produced many more episodes than these five before the economics cut them short.

Terriers

Saddled with an incredibly vague title (and advertising to boot), this noir/comedy about two scruffy San Diego private detectives lasted just one season of 13 episodes. The good-natured chemistry of the two leads (Donal Logue and Michael Raymond-James) and their increasingly high-stakes misadventures drew in critics, but few viewers.  In spite of its limited run-time, the show managed to hit its stride, produce some great episodes, and wrap things up nicely, something most one-season shows fail to accomplish.

Firefly

Perhaps the epitome of a show cancelled before its time, Firefly was a campy, exciting science-fiction show.  Following the adventures of the crew of the spaceship Serenity, it had a good-natured sense of fun, knowing when and when not to take itself seriously.  It struggled to find an audience, but nevertheless accumulated a devoted one: fan support following its cancellation was sufficient to cause the commissioning of a follow-up movie that provided some closure for fans.

Clone High

A bizarre, self-aware, animated sitcom, Clone High made the most of its ludicrous premise—a high school populated by the teenage clones of various historical figures—by being a pitch-perfect satire of teen dramas.  Its 13 “very special” episodes are chock full of proms, life lessons, topical issues, and general inanity.  To some, the cliffhanger ending might seem disappointing, but a ridiculously stupid twist was the perfect way for the show to end.

Party Down

Running for a scant 20 episodes over two seasons, Party Down chronicled the experiences of a group of down-on-their-luck caterers; failed actors and writers who alternated trying to make it in Hollywood with wondering when to give up.  Despite being critically acclaimed, its weekly audience declined to mere tens of thousands by the end of its second season.  Regardless of the dearth of viewers, the show provided significant career boosts to stars Adam Scott, Lizzy Caplan, and Jane Lynch.

Freaks and Geeks

Sometimes, cancellation can have a silver lining; many popular shows continue to produce episodes past the point of diminishing returns, an especially big risk in a high-school setting.  While few would turn down more episodes of this gem, the quality and poignancy of its 18-episode run was never compromised.  Ironically, this is one show that seems like it was never cancelled, given the career success many of its cast members and executive producer Judd Apatow have enjoyed.

There are few pleasures in life that come close to seeing a good film. At its best, cinema can elicit profound sentiments, change one’s view of the world, or simply get one through a crappy day. This makes it all the more disheartening when one has the misfortune of enduring a film that not only fails to do any of the above, but goes as far as having the opposite effect. 

Fortunately, there are often warning signs that can steer the astute viewer away from this kind of soul-crushing sludge. Take the aptly named One For The Money, in which the film’s only purpose is stated right there as its very title, for your convenience. It’s a film that borders on fraud, a (not-so) clever transfer of your pocketbook to Lakeshore, Lionsgate, and Katherine Heigl. And with what is the viewer left? An insipid, joyless, numbing experience, the climax of which is the moment the credits roll.  

Strangely enough, One For The Money probably deserves some careful study, for it represents the logical progression of the populist trend in North American cinema. The film is stripped of exposition, leaving a skeletal framework of voiceovers by Heigl to tell us about how down-on-her-luck she is (I’ve picked my metaphors carefully, for Heigl relays these narrations with all the vigour of a corpse). But alas! How awesome would it be if her character found a new job that was completely contrary to her nature as a white, middle-class woman? Like, say, as a bounty hunter? “I was shooting a gun; how hot is that?” she ask-exclaims at one point, but she’s fooling no one. 

The script plays around with the white-girl-can’t-do-badass-things dimension listlessly, like a kid with spinach on his plate, before moving on to the other racial stereotypes that have been so popular in mainstream cinema these days. Look! Latino gangsters and sassy black girls! The way these stereotypes are repeatedly trotted out and affirmed by the film is nauseating.

Of course, the greatest blight in the film is reserved for Heigl herself. Coming off a year full of strong, Byronic female protagonists (Charlize Theron’s Mavis Gary in Young Adult; Brit Marling’s Rhoda Williams in Another Earth), Heigl’s Stephanie Plum is a disappointment at best and a disgrace at worst; despite spending so much of the film trying to convince both the characters around her and the audience to take her seriously, she is constantly bailed out by macho-men, one situation after another. When she does get a takedown, she is guilt-ridden instead of celebratory. Apparently, the logic of this film dictates that white girls can’t be badass after all—though Heigl’s character is so easily seduced by the same guy (Jason O’Mara) who took her virginity on a diner floor when she was 16 and never called again. 

Plus, Heigl is simply not very funny. In fact, not much of the film was. There are scenes in which the music could have been lifted right from a porno. Some lines are so bewilderingly awful (“we’re ancient history—like the pyramids, baby!”) that one feels embarrassed for the actor, in what are possibly the only moments of sympathy in the film. The eccentric grandmother trope is now officially dead, as is the trope of the tough guy who cooks to show his sensitive side. What this whole steaming pile of clichés and repulsiveness amounts to is an insult, if not outright attack, on the viewer’s intelligence.  

The best thing about the film is its length. At an hour and forty minutes, the film isn’t long enough to ruin your entire night. Watching movies like One For The Money makes you grateful for the little things like that. Heigl’s newest release represents everything wrong with contemporary Hollywood, and gets nothing right.