Latest News

Along Party Lines, News, Private

Along Party Lines: Quebec prevents the nomination of a professor specializing in multiculturalism, systemic racism, and Islamophobia 

by Oscar Macquet on

More in Along Party Lines:

Denise Helly, a full professor at the National Institute of Scientific Research (INRS)—a branch of the University of Quebec (UQ)—focuses her research on multiculturalism, Islamophobia, systemic racism, and the anti-woke movement. On Dec. 20, Helly received word that Quebec’s Minister of Higher Education, Pascale Déry, had struck down her candidature to the INRS administrative council. This news was met with much confusion at the INRS, as Helly had successfully cleared every step of the institution’s internal nomination process.

In an article published by the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université (FQPPU) on Jan. 19, Jean-Charles Grégoire, president of the INRS’ professors’ union, stated that the structure of the INRS stipulates that the government nominate two professors designated by the faculty of the institute to the administrative council. Grégoire explained that although the INRS received the news that Helly’s candidature was refused, the Ministry provided no further explanation.

Déry and her cabinet enjoy ministerial discretion and are thus not required to disclose any information regarding Helly’s blocked nomination. Alexandre Cloutier, President of the UQ, expressed his concern regarding the unusual ministerial intervention to Le Devoir.

Cloutier decried the Ministry’s infringement on both university autonomy and academic freedom, stressing the importance of the university’s ability to carry out their duties without “doctrinal, ideological, or moral constraints.” The president of UQ declared having scheduled a meeting with Déry’s ministerial team, in which he intends to defend the institution’s internal nomination process and demand a justification for Helly’s veto. 

Helly spoke out against the ministerial intervention, claiming in an interview with Le Devoir that the subject of her research, which includes multiculturalism, systemic racism, discrimination, Islamophobia, and the anti-woke movement, was likely behind the government’s opposition to her nomination. She believes that these topics of discussion are “bothersome” to the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), the provincial party currently in power. She also explained that if the minister refuses to explain her decision to exercise her discretionary power, the nature of the decision would be “arbitrary.” 

Opposition party leaders and members of the teaching faculty have expressed their indignation regarding what they, too, deem as “arbitrary censorship” from the ministry and called for a clarification of the government’s opposition to Helly’s nomination. The circumstances surrounding the government’s decision raised concerns regarding the respect of the Law on academic liberty in the university sector adopted in June 2022, which protects higher education institutions’ autonomy. 

Marwah Rizqy, the Liberal representative from Saint-Laurent in the National Assembly of Quebec, said that, without an explanation, Déry’s decision could be understood as an act of censorship. House Leader of the opposition party Québec Solidaire, Alexandre Leduc, implored Minister Déry to publicly explain the reason behind her decision.

After over a month of silence from the Ministry of Higher Education, Déry shared on Jan. 26 that Helly’s nomination to the administrative council of the INRS was foregone due to “links” with imam Adil Charkaoui, who Canadian authorities suspected of terrorism. In 2015, Helly received a prize for her “efforts in the fight against Islamophobia” from the Collectif Quebecois contre l’islamophobie (CQCI), an organization in which Charkaoui was a collaborator. 
Helly spoke out against this justification for her blocked appointment to the administrative board, claiming that she was the object of a “smear campaign” led by the CAQ’s Ministry of Higher Education. Helly told Le Devoir that Déry’s statement did not “change the nature of the situation”: In the eyes of the INRS, the Ministry’s disregard for the institution’s nomination process constitutes a violation of university autonomy.

McGill, News

The Tribune Explains: Responses to rising COVID-19 cases on campus

by Esther Forbes on

More in McGill:

Quebec experienced over 3,200 new cases from Jan. 7 to 13, according to the province’s most recent data. This uptick in cases has added strain to the already overburdened healthcare system, which has long wait times and packed emergency rooms at over 100 per cent capacity.

While medical masks and hand sanitizer remain available in most McGill buildings, McGill has eliminated all other health protocols that were previously in place to help counter COVID-19, such as mandatory masking, social distancing, classroom caps, and requirements for classes to be recorded. The Tribune spoke to McGill, the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), and the nursing student representative to the McGill Senate about COVID-19 protocols around campus.

How is McGill handling the rise in cases?

McGill Media Relations Officer, Frédérique Mazerolle, told The Tribune that resources are in place for those who get COVID-19 or are otherwise ill, including consulting an academic advisor about accommodations and ways to complete course material.

“McGill offers many resources to help support students in meeting their academic and personal goals, including the Student Wellness Hub, faculty-specific resources, and other academic resources,” Mazerolle wrote. “If a student becomes ill or otherwise unable to complete academic requirements, the Office of the Dean of Students can help students understand their rights and responsibilities as members of the McGill community and can help explore reasonable ways to alleviate barriers to completing requirements.”

Mazerolle also offered insight on the future of classroom recordings at McGill, explaining that the university’s activities are designed for in-person learning.

“It is important to remember that some instructors may include online resources, assessments, or exams as part of the course materials, however they are not obligated to do so, and that processes around academic accommodation can also vary by faculty,” Mazerolle wrote to The Tribune. 

What resources does SSMU provide?

In an email to The Tribune, SSMU Vice-President (VP) Student Life Nadia Dakdouki reaffirmed the student union’s commitment to providing support for students taking precautions against COVID-19. Dakdouki also explained that SSMU offers medical and N95 masks to students at the SSMU office and around the University Centre, as well as hand sanitizer.  

“[The SSMU continues] to comply with government regulations regarding COVID, but we also try our best to cater to students who wish to take extra measures.” Dakdouki wrote.“Outside of COVID concerns, SSMU provides most of its healthcare support by offering a health and dental insurance plan and the keep.meSAFE program (for mental health support).” 

While Dakdouki confirmed that the SSMU does not stock COVID-19 tests, those with COVID-19-related concerns should be made aware that pharmacies in Quebec distribute them for free to full-time students who are between the ages of 18 and 25.

Do students feel adequately supported?

Naomi Pastrana Mankovitz, U3 Nursing and a nursing senator, feels that McGill’s current protocols are failing to adequately protect vulnerable individuals and to prevent the spread of COVID-19. With experience working in emergency rooms (ERs) throughout nursing rotations, Pastrana Mankovitz also attested to the shortcomings of the government’s current health and safety protocols in hospitals.

“We act as if the pandemic is over, but we just don’t care about those that are more vulnerable to the effects of COVID.” Pastrana Mankovitz wrote. “Wearing a mask is still needed especially during flu seasons. The ERs are chronically over capacity. I am doing my rotation in the ER right now, and a really good day is 125 per cent capacity. McGill is following government and health recommendations, but we can all do better.”

Features

Live music should not be a luxury

by Dana Prather on

More in Features:

 I used to think that the annual McGill course registration process was a uniquely hellish ordeal. As any student reading this knows all too well, the springtime ritual of scheduling your required courses and a fun elective or two can quickly devolve into an anxiety-inducing mad dash. We all remember the picture: Rushing to make it to Minerva’s registration page, double-checking CRN numbers as you fill in the Quick Add/Drop page, debating whether you should risk refreshing your browser or simply wait out the loading bar. If you’re registering from outside the East Coast, you might be forcing your bleary-eyed self to wake at, say, 5:45 a.m. to prepare for the process’s 8:00 a.m. kickoff two time zones away. While I’ve gotten used to this necessary evil over the past few years, I was dismayed to encounter a similar cycle of scramble, wait, stress, and repeat when trying to buy concert tickets.

To me, there is something almost transcendent about seeing and experiencing live music. When my piano teacher first played for me, my six-year-old self was transfixed as I listened to him tickle the ivories to show me what “Pop Goes the Weasel” was //supposed// to sound like. I was hooked. I took any chance I could to listen to live music of any genre. In high school, I saved up my babysitting money for when the odd musical act would tour through Alberta. I even worked as an usher at a local arena, picking up extra shifts anytime a band or solo artist was performing, just to enjoy their shows for free. 

Though my own music making has since been relegated to off-key shower vocals and occasionally playing around on my parents’ Yamaha keyboard when I’m home for breaks, my passion for live music remains. Whether I’m sitting way up in the nosebleeds with my closest friends or squeezing my way to the barricade alone amid hundreds of strangers, there is something about witnessing art created in real time, surrounded by people, that makes me feel present in a way unlike any other. Unfortunately, experiencing the connection and joy of live music is not always within reach, and it has only become more inaccessible over time.  

Back in Sept. 2023, I set out to buy tickets for a Noah Kahan concert. Even though I had seen the folk pop artist merely months earlier at MTelus in June, I was still excited by the prospect of seeing him again on the city’s biggest stage. I had managed to snag a floor ticket for around $80 for that gig, a price I felt was reasonable enough to stomach for the sake of seeing a musician I admire. I prepared for the presale time the same way I do for course registration: I loaded up the Ticketmaster website fifteen minutes before the designated time, copying my registration code onto my laptop’s clipboard for easy access, and precariously perching my laptop beside my apartment’s WiFi router to glean any possible speed advantage. When the countdown clock on my screen finally hit zero, I frantically copied and pasted my access code into the site. Then, I waited. Eyes glued on the screen, I held my breath as I inched my way toward the front of the virtual queue. Even with all my preparation, every somewhat-affordable ticket had been snatched up by the time I could checkout. If I wanted to attend the gig, I would need to shell out over $400 for floor tickets. 

Obviously, the outcome of this failed attempt is a lot lower stakes than course registration—missing out on seeing “Folk Malone” live won’t delay my graduation date. Yet the parallel between the level of preparation and speed needed to secure spots in McGill courses or Montreal concerts would be funny if it weren’t so absurd. And it’s not just this one artist or this one concert. In the past few years, being priced out of seeing live music has become an all too common occurrence.

2023 was undoubtedly a banner year for the live music industry, with record-breaking acts like Taylor Swift’s Eras tour and Beyonce’s Renaissance tour dominating pop culture conversations and generating record-breaking sales. But almost in step with the flurry of headlines about these pop icons’ live performances were social media posts, think pieces, and news articles highlighting the trend of skyrocketinging ticket prices. Indeed, in the last year alone, the average cost of tickets in North America increased over 21 per cent. These rising costs, due in part to inflation, can also be attributed to the industry’s shift in focus from physical vinyl and CD sales to streaming. Known in the industry as digital service providers (DSPs), streaming services are notorious for poor remuneration; artists receive a measly payout of $0.00318 and $0.008 per stream from Spotify and Apple Music respectively. 

This loss of income from the music itself, combined with venues taking large cuts from merchandise sales to stay afloat themselves, often puts artists in the position where they need to maximize their touring income. Furthermore, sellers such as Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation, the world’s largest ticket promoter, have come under fire for artificially raising prices through bad-faith marketing and dynamic ticket pricing. In this model, ticket prices fluctuate depending on demand, surging if a significant number of people try to buy tickets at once. These price gouging tactics hike the face-value cost of tickets, so when paired with Ticketmaster’s lax protections against ticket resellers, the result is a perfect storm of inflated prices. 

However, the blame for inflated ticket costs cannot be placed solely on the greed of streaming platforms, ticket resellers, and official distribution channels. If the past year has proven anything, it is that there are still people willing to dig deeper into their pockets for the chance to see their favourite artists live. Swift’s Eras tour, which will be coming to Canada for the first time when it stops at Toronto’s Rogers Centre in Nov. 2024, exemplifies this: All face-value tickets—from the ‘cheaper’ upper bowl seats starting at $160 to VIP tickets going for as much as $2,500—sold out immediately upon release. 

Altogether, these factors—inflation, pitiful streaming royalties, absurd resale prices, minimal intervention from major ticket distribution companies—have turned seeing live music into a luxury fewer and fewer people can afford. 

What exactly is it that drives people to seek out live music, even at these soaring costs? In an age when people have more access than ever to music from their favourite artists through streaming services, high-definition YouTube videos of late-night performances, and even grainy TikTok live streams of the most popular shows, why invest in a concert ticket? 

For Morgan Thompson, a self-described “avid concert-goer” who attended 85 shows last year, seeing an artist live affords him the opportunity to hear their music as he believes they intended. 

“It’s a way to experience the artist in //their// way. I could listen to Lorde [in my headphones] at work, but I don’t think that’s necessarily how you’re //supposed// to listen to them perform,” Thompson told //The Tribune//. 

Thompson has been attending concerts consistently for the past six years, and while he draws a hard boundary at paying for resale tickets, he still believes seeing live music is generally worth the face-value price. 

“I would describe it as ‘young brain,’” referring to his philosophy of shelling out for concerts. “[I think] ‘Oh, I’m young, money will come back. I’ll just go see them while I can,’ […] because you never know what’s going to happen.” 

This attitude which, for better or for worse, prioritizes current joy over future financial consequences, should come as no surprise after the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the live music scene and the entertainment industry at large. Audiences are now more keenly aware than ever that sharing space and watching music as a community is a privilege that can be disrupted by unforeseen plagues or pitfalls just around the corner. 

Similar attitudes have carried over into Montreal’s vibrant alternative music scene. A cultural hub with a relatively affordable cost of living, Montreal has been a prime hotspot for independent musicians since the burgeoning jazz and blues scene put the city on the map in the early 20th century. Everyone from the legendary Leonard Cohen to indie favourite Mac DeMarco to up-and-comer Yves Jarvis has cut their teeth and honed their artistry in the city’s intimate venues. Jon Nudell, a concert promoter who works under the handle @goodshows, has noticed an impressive resurgence in attendance at these sorts of shows after restrictions on bars, clubs, and other live music venues began lifting in early 2022. 

“There were shows in 2019 that 30 people would go to, and those same shows 250 people go to now,” Nudell remarked about the surge in post-pandemic attendance in an interview with //The Tribune//. 

Having started out as a musician in local bands, Nudell was drawn to organizing shows at smaller local venues as a means of platforming independent artists that he believed in and introducing audiences to a diverse set of genres. While he has tried to keep the prices down, independent shows are not immune to rising costs. Here, a lack of large ticket distributors and resellers leaves inflation as the primary culprit. 

“Shows that would have been $10 before the pandemic were $15 in 2022, and [they] are now $20,” Nudell said. “[Inflation is] making everything more expensive, but I still try to make things as cheap as possible. I try to hit a sweet spot.”   

This balance between affordability and realistic pricing is a fine line that venue owners such as Sergio Da Silva, co-owner of Turbo Haüs, must walk. 

“There is a bit of animosity between me, who has to run this place, and people who want to come and enjoy themselves [….] It comes down to money, having to spend money to be at a place that you think is important,” Da Silva explained in an interview with //The Tribune//. 

“On a very base level, I absolutely understand. It’s important to be able to participate in these things and not be priced out of them.”

A small bar/venue in the Latin Quarter that hosts everything from Wednesday jazz nights to hardcore punk shows, Turbo Haüs is a local favourite that employs a team of 25, including sound technicians, security guards, bartenders, cleaners, and social media managers. All employees are provided insurance that covers dental and mental healthcare, expenses that, coupled with inflation, make maintaining pre-pandemic price points nearly impossible. 

“If I can’t get a Big Mac trio for $15, then you’re not coming into the show for less than fucking $10 or $15 dollars. […] Whatever daydream [people] have about this time when there were $5 shows, it’s done,” Da Silva confirmed. 

Still, Da Silva is determined to keep the community aspect of the music scene going strong. This sense of community and belonging is particularly important for Black people, other people of colour, queer and trans people, people experiencing mental illness, and other marginalized people, many of whom were at the forefront of counterculture movements in the punk scene, despite what the often whitewashed history of the genre might lead you to believe. 

“[For] lots of people who come to shows […], these kinds of get-togethers are not a luxury. They need to happen. You need that sense of community,” Da Silva acknowledged. 

It is precisely this focus on community that lies at the heart of Montreal’s independent music scene. Amid the landscape of ever-rising ticket prices, venues like Turbo Haüs keep live performance accessible, allowing fellow music lovers to gather week after week, sharing space and joy as they witness live music. This sense of togetherness cannot become a privilege reserved for the few who have the disposable income to spend on large-scale concerts. Ensuring the accessibility of live music, and supporting the local venues that make it possible, is crucial; beyond industry and enjoyment, it is about preserving a community.

Editorial, Opinion

Divestment from fossil fuels was the first step; divestment from genocide is the next

by The Tribune Editorial Board on

More in Editorial:

Following 12 years of mobilization from students and faculty, the Board of Governors (BoG) voted on Dec. 14 to divest from all direct holdings in Carbon Underground (CU) 200 fossil fuel companies. This is a significant step toward greater environmental justice and a well-deserved victory for Divest McGill, an organization whose central role in pushing McGill to divest has been entirely neglected by the university.

Since 2012, Divest McGill has carried much of the student and faculty activism on their shoulders, pressuring the university to divest from fossil fuels. Simultaneously engaging in disruption with students and conversation with the administration, multiple generations of McGill students have continuously called on the university to address its role in the climate crisis. Yet McGill’s announcement of their decision to divest makes no mention of Divest McGill, thus completely erasing student activism from their narrative.

Although this commitment to divestment and the relentless student activism that led to it should be celebrated, there is nothing radical or revolutionary about the university’s initiative. Following the path of Harvard and Concordia, McGill’s decision is part of the institution’s performative effort to protect its reputation and keep fueling its greenwashing machine. At other Canadian institutions, such as the University of British Columbia , the divestment plan has been set to take almost 10 years, not to be completed until 2030. On the other hand, McGill has committed to divest from its direct holdings in CU200 companies by 2025. 

Now more than ever, the student body—this generation and the next—must continue mobilizing to hold the university accountable to its commitment to sustainability. Divesting only from direct holdings is not enough—McGill must carry out the same initiative with its remaining indirect holdings in CU200 companies, and also other investments into companies that produce fossil fuels.

But to truly commit to the goal of sustainability in which McGill prides itself, the university needs to acknowledge that climate justice and social justice only exist with each other. The announcement of divestment from fossil fuels occurred strategically after students overwhelmingly voted for the Policy Against Genocide in Palestine and its targeting of investments in companies that fund occupation and apartheid in Palestine. McGill cannot use divestment from fossil fuels as a distraction from student and faculty calls demanding divestment from companies complicit in the genocide of nearly 25,000 Palestinian people in Gaza. Instead, divestment from fossil fuels sets a fundamental precedent for other necessary and urgent forms of divestment.

In 1985, McGill was the first Canadian university to take a moral, political, and economic stance through its investments and divest from corporations complicit in South African apartheid in response to student activism. This commitment to protect human rights must stand the test of time, and the university must stop co-signing murder and genocide by putting an end to their investments supporting both the Israeli regime and violence around the world.

The Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) has a critical role to play in holding McGill accountable to their commitment to divest. With every policy presented by SSMU and voted on by the student body, students’ demands stand behind a united front and become harder for the university to ignore. Although the university’s administration and its governing structures have an overwhelming amount of control over student governance—and has time and again bypassed student democracy—the SSMU President is the sole undergraduate voice sitting on the BoG representing students’ demands. In 2021, SSMU adopted the Divest for Human Rights Policy along with several other student organizations, which played a significant role in pressuring the university to divest from fossil fuels. The policy also demanded that McGill cut ties with companies that enable violence against Indigenous peoples in the Americas, Palestinians, Yemenis, and Uyghurs. SSMU must keep its commitment to this policy and pressure the BoG to implement every single demand for divestment.

The step that McGill took last December is a major victory for student activists, but not the end of the fight. Student mobilization must build on Divest’s success and grow stronger to ensure that the university actively commits to social justice in every aspect, from climate justice to the protection of human rights.

Commentary, Opinion

Lecture recordings are a necessary step for greater accessibility

by Zoya Mirza on

More in Commentary:

Finding mental health support as a McGill student has been a challenge for quite some time, with the university’s meagre efforts to offer services—like animal therapy and peer supporters—falling short. The Student Wellness Hub is inadequate for the majority of the student population; however, the jarring lack of mental health resources is just one aspect of McGill’s larger, overall thoughtlessness when it comes to accessibility. Lecture recordings, or the lack thereof, is a striking example of the university’s failure and continuous refusal to respond to students’ essential needs.  

Whether cramming for finals or catching up on a missed class, lecture recordings can be helpful for any student, and not ensuring access to them is a major letdown on the university’s part. While not having recorded lectures may seem like a slight inconvenience, this raises accessibility concerns for students for whom recorded classes are a necessary tool for learning. Given the progress of technology and the increasing use of technical tools in higher education, McGill must make recorded lectures mandatory. 

Over 30 per cent of McGill students are international, while almost half come from Quebec, which means that English is a second or even third language for many. While the ability to follow lectures in English is a justified requirement for McGill, the university must acknowledge that levels of fluency may vary significantly. Lecture recordings allow students to slow down, rewind, and watch the captions to a lecture, facilitating students’ understanding and learning.

But more than a tool for learning, lecture recordings are a necessary accommodation for students with health issues, either physical or mental. Even something as simple as a cold can justify the case for mandatory lecture recordings, as it is inconsiderate and unsafe to require students to come to class when showing symptoms of illness.

For students who suffer from chronic illnesses or struggle with their mental health, getting out of bed and going to a class is not always an option. In those cases, not recording classes almost seems like a conscious choice of not supporting certain students—when McGill prides itself for its mental health services. 

Recording lectures confronts the inequalities among students that force some to work one—sometimes even two—part-time jobs to make ends meet—on an already financially inaccessible campus. These students have no choice but to miss certain classes and sometimes must rely on often incomplete slides or classmates’ notes to try and grasp important concepts and lessons. Past a certain point, it can become discouraging and fruitless to constantly be playing catch-up on missed lectures with no recordings. McGill’s lack of support on the matter sends the message that this is entirely the students’ problem. 

Professors should record classes because it provides a fair and equitable opportunity for //all// students to engage with the class material they pay tuition for, rather than catering exclusively to privileged students who are able to attend every lecture in person. In the absence of recordings, classes will remain exclusionary. 

This issue of accessibility links to a general pattern of neglect from the McGill administration. Although the university provides students with the option to book appointments with mental health professionals through the Student Wellness Hub, these appointments are infamously difficult to access due to lack of practicians and high demand. Students seeking psychiatric care have for example reported long wait times and complicated booking procedures. Especially given how mental health recognition appears to be increasing at other major universities, such as Queen’s and the University of British Columbia, McGill’s lack of resources and care is even more glaring. Having accessible education is vital to students’ mental health and thus academic success, and it is counterproductive for McGill to ignore this major accessibility issue. McGill must address its student body’s well-being in order to improve the quality and impact of its own education.

Commentary, Opinion

Legault’s populism will not address the opioid crisis

by Emanuel Curto on

More in Commentary:

Quebec’s opioid crisis is worsening. In 2023, paramedics administered more naloxone to treat acute overdoses than ever before, and death from opioid toxicity is set to reach its highest levels yet, continuing an upward trend since 2019. Novel synthetic opioids, such as isotonitazene, which can be deadly even in minute quantities, continue to exacerbate the crisis in Montreal. Premier François Legault has said very little in response to the province’s opioid crisis, illustrating that it is not a priority for his government. This should come as no surprise. His populism is uniquely unsuited to tackle this crisis as there is no quick and easy political solution that will rally his base and address the issue at its core. Tackling Quebec’s opioid problem will require policy leg-work and a commitment to nuanced conversations that Quebec’s current government is ill-equipped to engage in. 

Since the 1990s, the role of opioids has changed in the medical community. Opioid prescriptions’ limited use for palliating individuals with painful cancers has expanded to the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. This change in culture is often associated with mis-interpretations of the now infamous Porter-Jick study, which shifted the pain management paradigm toward opioids. Concurrently, the now-defunct Purdue Pharma provided misleading data to sales representatives and the medical community suggesting that Oxycontin, their flag-ship opioid drug, was less addictive and dangerous than their competitors’ products. Today, Canada is among the world’s largest per-capita consumers of opioids. For the past few decades, prescription opioids have been relatively easy to access both by prescription or through family members to whom they have been prescribed. 

In 2001, Portugal became the first country to decriminalize possession of hard drugs for individual use. As a consequence, incarcerations, HIV transmissions, and overdoses decreased in Portugal in the early 2000s. With Portugal’s policies being largely viewed as a success, British Columbia received an exemption from article 56(1) of Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. More recently, Toronto requested a federal exemption, and although Montreal’s city council has signalled its support for an exemption they have yet to request one from the Public Health Agency of Canada. 

However, decriminalization is not an unfettered panacea. Portugal has failed to invest in and invigorate existing programs linked with decriminalization; thus, the country’s success at addressing its drug issue is waning, and they are no longer touted as an ideal model for the policy. This failure demonstrates that persistent effort and adopting a dynamic approach to decriminalization are necessary to address the opioid crisis. As seen in Portugal, the decriminalize-and-walk-away model does not work. However, Legault’s reluctance to maintain funding for supervised injection sites in Montreal stifles hopes for any form of sustained effort to address Quebec’s opioid crisis. This demonstrates not only his apathy toward those suffering but an unwillingness to engage with a public health issue whose mortality continues to increase. Legault’s complacency on Quebec’s opioid crisis also perpetuates colonial violence by neglecting an issue that disproportionately affects Indigenous peoples. 

Ultimately, Legault’s populism is antithetical to what the opioid crisis requires. The crisis is most visible in urban areas–– areas whose populations do not make up a consequential percentage of the CAQ’s voter base. It’s an issue that Conservative leader Pierre Polievre has demonstrated can easily become partisan. But hoping Legault will be the saviour and both depoliticize and articulate a nuanced message on a public health failure is delusional. Consider his approach toward addressing the decline of French as first language across the province, for example: The provincial government forfeited nuance in favour of challenging the viability of institutions that form the pillars of Quebec’s tertiary education system. 
Legislators must make decriminalization politically viable to the electorate, but Legault’s government continues to demonstrate an inability to push any debate beyond a simple populist divide. Until Quebec’s politics catches up with the scale of the opioid crisis, local governments and individual advocates must protect the institutions meaningfully addressing the crisis, notably supervised consumption services such as Cactus Montreal, Dopamine, L’Anonyme and Spectre de rue.

Arts & Entertainment, Pop Rhetoric

An ode to Ayo Edebiri

by Charlotte Hayes on

More in Arts & Entertainment:

From her roles in Bottoms to The Bear, 2023 was an incredibly busy yet successful year for Ayo Edebiri. Being Hollywood’s most in-demand young actress can’t be easy—but the people’s princess does it flawlessly. Her impeccable style and unparalleled work ethic have attracted the attention of audiences and critics alike, but what truly won us over is her magnetic personality. Edibiri’s witty and grounded sense of self has brought a sense of whimsy back to the persona of the young Hollywood celebrity. 

Getting her start as a writer on Netflix’s Big Mouth, Edebiri went on to star in Spider-Man: Across the Spider-verse, Bottoms, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Theater Camp in 2023 alone. And that’s not even mentioning her breakout role as anxiety-ridden sous-chef Sydney on FX’s Emmy award-winning TV show, The Bear. Simply put, she’s everywhere. 

Endearing herself to a younger audience in a number of ways, Edebiri has connected largely with the online film community through the app Letterboxd. The app allows users to rate and share reviews—through which Edebiri has both demonstrated a clever knack for writing reviews and proven herself to be a true cinephile. Her thoughtful yet funny engagement with the medium allows her fans to really see what influences she draws upon and brings to the big screen. Whether fangirling over Zac Efron or commiserating about the relatability of a tragic love story, her reviews make cultural engagement with movies accessible for a more online audience. However, after a review of Saltburn from Edebiri received heightened attention, the actress started to take down some of her reviews. This has started a discussion around wanting to share content from our favourite celebrities vs respecting their right to connect with the films they watch in a space free of judgment. This concern has risen as the actress’s reviews have circulated from Letterboxd onto platforms for more general audiences, such as Twitter (now X). 

In addition to functioning as a social media app, Letterboxd also, somewhat infamously, conducts red carpet interviews asking celebrities to name their four favourite movies—a feature that is available to users on their profile. In an interview with Edebiri at South by Southwest Film Festival, an interviewer from the app joked around with the actress about playing the role of a donkey in The Banshees of Inisherin (a film in which she did not appear). In the video, Edebiri speaks in an Irish accent while jokingly describing the process she went through to prepare for the role. A clip from the interview later went viral online, with people declaring Edebiri as an “honorary Irish princess.” In fact, the joke has spread so far that earlier this month, Film in Dublin, an organization that works to promote Irish films, tweeted at the actress to congratulate her on her BAFTA Rising Star Award nomination. 

On that note, a moment of recognition is due for the sheer fact that Edebiri has won nearly every single award she’s been nominated for in the 2023–2024 awards season. From a Golden Globe to a Critics Choice Award and an Emmy, audiences and peers alike can’t seem to get enough of her. Her endless charm and appeal to an online demographic is backed up by heapings of comedic talent. Her undeniable ‘it’ factor doesn’t come from appearing effortlessly cool, but showing how being a real fan of comedy herself sets her apart from others in the industry.

Edebiri’s red carpet outfits capture a sophisticated yet playfully genuine style that resonates with a younger audience. In essence, she dresses really cool. From her office wear rival skirt sets by Thom Browne to her custom Prada gowns, her style feels predictive of rising trends. Her recent awards show collaborations with stylist Danielle Goldberg have also secured her spot on best-dressed lists for the foreseeable future. 

With no sign of her star dimming anytime soon, it’s safe to say Ayo Edebiri is cementing herself as a key figure in the future of film and television. Her effortlessly cool yet deeply dorky demeanour makes her an icon to both look up to and fall in love with. 

Hockey, Martlets, Men's Varsity, Sports

Varsity Round Up: Jan. 18–21

by Tillie Burlock, Julie Ferreyra, Sara Escallon Sotomayor on

More in Hockey:

​​Martlet Volleyball (9–5)

Coming off the heels of a three-game win streak, the No. 10, nationally ranked Martlets (9–5) were upset by the UQÀM Citadins (9–6) at the Centre Sportif de l’UQÀM in a match that lasted over two hours. After losing the first set 25-23, the Martlets were able to bounce back in the second set to win 23-25. Despite close scorelines in the third and fourth sets, the Martlets were unable to regain their edge over their opponents. The Martlets now sit in a difficult position as they battle with Sherbrooke (9–6) and UQÀM for the fourth playoff spot. Co-captains Victoria Iannotti and Charlene Robitaille led the team in scoring, racking up 14 and 12 points respectively. The Martlets will have the chance to play at UQÀM once more on Feb. 4. 

While the team has been impacted by a flu bug, they hope to recover quickly as they travel to Chicoutimi to play the UQÀC Inuk (0–15) and keep their playoff bid dreams alive. The Martlets have seven games remaining until the postseason and maintain the second best win percentage (0.643) in the division. 

The Martlet’s will play the UQÀC Inuk (0–15) on Jan. 26 and 27 at the Pavillon Sportif de l’UQÀC.

Martlets Basketball (5–5) 

Coming off back-to-back wins against their rivals, the Concordia Stingers (4–6), the Martlets headed into Jan. 18’s game against the Bishop’s Gaiters (6–5) on a high note. Thursday’s game also represented the Martlets’ “Shoot for the Cure” game in which the players donned all-pink uniforms to raise awareness and funds for breast cancer research––so far the team has raised $836.60. Opening with a dominating first quarter, the Gaiters asserted themselves over the Martlets, scoring 27 points to McGill’s measly eight. However, despite the 19 basket point differential, the Martlets rallied, outshooting the Gaiters 24-15 in the second quarter. Entering the game’s second half with the score 42-32, Bishop’s regained their advantage, putting up 23 points to widen the gap between the two teams. Separated by 16 points heading into the final frame, the Gaiters’ early dominance proved to be too much for the Martlets who ended the game 81-59. 

Heading to Sherbrooke to play the Gaiters on their home turf on Saturday, the Martlets hoped to bounce back from the first games’ loss. However, despite Seyna Diggs, Emma-Jane Scotten, and Stephy Tchoukuiegno combining to score 43 of McGill’s 67 points, the Martlets fell to the Gaiters yet again. McGill failed to claim the lead at any point during the two game series, and Saturday’s 80-67 loss allowed Bishop’s to push the Martlets into third place, with the Gaiters claiming second place in the RSEQ standings.  

The Martlets’ will play next against the UQÀM Citadins (0–8) on Jan. 25 at the Centre Sportif de l’UQÀM.

Redbirds Basketball (1–9) 

Settled in last place of the RSEQ standings, the Redbirds have had a rough 2023-24 season with only one win across the opening 10 games. With many of their losses having very tight margins, the back-to-back games against the Bishop’s Gaiters (6–5) were more of the same for the Redbirds. Playing at home on Jan. 18, the Redbirds kept it close, down just one point coming out of the first quarter. With momentum flowing their way, they outscored the Gaiters 14-12 and 18-15 in the second and third quarters respectively. Leading 43-39 as the matchup entered its final frame, the lead slipped away from McGill with Bishop’s outscoring them 17-13 to tie the game and force overtime. Despite their best efforts, the Gaiters bested the Redbirds in overtime leading to a 62-59 loss. 

Unfortunately for McGill fans, Saturday’s matchup was no better than Thursday’s as the Redbirds fell to Bishop’s 75-60. Despite another strong first quarter where McGill remained in lockstep with Bishop’s, keeping an even score at 11-points apiece, things began to falter in the second with the Gaiters taking a 32-26 lead. The loss makes for a four-game losing streak for the Redbirds as they head into this week’s matchup against the second place UQÀM Citadins (7–1).

The Redbirds will next play the UQÀM Citadins on Jan. 25 at the Centre Sportif de l’UQÀM.

Redbirds Hockey (16–5–2) 

Coming off a loss against the Toronto Metropolitan University Bold that put an end to their three-game win streak, the Redbirds resurged, securing two home wins. The back-to-back victories earned the Redbirds 11 straight home wins and allowed them to snatch first place in the Ontario University Athletics (OUA) Eastern standings. 

On Jan. 19, the Redbirds hosted the now-second-place University of Ottawa Gee-Gees. After facing an overtime shoot-out loss against the Gee-Gees on Dec. 5, the Redbirds were able to snag a 4-3 overtime victory. Despite the Redbirds going down early 2-1, Zachary Gallant tied the game up just under five minutes into the second period. With the game 2-2, the Gee-Gees reclaimed their lead and with just under four minutes left in the second period, Alexandre Gagnon tied it right back up. After a scoreless third that pushed the game into overtime, Scott Walford scored the finisher––his second overtime winner in four games. Walford and Gagnon were crowned first and second stars of the game. 

The momentum from this win carried over to the Redbird’s overpowering 7-1 win against the Nipissing Lakers on Jan. 20. Despite the Lakers opening the score, McGill dominated the face-off, scoring seven unanswered goals. William Rouleau and Eric Uba both recorded two goals, while Gallant earned a four-point game, including three assists and a goal. This performance granted Gallant the first star of the game, while Uba and Frattaroli received second and third stars, respectively. 

Redbirds hockey will be facing the York University Lions (3–19–1) on Jan. 26 at Canlan Ice Sports Arena.

Martlets Hockey (4–13–1)

Facing off against the Bishop’s Gaiters after an overtime shoot-out loss in their last matchup, the Martlets fell 4-1. After trailing 1-0 in the first period and the beginning of the second period, defender Mia Giles capitalized on a power-play opportunity to score the lone goal for McGill. The Gaiters reciprocated when, a few minutes later, they buried their third goal of the night. Bishop’s finished the evening by widening their lead to 4-1 with no response from McGill. The frustrating lack of completed opportunities pushed the Martlets to get more physical, leading the game with seven minor penalties and fourteen total penalty minutes. 

The Martlets hit the rink on Saturday, Jan. 20, with hopes of putting an end to their nine-game loss streak on home ice. The evening started with the Université de Montréal Carabins blowing  two goals past Martlet goaltender Sarah Carmichael. After being led 2-0 for the first period, the Martlets saw the gap widen by the end of the second period, with UdeM scoring their final goal of the night. The third period saw forward Syrine Kacem scoring the first goal for McGill in hopes of bridging this gap. Elizabeth Mura continued this momentum, burying the last goal of the game. Despite their effort to come back in the last period and leading in shots-on-goal, the Martlets still fell 3-2 against the Carabins. 

The Martlets are playing the University of Ottawa’s Gee-Gees on Jan. 25th at the Minto Sports Complex Arena.

Arts & Entertainment, Music, Pop Rhetoric

Shake it off, assumptions and all

by Jordana Curnoe on

More in Arts & Entertainment:

How much does Taylor Swift owe her fans? An opinion piece published in The New York Times on Jan. 4 theorized about Taylor Swift’s sexuality, evoking backlash from Swifties and non-Swifties alike. To put it frankly: Swift owes her fans nothing, and people shouldn’t speculate about others’ sexuality—celebrity or not.

The article, entitled “Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do,” by Anna Marks, suggests that Swift has been secretly sending signs that she is queer in the form of “Easter eggs,” a strategy she has used to hint at upcoming rereleasing old albums in her music. Marks believes that Swift’s hints to her fans are not being taken seriously due to a “lack of progressivity” in the mainstream media. She also writes that someone’s coming out to straight people doesn’t necessarily grant them acceptance, and therefore, Swift’s hints of queerness do not have to be obvious statements meant for everyone. Marks argues that Swift has already come out as queer to those who are accepting of her.

Fans often find commonalities with their favourite celebrity, especially when the artist is brutally honest about their emotions. In doing so, these fans may wrongly project their own qualities onto the artist. This may be Marks’s error, covered up as an opinion piece. Marks’s article provides “evidence” about Swift’s “hidden queerness” from a bracelet Swift wore in an Instagram post with the word “proud” to Swift’s use of the pronoun “you” instead of the better fitting rhyme “her” in the lyrics to her song “The Very First Night,” suggesting this choice is intentional and meant to leave the listener “unfulfilled.” It is highly problematic that The New York Times would have no issue allowing someone to spread their beliefs about the sexuality of a person they have never met. In 2022, Marks wrote a similar piece speculating about the singer Harry Styles’s sexuality. 

In the opening paragraph of Marks’s article, she brings up how gay country singer Chely Wright nearly ended her life in 2006 as an example of the way acceptance has changed in the last decade. Wright, Marks explains, would have lost her career had the world known her identity. But now queer themes are much more prevalent and accepted in pop culture. In response to her name being included, Wright wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that the article was triggering for her and that it was troubling that Swift’s sexuality was being discussed. Although Swift is a public figure, that does not give Marks the right to spread theories surrounding the singer’s private life so carelessly. 

Swift has been unfairly sexualized by the media since the start of her career. In a prologue to her album 1989’s release, she wrote that she would deliberately hang out with women friends to avoid being sexualized. Unfortunately, people continued to do so, and many began to accuse her of queerbaiting. These allegations are harmful in and of themselves because real people cannot queerbait; the term only refers to media characters of whom showrunners present as queer but never confirm their sexuality.

Swift has not pretended to be queer, and she’s made that clear on multiple occasions. In a 2019 interview with Vogue, she was asked why she has gotten louder in her support for LGBTQ+ rights, such as when she released the song “You Need to Calm Down,” an anti-hate message to homophobes and transphobes. Swift replied that she didn’t realize she could advocate for a community that she didn’t belong to. 

Marks’s article poses the interesting question, ‘Do celebrities owe personal information to their fans, especially to those who see them as somewhat of a hero?’ Ultimately, the answer is no. Whether Swift is queer or not is her own business. She can still be a hero to many queer and straight people by offering support through her music, words of acceptance, and the safe space that she’s created for Swifties. Despite her fame, Swift deserves respect and freedom from intrusive speculation by the media.

Off the Board, Opinion

Life expectancy inequality is a moral outrage

by Theodore Yohalem Shouse on

More in Off the Board:

I was born in Montgomery County, Maryland, in 2004. The life expectancy of babies born at that place and time is 79 years. Three kilometres away, in Washington, D.C., it’s 74 years. I’ve spent most of my life in Seattle (in a county with a life expectancy of 83 years), where there’s comparatively ample access to education, health care, nutritious food, and economic opportunity. I’ve been lucky to benefit from these determinants of good health and a long life. But this is not the case for many Americans and Canadians. And it’s not the case for most of the world.

It is a grave injustice that the lottery of birth deprives some humans of time on Earth. Race and class have a significant role in determining life expectancy. Canadian men in the top income-earning quintile can expect to live eight years longer than men in the bottom. Majority-white Ontario has a life expectancy that’s 10 years longer than that of the majority-Inuit Nunavut. When we consider the entire globe, the disparity is even starker: Life expectancy in North America is 19 years longer than in Africa.

Life expectancy indicates a society’s ability and willingness to provide healthcare, education, security, and other important public services to its people. Most countries lack the resources necessary to provide these services, often due to unlucky geographic conditions or because of the lasting effects of colonialism. Wealthy, social democracies such as Sweden have both the ability and willingness to provide these resources (to Swedes, at least). However, the U.S.—and to a lesser extent Canada—have the ability to provide these determinants of health but comparatively lack the political will. 

In the U.S., personal freedom and responsibility are integral to the rags-to-riches national myth and social problems like poverty are therefore framed as individual failures on the part of irresponsible people. This flies in the face of sociological research that shows the systemic nature of these issues. A growing chorus among philosophers and scientists also contradicts this individualist stance by positing that our actions (like all other phenomena in the universe) are physically determined, the outcome of neurological processes determined by our environment, genetics, and education.

I began to grapple with these topics while taking Jewish Philosophy and Thought at McGill. Philosophy relentlessly dissects our assumptions and forces us to justify our beliefs. Since becoming a philosophy nerd, I’ve become convinced that free will is an illusion, abandoning what little belief I had in the you-get-what-you-deserve American economic mentality. I’ve also adopted a moral outlook that primarily values the outcomes of our actions, like their effect on length and quality of others’ lives. I no longer feel that I can live a moral life by avoiding supposedly immoral things like lying and cheating, and I no longer base what I study, what I consume, and my aspirations on loose notions of what seems respectable or what my peers are doing. Through this perspective, I believe extending life expectancy is absolutely critical.

Social science research and basic human empathy command us to address life expectancy inequality. We must view issues such as education and healthcare in terms of years of life lost or gained. This means that supporting increased social spending—even at your own expense—is not merely a political preference; it’s a moral obligation. Simple choices, like voting for a politician who will invest in early childhood education instead of one who will cut taxes, affect the length of people’s lives. For Americans, it’s a national shame that health care is not guaranteed for all, while countries such as Costa Rica provide universal healthcare—at a lower per-capita price. We must consider international aid in the light of social benefit rather than through the lens of geopolitical strategy. A quick look at American aid highlights how the U.S. prioritizes maintaining global influence over humanitarian concerns. 

Life expectancy inequality is a moral crisis, and we have the resources to solve it. By investing more in education and healthcare both at home and abroad, we can lengthen and improve people’s lives. I encourage readers to discover the life expectancy of their own geographic cohort, and to view the length of human lives as a paramount political and moral issue.

1 … 157 158 159 160 161 … 1,363

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue