Sam Reynolds / McGill Tribune

The position of President of the Student Society of McGill University (SSMU) was decided by just 23 votes in the winter referendum, announced on March 14 in Gerts. With 40.9 per cent of the vote, Engineering Undergraduate Society President Josh Redel defeated Shyam Patel, current SSMU VP Finance and Operations, who received 40.5 per cent of the vote. 

 “I feel very happy. It was an extremely close race and I think that speaks [volumes],” Redel said. “I have a lot of work to do but I’m really excited that I had a big support group out and a really awesome campaign team, and obviously it made the difference.”

 Voter turnout was 29.1 per cent, eight per cent higher than last year. 

 “I’m glad we had a good turnout, it’s better than last year … and better than even two years ago which was the last time it was more contentious,” current SSMU President Maggie Knight said. “It’s good that we had so many candidates [and] no uncontested positions.”

 “I thought it would be close, I didn’t think it would be that close,” she commented on the race between Redel and Patel. 

 The position of VP Internal had the most candidates, with seven in the competition. Michael Spzejda won the position with 18 per cent of the vote. Christina Sfeir came in a close second, with 15 per cent of the vote.  

 Robin Reid-Fraser was elected VP External with 37.8 per cent of the vote and Haley Dinel won the position of VP University Affairs with 33.8 per cent of the vote. JP Briggs won VP Finance and Operations with 37 per cent of the vote, and with 46.5 per cent of the vote, VP Clubs and Services went to Allison Cooper. 

 Winning candidates seemed overjoyed and the crowd cheered with each winner. Cooper appeared overwhelmed by the results. When asked how she felt, she only said, “That’s a good question.”

 In addition to the SSMU executive elections, the results of the seven referenda questions were announced. All of the referenda questions passed with ‘Yes’ votes except for CKUT’s question, which asked whether its student fee should become non-optoutable. The question failed, with 42.9 per cent of voters answering ‘No.’

“I’m feeling pretty rotten about it because throughout this campaign-[to] which we gave everything-there was not a single articulated voice of opposition,” Niko Block, chair of the ‘Yes’ committee and undergraduate representative to the Board of Directors of CKUT, said of the result. 

 “It means that we’re going to have to continue struggling with deficits, we’re going to have to struggle continuing to pay our employees a fair living wage at CKUT, [and] we’re going to struggle to meet our basic expenses for the next little while,” he said. 

 The option to run a referendum question in the next fall semester is a possibility, however CKUT has yet to discuss what its next step will be.

-Additional reporting by Carolina Millán Ronchetti

Yesterday, members of the Social Work Student Association (SWSA) picketed outside of Wilson Hall, the building that houses the School of Social Work. 

Members of the SWSA voted in favour of an unlimited general strike at a General Assembly (GA) held on March 14. With 47 in favour, 29 against, and one abstention, the final vote represented a 61 per cent majority, and made the SWSA the first McGill faculty association to join the Quebec-wide unlimited student strike. 

About a dozen social work students and other students in solidarity set up the picket lines at 7:30 a.m. yesterday morning and remained there until 2:30 p.m., holding signs and encouraging students not to go to class. 

“We chose a soft picket line in the GA because we’re not too comfortable with confrontation and we didn’t want to create conflict,” Ariane Duplessis, executive co-ordinator of SWSA, said.

Most professors held class despite the lowered attendance, added Jade Mathieu, SWSA internal coordinator. During the day, some students crossed the picket lines. 

“We’ve been encouraging them not to, and we’ve been explaining why they shouldn’t,” she said. “At the end of the day, it’s really too bad that they’re not respecting the deciision made by the student body in a GA that they were invited to.”

A smaller number of students are expected to picket today,  as many social work students have fieldwork on Tuesdays. However, Duplessis expects pickets to be active after Wednesday. 

On Monday, March 26, the GA will reconvene to vote on whether to renew the unlimited strike.

“The strike motion [passed on March 14] included a provision to have future revisions pass by a simple majority vote of 50 per cent plus 1,” Radney Jean-Claude and Echo Parent-Racine, VP externals for SWSA, wrote in a press release.

Both VP externals cited a commitment to social equity, justice, and advocacy as factors that compelled their faculty to join the unlimited strike, although they recognized that there are certain risks in pursuing an unlimited strike, as enumerated in recent emails sent by the administration.

“I am in opposition of the tuition hikes and I fully support an unlimited strike,” first year social work student Leah Freeman said. “As future social workers, we try to abide by the Code of Ethics stipulated by the Canadian Association of Social Workers.”

“From this perspective, as social workers we feel that tuition hikes are in opposition to social justice as they will create barriers for individuals and reduce choice especially to those who are already marginalized, disadvantaged, and vulnerable,” she added. 

This sentiment was echoed by the VP externals, who, as spokespersons for the council as a whole, suggested that the values embodied by the social work profession compelled them to pursue an unlimited strike for the purposes of attaining greater social justice and accessibility to education.

“It is appropriate that the undergraduate social work students voted in favour for an unlimited strike, in order to promote the belief that education is a right and not a privilege, while taking a firm stand against the upcoming tuition increase initiated by the Quebec government,” Jean-Claude and Parent-Racine wrote in their press release.

According to the press release, other motions and amendments of note included “exempt[ing] the strike from affecting the fieldwork placement.” Motions to have a mobilization committee and a voluntary demonstration were also passed.

At the time of publication, the faculty of social work was unavailable for comment. However, McGill stated in an email to students that it does not recognize these motions as strikes but as boycotts, and classes will continue as usual. 

“I hope that we have the resolve to continue for as long as the Liberal Government seeks to increase barriers to education and so long as the McGill administration continues to lobby against the interest of the students,” Freeman said regarding the duration of the strike.

“We have strength in numbers. If students do not show up to class, what can teachers really do?” she added.

In addition, about 25 students from the Association des étudiant(es) en langue et literature françaises inscrit(es) aux études superieures (ADELFIES)  gathered in front of the Arts Building yesterday following a March 16 vote to go on strike for five days. 

On March 23, ADELFIES will vote on whether to renew the strike.

-Additional reporting by Carolina Millán Ronchetti

tbo.com

Kony 2012, a video produced by the charity Invisible Children, went viral about two weeks ago, trending on twitter and Facebook, and hitting 80 million views on YouTube. On March 13, McGill’s Amnesty International chapter hosted a viewing of the video to provide students with a venue for discussion with Invisible Children representatives.

According to Invisible Children’s website, the 30-minute exposé aims “to end the use of child soldiers in Joseph Kony’s rebel war” and restore communities affected by Kony’s army to “peace and prosperity.”  However, the video has generated controversy over Invisible Children’s legitimacy as an organization, including their use of donations and their involvement with the Ugandan army.

According to Invisible Children employees present at the event, the Kony 2012 movement has brought international awareness to real problems that surround Kony, including the use of child soldiers, abduction, rape, and sexual slavery, and that this video could be the organization’s best chance to arrest Kony.

“There are people right now paying attention across the world,” Andrea Ramsay, an Invisible Children employee, said. “This morning there was a resolution put into [American] Congress to increase assistance to the regional forces … They specifically cited the international response to Kony 2012 for putting the resolution through.”

Representatives also addressed recently voiced concerns over Invisible Children’s relationship with the Ugandan military, which has been known to commit similar crimes  against its own people, including rapes and abuse.

“Invisible Children does not fund the Ugandan army,” Alupo Connie, who grew up under Kony’s regime and was put through university by Invisible Children, said. “It tries to put programs on [the] ground that will help empower the people who have been affected.”

Ramsay added that the international awareness raised by the video will help the situation.

“Now that there are so many eyes on this conflict, [the] likeliness of continued human rights abuses by the Ugandan government has plummeted,” Ramsay said. “Like any other military in the entire world, there are going to be injustices on the individual level [but] we are advocating for a larger conflict.”

Another criticism of the Kony movement concerns a photo of the three Invisible Children founders posing with the Ugandan army while holding guns, which Ramsay called “a dumb photo by kids who were 25.”

Connie also explained the organization’s redevelopment programs, which include the LRA crisis tracker (a radio network on the frontline of the war), the Legacy Scholarship Program, and building new schools and jobs for communities affected by the conflict.

The Kony movement has also been criticized because the events described in the video happened six years ago. Many Ugandans have spoken out, saying that the video doesn’t reflect the huge progress Uganda has made since those years. 

U3 political science student Hugo Martorell, who has followed African politics for the last decade, agreed that Kony isn’t the real problem anymore.

“Kony is the tip of the iceberg … the big picture is regional dynamics that have made the population suffer,” he said. “I understand that you’re trying to empower a depoliticized youth by making [the issue] accessible, but people have to understand that it’s so much more complicated than just putting Kony at the top.”

Although those who oppose the Kony 2012 movement have been criticized for not coming up with plausible solutions to the problems they identify, Martorell suggested his ideal plan of action.

“You need at least … African Union and UN backing for any kind of reparation,” he said. “Then you have to target the causes behind [the]  mushrooming militia in the region … lack of transparency with natural resources and the arms trade.”

McGill community member William Manzi argued that the video is strategically timed, and that it doesn’t tell the entire story.

“How do you know this isn’t propaganda by [current Ugandan President] Museveni?” he said. “It’s a good video, but it’s one-sided.”

Although there was no consensus reached by the end of the discussion, attendees left with a more thorough understanding of the issues surrounding Kony 2012.

“It’s about international justice,” Luca Madden, U2 political science, said. “What [Kony]’s doing happens a lot … I don’t see a problem in attacking the tip of the iceberg if it’s going to set a precedent for the rest of the iceberg.”

Last Wednesday, March 14, McGill’s Aboriginal Law Students’ Association screened Qimmit: A Clash of Two Truths as part of Inuit Awareness Week, an initiative of the Aboriginal Sustainability Project. The screening was followed by a question and answer period with Ole Gjerstad, co-director of the film, and Imaapik “Jacob” Partridge, an Inuit Elder who has worked with the Makivik Corporation, an organization dedicated to promoting Inuit culture.

The film was about an alleged policy enacted by the Federal government which entailed the systematic killing of Inuit sled dogs-then essential to the Inuit way of life-as a means to push Inuit communities out of their land and force them into Canadian society. The policy, allegedly carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from the 1950s to the 1970s, has not been addressed by the Canadian government thus far. In 2006, the Inuit community started their own investigation into the events.

“In 2006, the [Qikiqtani] truth commission was set up in Nunavut, and soon after, the Makivik Corporation negotiated with the Quebec government to inquire into the matter,” Gjerstad said.

The film covers both Inuit and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) perspectives on whether or not such a policy ever existed. It features many testimonies of Inuit who witnessed officers ordering or actively taking part in the killing of Inuit sled dogs, as well as the opinions of several RCMP officers from different areas, all of whom denied ever hearing of such events.

“We began making the film in 2007,” Gjerstad said. “We kept at it in Nunavut and in Nunavik for about three years. … We had about 300 testimonies in Nunavut and close to the same amount in Nunavik.”

At the time of the killings, the dogs were essential to the Inuit way of life, as dog sledding was the principal means by which animals were chased and hunted for food. Between the 1950s and the 1970s, however, the population of dogs decreased dramatically. Many Inuit claim to have personally witnessed the killing of dogs by government officers.

“Those that were more political than myself realized that it was the government’s idea to bring all the Inuit into one community,” Partridge recounted.

The film screening was part of a week-long series of events coordinated by the Aboriginal Sustainability Project in order to raise awareness of Inuit society and culture.

“This week’s focus is basically the realities, the good and the bad, of Inuit people in the North, in a world where everything is changing quickly,” Allan Vicaire, co-ordinator of the Aboriginal Sustainability Project, said. “The [intention] is to create an awareness of Inuit culture. One of the challenges that Inuit and even Métis face is that their voices are often not heard.”

Each night of the week, a different event was held, aiming to educate attendees about Inuit culture from different angles. This event, focusing on the issue of Inuit dog slaughter, showed a glimpse of Inuit society as it relates to Canadian government and policy. Other events touched on other aspects of Inuit culture, and  included a discussion on challenges in Inuit health and a speaker who spoke on studying in Montreal as an Inuit student.

“With all these changes going on in the world, we [can get] all these Inuit perspectives and learn about how they came to adapt in terms of education, health, and social services,” Vicaire said. “The whole week catches on a lot of those topics, and even more. At the end of the week, we have the celebration of culture. It’s about bringing those issues to the forefront.”

On March 13, the McGill Board of Governors (BoG) convened for its fifth meeting of the academic year to discuss topics of interest to the community, including McGillLeaks, the possibility of a student strike, and the internal investigation launched on asbestos research.

Chair of the Board Stuart Cobbett began the open session of the meeting by congratulating the senior administration on “an exceptional job dealing with a number of different situations” this past year.

In her address to the board, Principal Heather Munroe-Blum described McGillLeaks as “a very serious breach of confidentiality.” Several weeks ago, a group called McGillLeaks published confidential documents from the Office of Development and Alumni Relations to the web. The university has organized a police investigation on the matter, and the website has since been taken down.

“We have taken immediate and aggressive measures to get to the bottom of [the issue],” Munroe-Blum said. “We have received many supportive calls from alumni friends and donors, expressing appreciation for [being informed of the situation] and reaffirming their confidence in the university.”

Dean of Medicine David Eidelman reported on the status of an  internal investigation looking into the effects of the Quebec asbestos industry on McGill research into the health effects of asbestos. The investigation was launched on Feb. 9 following a controversy that included a CBC documentary suggesting that the asbestos industry affected research conducted by Professor J. Corbett McDonald, and a concerned letter to sent to McGill University by anti-asbestos activists and doctors asking for an independent investigation.

Eidelman noted that the internal investigation was organized within 12 hours of the CBC documentary’s release. He added that Professor Rebecca Fuhrer, who is conducting the investigation, was expected to finish the inquiry by the end of last week.

“Once we have [her results], we will make a decision on [whether to call the] Research Integrity Officer,” Eidelman added. The Research Integrity Officer would then conduct further investigations on the matter.

Eidelman further noted that at the time that McDonald’s research started, the Canadian government was not funding asbestos research and investigations could only be funded through the industry.

Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson then gave his annual report on student life and learning. Mendelson’s term will end in 2013, and according to Provost Anthony Masi, the university is in the process of reviewing and redefining the portfolio. The process has included meetings with every organization that reports to the Deputy Provost and with individual student association executives.

“We’re reviewing the position [to] help in the search for the next Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning),” Masi said.

“We broke new ground at McGill by creating this portfolio,” Masi added.

The Quebec student movement was also addressed during the meeting. Munroe-Blum noted that the majority of McGill students had not yet voted on whether to stop attending classes as a form of protest to the province’s expected tuition fee increases. The BoG meeting occurred at the same time that the General Assembly held by the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) discussed whether or not to strike.

“The expectation is people will fulfill their responsibilities and obligations,” Munroe-Blum said. “With respect to preparedness to these demonstrations … we count on everybody to engage in peaceful and safe activities.”

“Our provisional protocol will be in place and remain in place during this period,” she added.

At the end of the meeting, Cobbett told the Tribune that the university is concerned with the actions taken by the Quebec student movement in the past few weeks.

“Any time there’s a disruption at the student level, it’s cause for concern,” Cobbett said.

Last Thursday’s Students’ Society of McGill University’s (SSMU) legislative council opened with a discussion of the SSMU executives’ open letter to the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS), which addressed the poor organization and communication before and during the AUS General Assembly (GA) last Tuesday.

The letter, published online in the McGill Daily and the Tribune, expressed the executive’s frustration with the AUS’ “poor planning” and their disrespect towards such groups as Student Television at McGill (TVM), who were asked last minute to provide technical support, and the Muslim Students’ Association, who were asked to leave their club space in an attempt to accommodate more students in the building.

The letter was signed by VP Internal Todd Plummer and VP Clubs & Services Carol Fraser.

“We don’t want this to become a press war in any way,” Fraser said. “This letter was not meant to be a personal attack against any members of the AUS exec.”

Not all members of council agreed with the language used in the letter. Arts representative Isabelle Bi said some of the letter was derogatory, including the statement that council was “disgusted by [the AUS’] sense of entitlement.” Fraser responded by explaining that kicking a student club out of their space had “crossed a line.” TVM president Ellie Marshal was present during the discussion and expressed her disappointment in the way the AUS handled the situation on Tuesday.

“We had to provide use of our personal equipment without notice,” Marshal said. “We were subject to verbal reprimand of our service and in [Leacock] 132 at one point I was pushed. Our student services were mistreated for the AUS’ benefit.”

Moreover, because the seven members of TVM were running tech support, they were unable to exercise their voting rights as members of AUS.

AUS president Jade Calver was also present in the gallery and formally apologized to SSMU and TVM on the behalf of the AUS.

Council passed a motion to commit the discussion of the letter to the executive committee, with the goal of drafting a response by Sunday. In response to the challenges faced by the AUS GA, Council also discussed possible alternate venues for the upcoming Special General Assembly of SSMU on March 28, in case more students attend than anticipated.

In other business, during question period at the beginning of the meeting, Daniel Wolfe, U3 political science and Middle East studies, brought forward a petition signed by approximately 1,000 students to renew Chinese restaurant Tiki-Ming’s lease in the SSMU building. SSMU President Maggie Knight said that SSMU Council had decided not to renew the contract but was not at liberty to discuss it openly.

“There was a substantial lawsuit against SSMU in the past regarding tenant negotiations … it’s not a light issue in terms of being able to talk about it … I can’t really say anything else other than that there is no intention to reconsider the decision at this point,” Knight said.

Council also passed a motion to hold an exceptional referendum period this semester to facilitate a referendum for QPIRG to renew their Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), an agreement that deals with the organization’s fee collection and lease. QPIRG ran a referendum that addressed this issue in the fall, but the administration invalidated the results earlier this semester for addressing two issues in one question.

QPIRG was in negotiations with the administration over the decision, but were notified that McGill would not extend the MoA until September in order to allow the group to run a fall referendum. Because this notification occurred only after the Winter Referendum had closed, QPIRG’s only option to renew the MoA was to request an exceptional referendum period.

A motion to ask a referendum question that would make resolutions passed at the SSMU GA subject to a mandatory online ratification process, as well as increasing quorum to 15 per cent of the society’s membership, was also passed by Council.

Campaigning for this referendum period will start April 3, and polling will run April 10-16.

The Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) will host an exceptional referendum period from  April 10 to April 16, featuring a question regarding QPIRG’s existence and a question that would require motions passed at General Assemblies (GAs) to be ratified online via referendum.  

QPIRG’s Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), a document that determines the relationship between QPIRG and the administration, will expire May 31, 2012. For QPIRG to be able to renew it, students must vote in favour of QPIRG’s existence in a referendum. 

Earlier this semester,  the administration invalidated a referendum question posed by QPIRG  in the fall, noting that the question did not follow the SSMU constitution because it asked students to support two separate issues in a single question­-the existence of the organization and their student fees becoming non-optoutable online. 

Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson wrote in an email to the Tribune that  QPIRG developed their special referendum question in accordance with the suggestions of the administration. Rather than dealing with two issues, the new question will only ask students to support the existence of the organization. QPIRG’s student fee will remain opt-outable online.

“The question being asked [by QPIRG] is based on a suggestion by the administration for a clear question on continuance, but there was some back-and-forth between the administration and QPIRG regarding the preamble,” he wrote.

Although the winter referendum period ended last week, the SSMU Constitution provides the provision for an exceptional referendum period when a motion for such a period is passed by a 2/3 majority in Council. Like regular referenda, quorum for this exceptional referenda will be 15 per cent of the student body. 

Following the invalidation of the fall referendum, QPIRG was in negotiations with the McGill administration throughout the beginning of the winter semester. The motion for a special referendum period was moved by four SSMU councilors, citing QPIRG’s situation as the main reason for this exceptional period.

“McGill notified QPIRG on the 8th of March, 2012, that they would not extend the current [MoA] until the Fall 2012 semester in order for QPIRG to reasonably obtain another referendum vote,” the motion reads. “This notification came after the Winter 2012 referendum period had already closed.”

According to the motion, the administration suggested that an exceptional referendum period would be QPIRG’s “only option.”

Mendelson wrote that  it is necessary for QPIRG to go to referendum “to confirm McGill students’ support for the continuance of QPIRG.”

Kira Page, member of QPIRG’s Board of Directors, said the decision to request a special referendum period was difficult for members of the organization to make.

“We were weighing the options of continuing to push the administration [in negotiations], with the potential of losing our funding at the end of May,” Page said. “[But] we decided that it was really important to us to continue to support the projects that we had going right now and all the student activities that QPIRG funds. If we went for the special referendum period we’d be able to continue that for at least a few more years.”

CKUT ran a question in the winter referendum to become non-optoutable, but it did not pass. CKUT will not be running a referendum question during the exceptional period, according to Myriam Zaidi, undergraduate representative to the CKUT board.  She noted that the board of CKUT has not met since the end of the winter referendum period.

After running a question similar to QPIRG’s in the fall referendum period and similarly having their results invalidated by the administration, CKUT successfully negotiated for the administration to recognize their existence. 

“We’re negotiating our MoA right now and that’s going well, so we didn’t think of running another question during the special referendum period,” Zaidi said. “If we run another question, it will be during the regular referendum period.”

In addition to QPIRG’s referendum question, the exceptional period will also include a question that would require resolutions passed at SSMU GAs to be ratified online. The referendum question would set quorum for GA ratifications to 15 per cent of the student body.

“[Currently] as little as 100 students can vote on a resolution that would affect more than 25,000 students,” the text of the motion reads. “an online voting system would allow students to participate in the democratic process, which would produce a decision more representative of the Society.”

SSMU President Maggie Knight said that she is not aware of  SSMU having held an exceptional referendum period in previous years.

“It may be a tough time of year to ensure a good turnout, but with tw
o important questions on the ballot we’ll do our best,” she said. “Additionally, both questions have the potential to be controversial, so I hope everyone will conduct themselves with integrity during the campaign period.”

Page is unsure of QPIRG’s plan of action should students not support QPIRG’s existence in the special referendum.

“I’m not really sure [what we’d do],” she said. “There are a bunch of different options and I guess we’ll get there when we get there.”

-Additional reporting by Carolina Millán Ronchetti