Vol 44 No 15

QUID NOVI

NCDH 305 - 3644 Peel Montréal, Québec H2A 1X1

McGill University Faculty of Law Faculté de droit de l’Université McGill

44 15

Vol 44 No 15 21 March 2023

quid.law@mcgill.ca @quidnovi.mcgill

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF RÉDACTRICE EN CHEF Anna McAllister ART DIRECTOR DIRECTRICE ARTISTIQUE Souang Wu LAYOUT EDITOR ÉDITRICE DE MISE EN PAGE Camille Duhaime COPY EDITORS SECRÉTAIRES DE RÉDACTION Marie-Ève Ouellet Thomas Power COLUMNISTS CHRONIQUEURES ET CHRONIQUEUSES Alanna Molzahn Kamil Chaoui Meagan Beattie CONTRIBUTORS CONTRIBUEURS Eva Wu Justine Blanchette-Sirois Victoria Flaherty Special thanks to Prairie Koo for designing the layout. ~ The Quid Novi is published weekly by the students of the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Production is made possible through the direct support of students. All contents copyright © 2023 Quid Novi.

Les opinions exprimées sont propres aux auteurs et ne réflètent pas nécessairement celles de l’équipe du Quid Novi. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of the McGill Law Students’ Association or of McGill University. Envoyez vos commentaires ou articles avant jeudi 17h00 à quid.law@mcgill.ca. Toute contribution doit indiquer le nom de l’auteur, son année d’étude ainsi qu’un titre et un sous -titre pour l’article. Les images doivent être soumises séparément. L’article ne sera publié qu’à la discrétion du comité de rédaction, qui basera sa décision sur la politique de rédaction disponible sur notre Facebook @quidnovi.mcgill.

1

1

QUID NOVI

CETTE SEMAINE...

INSIGHTS

COMMUNAUTÉ

2 | LETTER FROM THE EDITOR 9 | BLAST FROM THE PAST 2 | SKIT NITE:AN UNFORGETTABLE EVENING

3 | A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

4 | 2 B, OR NOT 2 B

The Pluses and Minuses of the Grading Scheme at McGill Law - Part II.

8 | A FOX AND SOME EGGS

A day spent at the Queen’s Conference on Indigenous Reconciliation

10 | ALUMNI FEATURE

44 15

Vol 44 No 15 21 March 2023

EVENTS 3 | YOU’RE INVITED TO INNOCENCE MCGILL’S ANNUAL CONFERENCE

7 | “RECKONING WITH RACISM:

POLICE JUDGES, AND THE RDS CASE” The McGill Law Journal Annual Lecture

13 | DÉCONFINER LE DROIT PRIVÉ EN LE DRAMATISANT : L’ARTISANAT JURIDIQUE MIS EN SCÈNE ET SOUS LES PROJECTEURS DE KENNETH BURKE Patrick Garon-Sayegh

11 | A MODERN MORAL PANIC

1

Vol 44 ● No 15

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR Anna McAllister | 3L

Hello Quid Readers, I trust that you all had an incredibly enjoyable Skit Nite, and have recovered from the numerous drinks that were undoubtedly consumed. While I know that one of our columnists, Kamil Chaoui, will be covering the event in detail, I wanted to offer some brief reflections. When Zack and I were approached to do a skit, we were unsure how to approach the event. What kind of jokes are appropriate for this sort of evening? How do we ensure that we capture all of the fun the Quid has to offer in a brief skit? How do we avoid getting irreparably canceled and perpetually unemployed? Luckily, we had our wonderful team contribute graphics, jokes, and suggestions that made the act come together beautifully. We could not thank you enough for helping us make sure that we did not completely flop!

am not sure what Skit Nite was like in years previous, this tradition has been successfully reinvigorated for years to come. I would also like to thank our amazing Faculty for being such wonderful sports. Having the opportunity to connect in an informal setting and poke fun at all of the idiosyncrasies of our law school filled me with the greatest sense of pride and community I have felt since arriving at McGill. All this, and we broke the Faculty record for the most money raised for Chez Doris. Everyone should be very proud. Thank you, thank you, thank you, McGill Law - I can’t wait to see you next Skit Nite.

When talking with Justine Blanchette-Sirois and Matthew Boulden, the primary Skit Nite organizers during the rehearsals leading up to the show, the uncertainty of how to revive a once iconic event seemed to be a universal sentiment. Let me assure them, and the rest of the amazing hosts and acts, that while I

“SKIT NITE: AN UNFORGETTABLE EVENING”

QUID NOVI • 21 MAR 2023

Kamil Chaoui | 1L

The announcement of Skit Nite took me by surprise, as I had never expected such a grand gesture from the Skit Nite team in providing us with an enjoyable Wednesday evening. Despite my high expectations, the demonstration of talent, dedication, and passion from both my colleagues and professors exceeded anything I could have imagined. In conversations with my friends, I discovered everyone had their favorite moments from the event. Personally, I won’t forget Prof. Janda’s energetic rendition of “Les Cowboys fringants,”

2

Marielle’s remarkable portrayal of an Association du Barreau secretary, the Quid’s insightful report, Dexter’s interpretation of the Civil Code, the heartwarming story of the coffeepot, and the closing freestyle performance that had everyone on their feet. Not only was the 3-hour show perfectly organized, but it also generated $10,000 in donations for Chez Doris, an organization committed to assisting vulnerable women. Skit Nite was the ideal way to enjoy a good laugh before the exam season and to see each other in a different light,

outside of the academic environment. Key takeaways from the night include: that Dean Leckey has an incredible singing voice, that all the girls in the faculty have a crush on Prof. Adamski, that Prof. Farahat was a talented pianist, and that Justine had a secret plan to take over the LSA. Above all, the inside jokes and references that only we could understand demonstrated that we are more than just a faculty of students waiting for degrees, and professors waiting for paychecks. We are a community, and Skit Nite was a testament to that.

A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT Justine Blanchette-Sirois, Incoming LSA President 2023-2024 | 3L

Hello dear readers of the Quid, Bonjour cher.e.s lecteur.rice.s du Quid, J’ai été invitée à rédiger quelques mots suivant l’annonce de mon élection, et j’aimerais commencer en félicitant mon bon ami, Luther, que l’AÉD a été chanceuse d’avoir comme VP Clubs cette année. Tes contributions immenses et ton dévouement pour la communauté étudiante ne sauront être surpassés, Luther. I took a few minutes recently to think about how far we’ve come. The thought of this year’s triumphant return of in-person events would seem impossible to 1L Justine; even more so to think that I would be a part of such a comeback. I remember, in September 2020, logging onto zoom for my first day of law school from the basement of my parents’ home in Trois-Rivières. We were addressed by Beatrice Mackie, at the time LSA President. I remember thinking : « Wow, she’s sooo cool ».

During my first year, getting involved in my law school community seemed daunting, scary, and even impossible. What do I know? Who am I to apply? What do I bring to the table? As time went on, I realized: most of us were challenged by these thoughts, not just me. Though I am excited to begin my mandate, I am still, at times, preoccupied with such feelings. I do, however, think they are good; they allow us to exchange, to be vulnerable, and, most importantly, remind us not to grow comfortable. I don’t know it all, and I approach the next year fully aware of that. I do, however, know how to listen, and how to take action. I hope students will see me as such: an advocate. Par-dessus tout, j’ai très hâte d’entreprendre ce nouveau rôle et les défis reliés et attendus. J’espère pouvoir être une voix pour les étudiant.e.s de notre faculté, et continuer de faire prospérer notre communauté : elle est notre plus grande force.

YOU’RE INVITED TO INNOCENCE MCGILL’S ANNUAL CONFERENCE Victoria Flaherty | 2L on behalf of Innocence McGill

Are you interested in criminal justice and how it impacts different communities in Canada? Then you won’t want to miss the upcoming Innocence McGill Annual Conference. The theme of this year’s conference is “Justice Miscarried: When Identity Shapes Outcomes.” We hope that this conference will shed light on the systemic issues that lead to wrongful convictions and promote solutions that ensure a fair and just legal system for all Canadians. This year’s conference will be held at the McGill Faculty Club (3450 McTavish St) from 1:00-2:30pm on March 24th, 2023. The conference will feature special guests Kim Pate of the Senate of Canada, Justice Harry Laforme, and exoneree Dinesh Kumar, who will offer their insights on the issue of identity-based discrimination in the criminal justice

system. Panelists will discuss how different identities, including race, sex, gender identity, and immigrant status, can affect one’s experience in the Canadian legal system. Innocence McGill is a legal clinic run by McGill University students that investigates claims of wrongful conviction in Quebec. Founded in 2005, the organization is dedicated to helping secure the freedom of those who are factually innocent of serious crimes but continue to serve sentences in Quebec prisons. We promise that the conference will be a thought-provoking opportunity to learn more about criminal justice and how it impacts different communities in Canada. Whether you’re a law student, lawyer, or just someone interested in learning more about this important issue, be sure to sign up on Eventbrite to attend! 3

Vol 44 ● No 15

2 B, OR NOT 2 B

The Pluses and Minuses of the Grading Scheme at McGill Law. Part Two. Meagan Beattie | 3L

I have good news for all you avid Quid readers: it’s finally here—the much sought-after and highly anticipated second and final instalment of To B or Not to B. Even better, despite the fake news being spread at Skit Nite, this is not about implementing an enforced C average. This is about getting to the bottom of grades at this faculty and ultimately asking one very important question: what is even the POINT? Recap: Because it’s been about six law school years since the first part, here’s the TL;DR: • The “B-curve” of McGill Law is not actually a curve, as it does not require any symmetry of grades (symmetry would mean that for every A- awarded there must also be a C+, which is not the case).

QUID NOVI • 21 MAR 2023

• The rule is actually an enforced average, such that the average grade in any class must be either a B (3.00) or B- (2.70). This gives profs more flexibility when assigning grades. • There is an exception for classes of fewer than 25 students; in these classes the average may be as high as a B+ (3.30). • All grades must be approved by Faculty Council, and profs who wish to assign grades which push the guidelines must be prepared to explain themselves. Great; now that that’s out of the way, let’s get to the real issues. The Other Side of the Issue – A Professor’s Insight Many weeks ago, when I reached this 4

point in my research journey, I was left feeling a bit lost. As I concluded in the last instalment, I thought that the flexibility of the enforced average at least had the potential to be more forgiving on students than a bell curve, but conversations with many of you had left me with too many unanswered concerns. After all, it’s hard to feel satisfied that the system is working when there are just so many “B-curve” horror stories— stories of profs telling their classes not to worry about their performance because everyone will get a B, profs who gave nothing more than a few vague sentences of feedback on major evaluations, even profs who seemed to give exclusively As and Cs on midterm assignments. The flexibility that was meant to ensure that profs were able to give each student the grades that they deserved—the grades that would accurately show how they compared to their peers—seemed instead to be letting profs arbitrarily hand out grades in a way that left students frustrated and confused. It seemed to me, then, that the next step in my journey should be to meet with a professor to discuss their perspective on the grading guidelines. Perhaps there was some insight on the other side that would help me figure out what the ideal system would be. As soon as I began to think about meeting with a professor, I knew that I needed to reach out to Professor Shauna Van Praagh. I had the pleasure of being in SVP’s ECO-Torts class when I was a 1L, and her commitment to excellent and innovative pedagogy still stands out in my memory. In addition to having researched, written, and taught extensively about instruction and evaluation methods, Professor Van Praagh was the chair of the Examination and

Evaluation Committee from 20132020, which gives her a unique and insightful perspective on how grades work at the Faculty, and perhaps more importantly, how they ought to work. Professor Van Praagh was kind enough to agree to meet with me, and we had a lovely chat over peppermint tea in her office, discussing our imperfect system at length and, of course, seeing if we couldn’t solve all its problems. It was from Professor Van Praagh that I was reassured that the Faculty takes its approach to the grade scheme seriously, and that as recently as 2014 the Examination and Evaluation Committee resolved to “determine whether reform is needed in these respects, and to bring forward for a vote, if opportune, no later than the last open session of Faculty Council of the 2015-2016 Academic year, a different regime for assessment, grading and performance feedback that better reflects the Faculty’s aspirations and standards.”1 While ultimately the grading scheme did not receive major reform at that time, we both thought it would be worthwhile for students to see some of the alternatives considered. And, hopefully, if we can get a clear picture of both the system we have and the other options out there, we’ll not only be able to decide whether it’s time to start pushing for reform, but we’ll be better equipped to make the most of our time at McGill Law And so, without further ado, here are two other grading schemes for you to consider: See Examination and Evaluation Committee, Faculty of Law, McGill; Report Presented to Faculty Council (Faculty of Law, McGill University, 13 April 2016) at 1. 1

6-step System One of the matters that SVP and I discussed was the issues that arise from the number of grades available under the current system. There are seven passing grades under the current system (ranging from C to A), in addition to failing grades D and F. So many options creates an environment ripe for arbitrariness; under this system, the quality of a piece of work assigned a B+ is not going to be terribly different from a piece which receives a B. But as anyone who has spent time carefully monitoring their GPA knows, the difference between a 3.0 and a 3.3 on your transcript is significant. A system with fewer increments operates on the belief that there is no need to draw distinctions between work of such similar quality. Moreover, our professors are only human, and despite their best efforts they can make mistakes. Limiting the available grades is one way of diminishing this risk of human error and arbitrariness, ensuring that each grade awarded is a true reflection of the quality of work submitted. Professor Van Praagh also had an idea to make this system work even harder; by choosing new letters for each grade on the scale, students entering McGill would be spared from the mildly traumatic process of seeing their undergraduate As turn into law school Bs. The fact is, McGill’s system is already different than other universities, but by using the same letter grades it can cause some unnecessary confusion and discomfort. But wait, there’s more: we could also design the scale so that each new letter would correspond to an adjective appropriate for the performance it reflects. And, naturally, because McGill Law is a bilingual program, these adjectives would be bilingual too. Here is one of Professor Van Praagh’s suggested sets: • • • • • •

E – Exceptional/Exceptionnel(le) H – High/Haute distinction M – Meritorious/Méritoire S – Satisfactory/Satisfaisant P – Pass/Passable I – Insufficient/Insatisfaisant.

Personally, I like this system. I like that each letter actually means something and isn’t just a level in the hierarchy. I think this is a relatively simple but effective way to help students understand how well they’ve performed, as saying a piece of work is Meritorious probably means more to everyone than saying it earned a B. This would be equally true on the professors’ side of things as well, as it would reinforce consistency across course sections and even entirely different courses. Now, the potential downside is that this innovative system would be unique to McGill, and it may take some time for both the Faculty and prospective employers to adjust. But as I already mentioned: our system is already somewhat unique. If we can hold info sessions during Integration Week and offer letters to employers explaining the enforced average, why couldn’t we do the same for a system like this? Pass/Fail Now, here’s where things get bold, and maybe a bit controversial. A pass/fail system operates on a similar philosophy to the 6-step one, but is considerably more extreme. A pass/ fail system posits that the most meaningful designation affixed to a piece of work is simply that it is acceptable, or it isn’t. I mean, it’s literally “you either pass, or you fail.” It’s that simple. It’s a daunting proposal, which is why I balked when SVP first suggested that it might be the most pedagogically sound. But listen: I didn’t go this far down the rabbit hole of grades at McGill to turn back at a little trouble, so with some trepidation, I kept listening. A pass/fail system, SVP explained, could be the solution to so many of our current issues, if students and professors were both willing to put in a bit more work. That is, to avoid students seeing this as a licence to slack off, failure would have to be a real possibility, and to avoid professors seeing this as a licence to phone in their marks, there would have to be considerably more opportunities for both formal and informal feedback.

Well, it still sounded like a lot to me. More students failing? More law students—chronic overachievers and the most competitive of perfectionists— failing? Even if there was a system in place to repeat assignments without requiring an extra year or semester of study, even if professors would really be required to provide more extensive comments on our work… would it actually make things better? But the more I considered it, the more I saw the potential. Think about it: what are your biggest gripes about the way you’re graded here at McGill Law? The difficulty of understanding why you sometimes get a B and other times a B+ when you feel like you’ve submitted the same quality work? The fact that sometimes all that accompanies your grade is a line something like: “insightful analysis; great work?” The struggle of adjusting to a lower GPA and trying to understand how this might affect your career or academic prospects? If done properly, the pass/fail system would offer a solution to each of these problems; it would eliminate any arbitrary distinctions between grades, it would force professors to provide actual feedback, and it would also avoid reducing each student to their GPA—as if somehow a number is capable of assessing what a student is worth, what they are capable of. That is the Question This brings me to the big question: what is the POINT? What are we here for? Why did we decide to go to law school, why did we choose McGill in particular? Are we here because we believe that a piece of paper with the McGill crest up top is enough to give us an edge over our competitors in the next step of our academic/professional lives? Or are we here because we actually want to spend three-to-four years trying to cultivate the knowledge and skills that we believe will help us in the future? Of course the former has to be true to some degree, but do we care at all about the latter? Do we actually see law school at McGill as an important step on our way to our careers? 5

Vol 44 ● No 15

QUID NOVI • 21 MAR 2023

Maybe it’s a bad time in the semester to get so existential. Maybe these are just the half-delusional ramblings of a member of the 2020 cohort who still isn’t sure she knows what she’s doing, yet is staring down her final semester at McGill (maybe my article title isn’t a riff on Hamlet’s most existential soliloquy for nothing). But for those of you who have semesters and even years ahead of you, now might be the perfect time to step back a little, and these might be the perfect questions to ask. What do you want to get from your time here?

6

If all you want is to get through and get out—ideally with grades that won’t drag you down in your future endeavours—then that’s not wrong. More power to you. But if you want something more from your studies, something that will distinguish the person you are at graduation from the person you were at frosh, then it’s important to be an active participant in your own education. Our system isn’t perfect, and maybe it is time to start pushing for change. Or maybe it’s working as well as any alternative. Whatever your conclusion, I think the question matters. It matters because

we’re here to learn how to be good lawyers, and we need to bear some of the responsibility for our own progress, for our successes and our failures. I hope these two terribly long articles have done some good in this respect. I know my little foray into this subject has given me a lot to think about and has encouraged me to take more responsibility in my remaining time here at the fac. I hope my musings have similarly prompted you to think critically about your studies, or at the very least, that they’ve encouraged you to get as much as you can from your time at McGill.

7

Vol 44 ● No 15

A FOX AND SOME EGGS A day spent with the Queen’s Conference on Indigenous Reconciliation.

QUID NOVI • 21 MAR 2023

Eva Wu | 2L

I “The fox turns to the judge – got egg all over his face – those in the room. It also drew me to question how we at and … says, ‘Look, judge, firstly, about the eggs, there are McGill can foster dialogue to this degree in our own city. none, so I don’t know why the chickens are complaining.’” On top of that, how can we as lawyers participate in the world of so-called “Aboriginal law,” when the systemic and Harley Schachter, a lawyer representing five of 32 collaborative components of supporting Indigenous peoples First Nations, made this analogy in the ongoing Robin- should be considered and integrated throughout our various son Treaties case at the Ontario Superior Court, a case domains of practice? How can we continue to meaningthat was referenced throughout the day that I spent at fully engage in the process of reconciliation, and approach the Queen’s Conference on Indigenous Reconciliation conversations and work with respect and compassion? (QCIR) in Kingston. The case sits at the nexus of the conversations presented at this annual forum focused Though there is never a one-size-fits-all solution, the speakon reconciliation in the fields of business and law. ers at each session and at the subsequent conversations in which we found ourselves over meals, showed that reconIn his arguments, Schachter likened the fox with the ciliation will remain superficial unless there is action on Government of Ontario’s claim that they do not owe the part of all conference participants, but most importhe First Nations plaintiffs any revenues that were tantly through all the supposed allies in both the law and received throughout almost 150 years of forestry and business worlds. Otherwise, we will all, to some extent, be mining in the northern Huron-Superior area. The First partly that fox that claims there are no more eggs to share. Nations claim, represented by Schachter, counters that they should receive 84percent of the revenue, based on The Queen’s Conference on Indigenous Reconciliation the economic risk they were exposed to under both the (QCIR) is a two-day conference focusing on ReconciliRobinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior Treaties. This ation in business and law. The conference is a joint-efis another case in a long history of Indigenous communi- fort between the Queen’s School of Law and the Smith ties seeking reparations for the economic exploitation of School of Business. Every year, in varying formats, QCIR their land while under the supposed protection of treaty. puts together a conference of speakers who are committed to different facets of Reconciliation, including allyAs I sat in the audience, as a settler-immigrant ally and as ship, decolonization, and existing as an Indigenous person a co-speaker alongside keynote Adv. Wayne Garnons-Wil- in business and law. This year, the conference rallied liams (a mentor, a friend, and a fierce lawyer represent- under the title: Sustainable Pathways to Reconciliation. ing the rights of Indigenous peoples in trade and human rights), we drew upon various elements of this case My participation at QCIR 2023 was made possible with and dove into conversations about how economic and funding support from ASEF and the QCIR committee. As an systemic reforms are needed at every level to address the invited speaker, and as an ally, my role was to present the barriers faced by Indigenous participants in our society. research, peer-reviewed papers, and a forthcoming book on Indigenous treaty law and its intersection with the UN Keith Martell and Allison Deer spoke to the need for invest- Sustainable Development Goals. My gratitude goes out to the ing, and reinvesting, in communities to build resilient conference organizers, the mentors and teachers at QCIR, economic bases that can help Indigenous peoples flour- members of the McGill community who helped bring me to ish. In another room, Grand Council Chief Reg Niga- Kingston, and of course, to Wayne, who is an inspiration on nobe and Zac Thiffault spoke about the governance struc- top of being one of my co-authors in our various research tures and innovations that can support First Nations and initiatives at the Centre for Sustainable Development Law. Métis communities for self-government. These conversations dove deep into the legal and corporate frameworks that can be leveraged to foster just transitions and reconciliation at a level that is emblematic of a conference where Indigenous speakers and participants convene to be the sole focus of dialogue and collaborations. These sessions gave me immense gratitude for the years of knowledge and wisdom, along with the passion and drive to create change, that continued to teach and empower 8

BLAST FROM THE PAST Can you solve this law school crossword from 1986? P.S. If anyone is interested in making an updated crossword, we would be happy to feature it!

9

Vol 44 ● No 15

ALUMNI FEATURE Check out these stories from our McGill Law Alumni describing how their careers have taken shape since leaving the Faculty. Robert Notkin Senior Legal Counsel – Data Privacy and IP Licensing Pratt & Whitney Canada, BA’95, BCL/LLB’05 First of all, I entered McGill law as a mature student in 2002 at age 29. I believe it was only the third entering class in the then-new transsystemic program, and it was designed to be completed in 4 years. Being a mature student, I wanted to get it done as quickly as possible and took summer classes in order to complete the program in 3 years (Class of 2005). Upon graduation, I articled with Stikeman Elliott in Montreal and spent one year in their New York office. Ultimately, I decided law firm life wasn’t for me and joined the in house counsel team at Pratt & Whitney Canada (“P&WC”) in 2010. I spent 9 years as a compliance lawyer in their export control group, which included a time when P&WC was under a consent agreement with the US Government. I briefly joined P&WC’s Business Development department, and I’m currently the Pratt & Whitney Canada Privacy Officer.

Pearl Eliadis Montreal Lawyer and Associate Professor at McGill BSc’81, BCL/LLB’85 I wanted to be a primatologist, working with mountain gorillas. The geographical area I wanted to do my fieldwork in was dangerous, so I changed tracks and moved to law instead - a very different kind of animal behaviour!

QUID NOVI • 21 MAR 2023

Today, I have a law practice based in Montreal that specializes in human rights, national institutions, and democratic governance. I also have the privilege of serving as Associate Professor (professional) at McGill where I teach public policy and law.

Allen Mendelsohn Internet, privacy and technology law / droit d’internet, vie privée et technologie BA ‘91 MBA ‘93, BCL/LLB ’01 LLM ‘10 I started law school with no specific ambition, except the goal of becoming a lawyer. Thanks to Professors Patrick Healy and Ronald Sklar, I became enamored and immersed in criminal law. I won the John E. Crankshaw Prize upon graduating as the top criminal law student in my class. I am now a noted expert in internet and technology law and am in my seventh year of teaching Internet Law at the Faculty. Things change; I think that’s fine, and I am proud of where I ended up.

10

A MODERN MORAL PANIC Alanna Molzahn | 2L

TW: transphobia On March 14, the Calgary city council passed a bylaw1 prohibiting protests within 100 metres of an entrance to a recreation facility or library following an increase in protests at drag events.2 Throughout the country, libraries and drag performers are receiving hate mail and threats. In the United States, there were 141 documented cases of threats against drag shows, which included “armed white supremacists demonstrating at and even attacking many venues.”3 Anti-drag protestors claim drag is inappropriate for children, and that drag queens are “pedophiles” or “groomers.” Most worrisome are recent American bills banning drag shows in public spaces – many of the bills use language such as “male or female impersonator,” which could be applied to transgender people, effectively criminalizing their existence in certain public spaces. Other anti-trans bills are being introduced, including bills regarding bathroom usage and a bill that would stop trans and intersex student-athletes from participating in sports.4 The emphasis on protecting children is reminiscent of a QAnon hashtag, “SaveTheChildren” that widely circulated the internet in 2020. QAnon’s “Save the Children” videos warned parents about pedophiles and sex trafficking, reinforcing the idea of “stranger danger.” As Kevin Roose, notes in his New York Times article, “stopping child exploitation is an issue that has broad and bipartisan sympathy,” and so “QAnon’s anti-trafficking rebranding has also allowed politicians to appeal to QAnon supporters without explicitly mentioning the theory.”5 Following the passage of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill last year, Governor Ron DeSantis’ press secretary labeled it the “anti-grooming bill” and tweeted, “if you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4 to 8-year-old children.”6 As time goes on, politicians are attempting to appeal more and more to https://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm01/exccpa?func=ccpa.general&msgID=QTKTAeegAcB&msgAction=Download 2 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-city-council-safety-bylaw-homophobic-protests-1.6779105

the far right, perhaps as a desperate power grab, so it is not surprising that anti-drag and anti-trans rhetoric centers on protecting children, feeding into a moral panic that may not have been started by QAnon, but was perpetuated by them. The whole situation is giving “Pizzagate.” It’s giving “Satanic Panic.” It is fundamentally absurd, and simultaneously incredibly dangerous. The goal here is othering, criminalizing, and perhaps eventually eradicating the “threat.” The children are not really a priority here – if they were, the government would provide gender-affirmative care and create a society in which kids can safely express their sexuality and gender identity. Instead, gaining and maintaining power is the priority. The Red Scare was a tactic to delegitimize political opposition at a time when the status quo was threatened. Now, faced with an economic crisis, the ongoing pandemic (yes, it’s still happening), and climate change, we are in a situation where conspiracy theories thrive because people need a distraction and a scapegoat. What’s worse is that politicians are perpetuating conspiracies and actively endangering entire demographics of people. That said, it’s not as though there is no hope. Some legislatures are preventing the passage of any anti-LGBTQ2S+ bills, and like Calgary, creating counter-policies aimed at protecting queer people. Moral panics are nothing new, and yet people fall for them every time. I worry that since this is a short article and since I am an overwhelmed student nearing the end of the semester, I have oversimplified the matter at hand. I chose specifically to focus on the conspiracy theory aspect because I believe it is important to examine how misunderstanding and hatred are weaponized, but this is not a comprehensive overview, and there is more at play. What is necessary now is to combat disinformation and show support for the queer (especially trans) people in your life.

1

https://www.pride.com/drag-queens/drag-queen-ban#toggle-gdpr 4 https://www.them.us/story/anti-trans-legislation-tracker-march-4#intcid=recommendations_them-verso-hp-trending_776f12e4-7635-43fdbb82-afd123d25162_popular4-1 5 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/technology/save-the-children-qanon.html 6 https:// twitter.com/ChristinaPushaw/status/1499890719691051008 3

SUBMIT TO THE QUID NOVI! EMAIL US BY 5PM EACH THURSDAY quid.law@mcgill.ca

11

Vol 44 ● No 15

WANTED

QUID NOVI • 21 MAR 2023

ǣ

ǣ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ͳȌ ʹȌ Ǥ

12

Patrick Garon-Sayegh, « Déconfiner le droit privé en le dramatisant : l’artisanat juridique mis en scène et sous les projecteurs de Kenneth Burke » Le 31 mars 2023, de 13h00 à 14h30 (HNE), 202 du Pavillon New Chancellor Day, Format hybride À tort ou à raison, les pratiques méthodologiques disciplinent les milieux savants. Ces pratiques agissent autant à titre prospectif que rétrospectif. Elles orientent les recherches à venir et démarquent celles qui devraient être retenues de celles qui devraient être écartés. Quoiqu'elles soient nécessaires, leur effet disciplinaire devient souvent un carcan confinant, autant pour les chercheurs que pour les objets qu'ils étudient. Cette présentation offre aux chercheurs en droit privé une orientation méthodologique novatrice qui permet de déconfiner — au moins en partie — leurs objets d'étude. Cette orientation, ancrée dans la perspective «dramatique» développée par le rhétoricien Kenneth Burke, invite les chercheurs en droit privé à se pencher sur le travail concret des acteurs juridiques. Lorsque adoptée, la perspective dramatique permet d'appréhender la dimension artisanale du droit privé de manière «quasi-empirique» qui illumine les catégories doctrinales du droit privé sous un nouvel angle tout en respectant la perspective dite «interne» suivant laquelle le sens de ces catégories relève de pratiques interprétatives autonomes. Patrick Garon-Sayegh est professeur adjoint à la Facuté de droit de l'Université de Montréal, où il enseigne principalement le droit de la preuve civile et l'interprétation des lois. Ses recherches actuelles chevauchent le droit de la preuve et la responsabilité médicale. Plus particulièrement, il s'intéresse aux pratiques argumentatives impliquées dans la preuve d'une faute médicale et les affinités philosophiques, historiques, et pratiques qui existent entre la justification médicale et la justification juridique. Participer à l'Atelier via Zoom: https://mcgill.zoom. us/j/81140410779?pwd=bG1KUTdGKzRvVVdMZDlxNk5Od1Bmdz09 13

QUID NOVI • 21 MAR 2023

Vol 44 ● No 15

14