QUID NOVI
Vol 44 No 09 17 Jan 2023
NCDH 305 - 3644 Peel Montréal, Québec H2A 1X1
quid.law@mcgill.ca @quidnovi.mcgill
McGill University Faculty of Law Faculté de droit de l’Université McGill
44 09
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 Roxanda Mirzac Marie-Eve Ouellet Thomas Power COLUMNISTS CHRONIQUEURES ET CHRONIQUEUSES Alanna Molzahn Kamil Chaoui Marc-Elder Piard Meagan Beattie Pablo Mhanna-Sandoval CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE COLLABORATEURS ET COLLABORATRICES Alexandra Nash Anne Lin Arghirescu Misty Meanor Félix Desrochers RadLaw McGill 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...
44 09
Vol 44 No 09 17 Jan 2023
INSIGHTS
COMMUNAUTÉ
EVENTS
2 | TRANSPHOBIA IS NOT
5 | THE HONOURABLE G. I.
8 | MCGILL LAW SKIT NITE 2023
WELCOME AT MCGILL Retrospective on the Protest Against Prof. Wintemute’s Conference at the CHRLP
4 | A SHORT REFLECTION ON
PLURALISM AND DEMOCRACY
6 | AFTER THE WINTEMUTE
EVENT Let’s Reflect on Univeristy’s Purpose
SMITH MEMORIAL TRUST
7 | MEET THE TEAM Thomas Power
Alanna Molzahn
Law School Advice You Can Count On
7 | THE NECESSARY LIMITS OF
13 | AMHERST COLLEGE
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
8 | REFLECTION AFTER
SAIS UNIVERSITAIRES
9 | MEET THE TEAM 11 | 2023 CHARLES D. GONTHIER RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP | BOURSE DE RECHERCHE CHARLES-D.GONTHIER 2023
6 | MISTY FOR YOU: SPAR
11 | CONCOURS NATIONAL D’ES-
UNDERGRADUATE LAW REVIEW
JANUARY INTEGRATION WEEK A New Architechture
10 | WHY PRIDE AND PREJUDICE IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU NEED RIGHT NOW
12 | ÊTRE QUÉBÉCOIS POUR LES NULS
1
Vol 44 ● No 09
TRANSPHOBIA IS NOT WELCOME AT MCGILL Retrospective on the Protest Against Prof. Wintemute’s Conference at the CHRLP RadLaw McGill
On January 10th, RadLaw, Queer McGill, the Trans Patient Union, and activist Celeste Trianon successfully shut down a transphobic talk hosted by the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism (CHRLP). The conference featured Prof. Robert Wintemute, a trustee of the LGB Alliance, an anti-trans organization from the UK, which has been labeled as a far-right hate and extremist group by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.
QUID NOVI • 17 JAN 2023
Founded in 2019 upon the principle of “divorcing the T from the LGB”, this group aims to pit cisgender queer people against their trans siblings by claiming that trans rights threaten the rights of cisgender women. In the UK, Ireland, and Canada alike, the LGB Alliance has notably opposed legislation banning conversion therapy, denies the existence of gender identity (a protected characteristic under the Québec Charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act), and argues against access to gender recognition and gender-affirming healthcare under the law. This phenomenon is known as transmisogyny - the insidious intersection of sexism and transphobia that paints trans women as violent and threatening in order to reinforce white cissexist notions of “womanhood”.1 This often takes the form of denying trans women access to women-only spaces such as bathrooms, changerooms, or sports teams, coupled with unsubstantiated claims that they will inflict violence upon cis women and girls. It is essential to note that trans women face substantial violence when forced into male spaces. By advocating for them to be forced into those spaces, the LGB Alliance actively promotes transmisogynistic violence by advancing a worldview that leaves no space for legal protections for trans people. When students learned of the talk a few days before it was scheduled to take place, we contacted the CHRLP, informing them of the true nature of the LGB Alliance. We explained how their rhetoric harms transgender people. In addition, many of us explicitly mentioned how this talk made us feel personally unsafe on our campus. We understood that it can be easy for those disconnected from the topic to miss the hateful message underlying Prof. Wintemute’s rhetoric, and we were willing to give the Centre the benefit of the doubt. In response, the Centre doubled down on their decision to host the event, asserting that while they do not endorse Prof. Wintemute’s views, they felt that an academic debate on the subject See Julia Cerano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity, New York, Seal Press, 2009. 1
2
was important and that Prof. Wintemute had not been invited in his capacity as a trustee of the LGB Alliance. This is where we strongly disagree. We are happy to accept that the Centre and McGill as a whole does not agree with every speaker they bring to our campus. Many legal and human rights issues are complex and rife with nuances that merit adequate attention regardless of whether one does or does not agree with their premises. This is not one of those issues. As an organization with the power to platform speakers, the Centre has the responsibility of choosing their guests wisely. While hosting a speaker may not necessarily translate to endorsement of their views, it offers them reputational credit, academic merit, and legitimacy. In the case of Prof. Wintemute, the notion that his views have academic merit produces profound consequences for the trans community. The CHRLP’s webpage of the event (which has since been made unavailable) specifically states that the subject of the talk includes “divorcing the T from the LGB,” and explicitly lists the LGB Alliance’s transphobic views. We find it ironic that although McGill insists that Prof. Wintemute has not been invited as a trustee of the LGB Alliance, the crux of the conference espouses the core principles of this very organization. Interestingly, while the LGB Alliance promotes itself as a champion for the rights of cis lesbian women, only about 7% of their members are actually lesbians, which heavily brings into question the legitimacy of their alleged representativity of cis queer women, many of whom came to the protest last week to denounce this organization’s discriminatory ideals. In the twenty-four hours since the protest, it has not taken long for the administration to begin painting the collective student response to the talk as a violent and unprincipled one. The numerous allegations of Code of Student Conduct violations include “property damage”, as well as physical and verbal interference with attendees. In moments like these, we implore our fellow students to remember that the real, lasting violence wrought against trans people and other marginalized groups vis-a-vis hate speech protected under the guise of ostensibly harmless debate is an unacceptable, inherent form of violence. Student actions by multiple organizations and collectives on the 10th were a direct response to this tangible form of violence, which inscribes itself in a long tradition of community organizing in response to discrimination and bigotry. The administration’s attempt to misrepresent us as uncivil and violent is a testament to their intentional delegitimization of our collective organizing.
Make no mistake: platforming someone like Prof. Wintemute under the false pretense of robust academic debate and free speech has real-life consequences for the trans community, whose very right to exist and fundamental human dignity are being denied. The very suggestion that trans people’s legal rights are debatable is inherently violent. Trans women, especially Black trans women, have always been at the forefront of the fight for queer liberation. Scapegoating them by manufacturing the same moral panic once widely directed towards LGB+ people (by portraying them as deviant, dangerous to cis women, and harmful to children, among other hateful stereotypes) incites violence and division among us. Citing Prof. Riley Case’s classroom discussion principles, “We each have the right to make kind mistakes… Mistakes are kind when they are informed and made in good faith with full respect for the lives, experiences, and worldviews of others.” Prof. Wintemute and the LGB Alliance’s views, based on unproven conjectures that cisgender women are fearful of trans women but are too afraid to speak up, are not misguided beliefs advanced in good faith, but instead contribute to transphobia worldwide.
Misinformation that trans people pose a risk to cis women or that gender affirmation has negative effects on children is just that – misinformation. Reputable academic and empirical, scientific research has disproven these assumptions countless times. This line of thinking remains only promoted by bigots seeking to hurt the trans community by dividing us from our LGB+ siblings. The CHRLP and McGill overall have an academic responsibility not to platform someone whose views are not only unsubstantiated, but also deeply harmful. Just as they would never give a platform to someone arguing that women are inherently inferior to men and should go back to the kitchen, they should never host someone who argues these same tired, fear-mongering points about trans people.
Recent years have seen countless transphobic incidents in Canada and worldwide. Transphobic candidates have targeted school board elections2 across British Columbia and Ontario, picketed and threatened violence to drag performers, attacked trans activists online and in person,3 and called for our deaths.4 Research from Trans Pulse Canada shows that trans people are much more likely to have unmet physical and mental healthcare needs, including (but not limited to) gender-affirming care. 56% of us rate our mental health as just fair or poor, and 31% have considered suicide in the past year. 84% of us avoid public spaces due to transphobia, and we are more likely to be housing-insecure, live in poverty, and face violence.5 The denial of healthcare and legal gender recognition promoted by the LGB Alliance have been demonstrated time and time again to worsen the lives of trans people and decrease our life expectancies.
After many of us felt so unsafe and unsupported by our own Faculty, seeing our fellow students and advocates stand with us to fight for our rights has been heartwarming. As trans law students, we deserve to be able to study without being subject to misinformed hate speech platformed by our school. We deserve to live our lives without being constantly on guard, in fearful anticipation of the next transphobic incident. We deserve access to healthcare and to justice - we just want our school to support us.
See “Anti-transgender Candidates Enter School Board Elections,” (23 August 2022), online: Canadian Anti-Hate Network <www.antihate.ca/anti_transgender_candidates_enter_school_board_elections_ ottawa>. 3 See Peter Smith, “Canadian High School at the Centre of Controversy and Protests Receives Multiple Anti-Trans Bomb Threats” (21 November 2022), online: Canadian Anti-Hate Network <https:// www.antihate.ca/canadian_high_school_protests_receives_multiple_ anti_trans_bomb_threats>. 4 See “Vote Against Woke Candidates List Appears Alongside Calls to “Kill All T****y” (21 October 2022), online: Canadian Anti-Hate Network <https://www.antihate.ca/vote_against_woke_ campaign_4chan>. 5 See “Report – Health and health care access for trans and non-binary people in Canada” (6 july 2021), TransPulse, online (pdf): <transpulsecanada.ca/results/report-health-and-well-being-amongnon-binary-people/>.
The response from the McGill student body and the community as a whole to this event has been uplifting. Over 40 student and community organizations and over 700 individuals signed an open letter asking for the talk to be canceled, and over 200 people came in person to protest the talk, successfully shutting down the event.6
2
Many organizations, including LEAF (Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund), publicly condemned the event: see Pam Hrick, “As ED/GC of @LEAFNational, a member and former Chair of the Board of @The519, a lawyer, and a lesbian, I’m stunned by @ LawMcGill’s decision to host a prominent transphobe under the faculty’s banner” (9 Jan 2023 12:26 PM), online: Twitter <https:// twitter.com/PamHrick/status/1612501145703878665?s=20&t=5vMWADI-UaUiPs-Rtah_Pg>. 6
3
Vol 44 ● No 09
A SHORT REFLECTION ON PLURALISM AND DEMOCRACY Félix Desrochers | 1L
QUID NOVI • 17 JAN 2023
Following the protest that led to the cancellation of the event featuring McGill Faculty of Law alumnus and professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College, London, Robert Wintemute, Dean Robert Leckey asked us: “In a place where we gather for the education of future lawyers, what is our commitment to the exchange of ideas, including ones we disagree with and may find repugnant?”
minority groups and society at large with their speech, and prohibit the use of certain words no matter the context. Why? If the definition of prejudice is often arbitrary, then those who have the power to circumscribe it will be given a power on the masses that would sap the core of our democracy. Dogma is dangerous, the history of its application to universities, dark. Wintemute is no Galileo, but ‘Eppur si muove’ It is a commonly held view that the are words which should shake fear only way for minorities to be safe and into any individual whose belief is society to be inclusive passes by the so great and yet fragile that they total elimination of anything deemed would muzzle they who would repugnant: transphobia, homopho- contradict them. Rather than elabbia, racism and other forms of prej- orating further upon the risks of udice. Although I also dream of a authoritarianism, I will respond by world devoid of hate, it is utopia and asking other questions. How will a world impossible to achieve. Firstly, you, me and the generations to come the boundary between what constitutes be able to defend ourselves intelprejudice and what does not is vari- lectually against ideas of hate and able, culturally dependent and often intolerance if we have been isolated arbitrary because prejudice is often from any thought judged harmful determined by the perception of the in elementary school, academia or person who feels hurt; hence, since at the workplace? For instance, if one’s sensibility is dependent on one’s we have never discussed antisempersonality, so too is the notion of prej- ite bigotry, how can we respond udice. The word “often” is important to it in the event that antisemitism to consider because there exist some manifests itself more evil than ever instances where a form of prejudice before? As George Orwell made is plain and obvious – many would plain in 1984, “Orthodoxy means argue that Wintemute falls into this not thinking--not needing to think. category without hearing a word from Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” his mouth. Secondly, it is an intellec- Should we leave ourselves to a state tually lazy statement, nonetheless true of unconsciousness, ready to be : history has shown that the notion of exploited? I would rather prefer to “us vs. them” is so deeply entrenched live in a society well-equipped and into human nature that prejudice will tooled to face prejudice – and that never totally cease to exist. Therefore, requires open intellectual debate. any attempt to eradicate prejudice is vain from the beginning. The only real answer to dealing with prejudice is pluralism - especially in What should be done in light of an academic setting, where ideas are this reality? I peremptorily reject expected to clash. As Andrei Dmitrievthe response of intellectual purists, ich Skharov declared, “Intellectual freewhose answer is to de-platform dom is the only guarantee of a scienand silence those who, they claim, tific - democratic approach to politics, would cause irreparable harm to economic development, and culture.” 4
While having the downside of letting prejudice run its natural course, pluralism makes possible open democratic debate. Only through this process of free challenge to any ideas can we find truth, knowledge and the best arguments for the protection of rights we judge to be unalienable. Pluralism also entails that any minorities are free to express their perspectives and defend their interests. In accordance with the words of Martin Luther King, “Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better”, in empowering minority groups to voice their concerns without impediments, pluralism begets social progress. It allows the challenging of the status quo, the airing of the grievance, the redress of the injustice of tomorrow. Ultimately, democracy is a long and strenuous process, under which truth prevails through public scrutiny, and where prejudice, as a harmful and objective wrong, is doomed to fade to irrelevance. As Jonathan Rauch wrote, “The genius of intellectual pluralism lies not in doing away with prejudices and dogmas but in channeling them -making them socially productive by pitting prejudice against prejudice and dogma against dogma, exposing all to withering public criticism. What survives at the end of the day is our base of knowledge.” – What survives at the end of the day is democracy. The essence of democracy resides in this Voltarian sentence, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” A sincere commitment to democracy and the preservation of fundamental rights requires pluralism, and inherently pluralism requires that prejudice be aired for it to be defeated. When you hear your neighbor perpetuate prejudice, as demanding as it may be, please fight back with words and rationality, not flour!
THE HONOURABLE G. I. SMITH MEMORIAL TRUST The G. I. Smith Memorial Trust is pleased to offer the G. I. Smith Memorial Award, a $2,500 bursary for a deserving Nova Scotia law student. The award honours the memory of Truro lawyer “Ike” Smith, a member of the Nova Scotia Bar for 50 years. He was MLA for Colchester County from 1949 until 1974, serving in several Cabinet positions in the governments of Robert Stanfield, and succeeding him as Premier of Nova Scotia from 1967 until 1970. He was appointed to the Senate in 1975 and served until his death in 1982. This bursary is open to full time law students or articled clerks from Nova Scotia who have begun at least their second year of law school, or their clerkship in this province or elsewhere. This includes second year students, third year students, articled clerks and students engaged in graduate law studies. Applicants should have a record of significant activity in the areas of public and community affairs, sports, or arts and entertainment, and have demonstrated interest in bettering themselves, their communities and their province through professional and volunteer efforts. Applicants must exhibit financial need. Applications (including academic records and two reference letters) should be sent to: Sarah Emery, Chair G. I. Smith Memorial Trust c/o Patterson Law 10 Church Street Truro, Nova Scotia, B2N 3Z6 or semery@pattersonlaw.ca The deadline for the receipt of application is January 31, 2023.
4135-5389-5725
5
Vol 44 ● No 09
A F T E R T H ELet’s W INTEMUTE EVENT Reflect on University’s Purpose Kamil Chaoui | 1L
When I received my McGill Law admission last summer, my feelings mingled between joy and apprehension. Joy because I had the privilege to study in this prestigious faculty, among smart students and renowned professors. Apprehension because it was a step closer to the real world that was waiting for me after university: brutal independence, solitude, necessity of constant work, and a myriad of social and professional obligations. But my apprehension was mitigated by the sentiment that university would prepare me to become a stronger, more honest, and courageous man, able to face life’s hardships.
Indeed, I thought that university was the ultimate intellectual arena, where we ought to be exposed to dangerous, shocking, and even offensive ideas and perspectives about life, philosophy, religion, legal and social questions, politics, etc. For me, being destabilized and pushed to my intellectual limits by professors, speakers, books or new concepts was one of the main points of being a student. And I was excited and ready to accept the challenge. Sadly, I just learned that a substantial number of students strongly reject what I see as one aspect of university’s beauty. I didn’t
go to the Faculty on Tuesday, because I didn’t have class, and I only got information about the recent Wintemute event thanks to some friends that witnessed it firsthand and Dean Leckey’s shocking e-mail. Physically preventing people from accessing knowledge, opinions, and debates. Insulting and attacking staff members. Vandalizing what many consider a temple of knowledge and wisdom. Bragging about disrupting and canceling a debate1. All of that in the name of love, inclusivity, and tolerance. See Queer McGill 10 Jan. 2023 Instagram post. 1
As if just once in human history, the ones doing the bullying and the censoring turned out to be the good guys (or the good folks). Well, even if university is not exactly what I planned it to be, most students and rofessors still share my ideals. Peaceful protesting is a great way to express ideas and grievances, and I will always support it. But some actions, such as what we have seen Tuesday at Old Chancellor Day Hall, should be unequivocally condemned in the name of pluralism. Let’s all strive for a university that serves its true, fundamental purpose of intellectual enrichment. For everyone.
MISTY FOR YOU: SPAR Law School Advice You Can Count On Misty Meanor | Not a lawyer
QUID NOVI • 17 JAN 2023
I graduated from one of Canada’s top law schools with really good grades. Now, I’m using my knowledge to help struggling law students make it in this competitive world. Dear readers, I hope you had a most wonderful holiday break. I myself remain in Panama, as there are apparently “irregularities with my passport,” but I was concerned to hear about recent events regarding a speaker at the faculty. As a former corporate lawyer, I have, of course, always been deeply committed to human rights, and I stand with the McGill students in this troubling time. Today, I bring you exciting news! Dear readers, I am sharing with you something so exclusive that 6
not even my publisher knows. I am thrilled to announce the impending release of my autobiography, Spar. This book is a work of love, growth, and passion. It will be an intimate look at my time at McGill, overcoming the challenges of attending law school as the younger daughter of Quebec’s top criminal defense lawyer. For many years I kept a stiff upper lip regarding my struggles as a high-profile student facing insurmountable family and public expectations to succeed, but after years of therapy, I am ready to speak my truth. This Atlas has shrugged her destiny. I can no longer keep quiet about the trauma of being the unloved child cowering in my older sister’s shadow
or my fight to survive through school on just one million dollars per year. I will no longer be complicit in my family’s demeaning treatment of my boyfriend or their disgust over my career as a maritime lawyer. I welcome my father’s illegitimate son, Simeon Dorante-Night, as my brother and the true heir to the family’s criminal law practice and I will file an application in court using my own DNA to recognize him as such. Dear readers, I hope you have as cathartic an experience reading Spar as I did writing it. To catch more exclusive pre-release insights, catch my interview on This Hour Has 22 Minutes next Tuesday at 8 p.m. / 8:30 p.m. NT. Misty xx
THE NECESSARY LIMITS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM. Alexandra Nash | 1L
On Tuesday, January 10th, the McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism invited a trustee of an anti-trans hate group to speak on the issue of trans legal rights. See any issues yet? One perspective I’ve heard repeatedly since then is that while the event was bad, it was equally bad or even worse for queer students and our allies to shut it down through peaceful protest. After all, academic freedom means entertaining even those ideas you disagree with! But sometimes, allowing an academic debate to go ahead poses a real threat to the rights and safety of vulnerable people, and I cannot reconcile myself to an academic freedom so absolute that it protects violent speech. In order to seriously entertain a debate on a given issue, you must first believe that the issue
is not already decided. Would McGill invite a member of the Flat Earth Society to campus to speak on issues of astrophysics? I certainly hope not, not least because to do so would be a laughable waste of time and space for a serious academic institution. And notwithstanding the ties between flat earth theory and other, more dangerous conspiracy theories, there really isn’t that much on the line there. Even without a compelling reason to bar flat-earthers from campus, it seems pretty self-evident that this isn’t the place for them. And if flat earth theory isn’t far-fetched enough, I’m sure you can come up with some position that, although sincerely held by someone somewhere, is not suitable for debate at a university. Why, then, are many of us so ready to defend attacks on human rights under the banner of
academic freedom, when something much more important is at stake? If you, the person reading this, truly believe that human rights (and in particular trans rights) constitute an open issue requiring rigorous examination before you can decide its merit, then you know what? Although I don’t agree in the slightest, I respect your willingness to take an unpopular position. On the other hand, if you think of yourself as a steadfast believer in human rights (and again, trans rights in particular) but still think the question deserves debate... maybe examine that a little more. Especially when the rights in question belong to an amorphous someone else, it can be easy for even self-proclaimed allies to find their principles wavering when defending them gets at all uncomfortable.
The thing is, the academic is political. Academia does not exist in a vacuum, and issues that academics sometimes treat as harmless intellectual exercises often have real implications for those outside the ivory tower. In our current political environment, as we witness increasing violence, both physical and legal, towards trans people, any institution which treats the issue of trans rights as a debate with two valid sides is part of the problem. Not all opinions are equal, and it does not follow from a commitment to academic freedom that all opinions should be taken equally seriously. Treating transphobia as a position worth debating rather than nonsense to be dismissed out of hand is not a challenge— it is a legitimization, and should not be tolerated on our campus.
MEET THE TEAM Copy Editor Thomas Power | 3L
Q: Where are you from / where have you lived? A: I’m from Ottawa (well, technically, if Kanata counts), where I’ve lived my whole life except for a few years I lived in the UK when I was young. Q: What drew you to the Quid? A: I love Thomson House and wanted to make sure it was spelled properly in the Quid.
Q: What did you do before McGill Law? A: I did my undergrad in political science at uOttawa and worked for the federal government. Q: Quel était ton cours préféré avant de commencer à la faculté de droit? A: I took some Latin classes in my undergrad, which have turned out to be surprisingly relevant at McGill. Q:As-tu un quartier préféré à Montréal? A: I only leave the Plateau to go to class. 7
Vol 44 ● No 09
MCGILL LAW SKIT NITE 2023 Pablo Mhanna-Sandoval | 1L
Now that the McGill Law community finds itself halfway through January 2023, it’s time for a check-in. How are your New Year’s resolutions going? Have you scanned your gym membership card yet? Started eating healthier? Or stopped going to bed at an unreasonable time? Me neither. But we shouldn’t let that discourage us from setting goals. I’d humbly like to suggest one to the McGill Law community, particularly my fellow 1Ls: participate in this year’s McGill Law Skit Nite, taking place on March 15th at the famous Club Soda. If anything, this resolution is more of a treat than a challenge, really. Skit Nite is a longstanding yearly tradition in the McGill Faculty of Law—a quick search on YouTube yields skit after skit from years past. Students and faculty
members get together in a relaxed environment to enjoy a night of skits satirizing law school life, musical acts, and talents. It’s an honour to be one of six co-hosts for this year’s edition of Skit Nite. We’re working hard to make the faculty laugh on March 15th. But the success of an event like Skit Nite depends on the participation of the wider community, not just six egomaniacs who think they’re clever with a pen. There is no need to audition; we want to see what you got on stage! If your hobbies include singing, comedy, doing impressions, magic tricks, martial arts, beatboxing, musical instrument playing, dancing, cup stacking, handstanding (or any gymnastics), fire breathing (pending a permit from the City), quick-changing, start thinking about participating in Skit Nite on March 15th. Reach out to me, Matthew Boulden, or Justine Blanchette-Sirois to express interest or if you have any questions. This year’s edition marks Skit Nite’s return after three years of COVID-19 dormancy. This year’s edition is shaping up to be a historic revival of the law faculty’s most beloved event. From what I’ve heard from upper years, Skit Nite is a fun, laid-back, and generous environment for sharing your talent or act. What’s more exciting is faculty members and leadership also participate. Will your favourite professor sing your favourite song? If you’re lucky! Will the dean drop a sick beat while I breakdance? Highly unlikely. What’s more likely is having a blast at Skit Nite 2023 on March 15th. There’s a real renaissance happening. Let’s be a part of it.
REFLECTION AFTER JANUARY INTEGRATION WEEK QUID NOVI • 17 JAN 2023
A New Architechture
Anne Lin Arghirescu | 1L
This year, 1L students had the chance to attend a workshop on working with vulnerable populations organized in collaboration with the McGill School of Social Work. Over three days, the workshop involved plenary sessions on intersectionality and legal advocacy, trauma-informed lawyering and empowerment and strength-bases approaches, small group discussions and role-play practice scenarios involving potential clients with different types of vulnerabilities, including suicidal ideation, and a choice of a site visit 8
to either the Old Brewery Mission, the Just Solutions Legal Clinic, Chez Doris, the Quebec Youth Court, or a guest talk by the John Howard Society or the DESTA Black Youth network. Here are some personal reflections. The physical and pedagogical architecture of the workshop on working with vulnerable populations was new to me and felt particularly fitting. The small group discussions were a safe and informal place that reminded
me of the talking circles in Indigenous Legal Traditions. While practicing communication micro-skills in roleplay scenarios, I formed new connections and engaged in self-reflection. I began to understand the concept of “using yourself in your practice,” using your background and life experiences to build an authentic relationship of trust with the client. This is an approach to practicing the law that I had never been exposed to before, given that the theory-driven first-year courses tend to project an image of the lawyer as an
omniscient expert. A more humanizing approach that connects law to social work inverts this unbalanced dynamic and empowers the client as the expert, which alleviates some of the pressure off the lawyer by allowing her to be guided by the client in understanding his reality. Ultimately, I believe this leads the professional to provide better services and feel fulfilled by her work. Our small group facilitator, a social worker of twenty years, certainly seemed to derive tremendous satisfaction and purpose from her job. Her many anecdotes made me realize how grounded she was in the community she served. If they are not omniscient experts, lawyers cannot work alone to solve all their clients’ problems. To put the skills I learned in this workshop into practice as a lawyer, I need to educate myself about my community so that I know
which community organizations and services I can suggest to my clients to palliate all their needs. The second part of the workshop, the site visits, allowed us to learn more from the community on the ground. I visited the Quebec Youth Court, a self-contained ecosystem where social workers, lawyers, judges, and paralegals work in symbiosis to assist some of society’s most vulnerable individuals: adolescents. Officer Lachapelle and Justice Karen Ohayon spoke to us about the many layers of protection that exist within the law for youth, including stringent requirements on the confidentiality of files, the destruction of DNA records after the fulfillment of a sentence, additional criteria for the admissibility of a statement to the police, and the right to consult a parent in addition to a lawyer before and during a police interrogation. Some segments of our legal system, such as the youth criminal system,
are adopting trauma-centered procedures by incorporating pre-sentencing psycho-social assessments for accused, Gladue reports for Aboriginal youth, and impact statements for victims, and witnessing this progress is encouraging. I agree with Maître Murias, a defense lawyer at the Quebec Youth Court: “we should make the law more human-centered and less law-centered: the law is there to serve people, and not the people to serve the law.”
MEET THE TEAM Columnist
Alanna Molzahn | 2L
the University of Alberta, which is kind of similar to the Quid. It was a fun experience and I wanted to do something similar at McGill.
Q: Where are you from / where have you lived? A: I’m from Edmonton, Alberta, and I’ve lived there my whole life, up until I started law school. Q: What drew you to the Quid? A: I’m very opinionated and need an outlet that isn’t a comment section. In the past, I wrote for The Gateway at
Q: What did you do before McGill Law? A: I did a Bachelor’s of Arts at the University of Alberta, with a major in French Language and Literature and a minor in Sociology. Q: Quel était ton cours préféré avant de commencer à la faculté de droit? A: I took a sociology seminar called “Gangs, Ghettos, and Violence,” taught by Marta Urbanik during my undergrad. It helped me challenge a lot of preconceptions I had about gangs and certain types of crimes,
and most of the readings were ethnographic studies which made them a lot more interesting and easy to read. Q: Was law school a dream come true or a happy accident? Do you want to be a lawyer? A: “Dream come true” implies that I’m ecstatic to be in law school, which I don’t think many of us are. At the same time, law school is something I have worked toward for a long time and it feels pleasantly strange to have achieved my goal and know my work paid off. I wanted to be a lawyer more before I started law school, because now I have so many more anxieties about the profession, but it’s still what I want to do and it probably
won’t be that bad. Q: Qu’aimes-tu faire quand tu n’étudies pas ? A: J’aime faire des puzzles, écouter de la musique/créer des playlists, et faire du tricot en regardant une émission ou un film. Je m’intéresse de plus en plus aux textiles et je veux me mettre à la couture ou faire plus de projets de DIY. Q: As-tu un quartier préféré à Montréal? A: Probablement le Village, particulièrement en été. Q: Où aimerais-tu travailler dans cinq ans? A: Je vais certainement retourner à Edmonton une fois que j’aurai obtenu mon diplôme, et j’espère me retrouver à travailler en droit pénal dans une certaine mesure. 9
Vol 44 ● No 09
WHY PRIDE AND PREJUDICE IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU NEED RIGHT NOW Meg Beattie | 3L
Once upon a time, the world was dark, terrible, and cold. Time dragged on in hopeless monotony while forces beyond our control worked their evil upon us, subjugating us to the drudgery of obligation and routine. Yes, dear reader, as you might have guessed, the time I am describing is last week; it was the first full week of classes, Montreal received a mere three and one-quarter hours of sunlight a day, and Mercury was in retrograde. It was the start of a new year, and social media was a blight of influencers trying to shame us into spending money or losing the five pounds we gained over the holidays. Course registration was a bloodbath, TERFs walked among us, and Peel hill was trying its best to refuse us safe passage to school. In such a dark and dreadful time, where can one look for hope? For the strength to carry on? For the motivation to remove pajamas, clothe the body in something other than sweatpants, and leave the comforts of hearth and home to attend a class called “Critically Administrative Administration?” The answer, of course, is Pride and Prejudice.
QUID NOVI • 17 JAN 2023
It could be the BBC mini-series, the 2005 movie, or the novel itself. Maybe it could even be Bridget Jones’s Diary, or some other modern adaptation, though that’s less certain. But the power of Jane Austen’s best-loved work is that it has survived the transplant from its Regency roots into 2023, where it continues to be a beloved and even inspiring story. Two hundred years and a thousand cultural shifts later, this simple tale of a quick-witted woman and a socially anxious man falling in love still resonates. It almost defies explanation—watching a bunch of wealthy white people who seem to have no responsibilities beyond marrying well and attending lots of balls should not be such a fun and relaxing experience, but somehow it is. Last Monday, my housemate and I had already had enough of the new semester. As we were sitting in our living room, slouched almost to horizontal as if we were trying to be absorbed by the couch cushions, I had a sudden recollection of her mentioning that she wanted to watch Pride and Prejudice in the new year. Right then, nothing in the world seemed like a better idea, so despite the coursework, we both could have been doing (or the Quid articles we could have been writing), we threw some frozen cookie dough in the oven and settled down for an evening of decadent procrastination. One of the best things we have done as a society is rebrand procrastination as self-care. Maybe not all types of procrastination, but I contend that by any metric, Pride and Prejudice is a form of self-care. The woes of a cold January in Montreal and a semester that started 10
just a little too early melted away in the presence of Keira Knightley’s artfully tousled fringe and Matthew Macfadyen’s sad puppy-dog eyes. Even Mrs. Bennet’s screeching of “Oh Mr. Bennet, have you no compassion for my poor nerves!” brought relief—transporting us to a world where it seems that the worst problem you can have is a silly family, or to be unlucky in love. I mean, other problems definitely arise for our beloved characters. Here in the 21st century, we have our own major social issues, to be sure, but I have to say I’m glad we’ve at least sorted out the legal compulsion to marry your cousin in order to keep the family home. Not to mention that we’ve all but eradicated the risk that your little sister’s unregulated horniness will completely ruin your future prospects. Maybe part of the allure, part of the simple escapism a story like this provides, is that the problems the characters face are either so unfamiliar as to be almost ridiculous or so familiar that almost anyone can relate. Sometimes they’re even both at the same time—take Mr. Collins’ proposal, for example. Maybe (probably… hopefully) none of us have ever had to face a proposal of marriage from our first cousin while our overbearing mother listens at the door, demanding we accept because otherwise our whole family will be ousted from the only home we’ve ever known. However, having to talk to a boring relative while they give a long, uncomfortable speech while standing in front of a table food… well, many of us have been there, though we usually call it Thanksgiving. Or consider Charlotte Lucas’s absolutely iconic line, delivered with excruciating hopelessness, about being twenty-seven, having no money and no prospects, and already being a burden on her parents. Maybe that sentiment wouldn’t be enough to push me into marriage with a strange man I’ve only just met, but I could see it prompting other sorts of desperate decisions. Cutting bangs in the bathroom sink? Perhaps. Applying to law school? Likely. I think this balance of timeless and context-bound struggles is a part of what makes this story so precious to so many, myself included, even two-hundred years later. While Austen could never have predicted what her story would have looked like to us in 2023, it has aged astonishingly well thanks to her ability to craft relatable characters and obstacles, even in circumstances that are so far from our modern reality. As that final, flawless scene at Pemberley closed and the end credits began to roll, and as I left the peace and sunshine of the English countryside for sub-zero temperatures and a stack of cases still unread, I nevertheless felt a little lighter.
2023 CHARLES D. GONTHIER RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP| BOURSE DE RECHERCHE CHARLES-D.-GONTHIER 2023 L’ICAJ est fier de participer à la recherche universitaire depuis plus de 20 ans ! Depuis plus de vingt ans, l’Institut canadien d’administration de la justice (ICAJ) offre chaque année une Bourse de 7500 $ afin de stimuler la réflexion et d’encourager la recherche sur un enjeu juridique. Les projets soumis cette année devront respecter le thème suivant : « Le droit des frontières ». Il s’agit du sujet de la 47e Conférence annuelle de l’ICAJ qui aura lieu à Ottawa du 25 au 27 octobre 2023. ● Thème : Le droit des frontières ● Admissibilité : S’adresse au corps professoral et aux étudiantes et étudiants des cycles supérieurs ● Date limite : Le 31 mars 2023 ● Détails : https://ciaj-icaj.ca/fr/recherche/bourse-de-recherche- charles-d-gonthier/ CIAJ has been proudly supporting academic research for over twenty years! For over twenty years, the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice (CIAJ) has annually awarded law professors and students a 7,500$ fellowship to encourage research on pressing legal issues. The projects submitted this year must respect the theme “The Law of Borders” which is the focus of CIAJ’s 47th Annual Conference that will take place in Ottawa from October 25-27, 2023. ● Theme: The Law of Borders ● Eligibility: Open to faculty and graduate students at Canadian universities. ● Deadline: March 31, 2023 ● Details: https://ciaj-icaj.ca/en/research/charles-d-gonthier-research-fellowship/
Concours national d’essai univeritaire Nous souhaitons vous rappeler que les soumissions pour le Concours national d’essais universitaires sont maintenant ouvertes. La date limite est le 31 janvier 2023. Le CNEU est un concours annuel organisé par l’École de la fonction publique du Canada (l’École). Le concours vise à découvrir et promouvoir des travaux académiques importants dans le domaine de la politique publique provenant des programmes d’études supérieures canadiens. L’initiative donne aux étudiant·es de cycles supérieurs l’occasion d’entrer en contact avec des cadres supérieur·es, d’élargir leurs réseaux et de développer leurs compétences en leadership, et favorise les possibilités d’emploi dans la fonction publique fédérale.
Les professeur·es d’université et les superviseur·es peuvent encourager et soutenir leurs étudiant·es dans le processus de soumission d’un essai universitaire sur lequel ils et elles ont travaillé ou les inspirer à écrire un travail comportant des solutions novatrices qui pourrait informer les politiques et les programmes canadiens ou la fonction publique fédérale. Le, la ou les lauréat·es du grand prix du concours se voient offrir un stage de quatre mois au sein du gouvernement du Canada et de nombreuses occasions d’élargir leurs réseaux professionnels. Dans le cadre du concours, les étudiant·es ont l’occasion unique d’influencer d’importantes conversations politiques, et de nombreux participant·es travaillent ensuite pour le gouvernement fédéral.
Nous sommes impatient·es de recevoir les articles de votre communauté d’étudiant·es d’études supérieures. Nous vous demandons de transmettre les renseignements sur la procédure d’inscription au CNEU au personnel des programmes d’études supérieures et des programmes d’enseignement coopératif et à l’ensemble des professeur·es, des coordonnateurs et coordonnatrices de l’apprentissage par l’expérience et des étudiant·es de votre organisation. Nous vous encourageons également à suivre l’École sur Twitter et à transmettre le contenu pertinent sur le CNEU. Veuillez communiquer avec l’équipe du CNEU si vous avez des questions ou des préoccupations.
11
Vol 44 ● No 09
ÊTRE QUÉBÉCOIS POUR LES NULS. Marc-Elder Piard | 1L
Un guide de la « québécité » serait pertinent pour une personne comme moi qui a immigré il y a de cela 4 ans au Québec. À mon arrivée ici, le gouvernement n’a pas été clair en ce qui a trait à ce sujet. Du coup, je titube dans le noir, amusé par mes propres incertitudes. Devient-on Québécois lorsque l’on adhère aux valeurs du Québec? Si oui, quelles seraient ces valeurs ? La défense de la langue française? L’égalité des sexes? L’interculturalisme? Et cætera, et cætera. Faut-il adhérer à toutes les valeurs québécoises pour en devenir un? Un petit nombre suffirait-il? Une seule suffirait-elle? S’il fallait adhérer aux valeurs québécoises pour en être un, des Québécois nés au Québec de parents québécois pourraient-ils perdre leur statut de Québécois en raison de la non-adhérence à certaines ou à toutes ces valeurs? Oui? Comment le processus de « déquébécisation » s’effectue-t-il? Non? Est-ce également le cas pour les Québécois venus d’ailleurs? Oui? Il semblerait qu’une partie du Québec ne soit pas au courant. Je parle de la minorité qui a son « Retourne dans ton pays » facile. Non? Qu’il y a-t-il de spécial chez un Québécois d’ici qui rends son statut de Québécois inconditionnel?
QUID NOVI • 17 JAN 2023
Devient-on Québécois en fonction de la durée de temps pendant laquelle on a résidé au Québec? Si oui, combien de temps? 10 ans? 20 ans? 5 ans? Pourquoi 20 ans plutôt que 5? Pourquoi 5 ans plutôt que 10? Du haut de mes 4 ans passés au Québec, puis-je me targuer d’être Québécois? Devrait-on plutôt abandonner l’idée d’une identité québécoise et faire du Québec une province post-identitaire? Après tout, une identité culturelle est socialement construite. Quels que soient les avantages qui en découlent, elle reste artificielle donc remplaçable. Non! Je saute des étapes en ce moment. Penser à l’abolition de la « Québecité » avant de l’avoir comprise,
quelle folie! Revenons où nous en étions. Devient-on Québécois en devenant citoyen canadien? Oui? Je pense cette réponse vraie, du moins d’un point de vue légal. Après tout, on ne peut participer aux élections québécoises qu’après être devenu Canadien. Il n’en reste pas moins que cette réponse en est une que j’ai du mal à accepter. N’y aurait-il aucune distinction entre les nationalités québécoise et canadienne? J’ai du mal à le croire. Je suis dépité. Il me faut une réponse satisfaisante. C’est impératif. Pourquoi est-ce si important pour moi de savoir comment on devient Québécois? Pourquoi est-ce si important pour moi de savoir si je suis Québécois? Il faut savoir que je ne peux m’empêcher de m’impliquer dans la communauté. Avec cette implication viennent toutes sortes de prises de position sur une ribambelle de sujets. Maintenant, en tant que qui dois-je prendre position? En tant que Québécois? En tant qu’immigrant non québécois? C’est vital que je le sache, vous comprenez. Cela impactera grandement la virulence de mes prises de position ainsi que les moyens que j’utiliserai pour donner vie à ma façon de voir les choses. Il faut que je sois sûr de moi avant d’entrer dans l’arène des idées. Une piste de solution m’a été offerte par un ami qui m’est cher : « Tu es Québécois si tu te considères Québécois et que tu aimes le Québec ». Serait-ce donc aussi simple? J’ai du mal à y croire. Il n’en reste pas moins que cette réponse plait grandement au grand romantique que je suis, cette idée que notre relation avec le Québec ne concerne que nous et qu’aucune autorité ne peut nous octroyer ou nous enlever notre « québécité ». Il faut que je m’en aille. Le soleil se couche. J’ai des lectures qui m’attendent. Inexorablement.
THE QUID IS LOOKING FOR LAYOUT EDITORS
WE ARE LOOKING FOR LAYOUT EDITORS. LAYOUT EDITORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE QUID’S FORMATTING AND LAYOUT. THEY ARE KEY TO ENSURING THE NEWSPAPER’S FLOW AND READABILITY. YOU’LL MAKE SURE THE ISSUES MEET THE FORMAT OF THE QUID NOVI WHILE BEING APPEALING TO THE READERS. VOUS SEREZ EN MESURE D’APPRENDRE LES RUDIMENTS DES LOGICIELS D’ÉDITION PROFESSIONNELS, TOUT EN EXPRIMANT VOS TALENTS ARTISTIQUES. YOU ONLY NEED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR 5-7 HOURS EVERY THREE WEEK. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE POSITION, EMAIL US AT QUID.LAW@MCGILL.CA .
12
Content Guidelines Amherst College Undergraduate Law Review Deadline: Rolling Basis Eligibility • Essays written by undergraduate students (including those on leave) • All essays must be previously unpublished • Essays written by multiple authors are accepted Content • Outlined in the Amherst College Undergraduate Law Review Mission Statement (see below) Materials • Essay (recommended length: 10-30 pages) • Abstract (200 words maximum) • Submission Form Formatting • MLA format • Footnotes or endnotes • Microsoft Word attachment • Emailed to aclawreview@amherst.edu Amherst College Undergraduate Law Review Mission Statement The Amherst College Law Review (ACLR) was born out of the desire to foster undergraduate scholarship in the liberal arts. Among our peers, the ACLR stands alone for its interdisciplinary approach to the study of law. Given the ever-changing nature of our society, students of law encounter a host of new, troubling, and intriguing questions including, but not limited to, increasing inequality, salience of technology, and neoliberal globalization. These questions cannot be fully posed, much less answered, within the scope of conventional legal training and/or the traditional social sciences. The mission of the ACLR is to pose these questions and to strive to answer them with the nuance, clarity, probity, and rigor provided by the liberal arts tradition. This journal brings the best scholarship of the contemporary humanities to bear on the most difficult and urgent juridical problems of our time.
13
QUID NOVI • 17 JAN 2023
Vol 44 ● No 09
14