Vol 47 No 1 by Quid Novi

The Quid N vi

Faith Dehghan |

The Quid Novi has always held a special place in my heart. I remember seeing the Quid table in the atrium on my very first Clubs Day and thinking, “I have to be a part of this club.” A law school newspaper that acted as a platform, amplifying the voices of law students—I thought it was something truly special. As I fired off applications to various clubs, I crossed my fingers hardest for the Quid. I was ecstatic when I heard I was in: I would be joining the team as a Copy Editor! I’ve been on the team ever since, continuing as Social Media Director, and now as one of the Co-Editors-in-Chief. It feels especially meaningful to be leading my favourite club and, in my totally unbiased opinion, the coolest publication in the faculty.

Journalism is an ongoing passion for me. Prior to law school, I seriously considered a career in publishing/digital

media. I even applied to New York University’s Summer Publishing Institute, which I attended the summer before law school. I had already accepted my offer to come to McGill at this point, but I have no regrets about undertaking the program. In fact, I still treasure my brief time in New York City. It taught me about the ins and outs of the industry, one that oddly seemed even more out of reach after learning from industry professionals.

The reality was that digital media was dying, people were getting laid off left and right, and it was becoming increasingly more difficult to make it as a journalist. While journalism is evidently not the career I have chosen to pursue, I still want it to be a part of my life. Enter the Quid, the perfect solution to my dilemma.

As I wrap up my first-ever “Letter from the Editor,” I’m wishing you all a school year packed with laughter, latenight adventures, and maybe even a little studying. Whether you’re an eager 1L or just trying to 3LOL your way to the finish line, I hope the Quid becomes a bright spot in your McGill Law journey. Who knows, maybe I’ll even be hearing from you, if you’re brave enough to submit a piece for publication. After all, this paper is by law students, for law students and your voice might be exactly what it’s missing.

QUARTIER LATIN

Catherine Zhang | 3L

Nota bene

| One is very likely to encounter a Latin saying at some point in law school. 1Ls might learn about mens rea intheirCriminalJusticeclasses; 2Ls might be confronted with nemo dat quod non habet in Property; 3Ls and 4Ls might still have no idea what a priori means.As one of the Quid’s Co-Editorsin-Chief, and a nerd who took Latin throughout high school, I thought it would be a nice idea to have a regular column explaining—in perhaps excruciating detail—Latin phrases commonly used in law. If you’re an enjoyer of etymology or find grammar glamorous,thiscolumnisforyou.

To kick off the first issue of the year, we’ll begin with an old classic, Audi alteram partem, and Quid Novi, the name of this very journal!

why him?

Quid Novi

| Literally“what of new”, this phrase is very fitting for a student journal dedicated to showcasing community voices and goings-on. Its grammatical construction is similar to the French quoi de neuf : quid means“what”, andbecause novi isthegenitivecaseof the adjective novus,itmeansnotjust“new”but “of new”. Words derived from novus include the English “novel” and “supernova”, and the French nouveau.As Latin often sounds awkward when transliterated into English, for our purposes,wecaninterpretthenameof the Quid Novi tojustmean:“What’sNew”!

Audi alteram partem

| You might have already heard the English meaning of this venerated phrase, carved above the side door of NCDH: “hear the other side”. It refers to the legal principle where no party should be judged without being given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against them in a fair hearing. What I find interesting here is that audi is in the imperative singular of the verb audire,

ttu eut se t dans une dynamique sociale malheureusement trop familière : dans notre société, certaines différences sont immédiatement perçues comme une menace. La jeunesse et l’appartenance à une minorité suffisent trop souvent à susciter la méfiance. Ce n’est pas une fatalité , c’est le produit d’un système où l’altérité est systématiquement associée au danger.

Ce qui devrait nous alerter n’est pas seulement le geste fatal d’un policier, mais le contexte qui l’a rendu possible, voire pensable. Comment un adolescent désarmé peut-il être perçu comme suffisamment dangereux pour justifier l’usage létal de la force ? La réponse réside dans un climat social où différence rime systématiquement avec déviance et minorité avec menace, au point que certains jeunes sont vus comme intrinsèquement à risque. Dans un tel environnement, l’erreur humaine n’explique plus grand-chose : c’est la structure elle-même qui engendre la violence.

audire, which can be translated as “hear”, but also “listen to”, “pay attention to”, “perceive”, and so on. (English derivatives include, obviously, “audio”, but also “audition” and “audience”.)The imperative grants this phrase the quality of an order, and the many meanings of audire may denote an obligation not merely to hear, but to really listen.

On pourrait croire à l’exception, à un dérapage isolé. Pourtant, la répétition de ces tragédies — d’ici à MontréalNord, avec Joyce Echaquan, ailleurs encore avec George Floyd — révèle une violence systémique profondément enracinée dans nos institutions. À chaque fois, le même schéma se répète: indignation, enquête, conclusions tardives, puis oubli. Ce cycle est renforcé par certaines représentations publiques et politiques d’exclusion: l’idée que l’étranger est «de trop» ou que sa simple présence menace la société nourrit la suspicion et légitime la discrimination.À force de se répéter, ce mécanisme banalise ce qui devrait rester inacceptable.

Les caméras corporelles sont souvent citées comme une solution, mais réduire la question à une technologie, c’est esquiver le fond. Le vrai problème n’est pas seulement ce que l’on voit ou non, mais ce que l’on croit voir. Si, pour certains, la présence d’un adolescent racisé suffit à déclencher un réflexe de peur, alors aucune caméra ne pourra corriger ce biais. Ce n’est pas d’outils techniques que nous manquons, mais d’un changement de perspective : voir en ces jeunes non pas des suspects en puissance, mais des citoyens à part entière.

La mort de Nooran doit nous servir d’avertissement. Tant que notre conception de la sécurité sera fondée sur la méfiance plutôt que sur la confiance, sur la répression plutôt que sur l’inclusion, les mêmes tragédies continueront de survenir. Le véritable danger n’est pas seulement de revoir ces drames se répéter, mais que nous finissions par nous y habituer.

A discovery of Witches

Heinrich Cornelius AgrippaA Lawyer in Defiance of Witch Hunts

Nicholas Bailey | 3L

As we enter October, stories of the spooky and the scary take hold, while talk of monsters, witches, and magic find their way into conversation in anticipation of Halloween. There is therefore no better time to conjure the ghost of one of the most intriguing figures of the Renaissance: Heinrich CorneliusAgrippa von Nettesheim (1486–1535).

A polymath, at one time or another, he was a physician, theologian, philosopher, soldier, lawyer, and royal archivist. Most famously, Agrippa authored Three Books of Occult Philosophy, a foundational text in the history of Western esotericism. To readers of the Romantic period, in particular, he was the archetypal magician-scholar of the middle ages, revealing hidden knowledge not meant for mortal eyes. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Agrippa is famously invoked as the young Victor Frankenstein devours occult works in pursuit of forbidden knowledge.

Besides his influential role as a scholar of the occult, however, Agrippa earned a striking notoriety for his humanist and courageous work as lawyer, notably following his work as an advocate in Metz in 1519.At a time when the Inquisition held trials for witchcraft that condemned countless souls (often poor and marginalized women), risking both reputation and safety,Agrippa stood against the frenzy.

In his legal work, as well as in his treatise, On the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex (although chauvinistic for our times), Agrippa argued for the dignity and rationality of women in ways that were ahead of his time. Thus, already opposed to the Inquisition, as syndic (advocate) at Metz, he successfully defended a woman accused of witchcraft

Denounced as a witch by association of heredity, following the prior burning of her mother as a witch, the country woman was to be tortured and burned at the stake as well. Confronting flimsy evidence, prosecution driven by cruel superstitions, and poor interpretation of canon law,Agrippa attacked not only the validity of an irregular arrest procedure, but challenged the charge of witchcraft by forcing the Inquisition into a theological corner.They would have to either recognize that the woman was not a witch, or maintain a heretical accusation themselves by denying the power of both the woman’s baptism and the purging by fire of her mother’s sin before her. Thus, the Inquisition preferred to find her innocent of their charges.

While Agrippa’s outspokenness brought him into conflict with authorities, his influence extended well beyond his own battles. Indeed, notable among his students was JohannWeyer,

a physician who carried the skepticism of witchcraft trials even further. Weyer’s landmark work, De praestigiis daemonum, openly attacked the barbarous persecution of alleged witches and is often credited with contributing to the eventual abolition of witchcraft trials in the Netherlands. This work remains notable for exploring supernatural beliefs by trying to rationalize them as psychological delusions, and that, centuries before Sigmund Freud initiated psychiatric research.

Agrippa’s esoteric writings echoed across the centuries, shaping the thoughts of later Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers (among others, John Dee, Giordano Bruno, Michel de Montaigne, René Descartes, and Johann von Goethe) who wrestled to balance questions of philosophical reason and natural science with matters of superstition and the occult. While his works may have represented as much a doorway to hidden knowledge for some as they exemplified the danger of unchecked curiosity for others, today, consider recognizing this spirit as much for his mystical writings as for his bold defense of justice.

In a season when tales of witches abound, perhaps, take a moment to recall that amid the terrible hysteria of Europe’s witch hunts, a scholar wielded both reason and legal skills against real monsters to protect the innocent, and in so doing, helped light the way to a more rational world.

Going postal just got political

Michael Kowalsky | LLM Candidate, Université de Montreal and Columnist for Le Pigeon Dissident

Riddle me this: What stays in the corner but travels around the world? A postage stamp, of course. But perhaps not for long in Canada. Canadian postal workers recently walked off the job again as a sign that contract negotiations had reached a boiling point with administrators. Certain observers warn that Canada Post could be reaching a dangerous expiration date of permanent extinction.

Labour representatives postulate that the post is an essential service, and that many people rely on it to receive essential updates from the government, banks, and health services providers. Furthermore, mail-in voting is an integral part of our democratic process, and package delivery is an invaluable link between businesses and customers, friends, and family members. Many people, and especially those with reduced mobility, rely on the postal service for their cheques or notices about necessary medical interventions through the mail.These folks are left with few inexpensive alternatives for their notifications now that mail has been halted.

Neo-liberals, centrists, libertarians, and other supporters of the free market purport that the services of the public postal service should be replaced with a private enterprise. However, this would disproportionately impact the‘have-nots’, in favour of the‘haveyachts’. Although there exists abundant private competition for parcel delivery in Canada, these private enterprises must make a profit from their services. Anyone who is in favour of this freemarket position should take a single letter into their local private carrier and get an estimate on the cost.Yes, it may be possible to send a package, but the increased cost of using a private enterprise would rapidly become overwhelming for those on limited budgets. Furthermore, in an era when consumers want their goods delivered as soon as yesterday, a plethora of choices are available to cater to their whims, and often tout‘free’delivery. However, free delivery is never truly free, somebody is paying the price. One does not have to look very far to see the worker exploitation, reduced wages, or torturous working conditions that exist in order to service ‘free delivery’ options. Canadian Postal workers, on the other hand, have unionized jobs, with steady schedules, predictable pay, and pension plans that make their work rewarding, desirable, and albeit physically demanding (think of door-to-door service while the deliverers scale the icecovered external staircases of the Plateau).

Furthermore, public postal services are based on equity, charging the same amount for a delivery to Kujjuak as to Kingston, and to Whitehorse as to Windsor. There is a certain consistency and philatelic democracy to be found here. While centrally located Canadians compensate by paying for people who send things to Iqaluit, it would be unfair to discriminate against our fellow citizens based ontheir remoteness. While many people decry the cost of door-to-door delivery and especially to remote locations, this is a n essential service for rural and remote communities where private enterprises often refuse delivery due to the additional cost. In a country as large

as Canada, with such a dispersed population, the Post cannot perish.To allow it to go extinct would be to condemn those who are more remote to a second-class status.

Some might also argue that electronic mail has superseded paper mail and made it obsolete. However, between the paper mail and electronic mail, which is really better? Have we really moved past the age of paper mail? Imagine something as importantly paramount as your McGill University diploma that you will receive upon graduation. Would it be as genuine were it to be distributed by mass e-mail? Paper is more tangible. If a sender of a communication opts for a textured parchment under the quill of a fountain pen, a postcard from a vacation, or a simple birthday card, there is something very authentic and original to the missive.Whereas e-mail is foolproofly scanned by spellcheck and sifted through junk filters and cookies. The moment we will have moved past the need for mail will be the very moment when there will be no more ideas or emotions to communicate and share with one another.

Furthermore, in an age where the world is becoming more connected under the umbrella of multinational conglomerates, there is a certain pride in supporting local and using a public service to help support local business. Oftentimes, Canada Post is the best low-cost option for local handicraft artisans and makers to ship their wares around the world. For those who choose to shop local, or support small scale producers, needing to use a large multinational US company to receive the purchase can taint that experience and increase the cost to both the consumer and the artist. If we remove this delivery option, we deprive these small businesses of their connection with the world, or make them less competitive to the point of financial unviability.

On a final note, we must never forget that the postal service isa public service. Much like libraries, fire departments, or hospitals, we cannot and should not approach these services from the perspective of profit.We do not ask how the fire department will profit from saving a burning home, we only ask them to show up. Likewise, we do not rifle through the pockets of children looking for their lunch money when they visit the library. Public services must operate for the public good and not for the profit margin.

Postal services have undergone many transformations over the centuries, from horsewagons, to steamtrains, to airplanes. Are we at a fork in the road to trigger the next transformation of the postal service? What does the future hold? Weekend delivery? Stamp distributing machines? A mandatory letter-writing campaign program? Letters might even be a lost art with most people not even knowing how to send them. But paper is real, and we need a renaissance of stationary beneath a pen. It is often said that people don’t appreciate something until it is gone, but postal services are the lifeblood of a country, commerce, and communication, and we cannot afford to lose it. Because if Canada Post is ever gone, it probably won’t come back like a‘return to sender’.

Heeva Chavoshi | 2L

Hello, readers!

D Q ear uid

Welcome to this year’s first edition of Quid Novi! For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Heeva—a 2L and one of the rare Vancouverites in the faculty. I’m very excited to introduce this new column:“Dear Quid”. Inspired by the advice columns in the magazines I’d hungrily flip through in waiting rooms growing up, I pitched “Dear Quid” so you would have the perfect place to (anonymously) divulge your burning questions, worries, and fears. Plus, through providing you unqualified advice, I have the chance to finally put my BA in psychology to some use.

I, along with my co-columnist, Sébastien (to whom you will be introduced in the next edition), will do our very best to ease your anxieties… or, at least, not add to them. Feel free to write about anything your dear heart desires: your school-fueled stress, miserable love life, or general existentialism. Think Dear Abby meets Carrie Bradshaw meets the McGill Law General Facebook Group. We are ready for it all.

Without further ado, I present the first submission and reply of “Dear Quid”. Thank you to this brave soul for taking the first plunge, and I hope to read and reply to your submission next.

Dear Lost 1L,

One thing’s for sure: you’re right in saying you are not the first, last, or only law student to feel this way. But I understand why that sentiment doesn’t necessarily make feelings of inadequacy any easier to deal with.

Listen,law school is supposed to be hard.If it was easy,your parents wouldn’t be as proud of you as they are, and your LinkedIn profile would probably be much more lackluster.You are supposed to be challenged, feel confused, and maybe even fall behind. It is only through becoming lost that you have the opportunity to find your way through.

At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, remind yourself of the privilege it is to be here, learning the things you’re learning, and growing in the way that you are. The mechanisms of your mind will expand in ways you didn’t know were possible by the end of the year, and that is truly a wonderful thing.

The recruitment team doesn’t make mistakes. You’ve been accepted into the program because you are good enough to be here. The hard part was getting in, and you have already succeeded. Now, take on each day, one at a time, until the finish line.

Sanctimoniously, Quid

P.S. If people are pretending they completely understand the tangential points your professors make about Roman law and the German tripartite system, remind yourself that it (probably) won’t be on the exam anyway.

Biomedical Tax Law

Sophie Fernier | 3L

The first time I noticed medical economics, it happened to a senior patient with severe cognitive decline. As he became agitated from trying (and failing) to leave his hospital bed, the staff took notice. “Stop, that’s a sixty-thousand-dollar bed,”one of the employees at the nursing station .There was a hint of annoyance in his tone as he tried to convey the monetary value of provincially-funded hospital equipment to a man suffering from untreatable dementia.

Shortly after this exchange—and sudden realization of how costly beds can be to a taxpaying unit—I returned to my expensive public hospital room. The (now luxurious) space was divided into two separate sections between myself and my roommate. She was also an older patient.The moment I entered, she broke the silence first. She seemed so fragile then, both severely underweight and on intravenous fluids. Beneath the thin sheets that covered her body, her skin was covered in painful ulcers. Her condition also required frequent diaper changes.

“I’m scared the government doesn’t have enough money to pay for my care,”she confessed to me.The frail woman that I had only ever seen asleep until then was suddenly alert as she uttered those words. I looked at her with poorly camouflaged horror. Then, what I felt next was profound sadness. I was still relatively young, yet by the end of that hospital visit, I, too, had become aware of my own cost. In truth, it is so easy for any of us to become very, very expensive.The existential consequences can be disastrous.

The equipment we slept on was, as it turns out, very costly. But what was the price of my meal tray? My medication did not have a generic version available, I was informed. The doctor said the brand name was “very expensive” and that I required provincial pre-authorization for approval. What was the cost of the neurostimulation machine they used? The medical technicians have always mentioned the very pricey cooling fluid required to operate the equipment.

And, most importantly: how long are we allowed to be this costly?

Canada is a suicide mill,”announced my philosophy professor. It was our second lecture of biomedical ethics. I found this statement bold. By then, I had gotten used to customary nondisclosure of political opinions in legal settings. Suddenly I was taken aback by such bravery, accompanied by the statistical data projected from his laptop. “That’s quite a spectacular leap of value judgment from mere demographic trends,”I thought. Brazen inference.

And yet, somewhere in my heart, I knew that I would love the course. At last, someone had given me a real opinion on one of the subjects that has haunted me the most. In so doing, we had finally broken the fourth wall of policy spectatorship. Sat in a classroom of carefree undergraduates, I was grappling with the possibility of euthanasia in my own future. I still am.

Legally speaking, we don’t call it that. Instead, the process is relabeled as “medical assistance in dying” (MAiD). The governmental documentation informs me that I qualify on the basis of my disability. Online newspapers are full of anecdotes like mine. The flyers make it all seem less scary. “It’s constitutional,”law students say. During the summer, again, I’ve given it some thought. It’s hard to talk about it. Not because I don’t want to…but, rather, because nobody can do it well.

One of my doctors was a member of the Committee tasked with developing MAiD protocols for people like me in Canada. Yet we never discuss the subject beyond mere legal curiosity. As a patient, opening such channels of communication might raise alarm, so I never do. Despite privileged access to expertise, we politely don’t talk. Perhaps our mutual silence is a way to postpone the inevitable: sooner or later, I might want to exercise my legal free will to seek his help in dying. It seems wrong or awkward, for somebody who is not terminally ill to fail enough treatments to legally qualify for death. But what other remedy to suffering, if not the ultimate demise of its (expensive) host?

In what he thinks is an encouraging tone, my doctor tells me he believes I can obtain a diploma and live independently. “Not everyone is capable,”he says,“of being a law student.” Unspoken is the fact that most of his other patients generally experience levels of disability incompatible with educational pursuits and will go on to require costly assisted living. For now, I still stand outside that category, which seems“good”. What I always sense is that my doctor doesn’t quite want to include me, the qualifying disabled person before him, into the legal pathway which was (seemingly) devised for “worst cases”. At the same time, nobody in the medical field can guarantee any specific quality of life, nor future health outcomes. Things might always get worse. It’s annoying. It’s exhausting. Despite my doctor’s tacit misgivings, Canadian law does consider me, a nearly-thirty-year-old law student, eligible for assisted dying in the same way as it does any of his other, perhaps older, patients. I have asked myself the question: what is it that makes us choose MAiD?

Returning to the increasing rates of MAiD deaths visually displayed in class, I began wondering whether we were truly living in a form of legislated suicide mill—of which I might also be a contributing statistic. I knew then—just as I do now—what makes me choose.

* * *

Sometimes, I feel better.The trajectory of MAiD escapes my mind altogether.Yet as remission invariably ends, so does the topic return. It is when legalized dying provides me with a sense of comfort, as it does for many other disabled persons. “Should disabled living become too difficult,”I think, I will then be entitled to a somewhat dignified escape. I often oscillate back and forth on the matter. While I was here, I actively sought legal perspectives beyond those of clinical

practice to better understand this phenomenon. The candid critical perspectives on dying that I had expected are nowhere in law school. Intellectual distance leads this dialogue, as though the complexitiesof disabilitydonotaffectanyonehere,compounding my isolation. Death. Are we scared of this word? It’s perhaps the mostexpensiveonethatwehaveinourlegalvocabulary.

Over the years, I did raise the subject with peers and researchers alike. All too meekly, I tried to emulate traditional, respectable silence around my personal opinions (despite the intrinsic value-ladenness of law itself). Maintaining a polite veneer of theory where lived experience was the reason to initiate conversation, I tried to understand something seemingly simple—the question of choice.

In true scholarly fashion, I approached this contentious subject from a variety of systemic and impersonal angles. I brought up the ongoing housing crisis afflicting our country. I followed with concerns about racial bias, which intersects with the lived experience of many disabled folks. What I did not address was the crushingly expensive loneliness of it all.

In between my many treatments, I had spent enough isolated years—removed from the “real world” of the healthy—to gradually understand what happens to costly people like me. I might perhaps live independently and be capable of studying, thereby satisfying the implicit criteria of “not being the worst disabled”that I suspect to be part of my doctor’s unspoken taxonomy. But it doesn’t matter, because ultimately none of those reasons are reasons to choose MAiD. The various prophecies that I have heard over the years (from lack of professional capacity to inescapable neurodegeneration) never would have shaped my choice. It’s different.

Nothing that matters ever finds its way on paper first— thereinis the impotence of law that judges so often highlight. On paper, the laws of Canada allow us to request death because of a liberal and atomistic conceptualization of free will. The laws of Canada also allow us to request death because of the reassuring underlying assumption that persons with disabilities can (and will) evaluate suffering through the singular prism of illness. Yet none of us has truly ever existed on this legalized paper.Whatever free will and autonomy envisaged in the sphere of law, I have yet to encounter in the rather complex network of obligations and limitations imposed by the very context of disability… and, as it turns out, its great cost.

level of confidence, that I know what people want. What I am aware of from experience, however, is that disabled persons like us are gradually perceived as terribly expensive to an invisible collective budget tightening its purse with each passing year. He, too, had begun to sense this.

Incurable illness economics become most prominent while I was an in-patient, and exacerbate further for older patients, shaping a haunting and alienating future that makes people choose.The cruel reminder of one’s cost, amidst the loneliness which invariably accompanies severe illness, is distressing.Yet worst of all, perhaps, is this: there’s simply no way to make Biomedical Tax Law sufficiently amusing to trick someone into a serious conversation on the forbidden word that is (legal) death.

This summer, I met another luxurious sick person like me at the hospital. “I nearly asked for MAiD,” he revealed. “But that’s what society wants me to do. So, I didn’t.”

His sense of strength came from non-conformity, which he asserted by (as he perceived it) challenging entrenched sociolegal norms through the simple act of… living. Each conversation that followed, he maintained the very same rebellious disposition. I cannot say, at least not with the same

Betterave Bourguignon

CULINARY BRIEFS

Betterave Bourguignon

Caroline Homet | 2L

Welcome (back!) to Culinary Briefs! It’s official, this impromptu series is back for a second season.And this year, it’s got a shiny new column bringing you monthly foodie inspo tailored to your student budget and schedule. I believe what’s best for you and the planet is also what’s best for your budget. I’m talking seasonal veg, re-using scraps, depression cakes, meatless meals, CROCK-POTS! If your mouth is watering already, hop on board for a new year of culinary adventures.

This year feels like I blinked and it was Fall! All of a sudden, leaves line the bike lane and my nose is chilly at the end of my commute. I only leave the house in a sweaters and jeans combo anymore. The crispiness in the air calls for warm, soothing stews, and yup, you guessed it: the Crock-Pot. I recognize that not everyone is as lucky as I am to have custody of their grandma’s vintage slow cooker, so what’s great about this week’s recipe is that any old big pot with a lid will do. It’s just a bonus to get home from the library and have a warm dinner waiting for you, de moi à moi avec amour. In any case, make sure to use a big enough pot for leftovers, because you’re going to want to pack lunches for the week.

You’ve heard of boeuf bourguignon but have you ever wondered what a meatless version could taste like? If boeuf bourguignon is a cold winter night, betterave bourguignon is a cloudy Fall afternoon.Tangy and packed with umami, the veggie version is a lighter alternative to the heavy beef stew. Soy sauce, tomato paste and cumin add a depth of flavour that the meat fat would normally carry in a dish, without eclipsing the sweetness of our star vegetables. Likewise, wine is a must in vegetarian stews and sauces.The older, the better but adjust the quantity if it’s turned to vinegar. Ideally, you should use up that really old bottle you never finished the last time you had people over during the second week of term. It’s fine if it’s white, too. Or a mix.

Second bonus: homemade veggie broth. Keep broccoli stems, potato peels, onion and garlic skins, pepper tops, carrot peels, a wilted bushel of parsley or thyme – you name it – in a large ziploc bag in the freezer when you prep your veg for other meals. When it’s bursting, dump the contents in your largest soup pot and fill with water. I like to add four or five bay leaves, a few peppercorns and cloves, and a tablespoon of salt to add a little umph. Let the potion reduce until roughly two-thirds of the liquid remains and voilà! You have free vegetable broth! You might want to plan this one ahead for a study break because it can take a couple hours for thebrothtoreduceenoughtogetalltheflavoursout.

Without further ado, my favourite vegetarian take on a French Fall classic, le betterave bourguignon!

Ingredients:

4 large or 6 small beets

2 large carrots

1 large onion

However many mushrooms your heart desires 2-3 cloves of garlic, minced

1 tbsp tomato paste (Or ketchup. Trust me, it works.)

1 tbsp soy sauce

1 tbsp of herbes de Provence or Italian herbs (think thyme, oregano, basil, rosemary vibes)

A sprinkle of cumin

A few bay leaves

A dollop of harissa paste or sambal olek if you're feeling it

1 cup of dried lentils, either brown or green, rinsed. You can substitute ½ cup split red lentils if you're not a huge fan of legumes… you won't even know they're there once cooked.

1 cup red wine.

3 cups vegetable broth

Salt and pepper to taste

Instructions:

1.Chop all the vegetables into large bite-sized cubes. 2.Dump (with love) into your Crock-Pot with a sprinkle of olive oil.*

3.Add in the herbs, spices and aromatics with your lentils of choice. Finally, add the wine and broth and stir. Set your slow cooker to high for 5-6 hours and wait for the magic to happen!** (Note that mine only has two settings and legumes never cook through on low. Yours might be more powerful.)

4.This is absolutely delicious served over creamy mashed potatoes, but a slice of bread does just fine to soak up the broth for a quick bite.

I eyeballed the ingredient quantities, so you may wish to taste as you go. Bear in mind that the end result will taste much more nuanced once the stew has simmered for hours. At the beginning, it should taste tangy, a little salty, and almost questionably good.

*If you’re cooking over the stove-top, you’ll want to sauté the garlic and onions first. Once browned, add the mushrooms and resist the temptation to stir until you think you’ve burned them. Then add the carrots and celery and finally the beets, lightly salting between each vegetable. This will bring out the flavours more since the dish won’t be simmering as long as in a slow cooker.

** On the stove, you’ll want to let the stew simmer for 30 minutes to an hour, depending on your lentil cook time and how big your beets and carrots are cut.

Smoke, but No Fire: Experiences of Climate Grief this Summer

The air is cooling and leaves are beginning to litter the sidewalks; the sky is bluer, more clear, and the top of the mountain begins to show its first tell-tale signs of autumn. The crowds around McGill revel in more moderate temperatures, and fall fashion is out in full force. Please insert any other fall vignette that piques your nostalgic sensibilities.

The whole city seems to breathe a sigh of relief. The memory of this summer’s oppressive heat, and the haze of wildfire smoke that blanketed the city for days, fades in our collective consciousness like moisture in the crisp fall air. From one survivor of anAC-less apartment to another, I’m very sorry to remind readers of these desperate times. However, while the memory of uncomfortable sticky nights and sweat-drenched clothing may fade, I can’t forget theconversationsIhadthissummeraboutourclimate.

It’sinappropriatetobeginthisarticlewithoutareflectiononmyown personal privilege. For those of us living in urban eastern environments, or who come from cultures and geographies where engagement with nature is not a part of everyday life but rather an occasional foray, climate change may exist to us solely in data points and acronyms. “At COP 2025, the members of the UNFCCC discussed progress on the 17 SDGs and the viability of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees from the beginning of industrialization.”“This summer was 0.69 degrees hotter than 19902020 averages.”“2023 wildfires released 4 times more carbon than previous years.”Some of us may see and hear, but are unable to identifyhowwefeelthesestatisticsintheenvironmentaroundus.For Indigenouspeoplesinso-calledCanada,theeffectsof climatechange and environmental racism have been acutely felt for decades. Kahnawà:ke Mohawk activist and scholarTaiaiakeAlfred reminded usof thiswhenhegavealecturetotheMJSDLlastyear:“Indigenous people have already experienced the end of the world.”On the topic of the socio-economic drivers of climate change and Indigenous sovereignty,IwouldhighlyrecommendDr.AngeleAlook’sbook, The Endof thisWorld:ClimateJusticeinSo-CalledCanada.

In Quebec and Ontario, our newsfeeds have been littered with articles on the“effects”of climate change. However, more than ever this summer, people seemed to be feeling “affects”: feelings of anxiety, fear, grief, and nostalgia. After experiencing recordbreakingglobaltemperaturesin2024,Iwasstruckinthesummer

My friend and colleague Katherine also introduced me to the concept of Solastalgia, which tries to put a name to all these feelings:“As opposed to nostalgia--the melancholia or homesickness experienced by individuals when separated from a loved home--solastalgia is the distress that is produced by environmental change impacting on people while they are directly connected to their home environment.”Albrecht, Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental change.Australas Psychiatry. 2007;15 1

of 2025 by how talk of climate anxiety has become pervasive in casual conversation. My hairdresser of ten years, who had been telling me about her and her boyfriend’s plans to move to Nova Scotia ever since I can remember, said they had abandoned their goals: “Have you heard about the wildfires? This is the only place we’re still safe.”

As smoke obscured both church steeples and condo towers in downtown Ottawa, people on the sidewalks below chatted: “We were thinking of buying a cottage in B.C.… but with the wildfires over there we’ve decided it’s unwise.”I overheard endless iterations of this same sentiment; everything from hesitations about daily outdoor activities to reconsidering long-term retirement plans.As I learned from my friend and colleague Katherine Lacroix, McGill ProfessorAaron Mill’sAnishinaabe Law Field School was partially cancelled due to unexpectedly early wildfires inThunder Bay. More and more, middle-class people in Eastern urban centres are seeing, smelling and feeling climate change in the form of hotter temperatures and smokey skies. It’s causing unavoidable distress on anindividuallevelabouttheviabilityof thefuture.

I had my own taste of climate grief this summer when I visited my grandfather,thefirsttimesincemygrandmother’sdeath.Inahouse still becoming accustomed to having only one person in it, we sat in the kitchen having coffee, looking out at the sunny irises in the garden. My grandpa is from Hungary, survived the Holocaust as a child,andescapedadictatorshipasanadult,fleeingwithhisfamily to Canada in the 1980s. In the past, he had always desperately encouraged me to get married and have children, and generally holds fairly traditional, conservative views. So, I was surprised that afternoon when he told me he no longer thought I should have a family. “It’s getting hotter and hotter, and the government isn’t going to do anything about it,”he told me.“It’s not fair to bring children into this world.”While I had never let myself be influenced by his expectations of my future, the statement felt heavy and hard. The garden outside, with its yellow flowers and lush vegetables, suddenly looked brighter and more brittle. Hearing someone who had previously bet everything on a hopeful future for his children express feelings of doom and grief about our collective future was a serious blow to my psyche. I imagined my grandfather, who had sustained hope through so much adversity, grieving the loss of his future great-grandchildren in the face of evidence that things are almostcertainlygoingtogetworse.

People who feel the “affects” of climate change have the greatest potential for momentum, but only if we can harness this anxiety, grief and fear into solidarity and protest. To somewhat discredit my own methodology, a 2021 paper found that“[t]he affective responses people experience toward climate change are consistently found to be among the strongest predictors of risk perceptions, mitigation behavior, adaptation behavior, policy support, and technology acceptance”.2

Alongside both grief and anxiety, what I took away from this summer was a renewed hope that more citizens will fight to express their democratic will about climate change. On an individual level, I’m trying to educate myself about the basic ecology of my urban environment, the native species we observe everyday, and how we dependontheinfrastructuretheycreate.

2 : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/piiS2352154621000206

Tobias Brosch,“Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: a review”, 2021, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42, online

Which Supreme Court Justice Are You?

Erin Porter | 2L

Keep track of your answers and check your results on the next page (but no peeking!)

1. What’s your go-to way to spend a free Saturday?

a) Browsing art galleries or writing something creative

b) Catching up with friends over coffee and heading to a rally

c) Hitting the library for a serious study session

d) Hanging out with family or friends and enjoying some peace at home

e) Going on a long walk to mentally draft your future thesis

2. What is your favourite unwritten constitutional principle:

a) Federalism

b) Minority Rights

c) I’m an originalist — if it wasn’t written down, it doesn’t count!

d) Rule of Law

e) Democracy

3. What is your favourite section in the Charter?

a) Section 7 – Safety and Security of the Person, Principles of Fundamental Justice

b) Section 15 – Equality

c) Section 1 – Reasonable Limitations

d) Section 11 – Rights of theAccused

e) Section 2 – Freedom of Expression

4. What kind of case would you secretly love to argue in court?

a)A groundbreaking Charter case that rewrites the rules

b)A high-profile equality rights battle

c)A fast-paced criminal law appeal

d)A thorny constitutional question with national impact

e)A theoretical case that unpacks the foundations of law

5. Which law school snack represents you?

a) Latte with a side croissant

b)Trail mix

c) Black coffee

d) Homemade sandwich

e) Dark chocolate

6. Your ideal study break looks like:

a) Karaoke night with friends

b)Volunteering at a student clinic

c)A quick run to clear your head

d) Cooking dinner with roommates

e) Reading a novel

7. What is your legal writing style?

a) Creative, bold, innovative

b) Passionate, always looking out for the underdog

c)Technical, precise, and measured

d) Pragmatic, balanced, and grounded in the facts

e) Philosophical, reflective, and looking at the big picture

8. Which movie are you most likely to binge after exams?

a) Legally Blonde

b) Erin Brokovich

c) 12Angry Men

d)To Kill a Mockingbird

e)Anatomy of a Fall

9. What is your favourite Latin legal maxim?

a) De Jure

b) Bona Fide

c) Mens Rea

d) Holus Bolus

e) Res Judicata

10. What would you wear under your Justice robes?

a) Dark academia tweed get-up

b)A funky jacket and a statement necklace

c)Athleisure

d)A well-tailored suit

e)Another set of judge’s robes

11. What first year course are you?

a)Tort Law

b) Constitutional Law

c) Criminal Law

d) Contract Law

e) Indigenous LegalTraditions

CROSS

The results are in

. . .

Mostly As: Justice Bertha Wilson

You’re the innovator, the rule-breaker, the voice that says: why not try it this way? Like Wilson, you’re not afraid to stand out and push boundaries, especially when everyone else is stuck in tradition. Wilson was the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, and championed bold interpretations of justice in judgements like R. v. Morgantaler and R. v. Lavalee. People admire you for your imagination, courage, and ability to make even the driest material feel alive.

Mostly Bs: Justice Rosalie Abella

Back o School

Clues

Down

[1] A trans-systemic program

[2] It’s probably going to be a B

[3] the French word for 2 Down

[4] School _____

[8] Entitlements protected by law

[9] Someone at your same level

Across

[5] Preliminary version of a legal document [6] As a student, we are not entitled to give this in terms of the law

[7] Unit of measurement toward graduation

[10] To account or repeat the details of some act, proceeding or fact

You’re a champion of justice: you notice who is being left out and you make sure their voice is heard. Like Abella, you radiate energy, conviction, and the confidence to break from the pack. You’re energized by defending the underdog and fighting systemic inequities, just like Abella did in her influential judgements on employment law and human rights. Friends turn to you when they need someone bold enough to speak up.

Mostly Cs: Justice John Sopinka

You’re the classic overachiever with a razor-sharp mind. Like

Sopinka, you thrive under pressure, and you’re at your best when the stakes are high. You’re a driven and disciplined collaborator — just like Sopinka was a team player in the courtroom or while playing for the Montreal Alouettes. People admire your confidence, your discipline, and your ability to spin a great story.

Mostly Ds: Chief Justice Richard Wagner

You’re the steady hand, the one who keeps everyone grounded when things get messy. Like the current Chief Justice, you value tradition and balance, but you also know when to adapt. You’re a natural leader and the glue in your group projects. You respect history, institutions, and the rules of the game, but you know when change is needed. You’re the natural leader by example.

Mostly Es: Chief

Justice Beverley McLachlin

You’re the philosopher, the thinker, the one who always sees the bigger picture. Like McLachlin, you don’t just ask what the law is — you ask why it matters.As the first woman Chief Justice (and the longest serving Chief Justice), McLachlin wrote many judgements that grounded the objectives of law in their practical consequences. Like McLachlin, people trust you for your wisdom, guidance, and your ability to find a clear solution for the most complex problems.

From Your Conservative Colleague

Jacob McConville | 4L

According to a recent article in the National Post, around half of all Canadian university students hide their real political beliefs. Next time you’re in a lecture hall, look to your left and to your right; chances are one of your neighbours is concealing their true views from you. Until today, I was one of these students. I have figured I would start my last semester here by introducing myself properly. My name is Jake. My family has been Catholic since St. Patrick arrived in Ireland. We have contributed more priests per head than any other Irish family. My faith is tremendously important to me, which some of you have probably discerned from the fact that I had two kids before turning 25. I had the opportunity to re-encounter Jesus Christ as an adult in my undergrad and had a profound conversion to the faith of my fathers. I take all my Church’s teachings seriously. I have had my two babies baptized at St. Patrick’s in Montreal, and I am a member of council 284 of the Knights of Columbus. I am also friendly with and try to participate as much as possible in the activities of our Christian Law Students Association, including attending the national Christian Legal Fellowship conference at their invitation. 1

I am also a conservative. I wasn’t always. Before I was ever eligible to vote I was a Liberal. I remember celebrating Justin Trudeau’s victory in 2015. I simply internalized whatever background information I received about politics. I watched Rick Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes every Tuesday night. I said lots of things that impressed my parents and schoolteachers. We were and still are living under liberal hegemony and I had no reason to think twice about any of my views.

I became interested in conservative politics in 2016. I couldn’t make sense of either Brexit or Donald Trump’s first victory using the heuristics I had, and decided to learn what conservatives believed. I watched some videos and was recommended a few books: F.A. Hayek’s Road To Serfdom, Thomas Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed, Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind, and many others. I don’t return to these very often, but they were a fine introduction, and I slowly found myself being convinced. Over the course of my political science degree, I got more exposure to real political theory and my tastes shifted. None of the liberal theories satisfied me.To tell you the truth, a lot of what I was assigned felt like

“Nearly half of all Canadian university students are actively hiding their real beliefs: survey,”National Post, September 3, 2025, online: <https://nationalpost.com/opinion/nearly-half-of-all-canadianuniversity-students-are-actively-hiding-their-real-beliefs-survey>.

a bad joke. I remember having to read Naomi Klein once in an apparently serious political science seminar and felt like refunding my tuition. I kept reading from more conservatives on my own time and eventually produced a publication on Edmund Burke, the father of Anglo-conservative thought.2

At this point in my life I began to observe something strange. One thing that has never changed in my life is my consistent opposition to political violence. I have to tell people who glorify the Irish Republican Army off from time to time because, despite my family’s general nationalist sympathies, we had to live through a real dirty war.This I consider to be a failure state for a civil society and much of the conservative intellectual tradition would agree. The philosopher Roger Scruton became a conservative after observing the terror of May 1968. Observing liberal violence in our own time has had the same effect on me. I was shocked to watch events like the 2017 Berkeley riots and the summer of 2020 unfold. I was more shocked that none of the liberals in my life seemed to mind that level of political violence or even believe me when I said it had occurred. I’m sure you remember“fiery but mostly peaceful”and similar messages from summer 2020.

In spite of my beliefs, I have resisted the label‘conservative’for some time. I have many reasons for this resistance. Annoyance with libertarians (despite my early reading) is one. Frustration with the Conservative Party of Canada is another. I held a party card for one year to vote for Erin O’Toole – the less said about that experience the better. I’ve voted for the party twice in my life and for the Bloc most recently. If voting were all I ever did, I could hide behind the secret ballot and dodge the label.There is plenty of public evidence though: my paper, the ring on my finger, the two kids. My most damning conservative credential is this: I represented McGill as one of two Canadian delegates to the 2024 Federalist Society student conference. I heard a lecture from (shock horror) a Trumpappointed circuit court judge, the Hon. Raymond Kethledge. You can see photos from that event on my Instagram.

The main reason I resisted the label was because I thought that presenting as a centrist liberal and concealing as much of what I really believe as possible was the best for my career and for maintaining comity at the faculty. I came up with a clever Straussian explanation, that I was a‘sensible centrist.’ [4] I like all of you. It’s been a pleasure to get to know you over the last four years. I knew well that many of the friendships I made here would go on to be strong professional relationships or otherwise. I hid to keep those friendships and to keep my reputation.

Jacob McConville, “Solving the ‘Burke Problem:’Perspectives on Edmund Burke’s Traditionalism,” in Noteworthy: the LA&PS Writing Prize J, 5:1 (2021).

“Why I Became a Conservative,” The New Criterion, February 2003, online: < https://newcriterion.com/article/why-i-became-aconservative/>.

See Persecution and the Art of Writing, which I recommend you read if you are like most university students and have never been exposed to conservative thought before.

Quite late in my law school career, I realized that this clever game was actually an unprofitable act of cowardice. If I failed to speak up for you while I was here, I am truly sorry. I should have realized my error sooner, probably around the time my Jewish friends started telling me they stopped going to class because they were afraid. Or the time I took a theology class and a group of students harassed the professor over something he’d written. Maybe the most obvious occasion should’ve been when I was called a segregationist for advertising a pub night with an outside speaker. Nevertheless, I pressed on thinking that it was better to keep my cover and push through to graduation.

What made me change my mind was the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I never watched Charlie in life and was only slightly aware of him. I kind of mentally filed him in the Ben Shapiro-type conservative media box: right-liberal, broadly supportive of the Republican National Committee, and largely popular for consumption on the radio. I knew for a while that liberals wanted him dead, but was always confused about why. He seemed like such an inoffensive figure, the type of person your dad listens to on the drive home from work or that your coworker might send you clips of.

I was wrong about him on two fronts. First, Charlie was tremendously more significant than I had given him credit for. He founded a massive organization which, as I understand it, was responsible for carrying Arizona in an election. He went around university campuses doing what I was afraid to do and encouraging others to speak their mind. He was maybe the only real believer in the promises of liberal democracy. He did everything liberals tell us to do: he organized grassroots political campaigns, he gave the other side a fair hearing, and he believed that you could change minds and develop consensus through rational disagreement.And he was killed for it.

The other thing I was wrong about is the extent to which liberals wanted him dead. I was not a fan of his before his death, but I knew many people who were (he is tremendously popular among Gen Z). I share many of Charlie’s views. After he died it seemed like every liberal in my life, including some I once respected, took the opportunity to gloat, to say he deserved it, and to dance on his grave. Charlie was a Christian and a father of two who practiced politics exactly the way that liberals tell us to. I realized that if they would encourage and celebrate his death, they would do the same for me. I could have been in that chair. It could have been my kids that have to grow up without a father. My wife could be a widow.And if you knew that I thought abortion was murder, that Canada should have a border, or any number of other views which for almost all of human history would’ve been considered sane and obvious, you would cheer too.

I realized that there is no point in hiding it anymore. My name is Jake.IamaconservativeCatholic.ImournedforCharlieKirk.

Pax – J.M.

See, e.g.“How Canadian universities became cheering sections for political violence,” National Post, September 15, 2025, online: <https://nationalpost.com/opinion/how-canadian-universitiesbecame-cheering-sections-for-political-violence>.

A Reprieve from current affairs

Lorde’s Ultrasound Tour

Maddie Adams Alexander | 2L

Lorde’s Ultrasound Tour stopped in Montreal for its eighth show last Saturday and I was lucky enough to be in attendance.The majority of the setlist was composed of songs from her most recent album, Virgin, with some hits from past albums scattered throughout the show. My ticket was a particularly wonderful surprise from my best friend who told me she couldn’t imagine seeing Lorde live without me. Despite having been a Lorde fan for over a decade, I hadn’t previously gotten the opportunity to see her live, and I didn’t know what to expect. I was completely and utterly wowed.

The show opened with “Hammer”, from Virgin, and the second song performed was“Royals”, which I suspect is still Lorde’s best-known song world-wide. My friends and I admitted after the show that“Royals”was the song we were all least excited for, likely due to our pretentious conception of ourselves as“true”fans, there to see the deeper cuts. And yet, we also all laughed at ourselves after the show, because despite our prior assumptions that we would be bored by Lorde’s most mainstream hit, we all found ourselves screaming the lyrics alongside everyone else in the stadium and dancing with everyone we shared the pit with throughout the entire song. I’ve heard some artists express disdain for their biggest hits and the fact that they feel obligated to still perform them, but Lorde’s continued affection for Royals was both apparent and contagious. Lorde’s confidence in the masterpiece she crafted at age 16 was an invitation to indulge, sent to both her casual fans and her diehard fans.We all accepted.

Lorde’s stage presence was consistently enchanting throughout the next few songs, but when we arrived at the ninth song of the evening, “Supercut”, it felt like the room was electrified and I could almost see the static it generated.There is a line in the song where Lorde claims “in my head I do everything right”. Contextualized within a song written about reflecting back on a relationship that has ended, I think it's always felt like a deeply relatable and piercing admission of defeat and regret to her fans. Most of us can relate to playing things back in our heads and knowing what we would do differently if only we had the chance. It is already a very potent and fanfavoured lyric, and Lorde repeated it an exceptional amount of times while on a treadmill onstage, gradually picking up the pace until she was full-on running by the end. It was hypnotizing watching Lorde run onstage while she repeated the lyric like it was a prayer, like she was asking a higher power to get involved and give her the chance to actually do everything right this time, convinced that she could. No one in the audience hesitated to join her in her plea.

Throughout the next few songs, the pace picked up, and Lorde increased her interactions with the crowd. During“GRWM”,

Lorde got very close to the camera responsible for displaying her image on the big screen and pointed out that we could all see her acne at that angle. She then observed aloud that she is 28 and still dealing with acne, striking us with the reminder that she is still so ridiculously young, despite being so accomplished. Nothing about this interaction felt performative, or falsely self-depreciating. It felt genuine. It felt as though it was completely aligned with the rest of the show; it was honest, vulnerable, and almost impossibly intimate.

Throughout the next few songs, the pace picked up, and Lorde increased her interactions with the crowd. During“GRWM”, Lorde got very close to the camera responsible for displaying her image on the big screen and pointed out that we could all see her acne at that angle. She then observed aloud that she is 28 and still dealing with acne, striking us with the reminder that she is still so ridiculously young, despite being so accomplished. Nothing about this interaction felt performative, or falsely self-depreciating. It felt genuine. It felt as though it was completely aligned with the rest of the show; it was honest, vulnerable, and almost impossibly intimate.

Songs 15 and 16 were “Liability” and “Clearblue”, respectively.“Liability”, from her second album, was preceded by an onstage reflection from Lorde about how so many of her older songs were written from a perspective of feeling completely alone. She then explored how her perspective has since changed and highlighted that all of us in the Bell Centre that night were there because we shared something, and reminded all of us, herself included, that the fact that we were all in that room together was proof that we actually are not alone, at least not as alone as we may be tempted to think that we are. I’m sure she gives a similar speech at every show, and yet it felt so authentic and organic to witness.

Lorde’s performance of “Clearblue” was the one that cemented her legend status in my mind. During“Clearblue”, Lorde was the only person on the stage. She held what appeared to be an electronic box in her hands and mixed and distorted her own voice, live, as she sang. “Clearblue” is easily Lorde’s most vulnerable song, lyrically speaking, and her stripped-down performance with just her own manually

manipulated voice as she stood under a halo of projected blue light proved that she has never required any further production. She requires no smoke and no mirrors. She is stunningly impressive from the moment her mouth opens. Every word that Lorde sings is attached to something she actually feels, in that very moment, and it is easily-observed. I am not sure that Lorde could hide the way she feels her own music as she performs it, and that is precisely her gift.

At the end of the show, just before the encore began, Lorde informed us that it was the 12th anniversary of her debut album, Pure Heroine.The two encore songs,“A WorldAlone” and “Ribs”, were from that first album. I remember buying Pure Heroine with an iTunes card when I was 14, in the time before Apple Music. Hearing the stadium fill with the soundtrack of my young teens transported me to a time when life felt rich with naïve dreams for myself and for the world. The things that consumed my thoughts at that age seem frivolous now, when I compare those thoughts to my thoughts now; thoughts about how chronically stressed I am about the state of the world and the seemingly constant jeopardy of humanity. I think it was good, though, to return to that frivolity for a moment.

The Ultrasound Tour presented me with a welcome reminder that even when the world feels like it's falling apart and it's completely out of our control, there are still a few decisions that are ours and there are always a few things we can reliably return to. We can lean into fear incited by a bombardment of media. We can rot in our bedrooms when things are bad enough to give way to hopelessness. We can also still listen to music we like and share an evening with strangers who like that same music. We can listen to our idols sing lyrics that have made us feel less alone in our lowest moments. We can dance in the dark under blue lights with our best friends. The Ultrasound Tour, with its exceptional intimacy and nostalgia, was ultimately a peaceful reprieve from the world for a few hours. I left feeling quite sentimental and thinking that even if the whole world goes to hell tomorrow, well, at least I got to dance with my friends (the only ones I’ll ever need) at all.

Lorde Ultrasound World Tour Poster

PHOTO BY OKMEDIAMARKETING

STELLAR STATUTES

Céleste Star | 3L

ARIES TAURUS GEMINI

This month, you need to take time to put yourself first.You’re a bit of a detective this month – trust your gut.You might need to negotiate, or even compromise.This time is also suitable to explore romantic relationships or alternatively, face the taboos in your life. Ooh la la,Aries!

This month, you might finally find enlightenment on the whole reconsideration thing you’ve been doing about your life. Speak your truth. Find the flow between rest and productivity.You’re going to get stopped on the street because people know and appreciate you. You got it,Taurus (and know that you’re my favorite, but don’t tell the others ).

This month, you are motivated. You’re staying on top of your daily habits –especially those that concern your health and work. Absolutely nobody can get in your way. Watch out for that burnout though (I know you know what I’m talking about). Don’t overdo it. Keep going; you’re doing amazing sweetie!

CANCER LEO VIRGO

This month, you are flirtyyyy Cancer! You might be excited to express yourself in very many ways. Channel that energy into making something creative.You will experience breakthroughs, peace, and healing in your personal life. Don’t miss that therapy appointment, and also stop crying! Please.

Thismonth,someoldmemoriesanddynamicswill arise,soyoumightconsiderreworkingyour standardsandcopingmechanisms.Inthesecond half of themonth,wordsareyourbestfriend. Write!Youwillfeelmorestronglyaboutanything thathastodowithcontracts,friendships,and romanticconnections.Thingsarecomingtothe surface.Dumphim,Leo!

This month you might finally try that weird hobby you’ve been thinking about for so long. Lean into those crazy ideas and intellectual side-quests.You’re also getting your bag this month, and might have some revelations about the way you balance life and work. Finally!Your friends haven’t seen you in months,Virgo. Come out of that cave!

LIBRA SCORPIO SAGITTARIUS

This month, it’s your birthday, Libra! Woohoo! You are confident and overcharged with joy. With a new moon in Libra at the end of the month, your sense of self-confidence feels brand new. Lucky you! Watch out for things, people and projects that drain you of your energy. And don’t forget, Libra: it’s your birthday, you can cry if you want to.

CAPRICORN

This month, you will find new career opportunities. Your financial decisions are wise, so don’t be scared if your relationship with money is evolving. You’re craving depth in relationships, and are involved in your community. You are a magnet this month, Capricorn. Keep it pushing and get that bag.

This month, you’ll be going through a lot. You are introspective, and some things might end. Old wounds might open, as well. But at the end of the month, your season begins, which means it’s time to get over the sappy stuff and start being whoever you want to be for the next year. We love you, Scorpio (even though you always think we don’t).

This month, you will feel heightened emotions. Communication will lead you to make new connections, especially as it pertains to creative endeavours. Spend time on your own this month. Your dreams are going to be very vivid. If you've been feeling misunderstood, that will finally go away. Be patient, Sagittarius, and send that DM.

AQUARIUS PISCES

This month, information around you is moving really fast, and impromptu conversations might change everything. You might be feeling rather philosophical, or, alternatively, like traveling a lot this month. You have significant influence on others and you are courageous. Get out of the clouds and pitch yourself, Aquarius!

Most likely to . . .

Spill wine on themselves at a networking event: Cancer, Aries, Libra. Raise their hand in class and ask a hypothetical question: Sagittarius, Gemini, Leo. Leave class for a 45-minute long“bathroom break”: Aquarius, Taurus, Pisces. Answer every question with“It depends”: Capricorn, Virgo, Scorpio.

This month, you are figuring out who you trust. Feelings you might’ve thought were behind you are coming back. You want to tell the truth, and are realizing your worth this month. You are also getting a lot of clarity about how you manage your money. Now is a good time for you to meditate. Breathe in, and breathe out, Pisces!

QUID NOVI – POLICY

As per our Constitution, we always share our editorial policy in the first edition of a new volume of Quid Novi. Since the Quid belongs to all Law students, it is essential to adopt a transparent editorial policy that will guarantee both freedom of expression and the protection of individual interests.

You will find below some principles that we hope will guide you when you write your articles.While they were developed after consultation with students and members of the LSA executive, they may not be perfect: we welcome your comments at quid.law@mcgill.ca.

Wherever possible, the Quid publishes everything submitted. However, to encourage a climate where each student will feel comfortable sharing his/her opinions, in rare circumstances, articles may be edited, and in extreme cases refused, at the discretion of the editors-in-chief.

While all submissions are presumptively publishable, potentially criminal speech (i.e. hate speech) and-or libelous speech are not presumptively publishable. In such cases the author must make a strong case that the information is accurate, that journalistic standards and ethics were followed; discretion to publish such articles lies solely with the Editors-in-Chief.

QUID NOVI POLICIES AND OPERATING GUIDELINES

The Quid belongs to students enrolled in the Faculty of Law at McGill University. It is essential that it maintains transparent policies and guidelines that take into consideration values such as the freedom of expression as well as interests such as those of students and faculty. The policies and operating guidelines are set forth below. Questions and comments may be directed to: quid.law@mcgill.ca. This policy is updated at the sole discretion of the Editors-in-Chiefs provided notice of update has been published in the Quid.

This version of the policy is enacted as of 2014.

This document has seven sections:

1.General Guidelines

2.Submission and Revocation Policy

3.Anonymous Submission Policy

4.Editing Guidelines

5.Content Review Policy

6.Overheards Review Policy

7.Notice and Amendment Process

1. General guidelines

Every item appearing in the Quid Novi is an opinion piece that reflects only the views of the person (s) submitting the item. Neither the Quid Novi, the LSA, nor the Faculty of Law endorse any of the material or views contained therein. Given the nature of the publication and its limited resources, the Quid will not undertake to evaluate the factual accuracy of submissions. Submissions are presumptively publishable unless they do not conform to the guidelines contained herein.

2. Submission and revocation policy

The Quid is a submission-driven publication.The deadline for submission shall appear in every issue.Articles submitted must include the author's name and year of study. If the author is writing in a particular capacity (i.e. 'LSA President'; 'Head of Student Club') this is to be indicated by the author

No material submitted after the deadline shall be published without the express consent of the Editors-in-Chief. Late submissions will be slated for publication in the subsequent edition.

Articles submitted for publication may be revoked by the author.The Quid will honour all such requests provided they are made at least two days prior to publication.The Quid will do its best to honour a late revocation request but will not stop the printing of an issue that has already gone to press.

3. Anonymous submission policy

The Quid will publish anonymous articles provided they conform to the Quid policy and operating guidelines. Anonymous articles present a challenge for content review for they do not allow the Editors-in-Chief to consult with the author. As such, if an anonymous article is rejected for publication, notification of rejection must be published in the Quid.

4. Editing guidelines

Every item submitted to the Quid shall be reviewed.The Quid reserves the right to make grammatical edits to improve the readability or suitability for publication of an article. Editors may also correct spelling mistakes. If a submission requires significant editing - in the view of the first person reviewing the article - this shall be indicated to the Editors-in-Chief.The Editors may refuse to publish the article for lack of suitability or may conduct significant edits and publish the submission. Minor edits need not be communicated to the author prior to publication.

5. Content review policy

All submissions made to the Quid shall be reviewed for content. There is a four-step review process.

5.1 Review by Editor

The Editor assigned to review the article (or an Editor-in-Chief) individually reviews the submission for content they believe to be questionable. Questionable content is content that, in the appreciation of that respective Editor, is either potentially offensive or potentially not suitable for publication. The following factors will be considered when assessing potential offensiveness: the overall tone of the submission, the specific word(s) used, the context in which they are used, coupled with an individual appreciation of the potential reaction to said material by the student body, professors, alumni, and the Montreal legal community. If, on balance, any individual Editor or an Editor-in-Chief believes there is questionable content, this is communicated to the Editors-in-Chief.

Items that are potentially not suitable for publication include, but are not limited to: submissions that are too long or too short; submissions that have the potential to create a hostile environment for faculty or students; and submissions that are defamatory in nature.

5.2 Discussion

At the second stage of review, the Editors-in-Chief and Editor who did the initial review discuss their specific findings with one another in relation to the submission. If there is a finding of questionable content that is agreed to by a majority (i.e. at least two-out-of-three between the reviewing editor and the Editors-in Chief), the article goes for consultation. If there is no agreed finding of questionable content, the article is published as is or with edits at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief.

5.3

Consultation

At the Consultation stage, the Editors-in-Chief must advise the author that there is a content concern. The Editors-in-Chief may consult others about the submission, provided there is no information given identifying the author(s). The Editors-in-Chief may consult with any individuals mentioned in the article, fellow students, faculty members, and/or alumni, at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief. Consultation is not a question of how-many-for vs. how-many-against; rather, given the nature and role of the Quid, consultation is premised on whether the specific content is suitable for publication. The author may be consulted numerous times if the Editors-in-Chief feel this is necessary.

5.4 Decision

The Editors-in-Chief will discuss the results of their consultations and will render a decision to: [a] accept the submission as is; [b] accept the submission with minor edit(s) to be completed by the Editors-in-Chief; [c] accept the submission with or without minor edit(s) and publish a warning along the submission; [d] return the submission to the author for modification with suggestions provided at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief, or, alternatively, [e] reject publication without modification suggestions. The decision of the Editors-in-Chief is final and binding. The Editors-in-Chief, at their discretion, may publish a notice of rejection in the Quid with their reasons, indicating, at their discretion, the name(s) of the author(s).Alternatively, the author(s) may request that such a notice appear, in which case the notice will bear the format: AUTHOR -- YEAR -- TITLE OF SUBMISSION was submitted for publication but will not be printed in accordance with the Quid Policy and Operational Guidelines.

6. Overheards review policy

Overheards at the faculty must be sent to quid.law@mcgill.ca before 5 PM eachThursday to be published in the following edition.

When an overheard mentions a professor, the Editors-in-Chief shall verify before publication if the professor consents to its publications as, to its publication with her name redacted, or does not consent to its publication at all. The Editors-in-Chief shall respect her decision.

Overheards shall identify students only by their year of study (1L, 2L, 3L or 4L).

The Editors-in-Chief shall be responsible to compile in a single document all the overheards received by the applicable deadline. This document is thereafter to be treated as a regular submission, and shall undergo the content review policy described in section 5, supra, the only difference being that overheards shall be sent to all the editors on schedule for that week, not only one of them.

7. Notice and amendment process

The Editors-in-Chief shall publish these guidelines in the Quid in the first issue of every semester. Changes may only be proposed by Quid staff. If there is a proposed change, it will be indicated in the next issue of the Quid with the opportunity for students to make submissions for a period of at least one week. Changes must be approved by a majority of active Quid staff. The Editors-in-Chief must publish notice of any change or change attempt in the Quid.

QUID NOVI – POLITIQUE DE PUBLICATION

Lorsque c’est possible, le Quid publie toutes les contributions qu’il reçoit. Cependant, dans le but de favoriser un climat où chaque étudiant sera confortable d’exprimer ses opinions, les rédacteurs-en-chef se réservent le droit de modifier des articles ou même, dans des circonstances rares, de les refuser. Ce pouvoir sera exercé à la discrétion des rédacteurs-en-chef.

Nous présumons que toutes les contributions sont dignes de publication. Néanmoins, des propos potentiellement criminels (i.e. le discours de haine) et des propos diffamatoires ne bénéficient pas de cette présomption. Dans de tels cas, l’auteur doit démontrer de façon probante que les informations contenues dans sa contribution sont véridiques et que les principes de la déontologie journalistique ont été suivis. La décision de publier ces articles relève uniquement des rédacteurs-en-chef.

POLITIQUES ET PRINCIPES D’OPÉRATION DU QUID NOVI

Le Quid appartient aux étudiants de la Faculté de droit de l’Université McGill. Il est donc essentiel qu’il suive des politiques et principes transparents, qui prennent en considération la valeur de la liberté d’expression ainsi que les intérêts des étudiants et des professeurs. Les politiques et les principes d’opération sont exposés ci-bas. Les questions et commentaires s’y rapportant peuvent être adressés à : quid.law@mcgill.ca. Cette politique est mise à jour à la discrétion des rédacteurs-en-chef, à la seule condition qu’un préavis de la mise à jour soit publiée dans le Quid.

Cette version de la politique s’applique depuis 2014. Sa traduction française date de 2014.

Ce document contient sept sections :

1.Principes généraux

2.Politique de contribution et de révocation

3.Politique de contribution anonyme

4.Politique de correction

5.Politique de révision du contenu

6.Politique de révision des overheards

7.Procédures de préavis et d’amendement

1. Principes généraux

Chaque item apparaissant dans le Quid Novi est un article d’opinion qui reflète uniquement le point de vue de la personne ou des personnes qui ont écrit l’item. Ni le Quid Novi, ni l’AÉD, ni la Faculté de droit n’endosse les opinions contenues dans les contributions publiées. Étant donné la nature de cette publication et ses ressources limitées, le Quid ne s’engagera pas dans la vérification de la véracité factuelle des contributions.

Les contributions sont présumées dignes de publication, à moins de ne pas se conformer aux principes énumérés ici.

2. Politique de contribution et de révocation

Le Quid est une publication qui survit grâce aux contributions. La date limite pour les contributions apparaîtra dans chaque numéro. Les articles soumis doivent contenir le nom de l’auteur ainsi que son année d’étude. Si l’auteur écrit dans un rôle particulier (i.e.“Président de l’AÉD”;“Président d’un club étudiant”), ceci doit également être indiqué.

Aucun item soumis après la date limite ne sera publié sans le consentement explicite des rédacteurs-en-chef. Les contributions tardives seront conservées et publiées dans le numéro subséquent.

Les articles soumis pour publication peuvent être révoqués par l’auteur, du moment que cette requête soit faite au moins deux jours avant la publication du numéro en question. Le Quid fera de son mieux pour faire suite à une requête tardive, mais il n’arrêtera pas la publication d’un numéro qui est déjà en impression.

3. Politique de contribution anonyme

Le Quid publiera des articles anonymes, à la condition que ceux-ci se conforment à ses politiques et principes d’opération. Les articles anonymes présentent un défi particulier pour la révision du contenu, car ils ne permettent pas aux rédacteurs-en-chef de consulter avec l’auteur. Ainsi, si un article anonyme est refusé, un avis de refus doit être publié dans le Quid.

4. Politique de correction

Chaque item soumis au Quid sera révisé. Le Quid se réserve le droit de faire des modifications grammaticales afin d’améliorer la présentation et la lisibilité d’un article. Les éditeurs peuvent également corriger les fautes d’orthographe. Si une contribution nécessite des modifications importantes, dans l’avis de la personne qui le révise, ceci sera indiqué aux rédacteurs-en-chef. Ceux-ci peuvent refuser de publier l’article ou bien effectuer des modifications importantes pour ensuite le publier. Les modifications mineures ne sont pas nécessairement communiquées à l’auteur avant la publication.

5. Politique de révision du contenu

Toutes les contributions au Quid seront révisées au niveau du contenu. Il existe un processus de révision comportant quatre étapes.

5.1 Révision par l’éditeur

L’éditeur ou le rédacteur-en-chef chargé de la révision d’un article accomplit cette tâche en vérifiant s’il contient du contenu contestable. Le contenu contestable dénote du contenu que l’éditeur en question juge comme potentiellement offensant ou autrement inadéquat pour la publication. Les facteurs suivants seront considérés lors de l’évaluation du potentiel offensant: le ton général de la contribution, les mots précis utilisés dans leur contexte précis, ainsi qu’une appréciation de la réaction potentielle du corps étudiant, des professeurs, des anciens étudiants et de la communauté juridique montréalaise. Si l’éditeur individuel estime que le contenu est contestable, il communique ceci aux rédacteurs-en-chef.

Les items qui sont potentiellement inadéquats pour la publication incluent (sans s’y limiter): les contributions qui sont trop longues ou trop courtes; les contributions qui possèdent le potentiel de créer un environnement hostile pour les professeurs ou les étudiants; et les contributions à nature diffamatoire.

5.2 Discussion

À la deuxième étape de la révision, les rédacteurs-en-chef et l’éditeur qui a accompli la révision initiale discutent de leurs conclusions spécifiques vis-à-vis l’article. S’il existe un consensus de contenu contestable parmi une majorité (moins deux sur trois parmi l’éditeur et les rédacteurs-en-chef), l’article procède à l’étape de la consultation. S’il n’existe pas un tel consensus, l’article est publié comme tel ou avec des modifications ou un avertissement aux lecteurs, à la discrétion des rédacteurs-en-chef.

5.3 Consultation

Au stade de la consultation, les rédacteurs-en-chef doivent aviser l’auteur qu’il existe des préoccupations au niveau du contenu. Les rédacteurs-en-chef peuvent consulter d’autres individus au sujet de la contribution, à la condition de ne fournir aucune information permettant d’identifier l’auteur. Les éditeurs peuvent consulter avec des individus mentionnés dans l’article, d’autres étudiants, des groups étudiants, des professeurs ou des anciens étudiants, à leur propre discrétion. La consultation n’est pas un concours de“combiensont-pour vs. combien-sont-contre”. Compte tenu de la nature et du rôle du Quid, la consultation doit déterminer si le contenu spécifique est digne de publication. L’auteur peut être consulté à de nombreuses reprises si les rédacteurs-en-chef jugent que ceci est nécessaire.

5.4 Décision

Les rédacteurs-en-chef discuteront des résultats de leurs consultations et rendront une décision de: a) accepter la contribution comme telle; b) accepter la contribution avec des modifications mineures portées par eux-mêmes; c) accepter la contribution avec ou sans modifications mineures et publier un avertissement aux lecteurs avec la contribution; d) retourner la contribution à l’auteur pour modification avec des suggestions portées à la discrétion des rédacteurs-en-chef; d) rejeter la contribution sans offrir des suggestions. La décision des rédacteurs-en-chef est finale et incontestable.

Les rédacteurs-en-chef, à leur discrétion, peuvent publier un avis de refus dans le Quid avec les raisons du refus ainsi que le nom de l’auteur. L’auteur peut également demander qu’un tel avis apparaisse; dans un tel cas, l’avis portera le format suivant: « AUTEUR --- ANNÉE --TITRE a été soumis pour publication mais ne sera pas imprimé, en accord avec les politiques et principes d’opération du Quid ».

6. Politique de révision des overheards

Les overheards doivent être envoys à quid.law@mcgill.ca avant 17h00 le jeudi pour être publiés dans le numéro subsequent.

Lorsqu’un overheard mentionne un professeur, les rédacteurs-en-chef doivent vérifier auprès de lui ou d’elle s’il y a consentement pour publier l’overheard tel quel, pour le publier sans le nom du professeur, ou si le professeur ne consent pas à la publication. Les rédacteursen-chef sont tenus de respecter cette décision.

Les overheards doivent identifier les étudiants uniquement par leur année d’étude (1L, 2L, 3L ou 4L)

Les rédacteurs-en-chef sont responsables de compiler dans un document unique tous les overheards reçus avant l’échéance applicable. Ce document doit par la suite être traité comme une contribution régulière et doit être soumis à la politique de révision du contenu décrite à la section 5, supra, la seule différence étant que les overheards seront envoyés à tous les éditeurs de la semaine et non à un seul.

7. Politique de préavis et d’amendement

Les rédacteurs-en-chef publieront ces principes dans le premier numéro du Quid à chaque semestre. Des amendements peuvent être proposés uniquement par le personnel du Quid. Si un amendement est proposé, il sera indiqué dans le numéro subséquent du Quid afin d’offrir une opportunité d’au moins une semaine aux étudiants de rédiger des contributions. Les amendements doivent être approuvés par une majorité du personnel actif du Quid. Les rédacteurs-en-chef doivent publier un avis de tout changement ou de toute tentative de changement dans le Quid.

The Quid Novi is published bi-weekly by the students of the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Production is made possible through the direct support of students and the McGill Law Students’ Association of McGill University (LSA). All contents copyright © 2025 Quid Novi.

Every item appearing in the Quid Novi is an opinion piece that reflects only the views of the person(s) submitting the item. Neither the Quid Novi, the LSA, nor the Faculty of Law endorse any of the material or views contained therein. Given the nature of the publication and its limited resources, the Quid will not undertake to evaluate the factual accuracy of submissions. Submissions are presumptively publishable unless they do not conform to the guidelines contained in the Quid constitution.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFS

RÉDACTRICES EN CHEF

Faith Dehghan

Catherine Zhang

SOCIAL MEDIA DIRECTOR

DIRECTRICE DES RÉSEAUX SOCIAUX

AnyaAbbes

ART DIRECTOR

DIRECTRICE ARTISTIQUE

SouangWu

LAYOUT EDITORS

ÉDITEURICES DE MISE EN PAGE

Carina Cutillo

Isabella Drzemczewska Hodson

COPY EDITORS

SECRÉTAIRES DE RÉDACTION

Jagnoor Saran

Jerod Miksza

Liam Hunt

NaomiYao

COLUMNISTS

CHRONIQUEUR.EUSES

Erin Porter

Caroline Homet

Catherine Zhang

Céleste Star

Heeva Chavoshi

MaddieAdamsAlexander

Nicholas Bailey

Nick Mohammadpour

CONTRIBUTORS

CONTRIBUTEUR.ICES

AdeleWechsler for the MJSDL

Jacob McConville

Michael Kowalsky

Sophie Fernier

Special thanks to RaeAquino and SouangWu for designing the layout.

Envoyez vos commentaires ou articles avant mercredi 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. 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 Instagram @quidlaw.

Vol 47 No 1

The Quid N vi

QUARTIER LATIN

why him?

A discovery of Witches

Going postal just got political

D Q ear uid

Biomedical Tax Law

Betterave Bourguignon

CULINARY BRIEFS

Betterave Bourguignon

Ingredients:

Instructions:

Smoke, but No Fire: Experiences of Climate Grief this Summer

Which Supreme Court Justice Are You?

CROSS

The results are in

Back o School

Clues

Justice Beverley McLachlin

From Your Conservative Colleague

A Reprieve from current affairs

STELLAR STATUTES

ARIES TAURUS GEMINI

CANCER LEO VIRGO

LIBRA SCORPIO SAGITTARIUS

CAPRICORN

AQUARIUS PISCES

Most likely to . . .

QUID NOVI – POLICY

QUID NOVI POLICIES AND OPERATING GUIDELINES

Consultation

5.4 Decision

QUID NOVI – POLITIQUE DE PUBLICATION

POLITIQUES ET PRINCIPES D’OPÉRATION DU QUID NOVI

5.4 Décision

Back o School