The Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) attended the Court of Appeal on March 11 to debate the plaintiff, currently referred to as X, in an ongoing lawsuit pertaining to an injunction against the Policy Against Genocide in Palestine (PAGIP). X v. SSMU calls for the student union to pay for alleged irreparable damages amounting to $125,000 CAD experienced by the anonymous plaintiff, a former McGill student. The plaintiff side argued that the damages and injunction they have fought for are the result of SSMU planning to ratify PAGIP, which contains rhetoric they claim is antisemitic.

PAGIP was originally passed in the 2023 SSMU Fall Referendum, with 78.7 per cent of non-abstaining voters in favour. If ratified, it would mandate SSMU take an official stance in solidarity with Palestine and demand McGill divest from companies with ties to Israel. Shortly after SSMU announced the referendum results, X filed a demand for a provisional and interlocutory injunction on Nov. 21, 2023. They argued that PAGIP should not be enacted, as in doing so SSMU would violate its commitment to represent and facilitate dialogue among all its membership. 

On May 22, 2024, Quebec Superior Court Justice Shaun E. Finn granted X’s demand for an interlocutory injunction on the PAGIP and approved their request to file their suit anonymously. In the March 11 hearing, SSMU’s defence sought to appeal Justice Finn’s decisions.

Over the last year, SSMU’s legal team has fought for the injunction to be lifted, arguing that its Board of Directors retains the right to ratify motions passed by the student body. In the March 11 appeal hearing, SSMU argued that as X is no longer a McGill student, they cannot file for “ongoing damages” against the student union.  

The student union’s defense attorney, Sibel Ataogul, first presented SSMU’s general defense against X’s claim to compensation for alleged irreparable harm. She argued that X’s argument against PAGIP stemmed from ideology rather than genuine concerns for students’ safety, which Ataogul stated does not qualify as a credible basis for the claim.

Ataogul then invited the prosecutor, Michael Bergman, to justify his client’s claims that PAGIP’s ratification would be discriminatory and personally harmful to the plaintiff.  

Bergman stated that wording used in PAGIP was antisemitic and that ratifying the policy would put Jewish students on campus at a higher risk of harm. He then informed the court of an expert witness in antisemitic rhetoric he wished to call upon on a later date to explain how ratifying the motion would create further division on campus. 

“[SSMU is] free to adapt whatever resolutions they like,” Bergman said. “But a policy that on its face stands to be reasonably antisemitic will put Jew[ish] students in disdain.”

The court’s judge, Justice Christine Baudouin, refuted this claim, questioning Bergman as to why a specialist is necessary to argue that PAGIP’s rhetoric is antisemitic if it was immediately clear to his client that this was the case.  

In response, Bergman stated that the broader context PAGIP was introduced into during the 2023 referendum must be taken into account in the case. He referenced alleged threats made against X when some students discovered they controlled an Instagram account dedicated to the ‘No’ campaign, a movement that campaigned against PAGIP during the referendum period, as evidence of antisemitism on campus during Fall 2023.

Justice Baudouin pointed out that none of the messages X received showed direct intentions of violence and X was never harmed, leading the judge to question X’s anonymity in the case. The judge further expressed doubt about the university’s neutrality in this case, questioning if X’s legal team communicated with McGill on this issue.

“McGill has politics, the injunction is considered political,” Baudouin said. “McGill doesn’t have a position on this injunction? I find that surprising [….] McGill is the white elephant here.”

Ataogul seconded this point, stating that the prosecution’s claim that supporters of PAGIP would threaten violence was a baseless mischaracterization of SSMU members, meant to validate X’s anonymity. She ended her argument by stating that McGill was using X’s anonymity to obscure administrative objections to PAGIP’s ratification.

“Everyone knows who [X] is, and nothing happened,” Ataogul said. “McGill is hiding behind this student so they don’t have to reveal who’s opposing student democracy.” 

The court is currently deliberating on the issue of X’s anonymity. Should the judge rule in favour of SSMU, X will be mandated to either come forward or drop their charges. A trial on the merits of PAGIP will be decided at a future hearing.