On Jan. 20, the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) imposed a seven-day financial sanction on the Union for Gender Empowerment (UGE) for putting up unapproved posters in the Leacock Building. This penalty meant that any purchases the UGE submitted to SSMU from Jan. 20 to Jan. 27 would be delayed reimbursement until after the sanction had ended. 

UGE is a SSMU-affiliated group that aims to provide anti-oppressive, feminist, and trans-inclusive services to the McGill community and general public, including a pay-what-you-can co-op that supplies gender-affirming products and an alternative library. 

UGE alleges that SSMU’s sanction was designed to suppress the group’s criticisms of SSMU’s handling of the Motion Regarding SSMU Building Gender Neutral Washrooms. The motion—which the SSMU Legislative Council approved on Dec. 5—aims to increase the number of gender-neutral washrooms in the University Centre. However, SSMU’s Board of Directors (BoD) postponed the motion’s ratification in its Jan. 7 and Jan. 28 meetings as the motion awaits legal review.

Alice Postovskiy, a representative of the UGE and former SSMU Vice-President (VP) Student Life candidate, explained that in the week of Jan. 13, the UGE put up a series of posters in Leacock and other buildings that were critical of the BoD’s decision to delay ratification. These posters included a QR code linking to an email template demanding the BoD pass the motion. The template argued ratification would increase the accessibility and privacy of washrooms for trans people, disabled people, people with children, and all community members at McGill.

Postovskiy noted that the email template also explicitly names SSMU Arts Representatives Rishi Kalaga and Emma Chen, who UGE alleges have been the most vocal opponents of the motion at recent BoD meetings. 

“There are lots of people who perhaps have some authority over the postering in the Leacock Building, and also at SSMU, who would be unhappy with our calling out of their actions and also their legitimacy,” Postovskiy said. “So that, followed by a sanction […] about these posters, which we think is clearly illegitimate and punitive, is why we’re pretty confident about calling this political retaliation.”

In a written statement to The Tribune, Kalaga explained that his opposition to the motion reflected concerns constituents had brought to him regarding student safety and security, particularly surrounding Gerts. In addition, he claimed there is a need for a legal review to take place to ensure that the motion adheres to the law before implementation.

“I completely support increased accessibility for transgender and non-binary students, and that some amendments to this motion will make it so that it is beneficial to all students,” Kalaga wrote.

Chen could not be reached for comment. 

The group first received a warning of a postering violation from SSMU President Dymetri Taylor and Director of Clubs and Services Hamza Abu Alkhair on Jan. 16. Taylor and Abu Alkhair claimed that UGE had violated section 8.2.6 of the SSMU’s Internal Regulations for Student Groups by putting up posters in Leacock that the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) had not approved. Section 8.2.6 stipulates that clubs must follow SSMU and McGill’s by-laws and internal policies, as well as the law. 

Postovskiy alleged that after the group received this warning, a UGE member walked through Leacock and claimed they did not find any of the group’s posters remaining. Based on their findings, UGE assumed the posters had all been taken down. 

On Jan. 20, the group received another email from Taylor and Abu Alkhair notifying them that the student union was placing a financial sanction on UGE for unapproved posters. 

Postovskiy told The Tribune that to her knowledge, no group members had put up additional posters since they received the warning. For this reason, she believed both the warning and the sanction referenced the initial batch of posters. Postovskiy speculated that SSMU enforced a sanction on posters that both AUS and UGE had overlooked, and had not removed, after the warning was issued.

Taylor maintained that the sanction was legitimate and that they were only put in place after UGE had twice put up posters without AUS’s approval. He denied that the sanction could have been applied to the same batch of posters, stating that AUS would have removed all the posters when the warning was issued.

AUS President Sophia Garofalo explained that she and her assistants removed UGE’s posters and stamped them with the time and date to ensure they were not accounted for twice. Garofalo also noted that the AUS has sent warnings to other groups such as Students for Palestine’s Honour and Resistance at McGill, Prep 101, and SSMU Elections for unapproved posters in the past.

“We are dedicated to ensuring that the UGE has a platform to make their voice heard, we have allowed them to poster after being stamped for their other events,” Garofalo wrote. “I hope we can encourage an open dialogue which utilizes their resources, and our resources in appropriate manners.”

Taylor also affirmed that sanctions for unapproved posters are not uncommon, and that SSMU has used this disciplinary measure on other groups this academic year for similar offences.

“The whole point of a sanction is to put pressure on an individual or a group, to correct misbehaviour,” Taylor said. “There’s not too many of those [kinds of sanctions] that exist, aside from either locking [a group] out of their room [in the University Centre], removing the room, removing their access to the building if they have it, or a financial sanction.”

Although Postovskiy recognized that there was confusion about how UGE’s unapproved posters came to be sanctioned, she highlighted the greater importance of other concerns surrounding the penalty. For instance, Postovskiy pointed to the fact that Taylor and Abu Alkhair’s original emails did not explain what a financial sanction meant for UGE. She also alleged that SSMU did not respond to the group’s follow-up email inquiring about the details. 

“The fact that [SSMU hasn’t] been willing to communicate, the fact that a financial sanction clearly has nothing to do with postering—it’s not like the sanction says you can’t put up posters for a week—makes it clear that the sanction itself is being done in retaliation, because it can’t really do anything besides hurt our services,” Postovskiy said.

UGE has not observed any financial impacts from the sanction so far, but Postovskiy reported that members remain unsure of the disciplinary measure’s effects after it has expired.

Taylor admitted that there should have been greater clarity surrounding the sanction against the UGE, and suggested potentially adding an appendix to the Internal Regulations that explains what different types of sanctions mean. 

Addressing criticisms of SSMU’s delay of the motion, Taylor emphasized the need for the BoD to establish a clear path for funding and implementation before the motion is ratified. 

“Converting bathrooms into [gender]-neutral ones […] takes money, and it takes the approval of McGill to even go on the step of getting fully-enclosed bathrooms that aren’t just stalls,” Taylor said. “The intention behind why it’s been held up is because of that lack of clear implementation, because the one thing no one wants to [do] is to approve something that doesn’t get done because […] that plan does not exist.”

Taylor also noted that Abu Alkhair was given the power to sanction SSMU groups and services when the BoD delegated the responsibilities of the VP Student Life to his role as Director of Clubs and Services. As Taylor told The Tribune, this transferral of responsibilities is possible under 4.2.1 in section 9 of SSMU’s Internal Regulations of Governance, which states that the student union can delegate the duties of a vacant officer position to another SSMU executive or staff. According to Taylor, this regulation also aligns with Quebec’s Companies Act, which SSMU is legally beholden to. 

Abe Berglas, SSMU VP University Affairs and the Legislative Council member who first proposed the motion, underscored the importance of increasing the number of gender-neutral washrooms in the University Centre in a written statement to The Tribune. They described this action as having “incredible symbolic significance,” particularly amidst the ongoing rise of transphobia on campus and in the general public.

“Increasing the number of gender-neutral bathrooms in the University Centre is an important project for trans safety,” Berglas wrote. “Right now, the University Centre doesn’t conform to McGill’s resolution regarding gender-inclusive washrooms—we have no multi-stall gender-neutral washrooms, and over half of our floors don’t have one at all.” 

Looking to the future, Postovskiy hopes to see SSMU ratify the motion and take steps to support trans advocacy on campus. For Postovskiy, this means that SSMU must go beyond simply “managing” clubs toward actively supporting them.

“The management of student groups according to SSMU’s other policies like the Equity Policy and the Trans Advocacy Plan requires supporting the advocacy that student groups do and requires putting in place […] equitable practices, including for trans people,” Postovskiy said. 

Berglas also called on SSMU to adhere to its Trans Advocacy Plan, which includes commitments such as platforming the work of trans students on campus and offering funding and support to student groups. Berglas also drew attention to the Plan’s condemnation of hate speech, “including hate speech that attempts to disguise itself as legitimate academic discussion or human rights concerns.” 

“I hope that at the end of their term, all directors and executives can say that we have upheld these commitments,” Berglas wrote.