Front of house are still serving up interval drinks and the audience are taking their seats as, mere metres in front of me, an Athenian noblewoman—whose tribal dress from the previous act has transformed itself into a Dobby-the-house-elf-esque toga—buries her sobbing form into the depths of the imposing construction that stands centre stage.
This is not your classic Shakespeare production. Rather, this is Shakespeare à la Tuesday Night Café (TNC) Theatre—a production set to challenge even the staunchest exponents of the ‘Shakespeare-is-old-and-dull-and-belongs-in-high-school-lit-class’ tradition. What TNC achieves with The Life of Timon of Athens is a dynamic reworking that brings to the fore the honest profundity and contemporary relevance of what is, unfortunately, one of the Bard’s lesser-known works.
The play is bleak and challenging, even by Shakespearean standards. Timon is an Athenian noble (nobleman, in the original) who treats her ‘friends’ with unrivalled kindness, offering patience, praise, loans, expensive gifts, and endless entertainment without asking or expecting anything in return. She lives for the joy of giving and has no doubts that her less well-off friends would do the same were their respective situations reversed. Indeed, she states this belief repeatedly and even laments the distance which her superior wealth creates between them.
The play opens with scenes of her benevolence: lavish banquets and touching speeches on the beauty of friendship—until she is informed that her constant generosity has bankrupted her. She is subsequently confronted with a crowd of debtors demanding repayment. A little embarrassed but unafraid, Timon confidently turns to the kindness of her ‘friends’—who refuse, one by one, to offer her the slightest degree of sympathy or assistance. Driven to despair, she shuns Athens, fleeing into the woods to live out her hateful rage against mankind alone. Cue the Dobby outfit and the emotionally-charged tail-end of the play.
The demands of near-constant stage presence—all but lead lady Emily Murphy appear as multiple, often drastically different characters—hardly show. The performance manages to maintain a high level of energy, even an impressive dose of subtle humour.
The production’s reworking is not limited to the camouflage set—dialogue is altered, scenes blurred, and genders reversed to maintain pace and interest throughout. Some of the bleaker scenes are supplemented with a musical soundtrack that, while minimal, goes a long way toward creating depth of atmosphere. This also reinforces the passion of what may otherwise be quite inaccessible dialogue (this is Shakespeare, after all). The technical quarters also make effective use of lighting to create drama and guide audience attention, sometimes necessary given the proximity of the performers.
Overall, Timon is a highly polished performance, in which technical production, energy, and cast finesse combine to produce a refreshingly real, and engaging portrayal of a classic piece. Come prepared to be shocked, shaken, and confronted with mankind at his ugliest. But also come ready to be amazed at the strength and versatility of TNC’s talented cast and crew. The skill and passion behind this play allow the story itself to shine, and the treatment it is given here may be enough to make you fall (hopefully, fall back) in love with the genius of the English canon’s most famed man.
Life of Timon of Athens runs Nov 7-10 and 14-17 at 8 p.m., Morrice Hall (3485 rue McTavish). Tickets are $10 general, $6 for students.
Alcebiades (Harrison Collett). (Alexandra Allaire / The McGill Tribune)
For many McGill students, a walk through the Milton-Parc area is part of the daily commute to class, so ingrained in their routine that they no longer notice its grey-stone facades, charming staircases, and painted wooden details. What most students don’t know is that this beloved neighbourhood and architectural heritage site was nearly demolished in the 1960s. It stands today thanks to the tireless efforts of a passionate group of community activists.
The Milton-Parc district was constructed in the 1860s with the opening of the Hotel-Dieu hospital, and was originally based around Sainte-Famille Street. Over the next 30 years, British merchants and Anglophones settled in the neighbourhood, building ornate two- and three-storey grey-stone houses that demonstrated the area’s character as an upper-middle-class neighbourhood.
Following the Second World War, its wealthier residents migrated to Westmount, Outremont, and other Montreal suburbs. Rising real estate prices led landlords to subdivide dwellings into smaller rent units, attracting low-income families, elders, immigrants, and McGill’s growing student population.
Despite the deterioration of the neighbourhood, as Claire Helman writes in her book, The Milton-Park Affair, the area retained a particular charm, and many of its residents “liked the old, somewhat run-down neighbourhood for its surprising sense of community … and urban village atmosphere.”
Illustration of the closing of the overpass. (Ben Ko / McGill Tribune)
The origins of the Milton-Parc Citizens’ Committee
The coexistence of these very different groups was threatened in the mid-1960s, when four companies began to buy the buildings in the six-block area of Hutchison, Pins, Sainte-Famille, and Milton. These purchases were part of a ‘re-development’ movement in North America in the ’60s that promoted the construction of high-rises to stimulate urban development.
In 1968, members of the University Settlement—an organization that provided services to lower-income residents—discovered that the four companies in fact belonged to a single, major real estate company: Concordia Estates Ltd. Between 1958 and 1968, this company had purchased 96 per cent of the residences in the six-block area.
At this time, it came to the residents’ attention that Concordia Estates Ltd. intended to demolish the houses in the area, recalls Lucia Kowaluk, current president of the Milton-Parc Citizens’ Committee, and one of the residents who played a primary role in saving the neigbourhood.
“Florence Bailin, [one of the members of the University Settlement] said, ‘you know, there’s a company buying up all of this property and they’re going to tear it down—they’re going to throw people out,”’ Kowaluk says. “She convinced the staff and other people that the University Settlement had to do something about it. And they did. We formed the Milton-Parc Citizens’ Committee.”
Thus began the Milton-Parc Citizens’ Committee (MPCC), a grassroots response to the news that the area was going to be demolished and replaced with high-rises that would drastically change the urban environment and the demographic composition of the area. Residents were additionally concerned that lower-income families would be pushed off the area.
In the following four years, members from the Citizens’ Committee and the University Settlement worked in a movement that aimed to protect the neighbourhood they called home.
“Those were four years of a tremendous amount of work,” said Kowaluk. “There were demonstrations, and many people came … Older people, who had never in their lives gone on a demonstration, marched with us to City Hall. That really big one was a few thousand people.”
Click to read the full feature!
The residents organized petitions, knocked on doors to raise awareness, demonstrated in the streets, and held festivals and events to rally the community to protect the architectural value of the neighbourhood. Community members began discussing, for the first time, the possibility of forming housing co-operatives in the area, but the project was not feasible at the time.
During this period, Concordia Estates Ltd. began the first phase of their project. Tenants in designated blocks were forced to move out, and their houses were demolished to make room for the construction of the La Cité complex and underground mall, as well as an office building and the hotel that is now McGill’s New Residence Hall.
In May 1972, a dozen citizens organized a sit-in and occupied the offices of Concordia Estates Ltd. on Parc Avenue in protest. A total of 56 people, including community members standing outside of the office in support of the occupation, were arrested by the police and charged with public mischief. Kowaluk herself was not arrested, but her partner and many of her friends were. In February 1973, a jury trial acquitted the group, but the arrests left the community exhausted and discouraged.
“[Many] felt that they had failed, that they had not succeeded at doing what they wanted to do,” Kowaluk says. It seemed that the movement had lost the momentum and energy that it needed to protect the area.
Alexandra Allaire / McGill Tribune
A new opportunity
Over the next few years, a mixture of economic factors created problems for the developers. The Ford Foundation, one of the project’s financial supporters, withdrew its funding in response to the negative attention generated by the MPCC’s demonstrations.
In addition, the construction linked to the 1976 Montreal Olympics led to an inflation of building material prices that decreased the value of the funds that Concordia Estates Ltd. had set aside to develop the remaining two thirds of the area.
In 1977, the community learned that Concordia Estates Ltd. was interested in selling the rest of the area, and residents explored options to acquire the land. During this period, the Trudeau government gave Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) the mandate of developing housing co-operatives. Aided by a grant to research the feasibility of turning the neighbourhood into co-ops, and with support from the city-wide heritage conservation movement, community members submitted an application to the CMHC. In May of 1979, the CMHC announced that it owned the property and that it would divide it into co-ops, renovate all the properties, and turn them into subsidized co-op housing.
The co-operatives
The process of transferring the properties from CMHC to the residents was lengthy. It wasn’t until June 12, 1987 that the members of the houses in question signed a Declaration of Co-ownership. The buildings and the land underneath are owned by a legal ‘person’ called the Communauté Milton-Parc (CMP), which governs as an assembly.
According to Kowaluk, who is as also one of the founders of the CMP, the community decided that a single co-op would be unmanageable, and divided the properties into 15 co-ops and six non-profit organizations. The rent is heavily subsidized by the CMHC.
“I pay my rent to the co-op—I’m a tenant but I’m also a co-owner,” Kowaluk explains. “As a tenant, I can expect some work from the co-op, the co-op can take care of some things for me. But basically, I have to take care of the house the way an owner takes care of it.”
Alexandra Allaire / McGill Tribune
There are several strict stipulations that come with being part of the co-op. The houses must be available for people with moderate incomes who need housing, and co-op members must maintain the architectural qualities of the buildings’ facades. Co-owners cannot sell an individual building under any circumstances. In doing so, the co-operatives have enabled low-income residents to enjoy the proximity to Montreal’s downtown, while preserving the architectural value of the area.
“We preserved six square blocks of housing downtown, in a large city,” Kowaluk says of the movement’s legacy. “This is not only of benefit to the people who live there, but a benefit to the city as a whole because residential housing keeps urban areas safe, comfortable, and secure.”
A student neighbourhood?
Kowaluk emphasizes the importance of having spaces for long-term residents of the area.
“That residential area is now threatened with people selling, moving out [and renting out spaces to students]—that destroys the community aspect of the neighbourhood,” she says. “I think that everybody loses when that happens. The students may gain in the short run, McGill may gain in the short run, but in the long run, I think it takes away the safety of an area. The students all leave in May, and then, who moves in? It’s not healthy.”’
Kowaluk also rejects the common term ‘McGill Ghetto,’ used colloquially for over 15 years to describe the Milton-Parc area, as a misnomer.
“We don’t use that word,” she says adamantly. “It’s not a ghetto and it doesn’t belong to McGill.”
Before: geocaching.com
The Milton-Parc Citizens’ Committee today
The role of the Milton-Parc Citizens’ Committee (MPCC) has shifted from its original purpose of protecting the neighbourhood from demolition. Today, the focus is on facilitating the community’s continued well-being.
“It’s a normal citizens’ committee, and we deal with a lot of issues,” Hélène Brisson, vice president of the MPCC says. “Some have to do with our neighbours, the students, and the university. We’re also concerned about other issues that pertain to urban life, such as parking, snow removal, being in contact with our elected officials, and maintaining green spaces.”
In addition to facilitating communication between different sectors that impact the community, the MPCC has remained involved in other improvement projects in the area. Among those was the dismantling of an overpass at Pins and Parc, built in 1959.
Neighbourhood residents challenged the expansion of the overpass in the ’70s, and in the ’90s, 23 associations demanded its complete dismantling, as there had been over 50 accidents in 1989 alone.
“It was not at all adapted to today’s number of cars—it was becoming dangerous because of the curves and the ramps,” Brisson says. “Mostly people from the co-ops across the street were active in getting the ramp closed because there had been very deadly accidents.”
After: the demolition of the overpass increased green spaces and safety in the neighbourhood. (www.geocaching.com)
The committee’s efforts gained momentum after a 1999 report found that it would cost four to six million dollars to extend the overpass’ life another 10 years, as the it was in constant need of repairs. In 2001, a survey of the area found that 85 per cent of the residents of Hutchison and Parc Ave. were in favour of closing the ramp onto Hutchison because of the accidents. The City initiated a consultation process, and Brisson herself sat in a Comité de Bon Voisinage to ensure that the residents’ concerns would be heard.
The demolition of the overpass began in June 2005, followed by the re-development of the Pins-Parc area. The freed-up land has allowed for expansion of the Jeanne-Mance Park, in addition to other green spaces and bike paths on Parc Avenue.
Last Sunday, Elections SSMU released the results of the 2012 Fall Referendum period for the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU). Students voted in favour of fee increases for both CKUT Radio and the McGill Student Emergency Response Team (M-SERT).
CKUT
With 57.3 per cent of students voting in favour of its referendum question, CKUT will benefit from a $1 increase in its opt-outable student fee, beginning in January 2013. According to Carol Fraser, chair of CKUT’s Board of Directors, the current $4 fee has not increased or been indexed to inflation since 1988. She said the fee would go towards the station’s current priorities, including covering their deficit, rent, equipment repairs, and staff salaries.
“This means CKUT will continue to be an amazing community and campus resource, and its international prestige will be maintained,” Fraser said. “It means we can basically continue the work we are doing now … this win helps the station stay afloat and stay awesome.”
Fraser said she was grateful for the station’s supporters during the referendum and throughout the past year. CKUT has run three referendum questions in the last 12 months. Last semester, a question asking for its fee to become non-opt-outable failed to pass.
Fraser suggested that students supported this Fall’s referendum question because the fee will remain opt-outable. She suggested that many students use the opt-out system or agree with it in principle. According to Fraser, the nature of the group’s campaign also contributed to its success.
“We have done a lot of outreach to students this semester,” she said. “It is also CKUT’s 25th anniversary. Students have recognized that their station has been going so strong on such a small fee, [and] they were willing to open their hearts and minds and give more.”
M-SERT
M-SERT’s student fee will also increase next semester, after 82.7 per cent of students voted in favour of the $0.50 increase for all students studying at the downtown campus.
M-SERT Vice-President Finance Patrick Tohill said the team is excited and relieved by the results.
“I think our greatest concern was that the referendum would not reach quorum,” Tohill said. “Thankfully, we had some great campaigning going on to get the word about the referendum questions, and I also think the incentives for voting and advertising done by Elections SSMU probably helped a lot.”
According to Tohill, the additional money will go towards improving the quality of M-SERT’s equipment and of the first-aid courses M-SERT offers to the McGill community. The service also hopes to reduce the financial burden on M-SERT volunteers—who pay for their own training, uniforms, and meals while on shift—and expand student coverage and hours of operation. Tohill added that the campaign period also allowed M-SERT to raise awareness of the group’s existence.
“I think one thing this referendum may have revealed to us is that there is a significant amount of students who don’t know who we are or what we really do,” he said. “I hope we can take the momentum of this referendum result and promote M-SERT as a relevant and useful service for as many students as we can.”
Voter turnout
This referendum period saw 18.3 per cent voter turnout from students. Although it exceeded the 15 per cent quorum for referenda, voter turnout has decreased since last year. For example, 24.7 per cent of SSMU members voted in the Fall 2011 referendum period.
SSMU Chief Electoral Officer Hubie Yu suggested that voter turnout may have been comparatively low because the issues raised were not as contentious as some of last year’s had been. For example, CKUT’s question requested an increase in their student fee, rather than making their fee non-opt-outable. Yu also noted that the there was less discussion on campus about these issues because students did not establish a ‘No’ committee for either question.
“If anything, we tried to increase turnout this time … by having a gift card raffle for people who voted, [which is] something Elections SSMU used to do,” Yu said. “While our turnout isn’t where we wanted [it to be] … I think we did well, given the circumstances.”
Fraser said CKUT was happy with the voter turnout, but expressed concern that some students had trouble accessing the link to the online voting system.
“[Voter turnout] could have been higher if the SSMU voting system were a little more user-friendly—if you could simply go to a link, as in years past, instead of having to receive an email,” she said. “This made getting the vote out a bit harder.”
Yu expressed hope that the online voting system would be improved to facilitate student participation in the Winter referendum period. She also said Elections SSMU will use other methods to address voter turnout next semester.
“We’re definitely going to keep pushing to increase turnout next semester, and will probably do the gift card draw, [or] give free food or items to people who vote to make elections more exciting,” Yu said. “A lot of emails I receive from students [say] that all we do is run ‘popularity contests,’ or that people … don’t know who to vote for when they walk by our polling stations, so we’re really hoping to change that perception.”
Last Wednesday, the Council of the Post-Graduate Students’ Society of McGill University (PGSS) approved plans for a two-day series of panels and discussions as part of the McGill education summit this December. Other topics of discussion included the rights of graduate students as members of the Legal Information Clinic at McGill.
Education summit
According to PGSS Vice-President External Errol Salamon, Council’s plans for the summit began in September, when councillors expressed concerns about their ability to participate at the provincial summit on higher education, scheduled for February 2012.
“A local, student-organized education summit at McGill [will] enable PGSS members to … voice the issues that are most important and relevant to them,” Salamon wrote in an email to the Tribune. “This summit will serve as the consultation that will inform the positions PGSS will submit to the FEUQ that will subsequently shape its positions for the Quebec Summit.”
The summit will be structured around five themes: the underfunding of universities; international and out-of-province students; the student and public contribution towards financing education; the role of research, teaching, and support staff; and public-private partnerships.
“We will aim to foster dialogue between McGill students, administrators, professors, support staff, unions, relevant external organizations (e.g., FEUQ, TaCEQ), and hopefully some Quebec MNAs [Members of the National Assembly]—many people who don’t typically talk to each other and who aren’t usually in the same place at the same time,” Salamon wrote.
Confirmed speakers currently include FEUQ President Martine Desjardins, McGill Principal Heather Munroe-Blum, and representatives from L’Association pour une Solidarité Syndicale Étudiante (ASSÉ) and the Association for Graduate Students Employed at McGill (AGSEM).
After the McGill summit, the PGSS executive will write a document, to be approved at its next Council meeting.
“This document [will] probably include a summary of each theme, including the various positions of the different groups that presented at the summit, as well as the final positions that the PGSS adopts at the summit, which will be articulated as policy recommendations,” Salamon wrote.
PGSS will conduct this event separately from the series of consultations planned by the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), but all events will be open to members of both Societies.
Legal Information Clinic
Last Wednesday’s Council meeting also included a discussion with representatives of the Legal Information Clinic at McGill, currently in talks with PGSS on graduate students’ambiguous rights as members of the clinic.
PGSS members currently pay $4 every year to the clinic, a non-profit organization that provides free legal information, presentations, and student advocacy. According to the clinic’s Executive Director Emily Elder, PGSS members currently do not clearly fit into the clinic’s categories of members as outlined in their by-laws. Although this does not affect their coverage at the clinic, it means that their rights as fee-paying members are ambiguous.
Elder said a subcommittee has been working on the by-laws since the problem came to her attention in July, and that she hopes the Board of Directors (BoD) will approve the amendments at their Nov. 19 meeting so that the by-laws can be made available to all members by the end of the month.
PGSS Secretary-General Jonathan Mooney said PGSS has been in discussions with the clinic about increasing the organization’s transparency, including improving access to by-laws and financial statements. He also expressed concern over the lack of PGSS representation on the clinic’s BoD.
“We feel that meaningful participation in the governance of an association that one supports through the payment of a fee is essential to ensure accountability,” Mooney said.
According to Elder, however, organizations are not legally obliged to disclose their by-laws or have representatives on their BoD. She said the BoD has not explored the process of doing so because no one had made that request before PGSS did last summer.
“Historically, we used to have a PGSS representative on our board, as well as a SSMU representative,” Elder said. “My understanding is that it wasn’t a constructive relationship. We’re operating under significant legal constraints, [and] that’s not always clearly understood by student representatives.”
Mooney also said the clinic has never run a referendum question for graduate students about their student fee to the clinic. In 2009, they ran an existence referendum, but only polled undergraduate students.
“In effect, the university and the [clinic] agreed to continue collecting fees from graduate students based on a referendum polling exclusively undergraduate students,” Mooney said. “This indicates a fairly serious policy inconsistency.”
According to Elder, however, the clinic is bound by the administration’s policy for accepting the referendum, which considers a majority vote of undergraduate members as the “requisite threshold” for the continued existence of the clinic. She expressed hope that the two groups will be able to reconcile these concerns in the future.
“I really think that what we’re seeing is a communication breakdown rather than any real problem with our services,” Elder said. “I am open, willing, and wanting to mend that relationship.”
The Concordia University Part-Time Faculty Association (CUPFA) voted for an unlimited strike mandate at a special General Assembly held Nov. 4. The vote follows unsuccessful negotiations with Concordia’s administration over a new collective agreement.
CUPFA’s former collective agreement with Concordia expired at the end of August. Since then, CUPFA representatives have met with university representatives more than 10 times.
Although the association is not currently on strike, the strike mandate means that CUPFA can now legally use pressure tactics such as work stoppages, sit-ins, and demonstrations. CUPFA President Maria Peluso also has the power to call a strike under the strike mandate, although she has stated that she will not do so without consulting CUPFA members.
Peluso expressed concern over the Concordia administration’s demands at the bargaining table. She said that the university is concentrating on clauses that would give them more control of professional development funds—funds that allow faculty members to complete research. The university also wants CUPFA to call itself a union, rather than an association.
“We can’t understand why they have been so difficult with these normative clauses,” Peluso said. “It doesn’t cost them any money. If you want to argue about my salary or cost of living, okay, we can argue about that, but what the university has presented is not salary.”
According to CUPFA Chair of Communications David Douglas, Concordia still hasn’t implemented or respected parts of the last agreement. Peluso noted that CUPFA does not intend to alter much of the previous agreement, but that its concern lies in Concordia’s treatment of the previous agreement, and the lack of experienced academics on the university’s side of the bargaining table.
“It took us seven years to get that collective agreement that we currently have, and they are not respecting it,” Peluso said. “How do you want me to have confidence in the next collective agreement when the current collective agreement … is not even respected? We are certainly not waiting [another] seven years.”
Negotiations are ongoing between Concordia and CUPFA. Peluso expressed hope that the university will respond positively to the unlimited strike mandate.
“Nobody really wants a strike,” Peluso said. “We are prepared to do that only because we are so angry at the university. We don’t want to hurt anybody—especially our students.”
“Every single bargaining entity at Concordia is in the same boat,” she added. “There is something pathologically wrong with how labour relations are conducted [at Concordia], in particular with regards to faculty.”
Christine Mota, Concordia’s Media Relations Director, said that Concordia’s administration does not comment on negotiations while they are still in progress.
“We will only say that we continue to negotiate,” Mota said. “The goal is to find a satisfactory solution for everybody.”
The past month witnessed a renewed national dialogue on the topic of cyberbullying between youth, educators, and politicians across Canada. This new debate arose following the death of British Columbia teenager Amanda Todd, who took her own life after suffering through two years of cyberbullying and online blackmailing, as well as a physical attack by her peers.
According to Define the Line (DTL)—a research program based at McGill dedicated to the study of education, law, and policymaking surrounding cyberbullying—online bullying is “the use of a range of digital media and/or communication devices to post or distribute offensive and demeaning forms of expression.”
The DTL website notes that cyberbullying can be committed in many ways, and perpetrators and victims can be youths and adults alike. Cases can involve direct or indirect forms of exclusion and isolation, and of verbal abuse such as insults, rumours, and threats. Material posted and circulated online can include intimate pictures, videos, and information on the targeted individual.
According to the 2009 General Social Survey (GSS) on internet victimization, conducted by Statistics Canada, increases in the use of instant messaging and social networking sites have raised the instance of cyberbullying in a sample of Canadians aged 15 years and older.
Further results from the GSS survey indicated that seven per cent of Internet users over the age of 18 self-reported as victims of cyberbullying. The survey also found that girls are more likely to bullied online than are males.
Dr. Shaheen Shariff, associate professor in the faculty of education, international expert on cyberbullying, and director of DTL, explained why cyberbullying is a particularly difficult problem to prevent and address.
“Once bullying is online, anyone can participate, and it’s open to an infinite audience of adults and youth,” Shariff said. “Every time someone receives, reviews, saves, and passes on the abusive comments … the individual is revictimized.”
“The trouble is that the norms of online communication among kids have shifted to accept more joking and teasing, and youth don’t realize they are crossing the line to criminal harassment or defamation,” Shariff said.
Although the term ‘bullying’ is less frequently used in a post-secondary context, cases of online and physical harassment do arise on university campuses. To deter these, Articles 8b and 8c of McGill’s Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures declare that no student may “knowingly create a condition … [that] threatens the health, safety, and well-being of other persons.”
Associate Dean of Students Linda Starkey told the Tribune that McGill’s position on physical and online harassment is one of “no tolerance.” Starkey explained that, if a student is found responsible for a violation of Article 8b or 8c in an investigation, the disciplinary officer assigned to the case will issue an appropriate sanction, which could include an admonishment, community service, and expulsion.
According to the 2010-2011 Annual Report of the Committee on Student Discipline (CSD), there were 68 allegations of violations to Article 8 of the Code adjudicated by disciplinary officers in that academic year. The report did not specify which violations pertained to Articles 8a, 8b, or 8c.
“It would be ideal if there were no cases, but sometimes things happen,” Starkey said. “And it may be a learning experience. It may not be malicious… it could be learning how others see one’s behaviour.”
Todd’s death also sparked debate in the House of Commons over what can be done to better address the issue of cyberbullying in Canada. On Oct. 15, New Democratic Party Member of Parliament (MP) Dany Morin called for the creation of a national anti-bullying strategy. However, some critics claim that action initiated at the local level, rather than by the federal government, might be more effective.
Shariff, whose work centres on policy and legal issues relating to online social communications, believes the most appropriate step to dealing with the issue of cyberbullying is education.
“Children are not criminals, and we need to educate them in legal literacy,” Shariff said. “We need consequences with educational messages using [technology] to engage kids to come to their own understanding [of the issue].”
Last week, SUS hosted its annual Graduate and Professional Schools Fair. Some students were surprised to see the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Ontario College of Homeopathic Medicine listed next to the McGill University Department of Human Genetics and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management.
The Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine offers a four year degree in naturopathic medicine. While the first year is devoted to basic medical sciences, the program continues with courses that include homeopathic medicine (a form of treatment that is made with dilute remedies), hydrotherapy (a range of therapies that involve bathing in hot or cold water), as well as health psychology and clinical nutrition.
While the college bills itself as a program that produces primary care providers—a health professional responsible for diagnosis and treatment—many are skeptical of this claim. Some critics simply accuse naturopaths of quackery, and others point to fact that the wide range of alternative therapies that fall under the banner of naturopathy are inconsistent at best, and dangerous at worst.
Naturopathic medicine deals with not only diet and lifestyle, but also treatments like crystal therapy—a practice using the ‘healing energy’ of stones—and drinking magnetized water. Proponents of naturopathy retort that naturopathic treatments are vindicated by individual results.
The National Institutes of Health released a study last week showing that chelation therapy may make patients slightly less likely to experience adverse heart effects. Chelation therapy, a treatment used to remove heavy metals from the bloodstream, has been recommended for a variety of ailments by some naturopathic doctors.
Many cardiologists cautioned against drawing strong conclusions from the study. Skeptics cited some odd results, such as a two-year time delay before patients showed improvement, and the fact that diabetic patients were inexplicably more likely to benefit from the treatment.
Dr. Joe Schwarcz, director of the McGill Office of Science and Society (OSS), is a critic of naturopathy and homeopathy. Last spring, Dr. Schwarcz debated Dr. André Saine, the dean and main instructor of the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy, on the question of whether naturopathic practitioners should be considered primary care givers in Quebec. The debate—a video of which is available on the OSS website—became extremely heated, as a largely pro-naturopathy audience shouted rebuttals during some of Dr. Schwarcz’s presentation.
Dr. Schwarcz attacked what he deemed a lack of reason in the naturopathic practice. He drew on examples of obvious quackery to illustrate his assertion that a naturopathic education does not distinguish between good and bad medicine. One example was a treatment that involved wearing a magnetic cup to augment breasts.
Dr. Saine presented examples of successful naturopathic treatments, and argued that recognizing naturopathic practitioners as primary care providers would help to regulate the profession and improve Canada’s health care system overall by providing desperately needed primary care providers.
While Dr. Saine proudly defined naturopathic medicine as the combination of modern practices and traditional wisdom, Dr. Shwarcz was adamant that medicine should not be a question of wisdom or anecdote, but rigorous testing and a constantly evolving understanding based on scientific fact.
Dr. Schwarcz and Dr. Saine will meet again at the end of the month to debate homeopathy. The debate will take place Tuesday, Nov. 27 from 7pm-9pm in Leacock 132.
In the past week, there has been considerable debate on campus about the role that Remembrance Day should play in Canadian life. Some have questioned whether the annual event transcends remembrance, and instead, glorifies war and idolizes a willingness to die for one’s country. Here, a key question emerges: is it possible to separate political motivations from the act of remembering and respecting those who went to war?
Remembrance Day is, at its core, an observance rooted in personal reflection. For that reason, it has different significance for different people. For some, it is a day to honour loved ones lost in war, and to pay respect to those who continue to serve. For others, it is a time to acknowledge the fact that war is a part of Canada’s history that must never be forgotten.
Although Remembrance Day presents a possible opportunity to question and critique how our society views war, there are other occasions both more pertinent and appropriate for such scrutiny.
Canada’s new $20 bill, released into circulation last Wednesday, features the Vimy Ridge monument as its key image. Undoubtedly, it is important to honour the sacrifice of Canadian troops in the First World War, but we must also question if we are prioritizing a romanticization of war at the expense of, for example, the promotion of peacekeeping efforts. Notably, the current Canadian $10 note depicts a female peacekeeper atop the banner “Au service de la paix/In the service of peace.” A new $10 note will be unveiled in 2013.
In the same vein, the federal government’s $60 million advertising campaign for the 100th anniversary of the War of 1812 calls the government’s priorities into question. Was the War of 1812 as important a ‘turning point’ in our country as the signing of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Remembrance is crucial, but we must consider what these signal about what we collectively value as a nation, and what impact it may have on future generations of Canadians.
Canadian history lessons are a fundamental fixture in primary and secondary education. Which stories we choose to tell—and which we choose to withhold—need to be thoughtfully and critically considered. Glossing over unjust relations with Indigenous peoples—as often happens when the ‘discovery’ of this continent is first presented in school—is an egregious failure to educate about wrongdoing. So, too, is the selective, one-sided presentation of war. There is a pressing need to critique the way we teach history to children.
Remembrance Day is a day to remember those who died in the service of our country. That is not to say that the event—and the way we observe and remember past instances of war—is above criticism. But the focus of the day should remain on veterans and their individual sacrifice. At the same time, we should continue to question the extent to which our society glorifies war, and the level to which our government weaves narratives of war into national sentiment.
There has been some recent discussion on campus and in some of the student press about the process to appoint a new Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning). I would like to correct some misconceptions that have been circulated about this process.
The Advisory Committee for the Appointment of a Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) was established to advise on this appointment, in keeping with McGill Statute 3.4.1, which states:
“Before recommending an appointment for the office of Provost, Deputy Provost, or vice-principal, the Principal shall have consulted an advisory committee consisting of four representatives of the Board of Governors, four representatives of the Senate and two students. The Principal shall be ex officio chair of the advisory committee.”
It should be noted that, going beyond these parameters, I appointed two special advisors, representing the McGill Association of Continuing Education Students (MACES) and the Macdonald Campus Students’ Society (MCSS). This brought the number of students who sit on the committee to four. (The special advisors do not vote, but participate fully in all aspects of the committee, including sharing their views.)
The establishment of this Advisory Committee was preceded by a year-long consultation process. I hosted many structured meetings with a wide range of individuals, including two retreats with leaders of the Student Societies and Faculty student associations. Students from Macdonald Campus and Continuing Studies associations actively participated in those retreats and offered significant contributions. Considerable and thoughtful feedback from students has thus been incorporated into the search process.
In addition to the representatives from the Student Societies and Associations, the Deputy Provost’s direct reports, and others with knowledge about, experience with, or a demonstrated interest in, student life and learning at McGill, also participated in this consultation. This extensive review was designed to carry forward and strengthen the recommendations of the Principal’s Task Force on Student Life and Learning, and its administrative response, as well as the Principal’s Task Force on Diversity, Excellence, and Community Engagement.
As part of the review process, the Provost’s Office also investigated policies and practices at peer Canadian and U.S. research universities, with the goal of identifying relevant organizational elements and processes.
To dismiss, as some have, the Board of Governors as out of touch with current student needs is as insulting to these dedicated volunteers as it is inaccurate. Our Board members pay keen attention to all aspects of University life and do not merit such a cavalier, broad-brushed dismissal. As noted by the facts above, there has been significant consultation with students regarding the Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) position and search process. As the McGill Statutes require, the Board of Governors is represented on the Advisory Committee.
To suggest, as some have, that the current Deputy Provost as inaccessible and remote is similarly inaccurate, as anyone would know if they had spent some time checking the record of his interactions with student groups who represent both graduate and undergraduate students at McGill. That he hasn’t always acted exactly in the way some might prefer in no way diminishes the quality of his valuable contributions to McGill.
Through his participation in the most senior levels of University administration, the Deputy Provost has been a vigorous champion of the need for a positive environment for student life and learning. For example, he was instrumental in the development of Service Point.
Over the past year, there has been broad consultation and much thoughtful consideration regarding the portfolio and position of the Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning). These efforts are part of the University’s continuing commitment to be a student-centred University that puts student considerations at the forefront.
Anthony C. Masi is the Provost of McGill University. He chairs the Advisory Committee for the selection of a Deputy Provost (Student Life And Learning).
Since leaving Canadian politics, Michael Ignatieff has been forceful, intelligent, charismatic, and well-spoken. In other words, he has become the diametric opposite of the Michael Ignatieff who led the Liberal party to its worst parliamentary showing in recent memory. Speaking at the BBC’s annual Free Thinking Festival, Ignatieff decried the rapid centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s Office and called for party leaders to allow individual Members of Parliament (MPs) more freedom in voting and legislative tasks.
Without this decentralizing step, Ignatieff believes that the Parliament will fall further into dysfunction, as the needs of individual ridings are increasingly delegated to the margins. The tightening of party control has also led to increased antipathy between the parties, with squabbling and catcalls replacing civil relationships on the floor of the House of Commons.
It’s not hard to see where Ignatieff is coming from. The Harper government—like its predecessors—has been characterized by the fostering of animosity among parties, and MPs under his banner are hardly, if ever, permitted a free vote. To be fair, all parties have fallen prey to the temptation of mindless opposition instead of providing constructive solutions. Ignatieff himself famously whipped the Liberal Party during the vote to eliminate the gun registry, against the wishes of some of his rural MPs.
The continued rise of hyper-partisanship are not unique to Canada. The Obama administration faced four years of obstinate opposition from the Senate and House Republicans, which made it incredibly difficult to pass legislation. And while effective opposition is one thing, setting a record for the most filibusters in one session of Congress—as the Republicans have, from 2009 to 2011—is nothing to be proud of.
So what does this mindless, party-line voting and hyper-partisanship get us? Does the 40 per cent of Canadians represented by the Conservative party have the monopoly on all good ideas? Has the impenetrable Democratic state assembly in California produced good policy without Republican input? The answer to all three of the above questions is a resounding ‘No.’ In the absence of bipartisan policy-making, effective policy becomes much more difficult, and at times impossible.
The Affordable Care Act’s passage is instructive. The votes required to get the bill through Congress were 99 per cent Democratic, with no Republican participation in its passage. The bill, while improving the health care status quo, is riddled with compromises made to industrial lobbyists because of this narrow support. Imagine if half of the Republican caucus had been on board with providing a solution to America’s health care problem. Not only would they have been able to have a say in the bill’s final shape, but the integrity of the bill could have been much stronger. Their mindless opposition failed completely.
What can be done to solve this problem? How do we allow individual members of a legislature more freedom? Political scientists have identified that longer-tenured parliamentarians and an increase in the number of parliamentarians overall usually lead to more independent thinking. To that end, some theorists have advocated paying individual MPs more money, to make the job seem more desirable, and thus a potentially long-term career. Increasing parliamentarians’ salaries would also make the job more appealing to well-qualified candidates, who may otherwise have ignored a career in politics. In Canada, we are also seeing a new influx of MPs thanks to Canada’s growing population. Hopefully larger caucuses will be harder for party leaders to control.
Ultimately, the power to end irresponsible partisanship lies in the hands of the individual voter. As evidenced this past week, voters can penalize obstructionist parties, and usher in a group of representatives determined to reach across party lines, compromise, and get things done. At the polls, Canadians should prioritize qualities like responsibility and bipartisanship in candidates. By doing so, Parliament can change for the better.
