In a letter sent to McGill University on Feb. 10, a group of 32 individuals called on McGill University to perform an independent and transparent investigation into the influence of the Quebec asbestos industry over Professor J. Corbett McDonald’s epidemiological research on the health effects of chrysotile asbestos.

This was in response to the message sent by Dr. David Eidelman, vice-principal (health affairs) and dean of medicine, on Feb. 9, stating that an investigation into Professor McDonald’s research would be conducted by Professor Rebecca Fuhrer, chair of the department of epidemiology, biostatistics and occupational health, and a Canada research chair.

“The outcome of Prof. Fuhrer’s review will determine whether there is a need for a more detailed investigation, in accordance with our standard policies and procedures,” Dr. Eidelman’s message reads.

Kathleen Ruff, a senior human rights adviser at the Rideau Institute, explained why the letter was sent to McGill.

“We have absolutely nothing to say about Professor Furher, we’re sure she is a totally wonderful person, it’s nothing to do with her,” Ruff said. “[But it’s] an inside, internal investigation with the department of epidemiology investigating itself … This sets up a tainted situation.”

In addition to the complaint that an independent investigation should be conducted, the letter raised the concern that McGill’s public statements regarding Professor McDonald and his research “show bias and misrepresent the issue in question, making an internal investigation suspect.”

The letter stated that the Quebec asbestos industry funded McDonald’s research with the aim of showing that “controlled use” of chrysotile asbestos posed no health risks. Chrysotile asbestos represents 95 per cent of the asbestos ever sold, and 100 per cent of the asbestos sold in the past two decades throughout the world.

 “[McDonald] not only did research that was very pleasing to the asbestos industry, [but he also] put forward the message that they wanted—that chrysotile asbestos is virtually innocuous,”  Ruff said.

“It is true that Prof. McDonald drew different conclusions about the possible safe use of asbestos than most authorities do today. Holding scientific views that are different from those of the majority does not constitute research misconduct,”. Eidelman’s message states. “The World Health Organization’s 2011 monograph also acknowledges that the subject of the health risks of chrysotile remains a controversy.”

“Consensus is as clear on asbestos as it is on tobacco. Chrysotile asbestos is deadly … there is no safe exposure level,” Ruff said.

“It’s just like making a fuss about the difference in fatality from falling from the 20th floor in comparison from the 16th floor,” Fernand Turcotte, Professor Emeritus of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at the University of Laval, said of the research. “In a human health point of view, it’s the same thing. Any manipulation of this fact is pure sophistry; it’s really an attempt to obfuscate the issues.”

In 2002, the same complaint was made to McGill regarding the influence of the asbestos industry over McDonald’s research. Over a year later, a two paragraph letter was received in response, explained Ruff.

“That’s not an investigation,” she said. “So because of the fact that McGill has already refused to address this issue properly, this is why right now is the opportunity for McGill to do the right thing, to finally show integrity on the asbestos issue, to stop acting in a way that looks like it’s colluding with [the asbestos industry].”

“McGill University is a famous institution and its credibility is being used by peddlers of asbestos around the world,” Turcotte said. “McGill [must] make it clear … that it has nothing to do with the shenanigans of those asbestos peddlers.”

This was the motivation not only for requesting an independent investigation, but also for calling for the resignation of Roshi Chadha, a member of McGill’s Board of Governors and director of Seja Trade Ltd., a company that exported asbestos from the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, Quebec. 

An additional letter was sent on the behalf of asbestos victims to the Board of Governors calling for McGill to remove Chadha as well as to “support us, as victims of asbestos, and stand strongly against the Canadian asbestos industry.”

“[The aim was for McGill] to literally clean any kind of circumstances that could be interpreted as meaning that McGill supports the asbestos industry,” Turcotte explained.

Dr. Eidelman’s message ended by stating that “McGill currently receives no research funding from the asbestos industry.”

In an email to the Tribune, McGill’s associate director of media relations Julie Fortier said that McGill will not be commenting further on the issue.

With Quebec only a few weeks away from potentially reopening the Jeffrey Mine, timing is critical.

“Everywhere [public health professionals] meet the obstacle of the powerful asbestos lobby. And what is the weapon [that] the asbestos lobby has in its hands? It’s McDonald and his studies,” Ruff said. “So it’s a very critical moment, [a] critical historical moment and it’s time for McGill to be on the side of health finally.”

Sam Reynolds

Last Sunday morning, the nine students who remained on the sixth floor of the James Administration Building were peacefully evicted by the police. The students had occupied the sixth floor for 118 hours.

On Feb. 7, a group of 21 students entered the office of the Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson following a rally to protest the administration’s rejection of the fall referendum results regarding QPIRG and CKUT Radio. The occupiers demanded that the administration accept the referendum results, which would enable QPIRG and CKUT to continue to exist and would allow opt-outs to go offline. They also demanded Mendelson’s resignation. Over half of the students left over the course of following five days for varying reasons.

The police evicted the remaining students just before 9 a.m. on Sunday. In an email to students, Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Michael Di Grappa explained that standard police procedure was applied, with security personnel first reading a formal eviction notice.

One of the occupiers, who wished to remain anonymous, told the Tribune that security first forcefully entered the occupied office.

“It wasn’t clear that it was the police coming in,” she said. “Security guards pushed the door open, forced their way in, although we had a cabinet in front of the door to secure ourselves inside. One of my friends has a big bruise because he tried to stop the door from opening.”

The occupier said that as soon as her co-occupier saw police from the corner of his eye, he stepped back. The group had previously decided to leave peacefully if police arrived.

“We talked to lawyers before, and even while we were inside [James Admin], we were in contact with lawyers making sure [we knew what to do], especially with police,” the occupier said. “[We] expected that the police were coming … a lot of us felt uncomfortable with being arrested and having a criminal record. So we decided that if police [came], we were going to leave peacefully.”

According to both Di Grappa’s email and the occupier, a security guard read the notice, which stated that the occupiers had five minutes to collect their belongings and leave of their own accord. If the police had to physically remove them, the police could charge them with resisting arrest.

“We were pretty well organized because the day before we had heard that we might go into negotiations with QPIRG and the administration, so we had cleaned up the place and organized all of our things,” the occupier said. “We just had to collect the papers and fully consolidate all of our things.”

After collecting their belongings, the protesters walked out of the building peacefully. The email further stated that the occupiers were offered first aid, assistance, food, and contact for counseling services.

“[The first aid and assistance] were mentioned [to us] in passing, it wasn’t like they had people there just in case people were hurt,” the occupier noted. The occupier said that there was food in a tent set up outside James Admin, where two people had spent the night.

“We had to move 50 pounds of food in a tent, couches, and blankets,” the occupier said. “I thought it was ridiculous that they were making us do that. We were also told that we were not allowed on campus for the rest of the day.”

Di Grappa’s email further mentions that the nine occupiers “gave the security agents a letter of apology to the staff who work in this area.”

“We did not give a letter of apology—I was one of the people who wrote it,” the occupier said. “It was a letter recognizing the inconvenience that we had caused to the staff that were working there and apologizing for eating their food when we had no personal provisions left.”

In his email, Di Grappa explained why the administration decided to call the police.

“University activities had been obstructed for five days, and after many attempts to talk to the protestors about leaving the building peacefully, tactics to make the protestors uncomfortable in the space and after discussion of other options, we were no closer to a resolution,” Di Grappa wrote.

Di Grappa noted that the administration was not willing to negotiate with the occupiers about their demands. “We do not believe that negotiations on key matters concerning the university should take place under occupation or threat of occupation,” he wrote. “For example, negotiations on the referendum need to take place with QPIRG only, not the occupiers (CKUT and the administration had an agreement). Therefore, we were prepared to talk only about how the occupiers might leave, while the occupiers wanted to negotiate only on their demands.”

Doug Sweet, director of McGill media relations, said that the James Administration building reopened Sunday morning for cleaning.

“It was a bit of a mess but it certainly had not been trashed,” Sweet said. “We’re very glad [the occupation] ended peacefully, and we’re looking forward to having a big conversation with the community about what is acceptable on campus.”

Last week’s occupation of the James Administration Building received much attention, as students and organizations responded to the tactics and motivations of the occupiers. The protest, a reaction to the McGill administration’s rejection of the CKUT and QPIRG referendum results of last fall, came to an end when the police evicted the nine remaining occupiers on Sunday.  

Several organizations have openly declared their support for the occupiers, including “McGill Alumni for Real Change,” who wrote a letter denouncing the McGill administration.  

“We are outraged—but in no way surprised—by the university administration’s continued disrespect for students, their initiatives, and the basic principles of democracy,” they wrote. 

However, some student societies have been quick to express their disapproval of the occupiers’ actions. The presidents of the engineering, management, arts, and science students’ societies signed a letter collectively condemning the way that the occupiers’ tactics “alienate” students instead of encouraging greater student participation in campus dialogue. 

Beni Fisch and Diego Zuluaga Laguna are two of the creators of a Facebook event called “The James 6th Floor occupiers do NOT represent me.” The page, which was started only one day into the occupation, is a reaction to what they call the “radicalization” of campus politics since Nov. 10. 

“Speaking for myself, I was rather apathetic towards campus politics back then [Nov. 10],” Fisch said. “I was one of those students who just wanted to go to class, write my exams, get a good grade, et cetera, but it’s become too radical since then … this [the occupation of James Admin] was kind of the last straw.”

Fisch and Laguna’s event claims to represent the “silent majority” of students on McGill campus who do not agree with the tactics the occupiers used. By the time the protesters were evicted on Sunday, the event had received over 2, 000 attendees. Laguna, however, does not expect the student reaction to stop with the end of the occupation. 

“Even though they’ve left the building … they don’t seem to have relinquished [their] tactics. It’s not clear whether they would use the same tactics again if they had the chance, and it’s precisely those tactics that we are against,” Laguna said. “This has been a movement in progress. It hasn’t just been a result of the occupation of the James Building itself—our goals go much further than just having the occupiers end their occupation.”

Further action by the group will involve the formation of a new campus body that will be open to everyone and will focus on creating positive change at McGill “without the use of confrontational tactics.” Co-creator Harmon Moon will also continue to collect signatures for a letter to the McGill administration, SSMU, and PGSS condemning the actions of the occupiers. The letter had around 400 signatures by the end of the occupation. 

However, other students have found groups like “The 6th Floor Occupiers do NOT represent me” to be problematic because of their use of language—for example, the group’s “condemnation” of the sixth floor occupiers. At last Thursday’s SSMU Council, councillors and gallery members discussed the polarizing effect that this kind of language can have on students. 

“I hear people calling the occupiers ‘radicals,’ Shyam Patel, VP Finance and Operations, said. “If we want open dialogue with a safe space, we need to not refer to each other with specific labels … We need to be realistic with this. Things are not going to change overnight … we need to progress slowly.”  

“Occupation is a legitimate tactic,” Carol Fraser, VP Clubs and Services, said. “We have to realize and remember that it is something that people use when they feel frustrated, when they feel like their elected representatives don’t represent them, and when they feel like they have no other choice.” 

Fisch, however, said that he thinks this language is necessary considering the campus’ current political climate.  

“The problem is that when you have 20 people who are trying to impose their views, and use coercion methods to get their way over essentially almost 23,000 other students, you see that the campus is already polarized,” he said. “And the whole purpose of [our] group is to show that our disagreement is not with their final goals but with their tactics.” 

Because of the widespread reactions they received from students, SSMU Council issued a statement in which they recognized the motivations of the occupiers, but looked forward to a “constructive outcome” to the situation. Although the occupation is now over, SSMU executives such as Emily Yee Clare, VP University Affairs, are aware that the protest has wider implications for the McGill community. 

“It’s part of systematic grievances that people have at McGill,” Clare said. “It has to do with MUNACA; it has to do with Nov. 10; it has to do with so many forms of disempowerment.”  

The Science Undergraduate Society will hold its first General Assembly on Feb. 29. The list of motions, while not yet finalized, will include one motion opposing tuition increases and another concerning the formation of a strike committee similar to the motion presented at the AUS GA on Jan. 31.

 Akshay Rajaram, president of SUS, said the “special GA” came about as a result of a petition signed by 125 science students and submitted to the speaker of SUS Council, Matthew Dolson, by a group called the “Science Mobilization Committee.”

Several science students opposing tuition increases formed the Science Mobilization Committee to rally other science students behind the issue. At the GA, Committee members will present the above motions condemning tuition hikes and forming the strike committee.

“People who are currently in school are probably not likely to drop out because of the tuition hikes, but they will certainly have to pay more and it will prevent people who are looking to attend university from being able to do so,” Aidan Drake, a member of the Mobilization Committee and a mover of the strike committee motion, said.

His motion was based on the AUS strike committee motion, but noted some wording changes, such as using the term to “inform” rather than to “educate” students about tuition increases. Additionally, the motion features a clause enabling the strike committee to organize strike activities if a motion to strike passes at a strike-specific GA, which would have a quorum of 500 undergraduate science students.

The committee would be non-hierarchical, feature no formal positions, and would require a “basis of unity” from members both in ideology (the opposition of tuition hikes and belief in moving towards a strike) and methodology (a non-hierarchical, non-oppressive organization).

The concept of a “basis of unity” was an object of much discussion at the AUS GA, some believing it gave way to bias in disseminating strike information and possible consequences.

Drake said he opposed an amendment creating a separate committee, as was proposed at the AUS GA, because of a lack of a clear mandate. He said he feels it is a separate issue and requires its own motion.

“If you have it in the same motion, that motion is doing more than one thing,” he said.

Kevin Liang, president of the Freshman Undergraduate Science Society (FUSS), which represents U0 science students to SUS, said that SUS does not want the science faculty to take a stance.

“It wants to be politically neutral,” Liang said.

Liang was still undecided on the issue. Most science students, he thought, also felt this way.

“I feel like for science, we’re not as involved in the political actions of McGill as [is] arts,” he said.

“SUS council hasn’t taken a position regarding the tuition increases for Quebec students or the strike proposals,” Rajaram, who could not comment on his expectations of the debate, said.

Besides the tuition increases and a strike committee to oppose them, there is little else that will be discussed at the General Assembly.

“The arts and science committee wanted their own seat [on SSMU Council],” Liang noted. “Right now it’s just the arts seats and the science seats.”

There has been little publicity for presenting motions to the GA. Drake claims this is due to the little publicity provided for the GA itself, stemming from a current lack of venue.

As of Feb. 5, there had been no mention of the GA or motions in any science listserv.

The GA will run according to Roberts Rules of Order, with an amendment specifying that no additional motions from the floor will be considered. The location remains to be determined. Students who have at least 100 signatories may submit a motion by  Feb. 15.

“I would encourage other groups to put motions forward: that’s what the democratic process is for. That’s why we have GAs,” Drake said.

Last Thursday’s SSMU Council approved three referendum questions concerning the Judicial Board (J-Board), in a continuation of attempts to bring the J-Board’s activities into compliance with Quebec law while retaining its value as an unbiased student body. The J-Board was recently discovered to be working against Quebec law due to regulations that require the SSMU Board of Directors (BoD) to be the highest authority in SSMU.  

The first referendum question involves amendments to the SSMU Constitution that will clarify that the J-Board is not the highest authority in the society. Instead, it will recommend rulings to the Legislative Council, which will only be considered binding when they receive ratification from the BoD. However, the BoD will only be able to overturn the decision of the J-Board by a 4/5 majority, in order to retain the J-Board’s value as an unbiased body.  

The question of J-Board reform was contentious for some members of the gallery. Former SSMU President Zach Newburgh questioned whether the J-Board actually violates Quebec law.  

“An independent judiciary is a value that’s enshrined in liberal democracies,” Newburgh said. “This referendum question in particular decides to destroy that value in the context of the Student Society of McGill University. If we are comfortable with doing that, then you may pass this referendum question and put it to a vote of students, and effectively downvote democracy through democracy.” 

SSMU President Maggie Knight, however, asserted her trust in their lawyer, who detailed the legal concerns regarding the J-Board in a memo to VP University Affairs Emily Yee Clare on Jan. 25. 

“To my knowledge we have no reason to doubt the competence of our legal counsel,” she said. “We have already met as a council and as a Board of Directors to discuss our concerns about what [have] been described to us as ambiguities between our constitution and Quebec law… out of what I understand to be due diligence to protect the SSMU from liability.” 

Clare emphasized the fact that SSMU has not relied solely on the advice of one lawyer, but also showed the referendum questions to the members of the J-Board. 

“They were very open to all the changes we proposed,” Clare said. “So in addition to our legal counsel, we have also had approximately six law students look at it as well.” 

The second referendum question, which addresses the procedural accountability of the J-Board, seeks to make the J-Board’s rules of practice publically available to all members of SSMU. 

The final and most contended referendum question addressed the composition of the J-Board, which is currently formed by five McGill students who have completed at least four semesters in the faculty of law. The referendum question would see the addition of two non-law students to the board, with the condition that these students must have never held a political position on campus. 

Debate on the referendum question stemmed mainly from the question of whether students with no legal training would be capable of addressing the type of cases addressed by the J-Board. 

“I think that there are people who are not in the faculty of law with the ability to interpret procedures and to engage in such discussions,” Knight said. “This is really just intended to bring an additional level of scope to the representation on the Judicial Board while clearly stating that the majority must always be members who have some degree of legal expertise.”  

However, some representatives felt that the J-Board does not need the additional students.   

“I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the J-Board is not a representative body,” Arts Representative Justin Fletcher said. “I think this might create potential conflicts of interest and [set] a bad precedent.” 

Students can vote on these referenda during the winter elections period starting Mar. 8. 

Last Wednesday, the administration announced that it recognizes, in principle, the existence of CKUT Radio. The administration had previously rejected the results of the fall referendum, in which CKUT and QPIRG each posed a question calling students to support the organizations’ existence and a move to make opt-outs available offline.

Following negotiations, the administration offered to recognize CKUT and QPIRG’s existence on the condition that they ran two separate questions on the winter referendum, one regarding the organizations’ existence, and one making the organizations’  fees non-opt-outable. 

CKUT agreed to this compromise on Tuesday morning at around 10 a.m., just an hour and a half before students occupied the sixth floor of the James Administration Building, explained Caitlin Manicom, outreach and funding co-ordinator for CKUT.

“The agreement was just before the occupation started, which the occupiers didn’t know,” Manicom said. “We told them on the first night, we made it clear that we were negotiating and were still negotiating.”

The sixth floor occupiers did not leave that night. 

“QPIRG was still in negotiations and we wanted to support them as well,” one of the occupiers, who withheld her identity, said. 

Manicom noted that having a non-opt-outable fee is crucial for the financial sustenance of the radio station.

“The overhead costs of producing radio increase every year, and we have a lot of costs that we can’t get rid of in terms of licensing, general production costs, maintaining equipment to produce radio … that puts such a strain on running a radio station.”

Although the occupation did not directly affect CKUT’s negotiating process, Manicom noted that it had an effect on campus dialogue.

“We had already reached an agreement prior to the occupation, but I think that what the #6party occupation did was open up a lot of dialogue, be it negative or positive,” she said. “I think what was very useful about the occupation was that people were forced to think about the fact that the McGill administration had not recognized the student democratic vote.”

QPIRG still in negotiations

On Friday evening, QPIRG proposed three-way negotiations between the administration, the sixth floor occupiers, and QPIRG. Kira Page, member of the QPIRG Board of Directors and McGill alumni, explained the rationale of the decision.

“We really wanted a speedy resolution to the occupation. We feel that the #6party students were being treated cruelly and being [denied] bathroom and water access, and we thought that needed to end quickly,” Page said. “As one of the organizations who was affected by their primary demands, it might be helpful to be part of that process to speed it up.”

In an email to students, Michael Di Grappa, Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) wrote that the administration would not negotiate the fall referendum with the sixth floor occupiers.

“As the administration has said from the beginning of the occupation, we will not enter into negotiations on the specific demands of the occupiers, as we will not negotiate with anyone disrupting university activities in this manner; we will continue to work with QPIRG to try to come to an agreement on the referendum issue,” Di Grappa wrote.

Page noted that QPIRG will not keep asking for the sixth floor occupiers to participate in negotiations, now that the occupation is over.

“We’re not affiliated with #6party and they existed mostly for the purposes of the occupation,” she said. “I don’t think students who are occupying a building have any negotiating power after they stop occupying the building.”

QPIRG will continue to negotiate with the McGill administration this week. The organization has until Feb. 17 to submit a question for the winter referendum.

“I imagine that everyone is feeling tired and tense given the past week,” Page said. “I hope that we can keep negotiating in good faith and coming to the table to come to a good resolution to this ongoing dispute.”

Simon Poitrimolt

Last Wednesday, a panel discussion on the topic of genocide prevention, with a focus on mobilising international intervention, took place at McGill in Chancellor Day Hall. The event was hosted by the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Museum, McGill’s Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism (CHRLP), and the International Justice portfolio of the Faculty of Law’s Human Rights Working Group. The featured speakers were Kyle Matthews from ‘The Will to Intervene Project’ at the Montreal Institute for Genocide; Rebecca Hamilton, the author of Fighting for Darfur – Public Action and Struggle to Stop Genocide; and Professor Payam Akhavan of the faculty of law, who acted as moderator.

Louis-Philippe Jannard, the Human Rights co-ordinator of the Montreal Holocaust Museum was the one to originally approach the CHRLP with the idea of organising a panel. Jannard explained that the topic of genocide prevention is relevant today because of a need for international assertiveness on the issue. 

“Although many genocides have happened in the last century, and although the international community adopted various tools and institutions since World War II to prevent such gross human rights violations, countries around the world remain very hesitant to intervene to put an end to tragedies that are still occurring today,” he said.

The discussion began by evaluating the lessons learned from the Holocaust to frame the historical context and provide a starting point for discussion of how the world has progressed in its treatment of the issue.

“Some crimes so shocked the conscience of mankind, that we don’t ask who the victims are, we don’t ask if we belong to the victim group and therefore have a stake in rescuing them,” Akhavan said. “We simply ask whether it is a part of human conscience and decency that we cannot remain indifferent. This is in the core of the notion of crimes against humanity … and this is the true universal lesson of the holocaust. But while we [said] never again in 1945 … [today] the vow of never again has become ever again.”

Citing examples like the genocide in Darfur as examples of more recent genocides that collectively resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions of civilians, the panel broke down the course of intervention mobilisation at both the international and grassroots level.

“Decision-making of international affairs doesn’t necessarily take place at the UN, they actually take place in national capitals,” Matthews said. “To mobilise international political will or intervention is to first mobilise domestic will … countries and national governments have done very little ever since we signed the genocide convention in 1948. We tend to let things fall apart, respond as the events are turning, and don’t say why we’re acting too late. That is not a sustainable way to help our planet.”

Aware of the growing capacity for citizen engagement in interventions, the speakers explored possible solutions for situations where the interests of a country’s elite circle of executors do not align with the majority.

“It’s incredibly easy to get people to care about people who they will never meet,” Hamilton said. “They can hold their elective representatives accountable, and they can do it through relatively straight-forward mechanisms. One thing that was done in the Darfur case was to introduce scorecards, grading every member of congress on how they responded to Darfur … what’s amazing was how quickly it was effective. Within one or two days of introducing scorecards you had not just staffers but senators themselves calling into offices … [asking what they could] do to get a better grade.”

Members of the audience appreciated the varied insights on mobilising genocide intervention.

“I particularly enjoyed the … point of view of the mobilisers,” Louise Lavigne, a U2 law student, said. “I’ve never really heard the perspective of someone who is involved in getting people to notice the issues of genocide from the bottom-up … I appreciated that element.” 

Last Monday, Feb. 13 marked the end of the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) Winter Special Referendum. The referendum posed a question amending the AUS constitution to make the General Assembly the supreme governing body of the AUS instead of Council. The change in the governing structure of the AUS would allow the student organization to become eligible to join Coalition Large de l’Association pour une Solidarite Syndicale Etudiante (CLASSE), a Quebec-wide temporary coalition of students opposing tuition increases. 

Being part of CLASSE would enable McGill to participate in demonstrations and actions taken by the group to oppose tuition increases and for McGill to be represented if CLASSE engages in talks with the government.  

A special referendum can take place when it is convened by at least eight senators or by 150 signatories. This specific referendum was prompted when arts students submitted a proposal with 150 signatures to AUS president Jade Calver.  

Kevin Paul, a member of the Mobilization Committee (Mob Squad) commented on the reasons behind the referendum question.  

“The referendum was called because of growing student grievances with the school administration and the Quebec government,” Paul said.  

By joining CLASSE, the AUS would be in a stronger bargaining position with the government, since pressure would be greater in a larger student coalition force.  

“I think giving this power to the General Assembly will actually get more student involvement and allow better representation of student interest,” a U2 arts student, who asked to remain anonymous, said. “Putting controversial topics like opposing tuition hikes through General Assembly sheds a lot of light on the issue and it draws in many more considerations from different perspectives.”  

However, some arts students are concerned that making the General Assembly the supreme governing body will erode a collective voice and efficacy. 

“When you let more people make decisions, the decision-making process can definitely slow down because you need to deal with a lot more perspectives and inputs,” Robert Chang, U1 arts, said. “This might make the AUS a whole lot less cohesive and effective because people have different opinions for different things. You’re almost guaranteed to clash on something as important as tuition hikes.”

Simon Poitrimolt

A talk by Dr. Tom Palmer on tyranny and oppression in North Korea on Feb. 7 was met with mixed reactions. Hosted by Libertarian McGill and the Institute for Liberal Studies, the speech focused on the nature and principles of freedom. Palmer, a senior fellow at Washington’s Cato Institute and vice president for international programs at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, discussed his experiences from his 2010 trip to North Korea, and his expectations for the country’s future.  

 “People who say ‘here’s what’s going to happen’ are lying or deluded,” Palmer said. “I met a lot of North Korea specialists. I’m not one of them … but even the specialists say: ‘we don’t have a clue.'”

Palmer compared his understanding of North Korean society to the dictatorial regimes of Eastern Europe prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. According to him, the constant North Korean parades and other state functions are designed to make the individual a part of a ‘machine,’ which Palmer compared to the gears and dials in his watch. 

Palmer used North Korea as an example for discussing the role and benefits of liberalism, commenting that “the rule of law is an element that cannot be overstated in its significance.” He also proposed that free trade is an important part of developing a country, and spent some time discussing the correlation between liberal values and socio-economic development. 

A group of around fifty students, faculty members, and members of Libertarian McGill attended the talk. While several attendees expressed their appreciation for Palmer’s knowledge on the subject of liberalism, others had very different opinions. 

Professor Jim Thomas, a visiting professor at McGill’s department of East Asian studies, felt that Palmer’s speech was troubling due to its emphasis on liberal values. Thomas also drew attention to Palmer’s factual inaccuracies, especially those surrounding the role of free trade in the development of the Republic of Korea, the causes and results of famines in North Korea, and the overall mindset of the leadership.  

“By propagating the illusion of irrationality, instability, and changeability in [North Korea], we serve American and other international interests who benefit from those representations,” he said.  

Thomas questioned Palmer’s assumption that it was impossible to predict the actions of North Korea, saying that the country will likely “remain more or less as it has over the last 70 years or more.”

In an email, Gregoire Legault, U3 honours East Asian studies and co-president of EASSA, also expressed concern about factual inaccuracies in Palmer’s talk and the McGill Libertarian Society’s choice to invite him to speak on the subject of the DPRK.  

“The talk was reductionist at best [and] dangerous at worst, especially for the students who never had a chance to analyse North Korea from an academic perspective,” Legault said.  

However, Matt Bufton, from the Institute for Liberal Studies, said that he had no problem with Palmer’s choice of subject or the critical discussion that stemmed from it.  

“Our mission is to get people thinking and talking about ideas, so an engaged and curious audience is exactly what we like to see,” he said. “We knew that Dr. Palmer was well-versed in the history of freedom around the globe, and felt that his visit to North Korea would provide a starting point that would be current and of interest to McGill students.”

Adelle Archer, president of Libertarian McGill, said that she was satisfied with the event and that, to her, the most interesting part of the discussion hinged around the Sino-U.S. relationship regarding North Korea.  

“The different scenarios [Palmer] outlined hit some important points, such as the undesirability of having South Korea expand north with U.S. troops,” Archer said. “[I was] delighted that challenging questions were posed, as they extracted informative and thought-provoking responses from Mr. Palmer.”