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.”

 

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.”

 

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.”

This is a developing story and the Tribune continues to monitor the situation. Developments will be added as they occur.

Around 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday Jan. 7, a group of about 20 students occupied the office of Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson on the sixth floor of the James Administration Building. Protesters said that they would not leave until the administration ratified the QPIRG and CKUT fall referenda results. The referenda had been previously rejected by the administration due to concerns of the questions’ clarity. The occupiers also called for Mendelson’s resignation, claiming that he had “failed” in his role as deputy provost.

“We’re a group of students who independently decided that this is an issue that really needs to be dealt with–the fact that the administration has refused to recognize the strong ‘yes’ vote that came out of the fall referendum is unacceptable,” one of the sixth floor occupiers, who refused to identify himself, told the Tribune over the phone at around noon. “We’re here until they change their minds.”

“We’re not an occupation, we’re a surprise resignation party for Mendelson,” another occupier added, also refusing to identify themselves

“It really is a party. We have cake and streamers and balloons. And we’re playing some awesome music. We have balloons and party hats,” the first occupier said. They had offered Mendelson a cake that read “Happy resignation, Dr. Mendelson.”

Throughout the day, additional protesters positioned themselves in the lobby of the building to show their solidarity with the occupiers’ demands. McGill security prevented these students from using the elevators to reach the sixth floor.

“I’m here to party and have a good time and to stand in solidarity with the people on the sixth floor,” Libby Bouchard, U1 Arts, said. “Hopefully they’ll meet the demands and recognize that QPIRG is a student service that we voted to stay around for another five years. And hopefully Morton Mendelson will stop trying to impose his will on the entire student body.”

Michael Di Grappa, McGill VP Administration and Finance, released two emails throughout the day, warning McGill students and staff of the potential disturbance on campus. The first email, sent around noon, described the protest as peaceful and assured students that McGill security personnel were in attendance.

Shyam Patel, SSMU VP Finance and Operations, said that many SSMU executives were attending the protest ensure students’ safety.

“I’m just hoping it’s peaceful, and that’s the most I can ask for,” Patel said. “I think so far things are looking good. No one’s been doing anything crazy. Everyone’s tasteful [and] respectful towards each other on actually both sides of the table—students and the administration—so that’s a good sign.”

Around 4 p.m., Di Grappa released another message, this time stating that the Provost had advised the protesters that they were occupying the building without permission, requesting that they leave immediately.

“Your occupation of the premises may also be a violation of the law, and the University has not excluded any options regarding what actions it will take because of this,” the Provost’s notice said.

As a result of the occupation, all employees working in the James Building and Annex were asked to evacuate the building. In his second email, Di Grappa apologized for the inconveniences that this would cause students.

Provost Anthony Masi went to the lobby to address student concerns, but was interrupted by Amber Gross, member of the Mob Squad.

“The original people who are upstairs have a very strict no-talking-to-administrators policy … we’re here for a party, not to talk to administrators,” Gross said, speaking on a megaphone.

“Let me explain why that was the policy coming in. We’ve had this discussion over and over… and the point is that all of these conversations come to nothing. Everybody knows we’ve done this repeatedly, we’re not going to do this again,” Micha Stettin added.

“We are somewhat preoccupied, so to speak,” Doug Sweet, director of McGill media relations, told the Tribune. He was unable to confirm whether students would be allowed to stay inside the building overnight.

By 4:30 p.m., three sixth floor occupiers had entered into negotiations with the administration, and requested the presence of a representative from the group of protesters in the lobby. After debating the implications of sending an occupier from the lobby to negotiate, the group sent Gross as a “solidarity ensurer,” stating that they hoped that they could participate without being labelled as occupiers.

Additionally, several faculty members participated in the occupation. According to Adrienne Hurley, professor of East-Asian studies, there were at least eight professors in the lobby of the James Administration building, including a professor who brought his class to the lobby.

“In my teaching I’ve relied on CKUT and QPIRG quite a bit,” Hurley said. “I teach one class that’s a radio class [and] students do podcast interviews instead of final papers … I’ve put books on reserve or often referred students to the QPIRG library to get books … that the McGill library doesn’t have. Those kinds of services are really important to my ability to be a good teacher.”

Midnight Kitchen served dinner for the lobby occupiers at about 5 p.m.

At around 9:30 p.m., McGill security no longer allowed students to enter the building. This included not letting students re-enter who may have left the lobby for reasons such as finding a washroom.

Students in solidarity with those inside James Admin staged a sit-in outside the building at around 11 p.m., cheering for those who chose to leave the building.

“I think that student democracy is a good thing,” one of the students outside James Admin, who requested to stay anonymous, said. “It’s a bad thing for the administration to unilaterally reject a referendum that had a lot of turnout and was very clear. We would like to support our friends who peacefully and in a light hearted way are protesting this issue.”

At 3.a.m, the students remained in the sit-in, and some even started sleeping in sleeping bags despite the cold weather.