Published by the SPT, a student society of McGill University
urban child
November 15, 2025
Hundreds attend counter-protest for transgender rights, in photos
September 30, 2025
Students protest for Palestine at Parliament, in photos
June 21, 2025
When two useless Sports Editors compete in McGill sports, who reigns supreme? In Competition With is a new series brought you by The McGill Tribune to see who truly is less athletically challenged: Joe or Aaron? In the first episode, the eager editors take each other on with some help from the McGill Fencing Club.
For information on the fencing team and how to get involved click here.
‘Kanga I, II, III’ brings Projections: SANKOFA’s afrofuturist vision to Trottier
June 23, 2026
Know Your Artist: Theodore A. Harris
May 27, 2026
The forgotten history of the Montreal coffeehouse
April 7, 2026
End the Reboot
Hollywood and content creators of all kinds have always been influenced by those that have come before them. Some of the greatest films of all time are based on previous works: The Godfather, To Kill a Mockingbird, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest to name a few. But in the past two decades, any movie fan will have noticed the growing trend of reboots, rehashes, and spin-offs filling up the theatre bills.
It’s understandable why studios want to make these movies; they are easy to produce and seem like a surefire way to draw nostalgic audiences to the theatres. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) and Jurassic World (2015) are both good examples of films that capitalize on nostalgia. Neither film managed to get out of the shadow cast by the original and stand out independently in any meaningful way, but that did not the reeboots from hitting big at the box office, with Jurassic World becoming the third-highest grossing film of all time.
This desire to avoid risk and stick to the ‘classics’ has lead to a significant reduction in the quality of new blockbuster films.We could be missing out on many new classics as studios decide to produce a reboot rather than taking a risk on a new idea. These huge projects are able to offer actors, actresses, directors, producers, and every other crew member more incentives than other projects. This often causes the most accomplished and established talent to be snapped up to work on these unimaginative money-making projects, rather than more interesting and fresh films.
Not only are reboots uninspired and often uninteresting, historically, reboots have generally lacked critical success. For instance, take the wave of ‘90s and early ‘00s comedies that have been been getting sequels in the past few years. Dumb and Dumber To (2014), Anchorman 2 (2013), and Zoolander 2 (2016) all floundered trying to recapture the quality and style that made the originals so great. Critics assessed them as outdated, uninspired, and nothing more than big cash grabs.
“Anytime you mention reboot and remake, the audience thinks ‘rip-off,’” said Jeff Bock, a box-office analyst when interviewed by the Los Angeles Times. “I don’t know why Hollywood keeps shoving these movies down our throats.”
There are reasons why rebooting movies is hard. Most classics are products of their time, so it is hard to recreate their tone in a modern setting. It is also hard to balance the desire to be loyal to the original while also giving the remake its own feel. This is why most reboots either feel like copies of the original or completely different movies that happen to share the same name, perhaps with a couple references to the original.
Many people enjoy the entertainment value of reboots, but it is misguided to think they aren’t having a adverse effect on the film industry. The issue with reboots is that they give a creative industry an excuse to avoid creativity. This leads major filmmakers and stars of the industry away from more original projects and denigrates the legacy of these classic films. Reboots are bad for both the industry in the long-term and for movie fans who want to see classic films emerge in their own generation.
-Declan Embury, Contributor
Reboot the Reboot
Infamously terrible remakes like 2008’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and 2016’s Ben-Hur give the reboot a sour reputation. At best, reboots are criticized as failing to live up to their source material’s former glory. At worst, their producers are labelled as unoriginal cash grabs. However, throughout all of film history, the same stories have been updated to fit the modern times. Disney’s Cinderella (1950) has taken countless forms–from the animated Disney Classic, the magical Ella Enchanted (2004), to Hilary Duff’s spunky Cinderella Story (2004) . Each of these films is proof that, sometimes, how a story is told is just as important as the story itself.
Nancy Meyer’s 1998 film Parent Trap is a critically-acclaimed classic, showcasing talents like Dennis Quaid and Natasha Richards, and kick-starting the career of Lindsay Lohan. The Parent Trap follows two girls who meet at summer camp, where they discover that they are long-lost twins. Many people overlook the fact that the film is actually based on a 1961 original, starring popular Disney actress Hayley Mills. The updated Parent Trap allowed filmmakers to show off how vastly movie technology had evolved. In the 1961 original, most shots with both twins required a body double, while in the 1998 version, the crew was able to use more advanced split-screen technology. The Parent Trap is an example of how reboots can enable filmmakers to improve both the content and mechanics of past movies.
Reboots are also valuable because they allow filmmakers to recreate beloved classics with underrepresented or marginalized cast members. Film history is dominated by white heterosexual characters, in which men get to play powerful roles while women are sidelined. Reboots allow audiences to reimagine old favourites by giving them a chance to recognize themselves onscreen. 2016’s Ghostbusters showcases the often-forgotten female comedian, with five women leads just as hilarious and dynamic as the original all-male cast. The upcoming Oceans 8 is yet another chance for women to shine in the traditionally male-led crime genre. 2014’s Annie featured Quvenzhané Wallis as the eponymous star. Annie is traditionally red-headed, but Wallis, who is African American, proves that we need not accept these arbitrary casting norms. Progression in the film industry is not just about continuing to cast diverse performers, but also about deconstructing existing conceptions of who can occupy what roles within film. Questioning and delegitimizing these notions is an important foundation to improving diversity in future films.
Granted, there are reboots that are quite cringe-worthy to watch. The fourth season of Arrested Development failed to deliver the belly-aching laughter for which its first three seasons were famous. 2016’s Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life felt like a shadow of its charming and heartwarming former self. Nonetheless, what both of these projects have in common is that they tried to recreate, rather than readapt, their originals. Like a former cheerleader at her 20-year high school reunion, these films were trying to relive past success, instead of looking at new territory to explore.
Reboots are a gamble, and hold potential to compare unfavourably to the works on which they are based. However, when executed with originality and a fresh perspective, they are a great mechanism for telling familiar stories in new ways.
-Ariella Garmaise, Staff Writer
On Feb. 2, Media@McGill hosted a panel discussion on the role of journalism in effectively communicating climate change. NASA recently revealed that 2016 was the hottest year in history and the third record year in a row—the first time such a pattern has occurred since climate data collection began. Despite this, according to a 2015 study from the Université de Montréal, only about half of Canadians subscribe to the scientific consensus that rising temperatures are primarily caused by human activity and only 27 per cent say that they are well-informed on the issue of global warming. In an attempt to address the gap between scientific knowledge and public engagement, the panel featured six experts across multiple sectors.
The participants acknowledged the media’s limited success in bringing climate change to the forefront of public awareness.
“The media has covered climate change in Canada extensively, but it has failed in a lot of cases, particularly in the last election,” Mike de Souza, managing editor of the National Observer, said. “It would have been up to the media […] to provoke more discussion during debates.”
Kai Nagata, communications director of the Dogwood Initiative, believes that the Canadian government has made decisions on the assumption that there will be a market for non-renewable energy in the future because climate action will fail.
“[The media] fails to hold these people to account,” Nagata said.
The discussion also touched on the challenges journalism faces as a medium in tackling the complex issue of climate change. A proposition was put forth that the scope of the environmental phenomenon cannot be contained by the reactionary, event-driven format of popular media.
“[To communicate about climate change] we need to dig down deep into stories over a long period of time,” Linda Solomon Wood, CEO of the Observer Media Group, said. “And that’s not sexy, it’s the total opposite of clickbait.”
Repeatedly, the conversation returned to the subject of promoting engagement with the issue of climate change in diverse populations.
Martin Lukacs, environmental journalist for The Guardian, argued that a rift along ideological and political lines is central to the divergent perceptions of climate change.
“Polarization is really necessary [to motivate action against climate change],” Lukacs said. “What we are confronting is an ideological foe.”
Nagata agreed with Lukacs that perceptions of climate change vary strongly across the political spectrum.
“Discussion [on climate change] is not happening to the same extent on the political right [as on the left],” Nagata said. “Our responsibility, as advocates, is to understand the values that motivate people’s choices and to find a way to talk about this crisis that motivates action from people who are our political opposites.”
On the other hand, Candis Callison, associate professor at the Graduate School of Journalism at UBC, shared insight from her research on different forms of environmental activism, including that of American Evangelicals.
“There’s a way of talking about climate change which imbues it with ethics and morality […] and in various contexts it sounds different,” Callison said. “That kind of plurality associated with climate change isn’t something we generally think of.”
Laure Waridel, executive director of Interdisciplinary Research Centre on Sustainable Development Operationalization, agreed with Callison.
“The same message will not reach everybody,” said Waridel. “To get the business sector involved, […] we might not even use the language of climate change, but […] the language of optimization, for example.”
Lukacs remarked that environmental issues may resonate more with the public when they are framed in a new light by social movements.
“Pipelines six or seven years ago were a technical issue that got mentioned in the business section of newspapers, […] but they are now a defining political issue in this country, discussed in terms of their impact on indigenous rights,” Lukacs said.
The panel seemed to agree that an impactful communication of climate change goes beyond an accurate reporting of statistics.
“[Climate change communication] needs to stay true to the scientific fact […] and at the same time it needs to become more than that in order for a diverse public to become engaged,” Callison said.
The standards for drugs entering first-in-human (FIH) clinical trials are too low, argues Associate Professor Dr. Jonathan Kimmelman and PhD candidate Carole Federico in McGill’s Biomedical Ethics Unit. In a commentary published online in Nature on Jan. 30, Kimmelman and Federico maintain that evidence for drug efficacy is not emphasized enough before FIH trials and call for more thorough evaluation of the clinical promise of a drug before it is tested in humans.
Today, regulatory bodies in Europe and North America look for evidence of safety before drugs are tested in humans, but do not require evidence of drug effectiveness.
“We believe that many FIH studies are launched on the basis of flimsy, under-scrutinized evidence,” Federico and Kimmelman wrote.
The ALS Therapy Development Institute, which studies the motor-neuron disease made famous by the ice bucket challenge in 2014, has similarly determined via its own animal studies that many failed drugs enter human trials due to inadequately designed or conducted preclinical studies.
Most drugs that make it to phase II and phase III in human clinical trial stages fail due to lack of demonstrated effectiveness. Kimmelman and Federico posit that raising the bar for assessments of efficacy before going into human trials would lower failure rates and the high costs of drug development—money that could be better spent developing drugs with real clinical promise.
Likewise, failed drug trials—even if the drug in question is harmless for the participants—divert manpower away from more promising trials. Researchers and volunteers, in devoting time and effort to a fruitless drug, are not available for other, more favourable endeavours.
“Scientists are a very scarce resource,” Kimmelman told CNN. “It takes years and years of training to be able to run a trial and we want to allocate that resource as judiciously as possible to lead to major advances and cures.”
Moving forward, Kimmelman and Federico suggest a number of changes to the existing process of clinical trial approval. They propose that researchers should be obligated to disclose all of the results, even the unfavourable ones, from their preclinical studies when looking for trial approval. Furthermore, a central review board of experts should be created, combining ethical and scientific vetting of the preclinical evidence before approval for a human trial. In order to determine a drug’s clinical promise, such a board should pose questions asking, for example, how other drugs addressing the same disease process have fared, or whether the conditions of preclinical experiments match clinical scenarios.
Critics of Kimmelman and Federico’s proposal may counter that increased regulation could hinder potentially favourable drug candidates from ever reaching human trials. Kimmelman and Federico, however, argue that preclinical evidence does not necessarily need to be strong—but it should be critically scrutinized. In some instances, where animal models of a condition are inadequate, such as in some neurodegenerative disorders, a “limited suggestion of clinical promise” may be enough to warrant human trials.
“We call for infrastructure, resources, and better methods to rigorously evaluate the clinical promise of new interventions before testing them on humans for the first time,” Federico and Kimmelman wrote. “We must abandon the fiction that current oversight systems are adequate […] to steward scientific efforts.”
Kimmelman expressed his worries to CNN regarding the potential effects of the Trump presidency in prioritizing speed over efficacy. While campaigning, President Trump said that he wanted to speed up the drug approval process and eliminate red tape at the FDA.
“If President Trump follows through on some of the plans he has articulated on the campaign trail about drug approval, he plans to weaken the critical evidence needed to approve new drugs," Kimmelman said.
Ever have friends that didn’t tap their foot, bob their head, or drum their hands to the beat of a good song? Researchers at the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) and the University of Barcelona have discovered that the lack of joy from music can arise biologically, rather than just by choice or taste.
While on sabbatical in Spain, MNI neuroscientist Dr. Robert Zatorre connected with colleagues at the University of Barcelona. Pooling together Zatorre’s knowledge of the brain’s response to pleasure and music and his colleagues’ expertise on anhedonia—the inability to experience pleasure—the team set out to explore the way in which the human brain derives happiness or displeasure from music.
In their resulting study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in September 2016, 45 participants filled out a questionnaire regarding the satisfaction they receive from music. The team divided these participants into three categories: Those who “can’t live without music,” those who experience regular joy from music, and those who exhibited no joy from music.
Participants in all three categories listened to music during the scans, voicing whether they liked the music or not. Brain scans using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the subject pool brought an intriguing conclusion to light: The scans projected three different patterns for the three subject pools.
The cortical regions of the brain that control audio processing and the reward system are connected. “Hyper-hedonic” people—those who receive vast amounts of happiness from music—have tightly connected audio and reward systems. On the other hand, individuals who don't experience joy from listening to music have lower connections between these regions than usual. This phenomenon, found in three to five per cent of the population, was dubbed “specific music anhedonia” by the research team.
“There is a whole group of structures called […] the reward circuit,” Zatorre explained. “If there’s activity in that part of the brain, you experience pleasure. If there is no activity in that part of the brain, you experience no pleasure.”
But there are crucial differences between specific music anhedonia and anhedonia in general.
Subjects with specific music anhedonia took a control test. They played an addictive gambling video game so the researchers could focus on their “reward system” response. This test, coupled with verbal questions, revealed normal results—affirming that because the subjects could activate their “reward system” in other ways, the anhedonia they experience must be specific to music.
“[Anhedonia is] a symptom that often occurs in depression and other disorders, like Parkinson’s disease,” Zatorre said. “It refers to the lack of pleasure. The people that we were studying were perfectly fine in terms of their pleasure responses for anything [besides music]. […They] like to be with their friends. They like to be among their families, and have normal, loving relationships like other humans [.…] They like everything, except for music.”
According to Zatorre, subsequent studies seek to explore whether and how these psychiatric conditions may receive more effective treatment—such as a collaborative team at the University of Tel Aviv in Israel, working on the development of a targeted music therapy. Currently, these developments are still experimental.
“The human brain can do a lot of really cool stuff,” Zatorre said.
Critics must balance linguistic priorities with human impact when discussing Air Canada’s faux pas
April 7, 2026
The pattern behind Hassan’s denial of entry
April 7, 2026
On Jan. 31, Donald Trump signed an Executive Order limiting immigration from seven majority Muslim countries. The order also suspended the United States’ acceptance of refugees for 120 days, and barred Syrian refugees completely. Trump’s order ignores the 1951 Geneva Convention, which recommends that participating governments provide asylum to refugees without considering “race, religion, or country of origin.” The ban has since been blocked as unconstitutional by a U.S. federal court ruling; nonetheless, the reverberations of such a sweeping and exclusionary move persist. Amid the outrage that followed the order, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took to Twitter, declaring that Canada welcomes all refugees, regardless of faith. Trudeau’s feel-good tweet, however, is undermined by his government, which has placed its own cap on refugee admission. Even more troublesome is the fact the Canada-United States border continues to operate under the Safe Third Party Agreement. The Agreement requires that refugees request protection in the first safe country that they arrive in—meaning Canada cannot legally accept asylum seekers turned away from the United States. Should Trump follow through on his promise to overturn the court’s decision and reinstate the ban, it seems that those denied entry to the U.S. can find only false hopes in Canada.
It the responsibility of Canadian citizens have a responsibility to hold their government accountable for its lack of concessions to refugees. In a political climate where “alternative facts” have taken precedence over honesty, it is crucial that the Trudeau administration maintain a standard of integrity and compassion. If the people of Canada do not see this integrity and compassion, they must demand it.
Given the global political climate, political participation is more vital than ever. The power inherent in political speech is apparent in the events of the last week. After Trudeau’s tweet, Canadians took action. An online petition calling for the repeal of the Safe Third Country Agreement currently has 38,583 signatures, and a movement has emerged encouraging constituents to contact their MPs to demand change. Locally, McGill Law students are providing legal services to those affected by the ban at Trudeau airport, and organizing a letter writing campaign to protest the Executive Order. This coincides with a nationwide effort among law students to make legal resources accessible to anyone who needs them in the wake of the Executive Order. Protesting, volunteering, contacting local representatives are all examples of political action that has the potential to minimize the ban’s negative consequences. By refusing to stand idly by, Canadians can keep their own government transparent and, by extension, demand equivalent accountability from the Trump administration.
The rhetoric of “alternative facts” allows for the perpetration of harmful lies, such as the idea that a significant amount of Syrian refugees are terrorists, or, in Trump’s words, “the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas.” Canada must do its part in emphasizing that a government that lies is not normal or acceptable. It should not permit a political landscape that facilitates the formation of national myths that are disconnected from reality. Leading by example is essential to setting this standard. To combat the political culture of falsehood that the Trump administration propagates, and to impress upon the U.S government that their decisions do not exist in a vacuum, the people of Canada must demand transparency from their own government. If the Trudeau administration strives to be humanitarian, it needs to be transparent with its constituents first and foremost. When it is not honest, Canadians have the power to put pressure on their government, and they should use that power.
The nature of a representative system ensures that politicians have a responsibility towards those they represent. They are supposed to empower their constituents, to amplify these citizens’ voices and implement policy that caters to their needs. It is a representative’s job to listen—but it is also the citizen’s job to speak. Now more than ever, Canadians need to ensure that their government represents their ideals in both actions and words. If those ideals are compassion and honesty, then the responsibility falls on Canadian citizens to ensure that Canada supports the people that the United States does not.
Critics must balance linguistic priorities with human impact when discussing Air Canada’s faux pas
April 7, 2026
The pattern behind Hassan’s denial of entry
April 7, 2026
The condom broke, you skipped a pill, or your memories are foggy from the night before. Accidents happen: Thankfully, emergency contraceptive pills are available. Since 2005, pharmacies have provided levonorgestrel pills (Plan B) without a prescription in Canada. In 11 provinces and territories, you can now find Plan B beside the condoms on drugstore shelves, while Quebec and Saskatchewan both keep it behind the counter. But in Quebec, it is only administered after a mandatory consultation with the pharmacist. This barrier impedes the autonomy of women seeking emergency contraception. It is unreasonable and unethical for Quebec to continue to uphold this standard when most of Canada has removed it.
When I went to get Plan B in Montreal, my consultation was with a pharmacist who seemed to be close to my age. He asked whether I had taken emergency contraception before, the date of my last menstrual cycle, the length of my typical cycle, why I thought I needed emergency contraception, when the "event" had occurred, and whether I used other methods of birth control. At the end of our consultation, he agreed that he would dispense the pill.
My bill came to $44.50. The consultation and the pill both cost $22, which is on the low-end of pricing in Montreal. If you have a valid Quebec health card, the consultation is free of charge. The pill can be partially or completely covered by insurance, depending on your plan. And, if you're under 18, it's always free. But, because I'm a student and it's not a prescription medication, I have no coverage.
At the end of my consultation, I asked whether he would ever refuse to dispense it. He confirmed that he would if there was little chance of the woman being pregnant, or if she were outside the window of effectiveness.
While the latter condition may be reasonable, the period of efficacy is not widely agreed upon and depends on the pill. There is some evidence that the pill is still effective within five days, but other studies suggest that it decreases significantly after 3 days.
Refusal to prescribe the pill based on the likelihood of pregnancy, however, is unreasonable and unethical. While the chance of pregnancy immediately after or before a period is extremely low, the women who seek out emergency contraception are typically in their early 20s, and in the reproductive prime of their life. Furthermore, regardless of the likelihood of a pregnancy, emergency contraception empowers women with autonomy over their bodies. Even if a woman forgot to take her pill, or the condom broke, or there was a sexual assault, she can still be in control of her reproductive system. Barring situations where use of Plan B would be unsafe, it is unethical for a pharmacist to send a woman who was attempting to exercise this autonomy home.
The Canadian Women's Health Network and the World Health Organization have declared that there is no medical argument to justify a consultation or examination to obtain the pill. While they should certainly ensure that patrons are educated on the proper use of any drug, pharmacists are not medical practitioners. They are not a sexual health consultants or necessarily experts in women's health, either. The paternalistic idea that a pharmacist knows best what every woman needs is therefore rattling. Given the right information, women should be able to decide on their own if they need emergency contraception.
I work in sexual health, so my level of comfort with this consultation may not reflect the comfort of all women. These conversations can cause shame and embarrassment, especially in the case of assault. This consultation also makes it impossible for women to buy emergency contraception in advance—just in case.
When taken safely, Plan B is a fast and non-invasive way for women to take control of their sexuality. Mandating a consultation detracts from this, and there is no excuse for the fact that Quebec has yet to abolish this standard.
The Tribune’s guide to post-finals fun
April 7, 2026
Feeling lucky? The best St. Patrick’s Day bar crawl in Montreal
March 16, 2026
The unofficial tour guide’s guide to Montreal
February 17, 2026
According to the Coffee Association of Canada, in 2016, over 58 per cent of Canadians aged 18-24 drank coffee on a daily basis, a number that grows every year. It is clear that coffee has become a staple of Montreal life; from the famous Tim Hortons to the lesser-known independent coffee shops in the Plateau, there seems to be a never-ending choice of places to get that daily caffeine boost. However, this makes it difficult for third-wave coffee companies to stand out among the crowd.
‘Third-wave coffee’ is a movement based on the idea that coffee is more than just a commodity. For those who follow its tenants, all stages of production, from the growing to the brewing of coffee beans, are done meticulously. There is often a focus on the experience of coffee drinking itself, and as such, many baristas put effort into other drink elements, such as latte art and alternative brewing methods.
To support this love of coffee, the beloved Montreal-based Dispatch Coffee has begun offering free workshops at its new location in the Plateau on Rue St-Laurent and Avenue Duluth. These workshops give customers the opportunity to discover where their coffee comes from and to learn new brewing methods.
Every Thursday from 4-7 p.m., the Director of Coffee at Dispatch, Chris Durning, introduces attendees to a different brewing method. The most recent demonstration on Feb. 2 focused on the V60 pour-over method. A funnel-shaped device filled with freshly ground coffee is placed over a cup, then water is poured over the top in concentric circles so that it filters evenly into the cup below.
There is a significant amount of chemistry involved in the brewing process. The balance of acidity, sweetness, and bitterness of a cup can be significantly altered depending on how it is brewed, and finding the ideal ratio is a detailed process. Specific aspects of coffee making—such as the temperature of the water, how fine the coffee has been ground, and the ratio of coffee to water in the brew—can be the difference between a good cup of coffee and a bad one.
“I always like to say making coffee is like making a cocktail, you’re trying to balance all of these flavours,” Durning said.
Dispatch works exclusively with high quality ethically-sourced coffee from all over the world, and each kind is chosen for its unique blend of scents. The Rwandan Kanzu coffee sold by Dispatch is described as ‘sweet and comforting,’ while the Peruvian Amaybamba coffee beans are also fairly sweet, but have hints of deeper chocolate and nutty aromas. Durning invites workshop observers to taste the freshly brewed coffee, helping them to identify these subtle, distinct smells during his demonstrations.
These beans, roasted in Montreal, are light-roasted to retain as many nutrients as possible and preserve their high quality and complex flavours. The effort of roasting the coffee locally clearly shows the care and expertise that Dispatch puts into their products. This is also reflected in the free workshops, which go above and beyond to improve the customer experience.
At the end of the workshop, Durning also hands out recipe cards with specific instructions on how to replicate the brewing methods at home.
“By giving you recipes that we’re actually roasting for, it’s making sure you’re in the ballpark already,” Durning said. “Then, by teaching you how to manipulate the flavour, you can adjust it so that it tastes perfect and you’re wasting less coffee. That’s the biggest thing for us.”
Though there are many secrets to brewing the perfect cup of coffee, Dispatch provides an easy and enjoyable avenue to understand the fundamentals. Durning’s workshops make the complex world of coffee brewing more accessible—plus, the free coffee makes the educational experience all the more gratifying.
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Chris Durning is Head Roaster at Dispatch, and that Dispatch exclusively sells fair trade coffee. In fact, Chris Durning is Director of Coffee at Dispatch, and Dispatch sells exclusively ethically-sourced coffee, though not all of this is fair trade. The Tribune regrets these errors.
A final note from the Editor-in-Chief of Volume 45, for the record
May 14, 2026
Oh, the places I’ll go (but not stay)!
April 7, 2026
Great pitch, terrible news
March 31, 2026
Have you ever walked out of a movie in which the audience clapped raucously as the credits rolled, only to have your friend turn to you and ask, “What’s the point of clapping? It’s not like the cast or crew can hear the applause anyway.” If you’re anything like me, you’d respond to this comment by muttering “what a fucking twat.” To be honest, I can’t remember the last time I’ve heard clapping after a movie. A quick Google search confirms that this idea is commonplace, but not that it happens all that often. “Do people in the U.S. really clap after movies?” asks a confused Redditor, while angry internet bloggers echo the same sentiment my make-believe friend said above: Why clap at a movie when the people supposedly receiving the symbol of appreciation are unable to hear it? The answer is simple: Clapping is far more than showing appreciation, it’s an expression of emotion shared by everybody in the theatre–a recognition of the shared experience of the film.
At the theatre, applause and standing ovations show appreciation to the cast and crew who stand on stage and bow accordingly. If the only use of applause is to convey appreciation, then clapping after a movie is pointless. But applause is not a solely outward gesture, like the obligatory head nod to a vague acquaintance you pass on campus. Standing ovations spread through a theatre, one person stands, then another, and another. The gesture of appreciative applause is more emanating than transmissive—the audience, cast, and crew walks away feeling like they are part of something larger than themselves, and clapping in unison as a group confirms it. While theatres and cinemas are typically quiet affairs, sports events offer a magnified example of cheering to show group identity. When someone yells out, “Are you blind, ref?” it would be remarkable if the referee turned around and actually responded, “Why yes, I forgot to put my contacts on this morning and I’ve just been bullshitting this entire game!” Comments like these aren’t meant as literal advice for the referee, but as a gesture of solidarity with fellow fans upset by the call. Applause and questions like that are entirely rhetorical in nature, they affirm the obvious: “That was a great film,” or “that was a bad call.”
It isn’t surprising, then, that most of the films people report clapping at are films with strong cult fan bases. The Lord of the Rings movies, Star Wars and The Dark Knight series are all hotbeds for post-movie applause. While the “group” isn’t as identifiable without the colour-coded apparel of a sports game, the message is clear: “Pretty good movie, eh?”
Movie theatres are odd social spaces. One sits in a room with several dozen strangers, entirely in silence. Additionally, film as a genre is moving toward greater viewer immersion. The expansion of 3D and VR draws viewers into the film itself and away from the theatre environment. Increasing viewer participation has been tried and discarded with the failed idea of smell-o-vision (Rugrats Go Wild 2003). But stalwarts of extreme audience participation have continued with screenings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, in which audience members go so far as to bring props and dress up as characters in the movie. This would be excessive to do for every movie, but watching a film is a shared emotional experience—people resonate with the emotions of others. Laughter with a group is always louder than laughing alone—this is the lasting power of the cinema. Of course, there’s a line—one should not jeer constantly, standard rules of etiquette still apply. But if by the end of the film one feels like letting off some applause, give it a go and see how many people feel the same.
On Feb. 1, the McGill International Student Network (MISN) held a rally entitled “United We Stand #NoHate” in order to “reflect [MISN’s] support for the Muslim community” in light of the troubling “recent events” around the world. The event was widely understood as a reaction to the Trump administration’s travel ban against Muslim countries and to the recent terrorist attack against a mosque in Quebec City, in which a gunman killed six Muslim men—Azzeddine Soufiane, Abdelkrim Hassane, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Ibrahima Barry, Khaled Belkacemi, and Boubaker Thabti—while they were praying.
Some students criticized the rally for taking an apolitical stance, as it pitched itself as an inclusive event and explicitly stated that Trump supporters were able to participate. McGill Against Austerity organized a counter-protest, called “Make Racists Afraid Again,” which took place simultaneously and claimed the initial demonstration was “cowardly” because of its apolitical stance and refusal to explicitly condemn Trump. The afternoon of the event, the “Make Racists Afraid Again” protesters proceeded down to the “United We Stand” rally unfolding at the Y-intersection, interrupted the speech of a McGill student and Syrian refugee, and verbally confronted participants.
While taking an overt or directed political stance is an essential aspect of protest, the decision of “Make Racists Afraid Again” to interrupt the “United We Stand” rally was disrespectful, ineffective, and morally reprehensible. Taking a stance against Islamaphobia, xenophobia, and other forms of bigotry is crucial; however, it must be done with consideration of those who are most vulnerable.
The events of the past week have been deeply disturbing, and McGill students may be experiencing a range of emotional responses to news from the United States and Quebec City. Some may be angered or frustrated, while others may wish to express solidarity and compassion for those affected. All of these sentiments are valid. However, condemning the desire of some students to show love and support to the Muslim community, instead of hate for those who have harmed it, is unacceptable.
Some Muslim students from countries targeted by Trump’s ban were present at the “United We Stand” event, and voiced their appreciation for the show of solidarity. In condemning the solidarity demonstration, “Make Racists Afraid Again” showed disregard for the needs of individuals most affected by recent events. Those who have the privilege to speak out without fear of harm are needed in the fight against those who target marginalized groups. In doing so, students must be diligent that their voices do not speak over those they wish to support.
The affected individuals in this case sought not only to express solidarity in the face of adversity, but to mourn the tragedy in Quebec City. Lost in the debate over opposing Trump was the need to remember the victims of the recent shooting. Protesters can hold onto their anger and their political convictions, but those grieving must be afforded the opportunity to do so in their own way. It is inexcusable that neither the organizers of the counter-protest, such as McGill Against Austerity, nor its participants, including Students’ Society of McGill University Vice-President External David Aird, demonstrated this sensitivity.
Not only was this counter-protest insensitive, it undermined the message behind both demonstrations. The counter-protest purported to “make racists afraid,” yet the only people it succeeded in frightening were those at the “United We Stand” rally. In effect, the “Make Racists Afraid Again” protesters mistook “United We Stand’s” alternate priority for cowardice. Furthermore, the haphazard way the counter-protest was organized and carried out made its message unclear and misdirected. This needless conflict between the protests overshadowed the central message of both rallies: That McGillians simultaneously stand with the Muslim community, and against those who would do it harm.
