Journal des étudiant-e-s en droit de l’université McGill

Published by the McGill Law Students’ Association

Volume 36, no 1013 janvier 2015 | January 13, 2015

QUID NOVI

QUID NOVI

Journal des étudiant-e-s en droit de l’université McGill

McGill Law’s Weekly Student Newspaper

Volume 36, no 1013 janvier 2015 | January 13, 2015

QUID NOVI3644 Peel Street

Montréal, Québec H2A 1X1

quid.law@mcgill.cahttp://quid.mcgill.ca/

http://www.quidnovi.ca

EDITORS IN CHIEFMelissa CederqvistYing ChengNathan Cudicio

IN-HOUSE DIVA EMERITUSCharlie Feldman

LAYOUT EDITORSFortunat NadimaSunny Yang

ASSOCIATE REVIEWERSPouneh Davar-ArdakaniKaishan HeLindsay LittleElspeth McMurraySamantha RudolphDavid SearleAndrew Stuart

STAFF WRITERSLinda AgabyAllison RenderSamantha RudolphSuzanne Zaccour

The Quid Novi is published weekly by the students of the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Production is made possible through the direct support of students. All contents copy-right 2015 Quid Novi. Les opinions exprimées sont propres aux auteurs et ne réflètent pas nécessairement celles de l’équipe du Quid Novi. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of the McGill Law Students’ Association or of McGill University.

What’S iNSide ?QueL eSt Le coNteNu ?ÉDITO 3LA TERREUR ET L’OUBLI 4JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE, #JESUISCANADIENNE 5THE ABC’S (EXAMINATION AND EVALUATION COMMITTEE) 6HOW TO READ YOUR GRADES: UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS 7HOW TO READ YOU GRADES: GRADUATE STUDENTS 8MIDWIFERY AND THE LAW 8 PROGRAMME DE SOUTIEN DES PAIRS EN DROIT 10AN OPEN LETTER TO THE DALHOUSIE FEMINIST LEGAL ASSOCIATION 11 CANADIAN MINING COMPANIES ABROAD 12CALL FOR PROPOSALS – STUDENT-INITIATED SEMINARS 13THERE IS NO POINT TO THIS ARTICLE 14POLITIQUE DE PUBLICATION 17OVERHEADS 21MCGILL LAW MEMES 22WINTER WORD SEARCH 23

WaNt to taLk ?tu veux t’expriMer ?

Envoyez vos commentaires ou articles avant jeudi 17h à l’adresse : quid.law@mcgill.ca

Toute contribution doit indiquer le nom de l’auteur, son année d’étude ainsi qu’un titre pour l’article. L’article ne sera publié qu’à la discrétion du comité de rédaction, qui basera sa décision sur la politique de rédaction.

Contributions should preferably be submitted as a .doc attachment (and not, for instance, a “.docx.”).

Quid Novi is published by the McGill Law Students' Association, a student society of McGill University. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the McGill Law Students' Association and does not necessarily represent the views of McGill University.

melissa cederqvist

ReFLeCtIONS ON tHe eVeNtS OF LASt weeK

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 3

co-editor-in-chief

Acting as editor for this week has been difficult. It has meant working through feelings of outrage, anger, reflection, and the painful realization that artists and journalists can never take for granted the ability to express themselves without fear of punish-ment. Belief in the fundamental importance of the freedom of speech motivated me to write this.

-

On Wednesday of last week eleven people were murdered in a disgusting attack by two Islamic fundamentalists who stormed the Paris headquarters of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and opened fire. A police officer, who happened to be a French man of Muslim faith, was also shot by the men as they fled. Following this four hostages were slain in another brutal attack at a kosher supermarket on Friday, and Jewish businesses were told by police to close their doors. [1] It was reported Saturday that a 24-year-old Malian Muslim employee of the supermarket had saved customers by hiding them inside the store’s freezer. [2]

One journalist wrote that this massacre has made it clear “that nowhere in Europe is safe anymore” and “that all the citizens of France face a new threat—and that includes millions of Mus-lim citizens who fear a backlash”. [3] This backlash has already begun with the racist and anti-immigrant National Front party of Marine Le Pen and other far-right parties in Europe stoking the fires of racist nationalism. There have been several attacks on France’s Muslim community including bombs, arson, threats and gunfire at mosques around the country. [4]

In the press and on social media some critics have chosen to focus on the nature of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons: were they bigoted and should we make a point of condemning them as we mourn the journalists? The role of art in society is an important issue which must be addressed, but in the wake of these attacks this focus is not timely. No one should have died last week, and the first issue is terrorism and the ongoing cycle of religious extremism and violence.

One necessary response, politically incorrect but on the minds of many people, is to question decades of Western states’ invol-vement in overseas wars and ask whether these and the “War on Terror” have really made us any safer or if they have actually increased the frequency and ferocity of terrorist attacks at home. We are repeatedly told by these murderers that they view their despicable acts as retaliatory, and it has been reported that one of the Paris attackers was in fact radicalized in part by the Iraq war. [5] It is not the only factor, there are many more, but it does ask what effect the dislocation of war has on religious fundamentalism and our own security. The implications of this are ”clear and frightening” [6] and demand more than mere out-cry followed by silence when these attacks occur. It rejects the naïve suggestion that somehow a couple of bad religious ideas

and mere cartoons--no matter how offensive or irreverent--could alone be responsible for all these fanatical attacks.

Put simply it is not convincing that the average person has gained anything from these expensive misadventures abroad, although someone must be benefiting. The International Business Times reports that the United States has spent $14 million every hour—or $1.6 trillion [7]—since 9/11 on war. [8] The organization “The Costs of War” has calculated that casual-ties in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq total between 298,000 and 354,000 with and estimated 60% were civilian casualties. [9] While people die “over there”, all that we get are terrorist attacks by madmen which compromise our own safety at home, and increasingly repressive laws and state surveillance. While we pay billions of dollars of tax money funding these wars we are forced to accept unemployment and austerity, and are routinely made to swallow assaults on our ever-lower standard of living.

The United States, for instance, has so far wasted enough mo-ney on designing one airplane, the F-35, as it would take to buy every homeless person in America their own personal mansion ($400 billion of a predicted $1.5 trillion eventual cost). [10] Even the actual human beings risking their lives in these operations—the soldiers—are routinely thrown under the bus like in Canada where we’ve seen cuts to veterans’ services and pensions. [11] [12] It echoes Dwight D. Eisenhower when he said in 1953 that “every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed”. [13]

No one should be content with a pattern of burying the dead and condemning violence every time massacres like Charlie Hebdo occur, but rather with making sure that we work towards a future where there are no dead to be buried and the violence itself is ended. Harsher security measures alone are not a solu-tion. Short of taking away all our civil liberties there is no way to stop further attacks without addressing the roots of this cycle of violence and we cannot pretend otherwise.

Discussion, acknowledgement and action can be healing, and it goes without saying that students at the faculty are shocked and disgusted as they try to digest this catastrophe. As the whole nation of France is in a state of trauma, we must especially extend support to those French students who are here studying with us. Furthermore we must condemn the racist rhetoric from groups trying to cynically coopt this tragedy to divide people along racial lines. Finally as law students we must defend politi-cal and human rights like the right to free speech, which Charlie Hebdo has come to represent for many people, against attempts to repress them.

(Citations on page 23)

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 4

viNceNt FOrraY

professor

LA TERREUR ET L’OUBLI

Par delà les gouvernements, les institutions et les partis poli-tiques ; par delà les sociétés, les ordres et les communautés, l’état de droit ne peut signifier qu’une chose : protéger et donc privilégier les personnes humaines. Un groupement qui oublie l’humain devient un système d’oppression. D’organisation poli-tique ou religieuse, il devient terroriste ; de démocratie, il devient tyrannie. Dans tous les cas, il s’instaure un régime de terreur. Nous le savons, car l’histoire nous l’a appris : aucune forme d’association –aucune- n’est à l’abri de pratiquer l’assassinat, l’extermination, le génocide.

Mercredi dernier, à Paris, le régime de la terreur a consisté à mas-sacrer et à meurtrir des journalistes, des policiers, des gens. Nous éprouvons l’horreur indicible, celle qu’on ne sait pas dire. Elle se rappellera longtemps à nous, comme cette image abominable : un homme s’apprêtant à en tuer un autre à terre, les mains levées et qui, peut-être, supplie l’autre de l’épargner. L’épouvante. La tristesse infinie. La souffrance de ceux qui restent.Et la peur de ce qui est à venir. Depuis une quinzaine d’années, nous voyons se répéter les évènements significatifs des régimes de terreurs. La liste des attentats est longue depuis ceux de New York en 2001 jusqu’à ceux de Paris mercredi, en passant par Ottawa, Bruxelles, Amsterdam ou Madrid. La liste des actes de violence conduits par les pouvoirs politiques en place, les popu-lations dressées les unes contre les autres, les guerres civiles au Moyen-Orient ou à l’est de l’Europe, aussi.Comment ne pas songer qu’après l’« horrible vingtième siècle», nous nous trouvons peut-être dans l’abominable vingt-et-unième? Comment ne pas craindre que nous soyons à la veille du moment où toutes les formes d’association qui tissent nos fragiles démocraties se convertissent, à leur tour, en systèmes d’oppres-sion ?Le risque est bien réel à partir du moment où l’on prend l’habi-tude d’intégrer beaucoup trop rapidement les évènements comme l’assassinat perpétré à Paris dans l’ordre des symboles, des idées et donc des idéologies. C’est ce qui, déjà, commence à arriver. Djihad-démocratie-libertéd’expression-mondemusulman-civi-lisation-immigration-nous-jesuisCharlie-lesfrançais. Autant de clés d’interprétation de l’événement deviennent des principes d’asso-ciation et d’assimilation des individus. Alors, on oublie l’humain, ou, plus exactement, on le réduit. Les personnes qui sont mortes n’étaient pas que des caricaturistes, des porte-drapeaux de la liberté d’expression ou de la démocratie ou de la nation ou de tout à la fois. Car que dire alors, de ceux qui ne sont pas consi-dérés comme tels et qui, pourtant, ont été aussi assassinés ? Toutes ces personnes étaient aussi des parents, des ami.e.s, des

amant.e.s, des humains dans toute leur complexité. Ceux qui les ont massacrés ne sont pas que djihadistes ou musulmans ou fran-çais. Affirmer que tous étaient ou sont des personnes, ce n’est pas les amalgamer en une somme indécente. C’est au contraire préserver la possibilité de voir leur singularité et se protéger contre les régimes de terreur. Car ceux-ci fonctionnent toujours en ramenant les personnes au groupe auquel on croit avoir le droit de les assimiler.

L’oubli de la personne humaine, cette perte de conscience de ce que l’autre est comme moi autorise le recours à la violence. Pour que cela ne se produise pas, on avait imaginé qu’il fallait décla-rer, proclamer, ou inscrire dans une Charte, que les personnes humaines ont des droits et des libertés. On a parfois pensé que ces droits n’avaient de sens que s’il était possible de garantir effectivement leur réalisation. Une telle idée a été volontiers décriée, cyniquement ou pas : inutile de promettre ce qu’on ne peut pas tenir. Il est vrai que la liberté d’expression et le droit à la vie semblent aujourd’hui de bien pâles abstractions. Mais la formulation solennelle de ces droits et libertés de la personne humaine a une autre finalité : la mémoire. Rappeler à tous, en tous lieux et toujours qu’aucune communauté, quelle qu’elle soit ne peut me faire disparaître derrière elle. Et qu’alors, je n’ai pas à craindre l’autre. Il ou elle est comme moi –nous sommes à égalité de droits. Et en même temps, et pour cette raison, il ou elle est toujours différent.e –sa liberté. Je peux alors appeler l’autre «mon frère » ou « ma sœur ». Liberté, égalité, fraternité... Pas si bête… Mais comment ? En se souvenant.

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 5

sOumia allalOu

Law ii

Je Ne SUIS PAS CHARLIe, #JeSUISCANADIeNNe

I AM NOt CHARLIe, #IAMCANADIAN

On the morning of January 7, 2015, terrorists carried out an attack against the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, tragi-cally killing 12 and injuring 11 others. The magazine was targe-ted because of its controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

First, I would like to express my deepest condolences to the families and friends of those who lost a loved one during the incident. Regardless of what the magazine was printing, all forms of violence are to be condemned. Insults against the Prophet do not justify such horrific acts.

Still, it is important to note that the acts of a few individuals do not warrant broad generalizations about the entire Muslim popu-lation or Islam as a religion. The aftermath of the shootings led to a new trend on social media trends titled #JeSuisCharlie. This trend was created to support freedom of speech and expression. Many news outlets reproduced the offensive cartoons to stand in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo. Even though the acts of these indi-viduals are to be condemned, this does not excuse the insulting nature of the cartoons printed by Charlie Hebdo.

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the fundamental principles entrenched in our Canadian Constitution. Even if freedom of speech and expression can be limited under certain circumstances, my argument against Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons stems beyond this legal analysis. The core of this issue comes at the intersection between legal and moral realms. There is a key difference between giving someone the freedom to publish what they wish, and promoting that work.

Canadians, as a society, uphold certain values which promote tolerance and acceptance. As a society, we stand against any pro-motion of racist or sexist publications. These values are entren-ched in our constitution from freedom of religion to prohibition on discrimination based on various grounds. Likewise, Canada has repeatedly shown its stance against islamophobia. Following the shooting on Parliament hill, Canadians were quick to note that the actions of a sole person were not representative of an entire religion. Canadians from diverse backgrounds have also stepped in to help clean vandalized mosques. And most recently, the CBC’s stance against reproducing Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons out of respect further reinforces tolerance.

The majority of Muslims believe that visual depictions of pro-phets or God are strictly prohibited to discourage the use of these images for worship. It is apparent that the very existence

of these pictures already offends. But when the offense goes further by insulting the Prophet in the way he is depicted, this is when Canadians should step in and say that a line must be drawn. As a society, we have underlying principles to learn to co-exist. Republishing Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons does nothing but provoke and create division towards a religious minority. While you can stand for freedom of expression, there is no room to tolerate the promotion of islamophobia in our society.

I am Canadian. And as a Canadian, I uphold values of tolerance, acceptance and co-existence. Je ne suis pas Charlie.

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 6

shauNa vaN Praagh

professor

THE ABC’S OF THE EXAMINATION AND eVALUAtION COMMIttee

As the winter term begins and law students anticipate receiving fall term grades, I write in my capacity as Chair of the Law Facul-ty’s Examination and Evaluation Committee (Members: Professor Hoi Kong (Associate Dean Academic), Professor Allison Christians, Ms. Nancy Czemmel (Director, Student Life and Learning), Ms. Léa Pelletier-Marcotte (LSA), Mr. Luigi Bruno (GLSA)).

The Committee is engaged in two related projects over this academic year. The first is to improve transparency and commu-nication with respect to evaluation and grading guidelines at the Faculty. The second, mandated by last year’s Faculty Council, is to review and make recommendations related to processes, purposes, and forms of evaluation of student work in the Faculty of Law. This submission to the Quid is primarily related to the first; that is, it is meant to share with students the grading guidelines and standards followed by all course instructors, and to improve understanding of the “what”, “how” and “why” of grading and assessment at the Faculty.

As you know, work done by BCL/LLB students is assigned a letter grade (A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, D, F), with each letter corresponding to an adjective (eg. A-: excellent; B: good, C: competent). For the purposes of calculating a class average, or a student’s grade point average, each letter grade is matched to a grade point value (from 0 to 4). For LLM/DCL students, work is also assigned a let-ter grade but, following university guidelines for graduate studies, those letters are matched to percentages, and students must attain at least a B- grade in order to pass a course.

Instructors are reminded every session that there is no pres-cribed curve or imposed grade distribution for any course. But they are expected to submit course averages that comply with the parameters set out by Faculty Council and overseen by the Examination and Evaluation Committee. For courses with an enrolment over 25, the average is expected to fall between a B- to a B; in those courses, the average grade (from all sections of a course given in one term) appears on your transcript. For courses with an enrolment of 25 or under, the average is expec-ted to fall between a B- and a B+; no class average is reported on your transcript. Further, instructors teaching different sections of the same course are asked to ensure that their class averages are closely aligned (within 0.2).

Why articulate expected class averages? As student members of the Committee emphasized last year and again this year, consis-tency is important across the courses offered in the Faculty. Over the past year, and continuing this past fall, the Committee has

reviewed the existing guidelines, clarified them, and insisted on their application. We let instructors know that course averages in “small” courses usually go up to a 3.2, with 3.49 as a maximum upper limit; in “large” courses, averages are expected to go up to a 3.0, with 3.14 as a maximum upper limit. We also let them know that course averages usually do not go below 2.7 and would need special justification to do so. In 2013-2014, reported grades – reviewed and approved at the Faculty’s “Marks Meeting” at the end of each session, prior to release to students - showed general consistency across courses (B average in “large” courses in which the average is reported on student transcripts; B to B+ in “small” courses).

What does this insistence on consistency mean for individual students? When a student receives a “B+” in a large course, that grade not only signals ‘Very Good” work but also “above average” work. A “B” grade indicates “Good” work and thus “average” work in the extraordinary student cohort to which you all belong: it signals strong knowledge and understanding, the ability to synthesize and apply what you’ve learned, and solid development of capacities underscored throughout a course. For graduate students (LLM/DCL), work must be “Reasonably Good” (B-) in order to pass a course. For BCL/LLB students, work that indicates “Competence” (in the “C” range) will be sufficient to pass.

Finally, first year law courses and students have a two-step grade reporting system. The average course grade for work done in the fall semester, reported to Faculty Council in January, is typically a “B-”. By the end of year, the average usually goes up to a “B”; in other words, as is to be expected, the work done by students in first year law courses improves significantly over the year. First year law professors invest much time and energy providing indivi-dual and collective commentary and guidance, in order to ensure that students understand their grades and learn from the formal assessment of their work.

This brings me to a concluding, and probably the most impor-tant, point with respect to the grading and assessment structure currently in place at the Faculty. Students expect meaningful feedback on their work. This is particularly important at the mid-year point in first year, but all students, whether halfway through a course or after the course is completed, are invited to review their exams and assignments in order to better understand the quality of their work and whether and how it met course require-ments and the evaluation criteria used by instructors.

The Committee hopes that this description will help students bet-

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 7

ter appreciate the grading and assessment structures currently in place at the Law Faculty. Léa and Luigi, the student members of the Committee, will add their perspectives below.

As for our second, and major, project of the year – that is, reviewing the processes, purposes and forms of assessment and evaluation with the objective of providing recommendations tied to the curricular renewal project at the Faculty – the Committee has been busy reviewing relevant literature in pedagogy/edu-cation and learning from a study of systems at comparator law faculties undertaken on our behalf by Teaching and Learning Ser-vices at McGill. The trajectories for inquiry that we are exploring include the following:

• Purposes and place of summative and formative modes of evaluation.

• Combination and relationship of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessment systems.

• The range of forms of meaningful feedback (formal and informal) for students in large and small classes.

• Relationship between internal grading systems and external communication via academic transcripts.

• Connections between feedback, assessment, and grading within faculty-articulated guidelines, and the development of capacities and knowledge from year to year in our programs of legal education.

• Implications of change for professors, students, and faculty programs.

We always welcome ideas – whether through formal consultation or informal conversations. As Committee Chair, I will ensure that Léa and Luigi have support in turning to you and in incorporating your input into our continuing work.

All the best for a very happy 2015 - and for a winter semester full of good challenges and inspired learning!

léa Pelletier-marcOtte

vp academic

HOW TO READ YOUR GRADES: UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

En ce moment, nous en sommes tous à attendre impatiemment nos notes de la session dernière. Nous serons nombreux à avoir l’impression que malgré toutes les heures consacrées à étudier, lire et rédiger, nos notes semblent figées dans les limbes du monde académique: the B range. Nous invoquerons cette courbe (qui n’existe pas), nous nous interrogerons sur nos capacités à nous trouver un emploi avec ces notes dépourvues d’éclat, manifestement indignes de nos compétences réelles, nous deviendrons de plus en plus cyniques (pay your fees, get your B’s), nous envisagerons quitter le programme, etc. C’est le même psychodrame à chaque session, aussi prévisible que du verglas, au Québec, en début d’année.

Un problème fondamental sous-tend notre obsession collective par rapport aux notes: cette tendance à les laisser nous définir, et les laisser définir notre expérience à la Faculté. Comme Pr. Van Praagh l’a mentionné plus haut, nous sommes des étudiants exceptionnels. Notre simple présence à cette Faculté, que nous avons choisie mais qui surtout, nous a choisis, en témoigne. Il ne faut donc pas considérer ces notes comme le seul moyen de démontrer à l’« autre » nos compétences et notre identité. Les notes sont un message individuel sur notre cheminement person-nel, et devraient être lues ainsi. Le fait que 45 autres personnes du même cours aient obtenu la même note ne signifie pas que nous sommes tous semblables, mais que nous avons atteint les objectifs de manière équivalente (quoique différemment). Il faut cesser de voir les notes comme seule mesure de notre valeur. Il

serait faux de prétendre que les notes ne sont pas importantes pour plusieurs opportunités académiques ou professionnelles. Or, elles ne seront jamais considérées en isolation avec le reste de nos compétences et de nos expériences. Les notes sont avant tout un indicateur personnel, à être lues au regard d’un contexte et de circonstances que l’ « autre », bien souvent, ne connaît pas ou ne peut connaître.

Ainsi, ne laissez pas les notes et les attentes d’un hypothétique « employeur » dicter le cours de votre expérience à la Faculté: pre-nez des cours qui vous intéressent, prenez des risques (comme prendre des cours dans votre langue seconde), n’ayez pas peur de vous impliquer dans des activités qui ne sont pas « académiques », voyagez, impliquez-vous dans votre communauté, prenez du temps pour vous, sortez le nez dehors et profitez de la vie cultu-relle de cette ville. Cultivez l’individu que vous êtes au-delà de vos notes, car sans lui, même un bout de papier criblé de « A » ne veut rien dire.

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 8

luigi BruNO

GLSa

HOW TO READ YOUR GRADES: GRADUATE STUDENTS

On January 16th, grades will be released for the Fall semester on Minerva. Many graduate students, especially those like me who are not familiar with the McGill grading system, will be wondering how to read and interpret the grades they have just received. In this regard, and for the purposes of clarification, it is useful to pinpoint briefly the rules behind graduate grading.

As Prof. Van Praagh mentioned, LL.M./D.C.L. students must receive a minimum of B- in order to successfully complete a course. Our work is graded with a letter which, in line with a University-wide policy, corresponds to a given percentage. These percentages are set as follows:

• A : 85 – 100%; • A-: 80 – 84%; • B+: 75 – 79%; • B : 70 – 75%; • B-: 65 – 69%;• F: Anything below 65% (Failure).

Instructors are reminded of this Policy by means of a Grading Memo circulated by the Chair of the Examination & Evaluation Committee shortly before the end of each term. The Memo contains the guidelines that are necessary to ensure fairness and transparency in the grading process.

There may be some confusion within the LL.M./D.C.L. community regarding the evaluation of graduate students in any class that is shared with LL.B/B.C.L. students, considering the different failing thresholds in the grading system. On this point, the Grading Memo explicitly mentions that the work of Undergraduate and Graduate students has to be marked separately in order to deli-neate the different grading scales.

mcgill JOurNal

OF laW aNd health

MIDWIFERY AND THE LAW: PeRSPeCtIVeS FROM ONtARIO AND QUeBeC

The MJLH is pleased to invite you for light lunch and a presen-tation on midwifery and the intersecting legal issues of liability, regulation and access to midwifery care on Monday, January 19th 2015.

Perspectives will be shared by Marie-Ève St-Laurent (Ordre des sages-femmes du Quebec) and Cara Wilkie (Association of Onta-rio Midwives).

The event will begin at 1:00pm, at the McGill Faculty of Law.

Time: 1:00pm - 2:30pmLocation: New Chancellor Day Hall, Room 312

Le lundi 19 janvier 2015, la Revue de droit et santé de McGill sera l’hôte d’une table ronde intitulée «La pratique sage-femme et le droit: perspectives de l’Ontario et du Québec».

La RDSM vous invite cordialement à partager la collation et à assister aux présentations de nos invitées, Marie-Ève St-Laurent (Ordre des sages-femmes du Québec) et Cara Wilkie (Association des sages-femmes de l’Ontario) qui échangeront leurs points de vue sur les enjeux juridiques de la pratique sage-femme en ce qui a trait à la responsabilité civile, à la régulation et à l’accès aux soins offerts par les sages-femmes.

L’évènement se tiendra dès 13h, à la Faculté de droit de l’univer-sité McGill.

Heure: 13h – 14h30Lieu: Faculté de droit de l’université McGill, Pavillon New Chan-cellor Day, local 312

Monday, January 19th1:00 – 2:30 pm

Midwifery and the LawPerspectives from Ontario and Quebec

Marie-ève St-LaurentOrdre des Sages-femmes du Québec

Faculty of LawMcGill UniversityNCDH Room 312

Cara Wilkie

Association of Ontario Midwives

An introductory conversation on midwifery and legal issues, such as liability, regulation and access to midwifery care. Lunch will be provided

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 10

Peer tO Peer

LANCeMeNt OFFICIeL DUPROGRAMME DE SOUTIEN DES PAIRS EN DROIT /

LAW PEER TO PEER SUPPORT PROGRAM

the members of the Law peer to peer Support program are looking forward to meeting you.Trained during the Fall 2014 semester, the students participating in the program are available to answer any questions or concerns you may have regarding… anything! Personal questions, program-related questions, or to just sit and chat – the Law peer to peer Support program is there for you. Stop by during office hours or send your questions by email to: peer.law@mcgill.ca.

Drop-in hours for the Winter 2015 term begin the week of January 12:

• Mercredi de 13h00 à 14h30, NCDH 203• Jeudi de 11h30 à 13h00, NCDH 203

Exceptions: Thursdays from 11:30am-12:30pm in NCDH 203 only on January 15 & from January 29 to February 19.

Apply Now to Join the 2015-2016 Team!

For information on the role and responsibilities of a member of the Peer to Peer Support Program, and information on how to apply for the program, please see https://www.mcgill.ca/law-stu-dies/student-life-learning/law-peer-peer-support-program

Pourquoi devenir membre?Devenir membre du Programme de soutien des pairs en droit vous donne la chance d’acquérir de l’expérience en tant que bénévole, tout en rencontrant d’autres étudiants et étudiantes en droit. En aidant vos pairs, vous pouvez ainsi développer vos compétences en leadership et en communication. To apply for the program for the 2015-2016 year, fill out the application form on the program’s website and send it to SAO.law@mcgill.ca along with your CV by May 1, 2015. If you have any questions about the program and want to hear from a current member about their experience, email peer.law@mcgill.ca!

What is the McGill Law Peer to Peer Support Program?The McGill Law Peer to Peer Support Program is a group of dedicated law students who provide support to other McGill Law students in a way that is complementary to the support offered by the Law SAO. The students support their peers by helping them navigate academic and student life in the Faculty of Law and in the greater McGill community. Chaque étudiant et étudiante assiste à des sessions de formation obligatoires afin de mieux soutenir leurs camarades. They are trained to support students on issues concerning course and degree information,

registration and are aware of campus resources available to them. The Peer to Peer members are dedicated to supporting their fellow law students, while ensuring that any information that is shared is entirely confidential.

Who can seek support from the McGill Law Peer to Peer Sup-port Program?Any McGill Law student can seek support from any member of the McGill Law Peer to Peer Support Program. Tout étudiant et étudiante en droit de McGill, peu importe son année, est invité à communiquer avec tout membre du Programme de soutien des pairs.

Pourquoi rechercher le soutien d’un membre du Programme de soutien des pairs?Members of the McGill Law Peer to Peer Support Program are Law students who have been in Law School for at least one year. They can relate to and are familiar with the Law School expe-rience at McGill. They can assist other Law students to navigate the McGill law environment and discuss possible options to a variety of questions based on their own experiences and based on the training they have received. If they don’t have the infor-mation you need, they will be happy to refer you to a McGill service that can help. “i have loved being involved with the peer to peer Support pro-gram because i really enjoy talking to my peers about anything and everything to do with their law school experiences. Being a member of the program has enabled me to support my collea-gues and provided me with the resources to do so. I have learned so much about the many resources available to students and attended many trainings and workshops and gained valuable skills which will be useful in the future”.

- Stacey Smydo, Law Peer to Peer Support Program, 2014-2015

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 11

FemiNist cOllective

AN OPeN LetteR tO tHe DALHOUSIe FEMINIST LEGAL ASSOCIATION

We are troubled by your recent Statement (28 December 2014) in support of the Dalhousie administration’s decision to pursue a restorative justice approach in response to the School of Den-tistry scandal. Restorative justice is a powerful tool which, when used properly, can achieve positive, transformative outcomes. However, when used improperly, it further entrenches negative power dynamics, trivializes wrongs, and causes greater trauma to victims. We believe that Dalhousie’s current approach to restora-tive justice in the context of the School of Dentistry scandal has the potential to do the latter. Furthermore, we are disturbed by the lack of clear protection for those making formal complaints under Dalhousie’s code of Student conduct and Sexual harass-ment policy; this absence has silenced women who may othe-rwise have made formal complaints.

Contrary to the impression given in your Statement on Miso-gyny at Dalhousie Dentistry School, restorative justice does not automatically guarantee autonomy to all involved. The lack of clear protection to those making a formal complaint under Dal-housie’s code of Student conduct and Sexual harassment policy is a major barrier to their true agency. Under both codes it is currently unclear whether or not students may make anonymous formal complaints. Recently, the four Dalhousie professors who submitted a formal complaint against the “Class of DDS 2015 Gentlemen”, originally with a request for confidentiality, have gone public after the university’s “unexplained delays” in respon-ding to their complaint. The professors assert, and we agree, that no student “should bear the negative consequences for having submitted a formal complaint” (3 January 2015). The only way the female dentistry students can presently be certain that they will not bear negative academic, reputational, and emotional consequences for coming forward is to “choose” the informal complaint process, which in this case has meant restorative justice.

A student considering making a formal complaint without guaranteed protection of her identity risks reprisals from any vigilante with a computer and time on his hands. In this case, public knowledge of a complaining dentistry student’s identity could lead to an extension of the electronic harassment she has already faced at the hands of her colleagues. She also knows that if her name becomes public she may face violent reprisals and discrimination years from now if she ever opens a practice under her own name.

As you recognized in your Statement, some of these women were not originally consulted on the issue of restorative justice. There-fore, when Dr. Florizone announced that “the women involved” had chosen restorative justice, he removed the agency of these women and nearly silenced them. In addition to the pressures mentioned above, now that Dr. Florizone has publicly stated that “the women involved” chose restorative justice, the pressure to fall into line has become intense. Four of the impacted women have recently written an open letter to Dr. Florizone rejecting the use of restorative justice for this issue. They explain that they have serious concerns about the impact of filing formal com-plaints on their academic success and futures and state that “no individual woman in [their] class should be required to advance a formal complaint in her own name, or to participate as a witness” as the university has all the information required to initiate an investigation (6 January 2015). Finally, they make it clear that the decision between restorative justice and filing a formal complaint is a false choice.

We urge you to speak against this oppression. As feminists in the legal profession, we urge you to support all of the women of Dalhousie dentistry, not just those who have chosen the restora-tive justice process. We further urge you to help empower these women and all victims of harassment at Dalhousie by advocating that none of the response options available to them carry even the possibility of victim endangerment. We urge you to advocate for changes to Dalhousie’s code of Student conduct and Sexual harassment policy so that complainants are fully protected. Res-torative justice is meant to provide healing, not to deepen harms, and it can only be effective if it is not seen as the only “safe” option. We urge you to stand against the abuse of restorative jus-tice by your university. By advocating for an anonymous and safe complaints process, you will promote the proper administration of justice at Dalhousie. We urge you to stand with the over 150 Dalhousie faculty members who have requested an independent inquiry. Finally, we urge you to stand with the four Dalhousie pro-fessors who have made a formal complaint and the four women of the dentistry class who have called for this complaint to be taken seriously.

Sincerely,

The Feminist Collective of McGill Law Students

This letter was sent on January 7, 2015. It was published online by The Coast, a Halifax newspaper.

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 12

JOhN simPsON

Law iv

OP-ED: CANADIAN MINING COMPANIES ABROAD – OUT OF OUR JURISDICTION?

When it comes to taking responsibility for wrongs committed, environments destroyed, and human rights violated by Canadian mining companies operating in foreign jurisdictions, Canada has classically taken the easy way out: ignoring them. The classic ar-gument is that Canada doesn’t want to infringe on the territorial sovereignty of a foreign State by imposing Canadian regulation in another State and, by so doing, infer that local standards are inferior. While the territorial sovereignty of independent States is, without a doubt, a serious principle of international law, it flies in the face of common sense to allow it to be used as a ‘corporate veil’ manipulated in order to allow multinational corporations to exploit the weak regulatory regimes which territorial sovereignty purports to safeguard.

Both the Nationality and the Territoriality principles of esta-blishing jurisdiction give Canada the opportunities it needs. The Nationality principle establishes jurisdiction based on the nationality of the author of the wrong. For corporations, this is based on, among other things, where the corporation is incorpo-rated and where its main place of management is located.1 well, you smart law students might ask, what happens if the Canadian mining corporation operates through a subsidiary incorporated in the local jurisdiction of the operation or elsewhere? It’s a good argument, I admit, to which the emerging doctrine of Corpo-rate Enterprise Theory offers only partial answers. The Court of King’s Bench allowed a more constrained version of Corporate Enterprise Theory to occur in Stone and Knight Ltd. v. Birmin-gham corp.2 Although not widely accepted, Corporate Enterprise Theory combined with the Nationality principle could ground jurisdiction in Canada.

The Territoriality principle rests on the position that the State on whose territory a wrong is committed should have jurisdiction over it. The Supreme Court of Canada has followed this principle in listing a number of scenarios in which Canada’s courts can prima facie exercise jurisdiction:

1. Where the defendant is domiciled or resident in Canada; 2. Where the defendant carries on business in Canada;3. Where the wrong was committed in Canada; or 4. where a contract connected to the wrong was made in

Canada.

this is not a closed list.3 In Quebec, of course, we turn to the Civil Code of Quebec (CCQ arts 3134-3168). So, technically, an argument for jurisdiction could be made based on the fact that the decision to finance the mining project that resulted in human rights violations was made in Canada by a Canadian corporation.

All this is to say that Canada has options, but they are being ignored. In 2011, Conciencia Solidaria filed a complaint with the Canadian embassy in Argentina over Barrick Gold’s destruction of the Pascua Lama glaciers. In 2009, the Canadian embassy supported Blackfire Resources in its mining operations in Chiapas, Mexico, even after a local activist protesting the mine, Mariano Abarca, was murdered.4 In 2011, Bill C-300 was introduced in the House of Commons, which proposed standards of conduct for Canadian companies abroad and gave the Canadian government the authority to investigate complaints of noncompliance. It also foresaw the regulation of the economic, political, and diplomatic support that Canada gives Canadian companies abroad and made that support conditional on the respect of the above standards.5 The Bill was, unfortunately, defeated thanks to intense lobbying, by a vote of 140-134.

Sovereignty is a weak excuse for allowing Canada’s mining corpo-rations to exploit natural resources in underdeveloped and vulne-rable areas of the world. If Canada is unwilling to take jurisdiction over the wrongs that these corporations commit, then at the very least it must stop actively supporting them.

1 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. Case (Belgium v Spain), [1970] I.C.J. Rep. 3.2 Smith, Stone and Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corp., [1939] 4 All E.R. 116 (see the decision at: http://www.uniset.ca/other/pollypeck/19394AER116.html).3 Club Resorts Ltd. v van Breda, [2012] 1SCR 572.4 Working Group on Mining and Human Rights in Latin America, “The Impact of Canadian Mining in Latin America and Canada’s Responsibility,” Executive Summary of the Report submitted to the inter-american commission on human rights (presented by Daniel Cerqueira at the Canadian Council on International Law’s Conference, Ottawa, November 14, 2014), at 27-28 [Executive Summary]. Check out the Bill and more info on the topic here: http://openparliament.ca/bills/40-3/C-300/ (accessed November 24, 2014); see also Executive Summary, ibid, at 29. 5 Check out the Bill and more info on the topic here: http://openparliament.ca/bills/40-3/C-300/ (accessed November 24, 2014); see also Executive Summary, ibid, at 29.

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 13

CALL FOR PROPOSALS – STUDENT-INITIATED SEMINARS

Objectives The student-initiated seminar is a vehicle that is available for students to propose, organise, and run their own seminars, under the supervision of a Faculty member. The objectives of this vehi-cle are the following: to give students an opportunity to reflect on teaching and learning and to be involved in course design; to provide space for experimenting with innovative teaching and learning strategies; and to provide opportunities to participate in learning environments that are less hierarchical than many courses, particularly lecture courses, tend to be. Application procedureStudents are invited to submit an application for student-initiated seminars to be offered in the 2015-16 academic year. the dead-line for submission is 10 March 2015 at 17:00. Proposals are to be submitted to the Student Affairs Office (sao.law@mcgill.ca). Two proposals will be selected for the upcoming academic year. The content of proposals is described below. Crédits octroyés pour la préparation du séminaire. Les propositions sont rédigées, et les séminaires organisés et animés par des équipes de 2 ou 3 étudiants (les « animateurs »), sous la supervision d’un membre de la Faculté (le « superviseur »). Les animateurs des séminaires peuvent s’inscrire à un cours de 2 crédits (à titre provisionnel, nous nous servons du véhicule ‘Group Assistants’) pendant la session qui précède la présentation du séminaire, afin de préparer le séminaire, la liste de lectures, le site internet pour le cours, les méthodes d’évaluation, la plani-fication préliminaire des sessions, et de faire tout autre travail préparatoire qui s’impose. RôlesLe superviseur / SupervisorLe superviseur agit comme personne-ressource pour les anima-teurs et les autres étudiants inscrits au séminaire. Normalement, il ou elle n’assistera pas au séminaire. Il ou elle aidera les anima-teurs à préparer le plan du cours, la liste de lectures, la méthode d’évaluation ainsi que les stratégies d’enseignement. Les animateurs / ConvenorsLes animateurs sont responsables du déroulement du sémi-naire. Toutefois, il est entendu que tous les étudiants inscrits au

séminaire doivent y participer de façon active. Les animateurs pourront, par exemple, demander aux étudiants de mener la discussion à tour de rôle. Le rôle des animateurs n’est pas celui du professeur dans le cadre d’un cours magistral. Ordinarily, convenors must have a CGPA of at least 2.7. Students interested in convening a student-initiated seminar are encouraged to register in the Legal Education Seminar. Le Secrétariat des études en droit (SED)Tous les règlements et politiques habituels s’appliques aux sémi-naires initiés par les étudiants. Les animateurs sont fortement encouragés à collaborer étroitement avec le SED pour tout ce qui concerne les aspects administratifs du séminaire. EvaluationThe course is evaluated on a pass/fail basis. The supervisor has ultimate responsibility for assigning marks. However, it is possible to opt for a peer evaluation process in which comments and feed-back are given by students on each other’s work. If peer evaluation is employed, the course convenors, in conjunc-tion with the supervisor, must develop marking templates or guidelines and map out the process through which peer evalua-tion is to proceed. A decision must be made as to whether the evaluation will be anonymous; whether students will submit their work to one other student or to the larger group for evaluation; and how comments and feedback will be communicated. Conve-nors who opt for peer evaluation are strongly advised to consult Teaching and Learning Services for advice and guidance. Peer evaluation should not result in the awarding of marks or the ranking of assignments. Proposal outlineProposals must contain the following elements:

1. Course title, course description, and learning objectives (50-100 words);

2. Name of supervisor (must be a Faculty member), accom-panied by a communication from the supervisor stating that s/he has agreed to take on this role (the supervisor may communicate directly with the Associate Dean (Academic) and SAO);

3. List of student convenors and year of study;4. Brief description of the nature of the work that the

studeNt aFFairs OFFice

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 14

student convenors will perform, with a description of the division of labour (a few sentences);

5. A list of the major topics to be covered and sections into which the semester will be divided, if applicable (1/2 page)

a) Note: A detailed course outline is not required at this time;

6. A proposed method of evaluation (about one paragraph)a) Indicate the type of method(s) of evaluation

proposed (e.g. participation, written assign-ment, examination, etc.

b) Provide a brief rationale for the method(s) of evaluation selected

c) University regulations stipulate that a final examination cannot be worth more than 75%;

optional assignments are permitted;7. A brief description of the course format and an indica-

tion of the types of teaching and learning techniques and strategies that will be used, along with a rationale (100 words)

a) Preference will be given to proposals that show evidence of research and reflection on teaching and learning. Innovations in teaching strategies and approaches are strongly encouraged;

8. Curricula vitae of all convenors.

charlieFeldmaN

in-house diva

tHeRe IS NO POINt tO tHIS ARtICLe

It’s Thursday morning and I’m on a bus to Ottawa. Having checked the trusty Quid Novi inbox and seeing little in there for the next edition I resolve to write something. Heck, I have two hours to kill and my only on-bus plan was to catch up on Grey’s Anatomy. (Go ahead and judge - I’ve been watching since Season 1 and yes, it turned weird with Izzie having sex with the ghost of her dead ex-husband in Season 5 or whatever, but I feel that since I’ve wat-ched 10 seasons already I might as well get my act together and see what’s going on in number 11… anywho… ).

Okay, so, why am I on this bus? Well, funny story, I was on another bus last week in the Middle East and feel asleep – and woke up with no wallet. It was delightful. The problem is that I’m leaving for the US soon and will need my diver’s license, so off to Service Ontario I go for a temporary one.

Wait, Charlie - you live in Quebec, what are you doing with an Ontario license!?! TIME FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS LAW FUN! Obviously, I want to comply with the law in Quebec – so, when I moved back here at the start of the fall semester I made the phone call to schedule an appointment to exchange my license. Since I’m a Permanent Resident of Canada, Quebec apparently wants my full driving history and unlike you citizen folk I can’t just do a simple exchange.

Fine, no big deal. OR SO I THOUGHT! Apparently, the regular On-tario driving history you can request online just won’t do – rather, I need some special thing I actually have to request IN WRITING. IN WRITING? Like, letter, envelope, stamp – I felt like a friggin pio-neer woman marching to the nearest Canada Post box with this

letter that for dramatic effect I began “Greetings and salutations.” (Okay, so maybe that was inspired by recently re-watching the 80s classic Heathers). Sadly, my letter went with out a response… or so I thought.

Apparently this special thing I need can only be mailed to the address on my driver’s license. Fine, I think, ‘I have mail forwar-ding!’ Not so fast, I find out later. Their mail is marked ‘Do not forward’. So, to recap – Quebec needs me to get something from Ontario that Ontario won’t send to me in Quebec. I love my adop-ted country, I really do.

Okay, people, what do I do? Violate the law in Quebec by not having a Quebec license? Violate the law in Ontario by giving the address of a friend and pretending I live there so I can get a history form sent there and then do the exchange? Thankfully I don’t have a car here so I don’t have to worry that much, but still… should something happen if I rent one I’d rather not be afoul of the statute book.

This is where I wish there were some sort of ombudsman for dumb administrative clusterfudges. It reminds me of this beautiful experience I had every semester in college. (Note: I sometimes get weird looks at the Faculty when I say ‘college’ – I went to what y’all would call ‘University’. I don’t know why y’all gotta be educationally judgmental like that, but UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND REPRESENT!). Okay, so, the problem at UMD was as follows: I majored in Government and Politics (what the rest of the world would call Political Science, but we had to be different for no reason) and French.

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 15

Herein was the academic administrative clusterfudge: French was in the Department of Arts and Humanities; Government and Politics had its home in the Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences. The Humanities people had apparently been freaked out at the low number of students actually graduating on time, so they required mandatory advising each and every semester to ensure you were on track. (This is particularly annoying if you took classes in summer and winter terms in addition to fall and spring – as I did to graduate early. FOUR TIMES A YEAR I HAD TO BE ‘ADVISED’) For its part, Social Sciences only required annual advising, but alas, Humanities would not approve your schedule for the next semester without first having notice from Social Sciences that you were on track with your primary major. … And, as I found out the hard way, Social Sciences wouldn’t approve anything without first making sure you were on track with Huma-nities.

After running across campus repeatedly (McGill’s downtown campus, according to Wikipedia, is 79 acres. UMD is 1250 acres – 5km2) and getting nowhere, I finally solved my problem with some In-House Diva thinking. I scheduled both advising appoint-ments at the same time, got to Social Sciences and pretended my phone was vibrating in my pocket (“Sorry, can you hold on a sec – this might be important”) and then busted “Hey! I’m just in my Social Sciences advising session – can I put you on speaker?”) YEAH, THAT’S RIGHT. “I just felt like it was time for y’all to talk”. Boom. Problem solved. To cite Puff Daddy (I think), as he then was (I think) “Some have hopes and dreams – I got ways and means.”

As a side note of interest to nobody except me (and provided in an effort to fill more space in the Quid) my actual French major stream was cancelled during my 2nd year, causing this great life situation wherein my transcript and diploma indicate different degree programs. Technically, I can proudly say I was the last “French for International Business” graduate of the University. I try to tell myself the academic program wasn’t discontinued on my account but I can’t really be sure… I did get kicked out of class

a few times.

Yes, I was asked to leave the lecture hall in my undergrad days. Apparently you can’t show up with a popcorn maker to a three-hour attendance-mandatory class and when the Prof asks what you’re doing say, “Well, I figured there was no point being both bored AND hungry…” True story. Also, context: This was maybe 10 minutes before class was to start, and the girl with the large lap-top screen in front of me agreed to put on a movie with subtitles so we could at least have 2/3rds of class be enjoyable… I felt like it was the start of a beautiful in-class solidarity movement. In that regard, I will never understand why they make the most boring classes attendance-mandatory. Anywho, Prof. Coyle aka Mr. Elbowpatches was all “Young man, you need to leave” and I was all “BUT IMMA STILL GET MY ATTENDANCE MARKED, RIGHT?” Prof. Coyle stood there expressionless, and – well, I was in true form that day so I followed it up to everyone with “I know all y’all see me up in here!” as I packed up my stuff as loudly as possible. From what I recall, the cupcakes at the dining hall were extra excellent that evening and I was back home just in time to watch The Real World: San Diego (the first one... in 2004). Oh, and I got an A- in that class!

Anywho, I thought my solution to the advising problem was creative. Sadly, I don’t have any creative solutions to my present dilemma. It’s like how, while in the Middle East last week, I tried to solve Mid-East peace. I mean, Twerking for Treaties felt like a good initiative. Nobody really responded, let alone wanted to fund it. Why does nobody like my ideas? I have excellent ideas! Like, that changing a driver’s license should be simple. Maybe the best is yet to come – I mean, I’m likely moving back to Ontario later this year. For all I know I’ll find out they need some Quebec form that I can only get by providing a blood sample and my first-born’s umbilical cord.

That thought alone will keep me warm all winter long. Happy Semester, y’all!

Happy New Year from the Quid Team!

Left to right: Charlie, Ying, Melissa and Nathan.

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 16

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 17

POLItIQUe De PUBLICAtIONtheeditOrs-iN-

chieF

Lorsque c’est possible, le Quid publie toutes les contributions qu’il reçoit. Cependant, dans le but de favoriser un climat où chaque étudiant sera confortable d’exprimer ses opinions, les rédacteurs-en-chef se réservent le droit de modifier des articles ou même, dans des circonstances rares, de les refuser. Ce pouvoir sera exercé à la discrétion des rédacteurs-en-chef.

Nous présumons que toutes les contributions sont dignes de publication. Néanmoins, des propos potentiellement criminels (i.e. le discours de haine) et des propos diffamatoires ne béné-ficient pas de cette présomption. Dans de tels cas, l’auteur doit démontrer de façon probante que les informations contenues dans sa contribution sont véridiques et que les principes de la déontologie journalistique ont été suivis. La décision de publier ces articles relève uniquement des rédacteurs-en-chef.

POLITIQUES ET PRINCIPES D’OPÉRATION DU QUID NOVI

Le Quid appartient aux étudiants de la Faculté de droit de l’Uni-versité McGill. Il est donc essentiel qu’il suive des politiques et principes transparents, qui prennent en considération la valeur de la liberté d’expression ainsi que les intérêts des étudiants et des professeurs. Les politiques et les principes d’opération sont expo-sés ci-bas. Les questions et commentaires s’y rapportant peuvent être adressés à : quid.law@mcgill.ca. Cette politique est mise à jour à la discrétion des rédacteurs-en-chef, à la seule condition qu’un préavis de la mise à jour soit publiée dans le Quid.

Cette version de la politique s’applique depuis 2010. Sa traduction française date de 2011.

Ce document contient six sections :

Principes générauxPolitique de contribution et de révocationPolitique de contribution anonymePolitique de correctionPolitique de révision du contenuProcédures de préavis et d’amendement

1) PRINCIPES GÉNÉRAUXChaque item apparaissant dans le Quid Novi est un article d’opi-nion qui reflète uniquement le point de vue de la personne ou des personnes qui ont écrit l’item. Ni le Quid Novi, ni l’AÉD, ni la Faculté de droit n’endosse les opinions contenues dans les contri-butions publiées. Étant donné la nature de cette publication et ses ressources limitées, le Quid ne s’engagera pas dans la vérifica-tion de la véracité factuelle des contributions.Les contributions sont présumées dignes de publication, à moins de ne pas se conformer aux principes énumérés ici.

2) POLITIQUE DE CONTRIBUTION ET DE RÉVOCATIONLe Quid est une publication qui survit grâce aux contributions. La date limite pour les contributions apparaîtra dans chaque numéro. Les articles soumis doivent contenir le nom de l’auteur ainsi que son année d’étude. Si l’auteur écrit dans un rôle particu-lier (i.e. “Président de l’AÉD”; “Président d’un club étudiant”), ceci doit également être indiqué.

Aucun item soumis après la date limite ne sera publié sans le consentement explicite des rédacteurs-en-chef. Les contributions tardives seront conservées et publiées dans le numéro subsé-quent.

Les articles soumis pour publication peuvent être révoqués par

Before getting to the Quid`s publication policy, which is reprinted once every semester, please note some gentle reminders and happy news from your friendly neighbourhood editors-in-chief.

• please submit final versions of your articles at or before the Thursday 5PM deadline. This allows your article to be better intergrated into that week’s edition while also increasing the likelihood that typos and the like will be caught before publishing.

• The Quid is now even more accessible! Each edition will now also be available as a Word document, thereby allowing for text-to-speech capabilities. Please contact us for more information.

• Write to us. This is your newspaper therefore please feel free to share your thoughts. Need ideas? Take a look at old Quids available on our archives: www.quidnovi.ca/index.php/fr/archives. Whether silly or serious, written or drawn, we’d love to see it.

• If you would like someone to offer confidential feedback on a maybe-for-the-Quid project, please contact us.

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 18

l’auteur, du moment que cette requête soit faite au moins deux jours avant la publication du numéro en question. Le Quid fera de son mieux pour faire suite à une requête tardive, mais il n’arrê-tera pas la publication d’un numéro qui est déjà en impression.

3) POLITIQUE DE CONTRIBUTION ANONYMELe Quid publiera des articles anonymes, à la condition que ceux-ci se conforment à ses politiques et principes d’opération. Les articles anonymes présentent un défi particulier pour la révision du contenu, car ils ne permettent pas aux rédacteurs-en-chef de consulter avec l’auteur. Ainsi, si un article anonyme est refusé, un avis de refus doit être publié dans le Quid.

4) POLITIQUE DE CORRECTIONChaque item soumis au Quid sera révisé. Le Quid se réserve le droit de faire des modifications grammaticales afin d’améliorer la présentation et la lisibilité d’un article. Les rédacteurs peuvent également corriger les fautes d’orthographe. Si une contribu-tion nécessite des modifications importantes, dans l’avis de la personne qui le révise, ceci sera indiqué aux rédacteurs-en-chef. Ceux-ci peuvent refuser de publier l’article ou bien effectuer des modifications importantes pour ensuite le publier. Les modifi-cations mineures ne sont pas nécessairement communiquées à l’auteur avant la publication.

5) POLITIQUE DE RÉVISION DU CONTENUToutes les contributions au Quid seront révisées au niveau du contenu. Il existe un processus de révision comportant quatre étapes.

1. Révision par le rédacteurLe rédacteur ou rédacteur-en-chef chargé de la révision d’un article accomplit cette tâche en vérifiant s’il contient du contenu contestable. Le contenu contestable dénote du contenu que le rédacteur en question juge comme potentiel-lement offensant ou autrement inadéquat pour la publica-tion. Les facteurs suivants seront considérés lors de l’évalua-tion du potentiel offensant: le ton général de la contribution, les mots précis utilisés dans leur contexte précis, ainsi qu’une appréciation de la réaction potentielle du corps étudiant, des professeurs, des anciens étudiants et de la communauté juridique montréalaise. Si le rédacteur individuel estime que le contenu est contestable, il communique ceci aux rédac-teurs-en-chef.

Les items qui sont potentiellement inadéquats pour la publi-cation incluent (sans s’y limiter): les contributions qui sont trop longues ou trop courtes; les contributions qui possèdent le potentiel de créer un environnement hostile pour les professeurs ou les étudiants; et les contributions à nature diffamatoire.

2. DiscussionÀ la deuxième étape de la révision, les rédacteurs-en-chef et le rédacteur qui a accompli la révision initiale discutent de leurs conclusions spécifiques vis-à-vis l’article. S’il existe un consensus de contenu contestable parmi une majorité

(moins deux sur trois parmi le rédacteur et les rédacteurs-en-chef), l’article procède à l’étape de la consultation. S’il n’existe pas un tel consensus, l’article est publié comme tel ou avec des modifications portées à la discrétion des rédac-teurs-en-chef.

3. ConsultationAu stade de la consultation, les rédacteurs-en-chef doivent aviser l’auteur qu’il existe des préoccupations au niveau du contenu. Les rédacteurs-en-chef peuvent consulter d’autres individus au sujet de la contribution, à la condition de ne fournir aucune information permettant d’identifier l’auteur. Les rédacteurs peuvent consulter avec des individus men-tionnés dans l’article, d’autres étudiants, des professeurs ou des anciens étudiants, à leur propre discrétion. La consul-tation n’est pas un concours de “combien-sont-pour vs. combien-sont-contre”. Compte tenu de la nature et du rôle du Quid, la consultation doit déterminer si le contenu spéci-fique est digne de publication. L’auteur peut être consulté à de nombreuses reprises si les rédacteurs-en-chef jugent que ceci est nécessaire.

4. DécisionLes rédacteurs-en-chef discuteront des résultats de leurs consultations et rendront une décision de: a) accepter la contribution comme telle; b) accepter la contribution avec des modifications mineures portées par eux-mêmes; c) re-tourner la contribution à l’auteur pour modification avec des suggestions portées à la discrétion des rédacteurs-en-chef; d) rejeter la contribution sans offrir des suggestions. La décision des rédacteurs-en-chef est finale et incontestable.

Les rédacteurs-en-chef, à leur discrétion, peuvent publier un avis de refus dans le Quid avec les raisons du refus ainsi que le nom de l’auteur. L’auteur peut également demander qu’un tel avis apparaisse; dans un tel cas, l’avis portera le format suivant: « AUTEUR --- ANNÉE --- TITRE a été soumis pour publication mais ne sera pas imprimé, en accord avec les politiques et principes d’opération du Quid ».

6) POLITIQUE DE PRÉAVIS ET D’AMENDEMENTLes rédacteurs-en-chef publieront ces principes dans le premier numéro du Quid à chaque semestre. Des amendements peuvent être proposés uniquement par le personnel du Quid. Si un amen-dement est proposé, il sera indiqué dans le numéro subséquent du Quid afin d’offrir une opportunité d’au moins une semaine aux étudiants de rédiger des contributions. Les amendements doivent être approuvés par une majorité du personnel actif du Quid. Les rédacteurs-en-chef doivent publier un avis de tout changement

ou de toute tentative de changement dans le Quid.

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 19

Since the Quid belongs to all Law students, it is essential to adopt a transparent editorial policy that will guarantee both freedom of expression and the protection of individual interests.

You will find below some principles that we hope will guide you when you write your articles. While they were developed after consultation with students and members of the LSA executive, they may not be perfect: we welcome your comments at quid.law@mcgill.ca.

Wherever possible, the Quid publishes everything submitted. However, to encourage a climate where each student will feel comfortable sharing his/her opinions, in rare circumstances, articles may be edited, and in extreme cases refused, at the dis-cretion of the editors-in-chief.

While all submissions are presumptively publishable, potentially criminal speech (i.e. hate speech) and-or libelous speech are not presumptively publishable. In such cases the author must make a strong case that the information is accurate, that journalistic stan-dards and ethics were followed; discretion to publish such articles lies solely with the Editors-in-Chief.

QUID NOVI POLICIES AND OPERATING GUIDELINES

The Quid belongs to students enrolled in the Faculty of Law at McGill University. It is essential that it maintains transparent policies and guidelines that take into consideration values such as the freedom of expression as well as interests such as those of students and faculty. The policies and operating guidelines are set forth below. Questions and comments may be directed to: quid.law@mcgill.ca. This policy is updated at the sole discretion of the Editors-in-Chiefs provided notice of update has been published in the Quid.

This version of the policy is enacted as of 2014.

This document has seven sections:

1) General Guidelines

2) Submission and Revocation Policy

3) Anonymous Submission Policy

4) Editing Guidelines

5) Content Review Policy

6) Overheards Review Policy

7) Notice and Amendment Process

1) GENERAL GUIDELINESEvery item appearing in the Quid Novi is an opinion piece that reflects only the views of the person (s) submitting the item. Nei-ther the Quid Novi, the LSA, nor the Faculty of Law endorse any

of the material or views contained therein. Given the nature of the publication and its limited resources, the Quid will not under-take to evaluate the factual accuracy of submissions. Submissions are presumptively publishable unless they do not conform to the guidelines contained herein.

2) SUBMISSION AND REVOCATION POLICYThe Quid is a submission-driven publication. The deadline for submission shall appear in every issue. Articles submitted must include the author’s name and year of study. If the author is wri-ting in a particular capacity (i.e. ‘LSA President’; ‘Head of Student Club’) this is to be indicated by the author.

No material submitted after the deadline shall be published wit-hout the express consent of the Editors-in-Chief. Late submissions will be slated for publication in the subsequent edition.

Articles submitted for publication may be revoked by the author. The Quid will honour all such requests provided they are made at least two days prior to publication. The Quid will do its best to honour a late revocation request but will not stop the printing of an issue that has already gone to press.

3) ANONYMOUS SUBMISSION POLICYThe Quid will publish anonymous articles provided they conform to the Quid policy and operating guidelines. Anonymous articles present a challenge for content review for they do not allow the Editors-in-Chief to consult with the author. As such, if an anony-mous article is rejected for publication, notification of rejection must be published in the Quid.

4) EDITING GUIDELINESEvery item submitted to the Quid shall be reviewed. The Quid reserves the right to make grammatical edits to improve the readability or suitability for publication of an article. Editors may also correct spelling mistakes. If a submission requires significant editing - in the view of the first person reviewing the article - this shall be indicated to the Editors-in-Chief. The Editors may refuse to publish the article for lack of suitability or may conduct signi-ficant edits and publish the submission. Minor edits need not be communicated to the author prior to publication.

5) CONTENT REVIEW POLICYAll submissions made to the Quid shall be reviewed for content. There is a four-step review process.

1. Review by EditorThe Editor assigned to review the article (or an Editor-in-Chief) individually reviews the submission for content they believe to be questionable. Questionable content is content that, in the appreciation of that respective Editor, is either potentially offensive or potentially not suitable for publica-tion. The following factors will be considered when assessing potential offensiveness: the overall tone of the submission, the specific word(s) used, the context in which they are used, coupled with an individual appreciation of the potential reaction to said material by the student body, professors,

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 20

alumni, and the Montreal legal community. If, on balance, any individual Editor or an Editor-in-Chief believes there is questionable content, this is communicated to the Editors-in-Chief.

Items that are potentially not suitable for publication include, but are not limited to: submissions that are too long or too short; submissions that have the potential to create a hostile environment for faculty or students; and submissions that are defamatory in nature.

2. DiscussionAt the second stage of review, the Editors-in-Chief and Editor who did the initial review discuss their specific findings with one another in relation to the submission. If there is a finding of questionable content that is agreed to by a majority (i.e. at least two-out-of-three between the reviewing editor and the Editors-in Chief), the article goes for consultation. If there is no agreed finding of questionable content, the article is published as is or with edits at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief.

3. ConsultationAt the Consultation stage, the Editors-in-Chief must advise the author that there is a content concern. The Editors-in-Chief may consult others about the submission, provided there is no information given identifying the author(s). The Editors-in-Chief may consult with any individuals mentio-ned in the article, fellow students, faculty members, and/or alumni, at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief. Consultation is not a question of how-many-for vs. how-many-against; rather, given the nature and role of the Quid, consultation is premised on whether the specific content is suitable for publication. The author may be consulted numerous times if the Editors-in-Chief feel this is necessary.

4. DecisionThe Editors-in-Chief will discuss the results of their consulta-tions and will render a decision to: [a] accept the submission as is; [b] accept the submission with minor edit(s) to be completed by the Editors-in-Chief; [c] accept the submission with or without minor edit(s) and publish a warning along the submission; [d] return the submission to the author for modification with suggestions provided at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief, or, alternatively, [e] reject publication without modification suggestions. The decision of the Edi-tors-in-Chief is final and binding. The Editors-in-Chief, at their discretion, may publish a notice of rejection in the Quid with their reasons, indicating, at their discretion, the name(s) of the author(s). Alternatively, the author(s) may request that such a notice appear, in which case the notice will bear the format: AUTHOR -- YEAR -- TITLE OF SUBMISSION was sub-mitted for publication but will not be printed in accordance with the Quid Policy and Operational Guidelines.

6) OVERHEARDS REVIEW POLICY

Overheards at the faculty must be sent to quid.law@mcgill.cabe-fore 5 PM each Thursday to be published in the following edition.

When an overheard mentions a professor, the Editors-in-Chief shall verify before publication if the professor consents to its publications as, to its publication with her name redacted, or does not consent to its publication at all. The Editors-in-Chief shall respect her decision.

Overheards shall identify students only by their year of study (1L, 2L, 3L or 4L).

The Editors-in-Chief shall be responsible to compile in a single document all the overheards received by the applicable deadline. This document is thereafter to be treated as a regular submission, and shall undergo the content review policy described in section 5, supra, the only difference being that overheards shall be sent to all the editors on schedule for that week, not only one of them.

7) NOTICE AND AMENDMENT PROCESS

The Editors-in-Chief shall publish these guidelines in the Quid in the first issue of every semester. Changes may only be proposed by Quid staff. If there is a proposed change, it will be indicated in the next issue of the Quid with the opportunity for students to make submissions for a period of at least one week. Changes must be approved by a majority of active Quid staff. The Editors-in-Chief must publish notice of any change or change attempt in the Quid.

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 21

charlieFeldmaN OVERHEARDS

THE QUID IS BACK AND SO ARE THE OVERHEADS!

Howdy y’all! Most of these are from the end of last semester and only going to press now… but if you have anything else, envoyez it svp! quid.charlie@gmail.com!

Prof. (Redacted): Did you hear about that new Facebook feature that allows you to share prescription medicines you got under your healthcare plan? Like, NOBODY would want that. Hey everyone, I brought hemorrhoid cream…. and *looks around* (student name) brought that gonorrhea medication. You know? Who wants to share that?!

Prof. Campbell: I know. You’re excited to be here. It’s January. It’s -200 outside.

Prof. Christians: No, the pioneers in Little House on the Prairie were NOT making sugar out of beets!

Prof. Smith: Half the money goes to lawyers - dead weight with no productive value!

Prof. Campbell: I don’t usually like what I read. That’s not true, I read a lot of good books over the holidays. But now we’re back in the academic context…

Prof. Anker: So, suppose I want to get people to move to Quebec. I create all these wonderful social benefits - and then I dismantle them!

Prof. Campbell: I love when students come to me three days before something big is due and say «Don’t worry - I have it all done. I mean, I haven’t written anything but I’ve thought it all out...»

Prof. Christians: It’s so great Bill Gates cares about malaria because if he cared about massive giant mushroom-shaped sculp-tures then we’d have giant mushroom shaped sculptures in every park in America!

Prof. Smith: Think of the things you should value in your lives. Love, friendship, art, maybe religion, family…1L: Sleep?Prof. Smith: … no.

Prof. Smith I don’t think judges should listen to us (law professors) very much. They tend to get it wrong when they do.

In Tax Policy...Student: But by that logic then we should just share our sex lives with the CRA.Prof. Christians: You’re having too much enjoyment so we tax it?Prof. Weinstock: Or you’re not getting enough so the state gives you a benefit.Prof. Christians: I guess it works both ways…

Prof. Fox-Decent: I didn’t want to go into law - I thought it was a sausage-grinding machine for predatory capitalists… some would say it still is.

1L: The thing about hockey boards is that you couldn’t use them for skydiving.

1L: What is confidence if not just not giving a shit?

2L to Prof: Can you please repeat that? I was distracted by the … moaning.

in-house diva

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 22

aNdré caPretti

Law i

MCGILL LAW MEMES

BeNJamiN diONNe

Law i

QN • 13 JAN 2015 • 23

charlieFeldmaN

HIVeR wORD SeARCH

in-house diva

[Continued from page 3] 1. Kozlowska, Hanna. «Identity Politics Play out on Social Media after Paris Attacks with #JeSuisAhmed and #JeSuisJuif.» Quartz. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://qz.com/324273/identity-politics-play-out-on-social-media-after-paris-attacks-with-jesuisahmed-and-jesuisjuif/. 2. Mullin, Gemma. «Revealed: How Hero Muslim Shop Assistant Hid Customers in Freezer of Jewish Deli after Islamic Gunman Raided Supermarket.» Mail Online. January 11, 2015. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903829/Saved-hiding-FREEZER-Thirty-Jewish-shoppers-avoided-taken-hostage-kosher-deli-shutting-cold-storage-huddling-stay-warm.html. 3.Pfeffer, Anshel. «Charlie Hebdo, Jewish Grocery Attacks Herald a Bleak New Era for France - World.» Haaretz.com. January 9, 2015. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.636248. 4. Mulholland, Rory. «Paris Shootings: The Backlash Begins against French Muslims.» The Telegraph. January 10, 2015. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11337938/Paris-shootings-The-backlash-begins-against-French-Mus-lims.html.5. Cole, Juan. «Paris Terrorist Was Radicalized by Bush’s Iraq War, Abu Ghraib Torture.» Informed Comment. January 8, 2015. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/terrorist-radicalized-torture.html.6. LeVine, Mark. «Why Charlie Hebdo Attack Is Not about Islam.» Al Jazeera - Opinion. January 10, 2015. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islam-cartoon-terr-20151106726681265.html.7. One trillion is a thousand times one billion.8. Sirota, David. «$14 Million An Hour: War Costs Top $1.6 Trillion Since 9/11, Say Congressional Researchers.» International Business Times. December 22, 2014. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://www.ibtimes.com/14-million-hour-war-costs-top-16-trillion-911-say-congressional-researchers-1764816. 9. «Human Costs of War: Direct War Death in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan October 2001- April 2014.» Costs of War. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://www.costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/Direct War Death Toll in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2001 to April 2014 6 26.pdf. Civilian statistic calculated by taking the averages of total civilian and all deaths. 10. Connolly, Matt. «The Military Has Wasted Enough Money on This Jet to Buy Every Homeless American a Mansion.» Mic. July 10, 2014. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://mic.com/articles/93327/the-military-has-wasted-enough-money-on-this-jet-to-buy-every-homeless-ame-rican-a-mansion.11. Mulholland, Angela. «Veterans Still Angry over Pensions, Budget Cuts.» CTVNews. November 5, 2011. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://www.ctvnews.ca/veterans-still-angry-over-pensions-budget-cuts-1.723266.12. Allentuck, Andrew. «B.C. Couple Worries That Unexpected Pay Cuts Could Severely Jeopardize Their Retirement Plans.» Financial Post. January 9, 2015. Accessed January 11, 2015. http://business.financialpost.com/2015/01/09/b-c-couple-worries-that-unexpected-pay-cuts-could-severely-jeopardize-their-retirement-plans/.13. Dwight D. Eisenhower: «Address «The Chance for Peace» Delivered Before the American Society of Newspaper Editors.,» April 16, 1953. Accessed January 11, 2015. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9819.

Can’t get enough Quid?

On est sur Facebook !

Search “Quid Novi – Droit McGill Law”

or type www.facebook.com/quidnovi.mc-

gill.

Add us today – vous ne savez ja-mais ce que nous

pourrions mettre en ligne!

Deadline for submissions: every Thursday at 5pm