journal des étudiant-e-s en droit de l’université mcgill...

Journal des étudia nt-e-s en droit de l’université M cGill

McGill Law’sWeekly Student Newspaper

Vo l u m e 3 4 , n o 1

1 8 s e p t e m b r e 2 0 1 2 | S e p t e m b e r 1 8 t h 2 0 1 2

WHAT’S INSIDE? QUEL EST LE CONTENU?

WANT TO TALK?

TU VEUX T’EXPRIMER?

ÉDITO 3THE OPTIMIST: WELCOME BACK! 4POURQUOI VOTER NON AUX MODIFICATIONS CONSTITUTIONNELLESSUGGÉRÉES PAR LE LSA 5WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE YES 6MCGILL LAW’S CLUB DE BOTANIQUE 7GETTING INVOLVED AT NCDH 8WHY THE PRESENT LSA REFERENDUM PROCESS IS ILLEGITIMATE 10MALPRACTICE CUP 11FOOD FOR THOUGHT 13RIP AL-TAIB 13THE LAW STUDENT’S GUIDE TO BUSINESS LUNCH ETIQUETTE 14FOR YOUR WELL-BEING 16POÈME 16DATUM ERRATUM: WHY I CACKLED FOR THE CAQ ON ELECTION DAY17THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF STUDENT-LED SEMINARS 19TOI 20EDITORIAL POLICY 22OVERHEARDS 26

QUID NOVI

3661 Peel Street Montreal, Quebec H2A 1X1

http://quid.mcgill.ca/

EDITORS IN CHIEFAmanda PetrakisHélia TaheriThomas Gagnon-van Leeuwen

ASSOCIATE REVIEWERSTBC

LAYOUT EDITORSTBC

STAFF WRITERSTBC

Envoyez vos commentaires ou articles avantjeudi 17h a l’adresse : [email protected]

Toute contribution doit indiquer le nom del’auteur, son année d’étude ainsi qu’un titrepour l’article. L’article ne sera publiee qu’a ladiscretion du comite de redaction, qui

basera sa decision sur la politique de redaction.

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

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 copyright 2011 Quid Novi.Les opinions exprimees sont propres aux auteurs et ne refletent pas necessairement celles de l’equipe du Quid Novi. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of the McGill LawStudents’ Association or of McGill University.

Vo l u m e 3 4 , n o 1

1 8 s e p t e m b r e 2 0 1 2 | S e p t e m b e r 1 8 t h 2 0 1 2

J o u r n a l d e s é t u d i a n t - e - s

e n d r o i t d e l ’u n i v e r s i t é M c G i l l

M c G i l l L a w ’s W e e k l y S t u d e n t N e w s p a p e r

É D I T O

QN • SEPTEMBER 18 2012 • 3

AMANDAPETRAKIS

C o - E d i t o r i n C h i e f

I bring to you a motivational piece with abit of a bite to it. I will speak of beingthankful for those things we all take forgranted. But I should not project my owningrate attitude on the rest of you so eas-ily: some of you don’t assume that thegood in your lives is a given, and that iswhat brings you closer to happiness.

And what is happiness, you might ask. Isit the sum of sporadic moments filledwith laughter? The light at the end of atenebrous tunnel? A general, cushy feel-ing? Is it a constant sense of well-being atall, or a fleeting instant in an ocean ofself-pity?

My sense is that any one of these optionsis true for a person at some point in theirlives. People - and here I go making gen-eralizations again - tend to choose defini-tions for abstract concepts, likehappiness, according to what best justi-fies their choices which aren’t always theresult of naked will. I often fall prey tothis game of alternating between defini-tions.

Sometimes exterior factors, such as socialpressure, worm their way into our brains,singing their mantra, and eventually pushus toward certain decisions. When webow to such factors, we tell ourselves, “Ichose the path toward happiness.” Hap-piness = destination.

When we feel rebellious, hedonistic andimpulsive, we may be more prone to say-ing, “I chose the little things that makeme happy here and now.” Happiness =the path itself.

Everyone has goals and makes sacrificesaccordingly at some point in their lives.And everyone would rather go with theflow at other times. Unfortunately, some-

times you actually need to pick betweena happy ending and a happy course eventhough you’d rather have both.

Making up your mind is simple. Really. Ifyou’ve chosen the happy ending, here iswhat you should be asking yourself: do Ireally want to get there?

A) If you hear yourself say “yes!” thengo for it!

B) If you have any qualms, then I sug-gest you ask yourself what are yourreasons for choosing that “happy end-ing”. Rather, are you running from any-thing? Fear at the prospect of notsucceeding is normal, and you shouldface that fear. However, if fear of some-thing else is the driving force behindyour chosen “ending”, you may beheading toward disappointment…

If you’ve chosen the course and havequalms with not pursuing a goal, thenthe question about “fear” applies as well.

Simply put, the selection process boilsdown to one’s resistance to fear. Fear is apowerful motivator, for better or forworse.

What will you do? Face your fears or runfrom them?

If you’re feeling unhappy, just lookaround you. Look at where you are. Lookat who is there with you. Look at whatyou have. You have the choice and themeans to go through with it. Be gratefulfor that. Be happy because you can.

That’s my piece on gratitude.

GRATITUDE

4 • 18 SEPTEMBRE 2012 • QN

WELCOME BACK!(Please Fill Out and Return to Me)

Oh my gosh, hey!

(Hug, attempt at doing European cheek-kiss thing)

It’s been too long. How are you? You look [please circle one: tanned, rested, great]! The summer really treated you well!

(Pause while we try to figure out who should speak first)

So how was it? Did you finally get a chance to [circle one: skydive, go to Peru, sleep for a week] like you kept saying you wouldonce exams were finished? Oh, okay, yeah, I guess we were all talking nonsense back then. I remember that, all through April,you kept [insert bizarre, stress-induced behaviour here: ____________] until Lamed actually sent out a faculty-wide e-mail outabout it. Yikes!

(Awkward pause; I should not have brought that up. You look [circle one: embarrassed, chagrined, or, preferably, unfazed])

Uhhhh…. Anyway, what did you get up to?

[Insert summer employment, classes, or opportunity here: ___________]

Holy cow! That’s [circle one: impressive, perfect for you, really interesting]! I’ll bet you [circle one: learned a lot, had quite the

adventure, made some serious money]. Any crazy stories?

[For my reference, please attach one (1) crazy story, of no more than 200 words in length, to read along with this form. Prefer-

ence will be given to stories that feature a) nudity b) “hijinks” or c) police involvement]

Hahahaha! That’s hilarious! Classic [insert your name here ____________].

You ready for another year? Yeah, me neither. I keep having this recurring nightmare where I wake up in bed next to a person-size Civil Code, and it gets mad at me for snoring and hogging all the covers. What classes you taking?

[For my reference, please attach class schedule]

Oh man! You’re in [please insert your least-desired class here: _________] with [please insert professor of aforementioned class

here: _________]? Brutal. I hear [circle one: he, she] is [circle one: cruel, boring, a vampire living off the life-force of his/her stu-

dents]. But at least you got into [please insert your most-desired class here: _________], right? I would’ve been in there withyou if I hadn’t been thirty seconds late logging in to Minerva that morning. Nicely done, McGill!

(Laughter, shared grumbling about the horrors of class selection]

Listen, I gotta go. Late for class! Thanks for catching up, though – it’s going to be great to see you around the faculty all year! Re-member that time after coffeehouse when we [please insert short-hand reference to some unreasonably long and hazy Thurs-

day evening we spent together here: _________]. Oh man… talk about a barn-burner, am I right? We really [please insert

sub-par law pun, ie. “extended the tort of negligence”; “violated the principles of fundamental justice”, here: _________] thatnight! Haha! I’ll never forget it [provided you fill this out and return it to me].

DAVIDGROVES

L a w I I THE OPTIMIST


COMITÉ

DU NON

REFERENDUM QUESTIONS

POURQUOI vOTER NON AUX MODIFICATIONSCONSTITUTIONNELLES SUGGéRéES PAR LE LSA

First of all, we would like to mention thatthe No committee is not against allchanges to the LSA Constitution. As manyhave noted, and as seen last year, ourConstitution is unclear on certain issues.There is room for clarification. There isalso a need for a discussion among our-selves, the student body and our repre-sentatives.

Les modifications telles que proposées nesont pas de simples formalités. Elles sontsusceptibles d’avoir un grand impact sur laparticipation étudiante dans les décisionsde l’association des étudiant-e-s en droit.Elles proposent des changements impor-tants à la répartition des pouvoirs entreles différents organes décisionnels. Nouscroyons qu’il faut encourager la discussionsur cette question. D’ailleurs, la présenta-tion des questions dans le Welcome BackNewsletter était biaisée. Dans la section «Effects », seulement des points positifssont mentionnés.

À notre avis, cette discussion doit se faireau travers de l’Assemblée générale an-nuelle (AGA) et non par des questionsréférendaires imposées au corps étudiant.L’AGA est LE moyen unique pour que touset toutes puissions discuter, débattre, ex-poser nos points de vues et entendre lespréoccupations et intérêts de la popula-tion étudiante de notre Faculté. Nousavons vu son pouvoir l’année dernièrelorsque plus de 100 étudiant-e-s se sontprésenté-e-s afin de poser des questionssur le budget et prendre position sur desproblématiques qui nous touchent tous ettoutes comme étudiant-e-s, étudiant-e-sen droit et citoyen-ne-s.

Prenons l’exemple de la question de lahausse des frais de scolarité. L’externe duLSA avait organisé une session d’informa-

tion (« Town Hall »). Ce Town Hall a étéannoncé à l’avance et plusieurs étudiant-e-s ont pu exprimer leur opinion sur laquestion. Une motion regroupantl’ensemble de la discussion a été rédigéeet présentée en Assemblée générale la se-maine suivante. Une discussion s’en estsuivie. Des modifications aussi. Chaqueintervention a été entendue (malgré unepériode de temps restreinte) et la motionmodifiée a été votée. Ensemble, nousavons tous et toutes pris part à ce qu’onappelle une démocratie étudiante saine etstimulante.

Toujours dans le cas de la hausse des fraisde scolarité, au semestre d’hiver, certain-e-s étudiant-e-s ont voulu soutenir les mil-liers d’étudiant-e-s en grève par une levéede cours symbolique. Nous avons discutéet débattu dans un Town Hall. Nous avonstenu un référendum (avec 10% des signa-tures). Il n’y a pas eu de levée de courssymbolique le 22 mars dernier, mais nousavons eu la chance de prendre part à undébat nécessaire et important dans uneuniversité québécoise. En demandant25% des signatures (Question 4), c’estprès de 180 étudiant-e-s dont il faudra de-mander la signature pour tenir un référen-dum. C’est beaucoup. Cela vientdirectement toucher la participation étu-diante.

L’assemblée générale doit être souveraineafin de bien représenter les intérêts etidées des étudiant-e-s. Cette idée n’estpas nouvelle et est présente dans la ma-jorité des établissements scolaires post-secondaires du Québec.

We know that in Quebec, student associa-tions must be incorporated under theCompanies Act to gain accreditation andreceive university-collected student fees.

But many accredited student associationsin Quebec have the general assembly astheir highest governing body (Question 1).We believe for instance that the budgetneeds final approval from the AGA (Ques-tion 3).

C’est facile de se comparer à ce qui sepasse à McGill ou Concordia. C’est aussifacile d’aller voir ce qui se passe à l’Uni-versité Laval ou à l’Université du Québec àMontréal. Il y a l’éxécutif, élu, qui « exé-cute » (bien souvent, merveilleusementbien) ce que l’assemblée a choisi et dé-cidé.

We believe that our student democracyshouldn’t be centralized within the handsof a few people. Even if we know themvery well. Even if we know that they areworking very hard for us, for this Faculty,for our interests. But they don’t knoweverything. They might not share similarconcerns as other groups. They might takedecisions that we don’t agree on. Thesame is true for clubs (Question 5). Creat-ing two new positions on the LSA Councilwill sure create new voices but will stillnot ensure that a broad range of concernsfrom different groups and people areheard like at the AGA.

The only way to have a balanced view ofwhat is going on in the Faculty and amongthe student body is the AGA. This is whywe should discuss constitutional changesat the next AGA. Or at a special AGA ifnecessary. Even holding a Town Hall onthe matter would help make more legiti-mate constitutional changes.

Ainsi, nous vous encourageons fortementà voter non lors du prochain référendum !


LSA

EXECUTIVEWHY YOU SHOULD vOTE YES

Suite à l’introduction d’un projet communpar lequel tous pourront profiter de leurpassage à la Faculté pour faire bénéficierla communauté, l’exécutif de l’AéD pro-pose d’apporter quelques changementsayant trait à la gouvernance étudiante.Ces changements ont pour but de rendrevotre AéD plus représentative, respons-able, démocratique ainsi que d’aligner laconstitution de l’AéD avec les lois corpora-tives du Québec.

Question 1: Codifying the Judicial BoardDecision in Re AGM MotionsProposed change: Clarifying a General As-sembly cannot bind the LSA Council or Ex-ecutive to a policy.Why we’ve proposed it: The LSA Constitu-tion was silent on this issue, and last yeara General Assembly attended by slightlymore than 10% of students resolved to re-verse a policy adopted by the LSA Council,which is elected by all students. Councilconsists of the Executive, the Class Presi-dents, the Student Members-at-Large ofFaculty Council, and the Law Senator. TheJudicial Board ruled that a General Assem-bly could not bind Council in Re AGM Mo-tions (January 2012), except wherespecifically provided. Effects: Council’s policy-making impor-tance will be increased, while the GeneralAssemblies will become more consultativebodies. Representative democracy in theLSA will be increased.

Question 2: Adhérence aux lois des cor-porationsChangement proposé: Le comité exécutifde l’AED pourra écarter les décisions du

conseil judiciaire avec une majorité de4/5.Pourquoi l’avons-nous proposé?: L’AED estune corporation et la Régie des entre-prises requiert que le conseil d’adminis-tration (le comité exécutif de l’AED) aie lepouvoir décisionnel final, et que ses déci-sions ne puissent être écartées que par unvote unanime des actionnaires (les action-naires de l’AED sont tous les étudiants dela Faculté).Effets: La constitution de l’AED sera enharmonie avec la Régie des entreprises,qui gouverne les corporations commel’AED. L’exécutif élu, et non le conseil judi-ciaire nommé, aura le pouvoir décisionnelultime sur les politiques adoptées.

Question 3: Council Oversight of the LSABudgetProposed change: Before the LSA budgetis presented to the members at the Gen-eral Assembly, LSA Council must debateand approve it.Why we’ve proposed it: Council is theLSA’s primary deliberative body, but cur-rently cannot hold the Executive account-able on budgetary matters. Effects: The budget will be subject togreater oversight, deliberation, and trans-parency.

Question 4: Augmenter l’importance desréférendumsChangement proposé: À l’exception despériodes de vote en automne et au print-emps, un référendum pourra être initiépar soit : (1) une résolution au conseil deL’AED, ou (2) la collecte des signatures de25% des élèves de la Faculté. Un référen-

dum pendant les périodes de vote peutêtre initié par soit : (1) une résolution auconseil de L’AED ou, (2) la collecte des sig-natures de 10% des élèves de la Faculté. Pourquoi l’avons-nous proposé?: La tenuede référendums à l’extérieur des périodesde vote requièrent un degré de travail im-portant de la part des personnes im-pliquées dans le processus d’organisationdu vote, ainsi qu’un important coût finan-cier. Plusieurs autres facultés de droit etd’autres facultés à McGill possèdent despolitiques similaires qui permettent delimiter les questions référendaires pourlesquelles le corps étudiant possède un in-térêt marqué.Effets : Il sera un peu plus difficile d’initierun référendum à l’extérieur des périodesde vote, mais il sera tout de même possi-ble de tenir un référendum pour les en-jeux qui suscitent un intérêtparticulièrement marqué auprès du corpsétudiant.

Question 5: Clubs Members on CouncilProposed change: Two Clubs Memberswill be added to Council. These memberswill be club executives, and will be electedby all the clubs.Why we’ve proposed it: Clubs are themain way law students can express theirpassions, and can use their law degrees tohelp our communities. Council is the LSA’sprimary deliberative body, so clubs’ inter-ests should be represented on Council, es-pecially if Council has budgetaryoversight.Effects: Council will become more repre-sentative, and clubs’ interests will play alarger role in LSA policy.

REFERENDUM QUESTIONS


Great mentors require great students.Our highly regarded and growing Intellectual Property Department assists companies in virtually every business sector in the acquisition, commercial exploitation and protection of IP.

We are known by clients for our “excellent character and cohesion” with “the strength and the team to deliver results” (Chambers Global 2011, and MIP 2011).

We are praised by our opponents as “serious litigators,” who are “winning cases” (MIP 2011).

oslerstudent.com | Ottawa Toronto Montréal Calgary New York

Ottawa 2013 Summer Law Student IP Recruitment:

We welcome applications from students with science or engineering undergraduate and graduate backgrounds, who want to specialize in intellectual property litigation. A summer with Osler in Ottawa gives you the opportunity to receive invaluable mentoring and guidance from lawyers who are acknowledged leaders in their fi elds, and who share a passion for intellectual property law.

Please apply by Friday, October 12, 2012

Contact Information

Lisa NicastroStudent Programs CoordinatorOsler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Tel: 613.787.1040 Email: [email protected]

Learn more at oslerstudent.com

Affairés à l’étude du grand arbre constitutionnelcanadien, les étudiants de la Faculté de droit del’Université McGill oublient trop souvent lesplaisirs simples de la vie. Le Club de Botaniquevise à faire fleurir la vie festive estudiantine enregroupant des épicuriens de divers horizons.C’est en cultivant les jardins de notre facultéque tous sont invités à s’évader du coquillagequi nous cloître au haut de la colline mcgilloise.Prenant exemple sur un de nos alumni, WilfridLaurier, nous nous intéresserons autant à la

croissance politique de notre monde qu’aux ro-mances que nous apportent les aléas de la vie.The Botanical Club of the Faculty of Law wel-comes anyone who shares the joy of gardening.Help us grow the young shoots of student life inlaw school. We need new recruits to brainstormwith us. Please contact Nicolas Benoît-Guay([email protected]) if you areinterested in helping us.

MCGILL LAW'S CLUB DE BOTANIQUE


Whether you’re starting your first year ofLaw School, finishing your degree, or visit-ing McGill for the term, the beginning ofSeptember is when you should thinkabout getting involved in the life of ourschool. Beyond going to Coffeehouse onThursdays and voting in the upcoming fac-ulty elections, there are many ways tokeep busy around New Chancellor DayHall.

Si vous êtes comme moi, vous vous êtessûrement inscrits à une dizaine degroupes étudiants lors de la Clubs’ Day dela semaine dernière. Il est certain quevous n’aurez pas le temps de tout faire ceque vous voudriez faire, mais je vous as-sure que vous aurez assez de temps pourfaire une ou deux ou trois activités quivous tiennent à cœur (petite note à ceuxqui sont trop occupés par leurs vies en de-hors de la faculté, notamment à ceux quiont de jeunes enfants : vous êtes unesource d’inspiration pour tous les autresd’entre nous qui n’ont pas de telles re-sponsabilités et ce n’est certainement pasà moi de vous donner un cours sur la ges-tion de votre temps!). Où donc devriez-vous donner de votre temps? La beautéde cette faculté, c’est qu’il y a beaucoupde groupes étudiants. De MBLA à MIFA,d’APLAM à ALSA, il y en a pour tous lesgoûts (félicitations aux 1Ls qui connais-sent ce que signifient tous cesacronymes!).

For those afraid of the time commitmentthat comes with joining a club, I invite youto participate in either Law School of Rockor Skit Nite. These are two shows put onby law students each year to raise fundsfor Chez Doris, Share the Warmth, Dans larue and the Old Brewery Mission, and arein my own humble opinion two of thebest events of the year. What makes LSORand Skit Nite attractive as they are notnecessarily year-long commitments –once the show is over, it’s over. How canyou get involved? For Law School of Rock,to be held in early November, we are look-ing for bands to play two or three songs.For Skit Nite, held in March, we are re-cruiting actors, scriptwriters, and anybodyelse with a special talent they would liketo share. Send us an email to [email protected] or come to our first infor-mation session, tentatively scheduled forWednesday, September 19th.

Those with a bit more time to spareshould consider joining a student club orjournal. A lot of exciting things are goingon this year: there is a new student-runjournal on arbitration that is in the works,the Transsymphonics, our NCDH-basedchoir, are back in business after taking lastsemester off, and we got new foosball ta-bles last Spring. Upper-year students: Ihear there are spots left for shifts at theLegal Information Clinic at McGill on Tues-day mornings. New students: the Asia Pa-cific Law Association of McGill is still

looking for a first-year representative.

Last but not least, this year’s LSA seems tobe focused on community involvement,and though we as a student body coulddo a lot more to be seen and heard, thereare a lot of cool initiatives that are worthlooking into. The High School OutreachProgram and Pro Bono Students Canadaare respected members of the Montrealcommunity. Getting involved in McGillgroups, outside the Law Faculty bubble,can be a rewarding way to meet new peo-ple. There are a surprising amount of en-vironment- and human rights-focusedgroups on Lower Campus, and groupsranging from Cupcake Clubs to the McGillAssociation of North American BornAsians (I’m not even making this up).

I know this year’s group of 1Ls will add alot to the life of our faculty. I had thepleasure of participating in what was avery well-attended Orientation Week, andwas thoroughly impressed by the enthusi-asm of organizers and participants alike.Hopefully this will be carried on through-out the year. For now, though, it’s time forme to go read the Overheards…

NICHOLAS

CHOINIèRE

L a w I I I

GETTING INvOLvEDAT NCDH


LES GRANDS AVOCATS DU MONDE SONT AVANT TOUT DE GRANDS CITOYENS DU MONDE.

Calgary | Montréal | Ottawa Toronto | Vancouver | Région de WaterlooAvocats | Agents de brevets et de marques de commerce Borden Ladner Gervais S.E.N.C.R.L., S.R.L. est une société à responsabilité limitée de l’Ontario.

blg.com

À notre cabinet, vous travaillerez avec des avocats ayant conclu des transactions de plusieursmilliards de dollars, d’autres ayant représenté des premiers ministres et d’autres encore ayantplaidé devant la Cour suprême des causes qui ont fait jurisprudence. Qu’ils courent desmarathons, vivent de grandes aventures ou se dévouent pour des causes humanitaires, vousverrez que les membres de notre équipe comptent plusieurs êtres d’exception. Chaque année,dans le cadre de nos programmes d’emplois d’été et de stages, nous cherchons à identifier des étudiants qui, tout comme nous, conjuguent leur coup de coeur pour le droit à un profond désir de se surpasser.

Nous ne sommes pas seulement à la recherche d’avocats exceptionnels, mais surtout d’êtres d’exception

Pour consulter les fiches biographiques de nos avocats et voir si BLG répond à vos aspirations, visitez le site blg.com/etudiants.


As you may not know (I wasn’t aware until very late lastweek) the LSA exec is proposing few—but major—changes to the constitution of our beloved LSA. Thesechanges were available in the “Welcome Back” newsletter(pp. 10-11) that was distributed last week (the blue book-let). After a discussion with some exec members and theCRO during Coffeehouse, the CRO sent an email on Thurs-day September 13th clarifying there will be time for aproper, full campaign, as required.

WHY THE LSA PROCESS MAKES THIS REFERENDUM ILLE-GITIMATE

1) The referendum was supposed to take place at thesame time as the elections (starting Friday the 14th).That’s right. With no notice from the CRO nor the LSA. Nochance to create YES or NO campaigns (as we usually do).No opportunity for discussion. Do you really believe thatannouncing significant constitutional changes in anewsletter (at pp. 10 and 11) is a good way to advertiseand promote a referendum?

2) Normalement, il faut une décision du LSA Council oudes signatures de 10% du corps étudiant de la facultépour déclencher un référendum (LSA Constitution, art.59). Pendant l’été, l’Exec du LSA remplace le Council.L’Exec en a donc profité pour proposer ces modificationssans le Council et sans un appui étudiant.

3) This was all in the first week of school. At the beginningof first year, I had no clue what and who the LSA was (ex-cept that they organized the orientation). Constitutionalchanges are important and need broad student participa-tion. Maybe the LSA was trying to push some issuesthrough now so they wouldn’t have to bother with themlater (and if they were successful in removing all AGApowers, who could do anything later on?).

4) The previous constitution was not available in theNewsletter nor on the LSA website.

These problems seem to show: 1) a clear problem withstudent democracy within the LSA itself (these people arethe ones who are supposed to represent us and promoteyour interests); 2) the will of the LSA to push their ideasforward without discussion (so we won’t be able to or-ganize and criticize later). I know an email was sent dur-ing the summer on the «transparence» of the LSA (and Idid reply) but that’s clearly not enough.

There’s a clear irony here : making major constitutionalchanges without following due process and the LSA pro-cedures.

Why are these changes happening now, and so quickly?Last year, more than 100 people showed up at the AGA(probably a first in recent LSA history) because some peo-ple decided to draft motions that we voted on. Progres-sive motions. We supported the MUNACA employees onstrike. We stood up against the Quebec tuition hike. Theexec didn’t want to be bound by the decisions of the stu-dent body they represent. I mean, that would be crazy,right? I know my values are not everyone’s values. Thegreatest thing about a General Assembly it the debates itfosters. We exchange points of view, visions, and perspec-tives. This is impossible with a referendum question.

I believe we do need constitutional changes. The presentunilingual constitution is full of unclear clauses and sec-tions. But I believe we need a discussion on the matter.Especially when the changes aim to reduce input fromthe student body.

DOMINIQUEBOUTIN

L a w I I I

WHY THE PRESENT LSA REFERENDUMPROCESS IS ILLEGITIMATE


When? September 29th 2012

Where? Rutherford Reservoir

What time? 11 AM

SARAH

KETTANI

V P I n t e r n a l

MALPRACTICE CUP

The annual tournament against the Faculty of Medicine is happening at the endof this month! Le samedi 29 septembre, nous affronterons la faculté demédecine pour une compétition féroce dans des sports variés tels que le soccer,dodgeball, ultimate frisbee, quidditch, capture the flag, trivia and tug of war.This year, the Law Faculty is making a comeback, and we are going home withthe trophy! Si vous êtes sportifs, motivés ou vous voulez simplement relaxer oumême éviter vos lectures, nous vous attendons en grand nombre. The cost is$10 and includes a t-shirt, a meal, and drinks at Peel Pub where we will headafter the tournament for a 5 à 7. Registration forms are available on the LSAwebsite or at the LSA office.

All levels are welcomed. It is going to be a lot of fun and I hope to see you all.

SUBMIT TO THE QUID!Envoyez vos articles, poèmes, bandes dessinées!

Deadline: every Thursday at 5pm. Send articles as an attached Worddocument, including a title, author and author’s year of study to

[email protected].


If you’ve set your sights on a career in litigation, you want to apply all that you’ve learned so far where it really counts – in court. At Lenczner Slaght, you’ll spend more time preparing and presenting cases, guided by highly respected lawyers who can help you develop and polish your advocacy skills. As Canada’s leading litigation practice, we don’t just o!er you more "rsthand courtroom experience – we insist on it.

Move from theclassroom tothe courtroom.


MOLLy KRISHTALKA FOOD FOR THOUGHT

L a w I I I

voulez-vous quelque chose à grignoter à la bibliothèque? Cetterecette vous promet des carrés (ou des muffins!) légers et goû-teux avec un éclatement de café. You can serve them with jam,or topped with a sprinkling of powdered sugar, but I find thatthey taste best with just a dab of butter. Pour obtenir des carrésplus sucrés, substituez le vinaigre balsamique et le lait par lamême quantité de Baileys.

In a 9-inch brownie pan, this recipe makes 9 squares. Should youchoose to make muffins instead, this recipe makes 10.

Espresso Walnut Squares (inspired by Smitten Kitchen’s olive oilmuffins) 1 ½ cups flour1 ¾ teaspoons baking powder¼ teaspoon salt¾ cup sugar3 large eggs

3 teaspoons espresso powder2 tablespoons balsamic vinegar2 tablespoons 2% or whole milk¾ cup olive oil1 cup toasted and sliced walnuts

Preheat your oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit. Grease your muf-fin or brownie pan.Mix together the flower, baking powder, and salt in a mediumbowl. Beat the eggs and sugar together in a large bowl until pale.Stir in the espresso powder, balsamic vinegar, and milk. Add theolive oil gradually, then stir in the flour mixture, making sure notto over-mix. Stir in the walnuts.Pour the batter into the prepared pan or tin, and bake forroughly 50 minutes (20 minutes for muffins) or until a testercomes out with moist crumbs attached. Let cool in the pan for 8-10 minutes, then remove from the pan to cool on a rack. Enjoy!

When I started law school two years ago,the Architecture Café - by all accounts, anexcellent student-run joint - had just shutdown. The start of this year comes withanother disappointment: Al-Taïb, a popu-lar spot for dirt-cheap Middle Easternfood, has disappeared from the space itused to share with Gerts in the basementof the SSMU building.

Al-Taïb fed me for two years. I would rushdown during my half-hour lunch breakbetween Common Law Property andFamily Law and devour my laham baagineon my way up. One employee knew myorder so well that she once started heat-ing my manakish after seeing me through

the window – on the day I decided tochange it up and have pizza. Oh, and ei-ther option cost me $2.75. Tax included.

No more. Al-Taïb is gone in favour of astudent-run lunch counter. While I’m allfor student-run initiatives, the most af-fordable item on the menu was a $5grilled cheese. Ouch. According to a stu-dent I spoke with, this change resultsfrom a joint decision between the SSMUand Al-Taïb – the main branch of which isstill alive and well on the corner ofMackay and De Maisonneuve.

Despite the efforts that have been madeto improve our Faculty’s own Law Café, it

unfortunately remains an expensiveproposition. In fact, eating anywhere onthe McGill campus will put a dent in yourwallet: unlike other Montreal universitiesthat have both vibrant – and affordable –student-run cafés and cheap eats withinwalking distance, giant Aramark exclu-sively provides food to most of the McGillcampus.

With Al-Taïb gone, do you have any sug-gestions for affordable lunch optionsnear the Faculty? Send us yourfavourites at [email protected] andwe'll publish them next week!

RIP AL-TAïB ANOTHER CHEAP FOOD OPTIONON CAMPUS BITES THE DUST

THOMASGAGNON-VANLEEUWEN

L a w I I I


The year has barely begun and a bunch of you are already anx-ious about appropriate business table manners. Although it’strue that if you eat like a baboon people will judge you, ade-quate manners are really more practical than complicated, andnot at all difficult to master. This article will provide a few sug-gestions to ensure that your sparkling personality, not your ham-fisted fork-holding, makes an impression.

GENERAL TIPS

- Take SMALL bites of food! They aren’t there to feed you, but totalk to you. Take small enough forkfuls that you can sort of movethe food into your cheek and talk at the same time without giv-ing everyone a look at what you're masticating. For the love ofGod chew with your mouth closed.Utensils are arranged in the order of courses. Just start from theoutside and work your way in. If you are worried, handy-dandyguides can be found online.

- Mind your elbows! Keep elbows close to your sides when youeat. This can lead to some awkward T-rex arms dining some-times, but it's better than looking like you've got wings. (Mymother used to make me eat with newspapers tucked under myarms.) Don't put your elbows on the table! You can rest yourforearms on the table but don't get the elbows up there.

- Make lots of eye contact. That way they pay attention to you,not to your utensils. If you make an error, whatever, just forget itand move on.

BASIC STUFF

- Unfold your napkin and put it in your lap when you sit down.Some restaurants insist on doing this for you, which I find annoy-ing but is considered a sign of A Fancy Establishment. Just letthem.

- Wait until your dining companion picks up a utensil to starteating. Never begin eating until your companion's food has beenserved, unless he or she motions for you to begin first.

- I cannot believe I have to say this, but I’ve seen it happen: ifthere are olives, do NOT put the pips in a little pile on the

table! Put them on your bread plate (or in the provided dish) likea normal, non-gross human being!

- Cut each mouthful of food one piece at a time. Do not chopyour entire steak into little tiny bits and then spear them individ-ually like a bird.

- Holding utensils is basically common sense; do not fret aboutit.

- Don’t eat off your knife. Ever. Food goes onto the fork before itis conveyed to the mouth.

ADvANCED COURSE

- Avoid any salad with frisee in it. It is so awkward to eat, justdon’t. Poppyseeds are also not advised.Try not to switch your fork between left and right hands. It is vi-sually distracting and some people think it is Breaking The Rulesor whatever.

- Don't salt or season your food before you taste it. The excep-tion is when a server comes around with fresh pepper or Parme-san before you've had a chance to taste your food.

- Always break bread; never bite it. Put the bread on the bread-plate (small plate to the left of the place setting) and use yourfingers to break off each individual piece as you eat it. Do notshred the whole thing. Do NOT raise the whole thing to yourmouth and start chomping on it! This is my pet peeve. Little ismore graceless than gnawing on a roll while trying to look so-phisticated and employable.

Ladies, there is a kind of art to bending and then sweepingyourself forward as your chair is pushed in behind you. It’s nottough to master with a little practice. Gentlemen don’t have todeal with this one.

If you are really anxious, Tiffany's Table Manners for Teenagers isa short and spot-on guide, although ignore their suggestionsabout asparagus. When in doubt, take your cues from your din-ing companion. Though please don't mimic them if they're eat-ing with their elbows in the air. You will end up jabbing a serverin the ribs, and it's all downhill from there.

MARy ANGELAROWE

L a w I I I

THE LAW STUDENT'S GUIDE TOBUSINESS LUNCH ETIQUETTE


Creativity

heenanblaikie.com

Lawyers | Patent and Trade-mark Agents

!""#$#%&'$()("

in practice

Heenan Blaikie LLP

Don’t miss our Lucky’s food truck on October 3during universal break.

Have a great semester!


Sa bouche en forme d’étoileéclaire le ciel noir de mes nuitsen orbite dans mon lit simpleon s’embrasse on se touchela gravité entre nos doigtsentremêlés et agrippés dans le videnos cœurs en apesanteurle Big Bang explosion de corps célestes

nous créons l’Univers à notre façonnotre univers.

LUDOVICBOURDAGES

L a w I I

En ce début de session, je tiens à vousprésenter le Comité pour le bien être desétudiants. J’en suis pour l’instant la seulereprésentante, mais il me fera plaisir detravailler en collaboration avecquiconque qui a le bien-être de la Fac-ulté a cœur! Laissez-moi expliquer lesdeux rôles que joue ce Comité.

As its name tells, the Student Well-BeingCommittee is there to help promote andmaintain a healthy life-style among thestudent community. Ranging from mak-ing the promotion of healthy eatinghabits to giving advices in terms of deal-ing with the stress of law school, it is apoint of reference for YOUR well-beingas a law student dealing with the widerange of issues that can affect you moreor less importantly. If you feel like youforgot about how to use a stove andyour fridge is full of pizza leftovers, you’llbe able to consult my regular articles in

the Quid Novi for cheap and easyrecipes! If you feel like you are crumblingunder readings, haven’t moved your buttfrom your library seat for 5 hours, andjust need to express your distress, pleasefeel free to write me an email!! I will tryto be the ear you need and if I can’t I willdirect you to the right person.

Aussi, le Comité est un comité de l’AéDet a donc facilement accès à l’ensembledes ressources de votre Association étu-diante, tant matérielles que financières.Je peux donc agir à titre d’intermédiaire(qui fera aller ses contacts pour vous!)pour vous aider à réaliser un projet quivous tient à cœur et qui prendrait formeau sein de la faculté. vous aimeriez in-viter une conférencière pouvant donnerdes conseils sur la gestion du stress? Jepeux vous aider à organiser un tel évène-ment. vous trouvez que la Facultémanque de vie artistique et voudriez en

décorer les murs, mais ne savez pas com-ment vous y prendre? Moi non plus,mais on peut y arriver ensemble! Bref,toute idée vous passant par la tête pourlaquelle vous auriez besoin de soutiensera entendue.

Otherwise, I really like meeting and chat-ting with people in the hallways so if youfeel like taking a break, grab me by thearm and we can go play a foosball game(or three)!

And most importantly, remember thatreading outside is so much nicer thanthe library so go out enjoy the sun whileyou still can!

Yours truly,

Michèle

MICHèLELAMARRE-LEROUX

FOR YOUR WELL-BEING


DEREKZEISMAN

Sugar is the oil for political machines:

Without it all the gears would never mesh.

A man must have a weakness

For a certain kind of sweetness

Be it soothing to the spirit or the flesh.

~ Mavor Moore, Canadian dramatist, 1967

We are beyond criticism except by puri-

tans. We present ethical code after ethical

code, and still we get criticized. It’s incred-

ible how demanding people are about us.

The newspapers give the impression that

Quebec is as bad as Italy.

~ Quebec Liberal Premier RobertBourassa, 1975

Oh, what a tangled web Quebec politicsdo weave. After nine tumultuous years inoffice, Jean Charest was ever-so-gentlyoverthrown by the wily electors of LaBelle Province on September 4.

I was delighted Mr. Charest called thatelection, if only because it meant we wereable to resume our law studies one daylater than originally scheduled. (Thankheaven for small mercies!)

More importantly, it was time for Mr.Charest’s Liberal government to go. Politi-cians, like milk, all have a best-beforedate, and the Liberals had long sincepassed theirs.

The smell of spoiled milk must have beenvery bad indeed at the National Assembly,for poll after pre-election poll showed 70per cent of Quebeckers wanted a changeof government. The voting results re-flected this sentiment exactly, for the Lib-erals pulled in 31.2 per cent share of thevote, down from 42 per cent in 2008.

The people were exhausted by, and exas-perated with, Mr. Charest’s government.In recent years, it seemed infected by thetriple scourge of corruption, crime andcronyism. Cabinet ministers and MNAswere sometimes too cozy with reputedunderworld crime figures, accepting sub-stantial political “donations” and rubbingshoulders with them at parties, receptionsand dinners. Several even served as mem-bers of riding associations and party or-ganizers.

Just as serious, and far more expensivefrom a taxpayer point of view, were the al-legations of contract rigging, price fixing,bribery, and other shenanigans that aresaid to be rife within Quebec’s notoriousconstruction industry, especially wheregovernment contracts are concerned.

It took Mr. Charest two years to evenmake a cursory effort to address thesealarming concerns, by appointing theCharbonneau Commission to inquire intothe allegations. This belated action wasonly taken after prolonged prodding fromthe opposition parties and general public.Only time will reveal the extent of Liberalinvolvement in illegal activities, but suspi-cions run high.

Mr. Charest wisely called the election be-fore the release of the Charbonneau Com-mission’s report, no later than October2013. But it seems the voters saw throughthis clever maneuver, and chose to punishhim and his party anyway.

But punish ever so gently. For thoughmost voters wanted rid of the Liberals,they were none too enthralled by the al-

ternatives. The result was an electionlargely devoid of passion, or even enthusi-asm, among most of the electorate. This isnot an unusual state of affairs in otherprovinces. Here in Quebec, it is near-blas-phemy.

There was precious little choice of a posi-tive sort. Pauline Marois and her PartiQuébecois ran a narrow “little tent” cam-paign that emphasized sovereignty overeconomy, linguistic strife over dialogue,and ethnics over ethics. It was obviously acampaign aimed at locking down the PQ’seroding support among core separatistvoters.

In the end, the PQ pulled in only 31.9 percent of the vote of election night – a pal-try 0.7 per cent more than the much-loathed Liberals. Most alarmingly of all forthe PQ brass, that “winning” percentagewas significantly lower than the PQ’s sup-port in the elections of 2003 and 2008 –elections the PQ lost. In that sense, theysucceeded in snatching defeat from thejaws of victory.

This is not surprising, given that Quebecsovereigntists now face such a buffet ofpolitical choices. Most prominently, thehard-left Québec Solidaire (which won sixper cent of the vote and two seats) cutdeeply into the nationalist base of sup-port the PQ once took for granted. A sec-ond alternative to the PQ, OptionNationale, did not win any seats, butpulled enough votes away from the PQ insome key ridings to torpedo any hope of aMarois majority.

Interestingly, if every QS and ON voterhad instead parked their votes with Ms.

DATUM ERRATUM

WHY I CACKLED FOR THE CAQON ELECTION DAY

L a w I I


Marois, the PQ would have won awhopping 22 more seats on electionnight than the anemic 54 it picked up.That would have meant a big PQ ma-jority.

Instead, Ms. Marois faces a remark-ably resilient 50-seat Liberal caucus(sans Mr. Charest, who was summarilydismissed by the voters of Sherbrooke)and a sizeable 19-member CoalitionAvenir Québec (CAQ) caucus that,while underperforming on electionday, will hold the balance of power inthe next Assembly.

As much as I personally like Mr.Charest, and as much as I am an arche-typal Anglo federalist living on the Is-land of Montreal, I could not bringmyself to support his party on Septem-ber 4.

The Liberals have been in power fornearly a decade, and have done littlein that time to remedy Quebec’s yawn-ing budget deficits, its massive publicdebt (by far the highest per capita inCanada, at 55 per cent of GDP) or itsseemingly perpetual status as a have-not province, despite its boundlessnatural, intellectual and commercialwealth and know-how.

Then there is the matter of the Liber-als’ ethical lapses and periodic dab-bling in the black art of politicalcorruption. Corruption, of course, is acancer not confined to the LiberalParty by any means, and there is noevidence that Mr. Charest was person-ally involved in such foolishness.

But as governments age, they becomesloppy, complacent and sometimesmorally dissolute. A good spell in polit-ical purgatory will do the Liberalssome good.

In the end, I opted to park my votewith the CAQ. I did not do this withoutreservation, for this new party hastaken a somewhat non-committalstance where federalism is concerned.Some of its policies are also vaguelydefined and insufficiently costed(casted? Not sure what the authormeans by “costed” ?)

But the CAQ offered clean and sensi-ble government, and a fresh, prag-matic view of Quebec politicsunsullied by the heavy baggage luggedaround by the other two main parties.One of the party’s (successful) starcandidates was Jacques Duchesneau, a

former Montreal police chief who hascampaigned tirelessly against politicaland police corruption for decades.

But in the end, I think the CAQ’sbiggest and best attribute was itsleader, François Legault. Throughoutthe campaign, the former PQ ministerhad a smiling “happy warrior” personaabout him, which I found exudedhope, confidence and optimism.Legault’s forward-looking vision andpositive rhetoric stood in marked con-trast to the somber, humourless cam-paign waged by Mr. Charest, and thedivisive and inflammatory tack takenby Ms. Marois.

Mr. Legault seems to understand thatQuebec is a big tent, and that we areall in on this great experiment to-gether – Francophones, Anglophonesand Allophones alike. And that, mesamis et amies, is a constructive mes-sage that any politician should be ableto take to the bank. Come next elec-tion, Mr. Legault may well succeed indoing exactly that.

C O N T I N U E D F R O M P R E V I O U S PA G E


Last year, there were several student-led seminars, including Critical RaceTheory, Aboriginal Truth and Reconcilia-tion and Sexual Assault Law. What dothese three courses have in common?None of them had a hired professorteaching them and none of them werepermanent courses1. As well, the sub-ject matter of each concerned systemi-cally and historically marginalizedgroups.

Pour ceux qui ne savent pas ce qu’estun séminaire dirigé par des étudiants(ou séminaire étudiant), en voici lesgrandes lignes:

o Des étudiant-e-s trouvent qu’il y a desmanquements dans la liste de cours of-ferts lors de leur première ou deuxièmeannée;

o Ces étudiant-e-s parlent entre eux etdécouvrent que d’autres aussi sontdéçus; un des thèmes qui les a poussésà entreprendre des études en droitn’est pas enseigné ou discuté en classe;oCes étudiant-e-s forment un groupe(habituellement composé de trois ouquatre personnes) pour monter uncours qui pourrait remplir ce ‘’trou’’dans la liste de cours;

o Ils et elles prennent contact avec unou une professeure pour voir s’il ou elleserait intéressé-e à superviser le cours;

o Ayant trouvé un-e professeur-e volon-taire, les étudiants construisent uneproposition de cours. Cela doit inclureun plan de cours, une liste de lectureset une méthode d’évaluation. Il doit

aussi démontrer qu’il y a une demandepour le cours en mentionnant ses sup-porteurs (clubs, autres départements,etc.), sa pertinence sociale et son inclu-sion dans les listes de cours d’autresfacultés de droit;

o Les étudiant-e-s discutent de laproposition avec le ou la professeur-eresponsable de la supervision, puissoumettent la version finale du projetau vice-doyen à l’enseignement (l’an-née précédant celle de la tenue ducours);

o Si le projet est approuvé, les discus-sions continuent. Le cours aura proba-blement lieu le vendredi ou mercredimatin à 8h30 (à la session d’automneou d’hiver). Il pourrait entrer en conflitavec d’autres séminaires étudiants;

o Mais, ce n’est toujours pas fini. Lesétudiant-e-s doivent maintenant trou-ver une source de financement, afin depouvoir se payer des professeurs in-vités, des sorties, du matériel, etc. Deuxdes sources de financement les pluscommunes sont le Fonds discrétion-naire du Doyen, et l’Experiential Learn-

ing Fund.

Note that the above list is not official.Also note that student-organizers vol-unteer their time and effort to organizethe class, and then pay full tuition totake it. Also note that taking more thanone student-led seminar is not permit-ted at this time. Finally, please notethat the Faculty appears to be in theprocess of writing up official rules forinitiating student-led seminars. We

haven’t been let in on this conversa-tion, so we can’t elaborate.

So, why organize a student-led semi-nar? Why do all this work?

Gaps in the curriculum: By the begin-ning of second semester, many firstyear law students realize that areas oflaw relating to their interests – particu-larly if their interests are connected tomarginalized groups – occupy a small (ifany) space in the Faculty. This can be-come frustrating and isolating to thosewho came to law school with the desireto pursue social justice. Unable to findspace to speak about these issues, stu-dents have the option of becoming pas-sive recipients or change-makers. Theycan either resign themselves to the ed-ucation that’s offered to them or at-tempt to change it through variousinitiatives, such as student-led seminarsor social-justice oriented clubs.

Space to speak: To some, classroomspace at the Faculty may appear neu-tral. It may seem that all students arefree to participate in classroom discus-sions as they wish. For others, space isanything but neutral. It is no surprisethat the ABA Journal cited a studywhich found that female law studentswere less likely than male law studentsto ask questions in class, or discuss as-signments with professors. Some of youmay have noticed this. Some of youmay have realized that the only wayyou can find the space to speak is if youmake one. Student-led seminars havetraditionally offered such a space, onethat is accommodating and representa-

THE TRANSFORMATIvE POTENTIALOF STUDENT-LED SEMINARSRADLAW


tive to a diversity of students who at-tend this institution.

La culture de la Faculté: Les cours oblig-atoires ainsi que les autres cours offertsde manière plus régulière par la Facultéenvoient un message. Ils disent « Cessujets et ces textes sont importants. »Qu’est-ce que la liste de cours actuellenous dit? Que voudrait-on qu’elle nousdise?

Hopes

By creating a student-led seminar, theFaculty is not only given an opportunity

to learn about students’ interests, butto realize what’s missing in the currentcurriculum. We note that AboriginalTruth and Reconciliation is now beingtaught by a professor in the winter se-mester. We applaud the Faculty for rec-ognizing the importance of this course. vu le succès des séminaires étudiantsofferts l’année dernière, nous encoura-geons la Faculté à considérer la possi-bilité que Critical Race Theory, Sexual

Assault Law et d’autres séminaires pop-ulaires soient offerts sous la forme decours complémentaires.

Finally, we hope that in making rules

and requirements regarding student-led seminars, the Faculty will:

o engage with the student body in avisible and open way;

o actively contact previous course or-ganizers and participants, listen to theirexperiences, and integrate that feed-back into the new guidelines;

o honour the uniqueness of eachcourse; and

o embrace alternative pedagogies.

C O N T I N U E D F R O M P R E V I O U S PA G E

Tu m’as peigné les cheveux. Tu t’es laissé aller, avoue-le, tut’es laissé aller. Au toucher de tes doigts, j’ai tremblé.

Tu as dessiné le sourire sur le coin de mes lèvres. Tu t’es laisséaller, avoue-le, tu t’es laissé aller encore une fois. Le sourire aconquis tout mon visage qui a cédé sans la moindre résis-tance. Tu m’as rendue heureuse.

Tu as insisté pour que je me maquille. Qui l’aurait cru?Couleur, couleur, couleur. Tu as fait ressortir mes yeux, tupourrais t’y noyer désormais.

Ta main a baisé mes paupières. Ta voix intime a chanté pourmoi, c’était doux; tes berceuses glissant sur ma poitrine mechatouillaient.

Tu me parlais comme si j’existais. J’ai essayé de murmurerpour te répondre. La cage n’a pas accepté, les sons emprison-

nés, le fossé trop profond à escalader. Mon silence ne t’a pasatteint. Intouchable.

Tu me trouves belle, tu me l’as dit. Arrête, tu me fais rougir.Les joues rouges à croquer, tu les as croquées. Mes joues sontrougerougerouge, mes pommettes croquées. Tu l’as fait aveccombien d’autres, petit coquin? C’était le temps de partir; touche finale, tu as mis une roseentre mes cheveux.

Tu as oublié de fermer la fenêtre. On t’avait toujours appris àverrouiller les portes, à fermer les fenêtres; les étrangers, àéviter les étrangers. Tu as oublié de fermer la fenêtre. Le venta pénétré dans ta chambre, notre chambre, il m’a poussée; jesuis tombée, déchiquetée, j’ai voulu crier, il était trop tard,noyée dans une mer de couleurs, j’ai suffoqué; j’ai voulupleurer, les larmes ont reculé. Et là, juste avant de sombrerdans la coagulation de l’essence, j’ai sangloté.

TOIHÉLIATAHERI

L a w I I I


QUID EDITORIAL POLICYIt is Quid policy to publish our Policies and Operating Guidelines in the first issue of each semester.

The policy is also available on our website: quid.mcgill.ca.

Wherever possible, the Quid publishes everything sub-mitted. However, to encourage a climate where eachstudent will feel comfortable sharing his/her opinions,in rare circumstances, articles may be edited, and in ex-treme cases refused, at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief.

While all submissions are presumptively publishable,potentially criminal speech (i.e. hate speech) and-or li-bellous speech are not presumptively publishable. Insuch cases the author must make a strong case that theinformation is accurate, that journalistic standards andethics were followed; discretion to publish such articleslies solely with the Editors-in-Chief.

QUID NOVI POLICIES AND OPERATING GUIDELINES

The Quid belongs to students enrolled in the Faculty ofLaw at McGill University. It is essential that it maintainstransparent policies and guidelines that take into consi-deration values such as the freedom of expression aswell as interests such as those of students and faculty.The policies and operating guidelines are set forthbelow. Questions and comments may be directed to:[email protected]. This policy is updated at the solediscretion of the Editors-in-Chief provided notice of up-date has been published in the Quid.

This version of the policy is enacted as of 2010. ItsFrench translation is enacted as of 2011.

This document has five sections:

1) General Guidelines2) Submission and Revocation Policy3) Anonymous Submission Policy4) Editing Guidelines5) Content Review Policy6) Notice and Amendment Process

1) GENERAL GUIDELINES

Every item appearing in the Quid Novi is an opinionpiece that reflects only the views of the person (s) sub-mitting the item. Neither the Quid Novi, the LSA, northe Faculty of Law endorses any of the material orviews contained therein. Given the nature of the publi-cation and its limited resources, the Quid will not un-

dertake to evaluate the factual accuracy of submis-sions. Submissions are presumptively publishable un-less they do not conform to the guidelines containedherein.

2) SUBMISSION AND REVOCATION POLICY

The Quid is a submission-driven publication. The dead-line for submission shall appear in every issue. Articlessubmitted must include the author's name and year ofstudy. If the author is writing in a particular capacity(i.e. 'LSA President'; 'Head of Student Club') this is to beindicated by the author.

No material submitted after the deadline shall be publi-shed without the express consent of the Editors-in-Chief. Late submissions will be slated for publication inthe subsequent edition.

Articles submitted for publication may be revoked bythe author. The Quid will honour all such requests pro-vided they are made at least two days prior to publica-tion. The Quid will do its best to honour a laterevocation request, but will not stop the printing of anissue that has already gone to press.

3) ANONYMOUS SUBMISSION POLICY

The Quid will publish anonymous articles provided theyconform to the Quid policy and operating guidelines.Anonymous articles present a challenge for content re-view for they do not allow the Editors-in-Chief toconsult with the author. As such, if an anonymous arti-cle is rejected for publication, notification of rejectionmust be published in the Quid.

4) EDITING GUIDELINES

Every item submitted to the Quid shall be reviewed.The Quid reserves the right to make grammatical editsto improve the readability or suitability for publicationof an article. Editors may also correct spelling mistakes.If a submission requires significant editing - in the viewof the first person reviewing the article - this shall beindicated to the Editors-in-Chief. The Editors may refuseto publish the article for lack of suitability, or mayconduct significant edits and publish the submission.Minor edits need not be communicated to the author


prior to publication.

5) CONTENT REVIEW POLICY

All submissions made to the Quid shall be reviewedfor content. There is a four-step review process.

1) Review by Editor

The Editor assigned to review the article (or an Edi-tor-in-Chief) individually reviews the submission forcontent they believe to be questionable. Questiona-ble content is content that, in the appreciation of thatrespective Editor, is either potentially offensive, orpotentially not suitable for publication. The followingfactors will be considered when assessing potentialoffensiveness: the overall tone of the submission, thespecific word(s) used, the context in which they areused, coupled with an individual appreciation of thepotential reaction to said material by the studentbody, professors, alumni, and the Montreal legalcommunity. If, on balance, any individual Editor or anEditor-in-Chief believes there is questionable content,this is communicated to the Editors-in-Chief.

Items that are potentially not suitable for publicationinclude, but are not limited to: submissions that aretoo long or too short; submissions that have the po-tential to create a hostile environment for faculty orstudents; and submissions that are defamatory in na-ture.

2) Discussion

At the second stage of review, the Editors-in-Chiefand Editor who did the initial review discuss theirspecific findings with one another in relation to thesubmission. If there is a finding of questionablecontent that is agreed to by a majority (i.e. at leasttwo-out-of-three between the reviewing editor andthe 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 dis-cretion of the Editors-in-Chief.

3) Consultation

At the Consultation stage, the Editors-in-Chief mustadvise the author that there is a content concern. TheEditors-in-Chief may consult others about the submis-sion, provided there is no information given identi-fying the author(s). The Editors-in-Chief may consultwith any individuals mentioned in the article, fellow

students, faculty members, and/or alumni, at the dis-cretion of the Editors-in-Chief. Consultation is not aquestion of how-many-for vs. how-many-against; ra-ther, given the nature and role of the Quid, consulta-tion is premised on whether the specific content issuitable for publication. The author may be consultednumerous times if the Editors-in-Chief feel this is ne-cessary.

4) Decision

The Editors-in-Chief will discuss the results of theirconsultations and will render a decision to: [a] acceptthe submission as is; [b] accept the submission withminor edit(s) to be completed by the Editors-in-Chief;[c] return the submission to the author for modifica-tion with suggestions provided at the discretion ofthe Editors-in-Chief, or, alternatively, [d] reject publi-cation without modification suggestions. The decisionof the Editors-in-Chief is final and binding. The Edi-tors-in-Chief, at their discretion, may publish a noticeof rejection in the Quid with their reasons, indicating,at their discretion, the name(s) of the author(s). Al-ternatively, the author(s) may request that such a no-tice appear, in which case the notice will bear theformat: AUTHOR -- YEAR -- TITLE OF SUBMISSION wassubmitted for publication but will not be printed inaccordance with the Quid Policy and Operational Gui-delines.

6) NOTICE AND AMENDMENT PROCESS

The Editors-in-Chief shall publish these guidelines inthe Quid in the first issue of every semester. Changesmay only be proposed by Quid staff. If there is a pro-posed change, it will be indicated in the next issue ofthe Quid with the opportunity for students to makesubmissions for a period of at least one week.Changes must be approved by a majority of activeQuid staff. The Editors-in-Chief must publish notice ofany change or change attempt in the Quid.

VERSION FRANÇAISE

Lorsque c’est possible, le Quid publie toutes lescontributions qu’il reçoit. Cependant, dans le but defavoriser un climat où chaque étudiant sera conforta-ble d’exprimer ses opinions, les rédacteurs-en-chef seréservent le droit de modifier des articles ou même,


dans des circonstances rares, de les refuser. Ce pou-voir sera exercé à la discrétion des rédacteurs-en-chef.

Nous présumons que toutes les contributions sontdignes de publication. Néanmoins, des propos poten-tiellement criminels (i.e. le discours de haine) et despropos diffamatoires ne bénéficient pas de cette pré-somption. Dans de tels cas, l’auteur doit démontrerde façon probante que les informations contenuesdans sa contribution sont véridiques et que les prin-cipes de la déontologie journalistique ont été suivis.La décision de publier ces articles relève uniquementdes rédacteurs-en-chef.

POLITIQUES ET PRINCIPES D’OPÉRATION DU QUIDNOVI

Le Quid appartient aux étudiants de la Faculté dedroit de l’Université McGill. Il est donc essentiel qu’ilsuive des politiques et principes transparents, quiprennent en considération la valeur de la liberté d’ex-pression ainsi que les intérêts des étudiants et desprofesseurs. Les politiques et les principes d’opéra-tion sont exposés ci-bas. Les questions et commen-taires s’y rapportant peuvent être adressés à :[email protected]. Cette politique est mise à jour àla discrétion des rédacteurs-en-chef, à la seule condi-tion qu’un préavis de la mise à jour soit publiée dansle Quid.

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

Ce document contient cinq sections :

1) Principes généraux2) Politique de contribution et de révocation3) Politique de contribution anonyme4) Politique de correction5) Politique de révision du contenu6) Procédures de préavis et d’amendement

1) PRINCIPES GÉNÉRAUX

Chaque item apparaissant dans le Quid Novi est unarticle d’opinion qui reflète uniquement le point devue de la personne ou des personnes qui ont écritl’item. Ni le Quid Novi, ni l’AéD, ni la Faculté de droitn’endosse les opinions contenues dans les contribu-tions publiées. étant donné la nature de cette publi-cation et ses ressources limitées, le Quid nes’engagera pas dans la vérification de la véracité fac-tuelle des contributions.

Les contributions sont présumées dignes de publica-tion, à moins de ne pas se conformer aux principesénumérés ici.

2) POLITIQUE DE CONTRIBUTION ET DE RÉVOCA-TION

Le Quid est une publication qui survit grâce auxcontributions. La date limite pour les contributionsapparaîtra dans chaque numéro. Les articles soumisdoivent contenir le nom de l’auteur ainsi que sonannée d’étude. Si l’auteur écrit dans un rôle particu-lier (i.e. “Président de l’AéD”; “Président d’un clubétudiant”), ceci doit également être indiqué.

Aucun item soumis après la date limite ne sera publiésans le consentement explicite des rédacteurs-en-chef. Les contributions tardives seront conservées etpubliées dans le numéro subséquent.

Les articles soumis pour publication peuvent être ré-voqués par l’auteur, du moment que cette requêtesoit faite au moins deux jours avant la publication dunuméro en question. Le Quid fera de son mieux pourfaire suite à une requête tardive, mais il n’arrêterapas la publication d’un numéro qui est déjà en im-pression.

3) POLITIQUE DE CONTRIBUTION ANONYME

Le Quid publiera des articles anonymes, à la condi-tion que ceux-ci se conforment à ses politiques etprincipes d’opération. Les articles anonymes présen-tent un défi particulier pour la révision du contenu,car ils ne permettent pas aux rédacteurs-en-chef deconsulter avec l’auteur. Ainsi, si un article anonymeest refusé, un avis de refus doit être publié dans leQuid.

4) POLITIQUE DE CORRECTION

Chaque item soumis au Quid sera révisé. Le Quid seréserve le droit de faire des modifications grammati-cales afin d’améliorer la présentation et la lisibilitéd’un article. Les rédacteurs peuvent également corri-ger les fautes d’orthographe. Si une contribution né-cessite des modifications importantes, dans l’avis dela personne qui le révise, ceci sera indiqué aux rédac-teurs-en-chef. Ceux-ci peuvent refuser de publier l’ar-ticle ou bien effectuer des modifications importantespour ensuite le publier. Les modifications mineuresne sont pas nécessairement communiquées à l’au-teur avant la publication.

5) POLITIQUE DE RÉVISION DU CONTENU


Toutes les contributions au Quid seront révisées auniveau du contenu. Il existe un processus de révi-sion comportant quatre étapes.

1) Révision par le rédacteur

Le rédacteur ou rédacteur-en-chef chargé de la ré-vision d’un article accomplit cette tâche en véri-fiant s’il contient du contenu contestable. Lecontenu contestable dénote du contenu que le ré-dacteur en question juge comme potentiellementoffensant ou autrement inadéquat pour la publica-tion. Les facteurs suivants seront considérés lors del’évaluation du potentiel offensant: le ton généralde la contribution, les mots précis utilisés dans leurcontexte précis, ainsi qu’une appréciation de laréaction potentielle du corps étudiant, des profes-seurs, des anciens étudiants et de la communautéjuridique montréalaise. Si le rédacteur individuelestime que le contenu est contestable, il commu-nique ceci aux rédacteurs-en-chef.

Les items qui sont potentiellement inadéquatspour la publication incluent (sans s’y limiter): lescontributions qui sont trop longues ou tropcourtes; les contributions qui possèdent le poten-tiel de créer un environnement hostile pour lesprofesseurs ou les étudiants; et les contributions ànature diffamatoire.

2) Discussion

À la deuxième étape de la révision, les rédacteurs-en-chef et le rédacteur qui a accompli la révisioninitiale discutent de leurs conclusions spécifiquesvis-à-vis l’article. S’il existe un consensus decontenu contestable parmi une majorité (moinsdeux sur trois parmi le rédacteur et les rédacteurs-en-chef), l’article procède à l’étape de la consulta-tion. S’il n’existe pas un tel consensus, l’article estpublié comme tel ou avec des modifications por-tées à la discrétion des rédacteurs-en-chef.

3) Consultation

Au stade de la consultation, les rédacteurs-en-chefdoivent aviser l’auteur qu’il existe des préoccupa-tions au niveau du contenu. Les rédacteurs-en-chefpeuvent consulter d’autres individus au sujet de lacontribution, à la condition de ne fournir aucune

information permettant d’identifier l’auteur. Les ré-dacteurs peuvent consulter avec des individusmentionnés dans l’article, d’autres étudiants, desprofesseurs ou des anciens étudiants, à leur proprediscrétion. La consultation n’est pas un concours de“combien-sont-pour vs. combien-sont-contre”.Compte tenu de la nature et du rôle du Quid, laconsultation doit déterminer si le contenu spéci-fique est digne de publication. L’auteur peut êtreconsulté à de nombreuses reprises si les rédac-teurs-en-chef jugent que ceci est nécessaire.

4) Décision

Les rédacteurs-en-chef discuteront des résultats deleurs consultations et rendront une décision de: a)accepter la contribution comme telle; b) accepterla contribution avec des modifications mineuresportées par eux-mêmes; c) retourner la contribu-tion à l’auteur pour modification avec des sugges-tions portées à la discrétion desrédacteurs-en-chef; d) rejeter la contribution sansoffrir des suggestions. La décision des rédacteurs-en-chef est finale et incontestable.

Les rédacteurs-en-chef, à leur discrétion, peuventpublier un avis de refus dans le Quid avec les rai-sons du refus ainsi que le nom de l’auteur. L’auteurpeut également demander qu’un tel avis appa-raisse; dans un tel cas, l’avis portera le format sui-vant: « AUTEUR --- ANNéE --- TITRE a été soumispour publication mais ne sera pas imprimé, en ac-cord avec les politiques et principes d’opération duQuid ».

6) POLITIQUE DE PRÉAVIS ET D’AMENDEMENT

Les rédacteurs-en-chef publieront ces principesdans le premier numéro du Quid à chaque semes-tre. Des amendements peuvent être proposés uni-quement par le personnel du Quid. Si unamendement est proposé, il sera indiqué dans lenuméro subséquent du Quid afin d’offrir une op-portunité d’au moins une semaine aux étudiantsde rédiger des contributions. Les amendementsdoivent être approuvés par une majorité du per-sonnel actif du Quid. Les rédacteurs-en-chef doi-vent publier un avis de tout changement ou detoute tentative de changement dans le Quid.


OvERHEARD AT THE FAC

SUBMIT OVERHEARDS!

[email protected]

1L: Yeah, how do you get these summaries anyways?2L: Well, you can find a lot of them on pubdocs, onthe LSA's website. But to get the best ones, you needto befriend the right people.1L: Oh, ok! So you guys are not first years?2L: No, we are second years. Right now would be agood time to start befriending us!

3L: Apparently there is a difference between "piracy"and "piratable acts" in s. 469...Prof. Klein: I smell Skit Nite!

Prof. Adamski: When I was here, we used to do evalu-ations the old-fashioned way: 100% finals. I've beentold you are a more sensitive group.

Prof. Adamski: America, the land of the clumsy andthe litigious.

Prof. Adamski: The microphone isn't working so I willhave to rely on my operatic training to project myvoice audibly. Hopefully I was an opera singer in aprevious life. Fortunately for you, I'm a law professorand not an opera singer in this life.

Me Lamed: I am in favour of paternalism. Because Ithink I'm always right.

Speaker at APLAM Event: Any company can have anice website, just like anybody can have a nice Face-book photo. And then you meet them in person andyou go "Oh my god".

Prof. Klein: We'll have a course on Rent-a-Cop.3L: I want to rent a cop... on my birthday.

Prof. Adamski: Curran is an Irish name. I guess theyshouldn't have trusted him any more than they'dtrust a leprechaun. Leprechauns are quite malevo-lent. Unless they are the Lucky Charms in the cereal.

!"#$%&!%$&%'#()**#&#$+#,+%-

!"#$%"&#'("&)*+%$,$"-$.**/(-&)*0,,$"-$.

journal des étudiant-e-s en droit de l’université mcgill...

Documents