QUID
NOVI
Journal des étudiant-e-s
en droit de l’université McGill
Published by the McGill Law
Students’ Association
Volume 36, no 7
11 novembre 2014 | November 11, 2014
QN •
11 NOV 2014
•1
QUID
NOVI
QUID NOVI
3644 Peel Street
Montréal, Québec H2A 1X1
quid.law@mcgill.ca
http://quid.mcgill.ca/
http://www.quidnovi.ca
EDITORS IN CHIEF
Melissa Cederqvist
Ying Cheng
Nathan Cudicio
IN-HOUSE DIVA EMERITUS
Charlie Feldman
LAYOUT EDITORS
Fortunat Nadima
Sunny Yang
ASSOCIATE REVIEWERS
Pouneh Davar-Ardakani
Kaishan He
Lindsay Little
Elspeth McMurray
Samantha Rudolph
David Searle
Andrew Stuart
STAFF WRITERS
Linda Agaby
Samantha Rudolph
Suzanne Zaccour
Agatha Wong
Journal des étudiant-e-s
en droit de l’université McGill
McGill Law’s Weekly Student Newspaper
Volume 36, no 7
11 novembre 2014 | November 11, 2014
What’s inside ?
Quel est le contenu ?
ÉDITO3
a dangerous assumption4
LETTRE À CARACTÈRE FÉMINISTE ADRESSÉE À L’ÉDITORIALISTE5
FEMINISM IS INCONVENIENT... BUT NECESSARY
6
CE QU’IL Y A À PERDRE7
ÉDITION HISTORIQUE DU CODE CIVIL8
TOWARDS A MORE EQUITABLE PEDAGOGY
9
ON CIVILITY: A REFLECTION ON THE DEBATES SURROUNDING THE OTTAWA
SHOOTING, TANGENTS, AND FEMINISM10
NOTES FROM THE MANAGING EDITOR
11
PARLONS BIEN-ÊTRE ET SANTÉ MENTALE!
13
tHE LEARNING CURVE: PREPARING FOR EXAMS
15
LIBRARY NEWS16
GRADUATE STUDIES AT MCGILL
17
MENTAL HEALTH: THE LAST FRONTIER OF STIGMA AND
DISCRIMINATION19
THE POPPY TEST
20
ADVICE FROM BLAW BLAW BLAW
22
in flanders fields
24
THE DOS AND DON’T’S OF ARGUING ON FACEBOOK: A FLOWCHART25
Ukraine’s October Elections Dispatch #1
26
TWO FOR ONE
28
mcgill law memes
29
OVERHEARDS30
better than taking notes
31
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.
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.
Contributions should preferably be submitted
as a .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 2014 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.
Co-Editor-in-Chief
melissa
cederqvist
dialogue & perspective
It’s the second week of November and it seems appropriate to do a little scribbling about stress. A few weeks
ago there was the incident on Parliament Hill during
which we were chained to our Twitter feeds, concerned
for friends and family living in Ottawa. The revelations
surrounding Jian Gomeshi have been stressful for those
who’ve experienced abuse, often women, who know
what it’s like to be afraid to come forward and to be
met with disbelief and accusations. Here at the faculty
it’s not only school-stress which is heating things up but
the now-infamous Facebook Thread which prompted an
important discussion of sexism but in a way which was
perhaps less productive than it could have been.
Our editorial policy states that we try to avoid fostering through publication unnecessary hostility amongst
students, while remaining open to student content and
commentary on tough issues. It’s not an easy balancing
act, and sometimes it doesn’t work, but we really do try
our best. Quid editorial policy can also be interpreted
as trying to avoid creating a stressful environment for
students in the faculty and a close reading of our hallowed policy results in a plea: everyone, please respect
each other. We’re in law school and the readings are
long and everything is hard and the last thing we need
is a student paper which instead of facilitating conversation chills participation and puts the brakes on discussion where discussion is really needed.
But there’s also the daily stress of sexism which is
invisible to—and often denied by—those who don’t
experience it. As a woman, my experience in my first
semester has been different than that of my male colleagues. Over the last two and a half months I’ve had three
instances of either being followed home or grabbed by
strangers on the street at night, which is in my experience just par for the course to be a woman because my
body is not seen as my own. I’ve also seen the perspectives of women underrepresented in a lot of first-year
course content—an observation which doesn’t even get
into the conspicuous absence of legal scholarship which
challenges racist, classist and colonialist assumptions
embedded in much of the law’s logic.
And yes, I too have been told that merely bringing this
stuff up is “divisive” because it’s uncomfortable. Because
it’s irrelevant to those who doesn’t struggle with these
issues. Because it’s not useful on exams. Law has been
hard because, like law Professor Ann Scales wrote, “law
school is often emotional torture for women and other
outsiders. From the very beginning, we can sense the
contradictions. We see the particular point-of-view
embedded in the law’s alleged neutrality. We feel the
coercion that fuels the democratic ideal of law. We are
left breathless by the circularity with which the system
rationalizes itself.”[1]
So I get it, but we also need to remember to think about
our end goals and how the language we use can make
for bad politics. The point is, although a lot has been
said, I don’t feel represented in the tone of the current
discussion and because of the tone I must not be the
only one who doesn’t even feel safe entering into it for
fear of being misunderstood and labelled.
Men need to hear women’s perspectives. But because
most have never taken a women’s studies course or
been introduced to bell hooks or Judith Butler, if their
first exposure to feminist theory means facing snark
and sarcasm and having rhetorical bricks thrown at
them, they won’t explore gender issues. On the other
hand, the success of this conversation also requires
acknowledging women’s experiences and understanding how they are often drastically different than men’s
and often painful. [2] All this calls for empathy, which is
the regard for the basic human dignity and emotional
well-being of the other person and the resolve to see
the other as a person no matter how frustrating the
conversation is, or how hard it is to make them understand your lived experience. And yes, it is frustrating. But
getting anywhere on this issue requires honesty and a
lot of effort.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 17
QN •
11 NOV 2014
•3
Law III
erin
moores
a dangerous assumption
Hm. One wonders what the point is, exactly, of Nathan Cudicio’s
editorial in last week’s Quid. We know that his point isn’t to thoroughly engage with the fact that gender discrimination doesn’t
just happen to women; he tells us that much. We also know his
point is not to simply defend men as a gender; he tells us that
too. By the end, he does tell us, I suppose, that if we “insist on
wanting to find an objective in his words” – and I will insist,
thanks – then we should see it as him attempting to “shine a light
on common ground between the two sexes” as a precursor to the
discussion that he imagines the four feminist articles published in
that issue of the Quid will generate.
of mansplaining, which is when a man assumes he knows more
than a woman about a topic simply because she is woman; or
when a man tries to tell a woman what her experience is; or
when he tries to devalue her experience as a woman. Does
that sound familiar? It has been known to happen when a man
watches one 13-minute video that is sort of about feminism and
then tries to suggest to well-informed, experienced feminists,
who have spent years learning and discussing and reading about
the topic, that their view of feminism is wrong.
You’ll find some work by male feminists or pro-feminists (it still
being up for debate whether “feminism” should be used to
Hm. If that is the true point, what is that common ground he’s
describe men). These men understand that you cannot simply be
shining a light on? That is, if it isn’t the fact that people of all gen- “presumed” feminist because, well, being a feminist is actually
ders can be discriminated against? Unfortunately, I cannot tell.
a fuckload of work. It requires listening to women’s experiences
and accepting them as truth even though they are different from
Nathan suggests that we consider his proposition that perhaps
men’s experiences; it requires calling out your buddies when they
“we should all, wanting the best for our society, be considered
make sexist jokes; it involves stepping down from or refusing to
feminists until proven otherwise” and take it as a given that
take positions of authority and power in order make space for
people want equality of the sexes. Ah. Maybe this is it, the com- women to be in those positions. These men know that if men are
mon ground he’s referring to? He is telling us that we all really
not participating enough in ending gender oppression, it’s not
want the best for our society at the end of the day, both men
because Emma Watson hadn’t formally invited them to the table.
and women, all people of all genders. So let’s give everyone the
benefit of the doubt.
You’ll find lots of feminist criticism, by the way, of Watson’s UN
speech, which I’d suggest for anyone whose knowledge of femiUnfortunately, Nathan has not shone a light on anything I might nism, like yours, appears to be limited to what was said in those
have in common with men, from my point of view as a woman
13 minutes. I won’t reiterate my own informed feminist opinion
and feminist. All he has shone a light on here is the stark diffeon the speech here - you can just listen to the interview I gave on
rence in privilege between men and people of other genders that CBC Radio’s Home Run.
patriarchy has created. This difference in privilege allows men to
presume that others want gender equality – even that they are
More importantly, you’ll find that everywhere, non-men are
even feminists – without risk to their own safety or to their life.
subjected to systemic violence in a truly horrifying variety and
Unfortunately, women and people of other genders are not quite quantity of forms. Feminists have suffered death threats, rape
so lucky as Nathan.
threats, and bomb threats for saying feminist things – most
recently in the highly publicized case of media critic and gamer
You, Nathan, want us to have rational discussions about gender
Anita Sarkeesian. A person threatened to shoot her and her fans
discrimination, it seems. I’d be glad to do that with anyone who
to death because she says in public that the gaming world was
has taken responsibility for informing themselves first, using all
discriminatory towards women. Do you still want to be presumed
the nuanced, thoughtful, and challenging literature on the topic
feminist now that you know you might get death threats because
available at the touch of a button. I usually don’t engage with
of it? Wait, that’s not true, only non-male feminists tend to get
people properly on this topic unless they’ve already done that – I death threats. Never mind.
just don’t have that much time to educate everyone on Sexism
101 when all the information is out there already – but I’ll break You’ll find a great many people making otherwise mean, insulmy rule here and summarize a bit what you’ll find when you do
ting, and derogatory comments to women who even dare to
your research.
discuss how unequal women are, how oppressed women are, or
that our society might have a problem with how we treat women.
You’ll find whole Tumblrs about women’s experiences as targets You’ll find a great many studies supporting the idea that due to
QN •
11 NOV 2014
•4
inherent biases that probably have nothing to do with hate, nonmen are still highly discriminated against at work, school, and
when they seek health services, just to name a few examples.
You’ll find politicians and judges still saying things that imply that
women are inferior to men and show staggering ignorance of
decades of rigorous research on the oppression of women. You’ll
find out that many women every day are assaulted, raped, and
killed – usually by men they know, by people they might have
assumed believed in gender equality and therefore wouldn’t
assault, rape, or kill them. If you read last year’s special Consent
issue of the Quid, you can even read sexual assault stories from
women you probably sit beside in class sometimes or talk to in
the halls.
And you ask me to presume that everyone’s a feminist? Not
only is your suggestion totally illogical and irrational based on all
available evidence and experience, but it asks me to put myself,
as a non-man, in downright dangerous situations. Thankfully (I
guess?) I have been assaulted, degraded, insulted, excluded, and
mansplained enough, just for being a woman or for suggesting
women are oppressed, to have ditched your suggested assump-
tion years ago. It sure didn’t serve me well, and it just doesn’t
reflect reality: if most people were really feminists, this violence
would have already ended.
So shining a light on common ground between the sexes? I
don’t think you achieved it, Nathan. And you know what else my
experience and my knowledge tell me? I don’t believe that’s even
what you were really trying to do with your editorial. I think you
are uncomfortable with the articles that feminists wrote and you
therefore chose to indirectly link our articles with man-hating,
or hate in general. In this way you were trying to discredit us, to
pass off our thinking, our work, our experience as mere empty
sensationalism. You’re just attempting to veil it all in rhetoric
about wanting discussion, not division, in rhetoric about encouraging finding common ground rather than differences. I’ve seen it
before, many, many times. And I don’t buy it.
Good thing I didn’t assume you were a feminist. I’d be disappointed now, wouldn’t I?
Law II
suzanne
zaccour
LETTRE À CARACTÈRE FÉMINISTE
ADRESSÉE À L’ÉDITORIALISTE
Cher Nathan,
as donné un Quid dont la première phrase présente des articles «
que l’on pourrait décrire comme étant à caractère féministe ».
C’est avec intérêt et enthousiasme que j’ai ouvert le Quid Novi
mardi passé. C’est à grands renforts de sang-froid que j’ai résisté
à l’envie de le déchirer après l’avoir refermé.
Ceci étant dit, tu racontes que le Quid a « vite embrassé cette
opportunité », celle d’une édition féministe. Belle façon de
revisiter l’histoire, surtout quand la phrase introductive de notre
article collectif, celle qui précisait que le texte publié n’était pas
Tu aurais dû nous entendre, criant presque d’indignation,
quelques heures après la publication de ton éditorial. Attendant conforme à celui qui avait été endossé par les cosignataires, a
la conférence commémorant le 50e anniversaire de la Loi sur la
été censurée. Je dirais plutôt que le Quid a tout fait pour éviter
capacité juridique des femmes mariées, le noyau indocile du Col- qu’il soit publié, passant de « on ne sait pas si ça sera publié » à
lectif féministe hésitait entre rires et pleurs, outrées et franche- « évidemment, on vous a déjà donné l’autorisation de paraphrament déçues que nous étions des mots du coéditeur-en-chef d’un ser des élèves sans les nommer » à « on verra » à « on publie »
journal dans lequel nous ne nous reconnaissions plus.
à « finalement ça ne passe pas, veuillez changer l’article dans les
prochaines heures ». Une variété de prétextes étaient également
Si je ne suis pas la seule à t’adresser une réponse, c’est que,
au menu, depuis la création d’un « environnement hostile » (ce
hélas, tu nous as donné assez de matériel pour remplir trois
n’est ni l’intimidation ni le sexisme qui crée l’hostilité, mais bien
éditions du Quid.
le féminisme) au problème de reconnaissance des étudiant-es paraphrasé-e-s (même après avoir suggéré de supprimer la
D’abord, une précision. « Féministe », ce n’est pas un gros mot.
discussion Facebook qui les rendait identifiables) à la protection
du caractère privé des commentaires (publiés dans un groupe de
Ce n’est pas une insulte, ce n’est pas un sacre, ce n’est pas un
400 personnes). Je comprends la situation délicate dans laquelle
adjectif qui a besoin d’être dilué par de multiples détours et
se trouvent les responsables du Quid lorsqu’ielles doivent
euphémismes. J’ai publié un article féministe. Je fais partie du
prendre rapidement une décision quant à la parution d’un article
collectif féministe. Je tiens un blogue féministe. Et, comme je
l’avais exprimé à l’occasion de la campagne photo du Collectif l’an qui risque de faire du bruit. Je comprends le traumatisme suite
passé, je suis féministe. Inutile d’avoir si peur du mot que tu nous au scandale de l’an passé. Mais je me permets de proposer que
QN •
11 NOV 2014
•5
le Quid a mal appris. L’an passé, une blague de viol a été citée
dans la section « comique » du journal. La réaction a été forte et
immédiate, et le Quid a eu à remettre en question sa politique
éditoriale. Or, il semblerait qu’il en ait retiré une peur maladive
des propos rapportés, comme si le problème était la citation et
non la banalisation du viol. À ce jour, le Quid est frileux par rapport à la paraphrase mais n’a toujours pas de politique de nonpublication des propos sexistes, comme l’illustre le Overheard sur
une gold digger d’il y a quelques semaines.
Pour finir, un mot sur le classique « les hommes ne sont pas tous
sexistes » (#NotAllMen, voir la BD publiée en tout petit dans la
dernière édition) et « les hommes sont aussi victimes du sexisme
». NON! Juste, non! Les hommes ne sont pas opprimés en tant
qu’hommes, quoi qu’en dise Emma Watson. Au lieu d’attaquer
une énième fois la logique de cet argument, je me contenterai
d’en tirer les conclusions : Prémisse 1) Les femmes sont victimes du patriarcat. Prémisse 2) Les hommes sont victimes du
patriarcat. Conclusion) Il n’y a que des victimes, et l’oppression,
en fait, tombe du ciel. 20% d’entre nous subissent de la violence
conjugale? Ce n’est pas qu’un homme sur 5 est violent, comme
l’indique Amnistie Internationale, mais que les coups sortent de
nulle part. Quand nous vivons une #AgressionJamaisDénoncée,
c’est en réalité parce qu’il n’y a aucun coupable, aucun agresseur.
Ce ne sont pas non plus des hommes qui ont voté les restrictions
à l’avortement (qui, évidemment, affectent autant les hommes
(cis) que les femmes (cis)), elles se sont votées toutes seules.
C’est une belle job que tu nous laisse, aux « personnes qu’on
pourrait qualifier comme ayant des idées féministes » : combattre
un fantôme, nous rebeller (sans haine et avec le sourire!) contre
un oppresseur qui n’existe pas. Et puis, si jamais tu t’es trompé
dans ta mecsplication et qu’il existe, alors il ne faut surtout pas le
nommer, et il faut surtout absolument l’aimer.
Dans ton éditorial, tu réussis à adopter presque tous les comportements dénoncés dans notre article que tu as probablement lu
plus d’une fois. Il n’y a pas de consensus chez les féministes quant
à savoir si les hommes ont la légitimité pour s’exprimer sur le
sexisme et sur le féminisme. Je crois que nous sommes cependant toutes d’accord sur un point : si c’est pour mecspliquer et
enfiler les clichés, à peine déguisés sous le couvert d’une supposée bonne volonté, passe ton tour. Nous t’en serons reconnaissantes.
Law IV
FEMINISM IS INCONVENIENT…
BUT NECESSARY
allison
render
have work schedules and norms of parenting centered around
In the background of the recent backlash over an initiative to
reduce sexism in the faculty is not only the invisibility of discrimi- the stay-at-home mother.
nation to the privileged but also the fear of change.
Nathan Cudicio’s editorial in last week’s Quid calls on us to presume people are feminist until proven otherwise. But “feminism
It’s inconvenient when someone points out injustice, especially
lite” – merely stating men and women should be equal – is the
if it demands change. Change is scary. It means that those who
have traditionally been privileged may have to accept a little less, beginning and not the end. It leaves everyone off the hook for
and may have to do more to get what they had before. I think this the way structures perpetuate privilege as sexism isn’t just about
individual deviance. It’s about the way deep, subconscious norms
change makes us all better off in the long run, but getting there
shape our behavior and our thoughts. The same is true for other
may be uncomfortable for some.
kinds of prejudice such as racism, homophobia, and religious
animosity. Being a feminist means challenging these norms wheWe don’t just see this backlash in the law faculty. We see it
anytime women demand, not only to be admitted to institutions rever they are found, including in ourselves.
and structures, but also that those institutions – which have been
Most of the Facebook comments focused on one recommendadefined by men - change in order to include them.
tion from the initiative – equal representation of female authors
We see it when women, who don’t feel men are entitled to their in course packs – and ignored the others. The Feminist Collecbodies or their appreciation, call attention to street harassment. tive’s article last week did a good job of explaining this proposal,
but I’d like to add my perspective.
We see it when feminists such as Anita Sarkeesian are threatened for pointing out pervasive sexism in video games. We see it
when women advocating for affirmative consent laws are accused Most of my readings in law school – particularly in my first-year
courses - were written by men. This is especially true of cases,
of “ruining the fun” – as though only men are entitled to have
as most come from a time when there were few female lawyers,
fun on campus. This reluctance to change is why, decades after
much less female judges. Even today, two-thirds of Canadian
women entered the (paid) workforce in large numbers, we still
QN •
11 NOV 2014
•6
courses. Meanwhile, the structure of the first-year curriculum,
with its strong division between black-letter law and theory/
policy courses such as Foundations, contributes to a tendency for
students to see critical and policy readings as distractions from
learning the law. But lawyers don’t just need to understand abstract legal rules. They also need to understand how those rules
Course materials are not dictated by an objective, pre-existing list affect people. And half of those people are women.
of “essential” readings. There is choice involved. While it’s true
that certain legal rules need to be taught, and that you should be Including more female authors doesn’t necessarily mean more
familiar with leading cases in an area of law, there are many ways feminist or critical readings, though that would be welcome.
Female academics, including those in this faculty, have produced
of doing this and reading lists vary, even within the same law
excellent and relevant works from a variety of perspectives, incluschool.
ding more traditional doctrine. They should be given an equal
chance to influence legal minds.
These choices are likely not intentionally sexist but rather the
product of historical exclusion and the way subconscious sexism
still influences behaviour. This doesn’t mean underrepresentation We can debate whether resolving this situation requires strict
parity of male and female authors in course packs, and what
of women isn’t a problem. Because of historical discrimination,
exceptions to such a policy might exist. We can debate what kinds
the (white, heterosexual, wealthy) male voice made the law to
of teaching strategies will best include women in the classroom.
suit his needs – and his comments on the system were consideAnd these debates will happen, if this initiative moves forward.
red most important. The female voice, as well as that of other
marginalized groups such as racialized persons, the poor and the But while feminists are willing to explain why something is sexist
LGBTQ community, were left outside critiquing the system.
when the time is right, the demand to do this constantly, often
from people who do not take our experiences and our voices
When we continue to place traditional sources on a pedestal as
seriously, is exhausting. More debate is good, but not every time
“objective” and give them disproportionate weight in courses,
we perpetuate historical privilege and marginalization. This also you make a Facebook post looking for allies, especially at an early
contributes to backlash against approaches to law, such as that of stage of a project.
former Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, which differ from the way
law was historically defined by men, because they are viewed as So yes, feminism is inconvenient. It shakes your beliefs and
assumptions. It demands – and sometimes achieves – change
“subjective” and “not really law”.
which can affect you. But demanding that change isn’t reverse
Some McGill professors have done an admirable job deconsdiscrimination or man-hating. It’s only what’s necessary to be
tructing this hierarchy, but much of this happens in upper-year
truly inclusive.
judges are men, and the vast majority of those are white. Female
authors are also underrepresented in doctrinal selections. For
example, out of twenty-two readings in my first-year Legal
Methodology course pack, three (judging by the authors’ first
names) were by female authors.
Law II
sarah
chênevertbeaudoin
CE QU’IL Y A À PERDRE
J’ai suivi, comme plusieurs-es, l’élaboration du guide d’enseignement non sexiste. J’ai également lu les discussions sur Facebook
qui ont fait suite à l’appel à la mobilisation pour cette initiative.
J’ai été témoin de l’effort mis dans les modifications exigées pour
la publication de l’article « Antifeminist Backlash » afin que ce
dernier ne cite pas directement les noms des personnes ayant
pris part à la discussion. Finalement, l’éditorial du Quid m’a
profondément déçu de par ses références peu cohérentes entre
féminisme et men-hating. Mais je dois dire que dans la dernière
semaine, j’ai également eu l’occasion, encore une fois, d’être très
fière et inspirée par la conviction et l’intelligence des membres
qui ont défendu le droit de réfléchir et d’agir pour que le contenu, l’espace et la méthode d’enseignement à notre faculté soit
plus féministes.
Quant à moi, je ne participe pas souvent aux discussions sur
l’existence du sexisme parce que je ne crois pas qu’il soit possible
de convaincre les adultes qui, malgré leur éducation de qualité
et leurs expériences de vie que je suppose assez diversifiées,
persistent à ne pas voir l’inégalité entre les sexes. Ceci dit, je
discutais avec un ami de la faculté qui me racontait comment
la polémique sur Facebook avait donné lieu à une discussion
intéressante dans un groupe d’étudiants de la faculté. Selon ce
qu’il m’a dit, la discussion s’est terminée par un débat sur ce qu’il
y avait à perdre si une initiative visant à promouvoir et atteindre
un enseignement non sexiste était mise de l’avant.
C’est cette idée d’avoir quelque chose à perdre qui m’étonne
encore ce soir – selon ce que je comprends, soit les hommes de
QN •
11 NOV 2014
•7
la faculté n’ont rien à perdre d’une initiative menée par leurs col- D’un autre côté, la possibilité de ne rien avoir à perdre soulève,
quant à elle, l’échec de formuler la question de façon qui télègues féministes, soit ils ont quelque chose à perdre. Ces deux
moigne ouvertement d’un engagement réel envers le féminisme.
propositions sont troublantes.
La question devrait plutôt être : « qu’avons-nous à gagner d’un
enseignement non-sexiste? » Pour moi, un enseignement nonLa possibilité de perdre quelque chose soulève la possession de
quelque chose. Je n’ose même pas imaginer ce que ce « quelque sexiste permettrait plusieurs choses, la première étant, comme
mentionné préalablement, de sentir que la place que j’occupe
chose » est. Peut-être le sentiment du possible. Le sentiment
dans l’imaginaire et la narration juridique n’est pas seulement à
qu’il est possible d’être sur les photos dans nos classes, qu’il est
titre de victime d’agression, de femme cherchant à affirmer un
possible d’écrire un article sur les contrats, de devenir profesdroit de garde exclusif, de femme souffrant d’un choc psycholoseur de droit, de devenir juge, de devenir avocat, de devenir le
gique dans un jugement de négligence. Si cette proposition est
demandeur dans un litige de commerce international. Oui, bien
sûr, je sais qu’en tant que femme, privilégiée et éduquée en plus, peut-être un peu exagérée, elle tente d’illustrer le pouvoir de la
je peux rêver d’occuper toutes ces fonctions un jour. Mais ça me représentation équitable – il faut que ces histoires de femmes
survivantes ou victimes côtoient des voix de femmes qui, occusemble simplement un peu plus difficile. Parce que moins compant des positions de pouvoir, réfléchissent et écrivent sur leur
mun peut-être. Notre perception de la réalité est grandement
influencée par ce qui y est représenté – et dans notre enseigne- expérience et leur appréhension du droit et de la justice dans
notre société. Un enseignement non-sexiste me donnerait la
ment à la faculté de droit, les femmes sont moins représentées
confiance nécessaire pour continuer à apprendre afin de dévelopdans des positions de pouvoir et de réussite académique et
professionnelle. J’imagine que ça veut dire que pour y arriver, je per ma capacité d’agir et de contribuer pleinement à la commudevrai travailler extrêmement fort. Plus fort qu’un homme peut- nauté à laquelle j’adhère. Je n’ose croire que mes collègues de la
faculté ne me souhaitent pas exactement ça, à moi et à toutes les
être? Qui sait?
autres.
Professor
OPPORTUNITÉ PRÉCIEUSE – ÉDITION
HISTORIQUE DU CODE CIVIL À DONNER
– WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!
robert
leckey
Aimez-vous le droit civil québécois? Adorez-vous le
Code civil du Bas-Canada? Êtes-vous fasciné(e) par les
modifications apportées par le législateur à ce Code
entre 1866 et 1994? Au Centre Crépeau, nous avons
quelques exemplaires de trop de l’édition critique du
C.c.B.-C. L’édition est belle – quelle brune, la couverture! – et elle est solide. Si vous en voulez un exemplaire, présentez-vous au Centre Crépeau au 3e étage
du 3690, Peel, pendant les heures d’ouverture. Point
besoin de signaler votre intention de venir auparavant. Demandez à Manon Berthiaume (bureau 302)
ou à Anne-Sophie Hulin (bureau 305).
QN •
11 NOV 2014
•8
Law I
lana
belber
TOWARDS A MORE EQUITABLE
PEDAGOGY: WHAT LEGAL EDUCATION
CAN LEARN FROM ANTHROPOLOGY
During our first weeks of law school, we were encouraged to hold on tightly to our academic backgrounds. We were cautioned against tossing them out in favour of our newly-acquired legal knowledge.
With this in mind, I would like to share some insights that I think anthropology can provide to our legal
education as a graduate from McGill’s anthropology department.
Anthropology has been wrought with troubling dynamics from
its birth as a discipline. Emerging as a colonial venture, it maintained the power imbalance endemic to stripping away someone’s
subjectivity and categorizing them as an object of study- as an
“other”. What followed is a fascinating example of disciplinary
evolution and transformation. In the early 70s, feminist anthropologists helped bring about what has come to be known as the
“reflexive turn” in anthropology. This was catalyzed by a fundamental recognition that the voice of the anthropologist had been
synonymous with the voice of the white/male/educated/wealthy/Western academic. What’s more, it was a voice that failed
to recognize its relationship to or influence on the people that it
claimed to represent.
Yes. But it’s also because I think that legal pedagogy can stand
to learn a thing or two from a discipline that has in many ways
transformed itself from a colonial apparatus to a tool of social
justice.
As a result of this shift, anthropologists began to ask themselves
“Who am I?” as a matter of standard practice. This self-reflection has become a quintessential feature of anthropological
writing and study. The reflexive turn allowed anthropologists to
fully appreciate their social power as academics and creators of
truths. As a result, they have by and large turned to engaged (or
“ethical”) anthropology. Many now work towards ensuring that
the communities with which they work define their writing, and
that the writing does not define them. They publish work that
facilitates intercultural communication and community-level
activism.
Privilege is a layered phenomenon. Male privilege means being
able to walk alone late at night in most neighbourhoods without
fear of sexual assault. Financial privilege means not having to
accumulate debt while paying for your education. White privilege
means not being asked “what” you are or where you’re from
(despite having family roots in Canada for as many generations or
more than everyone else in the room). Ability or able-bodied privilege means not worrying about how you will climb a hill every
morning to get to class. The types of social privilege that exist
are almost innumerable. Privilege influences everything from our
access to employment and our safety to our social influence. An
intersectional perspective is helpful in allowing us to understand
how an individual may experience multiple levels of oppression,
multiple levels of privilege, or a combination of the two.
Anthropology is the most self-critical discipline I’ve studied. This
is true in terms of modern anthropological discourse, but also in
terms of the ways in which it was taught on lower campus during
my undergraduate degree at McGill University. It’s critical of the
voices represented in its literature, of the use that is made of
anthropological research and the allocation of its profits, and of
responsible uses of the academic and social capital that come
with one’s status as an anthropologist. In anthropology, critical
theory is not merely a stream or subset of anthropological learning; it constitutes the dominant tide of the discipline today. And
– it is worth noting – even with this constant self-critique, there is
still a lot of work to be done before anthropology can properly be
called an equitable discipline.
If you haven’t caught my drift yet, you may be asking yourself
why I’m still going on about anthropology. Is it because I miss it?
We can start by taking a “reflexive turn” of our own as students
of law and future lawyers. Privilege is uncomfortable to talk
about, but it is extraordinarily important. If we consider the
immense amount of social power that comes with a legal education, we may find that an educational institution that allows us
to go through an entire degree without pushing us to understand
our social location and relative positions of power may in fact be
doing us a disservice.
Discussions of privilege are empowering because they can make
us cognizant of the types of oppression that we experience but
might have normalized. By the same token, awareness of our own
privilege better positions us to understand that there are types of
oppression that we may not notice because we do not experience
them. This being the case, it is so important to listen when people
say that they experience a form of oppression unrecognized by or
unfamiliar to us. It is also important that we recognize the other
forms of oppression that may not be included in our efforts to
combat the types of oppression that we ourselves experience.
We must allow for a dialogue around equity at our faculty to
happen. If you do not experience a form of inequity that is under
QN •
11 NOV 2014
•9
discussion, you may want to consider being an ally. The best way
to start is to listen attentively. Otherwise, we risk creating an environment hostile to the sharing of experiences and perspectives
that are crucial to progress.
We must also consider institutional, social, and systemic barriers
and the factors in our academic environment that discourage
certain individuals or groups from speaking out about inequity.
So, how can we take a cue from anthropology? We can take a
reflexive turn on an individual scale, as well as on an institutional scale, in order to cultivate an equitable legal pedagogy. We
Law I
sammy
cheaib
should begin to think about the voices silenced in our literature,
as well as those silenced in our classrooms. There is a rich body
of critical race theory, feminist legal theory, queer legal theory,
and so much more, that is just waiting to be included at the core,
rather than the margins, of our curricula. Their inclusion need not
be tokenistic; these are the voices of today’s legal thought, and
an equally important component of a proper legal education.
To create a more just legal system, we must first create a more
equitable form of legal education. In order to reform our legal
education, we must first reform ourselves.
ON CIVILITY: A REFLECTION ON THE
DEBATES SURROUNDING THE OTTAWA
SHOOTING, TANGENTS, AND FEMINISM
We need to talk.
We all love to argue, or else we wouldn’t be here. But there is
one thing about debates that take place in our community—in
the Quid, Facebook, and in person—that I’ve noticed: there is
a tendency to argue invectively and condescendingly, without
regard for basic notions of civility. Consider the following:
climate-science deniers (in my view, a major insult). Others asked
if the initiative was a joke, and completely belittled the initial
poster’s opinion. In one of the ensuing Quid articles, the author
seemed to want to insult and patronise those who disagreed with
her. It was a mess. You can check it out for yourself.
Before we go on, a quick disclaimer. I am a feminist. I believe
there is sexism (and racism, homophobia, etc.) almost eveExample 1: The day the Ottawa shooting took place, one of my 1L rywhere you look, including in this faculty. I believe in the full
equality of genders, and in taking affirmative action to ensure
friends made a post on Facebook saying that there are unconequal representation, be it in university admissions, court
firmed reports about the shooter’s links to Islamic terrorism.
In general, posting this kind of stuff is questionable because it
appointments, or law school syllabi. I am an ally. Furthermore,
perpetuates stereotypes, even when labeled “Unconfirmed”. As I am not objecting to how people do their activism. If you make
such, many people objected. When someone told these commen- a tactical decision to be insulting because it fits your goals, then
ters to soften their standards because it’s just a Facebook post,
that’s a different story. We should leave the conversation on
he was told that he would never understand institutional racism effective activism for another time. For now, suffice it to say that
because of his race and gender. Ironically, both these posters
being mean and insulting is certainly the best form of activism in
have the same race and gender.
some instances.
Example 2: The anonymous “Tangents” Quid article and the
response by Elizabeth Robertson were even more brutal (Hi Liz!).
The initial article was oozing with sarcasm, condescension, and
plain rudeness (e.g. some students ask “ridiculous” questions,
some interjections are “senseless”), which I assume is one of the
reasons it was not well-received by the rest of the student body.
The response was even more vicious: there were some clear personal attacks (e.g. “who do you think you are?”), even an “I don’t
give a shit” thrown in for good measure.
But when you write in the Quid, or post in a public forum, or
loudly espouse your views, you often start a conversation. And in
the examples above, there clearly were dialogues taking place,
and rude things were said within these dialogues—as part of
these conversations. General notions of civil discussion—being
charitable to others, inclusive, open to others’ point of view,
letting arguments speak for themselves—were tossed by the
wayside. Some people did not do more than offer up personal
attacks.
Example 3: The infamous Suzanne Zaccour Facebook post, as
well as the articles in the Quid that it birthed, were arguably the
worst. The comments were generally patronising on both sides.
One person likened those she was debating to creationists and
To be fair, we sometimes enjoy these kinds of disses. People say
stuff like “Burn!” and “Cassé!” as they give you high-fives and pat
you on the back. But—call me an optimist—in a community of
accomplished people, these could have been great conversations
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 10
(about racist stereotypes in the media, what are appropriate
questions to ask in class, what a law school syllabus with gender parity would look like, etc.). Given the right circumstances,
people would have been open-minded and amenable to evidence
which conflicts with their beliefs. We would have learned from
each other; benefited from each other’s wisdom and unique
experience. Instead, we got bitterness and animosity.
Basically, you shouldn’t play nice because you’re hurting people’s
feelings. We are not precious butterflies and can all handle being
insulted. But you should play nice because it makes us smarter
and more sensible. It makes us cooler. And it makes our little
faculty more fun.
I think there is another reason for being civil when we discuss
important issues. It is more profound, but harder to sketch out.
Basically, life is short and shitty things happen all the time. But
some things make life worth living: the love of others, achieving
your goals, minimizing the suffering of other sentient beings,
irony, intellectual growth, aesthetic experiences, and great
conversation. You know, the kind of conversation that you don’t
want to end despite the fact that you’re late for something—the
kind of conversation that you can’t stop thinking about on your
cold walk home—the kind of conversation that humbles you,
that makes you realize that you’ve been wrong about something
you’ve thought was so obvious.
When we argue uncivilly, we not only prevent ourselves from
learning from others, but deny ourselves a precious—indeed,
a sacred—pleasure. So please, think twice before you write
something rude or condescending. We all stand to benefit.
In-House Diva
CHARLIE
FELdman
NOTES FROM THE
MANAGING EDITOR…
First things first: Apologies Where Due
We apologize. Two important production mistakes were made
last week.
First, an announcement from the McGill Journal of Law and
Health did not print in last week’s submission despite being
submitted before deadline. Its absence was an oversight on our
end that was particularly unfortunate since the announcement
was submitted to coincide with the student fee referendum.
Our sincerest apologies to Editor-in-Chief Jennifer Anderson and
everyone at the MJLH. The announcement is printed in this issue
on page 14.
By no means was the line purposefully censored – to have done
so without notice elsewhere in the issue would have violated
our Policy. Mistakes happen - the Layout Editor was provided too
many versions of the article by the Editors-in-Chief and this was
not caught in the final review. Yes, it’s our fault for asking for so
many revisions that we contributed to our own internal confusion.
None of this excuses our mistakes. To be clear an unequivocal,
the absence of this line from the submitted final Feminist Collective piece – as well as the non-print of the MJLH announcement
- are mistakes for which we apologize. Neither was intentional on
our side by any means.
Second, a miscommunication caused the inadvertent removal of
a sentence from the start of an article. Specifically, the piece by
Second: A Production Perspective
the Feminist Collective should have included – in the article’s text
– “Please note that this article was modified in order to satisfy
In her piece this week, Suzanne Zaccour writes:
the Quid’s editorial policy and does not accurately reflect the
initial text.”
Je dirais plutôt que le Quid a tout fait pour éviter qu’il soit
publié, passant de « on ne sait pas si ça sera publié » à « éviReference is made in this week’s publication to this issue.
demment, on vous a déjà donné l’autorisation de paraphraSuzanne Zaccour’s piece this week - in response to last week’s
ser des élèves sans les nommer » à « on verra » à « on publie
Editorial - notes:
» à « finalement ça ne passe pas, veuillez changer l’article
dans les prochaines heures ». Une variété de prétextes
Ceci étant dit, tu racontes que le Quid a « vite embrassé cette
étaient également au menu, depuis la création d’un « enviopportunité », celle d’une édition féministe. Belle façon de
ronnement hostile » (ce n’est ni l’intimidation ni le sexisme
revisiter l’histoire, surtout quand la phrase introductive de
qui crée l’hostilité, mais bien le féminisme) au problème de
notre article collectif, celle qui précisait que le texte publié
reconnaissance des étudiant-e-s paraphrasé-e-s […]
n’était pas conforme à celui qui avait été endossé par les
cosignataires, a été censurée.
Since the beginning is « Je dirais plutôt », which I read as offering
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 11
her perspective, I will offer mine from the production side. I do
not believe either is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ - rather, I suggest that it is
wholly possible to see the same situation from two perspectives.
Zaccour, 6-8 from the Feminist Collective, 8-9 from Stephanie
Dumptruck, and page 10 to the top of page 11 from Erin Moores
– in total, 6.25 pages of content. Subtracting that from 20 we are
at 14.5 – not enough to go to press. I’m not saying I deserve a pat
To her great credit, Suzanne asked the Quid about the quoting
on the back for my three pages re Quid Policy (12-14) for bringing
of comments from Facebook prior to submitting any article.
us up to page count – but I am saying the work of getting an issue
Answering this based on the Policy was not easy – and you can
that was at roughly 11 pages on Thursday night at deadline and
find some personal reflections on this in my column last week.
marshalling it to 20 by Monday morning’s printing cut-off – while
Ultimately, it is clear that we cannot prejudge an article we have still ensuring appropriate and adequate review of everything –
not seen – so we endeavored to provide an overview of the Policy takes more effort on the Quid’s part than perhaps people realize.
considerations at play. Admittedly, this was given to the submitter In that regard, I’d particularly like to salute our Layout Editor for
without much time before the deadline – a function of the time
going above and beyond the call of duty.
it took to debate the Policy and not with any malicious intention
vis-à-vis publishing a particular point of view.
Nathan, as Editor-in-Chief in charge last week, had the option
on Thursday not to go to press because of a lack of content.
Inevitably, a back-and-forth ensued between the Quid and the
That remained the case even with additional submissions Friday.
submitters over the weekend. On our end, this was necessitated Further, the Editorial Team had the option to hold any or all of
because each submission has to be re-read from a Policy standthem for broader consultation, which they chose not to do - and
point, and in some cases one Policy issue may be corrected only instead worked hard and fast to get an issue to print on time.
for another to arise or become clearer. Our goal is to make this as
smooth as possible for the submitter and to be consistent. I will
From this perspective I don’t arrive, as does Suzanne Zaccour, at
be the first to admit we do not always meet the mark.
“le Quid a tout fait pour éviter qu’il soit publié,” but I understand
both how and why this might be a perspective on the same fact
While this week the situation is described as “le Quid a tout fait
situation. I appreciate the perspective because it tells us our
pour éviter qu’il soit publié” I’d like to propose an alternative nar- communication could be improved both internally and externally.
rative. Editors pushed their plans aside to deal with late articles, We should have been clearer about what we were doing, why,
the Layout team worked above and beyond to deal with new
and how - and perhaps the perception would have been different
and shifting content, etc. That said, it is ALSO TRUE that those
as a result.
involved in submitting the piece had their weekends upended
through the back-and-forth.
Third: A Comic Too Small?
Lest there be any appearance of a lack of willingness on the Quid
side, recall that the Editorial Team could have held several of last The Quid heard - and reference appears this week - from those
week’s pieces for a week to consult as per the Policy. They chose who felt the comic submitted in last week’s issue should have
to forge ahead. Moreover, the deadline was extended for submis- been larger. While I believe it printed legibly – and had this
sion last week – not long after the desire was expressed by the
view confirmed unanimously in my consultations post-printing,
submitters that since these articles had a sense of timely urgency I understand not everyone feels the same way. I’ll say we can
we needed to go to press.
agree to disagree on this point.
While we welcomed those who chose to take advantage of this
extended deadline – and appreciate the mobilization of the
Feminist Collective in this regard to provide enough content to
go to press – the submitting of an article to us is not the end of
the road. Rather, it’s the beginning of the process – from there
it needs to be reviewed, edited, formatted, put in layout, page
numbers adjusted, etc. There is more work to be done in less
time on our end and by fewer people over the weekend.
One factor at play relates to the fact that the Quid has to be completed in 4-page multiples (i.e. 16, 20, 24 pages, etc.) for printing
purposes. We do not generally go to press below 16 pages. If
we’re at, say, 16 pages and debating whether or not to publish,
sending us a one page article isn’t sufficient as we’ll still need to
fill three pages with content or we’re wasting paper.
Last week’s Quid was 20 pages. If we add up the articles on feminism/sexism last week, we see content on page 5 from Suzanne
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 12
For what it may be worth, the comic was presented to the Quid
as a companion item to the Feminist Collective piece. The thinking was that it had to go on the same page. The issue (see above
re page spacing) is that, when all was said and done we found
ourselves at 20 pages – it couldn’t go anywhere else without
having to add an additional three pages of content or cutting a
full page somewhere.
In looking over the issue again post-printing, I realize it could
have, in theory, gone on the back cover in place of the ad for
our Facebook page. This suggestion was not raised. Had it been,
there would have been a discussion about the appropriateness of
this given it was not content created by someone at the Faculty.
Whether the Quid should reprint at all that which can be found
elsewhere and for which the McGill/Faculty nexus is weak in
terms of author and/or content is another question for another
day.
Fourth: Apologies to the SAO
A tongue-in-cheek comment in last week’s Overheards appeared
to denigrate the fine work of the individuals on the 4th floor and
more consideration should have been given by the Quid for how
individuals – particularly at the SAO – might perceive this comment. The Quid knows that re exams the SAO must, inter alia, revise, approve, and print them, ensure everything works with the
exam software, and hire invigilators. Certainly, Overheards are
meant to make people laugh – we realize not everyone laughed
at this. For that, I would like to sincerely apologize to the SAO and
wish them the best of luck as they head into exam season – the
Quid knows there is a lot of work ahead.
this Faculty is missing. That is something that will be corrected
shortly.
Final Thought:
We wholeheartedly welcome your suggestions for improvement
as we strive to be the best Quid possible. Recall the start of our
Policy: The Quid belongs to all law students. If you have any suggestions or ideas for YOUR student paper, let us know. We love
the debate of ideas, especially if it means you’re thinking about
this rag-tag publication, the role it serves at the Faculty, and how
best it can balance the competing interests, desires, and perspectives of all those at NCDH. We don’t always get it right, but we
Our Policy currently calls for assessing “an individual appreciation strive each week to do our very best.
of the potential reaction to said material by the student body,
professors, alumni, and the Montreal legal community.” Staff of
Have a great week!
Student
well-being
committee
LET’S TALK ABOUT $50K FOR WELLBEING
& MENTAL HEALTH !
PARLONS BIEN-ÊTRE ET SANTÉ MENTALE!
It’s time for action! L’an dernier, les étudiant-e-s ont affecté par
référendum un surplus de 50 000 $ de l’AÉD à la santé mentale.
And now, the Student Well-Being Committee is tasked with determining the best way to spend this money, and we are looking for
your input!
The issue is real. Last year, the survey conducted by the SWB
Committee revealed alarming levels of stress and anxiety among
McGill Law students : « During the last school year, more than 7
out of 10 law students reported feeling overwhelmed, exhausted
or anxious. Over half reported feeling sad, and approximately
40% felt depressed. Anger and hopelessness was reported by
over 25% of respondents. »
• Quand? mercredi 12 novembre 2014 à 13h00
• Où? en salle 203 NCDH
• What for? To discuss potential projects that will help alleviate stress and improve the overall well-being of students.
And because wellbeing starts with little things, SNACKS WILL BE
PROVIDED :-D
If you are unable to attend we encourage you to send your input
by writing to studentwellbeing.mcgill@gmail.com.
Avez-vous des commentaires ou des idées sur qui influencerait de
façon systémique le bien-être et la santé mentale des étudiants?
Joignez-vous à nous pour une séance de remue-méninges («
brainstorming ») sur la question!
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 13
MERCI POUR VOTRE SOUTIEN!
Dear fellow McGill law students,
Au nom de la Revue de droit et santé de McGill | McGill Journal of Law and Health, nous
vous remercions pour votre soutien extraordinaire lors du référendum qui a eu lieu l’avantdernière semaine. We are tremendously proud to be part of this institution, and profoundly
grateful that so many of you took the time to reaffirm our place within it.
Soyez assurés que nous ne nous reposerons pas sur nos lauriers! We look forward to bringing
you more interdisciplinary events, more cutting-edge commentary on our website, and more
fascinating articles by leading authors across Canada and beyond in our journal.
Parmi nos nombreuses initiatives en voici quelques-unes qui pourraient vous intéresser:
- Our latest blog post on the lack of safe drinking water in First Nations communities
(online now at http://mjlh.mcgill.ca!)
- A seminar on the new “right to die” legislation on Nov. 26 at 6 PM
- Our annual colloquium on Saturday, Feb. 21 on mental illness and the criminal law
Les 43 étudiants contribuant à la Revue en 2014-15 s’efforcent d’en faire une année dynamique
et accueillante! Our projects wouldn’t be possible without the support you’ve shown us.
Encore une fois, merci!
~The McGill Journal of Law and Health Executive Committee:
Jennifer Anderson
Editor-in-Chief
Rédactrice en chef
David Hamel
Rédacteur exécutif pour le français
Executive French Editor
Samantha Allen
Rédactrice exécutive administrative
Executive Managing Editor
Hersi Hujaleh
Executive English Editor
Rédacteur exécutif pour l’anglais
Katarina Daniels
Executive Online Editor
Rédactrice exécutive en ligne
Benny Chan
Rédacteur exécutif pour la sollicitation et les abonnements
Executive Solicitations & Subscriptions Editor
PS: Follow us on Twitter to stay up to date on our activities and the latest news in law and
health: @McGill_JLH
Law IV
ALLISON
RENDER
THE LEARNING CURVE
PREPARING FOR EXAMS
This is a weekly column about law school and learning. The best advice is to do what works
best for you – but hopefully this column can help you figure out what that might be.
Law exams, like the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, should be
covered with big flashing letters saying “DON’T PANIC”.
Seriously, don’t. Though your December exams will be totally
unlike any other exam you wrote before law school, everyone
else is in the same situation. And you’ll all get through it.
I don’t recommend redoing all the readings, but it may help for
the ones that were most important, ones that you didn’t understand, or that you didn’t read the first time. Chances are you will
notice new things – take note of them. My textbooks are full of
margin notes, mostly written on the second pass.
If you’ve been reading my column until now you’ve probably
discerned three big lessons:
1. You don’t need to know everything in the readings;
2. You need to do a lot more than memorize the readings;
3. Law school is about more than exams.
Spend some time with the Civil Code, especially for Droit des
biens. You will be asked to apply these rules as well, and their
application can depend on drafting nuances or the architecture of
the Code. If you are familiar with the Code you can more quickly
find the relevant sections during an exam.
When preparing for exams, keep these lessons in mind.
Identify themes (see previous column) that tie the course materials together. You may wish to prepare a list of cases or topics
relevant to each theme. For some classes you will be able to
predict the exam issues or questions based on what the professor
emphasized in class. At the very least, you should now have a better idea of what issues in the readings were most important and
which can be safely ignored.
You need to learn the material in a way that is useful for the
exam. This means that you have to understand it deeply. This
does not mean learning more details. It’s not enough to recite
the rule “a contract in the common law requires consideration”,
or even to recite the facts of all the cases about consideration.
You have to be able to identify what, in a fact pattern, could
constitute consideration and explain why. You also have to do
it in a very limited time – most students write for the full three
hours available to them during an exam. One reason students run
out of time on exams is because they didn’t have a good enough
grasp of the material and needed to flip through their summary.
Don’t waste your time preparing the perfect summary, because
you won’t have time to consult it. Spend your time learning it.
There’s no perfect time to start studying for finals. Ideally you’ve
kept up with the material throughout the semester and have a
solid grasp of it now. But by one-and-a-half to two weeks before
your first exam, most of your summaries (whether PubDocs or
original) should be reasonably complete, to allow you time to
learn from them. Don’t focus so much on your first exam that you
don’t study enough for the later ones.
Your first step is to learn what is in your summary. Just reading it
is probably not enough. My preferred method is to cover up all
but the title of a reading or topic, and recite what I can remember about it. Other methods may work better for you. It helps to
incorporate some “active” components in your studying, such
as preparing a mind-map for the course, or explaining interjurisdictional immunity to your non-law roommate. Some people
make flashcards, or take notes on their summaries. Use the study
techniques that worked for you in CEGEP or your undergraduate
education.
Draft your “super-summary” or exam flow-chart (see previous
column). This not only provides an at-a-glance reference for the
entire course, but also can help you make sure you don’t miss a
step on a fact-pattern question. I like to have separate columns
for the two legal systems, with the names of the relevant common law cases and codal articles.
Read any guidelines your professor has provided about exam
writing, and pay attention to any comments they make in class.
Some professors are very clear about their expectations, and
when they are, there is no excuse for ignoring them (though
many students do).
Do a practice exam, if you can get one. Two hours on a practice
exam is probably worth more than two hours of reading your
summary. Many professors post their past exams on MyCourses.
It is best to do this once you have studied a reasonable amount of
the course material, but at least 3-4 days before the exam to give
you time to address any problems.
Study groups can be a hit-or-miss endeavour. Choose your study
buddies carefully, keep the group small, and make sure you have
a plan or it can turn into a meandering discussion of the whole
course. Study groups work best if people already have a good
grasp of the content and want to talk about discrete issues they
are having trouble with, compare practice exam answers or
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 15
brainstorm potential exam questions. Some students like to teach
topics to each other, which works if the instructors are prepared.
Stay healthy and relaxed. The law library is not always the best
place to study during exams, as anxiety can be contagious. Many
people prefer a café, other libraries, or their home. If you do
study at home, go outside at least once a day.
Get enough sleep. Law exams are a grind, and an extra hour of
sleep will probably help you more than an extra hour of studying,
especially the night before the exam.
And take all of my advice with a grain of salt. Everyone learns
differently, everyone studies differently. What worked for me may
not work for you.
Avoid the urge to study every waking moment. Pace yourself.
Take breaks every 2-3 hours to go for a walk, eat something
healthy, or talk to another human being. If you study for 12 hours The Learning Curve will wrap up next week with a discussion of
straight you will stop absorbing the material or find yourself rea- exam writing strategy.
ding and re-reading the same passages over and over again.
Librarian
SVETLANA
KOCHKINA
LAW LIBRARY NEWS
LAW RARE BOOKS: WAINWRIGHT COLLECTION
NOUVELLES ACQUISITIONS
Grace à la générosité du Wainwright Fund, qui attribue chaque
année un budget destiné au développement et élargissement
de la collection de notre bibliothèque dans les domaines du
droit civil non-Québécois, nous avons ajouté deux nouveaux
livres rares à la Collections Wainwright :
•
Cours ou explication du coustumier du pays de Vaud/
fait par Gabriel Olivier l’ainé. Lausanne : Frédérich Gentil, MDCCVIII [1708]
•
Remarques sur les loix et statuts du Pays de Vaud / par
J. Francois Boyve. A Neuchâtel : Chez les éditeurs du Journal
helvétique, MDCCLVI [1756]
Les deux ouvrages publiés au XVIIIe siècle sont consacrés au
droit coutumier et statutaire du Canton de Vaud (appelé autrefois le Pays de Vaud) de l’époque d’avant le Code Civil suisse
federal. Ces livres sont plus qu’un monument ou un vestige de
l’histoire du droit disparu il y a longtemps, car malgré l’adoption
d’un droit prive commun à toute la Suisse (Code Civil) en 1907,
des subsistances des coutumes locales persistent ponctuellement, d’ailleurs avec l’autorisation du celui-là : «À défaut d’une
disposition légale applicable, le juge prononce selon le droit
coutumier» (article 1, alinéa 2 du Code civil suisse).
Les livres sont aussi notables par leur aspect physique et
représentent un intérêt en tant que les artefacts dévoilant les
pratiques bibliophiliques du passé. Remarques sur les loix est
un volume parfaitement préservé et somptueusement relié en
plein cuir rouge sang d’époque avec les filets dorés sur les plats,
des fleurons et filets dorés au dos à 7 nerfs et les tranches avec
un décor très original et riche en bleu paon. Par contre, Cours
ou explication du coustumier est un ouvrage d’une apparence
simple et visiblement insignifiante avec les pages non-ébarbées,
ce qui veut dire avec ses marges conservées et non-égalisées,
relié modestement en cartonnage d’époque non-coloré et sans
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 16
aucun ornement.
Ce contraste frappant est un témoignage d’une étape de
l’histoire de l’imprimé : avant l’introduction de la fabrication
mécanisée des livres au milieu du XIXe siècle la majorité des
livres ont été vendus soit sans aucune reliure, comme cahiers
des feuilles pliées, non-cousues et non-coupées, soit avec les
reliures très rudimentaires en papier ou en carton. En achetant
un livre, le client commandait la reluire permanente chez le
vendeur, qui était parfois en même temps l’éditeur et le relieur,
sinon chez un autre relieur préféré. Évidemment, Remarques
sur les loix aurait appartenu à un bibliophile ou un avocat prospère qui a pu se permettre de l’avoir relié de cette façon assez
luxueuse. Le choix de reliure n’était dicté que par sa vanité et
ses moyens : un ouvrage pouvait être décoré avec les dorures
et les armoiries, relié en peau de vélin, en maroquin, en daim
ou en agneau velours, en chagrin, en basane, en tissue, ou
en papier coloré. Ainsi, la majorité des livres de l’époque ont
survécus jusqu’à nos jours non dans l’état comme ils avaient été
vendus mais avec une reliure et une apparence générale façonnée par les gouts d’un de leurs propriétaires. En conséquence,
les livres qui, comme c’est le cas du Cours ou explication du
coustumier, ont conservés leurs modestes emballages d’origine
sont assez rares et font un bel ajout à toute collection.
Law Library blog, Facebook & Twitter
The Law Library is on social media:
•
Read Law Library’s blog http://blogs.library.mcgill.ca/
lawlibrary/
•
Like our Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/
NahumGelberLaw.Library
•
Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/McGillLawLibrar
BCL/LLB ‘11, LLM Candidate ‘15
CHARLIE
FELdman
GRADUATE STUDIES AT MCGILL
– PENSEZ-Y!
Think you might be interested in graduate studies at McGill? A
recruitment session for current BCL/LLB students scheduled for
November 12th from 4-5pm in Room 316, NCDH. Venez nombreux!
Who will be there? Awesome people! Dean of Graduate Studies
Angela Campbell, former BCL-LLBers turned LLM/DCL candidates,
our Faculty research coordinator, and many more….. and maybe
even Benedict Cumberbatch1.
but about something important… and you need a lot of
footnotes. What better way is there to truly explore an area
of law than to delve in and contribute to the debate and
dialogue? (Non-thesis is also an option - so don’t be shy if
writing isn’t exactly ‘your thing’.)
6)
Take those courses you always wanted to take! Upset
you couldn’t get Civil Litigation Workshop or Droit des biens
approfondi? Grad studies might just be the way to take that
which you always wanted but never could. Forget those
‘priority credit’ blues and enjoy those precious graduate-restricted sections!
7)
A SUPERVISOR! It’s like having a new parent/best
friend who loves you and just wants you to do well…. But
who also asks you to correct that fundamental flaw in your
thesis that renders your entire argument useless. Under this
Professor’s tutelage you will learn things you never knew
you never knew… and occasionally they’ll even take you to
Thomson House!
8)
Students from around the world! You’d be surprised
just where students are from this year -- from Turkey to Haiti,
China to Ecuador - Graduate Studies is a model UN. Only way
more fun!
9) More letters after your name. Just like there are more
numbers in this list than I promised. See? Grad studies is
magical!
Why should you come back to NCDH? Here’s Charlie’s unsolicited
Top 8 reasons (in no order):
1)
You already know where everything is - no getting lost
on the first day or falling for that trap where you buy a $20
pass for the pool on the roof from some guy only to find out
there’s no pool on the roof… or maybe that was just me...
2)
You might get an awesome study carrel in the Library!
What more can a law student want than a guaranteed spot
where you feel the glow of those halogens warming you both
inside and out?
3)
Surrounding yourself with world class scholars and
receiving invaluable mentorship opportunities (I don’t have a
joke for this one…)
4)
The Institute of Comparative Law (ICL) and the
Institute of Air and Space Law (IASL). Whether you loved
‘Star Wars’ or ‘Airplane!’ more, IASL is top flight in the world
(pardon the pun) – and the ICL has unique opportunities for In conclusion, as they say: “Be Cool – Stay in School!” And what’s
academic study that build upon your transsystemic capacity cooler than being cool? Being a grad student!
1
to engage across legal systems and cultures.
I mean, we’re hoping…. no promises, people.
5)
A thesis! Think of it as a really long Quid article,
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3
Although we’re coming from plenty of different places, as a
generation common ground isn’t hard to find in the crushing
burden of student debt, a lack of good jobs upon graduation,
austerity dismantling services we’ll need if we start families or
when our parents grow old, environmental crisis, and a world
where 925 million people globally [3] do not have enough to
eat because feeding them wouldn’t turn a profit. Personally, my
desire for dialogue and mutual respect is because I’m willing to
work with anyone, including men, who want to change these
miserable conditions.
Beyond this ongoing Quid stuff which has been all-consuming for
the editorial team and our impassioned contributors, baseline
law school stress requires some recognition and some thought as
to ways to manage it. My game plan is to invest in some goodquality coffee (November is NOT the time to drink bad coffee),
keep a good pace, get enough sleep (possible?) and to make sure
I emerge from the law library stacks at least once daily to get
some sunlight.
One important thing would be to to help each other out. Share,
educate and care for other people because, in spite of it all,
we’re in this together. Happy reading!
1. Ann C. Scales, Surviving Legal De-Education: An Outsider’s
Guide, 15 VT. L. REV. 139 (1990). Accessed November 2014.
http://blurblawg.typepad.com/files/scales_surviving.pdf.
2. A point which doesn’t even get to into the perspectives of
those who identify outside of the traditional gender binary.
3. http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/briefingpapers/food/
vitalstats.shtml
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 17
2014-2015
Research Group on Health and Law
Seminar Series
Quelques défis de
l’intégration des
médecines non
conventionnelles
dans un système de
soins cartésien
Professeur Olivier Guillod
Directeur de l’Institut de droit de la santé
Université de Neuchâtel, Suisse
Jeudi, le 27 novembre 2014
Local 316, New Chancellor Day Hall, 3644 Rue Peel
12h15-13h30
(Lunch will be served at 12h)
Les places sont limitées.
Merci de confirmer votre présence : rghl.law@mcgill.ca.
Une demande de reconnaissance comme activité de formation continue a été déposée auprès du Barreau du Québec.
Law IV
derek
zeisman
MENTAL HEALTH: THE LAST FRONTIER
OF STIGMA AND DISCRIMINATION
___________________________________
Student Well-Being Committee Meeting
Wednesday, Nov. 12, 203 NCDH
Topic: $50,000 Student Well-Being Fund
In the real dark night of the soul it is always three o’clock in the
morning, day after day.
~ F. Scott Fitzgerald, “The Crack-Up”
As a result of those commendable efforts, McGill law students
voted in favour of creating a $50,000 mental health fund, using
funds from the Law Students Association’s accumulated surplus.
The fact that this referendum passed with such an overwhelming
show of support from students is a testament to the importance
of mental health issues among the student body.
And yet, the question of mental illness remains one of the last
great unspoken stigmas in our modern society. Even many of
Law students, by their very nature, are great proponents of social those who regularly experience feelings of depression, grief,
equity.
anxiety or hopelessness refuse to categorize themselves as “mentally ill.”
Each week in this publication, we read many passionate articles
about great causes that demand our attention and vigilant action, Indeed, many people continue to analogize mental illness with
in the name of ending one form or another of injustice and discri- outright insanity. Others fear admitting to mental illness in any
mination.
form whatsoever, for fear that they will be labelled as weak, lazy,
self-indulgent, or otherwise “broken.”
All of these issues are valid. You don’t need me to tell you that.
Yet I can think of no issue more deserving of our careful conside- How many of you remember feeling sad or depressed at some
ration than that of mental illness. Given that Nov. 7-16 is Mental point or another when you were growing up, only to be told to
Health Awareness Week, please take a few minutes to ponder
“stop feeling sorry for yourself” by a friend or parent? Hopefully
the following.
very few of you. But for those who can relate, this is a decent
example of how mental health issues can be (and often are) stigMental illness takes many odious forms. Depression. Anxiety.
matized by our society. This can only compound people’s fears of
Panic attacks. Post-traumatic stress. Bipolar disorder. And the list being open, honest and forthright in discussing their problems.
goes on. Some of these painful maladies are genetic, and can last
a lifetime. Others are the products of our environment, and can These fears are exacerbated in a tough job market such as the
be triggered by overwork, stress, and/or lack of proper sleep,
one we currently face. It is completely understandable that a
exercise and nutrition.
depressed or anxious student would not want to reveal his or her
troubled state of mind to potential employers, or provide them
Last year, a survey conducted by McGill Law’s Student Well-Being with any external means to learn of their affliction (i.e. via social
Committee revealed high levels of stress and anxiety among
media or official medical records).
students in this Faculty. During the last school year, more than
70% law students reported feeling overwhelmed, exhausted or
The reason for this is pretty self-evident. It is not much of a
anxious, whether for short or long periods of time. Over half
stretch to suspect that many employers would discriminate
reported feelings of sadness. More than 40% felt depressed.
against job applicants on this basis. Without a doubt, many do.
Anger and hopelessness were reported by more than 25% of
And also without a doubt, many of them succeed in getting away
respondents.
with it.
These are extremely alarming statistics. Combined, the story they It is no longer acceptable in our society to discriminate on the
tell represents a ticking time bomb that will – not may – evenbasis of gender, ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation,
tually result in tragedy when we may least expect it.
physical disability, or even age. Do such forms of discrimination
still occur in the “real world”? Unfortunately, yes. But great
In an effort to address, and potentially diffuse, this worrisome
strides have been made in these categories.
time bomb, the Student Well-Being Committee helped to
organize a referendum campaign last year aimed at combatting
Unfortunately, discrimination on the basis of mental disability –
mental health problems here in the Faculty.
or mental illness, or mental health, or whatever your preferred
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 19
term – is another matter entirely. On this front, employers – and
in many respects, society as a whole – are still living in the stone
ages. This is the plain, ugly reality of the situation.
of mental illness. The Student Well-Being Committee will be holding a meeting this week (Wednesday, Nov. 12, in 203 NCDH) to
brainstorm constructive uses for this money.
This represents a compelling, and very troubling, reason why
students grappling with one or more mental health issues would
be tempted to bottle up their problems, rather than seeking to
mitigate them by discussing them openly with friends, family or a
medical professional.
I would strongly encourage everyone to attend, whether or not
you have ever grappled with the debilitating effects of depression, anxiety, or any other related affliction. For even if you
have been fortunate enough to avoid such troubles yourself, the
chances are close to 100% that you have friends or family members (or both) who are not so fortunate.
Of course, bottling up one’s mental health issues eventually
exacts a heavy price, upon both the individual and society as a
whole. Unresolved mental illnesses can result in insomnia, eating
disorders, alcohol and drug substance problems, relationship
breakdowns, and a whole range of additional self-destructive
addictions and other extreme behaviours, including suicide.
In Canada alone, mental illness results in millions of hours in lost
worker productivity each year, due to employee absences and
illnesses. The cost to our economy is in the billions.
I will not pre-empt the work of the Committee, or its upcoming
meeting, by making any concrete suggestions as to how to invest
its funds in student mental wellness. Frankly, I think that any
action on this vitally important front is better than no action at
all. We are now finally moving in the right direction, and I commend the Committee members, and the LSA, for their efforts in
this regard.
Next week, I will make some follow-up comments in these pages
regarding the suggestions that arise from the Student Well-Being
As mentioned, for the first time ever, we now have a dedicated
Committee meeting, and I will present a few additional observa$50,000 fund at our disposal to address the many serious impacts tions of my own.
Law I
farnell
morisset
THE POPPY TEST
What follows represents solely my opinion and is not meant to be Il ne faut que voir la folie de la dernière assemblée générale de
seen as a reflection of the position of the LSA Council nor the LSA l’AÉUM (SSMU), où une motion condamnant Israël a été proposée
et débattue dans un cauchemar procédural qui n’avait pas lieu
as a whole.
d’être, pour instinctivement comprendre le bien-fondé d’une telle
position de retenue de la part de l’AÉD. Les exemples grossiers
La semaine passée, une de mes amis à la faculté m’a demandé
si je croyais que l’AÉD devrait prendre part dans la distribution
ne sont cependant pas le problème. Plutôt, l’importance est de
de coquelicots, symbole reconnu à travers le Commonwealth
reconnaître que certaines choses n’ayant pas à première vue un
en commémoration aux soldats morts au combat. J’ai répondu
aspect politique peuvent, après inspection, en avoir une. Dans
que l’AÉD n’était pas un organisme de vétérans et que l’activité
ces situations, il peut être nécessaire pour l’AÉD de se restreindre
de certaines activités qui pourraient sembler bénignes ou même
tombait donc, selon moi, hors du mandat de l’AÉD, mais qu’une
initiative étudiante dans ce genre serait certainement la bienve- bienveillantes.
nue au sein de l’AÉD.
Take, for example, a blood drive. The civic and social benefits to
holding a blood drive are such that it would make perfect sense
My purpose in this article is not to argue against the wearing of
for a group of well-intentioned students to think the LSA should
the poppy, especially not on Remembrance Day. Rather, it is to
elaborate my reasoning that as a student “government” organisa- organise one. Blood drives appear apolitical and are often held
tion, the LSA should refrain from all forms of political activity out- in other universities and other faculties at McGill, after all – why
couldn’t the law faculty hold one? However, scratch the surface
side the strict realm of instances where politics affects students
as a class. The symbolism of the day, I feel, is appropriate, given and politics rears its head; in Canada, men who have had sex with
men are prohibited from giving blood. This is why, for instance, in
that the day and the poppy both rightly animate discussions on
previous years OutLaw rightfully objected to holding a blood drive
the value of fundamental freedoms.
within the faculty buildings and was given reason on the grounds
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 20
that this policy subjected some students to discrimination. I am
told the LSA was not directly involved in this decision, but had it
been, this is the decision the LSA should have taken as well.
De façon similaire, le coquelicot semble être apolitique – il représente le deuil solennel collectif face aux soldats morts au combat.
Ce sentiment est noble et, j’en suis convaincu, partagé par toute
personne sensée et morale1. Tous les partis politiques confondus
l’appuient. Cependant, l’image du coquelicot est aussi secondairement indissociable de la culture martiale et nationaliste de
l’État, et il est certainement possible qu’une personne sensée et
morale s’y oppose en raison de ses croyances politiques et/ou
morales. Même si l’intérêt principal du coquelicot n’est foncièrement pas politique, le symbole comporte aussi des aspects
secondaires politiques indissociables de l’aspect principal, et donc
la distribution de coquelicots est nécessairement un acte partiellement politique. Je crois donc qu’il ne serait pas approprié que
l’AÉD entreprenne directement une telle initiative, peu importe
son bien-fondé moral apparent.
The second step would be to determine if the proposed activity
is inherently in the interests of the LSA’s members as McGill law
students. If an activity is inherently in our interests as McGill law
students, then it falls within the LSA’s mandate and the LSA can
directly take part in the activity even if it has a political component. This is where the LSA is excluded from directly being
involved in both poppy distribution and blood drives – while
there is no doubt that poppy distribution and blood drives are
in the moral interests of at least some LSA members, neither
poppy distribution nor blood drives convey inherent benefits to
LSA members as McGill law students. Most activities commonly
organised by the LSA with conceivable political aspects, such as
sponsored coffeehouses (corporatism!3), Malpractice Cup (professional elitism!4), and Frosh (alcoholism!5) are inherently in our
interests as McGill law students – networking and socialising with
our peers being inherently in the interest of all law students as
McGill law students. This lines up with common sense, and there
is therefore no reason for the LSA to reconsider its direct involvement in organising these activities.
Because the LSA’s resources are given to it by the LSA’s mandate
to represent the interests of McGill law students, the LSA’s mandate is limited to its members’ interests as McGill law students
and does not expand to using its resources in representing the
interests of its members as people beyond this mandate… unless
all members unanimously agree2. This therefore precludes
the LSA from participating directly in political activities, which
are matters in which its members’ interests are their interests
as people. However, I am not proposing that this reasoning be
applied in a straight line to absurdity. I’m well aware that most
activities, if you scratch far enough, have a political interpretation
and strictly banning all activities with political aspects would effectively paralyse the LSA. This is not what I am proposing. I am
rather proposing, given that the LSA’s mandate is obtained from
its members by virtue of its members being McGill law students,
that the LSA refrain from political activities that do not directly
carry benefit to its members as McGill law students. I would
rather propose three steps in evaluating how the LSA, when faced
with a proposed political activity, should decide how (and if) its
involvement is appropriate.
Troisièmement, même si une activité n’est pas intrinsèquement
dans nos intérêts en tant qu’étudiants en droit à McGill et qu’elle
comporte un aspect politique, cela n’implique pas pour autant
que l’AÉD ne peut pas appuyer une initiative étudiante voulant faire l’activité. Il est, après tout, dans nos intérêts en tant
qu’étudiants en droit à McGill d’avoir l’opportunité d’explorer
nos intérêts politiques – ceci est d’ailleurs explicitement enraciné
dans le premier paragraphe de la constitution de l’AÉD, affirmant
qu’en surplus à son rôle de représentation, l’AÉD existe aussi pour
« développer les intérêts éducationnels, culturels, politiques et
sociaux de ses membres. » Oui, le mandat de l’AÉD implique un
devoir de restriction dans la prise de position sur les questions
hors de la portée de nos intérêts en tant qu’étudiants en droit
à McGill, mais n’implique pas que l’AÉD ne peut pas jouer un
rôle indirect d’appui d’initiatives étudiantes visant à développer
leurs intérêts politiques, puisqu’il est dans nos intérêts en tant
qu’étudiants en droit à McGill de pouvoir explorer nos intérêts
politiques. Il faut cependant que cet appui indirect soit politiquement impartial. Les règles de non-discrimination et d’opportunité égale (articles 2 et 3 de la constitution de l’AÉD) sont les seules
limites ici – l’AÉD ne pourrait donc pas indirectement appuyer
Évidemment, la première question est de savoir si une personne une collecte de sang, puisque l’AÉD s’oppose à la discrimination
sensée et morale pourrait conclure qu’une activité est politique. en fonction de l’orientation sexuelle (article 3(f)), mais pourrait
Ici, vu l’omniprésence de la politique sous la surface des choses, indirectement appuyer une campagne de distribution de coqueje dirais que la position par défaut devrait être affirmative à
licots, tant que cet appui se fait dans le but d’aider ce groupe
moins de démonstration convaincante du contraire. Si une telle d’étudiants à développer ses intérêts politiques et non dans le
démonstration peut être faite de façon à convaincre les instances but d’appuyer la campagne du coquelicot elle-même.
décisionnelles appropriées de l’AÉD (soit l’exécutif, le conseil, ou
une assemblée générale de l’AÉD, dépendant du contexte), alors Call it the poppy test – the poppy passes through all three steps.
l’évaluation est terminée et l’activité peut avancer. Je mettrais,
It has an inherently political aspect that may not be in our intecomme exemple ici, la cueillette de pommes annuelle – il me
rests as law students, so the LSA couldn’t directly organise it, but
semble peu probable qu’une personne sensée et morale y voit
because it breaches none of the LSA’s rules of equal opportunity
une composante politique. En pratique, cependant, l’énorme
and non-discrimination, a student initiative could do so with the
majorité des activités va vraisemblablement avoir une compoLSA’s indirect support on the grounds that exploring our political
sante politique et les activités proposées devront donc passer à la interests itself is inherently in our interests as law students.
deuxième étape d’évaluation.
I want to stress again that I am not speaking with any authority
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 21
other than my own opinion and this does not represent an official 1 Ce terme va revenir souvent. Je prends la liberté de tenir l’AÉD à
position of the LSA Council, but as a member of the LSA Council
ce standard, surtout dans ce contexte.
this is the reasoning I intend to apply should activities with politi- 2 I present this without explanation, but in essence I believe
cal aspects be proposed for the LSA. I welcome all discussion on organisations with mandatory memberships only have legitimate
the reasoning proposed.
mandates for the strict reason that membership is imposed, and
stretching beyond this mandate can only be done with the unaniAs for the poppy itself, if you’re picking up the Quid on the 11th
mous approval of all members, and the LSA an example of this. I
and would like one, there are several groups on lower campus
welcome further discussion on the issue, but it stretches outside
distributing them and collecting donations for the Royal Canadian the intent of this article.
Legion, as well as veterans themselves distributing them in most 3 Please note I do not endorse this interpretation – only that I
shopping centers and many public spaces downtown. I encouagree a sensible and moral person might conceivably think they
rage you to consider what it means to you, and if you wear one, are.
4
to wear it with pride.
Ibid.
5
That was a joke.
McGill Alum
blaw blaw
ADVICE FROM BLAW BLAW BLAW
This is the first of what I hope will be several columns. This week’s
question is: “What would you have done differently when you
were at McGill if you had a do-over of your years in law?” I would
do several things differently.
about yourself. Don’t be cynical or passive about what’s ahead.
You chose to be here, and now it’s up to you to do something
with that choice. Here’s a good starting point: if you like research, reading, and writing, and enjoy the adversarial nature of
an argument, litigation might work well for you. If any of those
1. Law School Is A Short, Fleeting Part of Your Life, But Your things is unpleasant to you, don’t become a litigator. If you like
Time There Has A Big Impact On What Comes Next. Really
teamwork, negotiations, “building” instead of “destroying,” and
Think About What That Means.
you don’t care to ever read case law or write briefs, you might be
happier as a transactional lawyer. Don’t know what that is? Look
When I was in law school, I didn’t give much thought to how law into it.
school would impact the years immediately after law school. Of
course, I had the common anxieties relating to grades, jobs, etc. On a related note, challenge the McGill trope that you’re not realThose common anxieties aside, I didn’t give enough thought to
ly in law school, you’re studying law. This is a comforting trope
the practical questions of what I wanted my life to be like. (Busy when you’re 23 and unwilling or unable to think of your time
is better than not busy.) Where did I want to live? (Somewhere
at school as part of a career track. It’s also a naïve way to think
exciting.) How much money did I want or need to make? (Comabout your decision to pursue a professional degree. Note that
plicated question not to be taken lightly.) How willing was I to
I am not saying I regret McGill’s approach. A common, though
impact my life to serve clients, late at night and on weekends? (It badly misplaced, complaint about law school is that it doesn’t
turns out surprisingly willing.) Did the type of clients I was going prepare students for practice. It’s true: when you graduate from
to be working with matter to me? (Sort of, yes, but only to a
law school you will be incapable of practicing law. You should
point.) And, most importantly, who would take me from the lar- know that that’s OK, because it would be unworkable to teach
val law school graduate stage to something resembling a lawyer, the practice of law in law school. It’s too varied and complex to
and how would that person affect my career development—and standardize. Practice is the sort of thing you need to learn on the
personality? (That’s the big one to figure out.)
job. So don’t waste any time griping about how theoretical McGill
is. But do find ways to supplement the theory with things that
If given a do-over, I would have spent more time earnestly thinwill help you make choices about your career.
king about what matters to me, and looking for reliable paths
toward it. Fortunately, I fell into a path that’s worked well for me
and brought me happiness. I was lucky. The point is this: don’t let
2. If You’re Not Well-Organized, Disciplined, and Earnest,
these things sneak up on you. Take charge of them. Ask quesTry to Become Those Things.
tions. Talk to people who are a few years out of law school. Learn
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 22
Law school rewards the kind of charlatanism that comes easy to
people who know how to get As in poli sci classes. In short, it’s
possible to get good grades in spite of bad habits. The practice
of law is different. Some bad habits—skipping class, last minute
cramming for exams, relying on summaries instead of reading
cases—do a good job mimicking the harried nature of practice.
That said, you need to be well-organized, disciplined, and earnest
to make it more than a couple years in the profession.
My regret is that I started developing these characteristics at
work, instead of at school. The transition from school to work
would have been easier if I’d taken care of this sooner. Doing very
simple things like having a good work station at home, writing
papers in advance of their due date to get them off your plate,
and keeping good notes will make a world of difference. If this
sounds obvious, maybe you already do it. But if you’re getting
good grades without doing this, consider shifting your habits
anyway. You will almost certainly have to do so eventually, so
you might as well do it now. I realize you probably won’t—you
wouldn’t be a high-achieving procrastinator if that kind of reasoning appealed to you—but at least now you’ve been warned by a
fellow procrastinator.
4.
Don’t Be Pretentious
The best lawyers I’ve worked with and against are plainspoken.
Their emails are simple and clear. They’re easy to talk to. Sometimes they end sentences with prepositions. No one seems to
mind if they split an infinitive. They know nothing seems more
amateurish in legal writing than an overreliance on big words.
I don’t regret the times I was earnest and clear. I do regret the
times I was a little too clever or precious.
5.
Try to Be Somewhat Professional
Law school is school, school should be fun, and it would be a
shame to ruin it by acting like every day is a board meeting at an
aluminum conglomerate. Fine. But law school is also a good time
to develop basic professional habits.
My regret is that I didn’t think much about what professionalism
meant in the law school context. It can mean a lot of things, but
sticking to a baseline of maturity and courtesy is a good idea. And
while you don’t have to be friends with everyone, you should
3. Be Nice
absolutely treat everyone with respect. These are obvious points,
but whenever people talk about law school being toxic, it’s
Don’t be That Guy. It won’t help. If you are That Guy, consider not because someone failed to remember to be respectful. So don’t
being that guy anymore.
be the person who makes law school toxic for someone else.
Discipline those impulses now, or run in to trouble later.
My regret is having been, to a certain extent, That Guy. I had
that trait that a lot of people in law school share: a need to
6. Be Clearheaded About the Kind of Work You Can Afford
prove what I know. It’s childish and embarrassing. Stop it. I
to Do
know, I know. You’re well read. You’re logical. Maybe you’re even
empathetic. And now some dope just said something stupid and Money is a delicate issue. But living in cities is expensive, so if you
you want him to know it. Maybe more importantly, you want
want to live in a city while paying off school debt you’ll need to
others to be impressed by you alerting the dope to his dopiness. make a decent income. Of course, if you have generous parents,
It’s not worth it. I promise.
high debt tolerance, stand to inherit money or marry someone
who does, etc. this doesn’t apply to you—you can afford to live in
When you encounter something (an opinion, an argument) you
a city without a decent income. Regardless, it’s important to be
disagree with, calmly and generously try to understand why you clearheaded about your need for an income.
disagree with it. If you still disagree, and there’s someone to discuss it with, do so respectfully. Don’t be blustery. Be nice. Make
My regret is that I wasn’t clearheaded about my need
it your goal to leave whoever you’ve discussed the issue with
for an income. That’s in part because there’s some pressure at
feeling better for having discussed it with you. I wish I’d made
McGill to reject big law and do something else, as though there’s
that my goal.
something tacky about representing corporations. Before joining
in that chorus, ask yourself whether you can afford to. This goes
And if you’re the sort of person who needs to tie everything back back, in part, to knowing yourself and your priorities, and not
to an incentive, try this: working in a law firm requires others to letting others determine them for you. Don’t be ashamed of your
trust you, and to wish to cooperate with you on long-term promodest bourgeois goals if those are the goals you have. Chances
jects. If people don’t trust you, or don’t wish to cooperate with
are anyone trying to make you feel guilty about them has beneyou, you will be on our own. Being on your own is not a good
fitted from someone else’s capitalist striving. Also, if you reflect
place to be in a law firm. And a great way to end up on your own on it, you might find that you really don’t need as much money as
is by being a jerk.
you thought (and that will open up career options). The bottom
line is that you should think about this and not leave it to chance.
But wait! Aren’t there successful jerks? Yes, of course there are.
But they are rarer than you might imagine, and unless you’re
7. Keep Grades in Perspective
beyond fixing, you should find better role models than the Patrick
Batemans of the world.
Grades do matter, but not as much as you might think. Of course,
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 23
if you have a pathological need to get top marks, nothing anyone
can say will convince you to stop trying. And, conversely, if you
aren’t in the top, say, 25%-30%, you might miss out on some
good opportunities. But you shouldn’t assume that grades will
do all the work for you when it comes to transitioning from law
school to a career.
My main grade-related regret is not being sufficiently informed
about the specific ways in which grades do and don’t matter. A
good approach is to ask yourself whether getting As matters to
you and your goals. If you decide it doesn’t, you can focus your
attention on other things that will make you happier, and may in
fact help you in your career more than As could, too. Don’t take
this to mean grades don’t matter—they do. But you’re better off
So-called “soft factors” really, truly matter. Every fall I interview
getting informed about how grades matter to your goals than
law students who want to work at my firm. I have repeatedly
blindly sacrificing things that you like on the assumption that it
seen students from top schools with great grades miss out on
offers because the interviewers found them too one-dimensional, will be worth it in the long run if you get an A.
too slick, too grade-focused, etc. If you are a dynamic person with
That’s all for now.
many interests, you should remain so—for professional reasons
as well as the obvious personal reasons (i.e., doing things you
-Blaw blaw blaw
like is fun!). Sacrificing too much of your personality for grades
can backfire. Remember: the question every interviewer is asking
him or herself is “if I am stuck working at 1:00am, do I want this Blaw blaw blaw is an associate at an international law firm, and
practices in his firm’s Litigation group. He graduated from McGill’s
person there with me?” Don’t expect your transcript to answer
that question. As far as I know, grades above a certain threshold Faculty of Law several years ago. His goal is to provide candid,
are needed to get an interview, but firms generally don’t hire law personal answers to questions law students commonly ask. He
students based on their grades once they’re past the on-campus hopes it’s helpful.(To submit questions: quid.charlie@gmail.com).
interview stage.
In Flanders Fields
by John McCrae, May 1915
Dans les champs des Flandres
Adaptation française du major Jean Pariseau
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
Au champ d’honneur, les coquelicots
Sont parsemés de lot en lot
Auprès des croix; et dans l’espace
Les alouettes devenues lasses
Mêlent leurs chants au sifflement
Des obusiers.
Nous sommes morts,
Nous qui songions la veille encor’
À nos parents, à nos amis,
C’est nous qui reposons ici,
Au champ d’honneur.
À vous jeunes désabusés,
À vous de porter l’oriflamme
Et de garder au fond de l’âme
Le goût de vivre en liberté.
Acceptez le défi, sinon
Les coquelicots se faneront
Au champ d’honneur.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR QUID!
ONLY A FEW QUIDS LEFT THIS SEMESTER!
The Quid will publish on Tuesday the 18th and 25th of November and our FINAL
issue of the semester goes to print on Tuesday, December 2nd! As always, the
deadline to submit is the previous Thursday at 5pm. Envoyez-nous vos contributions à quid.law@mcgill.ca!
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 24
Law II
justine
blair
THE DOS AND DON’T’S OF
ARGUING ON FACEBOOK:
A FLOWCHART
So you want to debate a highly complex and divisive issue on Facebook? Don’t. “But, I have a really smart thing to say, and it’ll come across exactly the way I want it to and…” Let me stop you right there. Don’t do it. QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 25
Law I
ANTOINE
NOUVET
UKRAINE’S OCTOBER ELECTIONS DISPATCH #1: THE FOG
OF WAR FALLS ON ELECTIONS
Caption: Polling stations close and election commissions begin
the ballot count the night of Oct. 26, Sumy Province, Ukraine.
Caption: A hazy sunset in eastern Ukraine the day before parliamentary elections.
The air was crisp and cool not unlike autumn in Canada, but we
were one kilometer from Russia and quickly getting closer on
foot. What is a McGill Law student doing in Eastern Ukraine, I asked myself again? And how can this border area feel so quiet and
peaceful, given the out-and-out war raging a province or two
away? This was my fifth week in Ukraine, as part of a core team
of long-term observers spanning all of Ukraine’s 24 provinces to
cover the October 26 parliamentary vote. [1]
In practice, tackling this challenge is a fascinating exercise of
“plugging into” the local pulse. In getting a read on local politics
and laying down the groundwork for the arrival of the larger
team of shor-term election observers, I met the governors of
the two provinces, leaders of police and intelligence services,
militia leaders, and political candidates. I visited and listened in
to media scrums, spoke to middle-rank bureaucrats, and compared what I heard there, with the conversations of everyday
Ukrainians. It entailed hundreds of kilometers on bumpy country
roads and visits to far-flung places, from border towns to federal
penitentiaries.
Notionally, my assignment was straightforward: Observe the
elections impartially from start to finish. Yet experience and
goodwill does not make the job easy. Utmost among the challenges for observers was distilling useful information from a buzz
of uncertainty, fabrications, and contradictions.
Election observation can at first glance seem elemental [2]—
watching ballots move, listening to speeches, and filling reports.
The mission’s teeth are limited to its eyes and ears. In Ukraine
however—a country raked by political upheaval, social tensions,
and outright war—intrigue and unpredictability are the norm.
Within this, one of the biggest challenges is navigating a hazy
information environment, of competing narratives, fueled by
rumors, war, and spread everywhere from town cafes, to television and social media.
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 26
Caption: Planning the day’s observation route in rural Eastern
Ukraine.
But even with access to so much information, Ukraine’s bitterly
fought political contest and conflict gives credence to the adage
“the first casualty of war is truth”. Take the border for instance:
For the better part of this year, Ukraine has been embroiled in a
bloody war along the border that has left thousands killed and
scores more displaced from their homes. Indeed, some parts of
the country are unrecognizable from a year past [3] and remain
out of government control. Internally Displaced Persons in the
tens of thousands [4] could be found throughout the country. Still,
here I stood on the border with my colleague, stunned not by a
sense of tension and insecurity, but by the calm and quiet. One
could seemingly walk back-and-forth across the border unhindered—indeed, some of the local inhabitants said no less.
border, some of the elderly ladies working the booths chatted
with us over cups of warm tea, as is the custom. As my partner
and I described our recent border visit on foot, they recounted
excitedly a nearby intrusion over the Russian-Ukrainian border
in the summer that had to be repelled by local militias. “No one
made a video of this, and put it online, so we have no proof that it
happened”, quipped one of the commission members who would
have been in her seventies. Here like elsewhere, the fog of conflict
was the rule rather than the exception.
Caption: A quiet and otherwise unmarked Russian-Ukrainian border in Sumy Province, Eastern Ukraine.
Yet, even this calm is not what it seems on second glance. Speak
to some locals, and they would cite this border area as a keyfront for smuggling, potentially of weapons, its placidity being a
harbinger of such activities. And indeed, just as my partner and I
returned to our vehicle, we spotted a pair of armed and camouflaged men walking along the Ukrainian side of the border. They
did not appear to be regular forces and the fuzziness of who they
were seemed apt.
Even harder to tackle is the role new media communications play
in such an “information war”. Just days prior to elections, a violent
and bloody attack was reported on a Russian language blog [5]
describing an armed ambush a few kilometers from where my
hotel was. Alarmed—two armed attacks by unknown perpetrators had occurred in the same province just weeks before—I
researched the incident, and ultimately, it appeared to have never
actually happened. Yet its existence was still of importance: Who
were the authors and what was their aim? More significantly
perhaps: Who were the dozens of commentators lauding praise
on the fictional guerilla force that carried out an attack that never
happened? The blurred line between information warfare and
actual armed warfare is difficult to navigate.
Caption: Polling commission members and voters busy on Election
Day in Sumy Province, Ukraine.
In the face of such challenges, observation missions confront a
moving, ephemeral target. As a law student, I was struck by how
the experience was a real-life laboratory for methods we learn in
class: The sum of these events, contradictions, rumours, and gaps
created an information environment that constantly challenged
my assumptions, knowledge, and analysis. No matter how well
informed I think I am, such skills are essential when parachuted
into the haze of conflict.
Antoine Nouvet studies Law at McGill and is a Research Associate
with the SecDev Foundation.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_parliamentary_election,_2014
2. https://www.ndi.org/files/1923_declaration_102705_0.pdf
3. http://www.latimes.com/world/great-reads/la-fg-c1-ukraine-airport20141028-story.html#page=1
4. http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-refugees-idps-crisis/25421504.
html
5. http://infopolk.ru/1/U/events/33301-u-goroda-sumy-partizany-razgromili-blokpost-pravosekov.html#53610cfe-1c76-5dd6-eaf3-c57613f1b9b2
And just as important as what goes said is what goes unsaid.
On election week, as we stopped in a polling station near the
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 27
Professor
Richard
gold
TWO FOR ONE: HOW CHEO ’ S GENE PATENT
CASE HELPS BOTH PATIENTS AND INNOVATORS
A version of this article appeared in The Globe and Mail on Tuesday, November 4th.
Sam Abraham (Adjunct Professor, Department of Pathology, University of British Columbia and Department of Molecular Biology
& Biochemistry (MBB), Simon Fraser University), David Castle
(Professor, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria)
and E. Richard Gold (Professor, Faculties of Law and Medicine,
McGill University)
the need for a test case.
Reduced access to diagnostics obviously affects patients,
but also has implications for innovators. Most gene patents focus
on a single gene’s effect within a disease, and don’t take into account other genes and complexities involved in the development
of the disease. Universities, hospitals and private companies are
developing sophisticated genetic tests that diagnose multiple
diseases and involve multiple genes. In Canada, these innovators
live in fear of being sued by owners of single patents. This chilling
effect leads to fewer tests being developed and offered.
Canadian prosperity depends on our ability to innovate. When it
comes to unlocking the power and mysteries of genomic medi
Patents have been awarded on the basis of the discovecine, our competitors in the United States now have free reign – ry of a single gene, but the problem is that the innovative aspect
but Canadian innovators continue to be shackled.
of genetic testing is not the discovery but the interpretation of
errors – mutations – in those genes and the analysis of their
The Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) launched
interaction with other genes. That is, gene testing today involves
Monday a test case against human gene patents. The primary
innovation in data interpretation, competition between ways
objective of the case is to ensure that CHEO patients – children
of analyzing the data and constant questioning and review of
with a potentially lethal yet often otherwise undetectable disease results.
– receive the health care they need. A parallel objective of the
case is to address long-standing problems with gene patents that The current patent system restricts access to data, alhamper rather than enable innovators.
lowing the few rather than the many to both analyse and review
the results. Firms holding gene patents are motivated to keep
Patents enable innovative firms to bring a new health
data to themselves and, worse, do not share their insights into
product or service to market and reward that effort with 20
the impact of particular errors on disease development. Unlocyears of reduced competition. Leaving aside generic criticisms
king those patents will enable the new generation of firms that
of patents, not all patents are created equally or have the same
compete not on the basis of exclusive rights, but on the accuracy
effects on innovation. Patents over natural gene sequences and
of their methods of analysis, their service to patients and doctors
over basic genetic tests not only lessen patient access to health
and the reliability and reproducibility of their results. Patents on
care but prevent innovators from developing the next generation these methods, rather than on the genes themselves, will spur
of tests needed to better predict the onset of disease.
innovation as competing groups will try to outdo each other,
provided that they all have access to the same basic data.
At the heart of CHEO’s fight are several genes linked
to a heart condition called Long QT. Patients with this condition
Canadian prosperity increasingly depends on our ability
have an abnormal heart rhythm. While this condition can often
to innovate and compete. Pro-innovation strategies must recobe predicted through routine tests, a substantial proportion will gnize both the importance of patents and their limits. In many
be missed unless a genetic test is conducted on a patient’s blood cases gene patents stand in the way of the next generation of
sample. If detected, the condition can easily be treated and the
innovation. While our competitors in the United States now have
patient can live a normal life. If not found, the patient may die
free reign, our innovators continue to be shackled. It is time to
without warning, often at a very young age.
unlock those patent chains and provide Canadian innovators with
the same opportunities to innovate and compete granted to their
CHEO focuses attention on the needs of its patients.
US counterparts.
Patents restrict CHEO from deploying cutting-edge genetic tests
because Canadian patents require that tests must sent, at consi- derable cost, for analysis to authorized firms in the US. Paradoxically, while courts in the US have held these types of patents
invalid in that country, no similar ruling exists in Canada; hence
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 28
Law I
MCGILL LAW MEMES
SUE
HUMPHREY
Law I
FARNELL
MORISSET
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 29
In-House Diva
CHARLIE
FELdman
OVERHEARDS
Howdy Everyone,
It was a light week here in the Overheards department… meaning, I
didn’t get many submissions and those few that I received that need
attribution checks from Professors didn’t come back before press
time. Anywho, I’ll still make this page fun BECAUSE I’M AWESOME
LIKE THAT. Also, I’m avoiding my work. If my Theoretical Approaches
to Law paper stinks, you’ll know why. As always, if you have something: quid.charlie@gmail.com
much fun with three sentences!” Without thinking, I quipped back:
“Well, clearly you don’t read enough erotic poetry!” --- then I realized I had just said this to a Professor in class and have no filter. Also,
I’ve never read erotic poetry – I’m too busy reading for said class :-P
FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT:
QUID REPRINT: Canadian Judges v. Movie Titles (Charlie Feldman,
Katie Webber, and other random people)
Inglorious Basteraches
Gonthier with the Wind
MOMENT OF THE WEEK!
La Forest Gump
Student [asking the Prof for clarification]: REALLY?? [evidently surThe Little Lamermaid
prised] the ‘Statute of FROGS’?
My Cousin Binnie
Prof. Gélinas: Frogs?!.... No! FRAUDS ... But it’s a good memory trick: Lame and Lamer
You’re bound to remember this one» [proceeds to hop like a frog,
The Great Gascon
much to the delight of the class]
L’Heureux Gilmore
12 Angry Moldavers
Professor Adamski: I’m sorry this is the funniest that I get; apparently Silence of the Lamers
the Faculty doesn’t have enough money to hire joke-writers, only the Ben Heureux-Dube
Dean does!
LeBel and the Beast / LeBel et la Bête
Locke, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Prof. Weinstock: So, does that solidify our first traces along the ruts
Pearl Arbour
and furrows of the virgin soil?
Deschamps des rêves
The Thomas Cromwell Affair
2L: They ran out of booze early at coffeehouse this week – that’s
Tora! Tora! Bora!
always been, like, my biggest life fear. It’s amazing we all survived.
Ritchie Rich
Quid: I’m going to assume/hope sarcasm was involved here.
Thelma and Louise Charron
Fun with Dickson and Jane
LLM: It’s like … deception and a let down that snowballs, you know? There’s Something about Marie
Like, when the cute guy at the party turns out to be married. With
No Cory for Old Men
kids. Like 5 of them. And they’re all beyond cute when he shows you Cool Hand Locke
the photos on his phone and at the same time you’re saying “Aww
Million Dollar Dubé
cute!” you’re really plotting your next glass of wine.
Dial M for McLachlin
Binnie and Clyde
1L: I tried taking notes in that class. They were as useless as … that
For Whom the Abella Tolls
class.
The Hunchback of Notre-Dain
Lamerican Beauty
3L: How was your weekend?
One Hour Fauteux
Frost Dickson
3L: Good - I went for a run just to get out of the house. But then
The Agony and the Estey
my iPod starting playing “All About That Bass” and I was like “I need Saving Private Brian (Dickson)
more booty. I don’t need to run”. So I stopped running, walked to the Terminator 2: Judgement Dubé
dep and got some candy. Yeah, so, all and all a successful run.
To Kill a McLachlin Bird
L’âge des Taschereaus
Personal moment of the week (and why I need a filter):
Le fabuleux destin de Gerald Le Dain
We had small group discussions in class looking at short (paragraph- Le dickson de l’empire américain
length) excerpts from cases. The Professor joined our small group
Les Invasions Basteraches
(class was taught by student presenters). At the end of oqur ten or
so minutes of discussion – which pulled a LOT out of a few sentences
– the Prof went back to her seat saying jokingly, “I’ve never had that
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 30
In-House Diva
CHARLIE
FELDMAN
BETTER THAN TAKING NOTES...
QN •
11 NOV 2014
• 31