Twice, the courts have said no to those who wanted to forcibly dismantle the pro-Palestinian encampment at McGill University.
Posted at 1:13 a.m.
Updated at 5:00 a.m.
The question now arises: what do we do? How to resolve the impasse and find a way through? I spoke about it with a former vice-rector of McGill. With a negotiation expert. With the vice-president of the McGill Law Professors’ Association.
They all say the same thing: the University must sit down seriously with the protesters, dialogue and negotiate.
“We are not going to resolve the substance of the issue in 48 hours. But it requires a timetable for discussion and negotiation,” says Denis Thérien, professor emeritus at McGill University and former vice-rector for research and international relations at the University. Professor Thérien says he will be “ashamed” of the current McGill administration “if the situation at the camp is resolved by police force.”
“The solution is in dialogue. That’s what we’re asking for, that’s what the students are asking for,” says Kirsten Anker, vice-president of the McGill Association of Law Teachers. The association is itself on strike in order to obtain the first collective agreement in its history.
If McGill really wants the camp to be broken, now is the time to talk. The ball is in the University’s court, it is up to them to do something. The only other option they have is to let the situation fester.
Thomas Collombat, political scientist, expert in union negotiations and director of the human sciences department at the University of Quebec en Outaouais
I hear you protesting, dear readers. When I proposed the solution of dialogue, 10 days ago, I was rebuffed by several of you.
” Negotiate ? We do not negotiate with people who are illegal! “, one reader wrote to me in particular.
It is true that it was the demonstrators who forced this negotiation.
“But that’s how politics works!” comments Kirsten Anker, from the McGill Law Faculty. As long as we don’t do anything illegal and exercise constitutional rights, we can exert pressure. »
Saying that the encampment is “illegal” also has less and less weight since two Superior Court decisions ruled that there is no urgency to dismantle it. True, the substantive issues were not resolved and the court only ruled on the need for urgent intervention. It is also true that the situation can evolve on the ground. If violence or insecurity spreads to the camp, the judges could quickly change their analysis.
But we must recognize that, for the moment, the solution of dismantling the camp by force does not hold water, even if we were to demand it in every tone.
Some of you rail against these legal decisions and the “government of judges”. But if your solution is to focus on the abolition of the charters of rights and freedoms and a reform of the justice system, we wish you good luck. In the meantime, the camp may still be there tomorrow morning – and probably the day after tomorrow too.
Emeritus professor Denis Thérien, in any case, is convinced that there is room for negotiation.
“We have to find a way so that no one loses face in this. And that means a compromise – not everything on one side and not everything on the other,” he says.
Protesters are currently demanding that McGill cut “all academic and financial ties” with Israel. However, Mr. Thérien would consider it counterproductive for the University to cut its ties with Israeli educational or university establishments, which often have nothing to do with the current war.
“On the contrary, you want to maintain links to have a certain influence,” he says.
PHOTO PHILIPPE MERCURE, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
McGill University professor emeritus and former vice-rector, Denis Thérien
Cutting ties with all companies that do business in Israel may also be a bit of an exaggeration. The crux of the matter is offensive war enterprises. In my opinion, the protesters could limit their demands to that.
Denis Thérien, professor emeritus of McGill University
Should protesters put water in their wine?
“I will not comment on the merits of the demands,” replies political scientist Thomas Collombat. But you put water in your wine when you have a glass to put the wine in! We make concessions when we are in a negotiation process. Right now, we’re not even there. The protesters are not going to go back on their list of demands if the other side has not even come to the table. »
It is therefore up to McGill, today, to reach out to the demonstrators. I tried to get the University’s point of view, but they don’t talk to the media.
Of course, this path of negotiation is uncertain. We do not know the real desire of the demonstrators to negotiate in good faith.
But McGill management does not have many other options: continue legal proceedings in the hope of a change of heart or bank on the exhaustion or disorganization of the demonstrators.
The legal option is just as uncertain as the negotiation. Waiting for possible violence in the camp to justify an intervention would be morally very questionable, even irresponsible. As for banking on exhaustion, it would probably work better if it was the end of November. But it turns out that summer is upon us. And it risks being long and heated at McGill if management does not try to come to an agreement with the demonstrators.
What do you think ? Participate in the dialogue
