Vol 44 No 6 by Quid Novi

QUID NOVI

Vol 44 No 6 15 Nov 2022

NCDH 305 - 3644 Peel Montréal, Québec H2A 1X1

quid.law@mcgill.ca @quidnovi.mcgill

McGill University Faculty of Law Faculté de droit de l’Université McGill

44 06

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF RÉDACTEUR EN CHEF Zack Goobie ART DIRECTOR DIRECTRICE ARTISTIQUE Hanna Rioseco LAYOUT EDITOR ÉDITRICE DE MISE EN PAGE Camille Duhaime COPY EDITORS SECRÉTAIRES DE RÉDACTION Kim Baronet Nathan Leung Giuseppe Sutera Sardo COLUMNISTS CHRONIQUEURES ET CHRONIQUEUSES Darien Bahry Brandon Grimaldi Ella Johnson Gary Preteau CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE COLLABORATEURS ET COLLABORATRICES Félix Desrochers Jérémy Ferland Special thanks to Prairie Koo for designing the layout. ~ 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 © 2022 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. Envoyez vos commentaires ou articles avant jeudi 17h00 à quid.law@mcgill.ca. Toute contribution doit indiquer le nom de l’auteur, son année d’étude ainsi qu’un titre et un sous -titre pour l’article. Les images doivent être soumises séparément. L’article ne sera publié qu’à la discrétion du comité de rédaction, qui basera sa décision sur la politique de rédaction disponible sur notre Facebook @quidnovi.mcgill.

QUID NOVI

CETTE SEMAINE...

INSIGHTS

2 | WHAT THE RAPTORS CAN

COMMUNAUTÉ

BRING THIS SEASON

2 | OVERHEARDS

4 | “JE ME SOUVIENS”

3 | A WILD RIDE

5 | THE COFFEE POT

Reflections on Law School

A Poem

5 | BLAST FROM THE PAST

8 | ENCOURAGING WORDS FROM THE SUPREME COURT

5 | MEET THE TEAM

9 | THE GOOD AND BAD

Why are we so tired? Perhaps because we just relaunched McGill Law in all of its in-person glory

OF THE UGLY MITCHELL MILLER DEBACLE An examination of the Bruins Controversial New Signee

10 | SAVING THE POLICE

44 06

Vol 44 No 6 15 Nov 2022

EVENTS 7 | PUBLIC LECTURE:

INVESTED IN WHITENESS Zimbabwe, the Von Pezold Arbritration, and the Question of Race in International Law

6 | EMTPY NESTERS?

12 | INSTITUT CANADIEN D’ÉTUDES JURIDIQUES SUPÉRIEURES Bourse Paul-André Crépeau 2023-2024

Vol 44 ● No 6

WHAT THE RAPTORS CAN BRING THIS SEASON How Canada’s Team Will Win (and Lose) this Year Zack Goobie | 3L

As Canada’s NBA team is currently constructed, I project them to finish anywhere between 4th and 6th place in the Eastern Conference. Nick Nurse’s squad has eleven players taller than 2 meters, they are long, athletic, and fun to watch. This team has incredible defensive potential with perennial stalwart OG Anunoby leading the way. Additionally, they have the positionless Scottie Barnes and great steal artists in Fred Vanvleet and Gary Trent Jr. This team benefits from their players being able to guard multiple positions. In a modern NBA, teams continue to look for mismatches by setting screens and continuous movement. The Raptors are fast, long, and hound their opponents on the defensive end; they are especially lethal when they limit their opponents’ transition game. What they lack on the defensive end is similar to the offensive side of the ball. The Raptors are longing for a big man. I like what I have seen from Christian Koloko, but the second round pick still needs to show more composure to not bite on pump fakes and stay out of foul trouble. The Raptors have been successful playing Pascal Siakam at the five spot, but they will run into problems if they play centers like Rudy Gobert, Bam Adebayo, Anthony Davis and Giannis Antetokounmpo. The Raptors have options to throw at bigs, like Precious Achiuwa, Khem Birth and Chris Boucher, but they are not full-time solutions.

QUID NOVI • 15 NOV 2022

On the offensive side of the ball, the floor general is still Fred Vanvleet, the undrafted and undersized Wichita State product continues to run a well-oiled machine. Not only is he a consistent option behind the arc, but he makes his team better with timely assists. At the time of writing this article, he was averaging 7.6 assists per game.

The player I have been the most impressed with this year is Scottie Barnes. Last year’s rookie of the year is just so versatile. Not only can he play every position on the floor, but his offensive game has developed with more jumpers and improved play in the post. He is a strong rebounder with a playmaking game that continues to improve. Despite currently being on the mend, the team’s best player has been Pascal Siakam. The 28 year-old has been averaging 25 points a game with nine rebounds and almost eight assists. These are incredible numbers for a player who has had to guard the opponent’s big man on most nights. Many commentators have the Cameroonian in their early MVP conversation. The power forward has struggled to perform in recent years like he did in the 2019 championship run. Being the number one option brings all new defensive schemes, but with the development of Barnes, I think we can expect big things from number 43. Nick Nurse can really throw many defensive schemes to confuse and stifle opponents. The Raptors will be successful if they win the turnover battle and focus on defending in the halfcourt rather than in transition. Once Siakam returns, the team will have a powerful two forward scheme with Barnes. If Vanvleet, Anunoby and Trent Jr. convert their open attempts from long range, the Raptors will be tough to stop. This team has all the puzzle pieces to be a defensive menace in the NBA. Even when their shots are not falling, they should have their defense to fall back on to keep them in games by generating easy fast break buckets. Look for Toronto’s talented front office to look for a center before the trade deadline.

OVERHEARD 2L : “When your drink starts tasting like I’m not going to JICP in the morning” 2L : “I’m going to make this Thompson House a Thompson Home. ”

A WILD RIDE Reflections on Law School Darien Bahry | 4L

The journey has almost come to an end. After arriving in September of 2019, as a 22-year-old from Edmonton, Alberta, my time at McGill law is reaching the final moments. And what a whirlwind it has been. From the chaos of 1L, through to the pandemic and an online Course aux stages, law school has been a steady dose of incredible highs and overbearing lows. In retrospect, however, I wouldn’t have changed it for anything. Law school allowed me to meet amazing people, develop life-long friendships, and expand my horizons in a way I never thought possible. As such, instead of writing in French today about a pertinent sports-related issue, I will take the opportunity to reflect on a few McGill Law related experiences that marked me the most, and perhaps indirectly offer some guidance to those who are just beginning their journey.

Intramural Basketball: This is really where I made some of my best friends at McGill Law. As a 1L, it can be tough sometimes to engage in Faculty life, and there is a lot of undue stress on how to get involved. For me, one such way was through sports. Intramural basketball was an opportunity for me to not only unwind and have fun, but also meet fellow 1Ls and upper years as well. Some of the best advice I got regarding law school came from upper years after a basketball game. Also, shoutout to Keihgan Blackmore, Robyn McDougall, and Cassandra Betts for being amazing friends since our 1L edition of Supreme Court. Coffeehouse: Another highlight of 1L was learning about Coffeehouse. Originally, I did not go in my first couple of months at the Faculty, as I had seriously thought that Coffeehouse was a place for people to grab a coffee and chat. Now, I am all down for chatting, but I was not really into caffeine – caffeine tends to make me extremely anxious. Then I found out it was a social event, and I have loved it ever since. Like intramural basketball, Coffeehouse allowed me to meet fellow 1Ls in a more relaxed setting and unwind from law school. I loved discussing everything from sports to politics to everything in between, and it was a great opportunity to further integrate the Faculty. Coffeehouse was one of the things from the Faculty I had missed the most since 1L, and I have been fully taking advantage of it in 4L. It also showed me how we must not take things for granted and enjoy the moments as they come. Pandemic: This was not a pleasant experience to go through, but I would be remiss not to include the pandemic as a marking experience during my time at law school. I still remember the day when classes were cancelled and how we were in limbo. The world seemed to stop, with good reason, and I remember feeling nervous, anxious, scared, etc., about literally everything. What would happen

to my Oma and Opa and my family inAlberta? What would happen to me here? What would happen with classes? I don’t want to belabor this point too much since it was not a fun memory, but the pandemic did impact my experience at law school. My cohort missed an entire year together, and we will never get that precious time back together. Nevertheless, the pandemic showed me the importance of cultivating those relationships and the importance of engaging with ideas in person (participation online just was not the same, I felt like I learned way more in person by talking with my classmates about the complex topics we covered), and the importance of being empathetic.

Hockey Arbitration Competition of Canada: I will include this for two reasons: 1) My partner Vince Couto and I had the opportunity to talk about hockey, in a formal setting, with some prominent figures in the hockey world (e.g., we pleaded in front of Brad Holland, the now assistant GM of the Oilers), and; 2) We ended up getting second place out of 20 plus teams, and this despite having to argue against one of our prepared positions! Overall, this was a blast, and Vince and I still talk and laugh about it to this day. Course aux stages: Ah, the infamous Course aux stages. Brief disclaimer, my Course was entirely online, which made for many interesting and sometimes awkward zoom conversations with lawyers from various firms. Overall, the experience was relatively enjoyable, as I enjoy talking and socializing with people, albeit full of the fear of the unknown. I had some of my best and worst experiences in law school during Course aux stages. Here, however, I underscore a few things: First, be yourself during the process. Recruiters and lawyers can tell when you are faking, and if you aren’t yourself and go somewhere based on the representation you falsely presented, the chances are high that you will not be happy. Second, Course is not the be all end all – most people get jobs outside of Course, and big law is not for everyone. Know yourself and know what you want because you won’t be a happy camper doing due diligence or research for 14 hours a day if you aren’t interested in corporate law. Third, enjoy the process. I know this can be counterintuitive, but it’s the best advice I got since you are just having conversations with lawyers and recruiters. It’s probably the only opportunity you’ll have to do so with such a wide variety of people and firms. Finally, stay even keeled. There will be incredible highs and great lows, but I would say it’s crucial not to get too high or too low. There’s an old saying that notes you’re not as good as you and others think you are, and you’re not as bad either. This saying encapsulates Course. Riding with the punches and staying true to yourself and what you want is key to success, at least in my case. 3

Vol 44 ● No 6

Back in Person: The emotional rush of seeing my friends and colleagues in person after a full year online is something that I will also think of very fondly. Being able to chat after class or go out and enjoy Montreal with everyone back in the town was so much fun and helped me get back into the thick of law school. As a relatively social person, the impact on my mental health of being in person and seeing people again cannot be understated. Superior Court Clerkship and Davies Moot: My third year was marked by these two courses that I took to the extent they offered an experience I had never had before. These courses offered me the opportunity to have more tangible interactions with the field of law and solve real, or in the case of the moot, fictitious, problems that I can expect to see in a day-to-day setting coming out of law school. Working alongside a judge at the Superior Court on matters of evidence, securities laws, and even family law offered me insight into the legal profession from the unique position of a judge. Seeing how judges approach cases and interact with counsel is perhaps the most interesting law school moment I had; the cases I worked on were incredibly stimulating and formative. As for the moot, although not worth just three credits, it allowed me to push myself outside of my comfort zone and develop more practical skills: my legal writing, research, and pleading skills. Mooting was an enriching experience and the intellectual exercise of preparing our arguments, practicing them in front of partners, judges, and a former Supreme Court judge, was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Assuming you are interested in advocacy or discovering more about the legal system, I highly recommend mooting or clerking.

QUID NOVI • 15 NOV 2022

Frosh Leader: I had never done frosh during undergrad, but after my 1L frosh, I had wanted to become a frosh leader to help new students integrate into the Faculty as those upper years had done for me. Fortunately, this year’s frosh was very well planned by Matt Boulden, and I was fortunate enough to be alongside not only a great group of 1Ls (shoutout to the Basketball Team) but a fantastic group of fellow frosh leaders. Ben Brown, Zack Goobie, Meg Beattie, Josh Johnson and myself had an absolute blast, and it was a pleasure to run frosh alongside them and start my final year off with a bang. Texas: Over reading week and focus week, my best friend at the Faculty, Vince Couto, and I had decided to go to Austin, Texas, to watch a Longhorns football game (Horns Up – also, my condolences to noted OU fan Anna McAllister for Texas winning 49-0 this year) and enjoy the city. We had been talking for a while about going to the USA to watch a collegiate sporting event, and this year, post-pandemic, we decided to pull the trigger and go. I cannot understate how good of an idea that was. Words cannot describe how fun Austin is, and life-long memories were made. So just to wrap it up, law school is full of highs and lows. However, through it all, you will make great friends, have unforgettable memories and, if you are like me, walk out the other side wondering how it went by so fast. 4

“JE ME SOUVIENS” Jérémy Ferland | 1L

It has been said that McGill law school would be a fertile ground for my intellectual appetite. This statement has proven especially accurate. I found our faculty to be a haven where ideas of all streams are received with respect. I must say that this is a refreshing reality at a time when freedom of expression seems quite vulnerable. Indeed, in a polarized environment between left and right ideologies, safe spaces, such as schools, where opinions and ideas have traditionally flourished, seem to be under accelerated scrutiny. Though many of us do not believe to be living in a country where self-expression is harshly limited, Canada’s recent history has demonstrated a precedent of censorship. By passing legislation, many Canadian provinces deployed censorship to restrict attitudes that undermined public morals and expressed unpatriotic ideas. In the 1930s, the fear of communism built on the teachings of the Church influenced politicians to shape concrete constraints on freedom of expression. It’s in this context that in 1937, the Alberta Social Credit government passed the Act to Ensure the Publication of Accurate News and Information. That same year, the Quebec Union nationale government of Maurice Duplessis passed the Loi protégeant la province contre la propagande communiste, better known as the “loi du cadenas”. Eventually, both the Alberta and Quebec laws were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada because they were ultra vires the powers of the provincial governments. I look at these past decisions by the highest Canadian court with great content and gratitude, but lest we forget that, throughout history, many have tried to muzzle opinions, and that we are not immune from that reality. We may be tempted to suppose that freedom of expression can no longer be jeopardized since it has been part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1982. Furthermore, with the Charter being entrenched in Canada’s Constitution, it would seem unrealistic, implausible, and even maybe, far-fetched for any political or institutional actor to restrict freedom of speech. However, when treating such an important matter, I firmly believe we are not entitled to rest on our laurels. I lean towards Quebec’s mantra, “Je me souviens”. To conclude, let me remind us of the opportunity we share to study in a country and university where we can reasonably expect to share opinions without fear of retribution. This reality is beneficial for our social and political decision-making; it is also vital in an academic setting because it shapes good thinkers. Thus, censorship should be seen as an existential threat to developing and innovating new ideas. I wish to leave you with the thoughtful words of John Stuart Mill, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

BLAST FROM THE PAST As assignments come due, check out the wisdom on getting extensions from November 1997.

MEET THE TEAM

THE COFFEE POT

Gary Preteau | 2L

Anonymous Submission| Law Student

Columnist

I am originally from a small farming community in Manitoba, but made my way to the University of Ottawa prior to finally reaching McGill. I enjoyed reading the Quid when I was ignoring my academic responsibilities in 1L, so I figured I should be doing my part to help future generations procrastinate rather than figuring out what promissory estoppel means. Quand je n’étudies pas, tu peux me trouver au gym, dans la cuisine probablement en train de brûler quelque chose, ou au cinéma.

A Poem

Who stole the coffee pot, Whether you made a meme or not, This is the question, the thought, With which all of McGill Law has been fraught Moka Mondays will never be the same When we know that our need for caffeine Is just some kleptomaniac’s twisted game That even involved our beloved Dean But the coffee pot saga represents more, It has shaken the faculty to its very core How could a place of law be subject to theft? How could McGill Law, of morals be so bereft? These are questions to ponder, As we look downtown out yonder, In Mitch Garber’s tweet he did try: Does Concordia have an alibi? As such, I conclude this story And say with effusive pride and glory McGill Law can feel no more shame, Because, truthfully, Concordia is to blame ****

Vol 44 ● No 6

EMPTY NESTERS?

Why are we so tired? Perhaps because we just relaunched McGill Law in all of its in-person glory Ella Johnson | 2L

To the 2Ls, 3Ls, 4Ls, faculty and staff of McGill Law: Well folks, we did it. We relaunched McGill Law. The first fully in-person Frosh, Coffeehouse, Clubs Day and MedLaw events since 2020 are now behind us. Those of us who helped pull these events off – whether by organizing, frosh-leading, or representing our clubs – have now successfully launched a new cohort of McGill Law. And we have done so in a way that has sheltered them from many of the effects the pandemic has had on our law school experiences. How? Through determination, imagination and Redbull (coffee is more my cup of tea, but the 2022 frosh leader of the year, Nada Farag, lives on that stuff so it bears mentioning). Most upper-year students currently at the Faculty had no idea what they were trying to recreate when they launched into these efforts. Justine Blanchette-Sirois, who runs Coffeehouse, is a 3L and had never been to an in-person coffeehouse before this year. Matthew Boulden, who organized frosh (also Justine’s boyfriend – is there such a thing as an LSA power couple?), is a 2L and had only last year’s socially distanced and park-hangout-heavy frosh to go on for example. Khaled Hassoun, organizer of MedLaw and a key frosh official, and Luther Mourinet, organizer of Clubs Day, are two other 2Ls who were shooting in the dark.

QUID NOVI • 15 NOV 2022

And yet, somehow, these students managed to recreate the bustling, social atmosphere that McGill Law – and especially its Coffeehouses – had previously been known for. Justine told me, in bafflement, that she has heard that her coffeehouse events seem exactly like those from the “before times”. She does not know how she did it, because she did not know what to aim for. But it happened. So how did this happen? Through tremendous dedication and the volunteering of enormous amounts of social energy. I have never felt more tired than I did this September after frosh-leading and representing my clubs at the Clubs Coffeehouse and Clubs Day. I heard the same from almost all of the other students I spoke to who were involved in these events. I think it is because we were playing a unique role in McGill Law’s history. Upper years are always the bridge to the lower years, showing them what kind of community this is so that they can keep it going, knowing, of course, that they will make it their own. But for our cohorts, it felt as though we were building the community as we were handing it over. Much of what I did as a frosh leader was have fun with my friends, but it was always with the goal 6

of showing the froshies that there was a strong sense of community here, and that they could feel comfortable being themselves. We were only able to do that because we were comfortable with each other because we have built bonds with each other to create a community throughout the past year. We were not aided by frosh. Ours was a bit lackluster and I do not know many people who made friends there. Many 3Ls have said, when we discussed it, that they think that was probably because none of them knew each other at that point either – they had all spent the whole beginning of their McGill Law experience on Zoom, and many of them had actually signed up as frosh leaders to make friends. This just goes to show the importance of having a strong community to lead Frosh for the new students to make themselves at home. It also serves as proof of everything we, 2Ls and 3Ls, had to build over the past year and what, perhaps, we were still building as Frosh was happening. What I am saying, really, is that if this fall left you utterly exhausted, there is a reason. We had a big job to do. To those who played roles in maintaining the McGill Law community on life support during the pandemic: kudos. Also, a big round of applause to all of those who have been digging in the dirt, sowing the seeds of the full-bloomed revitalization that we have experienced this fall. The co-Editors-in-Chief of this historic publication, Zack Goobie and Anna McAlister, deserve a shout-out as well for all that they are doing to bring it back to its previous glory. I will leave you with a parting note about what I think our vision of McGill Law as a community might be. One of my friends and fellow frosh leaders, a Ms. Allison Bender, told me that her goal before Frosh was to bust all of the froshies’ preconceptions about what a law student is. I think she meant that we wanted to show them that there are many successful ways to be a law student. There are those who are in the library until 3 am, those who work law school like a 9 to 5, and those who study when they feel like it. There are those who do every reading and those who live off summaries. There is no one way, nor one right way to do this. It is what you make of it and the journey is as much about figuring out what works for you and what you would like to get out of this experience as anything else. As the artist Yusuf, formerly known as Cat Stevens, once said, “There are a million ways to be.” So cut yourself some slack if you are tired, do not forget to savor that third cup of coffee, and go enjoy this wonderful community which we are building together.

It has been said that McGill law school would be a fertile ground my intellectual appetite. This statement has proven especially accurate. I found our faculty to be a haven where ideas of all streams are received with respect. I must say that this is a refreshing reality at a time when freedom of expression seems quite vulnerable. Indeed, in a polarized environment between left and right ideologies, safe spaces, such as schools, where opinions and ideas have traditionally flourished, seem to be under accelerated scrutiny. Though many of us do not believe to be living in a country where self-expression is harshly limited, Canada’s recent history has demonstrated a precedent of censorship. By passing legislation, many Canadian provinces deployed censorship to restrict attitudes that undermined public morals and expressed unpatriotic ideas. In the 1930s, the fear of communism built on the teachings of the Church influenced politicians to shape concrete constraints on freedom of expression. It’s in this context that in 1937, the Alberta Social Credit government passed the Act to Ensure the Publication of Accurate News and Information. That same year, the Quebec Union nationale government of Maurice Duplessis passed the Loi protégeant la province contre la propagande communiste, better known as the “loi du cadenas”. Eventually, both the Alberta and Quebec laws were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada because they were ultra vires the powers of the provincial governments. I look at these past decisions by the highest Canadian court with great content and gratitude, but lest we forget that, throughout history, many have tried to muzzle opinions, and that we are not immune from that reality. We may be tempted to suppose that freedom of expression can no longer be jeopardized since it has been part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1982. Furthermore, with the Charter being entrenched in Canada’s Constitution, it would seem unrealistic, implausible, and even maybe, far-fetched for any political or institutional actor to restrict freedom of speech. However, when treating such an important matter, I firmly believe we are not entitled to rest on our laurels. I lean towards Quebec’s mantra, “Je me souviens”. To conclude, let me remind us of the opportunity we share to study in a country and university where we can reasonably expect to share opinions without fear of retribution. This reality is beneficial for our social and political decision-making; it is also vital in an academic setting because it shapes good thinkers. Thus, censorship should be seen as an existential threat to developing and innovating new ideas. I wish to leave you with the thoughtful words of John Stuart Mill, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Vol 44 ● No 6

ENCOURAGING WORDS FROM THE SUPREME COURT Brandon Grimaldi | 1L

QUID NOVI • 15 NOV 2022

On November 4th, McGill received Supreme Court of Canada judges Sheilah Martin and Nicholas Kasirer at the faculty to participate in a discussion and a Q&A session with students. 90 minutes might sound long but time flew by as they spoke about their role along with the freedoms and limitations of being a judge, the intricacies of the group decision-making that happens at the Supreme Court, and their experiences as scholars. Although they responded to many interesting questions, one of the simplest proved to be the most striking. They were asked: when did you know you wanted to become a judge? Both proceeded with insightful and personalized responses.

par le doute. That, as a student, the uncertainty you may feel, be it during your first day at the faculty or throughout the classes you take, is all part of the process.

In the same vein, Justice Martin admitted she never gave it much thought until she too was pressed by a colleague who was a judge. She shared some inspiring words with participants when she told us how important it is not to limit ourselves, and to transition away from saying this isn’t for me to asking why not me? It spoke to the necessity of working with the doubt we feel and making use of it rather than it being a hindrance.

Justice Kasirer detailed his shyness as a student, comfort as a professor and initial distance from considering a judgeship until he was encouraged by a colleague. Speaking poignantly about the law school experience he said how normal it was to be habité 8

Sometimes it may seem as though Supreme Court judges are these f a n t a s t i c a l , f a r- a w a y p e o p l e whom we only know by reading the decisions they author. Even Justice Martin expressed having had a similar feeling when she was a student and now, she’s on the bench. Justice Kasirer described how he thought of abandoning law completely during his clerkship

because, again, he felt it was not his place – judging from a distinguished academic and judicial career, he found his place. The humility that both judges demonstrated helped dismantle the notion that the Supreme Court is an unattainable institution. If we look simply at the examples provided by Martin and Kasirer, they stood where we stand today, they thought they could not make it, and they did. Participants and non-participants alike should take one thing away from the judges’ advice: the path is not linear, not in your education nor in your career. Law is an abundant yet daunting discipline where it is easy to lose yourself in the options before you. Finding your place might be a short and easy process or a long and difficult one. Whichever it is, you are better for it. w

SUBMIT TO THE

QUID NOVI EMAIL US BY 5PM EACH THURSDAY quid.law@mcgill.ca

THE GOOD AND BAD OF THE UGLY MITCHELL MILLER DEBACLE An Examination of the Bruins Controversial New Signee Gary Preteau | 3L

You often hear people speak of sporting heroes and the glory they brought to their city and fans. Sportswriters love using flowery language to elevate someone’s ability to deftly maneuver a ball or puck onto a pedestal of greatness. It is a bit silly, but I cannot act like it does not make for compelling stories. Yet, this age of sporting heroes seems long gone. Heroic narratives are harder to weave when there is a new story of an athlete or an organization’s misbehaviour every week. This past week, the National Hockey League’s Boston Bruins took the centre stage of infamy when they signed, and then promptly sought to release, the much-maligned prospect Mitchell Miller. Miller’s infamy is borne out of horrific bullying. Originally drafted by the Arizona Coyotes, Miller was released by the Coyotes after public backlash over his assault charge for bullying a developmentally challenged Black classmate in middle school. Miller subjected his classmate to degrading and racist behaviour that included slurs and tricking the classmate into consuming candy they soaked in a urinal. 1 This entire debacle is yet another instance of athletic prowess acting as a cover for horrible behaviour. If you have a certain amount of ability with a puck or ball, people in sports seem to be tripping over themselves to give you second chances and excuse your poor behaviour. In Miller’s case, his hockey ability has led to clubs looking past his glaring character issues twice now. It is important to clarify that a 14 year old’s misdeeds should not necessarily sentence him to a life of infamy. Some may never want to forgive Miller, which is fair given his repugnant transgression. Yet, even forgiveness requires more than the passage of time and a smooth skating stride. Miller apologized to prospective NHL clubs, not the victim of his bullying, prior to the draft. The Ohio magis-

1 Mark Schofield, “The Bruins’ Mitchell Miller fiasco ending in his release, explained” (8 November 2022), online: SBNation <https:// www.sbnation.com/nhl/2022/11/8/23442224/boston-bruins-mitchell-miller-fiasco-explained>.

trate responsible for his case found he showed no remorse for his actions. The only time Miller apologized to his victim was in advance of the Bruins signing, which was a condition for his contract. 2 We need only look to Meyers Leonard for a much better example of contrition. Leonard was fined and suspended from the NBA for an antisemitic slur while on Twitch. After public backlash, Leonard apologized and got involved in the Jewish community, including distributing meals for Jewish families and organizing basketball camps for Jewish children. 3 Leonard still finds himself out of the NBA, but he has exhibited the empathy and education that so many others, like Miller, lack. No one is obliged to forgive, but paths of contrition like Leonard’s make forgiveness far more palatable. There is also the Bruins’ side of this incident. Prior to the signing, the club did not reach out to the victim nor the victim’s family. Following the signing, the team’s general manager Don Sweeney openly admitted that he was not even sure it was the right move. In response to the backlash, Bruins’ team president Cam Neely claimed a vetting error was the reason for the lack of communication. 4 So, to summarize, the Bruins knew they were potentially doing something terrible but failed to be diligent enough to ensure they at least spoke to Miller’s victims. Unending cynicism and disgust are easy and frankly appealing stances to take given that much of this situation deserves it. However, there are glimpses of positivity to be found. First, the Bruins did move to rescind their signee in response to massive public pressure. It is refreshing to see billion-dollar organizations respond to pressure and shows the power that a fanbase can have to meaningfully enact change. Even more refreshing is the fact that fans did express disgust and disappointment. Hockey and its culture 2 Ibid. 3 Louis Keene, “NBA player who used antisemitic slur says incident traumatized him” (21 January 2022), online: Forward <https:// forward.com/news/481175/meyers-leonard-chabad-rabbi-andrusier/>. 4 Ibid.

Vol 44 ● No 6 can frequently brush aside problematic behaviour of star players, yet so many fans and established media members stood firm in criticizing Miller and the Bruins. Rather than defaulting to excusing his behaviour by reference to his age, many pointed out that Miller was not apologetic right until it was required to justify his signing. The most surprising source of pressure came from within the Bruins organization. The team’s players uniformly expressed dismay about how the signing clashed with the team’s culture. 5 Patrice Bergeron, the Bruins captain and arguably the league’s most respected player, said “[t]he culture that we built here goes against that type of behaviour” and that “this locker room, we’re all about inclusion, diversity, respect.” 6

QUID NOVI • 15 NOV 2022

It is common to see the NHL and its teams promote inclusion and diversity, but it is rare to see players take a strong stance on anything. I honestly dislike the Bruins as a hockey team, but I cannot help but respect their integrity and willingness to openly criticize their own management’s failed work on inclusion and diversity. Their condemnation is especially important for hockey fans that may not feel seen or respected by this great game. For a sport facing a decline in registration, 7 hockey has a very strong reason to hope their fanbase can be reached. The attitude of Bergeron and his teammates is a very real glimmer of hope that the hockey culture may be shifting to one of inclusion and respect, which the game desperately needs. Hockey has been no stranger to hazing and bullying over its many years as Canada’s national game. Hockey will never rid itself of bullies and it will likely still try to paper over transgressions if the bully skates well enough. Yet, there are reasons to think the culture is shifting. Wrongdoing will never cease to exist in hockey, but we have very real hope that the future will emphasize accountability rather than ignorance.

5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Carolyn Kury de Castillo, “Hockey Calgary hoping to reverse declining registration numbers” (3 June 2022), online: Global News <https://globalnews.ca/news/8892114/hockey-calgary-registration-numbers-strategy/>.

SAVING THE POLICE Félix Desrochers | 1L

“Criminal justice is an umbrella term that refers to the laws, procedures, institutions, and policies at play before, during, and after the commission of a crime.” - Cornell Law School Criminal justice is an essential subject, one which must be discussed with attention to its nuances. Sharing a vast society with millions of individuals brings the necessity to impose rules on ourselves to avoid conflict, violence, and chaos. Why is that the case? Well, unfortunately, humans are egoistic creatures. One’s needs come first, and that is necessary as it ensures our species’ survival. For instance, a mother must fulfill her own essential needs before she can provide for those of the children who depend upon her care. We never admit that’s part of our human condition; it annoys us. However, our everyday acts evoke what we hide deep down inside. As 17th-century British philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, put in his renowned book Leviathan: “what opinion [one] has of his fellow subjects, when he rides armed; of his fellow citizens, when he locks his doors; and of his children, and servants, when he locks his chests. Does he not there … accuse mankind by his actions?”. Before elaborating further, I want to make something clear at the outset: it is my utmost conviction that no human endeavor is perfect and that the truth in its most essential form eludes us. This does not presuppose that because it is out of reach that it should not be strived for. However, its search must be honest. Like other human phenomena that derive from our imagination and experience, our social structures cannot be objectivized. Stuck with partial information, there is a plethora of reasonable ways to interpret human reality. Therefore, I think that an honest attempt at deciphering it must encompass a wide array of perspectives. In academia, I feel a profound discomfort when, in search of the truth, we are provided with only one viewpoint and not its opposite. Criminal justice classes are a perfect example. In fact, they reflect the analytical approach of a growing movement, imported from the United States to promote “abolitionist theory.” Fundamentally, as opposed to universalism, which perceives every member of the nation as being part of the same political society, “abolitionist theory” is rooted in particularism, whereby individuals are primarily categorized under their individual traits (race, religion, sexual identity,

etc.). Through this lens, if there is an over-representation of “racialized” individuals in our carceral system, it is because the police are complacent in not recognizing their systemic bias against people belonging to minority groups and in “over-policing” their communities. Therefore, if we suppose that there is a misallocation of resources, the police should lose part of their funding and their powers. Financial supplies going otherwise into the institution should be reallocated towards social services. In the long run, crimes would thereby be prevented, violence would go down, and we would all be better off. I want to provide nuance to such claims because we should keep in mind that “abolitionist theory” is not a science. The Case for the Police “Abolitionist theory,” although its objective is noble, simply cannot keep our populous cities safe. One of its major underlying assumptions is that we can turn belligerent lions into peaceful rabbits. Organized crime does not operate that way. Following the atrocious death of George Floyd, many cities in the United States “defunded” their police forces. Minneapolis was obviously amongst the first to do so. CNN reports that last year, 93 Minneapolis citizens were murdered, a dreadful ratio for a city of about 425 000 people. This contrasts the statistics from 2019, when 46 were assassinated. Its neighboring town, St. Paul, saw 38 murders, a historic high. After police patrols loosened their grip on poorer neighborhoods, residents recall drug dealers selling openly in the middle of the streets. This explains why in a November 2021 referendum, 56% of Minneapolis citizens, and up to 61% of the population in north Minneapolis (a predominantly Black neighborhood) refused the establishment of a “public-health oriented” police force. In response, the city council voted to “refund” the cut they had made. Austin, Texas, is also a leader in the “defund” movement: in 2020, the city redirected a third of its police budget towards community medics, mental health responders, services for homeless people, substance abuse programs, and more. Yet, its murder rate rose to 89 in 2021 (as opposed to 44 in 2020). My analysis places a lot of emphasis on murder statistics, for this crime provokes an irreparable wrong from which entire families never recover. Let us now turn to Montreal. Although Mayor Valérie Plante never decided to defund the police or strip the SPVM of some of its powers, let us see if it would be reasonable to do so considering the data at hand. The facts show that the city is witnessing the consequences of an illegal firearm epidemic. According to SPVM data, in 2021, 144 events involved the use of firearms, which is twice as many as 2020. In the same year, a 50%

increase in murders was reported (37 murders in 2021 as opposed to 25 in 2020). 12 victims were between 12 and 24 years old. Some were innocent bystanders. 25 of the murders were related to organized crime. The most affected districts from gun violence are in descending order: Montréal-Nord, Rivières-des-Prairies, Saint-Léonard and Saint-Michel. In this context, would it be responsible to pretend that we can cut the police’s budget? I do not think so. Firstly, most violent crimes are perpetrated by organized crime. It operates in a hierarchical manner, the same way as capitalism does, albeit outside the boundary of the law. An elite group stays immune from direct violence and delegates the vicious tasks to lower groups in the organization. People who join gangs are most of the time in pursuit of quick gains, a high social status, and a lifestyle where they can finally be “respected” (or feared) by their peers. They inexorably undergo pressure from the top to carry out the organization’s hateful ambitions and are prevented from leaving if they want to remain alive. I therefore believe that even if police budget cuts are allocated towards social programs, it will not make criminals quit their lifestyle. Inevitably, these cuts will make police forces less effective at preventing crimes on the streets and at investigating them once they have occurred. Secondly, it would also be irresponsible to proclaim that the Montreal police force is “over-policing” ethnically-diverse neighborhoods. Organizationally, it does not allocate resources according to a “color” lens: it supplies officers proportionally to population density. In densely packed areas where crime rates are more prominent, some police stations will remain open at night, but that is the extent of additional resources. If our carceral population is overpopulated with racialized individuals, we should rather consider other underlying issues which lead to increased probability of criminality, for example poverty, and address them. Tackling poverty by improving education and other services in poverty-stricken neighborhoods can be part of the solution, but it does not require a reduction in the police’s means to protect the areas most at risk. Thirdly, within the scope of this article, I will not elaborate on why we should not disarm police officers, an idea that is recurrent in abolitionist theory. It is a waste of our time. It would obviously endanger their lives and infringe upon their ability to arrest armed suspects. In conclusion, as there is always a flip side to a coin, we should be more nuanced in academia when talking about criminal justice. Every institution should be scrutinized, but in our ivory tower, it is also our duty to thank the public servants who work day and night to protect us, make our streets safe, and respond to injustice.

Vol 44 ● No 6

BOURSE PAUL-ANDRÉ CRÉPEAU 2023 – 2024 La Bourse d'études en langue française de l'Institut canadien d'études juridiques supérieures permet d'acquitter les droits de scolarité payables à une université à l’extérieur du Canada dans un programme d’études dispensé en langue française et une partie des coûts de subsistance et de déplacement, sous réserve de tout autre octroi monétaire que reçoit le ou la bénéficiaire. L'Institut canadien d'études juridiques supérieures détermine annuellement le montant de la bourse, jusqu'à concurrence de 20 000 $ pour l'année 2023-2024, en tenant compte notamment des droits de scolarité et des autres coûts de subsistance et de déplacement prévus. CRITÈRES D'ADMISSIBILITÉ Cette bourse a pour objet de financer des études supérieures en droit visant l'obtention d'un diplôme de deuxième cycle ou de troisième cycle (l'équivalent d'une maîtrise ou d'un doctorat en droit dans une université canadienne), dans un programme dispensé en langue française dans une université à l’extérieur du Canada ou encore de permettre d’effectuer un séjour d’une année dans le cadre d’un programme doctoral en cotutelle avec une université à l’extérieur du Canada de langue française. Le ou la récipiendaire doit avoir obtenu son baccalauréat ou une maîtrise en droit d'une université canadienne dans les quatre ans précédant l’année d’études projetée. Pour pouvoir bénéficier de cette bourse, il faut avoir été accepté par une université à l’extérieur du Canada dans un programme d’études dispensé en langue française en vue de poursuivre des études supérieures en droit ou être déjà inscrit et engagé dans un programme doctoral en cotutelle. Les candidats ne sont pas obligés d’avoir une confirmation de leur admission au moment de la soumission de leur dossier ou de la sélection du récipiendaire de la bourse. CANDIDATURES Les candidatures doivent inclure : 1. un curriculum vitæ; 2. une déclaration écrite de la personne intéressée expliquant son projet d’études supérieures ou, s’il y a lieu, l’état d’avancement de son doctorat en cotutelle; 3. une copie de ses relevés de notes d'études de premier et de second cycles, d'études de droit ou d'un cours de formation professionnelle du Barreau, selon le cas; 4. un maximum de trois lettres de recommandation; et 5. un état des droits de scolarité et des coûts de subsistance et de déplacement prévus. Les candidatures doivent parvenir, par la poste ou par courrier électronique, AU PLUS TARD LE 31 DÉCEMBRE 2022, à :

QUID NOVI • 15 NOV 2022

Anne Thomas, Vice-présidente et Secrétaire Institut canadien d'études juridiques supérieures C.P. 43538, Bureau de poste de Leaside 1601, avenue Bayview Toronto (Ontario) M4G 4G8 Téléphone : 416 429 3292 Courriel : info@canadian-institute.com Site Web : www.canadian-institute.com EXAMEN DES CANDIDATURES Un comité de sélection, constitué à cette fin annuellement par l’Institut, examine les candidatures en fonction notamment de la qualité du dossier académique et du projet d’études. L’octroi d’une bourse est soumis à la vérification par le comité que les différents critères d’admissibilité sont satisfaits. Le comité de sélection se réserve le droit de ne pas octroyer la bourse en l’absence de candidatures qu’il estime qualifiées. Les décisions du comité de sélection sont sans appel. SÉLECTION DE LA PERSONNE RÉCIPENDIAIRE DE LA BOURSE L'Institut communiquera d'ici le 15 avril 2023 avec l'éventuelle personne récipiendaire de la bourse.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

QUID NOVI • 15 NOV 2022

Vol 44 ● No 6