Pour notre édition de mars, des pièces d’opinion signées par Brian Bird, Shannon Snow, Mark Dance et Anna Macintosh; Aly Háji publie une étude avec le professeur Karl Moore; Jesse Hartery se mérite un prix de rédaction, et le forum national de LawNeedsFeminism aura lieu le 11 mars.
Un étudiant de la Faculté de droit de McGill remporte le Concours de rédaction de la Chaire Louis-Philippe-Pigeon
Jesse Hartery, qui termine sa deuxième année en droit, a remporté le 1er prix ex aequo du Concours de rédaction de la Chaire de rédaction juridique Louis-Philippe-Pigeon (U. Laval) pour son texte intitulé « Compétence concurrente en matière d’immigration : rendre aux provinces canadiennes ce qu’elles ont perdu ».
Ce concours récompense des textes qui s’inscrivent dans les axes de recherche de la Chaire: la rédaction juridique, l’interprétation des sources du droit, le Code civil dans l’ordre juridique québécois, la structure du droit et l’organisation de l’information juridique.
Bravo, Jesse!
Religious neutrality and reconciliation
Brian Bird (DCL candidate), Policy Options Politiques, 3 March 2017
We can balance reconciliation and religious neutrality by teaching (rather than practising) the content of Indigenous spirituality.
Today it’s a given in Canada that institutional practice of religion in public schools is unacceptable. School prayer, for example, is a nonstarter. The journey to this destination began as a reaction to the practice of Christianity in public schools as Canada became more diverse and secular. A watershed moment occurred nearly three decades ago, when a group of parents in Sudbury won their court case seeking to end the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in Ontario’s public schools.
Given this firm commitment to the secular delivery of public education, what is the appropriate response, in 2017, to the introduction of Indigenous spirituality into the classroom? A new lawsuit in British Columbia raises this question. Keep reading…
The ‘F’ Word
The McGill Reporter, 2 March 2017
On March 11, #LawNeedsFeminismBecause National Forum will explore how to reshape the legal profession
These days, some people are reticent to call themselves feminists publicly.
Even if gender equality has become a universal principle for the vast majority of Canadians and enormous progress has been made toward the recognition of the rights of LGBTQ people there are strongholds that still resist the push toward equality.
That is where the impetus for LawNeedsFeminismBecause comes from. Keep reading…
Opinion: Telegram, ‘watch your language’
Shannon Snow (2L), The Telegram, 21 February 2017
As professionals in communications, law and advocacy, we are constantly forced to recognize the power of words. When contributing to public discourse, we ask what Rupert Ross asked in his book inspiring our title: does my language “create hurdles we have to overcome before we can begin to deal effectively with complex realities?” We expect the same of our journalists.
We expect this in all circumstances, but especially when reporting on sexual violence. There is a person who survived, who has experienced something deeply traumatic, who was brave enough to report it to police. There are 460,000 sexual assaults every year in Canada; 99 per cent of assailants walk free — only 0.3 per cent end in conviction. It is not only the justice system that fails survivors. Your coverage of the ongoing Snelgrove trial is just one example of many reports that have adopted language that protects, even serves, perpetrators. These words don’t embody “objective facts.” Journalists must “weigh the public’s interest against possible harm,” and “give context as to why (they) are reporting.” Keep reading…
Opinion: Why the electoral reform sham will breed cynicism
Mark Dance (2L), Maclean’s, 6 February 2017
By killing electoral reform, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has damaged more than just Canada’s prospects for releasing itself from the clutches of moribund first-past-the-post elections. He has cut down the democratic aspirations of hundreds of thousands of young Canadians, tacitly teaching them to expect less from government and dream smaller political dreams.
Let’s give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt, shall we? Let’s assume that the now-infamous promise to make 2015 the last first-past-the-post election was made sincerely, and not in a hastily calculated bid to peel off progressive voters from Tom Mulcair’s NDP. Let’s assume that rookie MPs and ministers were selected to lead on the file not to control the process from the Prime Minister’s Office, but rather to usher in genuine generational change. Keep reading…
Opinion: A year later, the Trudeau government still drags its feet on welfare of First Nations children
Anna McIntosh (3L), Ottawa Citizen, 27 January 2017
A year ago this week, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal released the landmark Caring Society decision, which found that the federal government had discriminated against First Nations children by providing insufficient funding for First Nations child and family services. It also found that the federal funding structure for these services incentivized removing children from their homes, thus perpetuating historical disadvantages against Aboriginal peoples, mainly through the Residential Schools system.
The decision followed a nine-year court battle, and was hailed as an important victory for First Nations children. The process leading to the decision was difficult, including attempts by the federal government to have the case dismissed by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Keep reading…
McGill study reveals the ‘illusion’ of innovation at Canadian law firms
The Financial Post, 26 January 2017
MBA/Law student Aly Háji publishes on innovation in law firms.
A new study out of the Faculty of Management at McGill University suggests that while Canadian law firms talk a good “innovation” game, little innovation is actually taking place. McGill law and MBA student Aly Háji conducted the study under the supervision of management professor Karl Moore.
The study, The Illusion of Innovation at Canadian Law Firms, reveals a stark divide between associates and partners on their firms’ efforts to innovate. Partners tend to think their firms are blazing a trail, while associates tend to think their employers are lagging.
Read the news article on the Financial Post.
Read the full paper [.pdf] on Jupiter.