McGill encampment evicted
McGill has closed its campus and is moving private security in to dismantle its pro‑Palestinian encampment on Wednesday morning. CBC radio says Sherbrooke Street is blocked off where it passes the campus.
McGill has closed its campus and is moving private security in to dismantle its pro‑Palestinian encampment on Wednesday morning. CBC radio says Sherbrooke Street is blocked off where it passes the campus.
Ian 08:14 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
Any word on which private security agency? It’s not mentioned in any of the articles or evident from the supporting photos.
Kate 08:26 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
Not that I’ve seen yet.
Ian 08:36 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
I mostly ask becasue they used to use Securitas, who were responsible for some of the more egregious abuses of power during the student strikes of 2012.
https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2012/02/private-security-in-a-public-university/
su 09:22 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
Looks like Montreal police were also engaged .
Ian 09:28 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
According to the articles the SIS (Section du support et interventions spécialisées) were staying off-campus, eg, “A spokesperson for the Montreal police said officers are only at the scene for support purposes.”
su 09:29 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
Is the Montreal police SIS squad a new entity? I don’t recall ever seeing those uniforms before.
CE 09:35 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
SPHR McGill is saying the security company is Sirco.
Ian 09:41 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
Sort of – Intervention officers (GI, Riot police) are now called SIS.
Joey 10:16 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
They used Sirco. As a lay person, it seems to me that McGill is violating the outcome of the two injunction requests to shut the encampment down, though I am sure they have some legal justification (La Presse refers to legitimate safety risks – overdoses and drug sales this weekend, fire risks from propane tanks, rat infestation – that of course haven’t been verified).
From the activists’ side, at this point there’s probably more to be gained from being kicked out by McGill’s private security firm than there is from hanging out indefinitely on lower campus.
Ian 10:25 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
That’s a very good point. It also crossed my mind that McGill did an outcomes exercise and figured the likelihood of getting sued was less of a concern than having the encampment stay in place. Whatever harm or benefit has been done to their reputation throughout the encampment won’t be significantly changed by hiring private security to dismantle it.
H. John 11:43 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
@Joey
There has only been one injunction request by McGill (or even involving McGill) and that case is still before the courts.
The other court decisions, the case brought by two students from McGill or the case involving UQAM, were both preliminary or interim injunction requests (one rejected, one granted in part).
The recent decision in the University of Toronto case gives a clear and thorough explanation of the law. I expect the ongoing McGill case will arrive at exactly the same finding (unless the judge decides that since the camp is gone the case is moot and dismisses it).
University of Toronto (Governing Council) v. Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc3755/2024onsc3755.html#document
It’s estimated that the U of T case cost that University well over $2 million in legal fees.
The link above connects to the case but also the other cases considered by the judge, and an article reviewing the case:
Trespass, Campus Encampments, and the Charter
https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/95044
Joey 13:03 on 2024-07-10 Permalink
Thanks, H. John.