You are on page 1of 29

1

THE INDEPENDENT STUDENT INQUIRY

Final Report on the events of 10 November 2011


1 March 2012

THE INDEPENDENT STUDENT INQUIRY

Final Report on the events of 10 November 2011


1 March 2012 Version 1.0 If we are complacent, the world will pass us by. Principal and Vice-Chancellor Heather Monroe-Blum AUTHORS FINAL REPORT Amelia Bagnoli Christopher Bangs Allison Cooper Harmon Moon Amanda Murphy PRELIMINARY REPORT David Benrimoh Matt Dowling Hugo Lafrenire Nathaniel Laywine Mark Phillips Hannah Rackow

The contents of this final report were written in English, with the exception of the Inquirys Mandate and Methodology and testimonies given in other languages. A French version will be released at a later date. LEnqute a crit ce rapport en anglais, sauf le mandat et la mthodologie et la documentation qui ont t crit en franais. On publiera une version franaise ultrieurement.

4 CONTENTS: 1. Mandate, Methodology, and Data (Mandat, mthodologie, et rsultats) 1.1. Mandate 1.2. Methodology 1.3. Data collected 1.4. The Jutras Report 1.5. History of our Process 2. Context of the Final Report Release 3. Chronology of Events (By Location) 3.1. James Administration Building, fifth floor 3.2. James Administration Building, second floor 3.3. James Administration Building, outside 3.4. Reactions 4. Key Findings 5. Effects on Community (eg. Psychological Impacts) 6. Recommendations compiled from our sources 6.1. Views of the Occupation of the James Administration Buildings Fifth Floor 6.2. Views on McGill Securitys Response 6.3. Views on the Service de police de la ville de Montral 6.4. Views on the McGill Administration 6.5. Views on McGills Emergency Support System 6.6. Suggestions from Respondents Regarding Procedure and Methodology 7. Independent Student Inquiry Team Recommendations 8. Conclusion: Next Steps and Concerns 9. Appendices / Interview Lists An updated version of the Final Report may be released if and when we receive the documents requested from McGill University. For a discussion of the history of these requests, see Section 4.10 Key Findings. 1. MANDATE, METHODOLOGY, AND DATA 1.1. Mandate | Mandat The Independent Student Inquiry was formed to investigate the events of 10 November, which left many members of the McGill community shocked, frustrated, and confused. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the official investigation, and the importance of having students take an active role in the analysis of the events and context of 10 November, we have been tasked with carrying out a parallel inquiry. The Inquiry will collect testimony from affected groups, review photographic and video evidence, and work to make as much information public as possible. We will release a preliminary report on 1 December, and a final report in January. All interested community members are encouraged to take part. The inquiry's goal is to provide an objective, democratic, representative account of the events. Lenqute tudiante indpendante a t cre pour investiguer les vnements du 10 novembre qui ont laisss les membres de la communaut de McGill choqus, frustrs et confus. Vu lincertitude qui accompagne linvestigation officielle, nous avons t chargs dentreprendre une enqute parallle dsintresse. Cette enqute rassemblera les tmoignages des groups affects, elle examinera les preuves photographiques et audiovisuelles, et elle runira autant dinformation possible, tout en le rendant accessible au publique. Nous publierons un rapport prliminaire le 1 dcembre et un rapport final en janvier. Tout membre de la communaut est encourag de nous joindre ou de nous aider.

5 1.2. Methodology | Mthodologie The Independent Student Inquiry was formed to investigate the events of 10 November. We will work to make information available to the general public by collecting testimonies and reviewing photographic, audio-visual, and documentary evidence. The Inquiry was formed as a parallel investigation to that being conducted by Dean of Law Daniel Jutras, and will work to make his investigation accountable to the public. The Independent Student Inquiry's methodology is based around four main pillars: 1. Total transparency All documents, recordings, testimonies, and interviews received by the Inquiry will be made available to the general public subject to the confidentiality requested by respondents. Should information be specifically solicited by the Inquiry the means by which this solicitation was undertaken will also be made public. 2. Open participation Anybody is welcome to contribute to the inquiry and aid in the collecting and processing of information. This includes holding interviews (provided that the consent of the interviewee is obtained), reading documents, issuing requests for information, and writing and editing the report. 3. Consensus-based decision-making All decisions regarding the report are made with the approbation of all members of the Inquiry willing to identify themselves as authors. Should it prove impossible to reach consensus, a decision will be made based on a three-quarters majority vote, with dissenting parties publicly indicating their positions. 4. Confidentiality The providence of all information used in the report is confidential unless its source indicates otherwise. The Inquiry will work rigorously to ensure that testimonies released will include no information pertaining to the source's name, field of study, place of origin, or current living situation. Four students (Chris Bangs, Allison Cooper, Matt Dowling, Mark Phillips) have access to the email account and will see all information sent to independentstudentinquiry@gmail.com (or enqueteetudianteindependante@gmail.com). Transcriptions and testimonies will be disseminated among other authors as needed, but all personal information will be removed prior to transcription unless otherwise indicated. * On a tabli l'Enqute tudiante indpendante pour examiner les vnements de 10 Novembre, qui s'ont mis la communaut McGill en choque, frustration, et confus. On fera l'information en domaine publique par la rassemblement des dpositions et des documents photographique, audio-visuel, et crit. On a cre l'Enqute en tandem avec lequel de Daniel Jutras, le Doyen de la Facult de droit, et il travaillera de lui tenir pour responsable quand son rapport de est publi par la Principale Heather MonroeBlum le 15 Dcembre 2011.

La mthodologie de l'Enqute est fond sur quatre thmes: 1. La transparence complte L'enqute rendra disponible au public tout documents photographique, audio-visuel, et crit qu'il a reu, selon la confidentialit requir par des rpondeurs. Si l'Enqute fait un demande spcifique au information, il rendra public ses mthodes. 2. La participation ouverte N'importe qui est accueilli de contribuer l'Enqute et nous aider avec la collection et traitement d'information. On peut faire des interviews (avec l'accord de la personne interviewe), lire des documents, dlivrer des requtes d'information, et aider en crire et rdiger le rapport. 3. Les dcisions par consensus Tout les auteurs identifies sur le rapport dcident tout des questions par consensus. Si l'accord des tout parties n'est pas possible, un dcision peut tre achev avec un vote d'un majorit trois-quarts, avec les gens qui ne sont pas en accord identifiant leurs positions publiquement. 4. La confidentialit La source de tout information au sein du rapport est confidentiel sauf quand elle n'en veut pas. L'enqute travaillera fort protger le nom, concentration, lieu d'origine, ou lieu d'habitation de l'informateur/informatrice. Quatre tudiants (Chris Bangs, Allison Cooper, Matt Dowling, Mark Phillips) aura l'accs au l'adresse lectronique enqueteetudianteindependante@gmail.com (ou independentstudentinquiry@gmail.com) et verra tout l'information y envoye. On rpand au des autres auteurs si ncessaire, mais tout information personnel sera supprimer en avant, sauf si l'informant veut autrement. 1.3. Data Collected Various data were consulted in the creation of this report. In addition to news media sources, including campus and external media outlets, photographic and video evidence, the Inquiry received 34 unique accounts from witnesses and actors involved in events. In creating our Final Report, we also consulted the Report of the Internal Investigation into the Events of November 10, 2011. Of the 34 unique accounts, 20 were interviews conducted by members of the Inquiry, while 14 were written testimonials. Requests for interviews were solicited via a Facebook page and the Student Society of McGill University and Mob Squad McGill (a student group involved with the protests on November 10, and so especially targeted to students who were present) listservs. Further interview requests were sent to administration members, campus security, staff members identified in video evidence as having been present that night, and staff members who signed their name to the open letter in the McGill Daily entitled We, too, are McGill (19 November, 2011). Of the 34 testimonials, none was with administrators or non-faculty staff. We spent over 30 hours conducting interview drop-in office hours for individual interviews, which ranged from twenty minutes to an hour and a half in length.

Respondents were informed that their privacy would be fully respected. Each respondent was given the option to provide evidence for this report with or without a name attached, as well as the option to post any portion, or none, of their account on our website with or without a name attached. All names of protesters or bystanders mentioned in the testimonials have been removed. Requests for specific information were sent to members of the administration, to the SPVM, and to Dean Jutras. In addition, a student inquiry team member called in to the Principals public webcast asking for an interview (29 November 2011), to which she replied that she is only participating in the Dean of Laws investigation. To Vice Principal (University Services) Jim Nicell, an email was sent inquiring after the chain of command surrounding the McGill Attention emergency texting system, and the cost of its use. A series of questions were sent to Sergeant Ian Lafrenire, Responsable Module relations mdias of the SPVM; no response was received as of the writing of this report. Multiple requests for interviews were emailed to staff and administration present that night; none chose to participate. Further questions were sent to Dean Jutras, and he graciously responded. Six Access to Information requests were delivered to McGill University on November 25th, and an additional five were mailed to the Service de police de la Ville de Montral (SPVM) the same day. An additional set of requests was given to McGill on December 15, 2011. The full text of the requests can be found in the appendix. The SPVM responded December 19th, 2011, and the documents received were published on our website. McGill University failed to respond to any Access to Information Requests; a hearing will be held before the Commission daccs linformation du Qubec at some point in the future. 1.4. The Jutras Report Dean of Law Daniel Jutras released his report to the public on 1 December 2011, titled Report of the Internal Investigation into the Events of November 10, 2011, colloquially known as the Jutras Report. From the outset there were concerns about the terms of reference set for him by the Principal, which mandate a narrow scope for his investigation. The Inquirys Preliminary Report was cited in his report (page 1), and in turn his report was used as a source in our Final Report. The Independent Student Inquiry team would, in particular, like to call attention to gaps in the Jutras Reports evidence. Many students who spoke with us described discussions of boycotting his investigation, and many were uncomfortable sharing accounts with Dean Jutras for various reasons. We believe that that lack of many accounts may have compromised the accuracy of the report. Though we are generally impressed by the thoroughness of the chronology in the Justras Report and its compatibility with our own findings, suggesting certainty in the progression of events, we found his accounts of the events outside the building to be lacking many key testimonies. Our reactions to his findings are included throughout the rest of this report. 1.5 History of our process The Independent Student Inquiry came into being at an impromptu General Assembly that met outside of the James Building on 11 November. The need for a student investigation was expressed in reaction to the Principals broadcast email message regarding the unilateral decision to select the Dean of Law to carry out the Universitys investigation. This public gathering then created a committee to set a process for a

8 parallel investigation. On 13 November, four committee members met and created a rough outline for the two concurrent projects. The team drafted its own mission, and decided on a dual mandate: first, the Inquiry would carry out its own investigation; and second the Inquiry would work to hold Dean Jutras accountable to the McGill community. As more information became available about the scope and limitations of the Deans terms of reference, the Inquiry was able to clarify what was needed in a student report (see recommendation 7.3, which was added after the release of the Jutras Report). Since our formation, the team has grown substantially. We advertised our inquiry on the SSMU listserv and during the Our McGill event; our first interviews took place on 15 November. The Preliminary Report was published on 1 December. We also received considerable media attention following the release of the Jutras report on 15 December. The Inquiry operates on a consensus model, which has worked very well in practice. Each author came to the project with certain expectations and biases, and their ideas have tended to balance out to a happy medium. For example, one team member favoured condemnation of the occupiers, while another wished to endorse their tactics; neither view has been reflected in the report. Similarly, a team member wanted McGill to take a leadership role fighting police brutality across the world, whereas another believed the police action on campus was more or less justified. The scope of the student inquiry itself was also considerably debated; many recommendations did not make it into the Final Report because they were deemed to be outside our mandate. The internal recommendations were ultimately created through smallgroup consensus decision making (with a quorum of the active members who tried to attend meetings), which served to moderate individual preconceptions of 10 November and its aftermath. Sadly, the team was unable to interview any administration member or non-academic staff member present during the occupation. Despite repeated requests, all refused to be interviewed, stating that they were participating only in Dean Jutras investigation. This continued even after the publication of the Jutras Report. The Inquiry is entirely independent from other campus groups. The First Year Council generously provided the project with a budget of $100, which was used to pay for the Access to Information requests from the SPVM. The Post Graduate Student Society passed a motion supporting the existence of the Inquiry. The Students Society of McGill University (SSMU) provided the project with office space for interview drop-in hours. The team has presented the preliminary report to the SSMU and to the PGSS, and the Preliminary Report has been viewed online well over 700 times. The team originally scheduled the release of the Final Report for early February, but many events delayed its release. McGill University repeatedly pushed back the date on which they would provide the team with documents requested under the Loi sur laccs aux documents des organismes publics et sur la protection des renseingements personnels, until it finally refused to respond pending a hearing before the Commission daccs linformation du Qubec, citing the systematic and repetitious nature of the requests, and alleging that these requests posed a significant threat to its ability to conduct its administrative abilities. The letter from McGill can be seen at our website. This disappointing situation, along with the turmoil on campus surrounding the #6party occupation of February 7th, forced the team to delay publication of the Final Report.

9 2. CONTEXT OF THE FINAL REPORT RELEASE The Final Report is being presented now after the 7 February #6party occupation of the James Administration Building, during which a group of students stayed in sixth floor offices of the James building partying for five days. McGill evicted them with help from the SPVM on 12 February. In addition, the Administration has begun to respond to Dean Jutras recommendations, releasing a provisional protocol on protests and scheduling fora to discuss the scope of free expression on campus. Provost Masi released the Provisional Protocol Regarding Demonstrations, Protests, and Occupations on McGill University Campuses on February 12, 2012. 3. CHRONOLOGY 3.1. James Administration Building, Fifth Floor Sources: Four accounts from occupiers, The Report of the Internal Investigation into the Events of November 10, 2011, and the public record.

Floorplan of James Administration Building, Floor 5 Twelve of the occupiers entered the building between 3:45 and 4:00. Two had been hiding in washrooms along the stairwells since 3:00. They had planned the occupation five days in advance, and had discussed it for over two weeks. In total, 14 entered the building. The group entered through the back door and ascended to the fifth floor (via STAIR 2). Between five and seven of them wore bandanas as they walked down the hallway (5-HALL2 and 5-HALL1) and entered the Reception room (room 512). Due to the labour dispute, the reception desk was unstaffed. The occupiers then knocked on the door to the Offices of the Principal and Vice-Chancellor (room 506). The door is kept locked, and they waited until a staff member opened the door to inquire as to their

10 purpose. A male occupier stuck out his foot to block the door, which they pushed open enough so that other occupiers could enter the room by moving past the staff member still holding it. Two occupiers entered Principal Monroe-Blums unlocked personal office. Matthew Crawford describes barricading the door they entered through as security bashed against it from outside. Occupiers then hung a banner from a window in room 506, reading 10 Nov, Occupons McGill. By 4:05, the occupiers sent texts and made phone calls informing others of their success. Many of the occupiers removed their bandanas; only one remained masked for the duration of the occupation. From 4:05 to 4:08, six calls were made to McGill Security Services. A member of the Principals staff pressed the panic button (Jutras, 23). Vice-Principal Marcil and two others entered the barricaded offices at 4:08 through a fire escape that the occupiers were unaware of. At 4:12, McGill Security entered the offices through the same fire escape (24). Director of Media Relations Doug Sweet filmed events, and Security Operations Administrator (Special Events) Kevin Byers and four security officers, two male and two female, approached the occupiers and asked them to leave, threatening to call the police. Some of these officers wore blue coats, indicating that they were superior officers. An occupier in the Principals office (room 509) then alleged that Mr. Byers approached him, pushed him from behind, punched him in the back, and kneed him in the lower back. Another occupier can be seen on video as he was dragged by Security from room 509 to room 512; this occurred between 4:11 and 4:15. At 4:14 an occupier began updating others outside on the situation after he was contacted by a friend asking if he was okay. In room 512, at approximately 4:17, all 14 were present, and occupiers made phone calls and sent text messages informing outsiders that they had been assaulted, and requested help. Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning Morton Mendelson entered five minutes later, at 5:22, to speak with the occupiers. He left at 4:28 (Jutras, 28). At 4:37, a protester outside James Administration received a text message from an occupier warning that the police had been called. Through a window, the occupiers saw the police enter another room at around 4:45. The occupiers sat down and formed a human chain. At 4:58 a fifth-floor occupier was contacted by an occupier on the second-floor; the fifth-floor occupier revealed that amnesty negotiations were underway. Provost Anthony Masi and Dr. Mendelson entered the room at 5:20, and offered legal amnesty for the occupiers, who demanded amnesty from disciplinary actions for any protesters outside and for occupiers on other floors. At 5:23 a text from an occupier was received from someone outside the building that read were negotiating. Drs. Masi and Mendelson left, and returned later to negotiate with the occupiers. Between 5:30 and 5:40, the occupiers left the James Administration Building through the back door, walking through a line of riot police. 3.2. JAMES ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SECOND FLOOR Sources: Two accounts (posted on our website), The Report of the Internal Investigation into the Events of November 10, 2011, and the public record Hearing that the side door to the second floor lobby area was open, 20 to 30 students rushed in at 4:49 to occupy in solidarity with the people on the fifth-floor who we heard were being hurt (Anonymous). Many protesters were francophone students from other schools; they were able to enter after a staff member exited the building. The protesters sat down in the lobby. According to the Jutras Report, protesters overpowered a security guard as they entered the 2nd floor of the James Building. Another member of McGill Security violently collided (Jutras, 30) with a protester,

11 knocking them to the ground. On video, protesters can be seen asking a member of the Security Team for his name and identification; he refuses to give anything more than his first name. A staff member orders him not to divulge further information. A student who was present stresses that they allowed staff to leave if they wanted to. Several occupiers left, leaving about fifteen students, who moved into the vestibule and linked arms as a block; when asked to leave, they repeatedly asked for an official eviction notice (Anonymous Interview #8). One student described many francophone non-McGill students present, explaining that the group was mainly addressed in French. At 4:58 a student contacted a fifth-floor occupier and was told that those upstairs were negotiating with administration for full amnesty. The second-floor occupier said that they had not been negotiating but had pretty much agreed that [they] were going to leave as a group before the police came and arrested [them] (Anonymous interview #8, on our blog). A person assumed to be a McGill employee gave the second an official verbal eviction notice, but the students did not leave the building until police requested. A text was send from an occupier saying were leaving at 5:25, and at around 5:30 the students left the building. 3.3. James Administration Building, Outside Sources: 13 interviews, 14 submitted written accounts, The Report of the Internal Investigation into the Events of November 10, 2011, and the public record. There are many very diverse experiences of and perspectives on the events which took place outside the James Administration building. Many passersby and non-McGill-affiliated community members (eg in the Milton-Parc community) were also affected. A large march against tuition hikes had occupied most of the day. The final destination of the march was Premier Charests office which is located across from the Roddick Gates. By 4pm 15,000 protesters were outside of Roddick Gates. Earlier in the day, at 1:30pm, the use of pepper-spray by police had been approved (Sgt Destreupes Martin et Cmdt Yves Pothier, police access to information requests; utilisation des chimiques irritants report). The crowd that formed outside of the James Administation building was fed by the larger rally at the Roddick Gates. Between 4:05 and 4:31 many respondents made their way to James Administration. Initially a few protesters moved from the rally after receiving news from inside that the building had been occupied. More waves of students made their way to James Square after protesters returned from James Administration to recruit supporters, and after the occupation was announced at the rally over a megaphone. Throughout the unfolding of events, many passerbys also unwittingly became involved as they entered campus from University St, exited nearby buildings or otherwise travelled across campus. Students attempted to negotiate with McGill security agents guarding the doors to James Administration to ensure the safety of the occupiers inside. Protesters outside requested either the entrance of a few of their members or a camera to verify the safety of the occupiers inside, or the safe release of the occupiers (Farid). No requests were granted. It was announced to the crowd over a megaphone around 4:37 that the police were coming, this information, along with a request to delay or block then, was received via text (Farid). With the knowledge that the fifth-floor occupiers were being treated violently by security inside the building and rumours that police were on their way, bystanders began to form a human chain at 4:43, linking arms around the building and blocking the entrances. Around this time some protesters broke away from the main group and made their way to other entrances of the James Administration building to extend this human chain to cover other doors (Farid/Lily). Also around this time another group of protesters entered the building through the side doors facing Ferrier; these students became the second-floor occupiers (Anonymous Interview).

12

A group of police officers on bikes arrived from the Milton Gates at the main entrance to the James Administration building at around 4:45; demonstrators describe them as using their bikes as weapons to try to force themselves through the crowd. Several signs and objects were thrown at the police. The bike police then left campus back the way they came, and rows of riot police marched onto campus shortly thereafter, at 4:56, through the Milton Gates. More riot police also arrived from the Y-intersection. Through various police-student encounters students and passersby were violently forced off campus, mostly through Milton Gates. According to SPVM documents, at around 5:00pm the police were ordered to carry out crowd control measures at McGill and University St./Milton; the crowd size estimates in police reports range from 200 to 400 aggressive and non-cooperative students. There are many accounts of pepper-spray, often at close range, and of protesters being manhandled by the police. Many accounts also mention the threatening sound of the riot police beating their shields as they advanced in unison. At 5:02 the riot police assembled in a line, and advanced towards the students. At 5:10 a second wave of riot police approached from the Y-Intersection. After the bulk of the protesters were pushed outside Milton Gates, many loud bangs were heard and tear gas was employed at 5:15 (see Mike Browns SPVM report for a description of this use of teargas). Protesters were regrouping when police made an announcement over the megaphone that any who remained would be arrested and that police would use any necessary force; many accounts corroborate this.. After this announcement, at around 5:35, the police began their charge down Milton. Protesters and passersby were forced up side streets away from campus; it was at this point that the crowd dispersed. By the time of the charge down Milton, a police helicopter was circling overhead. One student demonstrator recounts his experience in the police charge in a written account: After around 15 minutes, during which time most people were trying to recover from assault and chemical attacks by the police, the officers announced they would arrest anyone who remained on the street. They then charged down Milton beating their shields, forcing people down the street and up side streets. I was forced up Aylmer to Prince Arthur. The police remained on Prince Arthur, and me and several others who had been charged at up Aylmer decided to go home. We'd been marching since 1pm, were soaking wet, and the temperature was rapidly dropping (Sheehan Moore, written account). People walking by were affected by the action as soon as it began. One professor interviewed (Dr. Greg Mikkelson) describes witnessing a student outside of the crowd who had earlier thrown a sign to the ground in frustration being tackled by three riot police officers. Dr. Mikkelson himself (who claims not to have been participating in the action, but standing nearby at a safe distance) was hit in the ribs with batons and pepper-sprayed. Lillian Radovac spoke about being corralled into McConnell Engineering with twenty or thirty others, while Danji Buck-Moore described watching protesters surrounded by police being pushed down the terraces of James Square as they raised their hands in peace signs as a form of non-violent resistance. Sarah Gliech echoed experiences others shared when she spoke of hiding in a McGill residence on Milton to avoid charging police. Others left their offices and found themselves in the fray, and even more people were unable to enter or exit buildings because of a lockdown. Meanwhile, some students sought assistance in the Students Society building on McTavish St., where first aid services soon began to be distributed (one student, screaming the pain of pepper spray in the face, was assisted for an hour; Maggie Knight, at the McGill University Senate, 16 November 2011).

13

The Student Inquiry team submitted access to information requests to the police (more information in data collected and appendices), and received responses to a few of our requests. Key information in the documents received is blanked out, for example, in a utilization report from Sgt. Bruno Bolduc: Officer Brown used a ______. After the officer was hindered by this and the protesters moved towards him with the intention to harm him. Then I deployed the _____ and sprayed the group aiming for the centre of the group. The crowd moved a great distance from our line (SPVM reports, posted on the Inquiry website). The police reports generally coincide with the sequence of events described by our respondents. For example: 11-11-10, around 17h00 we are asked to carry out crowd control measures at McGill University and University/Milton for approx. 200 aggressive and non-cooperative students. On the site, a straight line was formed to repel the demonstrators. There was strong resistance from the demonstrators and no cooperation from them. We had to work in the dark, in the rain, with reduced visibility and near stairs. In order to avoid accidents and getting hurt, I sprayed more or less 10 individuals in the face to repel them from the line of police officers, to create a secure space and to stop menacing actions towards the police officers (attacks to their legs, physical pushing and resistance). Everything unfolded in a 45 minutes period between McGill University and the corner of Milton and Parc (A. Tanguays SPVM report). However, the reports do allege more violence on the part of the protesters than reported in the Student Inquirys Preliminary Report, although this is mostly descriptions of people trying to grab officers shields or using their hands to push the police line back. Although most of the reports completely blank out the chemical weapon used (often followed with the statement, __ had the desired effect), several accounts still include the note (cs) following the blank space, affirming that tear gas was in fact used on students. The summary reports also affirm CS although the quantities used are erased. 4. KEY FINDINGS Throughout the course of its investigation, the Independent Student Inquiry has found that: 4.1. Security and Staff conveyed incorrect information to students throughout the night Throughout the night, Securitas agents and staff conveyed incorrect information to at least four different groups of students. In each case, the students were told that other groups had left the scene and returned home. At 4:56 pm, a non-occupying student in the James Administration building sent a text suggesting that students had assaulted a worker and that fifteen occupiers had been removed by the police. He was told this information by staff. At this point in the night, both the fifth-floor occupiers and the second-floor occupiers were still in the building, and had had little to no contact with the police. No assault charges have been brought up against any occupiers, although the Jutras report indicates that second-floor occupiers overpowered a member of the Security team as they entered the building. Multiple protesters outside were told by Securitas agents at the front door to the James Building that the fifth-floor occupiers were gone, despite the fact that they were still in the building (Crawford, Farid). Occupiers on the fifth-floor allege that Provost Masi claimed that the second-floor occupiers had already left the building even as they were negotiating the terms of their release (Anonymous Occupier), when they in fact were still in the building at that point. 4.2. Many students were unaware of their rights and this contributed to confusion

14

Foreign students were unclear about their status, and the threat of deportation affected the decisions of several students interviewed. Some students were aware of the meaning of an official eviction notice when delivered to the second-floor occupiers, but others did not know the legal weight such a declaration carried. Students on the second floor, unsure of what would happen if arrested, wrote a sympathetic lawyers phone number on their arms. Many students were unclear of the rights and responsibilities of McGill Securitas agents vis-a-vis students (e.g. whether security has the right to touch them, how much force they can use, whether they are required to share names and license numbers, etc.). Matthew Crawford, a fifth-floor occupier and Arts Representatives on the McGill Senate, claimed that I went in there with the understanding that they [Security] had absolutely no right to touch us; they did. I was under the impression that they would have to give their names and license numbers; when we asked them, they did not--one said Youll have to talk to my boss about that. (7:38, Crawford). It was not clear what was public and what was private space on campus (an issue that is addressed in the Jutras reports recommendation to reevaluate protest on campus). Some outside were surprised by the polices right to remove students from campus, while others debated the public vs. private nature of the fifth-floor offices. The arbitrary disciplinary charges against two students involved in a MUNACA strike solidarity teach-in in October also contributed to this uncertainty and apprehension regarding students rights in civil disobedience. 4.3. McGill Security lockdown exacerbated the situation. McGill Security agents blocked access to Dawson Hall Annex, trapping bystanders and protesters in James Square (Anonymous). Many of those affected outside were unable to enter buildings to get medical services or shelter because of the lockdown, and students, staff, and faculty locked in buildings were confused, with no information given to them about the nature of the lockdown. 4.4. There is no evidence of physical assault by the fifth-floor occupiers. We have found no evidence of instances of physical assault on the part of the occupiers toward the staff, nor have we found substantive first-person allegations of assault on their part. 4.5. Protester-police communication problems contributed to confusion Protester-police communication problems were consistently cited as contributing to the confusion outside: Several informants who were present outside described French/English translation issues. There are several instances of students asking for English translations from French which were never given, and several bilingual students testified that they translated from French for others around them. A second-floor occupier noted that monolingual anglophones inside were left unaware of negotiation proceedings with police, staff, and security. Informants heard no directions or warnings from police before confrontations, including instances of pepper-spray use and physical force (Mikkelson). Police instructions were unclear for many protesters and bystanders outside as to where they could safely exit the area.

15 4.6. Tear gas was used. 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas, referred to as CS gas, was used by the police. The Report of the Internal Investigation into the Events of November 10, 2011 did not mention the use of tear gas, but documents received from the SPVM confirm that it was used during the night, with the first use occuring at 5:15. CS gas is a common form of tear gas. Dean Jutras wrote the Inquiry saying that it is probable that the rubber-ball blast grenade used released the tear gas. The Dean had found no evidence of other uses. 4.7. McGill staff and security overstepped their roles by physically assaulting and verbally taunting protesters and occupiers Verbal taunts on the part of McGill staff and security toward occupiers, as well as by police toward protesters and observers outside, were reported by many, including the use of profanities. This was cited as contributing to many students impressions of the administrations attitude toward them as condescending. According to the Regulation respecting standards of conduct of agent licence holders carrying on a private security activity of the Private Security Act, Agent licence holders may not use obscene, blasphemous or offensive language; or be disrespectful or impolite toward a person (1.1, 1.3). Physical violence on the part of McGills staff and security is clearly documented. 4.8. McGill offered no medical or other emergency support services to students/staff harmed; student services stepped up. Deputy Provost of Student Life and Learning Mendelson said in the 18 January meeting of Senate that McGill did offer support services to students hurt on 10 November, citing reports of students entering McGill Residences in the Milton Park community to avoid police action. With the exception of owning buildings in which students took shelter, the Inquiry could find no evidence of medical or emergency support services provided by the Administration. Instead, the Students Society of McGill University and the services connected to it provided the majority of the emergency response both during and after the violence. SSMU offered emergency medical care and emotional support services, while serving as a refuge for students. 4.9. McGill has made incorrect/contradictory statements in its responses to the events on the public record. Several students wrote to the McGill Daily reacting to Provost Masis statements at Senate on November 16, in which he implied that he was present for more of the events on the fifth floor than our or the Jutras report corroborates, and asserted more violence against workers than the Independent Student Inquiry Preliminary Report or the Jutras report found. The Provost stated: The women who were in the offices at the time, and there only were several women in the office at the time, were pushed and shoved; there were social media that were in fact being used to portray events inside that do not correspond to what most of those women were living through at the moment; and: The staff members who were roughed up--[order please] the students who rushed into the area physically harmed individuals but we gave them

16 amnesty to get them out of the building so that no student disciplinary charges would be laid against them. These descriptions of physical violence by the occupiers are not supported by accounts given by the staff members actually present during the events on the fifth floor to the Dean. The baseless statement made by Deputy Provost Mendelson about McGill providing services to students in University Hall (Dio) residence has been discussed elsewhere (see Recommendation 7.8). 4.10. McGill routinely violated the Loi sur laccs aux documents des organismes publics ET sur la protection des renseignements personnels in its dealings with the Inquiry. McGill chose not follow Quebec law in its dealings with the Inquiry team. Regrettably, McGill gave no relevant documents to the Inquiry, and acted in contravention of its legal requirements. Further, it did not recognize a request for access, nor respond within the legal time limit, and it is now going before the Commission daccs linformation du Qubec in order to avoid disclosing information. One team member has filed an internal grievance with the Committee on Student Grievances, alleging that the Secretary-General violated four sections of McGills Charter on Students Rights. The team will follow-up with this, and if we receive any information, we will make it public and may update this report. 5. EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY One of our teams goals was to document the non-physical effects of the events of November 10th, including psychological and emotional effects as well as possible trauma. Although police reports state that neither police officers nor students were physically injured during the confrontation on November 10th, community members were subject to psychological harm. Many students expressed shock, fear, and a lack of trust in the administration. Others documented the effects of the trauma. As follows are some generalised responses from students to questions posed after 10 November: Many involved in the events described being surprised, scared, taken aback, shocked, shaken...that people had been hurt by Security, tense, and found it traumatic...seeing so much unnecessary violence. Others felt betrayed by administration, by security, by police [who are] supposed to have a nominal commitment to my well-being, among others. In response to our question, Do you feel differently on campus now?, many agreed that they now feel differently about the space around James Administration Building and the Milton Gates, about the campus space and community as a whole, about securitys and polices opinions and potential actions toward them, and about peers support or opinions of their actions. A significant number also cited 14 Novembers We are all McGill event as important for them in reclaiming a space where they had been previously traumatized. Some added that the recent high security presence on campus relating to the MUNACA strike contributed to student sentiments of discomfort towards the semesters oversecuritization of the campus. To the question, What do you think were the police, Security, or administrations attitude toward you/students? Responses included contempt, condescension, anger, and the adjective forceful.

17 On public record, many students have stated a concern that the University thinks of them as a liability, a problem, or even a threat to be contained (Crawford), rather than as an asset to the community (Senate, 16 November). Evidence of the emotional effects according to our respondents can be found in the full transcripts, written accounts, and audio recordings of interviews available on our website (independentstudentinquiry.blogspot.com). 6. RECOMMENDATIONS COMPILED FROM RESPONDENTS We here offer a synthesis of the recommendations and opinions offered by respondents, who spoke to the next steps for students, staff, and administrators, offered commentary on the dormancy of the McGill Attention system, and opined on the Independent Student Investigation and its methodology. All interviews and written accounts used in these recommendations are available for perusal on our website. 6.1. Views of the occupation of the James Administration Buildings Fifth Floor Many interviewees expressed the opinion that occupation of a space as a form of protest is traditional, some citing precedent cases of occupation by family members, and were therefore not surprised that it was used as a means of student protest at McGill University. Support for the occupation of November 10th seems to be more divided. None of our interviewees expressed concrete disapproval of the occupation, although one respondent did feel that the occupation, after a peaceful march of tens of thousands of students, was an unnecessary move. Many did not know an occupation was taking place when they were caught in the police confrontation in front of James building. Some interviewees suggested that an act of occupation is inherently aggressive and reference was made to the occupation having metaphorical violence. However, most interviewees expressed their trust that the occupation was indeed conducted non-violently by the occupiers, and dismissed concerns over metaphorical violence. 6.2. Views on McGill Securitys response Throughout the interviews, a common theme was a strong sense of disapproval and disappointment at McGill securitys response for a wide range of reasons. Some of the criticisms put forwards by our interviewees include: Physical violence on behalf of McGill security towards the occupiers was considered unacceptable. One occupier expressed the view that McGill security had no right to touch students, which they did, and that they are legally bound to give their name and license number when asked, which they did not. McGill security was deemed by many informants to have overstepped their boundaries on November 10th. Respondents believed that security on the ground floor of the James building did not answer to concerns about the well-being of occupiers on the fifth-floor and in some cases openly made false statements towards students. As a result, students felt alienated, ignored and manipulated. Many students accused McGill security (as well as the SPVM) of being there to protect the administration but not the students. Respondents were of the mind that the lockdown was ill-advised. Exits to buildings were locked without the knowledge of the people inside, which in some cases trapped community members in stairwells and

18 created a potential safety hazard. Furthermore, there was no consistency in instructions given by security as to how to proceed during this lockdown. Many accounts express the view that had protesters not been present outside of the James building and in communication with the fifth-floor occupiers, the occupiers would have experienced more brutal physical treatment and would probably have been arrested. A few interviewees expressed concern about the securitization of campus during the MUNACA strike, which they viewed as sinister, unnecessary and deleterious to a sense of well-being and community on campus. 6.3. Views of the Service de police de la ville de Montral In the accounts we received, there was a loud and unanimous outcry against the presence of police, especially riot cops, on campus and their use of force, which was seen as an example of police brutality. That such a thing as police violence should have occurred on our campus is a source of sorrow, shame and anger. Many interviewees strongly believe that the occupation and the demonstration outside the James building could have been dealt with without the involvement on the Montreal Police. Many interviewees expressed the desire for a formal apology from the Montreal Police. Many interviewees described their experience as like being in a war zone. They expressed the belief that students were treated as a problem to be removed by force, and felt that the lack of concern for students is disturbing. Many bystanders were pulled into the police confrontation and suffered physical harm and mental shock as a result. Some of these bystanders expressed dismay that they were confronted by the police and in some cases manhandled without provocation. Many accounts suggest that freedom of expression and freedom of association were challenged on November 10th by the police. There were communication problems due to language barriers that night that left many community members unable to adequately follow directions, exposing them to further violence, and in many cases police officers refused to give orders in English. 6.4. Views on the McGill Administration There was an overarching feeling of dissatisfaction with the administrations response to the events of police brutality on campus and McGill securitys response to the occupation. Many accounts criticised the administration for its slow response to the events of November 10th as well as its seeming lack of recognition of the seriousness of police brutality on campus. Many interviewees expressed the desire to have a formal apology issued by the McGill administration. Many interviewees expressed skepticism with the inquiry being conducted by the Dean of Law, Doctor Daniel Jutras. Most question the effectiveness of an internal investigation. Our interviewees had two main

19 suggestions: firstly, that an external investigation should be conducted by a third party uninvolved with events on campus and secondly, that if an internal inquiry must be chosen over an external one, that it should be conducted in a way that accords an equal voice to administration, faculty, staff and students. 6.5. Views on McGills Emergency Response System Many accounts express frustration that the McGill Attention emergency response text messaging system was not used, especially as this may have reduced the number of bystanders caught in the police confrontation. However, this was not a unanimous view; there was some distrust of the emergency text messaging system, and many community members were unaware that such a system existed. 6.6. Awareness of medical support services Most interviewees were not aware of any medical support system during or immediately following the confrontation with the police. This is particularly worrying since students were pepper sprayed and beaten and did not know where to go to seek medical attention. The SSMU ended up handling many students needs for first aid. 6.7. Suggestions from respondents regarding procedure and methodology We were told to cast as wide a net as possible: respondents instructed us to contact as many administration members, campus security officers, office staff, faculty, bystanders, protesters, officers present and who made decisions, and occupiers as we could. Others hoped we would tour the James Administration building, as well as access police logs, records of phone calls sent and received from the James Building, and video shot by police and Securitas agents. We were instructed to look at the historical and recent context for the events, and to examine the rights of students in these situations. There were varying suggestions regarding the kinds of judgment we could/should make in our report and how much to fit this in global contexts (and where); our team has decided to make decisions about how previous policies were fulfilled and if violence from Security was mandated in the given situations, and the future effects this could have at McGill, only in the final report, and not in this preliminary document. 7. INDEPENDENT STUDENT INQUIRY TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS The Independent Student Inquiry team decided to make our own recommendations based on our research for the Final Report. We recommend that: 7.1 The University should clarify public vs. private space on campus, and should increase student space. Student occupations are a traditional form of protest, and staging a sit-in in the Principals office is not an unprecedented tactic. Over the last few years, however, the lines demarcating areas open to McGill community members and areas restricted to administrators and staff have become stricter. Many current undergraduate students still remember when various undergraduate student services were offered in the James Administration building, and feel that the Universitys decision to move them to Service Point physically distances administrators from students their concerns. The McGill community should have a conversation about which areas are acceptable for political activities, and which are not, with the end goal being to expand the range of spaces open to students both in their normal day-to-day and political activities. Dean Jutras second recommendation made a similar point, but we fear that it could be used to restrict legitimate speech on campus, especially as it has already been used to justify the Provosts controversial Provisional Protocol for protest on campus released 12 February 2012.

20

In campuses throughout North America, speech is being restricted. In some University of California schools, free speech zones have been set up, and student protests require permits issued by the administration. The conversation on McGills campus should not lead to outcomes like this. The James Administration Building as currently used is removed from students and community members. Undergraduate students never have a reason to enter the building throughout the course of their normal activities, and many students could easily graduate from McGill without setting foot within. Yet it is in the James Building that the important decisions that define McGills future are made. This arrangement isolates students from the administration and blurs the line between public and private space, creating an expectation that students will never and should never enter the James Building. In response to the events of November 10th and February 7th through 12th, the Administration has reduced access to the building. On the day of a joint press conference of the Fdration tudiante universitaire du Qubec and the Fdration tudiante collgiale du Qubec, the James Administration Building was locked down in fear of student activities, forcing the Board of Governors meeting to change location and time. Since #6party, the James Building has had three levels of security at its entrance, requiring students who wish to enter to justify their presence to two or three different individuals and to surrender their student identification card. Security has been increased across campus, and previously public meetings have been rendered inaccessible. In this context, the status of public spaces should be made explicit, with the goal of integrating students and community members into spaces where they currently feel unwelcome. Student space on campus should also be expanded. One of the root causes of student dissatisfaction on campus is the lack of student space, and after the closure of the Architecture Caf, students have few places administered according to their needs. One way the administration could better respond to student needs would be to increase such space on campus. Creating more student space--whether explicitly student-run like the Architecture Cafe, or intended for student use--would address the need to define who has control of a space (within the context of new protest protocols) as well as one of the deeper sources of student dissatisfaction. 7.2 McGill Security and Securitas agents should be better trained in the Quebec Code of Rights and Responsibilities. Security agents used offensive language at and taunted occupiers and protesters throughout the night, documented both in videos and in many personal accounts. Although agents may have been reacting in response to aggressive language used towards them by the occupiers, this reaction runs contrary to the regulations under which these agents are employed. The use of obscene, blasphemous and offensive language is explicitly forbidden, as is being disrespectful or impolite towards a person, under the Private Security Act of Quebec to which these agents must abide (cf. 4.7). Under this Act agents are also required to identify themselves by presenting their licence any time they are asked (section 2). Security did not comply with this clause and refused to identify themselves to both occupiers and to protesters outside of the James Administration building. McGill security should be better trained in the Quebec Code of Rights and Responsibilities so that they are fully aware of their duties and the boundaries of their role on campus and can react accordingly, even in escalated situations. Since student occupations on campus are not unheard of, all members of the security team should be briefed in a response that respects the right to peaceful expression of free speech.

21 The Private Security Act may be accessed online at: http://www.bureausecuriteprivee.qc.ca/regulation_conduct.pdf 7.3 Any further discussion or action responding to these events-- including interpretations of Jutras recommendations and the Board of Governors working groups-- should keep the root causes cited as reasons for the protests of 10 November in mind. Protest are a response to deeper issues within the community. All responses to the events of 10 November should strive to address those root causes. Furthermore, many McGill community members expressed frustration with the Internal Investigation led by Dean Jutras from its inception due to its limited terms of reference. The Dean referenced the problem in section 3.1 of his report, writing: Now that the chronology of the events of November 10 is clarified in this report, members of the McGill community can make their own assessment of the causal connections, if any, between the larger contextual matters and what unfolded on that day. It is beyond the scope of my mandate to make recommendations directed towards these larger contextual issues. The initial letter from Principal Munroe-Blum to the McGill community regarding the events likewise states: The purpose of your internal investigation and recommendations is to allow McGill to learn from the events of November 10, 2011 and implement changes that would reduce the likelihood of a similar incident occurring in the future. (11 November, 2011) The internal report was tasked to address only the creation of future protocol to prevent student protests, with no regard for the underlying issues raised by the protesters. The response to the events of 10 November should work to address the underlying issues highlighted by many of our respondents, such as concerns about lobbying on behalf of students for tuition hikes and the alienation of students from university decision-making regarding labour issues and student space. 7.4 An official complaint should be filed by the University to the SPVM on behalf of community members about the overly violent reaction by police on November 10 2011. Riot police on campus resulted in the brutalization of members of the McGill community. Students and other community members affected by the excessive use of force by the SPVM on November 10th deserve concrete assurances that police brutality will never again happen on campus. Peaceful student protests are covered by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and should never be met with excessive violence. Even outside of the context of the peaceful expression of free speech, police should work to de-escalate situations and diffuse the capacity for violence. McGill University should file a formal complaint with Police Ethics Commissioner of the Service de police de la ville de Montral. Individual responses to police brutality can be difficult to carry out. While we are pleased that the Student Society of McGill University is looking into legal options for its members hurt by excessive violence, only the University has the authority and capability to speak for and defend the rights of all of its members hurt that evening.

22

7.5 Protocol should be enacted which clearly specifies the process of an unbiased inquiry in the event that similar or comparable circumstances occur again on the McGill campus. The reaction of the McGill administration to the events of 10 November, 2011 has been criticized by many. In particular, concern has been expressed over the appointment of a single faculty member to lead an internal investigation into the events of 10 November. The nature and structure of this investigation presents itself as having the potential to result in biased findings and undermined the establishment of culpability. Furthermore, that the decision regarding the issuing of an investigation was ultimately the sole authority of Principal Heather Munroe-Blum awarded one member of the McGill administration an uncomfortable amount of power. McGill University should develop a protocol which institutes a clear procedure regarding the establishment and regulation of future investigations into troubling events on campus. This system should guarantee impartiality by mandating either a third-party external investigation, or an impartial internal body, to lead an investigation. An impartial body would consist of a range of different voices from within the McGill community; it would include students, faculty and staff. The McGill Association for University Teaching has also formed a committee to design recommendations in response to the events of 10 November. We look forward to reading their comments and continuing this conversation. 7.6 Violence on the part of McGill Security and Securitas agents is clearly documented, and the Administration should take action. All substantiated reports of violence should be followed up on. Both the Independent Student Inquiry and the Report of the Internal Investigation into the Events of November 10, 2011 document that members of McGills Security team used physical violence during the night. No acts of physical violence were committed by the fifth-floor occupiers, although Dean Jutras report alleged that second-floor occupiers overpowered a security guard upon entering the building, not to mention objects thrown at a staff member leaving the build; evidence of these acts should be made public if a serious claim is to be made. All documented acts of violence should be followed up on by the Administration. Any staff members who committed an act of violence towards McGill community members should face appropriate disciplinary or legal action. Systemic problems allowed the situation on November 10th to escalate, but so did individual actions, and the use of assault should not be tacitly condoned through a lack of disciplinary or legal action. 7.7 Building lockdowns at McGill should only happen with appropriate communication to community members, and with an established public protocol that requires explicit justification. The lockdown of several buildings on November 10 contributed to confusion and reduced emergency/medical services. Many of the negative effects of the SPVMs kettling dispersal tactics can also be attributed to the lockdown. The Independent Student Inquiry team proposes that building lockdown protocol should always include an emergency text notification (Attention!) and use of the AlertUs system, and should be used only in situations dangerous enough to warrant such action. Staff, particularly, should be made aware of and trained in the protocol for lockdowns, and notified in the event of one, as there were reports of staff and faculty who were shocked by being locked into buildings with no notice. More communication with staff would better facilitate their ability to help guide students in a confusing event.

23

Lockdown protocol should also address safety concerns such as medical emergencies; the lockdown on November 10 significantly contributed to affected students inability to receive much-needed medical assistance (even to access water to wash out pepper spray) and ensuing trauma. The protocol should also include transparency about why the lockdown was justified, such as requiring a report to be filed publicly after the event. Students also should never be trapped in buildings and should always be able to leave freely. 7.8 The events of 10 November make clear a serious and urgent need for improved emergency services like medical care, shelter, and communication in a dangerous situation. Students and other community members who were hit, pepper-sprayed, tear gassed, cold and wet, otherwise physically injured, or emotionally traumatized did not know where to go for help, and due to the lockdown were turned away from buildings that they went to for aid. Students provided emergency services to each other, whether through the impromptu first aid and comfort provided by the SSMU or by helping each other in nearby residences. With the exception of owning the McGill buildings in which students took shelter, the Inquiry could find no evidence of medical or emergency support services provided by the Administration. The University and the SSMU need better explicit plans for emergency medical assistance and shelter in such a situation. We would recommend that in future emergency situations, all staff be mandated to assist students and other community members who are hurt. Although McGill Security is supposed to exist to make students feel safe, they seemed to have quite the opposite effect on November 10 when students needing medical assistance were not given any support on campus, but were instead locked out of buildings where they could have rinsed their eyes with water, etc. This also goes hand in hand with the importance of emergency communication, and that the emergency texting system should have been used. Other methods of broadcasting emergency messages such as loudspeakers should also be explored. 7.9 The Administration should be more transparent. Findings in the Jutras report directly refute certain statements made by the administration immediately after November 10th, and this should be acknowledged by the administration (cf. Key Finding 4.9). Our experiences dealing with administration as the Independent Student Inquiry to try to figure out chronology of Nov 10 also illustrate barriers and prejudices by administrators in their dealings with students; for example, that administrators refused to contribute to our report and delayed the responses to our Access to Information requests until a hearing before the Commission daccs linformation du Qubec. These experiences reflect many of the concerns students voiced to us, such as the secrecy of the Board of Governors decision-making processes. Although the Administration espouses dialogue, reconciliation and factual truthfulness in its responses to these events, they are not willing to make their records available to the public and refused to participate in this student-led project.

24 7.10 The Provisional Protocol also serves to restrict student activities, and possibly directly contravenes the Charter of Students Rights and the Code of Student Conduct. The Provisional Protocol is so broad as to be unenforceable, restricting students free speech. The Code of Student Conduct already includes such ambiguity in section 5 (a): No student shall, by action, threat, or otherwise, knowingly obstruct University activities. University activities include but are not limited to, teaching, research, studying, administration, public service. This statement can be used by the Administration to discipline political activities such as civil disobedience, which is an example of exercising freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The Provisional Protocol serves to reinforce this ambiguity and restrict free speech. Part 25 of the Charter of Students Rights says, Every student enjoys within the University the freedoms of opinion, of expression and of peaceful assembly, while section 5(c) of the Code of Student Conduct says, Nothing in this Article or Code shall be construed to prohibit peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, lawful picketing, or to inhibit free speech. This Protocol contravenes both, and should be abandoned. The vagueness of the Protocols provisions leaves wide room for interpretation and leaves students unclear as to what actions can be considered illicit by the university. There are serious concerns that actions that would otherwise be considered free expression could be penalized by the university under the Protocol. 8. CONCLUSIONS The Independent Student Inquiry team is very grateful to everyone who helped us construct this report. The enthusiastic community response allowed us to carry out a thorough investigation of the events of November 10th, and we hope this report will prove valuable to the conversation as we move forward. The team has put a lot of time and energy into this report, and we are happy with the results. On our website, we have compiled and made public some resources for anyone interested in further exploring the issues. www.independentstudentinquiry.blogspot.com has transcripts and audio recordings of interviews along with written accounts sent to us, and while we have been unable to transcribe every interview due to time constraints, the selections provide an insightful look into various community members and their experiences. Throughout this process, we promised anonymity to anyone who requested it. Due to potential legal proceedings that could result in a court-issued demand for information, we are destroying all confidential records. Public records will remain available on our website, and our email (independentstudentinquiry@gmail.com) will remain active. The team has had difficult relations with the McGill administration. No administration or staff member would talk with us, despite repeated requests for comments. We found this reaction to be emblematic of the Administrations reactions to our project in general. Looking towards the future, team member Chris Bangs has lodged a grievance against the SecretaryGeneral for his offices actions regarding Access to Information Requests. If and when we receive

25 documents from McGill, they will be made public, and an updated version of this report will be released if necessary. We appreciate the assistance of all persons involved with the Inquiry, and we welcome any additional questions.

26

9. APPENDICES 9.1. Confidentiality statement presented to testifiers INTERVIEW ANONYMITY STATEMENT--The Independent Student Inquiry/LEnqute tudiante Indpendante: Nov. 2011 MISSION STATEMENT: The Independent Student Inquiry was formed to investigate the events of November 10th that left many members of the McGill community shocked, frustrated, and confused. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the official investigation, we have been tasked with carrying out a parallel inquiry. The inquiry will collect testimony from affected groups, review photographic and video evidence, and work to gather as much information as possible, making it all public. We will release a preliminary report on December 1st, and a final report in January. All interested community members are encouraged to take part. LEnqute tudiante Indpendante a t cre pour investiguer les vnements du 10 novembre qui ont laisss les membres de la communaut de McGill choqus, frustrs et confus. Vu lincertitude qui accompagne linvestigation officielle, nous avons t chargs dentreprendre une enqute parallle dsintresse. Cette enqute rassemblera les tmoignages des groups affects, elle examinera les preuves photographiques et audiovisuelles, et elle runira autant dinformation possible, tout en le rendant accessible au publique. Nous publierons un rapport prliminaire le 1 dcembre et un rapport final en janvier. Tout membre de la communaut est encourag de nous joindre ou de nous aider. CONFIDENTIALITY: The following people are the only people who will see your email correspondence with independentstudentinquiry@gmail.com and know your name if you want maximum confidentiality: 1. Allison Cooper allisonmariecooper@gmail.com 2. Chris Bangs christopher.bangs@mail.mcgill.ca 3. Matt Dowling dowling.matt.g@gmail.com 4. Mark Phillips mark.phillips2@mail.mcgill.ca As well as any interviewer present for your interview. Thanks!! Interviewer(s): ______________________________________________ Interview date: Name of interviewee: Can we record your interview? Y / N Can we post the audio recording to our blog? Y / N with your name attached? Y / N can we share it amongst our investigation team to share transcribing work? Y / N Can we post a transcript to our blog? Y / N with your name attached? Y / N Can we use quotes from your interview in the final report? Y / N with your name attached? Y / N OR: Should we send the audio and transcript to you to decide first? Y / N your email address: ________________________________________ Other notes/comments:

27 9.2. Access to information request submitted to McGill University The following documents were requested from McGill University on November 25, 2011. Compte rendu des appelles composes et reus du btiment administratif james le 10 Novembre entre 15:30 et 19:00, incluant les numros des appels composes et reus. Tous les archives de communication intra-universitaire concernant les protagonistes de loccupation et des manifestations du 10 novembre 2011 au 26 novembre 2011 (inclus). Compte rendu de la compagnie Securitas concernant loccupation du btiment dadministration James et/ou la manifestation dans James square le 10 novembre 2011 Compte rendu des services de scurit de McGill concernant loccupation du btiment dadministration James et/ou la manifestation dans James square le 10 novembre 2011 Tous les enregistrements audiovisuels pris le 10 novembre 2011 dans ou dehors le btiment administratif James, le square James, la rue Milton, le btiment Ferrier, le btiment Dawson, le btiment dingnierie McConnell, le btiment Wilson et la rsidence University Hall. Compte rendu crit des appelles et des messages textes envoys et reus le 10 Novembre 2011 de 15h 19h tous les tlphones (cellulaire inclut) de la principale et vice-chancelire Heather Monroe-Blum pays par luniversit de McGill et lheure laquelle ils ont t envoys ou reus. Tous les enregistrements audiovisuels ou on peut apercevoir des protagonistes de la manifestation et de loccupation du btiment dadministration James du 10 novembre 2011.

The following documents were requested from McGill University on December 15, 2011. All recorded radio communication by McGill Security Agents, all recorded telephone conversations to and from McGill Security, McGill security agents, and the controller, and all times of incoming or outgoing calls, including the number called or from which the call was received, on 10 November 2011 from 16:00 to 24:00. All video, audio, photographic, or written content on all McGill computers and all cell phones paid for by McGill on 10 November 2011 concerning the events of 10 November 2011, including but not limited to the 5th floor occupation of the James Administration Building, the 2nd floor occupation of the same building, and the protesters, bystanders, and onlookers on and around the McGill campus, from 14:00 to 24:00 on that day. Any and all internal reports, communications, Securitas reports, or other documents discussing the occupation of McGill buildings or spaces on 10 November 2011, including any attempted, suspected or discussed potential occupations or forced entry to any building or space on the McGill campus. Furthermore, any and all information, including written documents, audio and video, relating to the call from the Montreal Police Service to the McGill SOC at 16:57 that day regarding police information about protesters who were trying to occupy McGill premises (Dean Jutras investigation, page 32) and the response to that call. All internal documents discussing McGills plans and rules regarding the rights, authorities, and privileges of security agents on campus, discussing the use of the McGill Attention emergency reponse system, and discussing the rules and regulations regarding the structure of the Universitys reponse system and the calling of the police. If any changes in these documents have occurred since 10 November 2011, please include a list of the changes, or the documents in both their new and former forms. Any injury report from McGill Security agents surrounding 10 November 2011, including but not limited to any reports of the three security agents allegedly pepper sprayed that night. A list of all building under lockdown or card-only access, including the times the procedure was started or stopped, on 10 November 2011. All internal documents discussing the procedure of and effects of a lockdown or card-only access, including copies of any changes made in procedures since 10 November 2011.

28 Any and all video, photographic, written, or audio recordings or documents of MUNACA workers on strike, of student activists, of faculty or labor activists, or of protests, since 1 September 2011.

9.3. Access to Information requests submitted to the Service de Police de la Ville de Montral The following documents were requested from the SPVM on 25 November, 2011 Compte rendu crit ou audio des appels 911 en provenance de lUniversit de McGill ou ayant comme objet la manifestation et loccupation du btiment dadministration James du 10 novembre 2011 Compte rendu crit ou enregistrement audio des communications entre membres de la police concernant les vnements qui ont eu lieu sur le campus de McGill ou entre les rues le 10 novembre 2011 Une description exhaustive des moyens de contrles physique utilise par la police de Montral sur le campus de McGill dploys le 10 novembre 2011 Compte rendu de la quantit de gaz lacrymogne, poivre de Cayenne ou grenades aveuglantes ou toute autre arme utilis par la police de Montral sur le campus de McGill le 10 novembre 2011 Compte rendu des arrestations qui ont eu lieu sur le campus de McGill et entre les rues de Maisonneuve, Peel, Prince Arthur et Parc, du 10 novembre 2011

The SPVM refused to respond to the first two requests, and the full documents they provided in response to the other three requests can be seen at: http://independentstudentinquiry.blogspot.com/2012/01/spvm-documents.html 9.4.3. Timeline of relevant events on the public record following November 10, 2011, examined by the Independent Student Inquiry team There have been varied reactions to the events of November 10th within the university community. During and immediately after the main protest/riot police action, many turned to social media to figure out what was going on, although direct coverage was limited (with the exception of CKUTs interview with an occupier and several amateur YouTube videos). On Friday, 11 November, around 100 members of the university community rallied in front of the James building, attempting to deliver a letter to the Principal (McGill Daily, 12 November 2011). A considerable list of available instances of campus and corporate media coverage, commentaries, reactions, community response actions, and official statements is available on our website at independentstudentinquiry.blogspot.com (under Coverage of November 10 at McGill - Useful Links). Some key events where opinions about the events of November 10 were expressed and served to inform this report: November 11th, 2011: Faculty (led by MFLAG) and students gathered outside the James building, demanding administrators to acknowledge their petition/letter. Later, the gathering turned into a large group discussion from which student committees including what would become the Independent Student Inquiry were formed. November 14th, 2011: We Are All McGill event in James (Community) Square. November 16th, 2011: We regret not having transcripts of the proceedings cited at McGill Senate on 16 November, but the video is available online: http://bcooltv.mcgill.ca/Viewer1/?EventID=201111160656

29 November 29, 2011: Senate discusses the events, including Provost Masis description. December 15, 2011: Jutras report released, media attention/discussion follows. January 18, 2012: McGill University Senate committee of the whole discusses the Jutras report for one hour. January 2012: The Student Inquiry team receives responses to our Access to Information requests from the SPVM. January 24, 2012: SSMU hosted a consultation fair on the theme of campus safety and security in the SSMU building. There have also been various panel discussions hosted by departments of the University on the subject.

9.5. General Interview Structure and List of Questions (The precise interview format/questions asked varied depending on the respondents experience, narrative flow, and position during the events in question.) What gender pronoun do you prefer? Were you present on campus the afternoon/evening of Nov 10? Why? What did you witness? Please provide a summary of the events of November 10th (attention to chronology is useful--time-corroborating evidence like calls/texts/watch-checks?) What did you do? Where were you when: students started gathering around James Admin; the human chain formed; bike cops came in; when the police charged down Milton Did you communicate with the police at all? Did you hear any directions/warning from the police? Did you communicate in French or English? Can you describe the psychological impact of the events? Do you feel differently on campus now? Have you had any other protest/intense police experience? What do you think the police attitudes towards students were? (admin, security...) (Did you feel your experiences were gendered in any way?) What is your general reaction to the events of November 10th? Did you see any bystanders who were affected? What do you think about the 5th floor occupiers? What was your involvement in/reaction to the social media/news media response afterward? Did you attend Mondays event? Did this affect your feelings about Nov 10? Were you aware of first aid services available? Do you think the McGill emergency response texting system should have been used? What do you think should be done by anyone involved (eg the university admin, police, students) now? How do you feel about the response so far? Do you have any suggestions for us in terms of procedure, etc? Can you please refer us to other colleagues, sources, or contacts that have something to say? How may we disclose this information (on the blog, in the final report, etc.)?

You might also like