C/O Yoohyun Park

Being so far away from McMaster can make you feel alone and disconnected 

By: Bianca Perreault, Contributor

Along with COVID-19 came a million other things that made life that much more confusing. The stay-at-home lockdown, the safety protocols and a lot of self-learning were part of many people's journeys. To learn by yourself is already a challenge, but to figure out everything on your own hundreds of kilometres away was even harder. While university was online for all of us, I definitely didn’t feel as close to McMaster University as I felt I should have by my second year.

When a student is accepted to their first choice university program, you’d think that they would be immersed in feelings of accomplishment, of course and a sense of belonging. In the province of Quebec, the studying system is not the same as in Ontario. When one graduates from high school, they have two main options. They could either pursue a CEGEP program or a diploma of professional studies. People interested in getting into university must work hard on their grades while in CEGEP, whether it takes two years or more, your grades are the priority. 

McMaster's requirement to get an offer to the faculty of humanities is a minimum 85% average.

As an out-of-province student who really wanted to get into this program, I had to work diligently over the past few years. 

When you finally receive an offer from your dream school and are willing to make a huge change to your life (to the tune of living six hours away from your hometown), you go through many emotions. A new town, a new life, new people and a significant adaptation overall. Until, COVID takes that away from you and you find yourself studying at home. I can only imagine what international students have had to deal with since the beginning of the pandemic.

As exciting as it was to begin university in person this year, there were still pros to our online semesters. An optimistic person can find the positive through almost everything; learning in your pyjamas in the middle of winter was welcomed. The real problem was the feeling of not belonging to the university while studying in a completely different province. 

Before getting into McMaster, my priorities were to work on my English, explore my field of study and to grow as an individual in a new town.

However, after being distanced from not only classes but potential friends, I was now distanced from the culture of Hamilton as well.

University is a lot of self-work already; students need to be diligent, aware of their schedule and now, we need to be a lot more patient. Softwares would crash, the temperature in Hamilton affected the Wi-Fi of some instructors, classes were delayed, people were working at the same time as their class or had problems understanding the concepts taught in online classes. 

I wondered more than once how long I could have studied that way and I asked myself if it was fair for me to pay the same tuition fees as if I was in class. Even today, I still have some classes online, but at least I get to go on campus sometimes.

Once I moved to Hamilton, it was an unknown city. While I am getting adjusted to the city, it’s still difficult for me to feel like I fully belong. Trying to discover a whole new city while figuring out hybrid university and adapting to every health protocol quite honestly makes me dizzy. All I can do for now is try to get my perspective out there and connect with each one of you that’s feeling the exact same thing.

Exploring the hypocrisy and xenophobia of laws banning religious face coverings and concurrent by-laws being introduced that mandate them

By: Sarah Homsi and Michelle Yao, Contributors

This article was written by the Student Health Education Centre’s Research & Advocacy coordinators, in collaboration with Diversity Services.

Back in 2017, Quebec passed Bill 62, in what lawmakers claim is meant to be promoting “religious neutrality”. This law prohibits employees of public bodies, such as government departments, schools, hospitals and public transit, from covering their faces. It also prohibits people receiving services from public employees from having their face covered.

In 2019 in Quebec, Bill 21 was passed, banning the display of all religious symbols from being worn at work by government workers. Despite the tireless work of civil rights groups to appeal this law to the Supreme Court of Canada, Bill 21 remains in place. 

While advocates for the implementation of Bill 62 and 21 argue that there would be guidelines put in place for religious accommodation, this petty form of placation merely demonstrates further that laws such as these are veils for one agenda: limiting religious freedom.

Bill 21 alarmingly prevents Quebec teachers, judges, lawyers and other public sector workers from wearing religious symbols of all kinds. In this article, we would like to specifically highlight the limitations put on the donning of religious face coverings. While they continue to be prohibited in 2020, new laws were concurrently being introduced that mandate face coverings be worn to limit the spread of COVID-19. The hypocrisy in this is astounding.

Appeals against Bill 21 are still being deliberated upon in the Quebec Superior Court. With no ruling announced as of the publication of this article, wearing a face covering in enclosed or partially enclosed public spaces continues to be mandatory throughout the province.

Garments that cover the face and eyes, such as the burqa and niqab, had been previously labelled as a security issue by the Quebec government, which emphasized issues with not being able to see someone’s face. However, during a time where everyone’s face is covered, this argument no longer holds up. It is abundantly clear now that this argument was not valid.

Perhaps because it was never really about security or religious neutrality and more about rampant islamophobia. After all, the disproportionate impact that Section 8 of Quebec’s Laicity Act — which mandates keeping faces uncovered — has on Muslim women in particular has been explicitly acknowledged in the Quebec Court of Appeal. 

Policing of how Muslim women express their religion is pervasive and rooted in Western constructs of feminism. It is ingrained in the notion that how a women dresses indicates her level of freedom. Stereotypes surrounding Islam are perpetuated by discriminatory laws such as Bill 62 and continue to marginalize Muslim women. Muslim women do not experience oppression because of a religion they choose to follow, rather they remain oppressed by a Eurocentric society that continues to enforce assimilation and erasure of culture and religion.

It is long overdue that these discriminatory laws get appealed and we continue to dismantle racist systems and values that uphold many governments. While these laws currently exist only in Quebec, issues of xenophobia are most certainly not isolated. In 2019, The National Council of Canadian Muslims recorded 9 anti-muslim incidents in Hamilton.

When other provinces in Canada legalize discrimination, it sets a precedent that may ripple into Ontario. With McMaster University students and alumni currently spread out across the globe, the implications of such mandates feel as ubiquitous as ever.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has previously reported that new rules and increased reinforcement powers surrounding COVID-19 were disproportionately applied to marginalized communities, with Ontario and Quebec both being highlighted as two of three jurisdictions where disproportionate and discriminatory enforcement was being enacted.

While still prioritizing community wellbeing and doing everything that we can to prevent COVID-19 spread, we should be thinking critically about laws or enforcement measures that discriminate against marginalized folks. If McMaster wants to tout itself for being a leader in “advancing human and societal health and well-being,” these nuances in health-related policy and practice must be considered by our community members.

When a government is expending an abundance of legal resources to uphold a law about how people should be dressed in public, we should be able to trust that it is because they are concerned about a real danger to the public. With the current state of COVID-19, we are given the perspective to see when government intervention is necessary, and when it is not.

Photos by Catherine Goce

By: Nicolas Belliveau

The news in November 2018 that Doug Ford and his provincial government were ceasing the project to build a French-language university in Toronto and eliminating the position of the provincial commissioner for French language affairs was met with backlash.

However, situations like these aren’t novel. French education and culture have been the target of marginalization for hundreds of years. Ford adds to this long list of discriminatory acts, as his decision to cut services and protections to Franco-Ontarians has underlying anti-francophone sentiment and is a violation of minority language rights in Canada.

But why should we care about this? After all, with just over 620,000 people, the French-speaking community in Ontario makes up just 4.5 per cent of its total population.

Growing up French-Canadian in Ontario, practicing and maintaining the language my ancestors tirelessly fought to preserve has proven difficult. Additionally, the limited number of French secondary schools meant that I had to enroll at an English secondary school — adding to the challenge of keeping my mother tongue.

However, Francophones are still Canada’s largest minority with Ontario home to the most populous French-speaking community outside of Quebec. But most importantly, the French language is a right that is protected by the Constitution and language laws.

This didn’t come easily. Throughout all of Canada’s history, francophones have fought for the right to French education and with Ford’s new agenda, the battle appears to be ongoing.

Merely a century ago, the provincial government passed and enforced Regulation 17 throughout Ontario, which restricted the teachings in French beyond grade 2 and limited French teachings to one hour per day in primary schools. After 15 years of enforcement and prohibiting a whole generation from learning French, the law was finally repealed in 1927.

By ending the project for the development of a French university, Ford is reopening a door into the past that most French-Canadians thought was over. The ideology that once disregarded Franco-Ontarians’ identity and equality is now resurfacing, under the new disguise of Ford’s policies.

And what is Ford’s reasoning behind these radical changes? Although Ford has yet to comment on the matter, government officials have cited the province’s $15 billion deficit as being the motivation for these cost-cutting actions.

However, the cost for the French Language Services Commissioner and the university tally up to a total of just $15 million per year. And as of now, Ford’s government has yet to meet the targeted amount of savings, leaving experts to question whether a thorough program review was carried out.

When looking at these realities, it is hard to believe the government’s narrative of the provincial deficit being the sole incentive for premier Ford’s changes, and not worry about an anti-francophone sentiment underlying Ford’s fiscal agenda.

What’s more unsettling is that Ford’s new policy changes cuts into Canada’s Constitution and the protections and rights of French-Canadians.

The functions of a language commissioner prove to be essential in promoting and protecting a language. Not only do they monitor the government for any infringements upon minority language rights, the French language commissioner acts as a liaison between the provincial government and Franco-Ontarians.

By getting rid of the French Language Services Commissioner, Ford is destabilizing the rights and protections of minority francophones and undermining the institutions that promote one of the ‘supposed’ official languages of this country.

I acknowledge that Ontario is already home to three bilingual universities and that the francophone minorities account for just 4.5 per cent of Ontario’s population. Additionally, I acknowledged that the Ford government has created the position of senior policy adviser on francophone affairs following the elimination of the French Language Services Commissioner.

The realities of the mistreatment of francophones throughout history along with the benefits of the French services and protections that Ford is eliminating would make it illogical for one to not consider this as anti-francophone sentiment. To be idle while the government carelessly partakes in these divisive political tactics is a disservice to our ancestors and to all minorities.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

By: Saad Ejaz

Thousands of Canadians across the country have sought to show their support for the victims of the Quebec City mosque shooting, as the country struggled to understand how it became a setting for the tragic events on Jan. 29.

On Jan. 30, as the flags in front of the Burke Science Building flew at half mast, McMaster University students, bundled against the cold, stood in solidarity to mourn the lives lost in the Quebec City Mosque shooting.

Dareen El-Sayed, the co-president of McMaster Muslims for Peace and Justice, says the tragic events were a shock.

“It was a lot closer to home – it was home,” said El-Sayed.

MMPJ’s event on Monday held a Maghreb prayer outside of Burk Science Building to take a stance to remember the victims of Sunday’s attack.

“The people who were killed were killed while they were in the mosque while they were going to pray… and our response to standing and taking that time to first of all stand in solidarity and secondly grieve and mourn...would be through prayer,” said El-Sayed.

A prayer was also held in the McMaster University Student Centre, where McMaster president Patrick Deane spoke in solidarity.

“The tragedy of the victims is fundamentally an incomprehensible reality… I don’t know how you get your mind around such things nor should one ever have to,” said Deane.

All week long, messages of hope and support for the stricken community have ranged from vigils, to open-podiums, to forming a “ring of peace” around local community mosques.

The attack took place amid protests around the world after the U.S president Donald Trump enacted a travel ban on seven Muslim majority countries.

“For a leader of a country to be saying these things – what kind of bar does that set for everyone else?” said Youssef Khaky the president of the McMaster Muslim Student Association.

El-Sayed cited the focus on crimes done by marginalized groups in comparison to others as a key issue.

“In each community there is the good and the bad. What is ironic is the fact that if an act may have come out of a marginalized community… the emphasis on the bad compared to other communities is much bigger… it is crazy how a crime can be labeled in two different ways based on the ethnicity of the person who committed it… contrary to being framed as a one person incident,” said El-Sayed.

Member of the McMaster Muslim Student Association, Anas Alwan, pointed to the current political dialogue for being a part of the climate fostering hostility towards Muslims.

“We need to recognize the need to identify that this is a problem that exists and need to look within our campus to find a solution that best fits the problem,” said Alwan, alluding to events earlier in the term when students on campus booked a Mills Memorial Library study room for a ‘Ku Klux Klan’ meeting and the neo-nazi posters on campus in November.

The events held by MMPJ have emphasized the prospect of being unapologetically Muslim. This means representing the Muslim identity regardless of what is going on around the world.

"It is crazy how a crime can be labeled in two different ways based on the ethnicity of the person who committed it..."
Dareen El-Sayed
Co-president of McMaster Muslims for Justice and Peace 

“When we hear about these attacks, what we stress is that these types of things will not scare us and these things will not make us shy away from portraying our Muslim identity to the world,” said Walid Abdulaziz the co-president of MMPJ.

Following the events in the past few weeks, McMaster has recognized its multicultural and inclusive community open to all students.

“We need to keep our eyes on what is at risk, and the importance of playing our parts to defend the values of inclusiveness and mutual support… the university will defend those values and every member of the community with everything at our disposal… that has to be said over and over again… I hope everyone regardless of how they are affected by the Quebec events or by what is going on will turn to the university for support,” said Deane.

https://www.facebook.com/TheMcMasterSilhouette/videos/10154914056960987/

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Waleed Ahmed
The Silhouette

Quebec’s government has taken its xenophobic rhetoric to new heights. The proposed legislation would ban “overt and conspicuous” religious symbols on government employees. Whether it is a doctor at a hospital wearing a turban, or a hijab-donning worker at a daycare, they will have to decide between work and religion. This militant and deviant expression of secularism fell short of simply banning beards. It is hypocritical, racist and self-contradictory.

The Parti Québécois claims it is doing so to maintain ‘religious neutrality.’ If that is the case then it should perhaps start by banning the province’s most overt religious symbol: its flag.

Also known as the Fleur-de-lis, Quebec’s flag, with its four fleurs-de-lis and a cross, is a beautiful expression of Christian symbolism. Historically associated with French Roman Catholic monarchs, the white fleur-de-lis symbolizes religious purity and chastity. The three petals are widely considered to represent the Holy Trinity; the band on the bottom represents Mary. Images of the Virgin Mary carrying the flower in her right hand are standard portrayals in Christian art.

Hypocrisy of the proposed legislation becomes evident when the more obvious issues that theoretically impact ‘religious neutrality’ are left unquestioned. Examples of this include the gigantic cross in the National Assembly, taking an oath on the Bible or Christmas trees. Will the government stop funding Catholic schools to attain this neutrality? What about funding for chaplaincy services? It appears Marois’ government is unable to distinguish between the concepts of a secular state and the inevitable interaction of that state between itself and religious agencies.

But the Quebec government is not oblivious to these facts. And that’s where the racist element comes in. Banning civil servants from wearing religious symbols doesn’t amend any supposed shortcomings of Quebec’s secularism. One can hold strong religious views without displaying it on their sleeves. In fact, there have been instance of justices refusing to marry same-sex couples because the justices were opposed to gay marriage, and they weren’t wearing a niqab when they did so. Claiming to champion secularism is simply PQ’s way to brazenly discriminate minority groups with hopes of gathering support through identity politics.

This proposed legislation is self-contradictory. It effectively creates two classes of citizens; one that is noble enough to become civil servants and one who is deprived of this privilege. The province is thus not ‘neutral’ by any standards – it’s openly saying that religious people ‘need not apply’. Even voicing such outrageous views creates an unhealthy segregated society. If religious minorities can’t participate in public life, how could they ever hope to blossom into our social fabric? What is even scarier is that the PQ is pushing this charter on the private sector as well, the textbook definition of systematic discrimination.

Parti Québécois is well aware that their proposals are so blatantly unconstitutional that they will be shot down by the courts. But that doesn’t matter as the objective of this political exercise has already been achieved, even if it meant having to stoop to an all-time low. The old game of identity politics has allowed the party to stir up enough support from its nationalist constituency to survive the next election. When the legislation is struck down, they’ll quickly turn around proclaim, ‘See how different we are from the rest of them, we do need our own country!’

One of the ironic aspects of this repulsive ‘Charter of Quebec Values’ is that it has indirectly helped exemplify values that most Canadians share. Editorials of all major newspapers are filled with condemnations of the charter. In a rather innovative spirit, Lakeridge Hospital in Oshawa, Ont., released a recruitment poster of a woman wearing a hijab stating, “We don’t care what’s on your head; we care what’s in it.” Politicians from all facets have openly opposed the Charter, from leader of the opposition, Thomas Mulcair, to Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. The political leadership of Montreal, Quebec’s biggest city and economic hub, unanimously denounced the charter. Even within the PQ there were dissenters: MP Maria Mourani was expelled from caucus for her opposition to this edict.

Despite the lunacy of this entire episode, it’s important to resist the temptation to stereotype Quebec residents as intolerant and narrow-minded. During my short time there, I found the Quebecois to be a warm hearted and friendly people. Whether it was the affectionate ‘Bon Appétit’ from the lunch lady at Université Laval, the student protestors who gave me their iconic red square to wear or my gracious French teacher who put up with my non-existent language skills: I have nothing but good memories. Let’s hope this debacle is forgotten as a cheap political gimmick that has unfortunately brought unprecedented shame to Quebec, and the rest of Canada.

Graphic by Ben Barrett-Forrest / Multimedia Editor.

By Kalina Laframboise
CUP Quebec Bureau Chief

MONTREAL (CUP) — The Parti Québécois’ proposed Charter of Values aimed at separating church and state is raising concern in post-secondary institutions across Quebec.

The controversial project announced on Tuesday would prohibit government employees from wearing conspicuous religious symbols — such as turbans, hijabs, crucifixes and kippahs — and time off for religious holidays. Educational institutions and hospitals could apply to opt out of these conditions but a ban on veils that cover the face would be permanent.

The law would also amend the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to provide an outline on accommodation requests.

However, the bill would not affect members of the National Assembly and would allow politicians to wear religious symbols if they choose. Furthermore, the crucifix that hangs in the National Assembly and the cross on Mount Royal in Montreal would remain in place as Democratic Institutions Minister Bernard Drainville clarified it to be part of Quebec’s history.

The law would extend to all public sector workers including judges, police officers, teachers, daycare workers and municipal personnel in what the provincial government deems an effort to “maintain social peace and promote harmony” and to “prevent tensions from growing.”

Universities are refraining from commenting for now.

“We have taken no position yet,” said Concordia University Spokesperson Chris Mota. “We are assessing the proposal.”

Jenny Desrochers, director of media relations at the Université du Québec à Montréal, also confirmed that UQÀM has not taken a position.

However, the proposal led to a massive protest in the downtown core of Montreal Saturday afternoon and spawned a petition for an inclusive Quebec that drew the support of post-secondary teachers and students across the province.

John Aspler, a graduate student studying neuroscience at McGill University, attended the protest because he was concerned with the ramifications of a charter.

“I protested today because this law impacts women far more than it impacts men, making it sexist. It impacts ethnic and religious minorities as well as immigrants far more than it impacts white Christians, making it racist and discriminatory.” said Aspler. “Christians generally won’t be affected by this legislation.”

Aspler feels that the Quebec Charter of Values acts as a “hypocrisy of the highest order.”

“The charter doesn’t level the playing field, it ensures that a whole segment of society leaves the public eye,” added Aspler.

Avi Goldberg, a sociology professor at Vanier College and Concordia University in Montreal, says he addressed the issue in the classroom at Vanier with his students where he encouraged young adults to discuss the proposal.

“One student said all kinds of professionals in this province who are getting degrees and might be religious,” said Goldberg. “But they are being told they are not allowed to be themselves.”

Goldberg explained that the law “will certainly affect anyone who is teaching at university or CÉGEP in one way or another,” and is concerned it may impede students who wear religious symbols to pursue employment in the public sector since they may not feel welcome.

“Maybe there’s a lack of belief that one can be religious in their home, minds and heart, and at the same time do a job that they are able to do and serve the laws of the public,” said Goldberg. “But I think that’s possible.”

Goldberg is not the only one to foster a discussion in the classroom. Ashley Davis, a student studying arts at Dawson College, admits that one of her teachers openly criticizes the Quebec Charter of Values in class and through social media.

“He’s pretty vocal about it. It’s interesting, because while he himself is secular, he’s culturally tied to a specific faith,” said Davis. “And it seems as though he’s really pushing for people to look at this as an issue of freedom rather than integration.”

Lorenzo DiTommaso, the chair of the department of religion at Concordia University, believes that the department could manage if the Charter of Values becomes law and that it would not affect the courses offered.

“The thing is this: would it have an impact on our courses? No,” said DiTommaso. “We set our courses on the basis of our program needs. I don’t see how this law can affect the courses being offered.”

DiTommaso continued to say that he hopes religious holidays will not be affected by the Charter but that the department could find ways to work around it by setting their own schedules or employing a graduate student or teaching assistant to replace the professor on the date of the holiday.

I’m not an expert in French. I don’t think I even knew a word of French until I started kindergarten. And even then, at my Anglophone school, in an Anglophone city, we students were only so involved in developing what was for most of us a second language. We’d do an hour here, an hour there, learning the basic vocabulary that you’d expect of a group of five year olds. And this basic education continued through our elementary years.

By the time my classmates and I reached high school and had the opportunity to choose classes, I was surprised to find that many of them jumped at the chance to give up French for good. Whether it was because they struggled with it or just lacked interest, they had no qualms at closing the door and never looking back.

I was perplexed at their choice. Maybe it was because I just loved the sound of the language or the writers we studied.

But it seems I was, and am now, in the minority. Of the 33 million people who live in Canada, just over 17 per cent speak both official languages. And predictably enough, almost 60 per cent of those bilingual people live in Quebec.

What people seem to very easily forget is that Canada is a bilingual country. After all, the French established a permanent settlement years before the British ever did. Quebec may be the only solely francophone province now, but Canada’s history has a strong sense of connection with all things French.

So how is it that people are so disillusioned? It’s been over 40 years since the Official Languages Act made the two languages equal under the law, but since then, if anything we’ve lost enthusiasm in pursuing our two native tongues. French immersion programs are widespread, but bilingualism is on the decline.

Meanwhile, Quebec is hanging on to its language rights for dear life. A recent criticism of an Italian restaurant menu in Quebec created “pastagate,” a scandal that made the province a global laughingstock. The Office Quebecois de la langue francaise ordering that the restaurant remove the word “pasta” from its menu may seem extreme, but such strict measures are just a demonstration of how strongly the office wants to preserve the linguistic integrity of its province.

It’s true that Canada is a widely multicultural nation, and perhaps it’s unreasonable to ask that newcomers to our country learn both official languages. But for people still in school, those with the chance or even the requirement to study French, it’s time to embrace bilingualism. Being fluent or at least comfortable in Canada’s two languages can open doors with jobs all over the country, or even elsewhere in the francophone world. And if nothing else, it serves the purpose of preserving our national heritage. So embrace it, Canada. And vive la langue francaise.

 

Dan Fahey is not your typical MSU presidential candidate. To start, he’s the first student of the young iSci program to run. But most notably, he’s not from McMaster. Fahey is an exchange student from the University of Leiceister in England.

RELATED: Selected questions and answers from our interview with Dan

“I’ve not met a single person who has had a problem with it,” he said of his being an exchange student. “Hamilton is really similar to back home, it’s almost like another part of England. It’s very similar, culturally.”

Fahey is a radical candidate not only in his background, but in his platform. Upon coming to McMaster, he was “shocked” by the state of student government, and cites a feeling of “democratic responsibility an obligation” as his reason to run.

“You’ve got all this community and stuff going on, but then the governance is disconnected. It seems weird,” he said.

While other candidates look to make more minor changes within the MSU, Fahey is vocal about his plans for radical reform. He wants to see the election of the three VPs, and a larger, more open SRA that better represents minority groups at Mac.

But as noble as his plans may be, Fahey’s emphasis on democratic restructuring is unlikely to resonate with a disinterested student body. Presidential voting turnout hit a peak last year, even though just a third of MSU voted. His message of student mobilization and activism calls to mind the Quebec protests of 2012 – an association he welcomes, in designating the red felt square as his campaign marker.

In his mission to cater to underrepresented and often marginalized campus groups, including students who are female, racialized, first nations, queer or with disabilities, Fahey neglects the bigger picture and the average student. His platform fails to address the more common issues of the average student, which include campus capacity and mental health. The kind of change he wants to make is undeniably positive, but the kind of grassroots movement he hopes for won’t come to light if the majority of students are ignored.

Of the protests that have been held in downtown Hamilton, this was certainly one of the noisiest.

In a show of solidarity with Quebec students, downtown Hamilton hosted a “pots and pans” or casseroles demonstration at Gore Park on May 30. Demonstrators joined an international movement of solidarity that spans more than 70 cities across the world and continues to grow.

“The issues we’re dealing with in Quebec are part of a broader struggle,” said Ethan Cox, the Montreal journalist whose May 27 article for Rabble.ca set in motion the wave of solidarity casserole protests last Wednesday.

Students in Quebec initially mobilized to protest the tuition increase being imposed by the provincial Liberal government, led by Jean Charest. However, with the advent of Bill 78, which limits the rights of protesters to assemble, the protest movement has evolved to encompass concerned community members from all walks of life.

“Economic systems that promote lower corporate taxes at the expense of social programs … are systems that are broken. And this is the unifying thread, fighting against these broken systems,” said Cox.

The casseroles protest concept, which involves protesters taking to the streets banging pots and pans, was taken from the Chilean Cacerolazos movement, which protested the repressive rule of dictator Augusto Pinochet in the 1970s.

Cox explained that each city has now created their own unique movement that represents their own voices.

The Hamilton event attracted about 150 attendees, comprised of students, community members and union members. It was organized by humanities student Dorian Batycka.

Hamiltonians and McMaster students alike have been pulled together by the cause. Ryan Sparrow, a labour studies student and a former member of the SRA, noted that a majority of the attendees at the Gore Park event were, in fact, students.

Sparrow and many other students believe that the solidarity casseroles should spur a stronger response from McMaster students and students across Ontario.

“Students have said, ‘Well why should they complain, our tuition is already expensive.’ Question is: why aren’t we complaining?”

The SRA brought forth a motion in November that declared the MSU to be in solidarity with Quebec student bodies. The motion did not prescribe any particular action, intending to leave room for students to take individual action.

The MSU is a member of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA), one of the two major national bodies that represents students. The other, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), is typically more involved in direct student action campaigns, while CASA takes a political lobbying approach.

Schools in the GTA, such as Ryerson and York, which are members of CFS, have been extremely active in mobilizing students.

The Ryerson community has been particularly active, staging its own demonstrations as well as travelling to Quebec to support student bodies there. “Students in Ontario aren’t immune to the effects of high tuition fees,” said Rodney Diverlus, President of the Ryerson Students’ Union.

“We have the highest tuition fees in the country as well as the lowest per-student funding of any province. This means as education becomes more and more inaccessible, the quality of education received is also decreased … Reality of the situation is that if Quebec students lose, we all lose,” said Diverlus.

Although McMaster students seem to be less active, the casseroles solidarity movement has continued to build steam, and McMaster students remain an integral part of the Hamilton demonstration.

Another casseroles protest took place on June 6.  As the movement continues, student activists have tried to challenge the notion of the ‘apathetic student’ by elevating the volume of a student voice.