No one envy the delicate position in which McGill University is stuck, where pro-Palestine demonstrations have been taking place since Saturday. If it rises to the rank of ideas, which form the basis of its reason for being, the university must remain a sanctuary protecting freedom of expression and demonstration. On the sinister level, the establishment brandishes its regulations and invokes security threats to denounce an “illegal” camp on its land.
McGill therefore asked the police to be ready to intervene to put an end to this occupation. By excessively practicing the rules of caution, acting when no convincing proof of excess has been made so far, the university risks adding fuel to the fire. She has not at all succeeded in convincing people that the camp of around a hundred tents established on her land threatens security and incites violence. On the contrary, the images and impressions that emerge after our reporters’ visit rather suggest a pacifist space where actors of all faiths mix, united in the same desire to see an end to the violence in Gaza. .
Two McGill students asked the Superior Court to rule, because they believe that this encampment creates a hostile, dangerous and violent climate. But Judge Chantal Masse rejected their request for an injunction, with words that are striking and should give McGill pause: “The intervention of the courts is sometimes likely to be a remedy worse than the evil we seek to remedy. »
The university is a sacred place for debate and the proliferation of ideas in all their diversity, which constitutes the pillar of what we call academic freedom. Although the administrations are absolutely right to ensure that the demonstrations take place peacefully, it is difficult to understand, in the current state of affairs, why McGill would become an agent provocateur where, for the moment, the agitators are not showing up. not.
Of course, the matter is ultra-delicate. Targeted criticism of Israel’s military strategy is sometimes wrongly confused with what could amount to anti-Semitism. Any form of discrimination and hostility towards Jews must be denounced loud and clear, of course. But if McGill intervenes too quickly, when the context does not justify it, it will then have to answer for its decisions: if the university campus is not the place where the defense of freedom of expression is not the most vigorous, then where can it be?
This text is part of our Opinion section. This is an editorial and, as such, it reflects the values and position of the Duty as defined by its director in collaboration with the editorial team.
To watch on video