What does the decision say?
Let’s start with what it doesn’t say: the Superior Court does not order the complete dismantling of the encampment. Rather, it requires its occupants to clear a space of two meters along the university pavilion, so as to create a circulation corridor. Protesters will also be required to remove any material obstructing doors, windows and security cameras. Finally, they will have to allow the Montreal Fire Department to visit the camp – currently prohibited from access – in order to check the safety of the premises. “These security measures will not harm the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to demonstrate,” underlined Judge Louis-Joseph Gouin in his decision rendered early Monday morning.
And that’s what the University was asking?
PHOTO RYAN REMIORZ, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Pro-Palestinian camp on the UQAM campus
Essentially, yes. On Monday, management reiterated that its request was “in no way” aimed at dismantling the encampment or calling into question the students’ right to demonstrate. On the contrary, she said she was ready to tolerate the presence of demonstrators, provided that they did not hinder free movement and access to and exit from buildings and that they did not damage property. In court, the University presented photos showing walls covered in graffiti, windows covered with trash bags and doors blocked with pieces of wood. Protesters were also seen entering the encampment with iron bars, pieces of asphalt and cans of gasoline, she said. “The Court is of the opinion that the security of the Inner Court and the Complex constitutes a primordial issue for which no compromise can be envisaged”, concluded the judge, adding that a clearance of two meters was “sufficient”, unlike to the three meters suggested by the University.
How did the demonstrators react?
A general meeting was planned for the evening to determine whether they would comply with the court orders. “It will be a collective decision,” briefly reacted a representative of the camp, Leila Khaled. The other demonstrators met on site – most of them masked – refused to speak to the media. In court, they alleged that even partial dismantling would endanger the camp. “That is not the case,” replied Judge Gouin. “Perhaps this will mean reducing the number of tents, or will invite the occupants of the Camp to be more promiscuous, but we cannot put security at greater risk to allow the occupants to occupy, at their ease, the almost the entire interior courtyard of the Complex,” he explained. Recall that the demonstrators are demanding that the administration disclose any links with Israel and adopt a policy of institutional boycott.
Why didn’t McGill University’s request for an injunction work, but this one did?
PHOTO DOMINICK GRAVEL, THE PRESS
Pro-Palestinian encampment at McGill University earlier this month
At the beginning of May, the English-speaking university filed a request for a provisional interlocutory injunction aimed at dismantling the pro-Palestinian encampment set up on its land. But it was rejected. The reason ? Management had failed to demonstrate the urgency of action. In fact, no violent incident had been reported since the first tents appeared on its campus. Even the counter-demonstration mentioned by the University to illustrate the fear of an escalation of tensions “was carried out peacefully”, underlined judge Marc St-Pierre. However, a request for a provisional interlocutory injunction cannot be granted as a preventive measure, he recalled. This time the situation is different. Last weekend, clashes broke out between demonstrators and police who used sticks and irritant gas, injuring “several” people, the camp denounced. Faced with rising tensions, the Minister of Higher Education, Pascale Déry, appealed for calm. “Security is currently in jeopardy and it is urgent to remedy this before an unfortunate event occurs,” underlined Judge Louis-Joseph Gouin.
What will happen if campers do not follow the order?
Asked whether it would seek police intervention, the University replied that it was “not at that point at all”. “Dialogue remains our priority for the implementation of the judgment,” indicated the director of UQAM’s communications department, Jenny Desrochers. In a statement to the media, rector Stéphane Pallage argued that he was counting on the “collaboration” of the demonstrators to implement the arrangements listed in the judgment. “Once security issues have been resolved, the dialogue on the merits of the demands will be able to continue peacefully,” he continued. Management recently established a working committee ad hoc which will recommend to it a common position on the actions to be adopted by the establishment in connection with the conflict in Palestine. For its part, the Police Department of the City of Montreal took note of the judgment. “The role of police officers is to ensure peace, good order, and the safety of all those involved, while respecting rights and freedoms,” he declared.
University of Toronto to seek injunction
PHOTO CHRIS YOUNG, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of Toronto, Monday
The University of Toronto announced Monday that it will seek an injunction to quickly order the dismantling of the pro-Palestinian encampment installed on its campus for more than three weeks. In a statement released Monday morning, university President Meric Gertler maintained that management would ask the court for an expedited pretrial conference for its request for an injunction. The demonstrators immediately declared they were ready to fight back with their own legal team and refused to leave the premises, ignoring the deadline set for Monday morning in a trespass notice sent Friday.
The Canadian Press