Pro-Palestinian activists at their encampment on McGill University campus, in Montreal, on May 6.Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press
A Quebec judge has rejected McGill University’s request for an injunction against the pro-Palestinian encampment on its downtown Montreal campus, the second time the protest has withstood a legal challenge as it stretches into its third week.
Justice Marc St-Pierre wrote in his decision that McGill had failed to prove there was any “urgency” to clearing the cluster of tents, since there have been no incidents of violence or health and safety issues connected to the site.
The protesters say they will remain until the university cuts financial ties with Israel and academically boycotts the country, as dozens of universities across North America face similar protests amidst the war in Gaza.
A previous injunction request by two McGill students who said the encampment made them feel unsafe was rejected by another judge on May 1. Although encampments at other Canadian universities have been cleared by police, notably in Alberta, Montreal police have so far resisted McGill’s requests for help in ending the protest.
“The Service de police de la Ville de Montréal is aware of the rejection of the injunction and will carefully analyze the contents of the decision,” said police spokesperson Anik de Repentigny.
Protesters celebrated the judge’s decision on Wednesday and called on the university to negotiate.
“We have been validated twice now in a court of law that we are a peaceful act of civil disobedience that is permitted to be here,” said Ruth Silva, an undergraduate student at McGill. “We’ve seen encampments spring up around Canada, some of which have faced really harsh repression, so this is a really big moment for the movement.”
In a statement, McGill said it was “disappointed” in Wednesday’s ruling and that it was “in the process of analyzing the judgment.”
The university’s lawyers portrayed the encampment in their injunction request as a “fortified and entrenched space” complete with sidewalks and shops – not a protest but an illegal occupation of private property. Because the tents are surrounded by fences covered in tarps and signs, McGill said its security staff could not monitor the safety of the area.
But in his judgment, Justice St-Pierre pointed out that there had been no safety incidents at the encampment. Even a heated counterprotest by Israel supporters on May 2 unfolded peacefully thanks to police intervention, the judge observed.
The university’s argument for the urgency of an injunction rested in part on the fact that its convocation for graduating students traditionally takes place on the field occupied by protesters. But, as the judge noted, McGill acknowledges that it has already secured an alternate site for the event.
Lawyers for the defendants argued that McGill’s right to enjoy its property was in conflict with the protesters’ right to free expression and that encampments such as the one at McGill have become a standard form of protest across North America.
Justice St-Pierre said the question of conflicting rights was “important as well as being complex,” and that a deeper analysis of the issue was needed, but that a provisional injunction wasn’t the context for it.
The decision was still a victory for free speech, said Julius Grey, a lawyer for Palestiniens et Juifs Unis, one of the defendants.
“It showed that the right to free expression was important, and it showed that you can’t get around it by speculating that there might be a fire,” said Mr. Grey, a well-known defender of civil liberties.