SAC writes to U of O President Allan Rock and Chair of Board of Governors Marc Jolicoeur concerning Joseph Hickey's case

Our University campus is one where free speech, student space and freedom of association is protected and promoted. Ahem. Well, huh, not really.

After allegedly painting a political message (these walls belong to students) on the student art walls beside the Morrisett Library (now covered up by the university's selected Gee Gee's images) graduate student Joseph Hickey was charged under the Criminal Code of Canada, barred from campus by being served a blanket trespass notice even though he is a full time student with teaching assistant responsibilities and arrested on campus for trying to book an appointment with President Allan Rock and for brining a cake to his department's Christmas party.

The Student Appeal Centre shares these letters sent to President Allan Rock asking to ensure that the criminal charges are dropped and to the Chair of the Board of Governors Marc Jolicoeur who refused to receive Joseph Hickey's complaint for this serious case of targeted political discrimination.


******************************************************

From: Mireille Gervais
Date: Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Subject: SAC Appeal to Allan Rock Concerning Joseph Hickey
To: Allan Rock
Cc: Diane Davidson , Alain Roussy , kathryn.prudhomme@uottawa.ca, Joseph Hickey , Sean Kelly , interne@gsaed.ca, university@gsaed.ca, Karine Hébert , Zachary Fouchard

Dear President Rock,

You have, on numerous occasions, proclaimed your role as a Defender of Human Rights and as a man of action in the “service of the world”. Such a noble stance is indeed indispensable at the University of Ottawa, for which you act as President, and which has a societal mission to educate students and to foster and maintain an environment where freedom of expression and critical thought are welcomed and protected. How disturbing it is, then, that you have repeatedly taken action to deny University of Ottawa students their natural rights, including the right to be innocent until proven guilty, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom of education.

Your administration has put University of Ottawa graduate student Joseph Hickey in the absurd situation of facing a criminal charge for mischief, being trespassed from all campus property, being threatened with denial of work, intimidated, and harassed, all because of allegations of painting a political message on a cement poster backing wall on campus (that has since been covered by a university propaganda poster).

Mr. Hickey’s No Trespassing Notice was revoked without apology, only after weeks of letter writing including firm protests from the Graduate Student Association (GSAÉD) and from the Union of Teacher Assistants (CUPE-2626). Many of the abuses of power that occurred while Mr. Hickey was trespassed, such as his arrest at your office while attempting to make an appointment, his removal from the Physics Department Christmas Party by Protection Services, and threats by the Department of Physics to remove his Teacher Assistant work, have given rise to a CUPE grievance and a Policy 110 complaint addressed directly to the Chairman of the Board of Governors, Marc Jolicoeur.

The criminal charge laid on Joseph Hickey is ludicrous and is an example of misplaced police resources to attack politically active students. The SAC denounces the despicable behaviour of Protection Services personnel who chose to covertly gather “evidence” rather than actually “protect” the property that they allege to be concerned with by engaging directly with students. Colourful and politically messaged cement backing walls hidden behind corporate propaganda posters cannot legitimately be considered “damage to property” on a university campus and certainly such messaging should never lead to a criminal charge against a student.

The University is claiming $1038.19 in damage costs from Mr. Hickey, for the removal of the paint, which read “These Walls Belong to Students”. This absurd cost is a disgusting attempt to use student tuition money to exert punitive measures against a University of Ottawa student. There was absolutely no necessity to remove anything from the poster backing walls. The University’s recent (February 4, 2010) installation of propaganda posters over top of student-made chalk messages on the same walls attests to this fact.

Mr. Rock, we ask you to recall the Student Appeals Centre’s October, 2009 appeal to you concerning the political discrimination inflicted by you and your administration against undergraduate student Marc Kelly. Mr. Kelly had been charged with multiple illegitimate criminal offences stemming from his political activity on the University of Ottawa campus. Directly following our letter of protest to you, the Crown Prosecutor decided that Mr. Kelly’s case was “not in the public interest” to pursue, and all charges were dropped. This decision came after one year of sustained intimidation, harassment, interference, and discrimination of Mr. Kelly by your administration.

We repeat: the University has a societal mission to educate students and to foster and maintain an environment where freedom of expression and critical thought are welcomed and protected. Whereas the University should never have called Ottawa Police onto campus in the first place, and should be lobbying the Courts to rescind Mr. Hickey’s charges, it is now pursuing the maximum punishment possible against Mr. Hickey, including criminal charges and extreme and unnecessary damage costs.

Mr. Rock, the SAC now urges you to once again take action and back down from exerting illegitimate criminal punishment against a University of Ottawa student. The SAC asks you to petition the Crown Prosecutor to drop the charges against Joseph Hickey, and to remove the fabricated damage costs that you are forcing him to pay.

Sincerely,

Zachary Fouchard, Student Appeal Officer

Mireille Gervais, Student Appeal Officer

Karine Hébert, Student Appeal Officer

Student Appeal Centre
appeals@sfuo.ca
tel: 613-562-5800 X 2350
fax: 613-562-5767
UCU 101
www.appeals.sfuo.ca

****************************************************

From: Mireille Gervais
Date: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Subject: Joseph Hickey's Policy 110 complaint addressed to Marc Jolicoeur
To: MJolicoeur@blgcanada.com
Cc: Allan Rock , Diane Davidson , Joseph Hickey , Karine Hébert , Zachary Fouchard

Dear Maître Jolicoeur,

Joseph Hickey has shared with the Student Appeal Centre your March 8, 2010 response to his Policy 110 complaint addressed to you.

We, Student Appeal Officers of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, were surprised to see that you state that Policy 110 is ''meant to address matters arising from the relationship between a graduate student and his or her supervisor and the graduate student’s relationship with the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. It has no application to the substance of your complaint concerning the issuance of a notice of trespass by the University’s Protection Services and the subsequent letter revoking the notice.''

Your interpretation is not in accordance with the policy itself which states ''The University recognizes the many contributions of graduate students to this institution and is committed to offering them protection from abuse in all aspects of their relationship with the University.'' (Preamble 1)

Policy 110 also states ''The procedures for recourse in this policy may be used as well in any circumstance where any other policy of the University of Ottawa is applied'' other than in cases involving appeals concerning academic decision which are under the purview of the Faculty of Graduate and Post-doctoral Studies or issues subject to a collective agreement.

Furthermore, the policy clearly states that no member of the academic community shall be subject to discrimination by reason of political belief. The facts show that Mr. Hickey's ill-treatment by the University is based on his political beliefs. If the targeting of Mr. Hickey were not political then it would be arbitrary or unjustified and disproportionate discrimination; it would constitute harassment by those involved in the decisions. More documents pertaining to the nature of Mr Hickey's mistreatment by the University can be provided if need be.

It is our positions that to paint Mr. Hickey's complaint as one that is outside the jurisdiction of Policy 110 is wrong and in contradiction with the Policy itself. To refuse to receive the policy 110 complaint based on a contrived and incorrect reason would only amplify the University's mistreatment of Mr. Hickey.

We trust you will review Policy 110 and receive Mr. Hickey's complaint without further delay.

Sincerely

Zachary Fouchard
Mireille Gervais
Karine Hébert

Student Appeal Officers
Student Appeal Centre
tel: 13-562-5800 x 2350
appeals@sfuo.ca
www.appeals.sfuo.ca

How and Why the University of Ottawa got the Ottawa Police to Lay Bogus Criminal Charges Against a Student

The Rock Administration's Persecution of Student Marc Kelly Must End

In May 2008 students killed the administration’s attempt to impose a student code of conduct. Code of conduct like measures targeting individual students cannot be tolerated.

Marc Kelly’s case (described below) is the most outrageous case of targeted political discrimination against a student seen by the Student Appeal Centre. Any such injustice to a single student is an injustice to all students.

Prior to December 1^st, 2008 Marc Kelly had filed multiple appeals with the University administration and had vocally denounced the injustices he had suffered at the hands of the Rock Administration. The University’s recent actions against Marc Kelly appear to be reprisal against him for having spoken out and for having ultimately taken his grievances directly to President Rock.

In light of the University’s own rules and regulations that penalize students who do not attend class, the administration’s multiple recent efforts (see below) to keep Marc Kelly out of the classroom are not only hypocritical, they raise serious ethical questions about the University administration.

The University has a societal mission to educate students and to foster and maintain an environment where freedom of expression and critical thought are welcomed and protected. Whereas the University should be lobbying the Courts to have Marc Kelly back on campus, it has done everything in its power to ensure that Marc Kelly’s freedoms are restricted.

This persecution must end.

****

On December 1^st, 2008 undergraduate student Marc Kelly attended the University of Ottawa’s monthly Senate meeting. Inspired by the University’s Vision 2010, in particular the phrase "transparency and accountability are the principles that guide our university governance", Marc Kelly attempted to video record the proceedings in the Senate Chambers, Tabaret Hall Room 083. The Senate is the highest governing body for all academic matters at our University. On December 1^st, 2008, the Senate meetings were open to all members of the public, there was no policy in effect prohibiting the use of video recording equipment and members of the media had previously recorded the proceedings.

But on December 1^st, 2008, some Senators did not want to be filmed. Members of the upper administration, including then VP Academic Robert Major and then VP Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers, approached Marc Kelly. Marc explained that there was no policy prohibiting filming, and Marc suggested the issue be raised before the Senate prior to the start of the meeting.

Instead of calling for a democratic discussion on the question of video recording, the Ottawa Police was called with the full consent of VP-Academic Robert Major who presided the Senate meeting in Allan Rock's absence. Marc Kelly was handcuffed, thrown in the back of a police cruiser and bogus criminal charges were laid against him.

Many students witnessed the arrest and later filed complaints against the Ottawa Police who, once arrived on campus, began confiscating their video recording equipment and repeatedly threatened them with arrest.

A police officer told Marc that he would be released immediately only if he signed an undertaking that barred him from all University of Ottawa property. When Marc protested that he was both a student and an employee, the police officer called the University. The University lied to the police officer by saying Marc was neither a student nor an employee. When Marc asked what would happen if he refused to sign the undertaking, the police officer told him he would be held in jail for a week.

The restriction of freedom in the signed undertaking was not only outrageous, it was a contradiction of the University’s own regulations. After all, Marc Kelly is a student who must abide by the University’s rules on mandatory class attendance! After student protests, the undertaking was modified by the Court to give Marc access to campus once again, and he continued his studies.

During this time, the University kept a close watch on Marc Kelly’s whereabouts. They used the surveillance cameras on campus to store video records of his every action, they took photographs, wrote detailed reports and they sent this information to the Ottawa Police. For example, Marc was seen registering for a course at the Faculty of Science’s undergraduate office. This was reported to the police.

On January 23, 2009 in an attempt to intimidate Marc Kelly away from campus, the Ottawa Police, with the assistance of the University’s “Security Services”, falsely arrested him while he was giving a public presentation in McDonald Hall Auditorium. Marc was held in jail for several hours while students and professors successfully protested outside of the police station for his release.

During the rest of the Winter, both the Crown and the University set out to have Marc Kelly enter into a Peace Bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This would mean that the University of Ottawa would not have to defend its actions in front of a judge, and that Marc Kelly would agree to have his freedoms restricted on campus. In trying to pressure Marc to sign the Peace Bond, the University of Ottawa and the Crown Prosecutor collaborated with the Ottawa Police.

On May 14, 2009 the Ottawa Police showed up at Marc Kelly’s home late at night. They threw him in jail and stuck multiple additional bogus criminal charges against him. The Ottawa Police had used the surveillance information gathered by the University of Ottawa and accused Marc Kelly of “breaching his conditions”. For example, Marc Kelly has been criminally charged for asking a question to President Allan Rock at a public event during the question period.

DuDuring the Summer of 2009, Marc Kelly entered in negotiations with Vice President, Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers and came to an agreement with the University. The agreement included the following:

• Marc would fast track his degree (he would avoid taking three additional mandatory electives).
• The University would clear Marc’s debt with the University.
  
• The University would award Marc with a bursary of $3500.
• The University would ask the Crown Prosecutor to drop the bogus criminal charges against Marc.

The agreement, however, was under the condition that Marc take all of his courses at Carleton University, except for MAT 2762, which Marc would take at the University of Ottawa. A few days before the fall semester courses were to begin, the University’s Legal Council Alain Roussy emailed the ‘formalized agreement’ to Marc. The University unilaterally introduced several new elements never once mentioned by VP Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers during the many months she negotiated with Marc. The modified agreement would not only force Marc Kelly to give up his right to file a civil lawsuit against the University, the new agreement also served as an indefinite notice under the Trespass to Property Act, and included a clause prohibiting Marc from applying to any graduate or undergraduate program of study at the University of Ottawa for the next five years. The University tried (and failed) to take away Marc Kelly’s right to apply for graduate studies.

Marc Kelly’s fight continues. A trial date has been set for January 12^th, 13^th, 14^th and 15^th, 2010 while he continues to fight to regain the student rights and freedoms that have been stripped from him.

Since December 1, 2008, many students have protested the Rock administration’s treatment of Marc Kelly. In March of 2009, the Senate agreed to be filmed and adopted a policy to that effect. Videos of all Senate meetings are now posted on the University of Ottawa website.

The SAC directly appeals to President Allan Rock to stop this madness. The SAC asks President Rock to instruct Legal Counsel to petition the Crown in Marc Kelly’s favour to have all conditions of the undertaking removed immediately. The SAC asks President Rock to allow Marc Kelly to exercise his full freedoms as a student of the University of Ottawa.

Three Graduate Students File a Lawsuit against the University of Ottawa and Deliver Their Claim to President Allan Rock

On Tuesday February 24, 2009 physics graduate students Sean Kelly, Joseph Hickey and postdoctoral fellow Meizhen Dang filed a lawsuit against the University of Ottawa.

A press conference was held in Tabaret Hall to announce the lawsuit. Following the press conference students attempted to deliver the claim to President Allan Rock but the glass doors to the central administration offices had been locked. A few minutes later Allan Rock stepped out of his office, smiled and waved to the crowd of students as he made his way out of Tabaret Hall using another exit.

Students quickly caught up to Allan Rock and informed him that they had an important document to deliver. President Rock did not respond to the students and made his way down Laurier Street. Refusing to give up, students followed Allan Rock, explaining the nature of the lawsuit and the grounds of their complaint against the University of Ottawa. President Rock did not respond.

After approximately ten minutes, President Rock finally accepted to take the claim and walked away with yet another wave and a smile.


Press Release Announcing the Conference:

On December 10, 2008, the University of Ottawa summarily, without notice consultation or due process, closed the laboratory of Professor Denis Rancourt, locking out its researchers, seizing equipment and derailing years of award winning scholarship in nanoparticle physics. As a result of this ill-conceived plan, post Doctoral researcher Meizhen Dang's employment was terminated after twelve years of dedicated research assistance. Master's student Sean Kelly lost nearly six years of specialized research in the area of ferromagnetism and Master's student Joseph Hickey has been bullied by the administration to abandon his fully funded NSERC research project under Professor Rancourt.

"Academic excellence and freedom at the University of Ottawa are under a profound attack when the administration takes a personal dislike to a certain professor" according to Joseph Hickey. "I came to attend the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies at this University on a fully funded scholarship to work with a leading world expert in physics, not to be coerced and treated with such disdain."

"Every day that we are locked out of our research jobs, the value of our scholarships diminish and the likelihood of regaining our research momentum decreases rendering the prospects for our scientific careers more doubtful," explained Sean Kelly.

For Meizhen Dang, she is concerned about the lack of consideration and disrespect shown to longstanding researchers at the University of Ottawa. "Had I known that after a decade of work I would end up by being unceremoniously locked out of my lab and having my research seized despite producing internationally recognized and award winning scientific results, I would have left this environment years ago. What have I done to deserve this?"

After their requests to return to their academic supervisor and laboratory research group fell on deaf ears, the postdoctoral researcher and graduate students have filed a joint claim against the University and the Dean of Graduate Studies, Gary Slater for monetary damages relating to breach of contract and misfeasance in public office.

(Press Release by Yavar Hameed)