Quebec student strike

[g_bambino]

[T]hey use the phrase to imply a majority would be behind them in a vote.

That's not quite the impression I get. The way I've heard the term used, the definition of "direct democracy" has been changed by the protesters to make the term a synonym for rebellion, which isn't any kind of democracy at all.

[Rick]

And the support for the students and outrage against Charest continues to grow.

As Law 78 was being debated a little over a week ago in the National Assembly, the president of the Quebec Bar Association spoke out against the legislation, saying, “This bill, if adopted, is a breach of the fundamental, constitutional rights of citizens.”

Montreal lawyers have taken up the argument, and tonight will be marching through the streets of the city to show their dissent. This past Friday, a legal challenge of the law was filed by the three main student organizations--CLASSE, FEUQ and FECQ--along with the province's three largest unions.

http://montreal.mediacoop.ca/blog/tim-mcsorley/11085

[fellowtraveller]

Charest next move should be to call an election, now.

He'll win.

The 'who gives a shit' sector that usually stays home will come out in droves and they'll vote for him.

The sheep will look up, and they won;t like seeing heavily subsidized students and unionists with selfserving agendas running the show. Why? Because the sheep pay for it all. If the govt caves on the tuition increase, it all comes out of the pockets of taxpayers anyway. Charest can run a campaign on that, and win.

The 'who gives a shit' sector stays home unless they are angry or afraid. It just happened in Alberta, where the PCs were reelected by those who normally stay home on election day because they feared the alternative of WildRose.

In Quebec, Joe and Martha Sixpack are both afraid and angry. They don't like seeing violence on the street, and they really don't want to pay any more taxes to support those people on the street.

He'll win if he acts now.

[Guest Peeves]

Charest next move should be to call an election, now.

He'll win.

The 'who gives a shit' sector that usually stays home will come out in droves and they'll vote for him.

The sheep will look up, and they won;t like seeing heavily subsidized students and unionists with selfserving agendas running the show. Why? Because the sheep pay for it all. If the govt caves on the tuition increase, it all comes out of the pockets of taxpayers anyway. Charest can run a campaign on that, and win.

The 'who gives a shit' sector stays home unless they are angry or afraid. It just happened in Alberta, where the PCs were reelected by those who normally stay home on election day because they feared the alternative of WildRose.

In Quebec, Joe and Martha Sixpack are both afraid and angry. They don't like seeing violence on the street, and they really don't want to pay any more taxes to support those people on the street.

He'll win if he acts now.

Less than 40% of eligible students voted.

[Guest Peeves]

Please. People "change definitions" of words to suit them (or, less sinisiter, by accident) all the time. Every time you get in an argument with somebody, it is happening to a degree. Every time a politician or a marketing campaign offers deceptions, distortions, or even arguable premises and definitions, it's occurring.

Hell, you just stated that the protesters "think" they "own the English language," which is itself rhetorically altering meanings (at least probably) to suit your own ends.

I understand people are mad at the protesters, hence their overblown outrage and sanctimony which is one of the more fascinating side-effects of the situation (if entirely predictable, and pointed to some degree or another on all dissent, peaceful or otherwise, with exactly zero exceptions).

But the critiques are starting to reek of desperation.

How true. I used sedition and insurrection purposely, they were challenged leaving my first choice of anarchy to be accepted.

[fellowtraveller]

Less than 40% of eligible students voted.

Only about 40% of all voters voted. The students are outnumbered and they have pissed off the wrong people: the people who actually pay for their education right now and in the future.

Charest has leverage right now, he should call an election over this.

He has an enormously appealing foundation.

[bleeding heart]

Who would have guessed that some of these posters would suddenly fall in love with Charest, at this stage of the game.

Signs and wonders.

[wyly]

Who would have guessed that some of these posters would suddenly fall in love with Charest, at this stage of the game.

Signs and wonders.

I would think calling an election has a high amount of risk for charest, there is now a highly motivated segment of the population that normally has a low turnout/interest for elections...if hypothetically all previous voters voted the same way they did in the last election, this demographic that is normally not engaged in the political process could have a major influence on results as they will vote for anyone but charest...they could be the deciding factor in many riding's...

[Guest Peeves]

Only about 40% of all voters voted. The students are outnumbered and they have pissed off the wrong people: the people who actually pay for their education right now and in the future.

Charest has leverage right now, he should call an election over this.

He has an enormously appealing foundation.

I don't think this excellent article has been referenced. I think it says what many are thinking and

keeps things in perspective.

Quebec Construction and labor and government and perhaps Charest politically too are going to be front and center on corruption charges over the next year or so.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/26/chris-selley-quebecs-student-protests-should-alarm-canadas-politicians-and-voters/

Excerpt:

It is often said that if young people want to make a difference, they ought to vote. The hackneyed nature of the observation belies the gobsmacking truth of it — assuming, that is, that governments are actually capable and willing to give voters what they want. In the May 2011 federal election, for example, just 39% of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 24 cast a ballot. That likely represents something like two million unused votes. Add in 25-to-34-year-olds, who voted at a 45% clip, and you’re up to about four million votes, or roughly a quarter of the total ballots cast. Young people would not have to vote monolithically to increase their clout hugely. But if they voted predominantly left-wing, they might change the political and policy landscape at a stroke. Presumably tuition fees would then increase at a slower rate, if at all — again, assuming political parties actually respond to their supporters.

Excerpt:

The Quebec “strike” is being staged by consumers of a heavily subsidized commodity, i.e., education. Yet, absurdly, the strikers use the “scab” terminology and philosophy of the moribund labour movement, blocking access to CEGEPs and universities, disrupting classes, in one case trying to physically remove two female students from a classroom at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

The protesters haven’t just turned against the government, or another class or demographic group, but against their own kind. Quebec’s students have created a situation in which a minority is imposing its will, violently, against the clear majority who support the tuition hikes and oppose the protests — and the government isn’t doing, or cannot do, anything to stop it.

[jacee]

That's not quite the impression I get. The way I've heard the term used, the definition of "direct democracy" has been changed by the protesters to make the term a synonym for rebellion, which isn't any kind of democracy at all.

They are using it accurately to mean that the members - students - all vote on all issues. IE, their student 'leaders' have no decision-making power, only the responsibility to bring issues to the students for discussion and vote. Direct democracy seeks consensus rather than a simple majority, so an issue can be voted on, then discussed some more, then voted on again until their is a clear direction for the 'leaders'.

The important difference between direct democracy and representative democracy is that the people don't give away their decision-making power as we do to our MP's. If you observed any Occupy groups, you saw the same direct democracy in action. If we like what you say, we waggle our fingers at you. It's pretty easy to tell, even in a large crowd, when there is a broad consensus and when something needs more consideration.

We're not quite technologically ready for direct democracy nationally, but it's easy to see it coming electronically at least. Discussion forums would play a role.

However, it would take some learning and practice to get over our divisive partisan ways and learn how to work together toward consensus. The party system divides us and keeps us relatively powerless, and that's not an accident but by design. The 'powers that be' have always been the ones making megabucks off our resources and our labour - the 1% who control the rest of us. It suits their purposes to keep us divided and conquered. The recent upsurge in awareness of direct democracy via the Occupy movement is a recognition of that.

[jacee]

Who would have guessed that some of these posters would suddenly fall in love with Charest, at this stage of the game.

Signs and wonders.

[fellowtraveller]

Who would have guessed that some of these posters would suddenly fall in love with Charest, at this stage of the game.

Signs and wonders.

I have no love for Charest.

But as a political manouever, there is no reason to delay an election call, he has a couple of wonderful rallying points given to him giftwrapped.

And if only 40% of students voted, about the same % of general voters took part as well- and they are far, far more numerous.

Note also that the 25% of students who took part in the boycott seriously pissed off the rest of the student body by denying them an education. How will they vote.

Anyway, the student vote is nothing compared to the general populace. There are parallels to the recent Alberta election.....

The tide was turned there by huge numbers of people who were motivated to get off their asses and vote, the turnout shot up dramatically, about 18% which is massive.

Can Charest get them out by pointing to the unions and students and rallying them with the story that these folks are going to cost them even more money, even higher taxes.

It is a powerful tool.

Everybody in Quebec is paying attention, many have taken sides. Of course, the unions already had a side and vote for the PQ, They will have trouble now convincing the middle class to come their way. Consider that the middle class are the ones that will have to pay whatever eduation costs. Their choice is to pay big subsidies or pay big subsidies plus some more.

Charest could do OK on that point. More importantly, combined with the nastiness on the streets every day, he could get ut a vote that is sympathetic to not paying more.

[Peter F]

I think English Canadians and Charest are completely out of touch with the mood in Quebec. The assembly laws have sunk Charest.

English Canadians loved Trudeau's war-measures act too!

[Fletch 27]

You must have forgotten how many lives the war measures act tolled to be ejected... Shame on you for that bit of sillyness

I think English Canadians and Charest are completely out of touch with the mood in Quebec. The assembly laws have sunk Charest.

English Canadians loved Trudeau's war-measures act too!

[Rick]

I think English Canadians and Charest are completely out of touch with the mood in Quebec. The assembly laws have sunk Charest.

Not all English Canadians my friend, just elitists, Conservatives and those from the west side of the country who will hate on Quebec for any reason they can think of.

Otherwise I agree with your post completely.

[Wild Bill]

We're not quite technologically ready for direct democracy nationally, but it's easy to see it coming electronically at least. Discussion forums would play a role.

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I have always been a populist. That's why I worked so hard for Reform, back in the old days. People should have the right to get what the majority want, even if its wrong! How else can they learn?

On the other, I think the short term pain as the electorate rode a learning curve about what works and what doesn't would be enormous!

You must have heard the old term of "bread and circuses", referring to ancient Rome. As their democracy evolved they eventually gave the vote to even the lowest members of their society. As soon as they realized they had the power to vote themselves more bread and more circuses for entertainment, that's exactly what they did! Rome promptly went broke. Afterwards, adjustments had to be made for Rome to survive.

Even educated people often seem to have no idea of "Utilitarianism", or what will or will not work in practice. Too much government spending means higher and higher taxes. There is no choice about that. Government after all has no money of its own. ALL of it comes from the citizens!

As Ten Years After sang way back in the late 60's - "Tax the rich! Feed the poor! Till there are no rich no more!"

Still, when all is said and done I think in the long term the pain would be worth it. I think one of the greatest problems we face today is that too many people are insulated from negative consequences of wrong choices. They never are made to learn from their mistakes! Today, its always easy to fend off any responsibility and find someone else to take the blame.

So bring it on! The people will no doubt bring severe reality checks down upon themselves! Yet these harsh checks will teach them lessons they cannot ignore. Canada will eventually evolve out of it. The people will have much more input into their government and will also be much more knowledgeable or even wise about making decisions.

But OH! We would likely endure a terrible decade or two to achieve that wisdom! Individuals usually learn quickly before they come to grievous harm but in groups, as in communities or countries, we always seem to have to learn everything the hard way.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Signals.Cpl]

Not all English Canadians my friend, just elitists, Conservatives and those from the west side of the country who will hate on Quebec for any reason they can think of.

You mean anyone other then you? When terrorists try to force their will on the elected government, that government has the option duty to defend the people. Seeing as in the subsequent referendums the No side won out I would have to say a good chunk of Quebecers agreed with the government and intelligent English speaking Canadians agreed with the government...

[g_bambino]

They are using it accurately to mean that the members - students - all vote on all issues.

Taking over streets and running roughshod over campuses does not equal voting.

The important difference between direct democracy and representative democracy is that the people don't give away their decision-making power as we do to our MP's.

The important thing to remember is that we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.

The ironic thing is, if Quebec were to be instantly transformed into a direct democracy at this point, the protesters would lose. If the direct democracy went on, the protesters would likely lose a lot more.

[g_bambino]

You must have forgotten how many lives the war measures act tolled to be ejected...

Yes, let's remember those zero lives that were "tolled" because of the War Measures Act's "ejection".

[ed.: sp]

Edited May 31, 2012 by g_bambino

[Fletch 27]

Ahh, The 8 lives that were lost courtesy of the FLQ? Ahhh, the 90 bombs detonated injuring 27 people? The bombing of the Montreal stock exchange? All courtesy of the far left, Marxixt/Leninist party in Quebec? The Wa measures act was put in place to eliminate that type of BS... It should be enacted again..

Yes, let's remember those zero lives that were "tolled" because of the War Measures Act's "ejection".

[ed.: sp]

[Signals.Cpl]

Ahh, The 8 lives that were lost courtesy of the FLQ? Ahhh, the 90 bombs detonated injuring 27 people? The bombing of the Montreal stock exchange? All courtesy of the far left, Marxixt/Leninist party in Quebec? The Wa measures act was put in place to eliminate that type of BS... It should be enacted again..

What does that have to do with the war MEasures act? I don't think the Army was responsible for that.

[g_bambino]

Ahh, The 8 lives that were lost courtesy of the FLQ? Ahhh, the 90 bombs detonated injuring 27 people? The bombing of the Montreal stock exchange? All courtesy of the far left, Marxixt/Leninist party in Quebec? The Wa measures act was put in place to eliminate that type of BS... It should be enacted again..

What you said and I responded to wasn't clear at all. What you say above is a little more clear. The War Measures Act was passed in 1914, however; long before the FLQ or even Marxist-Leninism existed in Canada.

As much as I think the perma-protestes in Quebec are an ignorant and self-righteous lot, they're a far cry from the FLQ. There are laws and by laws in place already that should together prevent further disruption to Montreal's streets, campuses, and subway. It's just a matter of getting them enforced.

[Fletch 27]

War measures act was enacted (It has been enacted a total of 3 times in Canada's history) to stop the FLQ and the bombings.. By Trudeau...In an interview with Tim Ralfe and Peter Reilly on the steps of Parliament, Pierre Trudeau, responding to a question of how extreme his implementation of the War Measures Act would be, Trudeau answered, Well, just watch me. The line has become a part of Trudeaus legacy.

What does that have to do with the war MEasures act? I don't think the Army was responsible for that.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Fletch 27

[jacee]

Taking over streets and running roughshod over campuses does not equal voting.

The students meet, discuss and vote on issues almost every day. They use the same 'general assembly' format as the Occupy movements.

The important thing to remember is that we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.

The ironic thing is, if Quebec were to be instantly transformed into a direct democracy at this point, the protesters would lose. If the direct democracy went on, the protesters would likely lose a lot more.

There's a lot more discussion than voting in direct democracy, because the purpose is to attain a group consensus, not a simple majority decision imposed on others. Thus, people have to look at issues from the perspective of others as well as their own perspective and figure out creative ways to meet the needs of everyone.

It's an entirely different system and requires some reflection to understand. We're used to thinking in 'competitive' mode whereas direct democracy requires cooperative mode.

[Signals.Cpl]

War measures act was enacted (It has been enacted a total of 3 times in Canada's history) to stop the FLQ and the bombings.. By Trudeau...In an interview with Tim Ralfe and Peter Reilly on the steps of Parliament, Pierre Trudeau, responding to a question of how extreme his implementation of the War Measures Act would be, Trudeau answered, “Well, just watch me.” The line has become a part of Trudeau’s legacy.

The Quebec Premier and Montreal mayor asked for assistance and the federal government assisted. Just like the Quebec government asked the Federal government for soldiers to assist in the Oka Crisis.

Sorry for the wikipedia but Im in school and have limited time.

The circumstances ultimately culminated in the only peacetime use of the War Measures Act in Canada's history, done by Governor General of Canada Roland Michener at the direction of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, having been requested by the Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, and the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis