Quebec student strike

[Claudius]

Look at the news from around the world to see how the protest has become relevant again.

One more thing...I don't think it was ever not relevant. Protest has been a common thing for a long time but to compare these protest methods with something like Greece or Tiamennen or Syria is to compare the relative problems between the Quebec tuition hike of a few $ per day with austerity and/or gross human rights violations and I think that's ridiculous.

And for the record I know you weren't making those direct connections but many including these students seem to think it's the same. They are caught up in the romance of it and that's a pretty spoiled and ignorant thing to believe.

[Argus]

I see what you're saying, but voting isn't the sum total of the expression of democracy. Speech and protest are part of it, too, so she's not entirely wrong. They're taking their message directly to people, which seems pretty democratic to me. Look at the news from around the world to see how the protest has become relevant again.

And the people have heard it, rejected it, and want order back in their streets. That's democracy too. That's why the protestors are now being arrested by the train-load.

[Claudius]

Misread a post and made an incorrect reply. Please ignore.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Claudius

[Michael Hardner]

One more thing...I don't think it was ever not relevant. Protest has been a common thing for a long time but to compare these protest methods with something like Greece or Tiamennen or Syria is to compare the relative problems between the Quebec tuition hike of a few $ per day with austerity and/or gross human rights violations and I think that's ridiculous.

I don't think pointing out the effectiveness of protest today is the same thing as equating the situations in Quebec, Egypt or elsewhere.

And for the record I know you weren't making those direct connections but many including these students seem to think it's the same. They are caught up in the romance of it and that's a pretty spoiled and ignorant thing to believe.

Well, it's not the same. We're at an entirely different point in history. Protest is needed here too, perhaps, but what we really need is dialogue and a different set of publics to represent the people, the government, business and so on.

[Michael Hardner]

And the people have heard it, rejected it, and want order back in their streets. That's democracy too. That's why the protestors are now being arrested by the train-load.

What I'm getting from this is that because the students' message is unpopular, the democratically elected government can get VERY undemocratic and just arrest people. After all, the people support that action.

I don't disagree at all.

[Claudius]

I mean what would you think if I came along and threw a brick through your window and when you run out to ask me "wtf!?", I say, "Hey hey it's okay, this is just direct democracy: I'm protesting for free day care". I'm pretty sure you'd think that was bull.

Strawman.

LOL!

Yeah okay whatever. You argue these disruptions are valid "direct democracy", I make a comparison and show you what it would be like being on the wrong end of those disruptions and since you simply can't accept that comparison or make a decent response to it you decide to clasp your eyes shut and ignore it. It's not a stawman it's a direct comparison and anyone honest can see that. If you can't be honest then don't debate.

[Claudius]

I don't think pointing out the effectiveness of protest today is the same thing as equating the situations in Quebec, Egypt or elsewhere.

You said:

Look at the news from around the world to see how the protest has become relevant again.

What else could I do but assume you are speaking of current protests in the world making news these days? You equate the protests then you are automatically equating the causes regardless of whether or not you think you are.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah okay whatever. You argue these disruptions are valid "direct democracy", I make a comparison and show you what it would be like being on the wrong end of those disruptions and since you simply can't accept that comparison or make a decent response to it you decide to clasp your eyes shut and ignore it.

"Ok, so you allow protest - WHAT IF A PROTESTOR THROWS A BOMB AT YOUR WIFE AND YOUR CAT DO YOU LIKE PROTEST NOW ?"

It's not a stawman it's a direct comparison and anyone honest can see that. If you can't be honest then don't debate.

How is it honest to introduce an act of violence in a discussion about disruption and traffic delays, when I already addressed it.

What else could I do but assume you are speaking of current protests in the world making news these days? You equate the protests then you are automatically equating the causes regardless of whether or not you think you are.

I said "protest is relevant again", not "Quebec is the Syria of May 2012" or somesuch.

[Claudius]

"Ok, so you allow protest - WHAT IF A PROTESTOR THROWS A BOMB AT YOUR WIFE AND YOUR CAT DO YOU LIKE PROTEST NOW ?"

That's not what I siad. I said protests are fine but disruptions and intimidation and destruction are not,and that there is a difference. You know this which is why you don't quote what I said directly now but instead purposely mischaracterize what I said . I clearly draw a line between protest and intimidation/destruction and demonstrated the difference quite clearly and instead of answering this you ignore it and call it a strawman.

Please have fun continuing your dishonest approach with others, or by yourself if you like, I'm certain you'll find that easier.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Claudius

[Claudius]

How is it honest to introduce an act of violence in a discussion about disruption and traffic delays, when I already addressed it.

(sigh) Because that's what we're talking about. The students in question have been destroying property Michael. They have been smashing windows and calling it "direct democracy" therefore it is perfectly valid for me to point it out.

[Michael Hardner]

That's not what I siad.

I know. It was an analogy.

I said protests are fine but disruptions and intimidation and destruction are not,and that there is a difference.

And I said protests are fine, disruptions are fine, intimidation and destruction are not fine.

How is a brick through a window not destruction ?

You know this which is why you don't quote what I said directly now but instead purposely mischaracterize what I said .

By putting it in caps and adding the dog, I thought it would be clear that I was sarcasticing.

[dre]

This needs a separate thread. There's two arguments going on here, 1)the validity of the Quebec student protest and 2) the validity of a free education.

The Quebec students are not protesting for a free education for them and the rest of Canada. That's a bit of fib being perpetrated when people need a counter argument to things like the fact they enjoy the lowest tuitions in the country (thanks at least in part to the average $6billion in transfer payments they get every year for the past decade), or the sobering fact they are protesting in the minority, or the fact that this increase the students claim they can't afford is per diem about the same price as a pint of beer - the same pints they enjoy after a hard day of gettin' their "activist" on.

Not to mention that all this reverence for a good education is juxtaposed against the backdrop of Quebec having the highest post-secondary drop out rates in the country (and it's been that way for a long time).

Free education is an interesting topic, and not as cut and dry as many might think, imo. But let's quit pretending that's the reason the Quebec students are chucking rocks through windows or disrupting other peoples classes.

Actually the real fib I see being repeated is this kind of horseshit right here...

The students aren't protesting for free education, they're protesting because of an increase in tuition that amounts to less than 1 of the 2-3 pints of beer they drink every day.

Tuition is projected to more than double over the next few years. We arent talking about just one minor increase here.

[dre]

(sigh) Because that's what we're talking about. The students in question have been destroying property Michael. They have been smashing windows and calling it "direct democracy" therefore it is perfectly valid for me to point it out.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Young folks are not gonna be too happy when they realize what kind of mess "Generation: Useless" left for them.

[Signals.Cpl]

What I'm getting from this is that because the students' message is unpopular, the democratically elected government can get VERY undemocratic and just arrest people. After all, the people support that action.

I don't disagree at all.

IF the majority of people feel that their rights are being trampled on by the protestors and they want the government to protect them, that is democracy. The protests are undemocratic because they try to force other people to support them or at the very least scare them in to silence. When the so-called protestors enter a school and scare the professors and students alike, disturb the daily lives of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people to get their message across that undemocratic, especially when we consider that they the minority is trying to force the majority to support them or at the very least to shut up with complaints.

[Signals.Cpl]

"Ok, so you allow protest - WHAT IF A PROTESTOR THROWS A BOMB AT YOUR WIFE AND YOUR CAT DO YOU LIKE PROTEST NOW ?"

How is it honest to introduce an act of violence in a discussion about disruption and traffic delays, when I already addressed it.

Protestors are using molotov cocktails.

[Signals.Cpl]

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Young folks are not gonna be too happy when they realize what kind of mess "Generation: Useless" left for them.

End what would protesting accomplish? The mess is here, find a way to fix it or get out of the way so someone else can do it. Its simple, I don't see how a financial mess could be solved through protests that cause more financial problems.

[Argus]

What I'm getting from this is that because the students' message is unpopular, the democratically elected government can get VERY undemocratic and just arrest people. After all, the people support that action.

I don't disagree at all.

It isn't that their message is unpopular, it's that they're breaking the law, and have been since the beginning. You disagree? Get a few of your buddies together and start walking down the middle of a busy street in the city you live. How long do you think it will be before you get arrested? You have a right to speak whatever message you want. You don't have a right to interfere with other people's lives. You certainly don't have a right to it repeatedly, for months on end.

[unChosen]

End what would protesting accomplish? The mess is here, find a way to fix it or get out of the way so someone else can do it. Its simple, I don't see how a financial mess could be solved through protests that cause more financial problems.

You don't fix a financial deficit/debt problem by taking more money from one of the poorest groups in Canada and by making them take on more debt. Either solve the problem by taking money from those who have the most stable income, or by cutting services that have the least impact on the country's future. This holds true whether your view of economics is right or left.

Whatever money the Quebec government saves on milking tuition money from students will ends up being lost once those students graduate and instead of contributing to the tax base, buying products to help businesses, or investing in their own businesses...they'll end up taking any crappy job they can as soon as possible. They'll then pay most of what they earn in their "desperation" jobs to service debt and ends up contributing nothing to the tax base or the economy.

The best group to be asked to pay up right now is not the students, it's the public service workers, including Charest and other politicians with their gold plated pensions, near untouchable job security and high wages.

Heck, investigate and kick out all of the corrupt government officials. Then you satisfied both the right (elimination of big government) AND the left (stop corrupt government from wasting money on crazy corporate projects) AND save far more money than they can ever get from the students.

Even if I want to get money from students a tuition hike is probably the worst way to do it. A better way is to actually make tuition free or cheaper but make the students sign a contract that they'll pay a portion of their income after they graduate as an "extra tax" once their income reach above a certain threshold.

[Michael Hardner]

Protestors are using molotov cocktails.

And cops are threatening to assault people, ergo all protestors and cops are dirty ?

Next.

[Michael Hardner]

You don't have a right to interfere with other people's lives.

Yes, you do have a right to make people uncomfortable and bother them. It's a continuum... between peacefully chanting, shouting, screaming in someone's face, and assaulting them you go from peaceful protest to violence... but bothering people is definitely not illegal.

[Michael Hardner]

The protests are undemocratic because they try to force other people to support them or at the very least scare them in to silence.

Poppycock. There is no force, it's free expression. Just because you don't like it, don't call it "force".

When the so-called protestors enter a school and scare the professors and students alike, disturb the daily lives of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people to get their message across that undemocratic, especially when we consider that they the minority is trying to force the majority to support them or at the very least to shut up with complaints.

Then arrest them, I guess. For the most part, the protests seem pretty orderly from what I have seen. I saw some cops pepper spraying too, but I'm not saying that the police are a fascist force here. I guess you can see what you want to see. The protests were a lot more peaceful before the government decided to make it illegal to speak.

[Signals.Cpl]

And cops are threatening to assault people, ergo all protestors and cops are dirty ?

Next.

I would assault some idiot trying to kill me too wouldn't you? Molotov cocktails are deadly force, police would be well within their rights to open fire on those individuals.

And yes, when a group of individuals begin to use terror wether it is terrorizing students who are not protesting, placing bombs on the subway(regardless of wether its a IED or it is a smoke bomb) and use molotov cocktails, they are making the protest illegal.

[Signals.Cpl]

Poppycock. There is no force, it's free expression. Just because you don't like it, don't call it "force".

Then arrest them, I guess. For the most part, the protests seem pretty orderly from what I have seen. I saw some cops pepper spraying too, but I'm not saying that the police are a fascist force here. I guess you can see what you want to see. The protests were a lot more peaceful before the government decided to make it illegal to speak.

So bursting in to a school and terrorizing the staff and students is a protest? In what world would that be a legitimate protest?

When there is a law that takes effect and most people knowingly and willingly break that law as a tool of protest then that protest becomes illegal.

Just because I don't agree with a law does not mean that I am exempt from following that law.

[Michael Hardner]

I would assault some idiot trying to kill me too wouldn't you?

No, they're accused of assaulting innocent people, just as they were for the G20.

[Michael Hardner]

Just because I don't agree with a law does not mean that I am exempt from following that law.

It's call conscientious objection, and it's actually a vital part of democracy.