Quebec student strike

[Signals.Cpl]

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

I think that is mostly related to military service rather then breaking the law.

[Guest Peeves]

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

Next.

Rioters, (No euphemistic 'protesters" terms),have used bombs (smoke) in subway, thrown rocks and fire bombs at police. I say that level of violence invites civilian protection police response, and if attacking a business or school or other student, even reasonable retribution.

[bleeding heart]

Rioters, (No euphemistic 'protesters" terms),have used bombs (smoke) in subway, thrown rocks and fire bombs at police. I say that level of violence invites civilian protection police response, and if attacking a business or school or other student, even reasonable retribution.

"Rioters" is euphemistic (via your own implied formulation), since most of the protesters are not rioters.

[Argus]

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.

You're redefining what I said. I didn't say you couldn't 'bother' people. I said you couldn't interfere with them. I.e, you can't block the road in front of them. You can't refuse to let them go to school. You can't go into their classroom banging pots and screaming and blowing whistles to disrupt them in their studies. All of that is illegal. And should be. And while we might tolerate it as a one time event, after three months I think society has a right to take you by the scruff of the neck, and boot your scrawny ass out to a farm somewhere to pick apples.

[Argus]

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

If someone stands in your way and physically prevents you from going about your business, that is force, pure and simple.

The protests were a lot more peaceful before the government decided to make it illegal to speak.

That's bullshit, of course. The main reason why the new law was put in place was the violence from the protestors. Furthermore, it wasn't made illegal to speak. You're engaging in ludicrous hyperbole, and it's quite unconvincing. All the law says is you have to notify the policy of a protest involving more than 50 people, and the route you'll be taking. Oh, and you can't be masked. How does any of that prevent anyone from speaking?

Edited May 27, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

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

Apparently, in addition to not knowing what force is, you don't know what either conscientious objection or democracy are.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

"Rioters" is euphemistic (via your own implied formulation), since most of the protesters are not rioters.

It never is 'most' protestors. But the reason why the riot act exists is that the hangers on and spectators are enablers. The actual hard-core violent people could not do what they do without the enables crowding around and, in effect, protecting them. If all those people would leave the police would simply scoop up the ones breaking and smashing and burning things. But let's be clear here, the organizers of these protests have made no particular effort to do anything about the violence, nor have they showed much interest in condemning it.

[Claudius]

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.

I've never seen that prediction. I've read amounts that come to $7/day increase per school day.

[Claudius]

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

Oh so there's no force. I see. So motorists are free to just plow them down if they're blocking traffic? They didn't force themselves on people who were in the middle of class? Force their calsses to a stop?

I don't know why you bother to argue this when the students themselves admit these disruptions (force by any other name) are their intended goal. THis is NOT the same as say showing up to parliament or the government grounds with a bunch of placards. Their intent is to use force, by their own words and even yours, to "wake up" people. This includes smashing windows, throwing rocks, disrupting peoples classes and the infrastructure everyone uses. That is not protest. That is force.

[Claudius]

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

Next.

An honest person can see that the force and destruction from protesters has come long before the police "threats".

[Claudius]

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.

NO YOU DO NOT. Period. Full stop. You don't have that right legally OR ethically.

[Claudius]

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

No that's not what it is called. Conscientious objection is PASSIVE, not AGGRESSIVE. Just like protest is PASSIVE not AGGRESSIVE, AND it would be important to point out here that passive objection/protest is historically the most successful from Gandhi to hunger strikes to the ENTIRE SUFFRAGETTE movement, ALL passive protest and successful ones at that.

Jeziz. An entire generation of self-entitled people watch "V for Vendetta" and get into their heads that throwing molitovs and destroying things and disrupting everyones' infrastructure is somehow vindicated because they have a personal problem with the price of something rising. Unbelievable.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Claudius

[g_bambino]

but bothering people is definitely not illegal.

Er... Harassment?

[guyser]

Er... Harassment?

Sort of.

For a charge to come about, one has to be harassed repeatedly .

Its much like trespassing. One cannot just have someone arrested for it, there has to be either a pattern or signs posted and a warning given.

[Claudius]

For a charge to come about, one has to be harassed repeatedly .

Not to get picky here but it depends one what it is. If - one time instance - someone comes up to you on the street and starts yelling in your face that can be harassment or even a form of assault. Doesn't have to be done repeatedly.

[guyser]

Not to get picky here but it depends one what it is. If - one time instance - someone comes up to you on the street and starts yelling in your face that can be harassment or even a form of assault. Doesn't have to be done repeatedly.

Yes it does for harassment, at least more than once. Not so for assualt since the bodily harm has been done.

[Claudius]

Yes it does for harassment, at least more than once. Not so for assualt since the bodily harm has been done.

I highlighted possible harassment that doesn't require repeated behaviour:

The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(B ) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

© besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/pub/har/part3a.html

Assault without physical contact (highlighted):

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(B ) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

© while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

http://www.cnpea.ca/abuse_crimes.htm

Edited May 27, 2012 by Claudius

[jacee]

I've never seen that prediction. I've read amounts that come to $7/day increase per school day.

For seven years.

How would you like it if your gas costs went up that much?

Think about it ...

[Claudius]

For seven years.

How would you like it if your gas costs went up that much?

Think about it ...

Is that the current tabled offer? Do you have a link?

Edited May 28, 2012 by Claudius

[jacee]

If someone stands in your way and physically prevents you from going about your business, that is force, pure and simple.

Take the subway. Take a bus.

It's a protest and it's spreading.

That's bullshit, of course. The main reason why the new law was put in place was the violence from the protestors.

Not true. There are already laws to deal with that.

The reason for the new 'law' was precisely to try to force an end to the protests, slapping huge fines on student leaders for "encouraging" people to protest, but they're supposed to inform police in advance of the protest route ... but not "encourage" people by organizing protests (catch 22) ... making the protests illegal without that advance notice so they can 'disperse' the crowd with weapons and mass arrests.

Furthermore, it wasn't made illegal to speak. You're engaging in ludicrous hyperbole, and it's quite unconvincing. All the law says is you have to notify the policy of a protest involving more than 50 people, and the route you'll be taking. Oh, and you can't be masked. How does any of that prevent anyone from speaking?

See above.

And you do understand that the purpose of protest is to force change?

It's not about taking a walk. It's about forcing the decisionmakers to make changes.

It is intended to be disruptive. Has to be. It's supposed to annoy and irritate people to put pressure on decisionmakers.

Call your MP. Leave him/her a nasty message. Tell him/her the feds should pony up the money to cover the tuition increases

[Claudius]

For seven years.

I've never seen that prediction. I've read amounts that come to $7/day increase per school day.

How would you like it if your gas costs went up that much?

Think about it ...

I've found my own link, from one of the Students own 'truth' sites:

The Quebec government is trying to enact a $1,625 raise in the annual base fee paid by all students, to be imposed in increments over five years, starting in fall 2012.

http://www.tuitiontruth.ca/

That is a total of a $1,625 increase in increments over 5 years (not 7 years).

$1625 (the total) / 200 (approx) days school year = $8.125 / school day. Sorry, my estimate of $7/per school day was off by $1.

I believe my point stands:

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.

NOT "horseshit" or a fib at all. Sorry.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Claudius

[socialist]

ya I used to think the students should be happy with their situation, my post-secondary kids are paying far more for their education than Quebec students...but now I'm of the opinion that a well educated population is a wealthier, healthier and more employed population...society is paid back for the investment in productivity...give free tuition for all post secondary students...

bravo wyly. that is the best statement ive read on this forum. i agree all post secondary education should be free so that we young people can properly develop our talents without worrying how we're gonna pay for our university. less stress would result in more qualified graduates making our country truly prosperous. thanks for giving me hope in this forum wyly. i was thinking there wasnt much common sense here.

[jacee]

I've found my own link, from one of the Students own 'truth' sites:

http://www.tuitiontruth.ca/

That is a total of a $1,625 increase in increments over 5 years (not 7 years).

$1625 (the total) / 200 (approx) days school year = $8.125 / school day. Sorry, my estimate of $7/per school day was off by $1.

I believe my point stands

My mistake. I guess they withdrew the 'offer' of spreading it over 7 years.

My point stands too: How would you like it if your gas costs suddenly went up that much?

[Claudius]

My mistake. I guess they withdrew the 'offer' of spreading it over 7 years.

Not a total loss. Your willingness to admit a point means a lot to me in forum terms.

My point stands too: How would you like it if your gas costs suddenly went up that much?

I suppose I wouldn't like it. However liking it or not liking it doesn't really factor into what I would be willing to do about it. For example even if I hated it I wouldn't be willing to hang out at gas pumps getting into people faces and hurling insults at them simply because they are willing to pay that much, and I sure as H-E-Double Hockey sticks wouldn't be pretending that it was George Orwells 1984.

Further, the knowledge that I had been paying far-and-away the lowest gas prices in the land for quite a long time and that the increase was going to result in my gas prices still being lower than most would temper my reaction quite a bit.

But I would be willing to join a peaceful march or demonstration on the Hill.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Claudius

[g_bambino]

Take the subway. Take a bus.

That's precisely what an arrogant, self-centred individual would say: "Screw you; my message is more important than anything. You don't care about my cause? Get off my road, get out of my subway, get out of my classrooms." It's gross.

Tell him/her the feds should pony up the money to cover the tuition increases.

Money? You said education should be free.

[ed.: +, punct]

Edited May 28, 2012 by g_bambino