Quebec student strike

[Claudius]

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.

Yep. And then they have the nerve to call it "direct democracy".

[g_bambino]

Yep. And then they have the nerve to call it "direct democracy".

Oh, of course. But, when they think they own and control everything, why would anyone expect them not to include the English language amongst their possessions?

[ed.: sp]

Edited May 28, 2012 by g_bambino

[jacee]

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

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.

That's the spirit!

And you'll find that there will be a few of your protesters who might take further action. There always are. Nothing you can do about that, and that's between them and the police, but you still have the right to protest peacefully without being teargassed.

It's interesting how the protests are evolving now, still thousands in the core, coming from many directions, and smaller neighbourhood gatherings everywhere ... all banging pots.

Protesters cheered, chanted and banged on pots and pans for 40 minutes before setting out on their 33rd consecutive nightly trek.

Montreal police declared the march illegal under municipal bylaw P-6, which requires protest organizers to submit their route to police in advance They made no mention of Bill 78, which requires the same thing if an event has more than 50 participants.

The crowd was well over 1,000 strong when it eft Émilie-Gamelin, and thousands more flowed n as it moved through the city and joined with at least two other marches that were under way.

...

In addition to families, students, and many grey-haired marchers, the usual colourful cast of characters was on hand, including the protester known as “Anarchopanda,” wearing a panda bear costume. Saturday’s event also drew a woman who pedalled along on a bike completely naked, except for a pair of shoes

...

There were also pots-and-pans demonstrations unfolding in Pointe Claire, Dorval and many other locations – off Montreal Island as well as off it – Saturday. The noisy, nightly neighbourhood protests have been popping up all over Montreal for nearly a week, panning the provisions of Bill 78.

And it looks like the pressure is working.

Tourist businesses complaining, Grand Prix ticket sales tanking

They're starting to negotiate tomorrow.

And when gas goes up dramatically, perhaps I'll see you on the Hill.

[Claudius]

That's the spirit!

Well I'm glad that makes you happy but you did read the rest of what I said correct? I never said the students had no right to protest I've only been arguing their manner of protest is wrong, both morally and in some cases legally.

And it looks like the pressure is working.

Well you're certainly free to view renewed negotiations any way you like but the truth is the gov. has been willing to negotiate all this time, the stories Ive been reading show that it's the students more willing to negotiate now than before and have been struggling to nail down their message and demands:

Student leaders' talk turns to compromise in Quebec tuition-fee battle

Quebec student leaders signalled on Saturday they may be ready to compromise on the core of their dispute with the government — the province’s plan to raise tuition fees.

That didn’t stop thousands from taking to the streets of Montreal for a 33rd night in a row in a protest that again made it clear the conflict has moved way beyond the issue of education.

Another, Leo Bureau-Blouin, made headlines on Saturday when he told CBC Radio he would be willing to accept some form of tuition increase. Later in the day Mr. Bureau-Blouin tried to clarify his comments, saying the students were willing to make adjustments if the government was prepared to do so as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/student-leaders-talk-turns-to-compromise-in-quebec-tuition-fee-battle/article2444574/

...and it still sounds as though they're not really sure what they all agree on, something that makes it impossible to negotiate with.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Claudius

[jacee]

Well I'm glad that makes you happy but you did read the rest of what I said correct? I never said the students had no right to protest I've only been arguing their manner of protest is wrong, both morally and in some cases legally.

I really think the 'violence' has been pumped out of proportion. The horrific scenes that are scaring away tourists are the police teargassing and bludgeoning peaceful people. The isolated acts of a few don't justify that. Old people, families, etc are now joining in the protests, so they can't be very threatening or 'dangerous' in general.

I would think that if this was your protest, you'd be happy that neighbourhoods all over the city were banging their pots in support, right? It's pretty awesome what's happening.

Well you're certainly free to view renewed negotiations any way you like but the truth is the gov. has been willing to negotiate all this time, the stories Ive been reading show that it's the students more willing to negotiate now than before and have been struggling to nail down their message and demands:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/student-leaders-talk-turns-to-compromise-in-quebec-tuition-fee-battle/article244457

...and it still sounds as though they're not really sure what they all agree on, something that makes it impossible to negotiate with.

That's what negotiations are for, I would think, to generate another offer that can go to the students for a vote.

If it's just another political ploy from Charest, it will be a long summer.

[dre]

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:

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

Horse shit is exactly what it is. There isnt just one increase the rates are projected to increase every year through 2020 until they more than double. 70% in just the next 4 years.

http://higheredstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/quebec-tuition1.png

[dre]

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

State sycophants cant stand the idea that citizens might not be obedient.

[jacee]

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.

That's the way it works. People are inconvenienced by protests, their lives are affected, they kick up a stink with the powers that be, put pressure on them to negotiate a resolution.

Apparently they first pressured Charest for a crackdown on protests, but we can see how well that worked ... mistake ... mobilized a lot more support for the students.

[Claudius]

Horse shit is exactly what it is. There isnt just one increase the rates are projected to increase every year through 2020 until they more than double. 70% in just the next 4 years.

http://higheredstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/quebec-tuition1.png

Dre I said the increase total was around $8/school day. This is not horseshit no matter how many times you stamp your feet and insist it is. I am correct and I just proved it so either quit saying it's horseshit or more accurately pinpoint some other factor you don't like and call it what you please.

There isnt just one increase the rates are projected to increase every year through 2020 until they more than double.

Strange. The graph you link to doesn't say this so one wonders why you put it there as proof of your assertion. No other story out there says it. The student protest sites don't say that. No one says that but you. Sounds like "horseshit".

Perhaps it would help if you can provide a link that shows there will be in increase beyond the $1625 or that the increases will go beyond that amount and carry on into 2020, because that's certainly not what your graphic says, nor is that what the story you didn't link us to say, (where the graphic came from). Instead it says, "increase tuition by $325 annually for five years" which is still $1625. So your graphic says it's set to increase $1625 total over 5 years, the story it came from says $1625 total over 5 years and every other story out there says $1625 over 5 years.

http://higheredstrategy.com/on-sticker-price-net-price-and-red-squares/

The story also says...:

Nobody wants to pay more for their education, and nobody wants to make education inaccessible. Yet the research on access suggests that the impact of tuition increase on access is relatively weak. Moreover, those most vulnerable to a tuition increase, low-income students, are fully insulated from the pending increase.

The only real point of disagreement is whether or not Quebec should continue to subsidize middle- and upper-income students who aren’t price-sensitive at all. Students want to keep their windfall subsidy. Given Quebec’s debt-to-GDP ratio of 49%, the tuition hike represents a sensible course, turning a regressive subsidy for the wealthy into a targeted subsidy for the less well off. That Quebec can do this during a period of fiscal belt-tightening without cutting university budgets is no easy feat.

...No wonder you didn't want to link us to it.

I am correct in my assessment of what the total increase actually amounts to: $8/school day, or about the price of pint of beer. This is the truth, no matter how many times you call it horseshit, it's right there in black and white. Shall we read it again from the students themselves?

"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. That’s a 75 per cent hike for Quebec students, and the government has left open the possibility of steeper increases for out-of-province and international students."

http://www.tuitiontruth.ca/

That is a 70+% increase, yet it still amounts to only $8/per school day, that is after it is completely totaled in 5 years. Once again:

$1625 (the total) / 200 (approx) days school year = $8.125 / school day.

That's not horseshit no matter how many times you screech it. It's the facts. Your 75% increase amounts to $8/school day. The fact that it's increasing 75% is much less compelling when one realizes just how little that is.

Finally, none of this has anything to do with what I earlier said was a fib: the insinuation that the students are protesting for free education, which they aren't - that's what I said was a fib and it is.

Please endeavor to control your emotion or perhaps hone your ability to understand exactly what it is you're replying to before replying to me again. And if you provide a link to prove something you say please be sure it actually does that.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Claudius

[Claudius]

State sycophants cant stand the idea that citizens might not be obedient.

And the uneducated never understand they are the State. They also seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of peaceful protest over a riot. It is after all always the dullards that move to violence first.

[Claudius]

I really think the 'violence' has been pumped out of proportion.

Probably. I don't think it's been all that bad. It certainly has limited itself to destruction of some property. The "storming" of the campuses actually concerns me a little more than the smasehd windows. The destruction so far has been less than your average hockey riot from what I've seen.

The horrific scenes that are scaring away tourists are the police teargassing and bludgeoning peaceful people. The isolated acts of a few don't justify that. Old people, families, etc are now joining in the protests, so they can't be very threatening or 'dangerous' in general.

I won't argue with that either. Riot police are not known for their discretion, in fact I kinda hate them. They know they are more likely impervious to punishment and that tends to turn them into dogs pretty quick. I think most people who joined a riot squad did so specifically because they kinda enjoy beating people. And as you say they will do it to anyone. Old, crippled, even children.

I would think that if this was your protest, you'd be happy that neighbourhoods all over the city were banging their pots in support, right?

I doubt it. I don't personally get swept up in the temporal romance of protest. It's a fire that you should use, not play with. To me it is an means to an end, but ultimately I distrust a mob much more than the State. The Mob will destroy your rights and liberties, perhaps even take your life faster than any government can.

That's what negotiations are for, I would think, to generate another offer that can go to the students for a vote.

If it's just another political ploy from Charest, it will be a long summer.

Again, peaceful protest fine. Riots, intimidation, destruction - completely counter to the objectives of a protest. Also the students need to be a homogenous body before they can negotiate themselves. Their statements and actions at times have made them look a little neurotic. Hard to negotiate with that. Edited May 28, 2012 by Claudius

[bleeding heart]

Oh, of course. But, when they think they own and control everything, why would anyone expect them not to include the English language amongst their possessions?

[ed.: sp]

What in the world are you talking about?

You disagree with their self-assessment of "direct democracy"...so that means the...well, what you mean is the French--are assuming "ownership" of the language?

Seriously?

[bleeding heart]

State sycophants cant stand the idea that citizens might not be obedient.

That's it.

[g_bambino]

You disagree with their self-assessment of "direct democracy"...so that means the...well, what you mean is the French--are assuming "ownership" of the language?

The French? People from France are involved now?

Last I checked, jacee, you, and others on these forums who gleefully endorse the so-called "direct democracy" being exercised in Quebec (and which is being supported by other individuals and groups outside the province; even mimiced by some) are speaking English. But, if you wish, we can simply drop the words "the English" from before "language" my previous statement; the point remains, regardless.

[ed.: +]

Edited May 28, 2012 by g_bambino

[bleeding heart]

Last I checked, jacee, you, and others on these forums who gleefully endorse the so-called "direct democracy" being exercised in Quebec (and which is being supported by other individuals and groups outside the province; even mimiced by some) are speaking English. But, if you wish, we can simply drop the words "the English" from before "language" my previous statement; the point remains, regardless.

[ed.: +]

That doesn't clarify it for me. If I misunderstood your remark...well, I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of it being my own fault, but in this case I actually think it was yours, and am asking only for clarificaiton.

That is: how does the use of the term "direct democracy," used contentiously or not (hell, used correctly or not), denote or even imply that the students believe they "own the language"?

What does this mean?

[g_bambino]

That is: how does the [protesters'] use of the term "direct democracy,"... denote or even imply that the students believe they "own the language"?

Because they've changed the definition of "direct democracy" to suit themselves. Direct democracy is a system wherein laws and governmental policy are created and set directly by the majority of the voting populace, rather than through representatives thereof; it is not a loud, minority mob pushing and threatening until it gets its way.

[bleeding heart]

Because they've changed the definition of "direct democracy" to suit themselves.

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.

[Claudius]

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.

Yeah but it's not democracy. Democracy someone wins and someone loses. This species of "direct democracy" is just code for "not accepting a loss." Nothing wrong with trying to convince people, which is what the protest is partly designed to do, but they use the phrase to imply a majority would be behind them in a vote.

But the critiques are starting to reek of desperation.

That's how you see it. A lot of people see using that phrase as a desperation. It's political rhetoric plain and simple, and it's level of accuracy is questionable at best. Edited May 28, 2012 by Claudius

[bleeding heart]

Yeah but it's not democracy. Democracy someone wins and someone loses. This species of "direct democracy" is just code for "not accepting a loss." Nothing wrong with trying to convince people, which is what the protest is partly designed to do, but they use the phrase to imply a majority would be behind them in a vote.

Sure, but I was arguing a different point.

The idea that the protesters (and so by implication not everyone else) "thinks" that they "own the English language."

No doubt it was a throwaway remark, but he justified it after I responded to it, so...there it is.

That's how you see it. A lot of people see using that phrase as a desperation. It's political rhetoric plain and simple, and it's level of accuracy is questionable at best.

"Political rhetoric"?

As opposed to what? The responses we're reading to the protesters...they aren't "political rhetoric"?

Just a judicious and sober assessment of objective reality?

Edited May 28, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Claudius]

"Political rhetoric"?

As opposed to what? The responses we're reading to the protesters...they aren't "political rhetoric"?

Just a judicious and sober assessment of objective reality?

(shrugs) If you say so. Obviously which political rhetoric is more rhetoric than fact will be up to personal opinion and we can only argue that for so long.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Claudius

[bleeding heart]

(shrugs) If you say so.

I'm frankly surprised you don't consider it an obvious truism.

Obviously which political rhetoric is more rhetoric than fact will be up to personal opinion and we can only argue that for so long.

Absolutely, with that I can agree.

[Claudius]

I'm frankly surprised you don't consider it an obvious truism.

Maybe I was misunderstanding you.

[bleeding heart]

Maybe I was misunderstanding you.

More likely, to be fair, I think you were only pointing to another truism: that all political rhetoric is not equal.

[g_bambino]

... all the time.

And that makes it honest?

[bleeding heart]

And that makes it honest?

No.

But you're overstating the case to tell us that the protesters "think...they own the langauage."

It's a non-starter, that's all.