Wild Bill Posted May 31, 2012 Report Posted May 31, 2012 The students meet, discuss and vote on issues almost every day. They use the same 'general assembly' format as the Occupy movements. Are you suggesting this should be somehow valid or even binding for a whole province or country? Isn't that sorta like if the Tories had a discussion and then a vote within their own caucus, making it binding on everyone? Even if, like the students, they were not only not in power or Opposition or even an official party within Parliament? I would think that the students would have about as much validity at the political level as a vote taken at a meeting of the Rotarians, or even among drinkers at one and only one bar! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Signals.Cpl Posted May 31, 2012 Report Posted May 31, 2012 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. Cooperative mode? You mean like bursting in to schools and scaring students who don't agree with you? Or the smoke bombs to force "cooperation" from the rest of Quebec's society. What about the Molotov cocktails that they tried to force on the police? Sure sound like cooperative mode... I don't know about you but to me when I hear cooperative mode what springs to mind is not forcing other people to do anything. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Guest Peeves Posted May 31, 2012 Report Posted May 31, 2012 Are you suggesting this should be somehow valid or even binding for a whole province or country? Isn't that sorta like if the Tories had a discussion and then a vote within their own caucus, making it binding on everyone? Even if, like the students, they were not only not in power or Opposition or even an official party within Parliament? I would think that the students would have about as much validity at the political level as a vote taken at a meeting of the Rotarians, or even among drinkers at one and only one bar! Some of us recall the days when marching and demonstrating were for a recognized and stated common cause not a nebulous pie in the sky arcane, obscure 'something'. Quote
jacee Posted June 1, 2012 Author Report Posted June 1, 2012 Are you suggesting this should be somehow valid or even binding for a whole province or country? Isn't that sorta like if the Tories had a discussion and then a vote within their own caucus, making it binding on everyone? Even if, like the students, they were not only not in power or Opposition or even an official party within Parliament? I would think that the students would have about as much validity at the political level as a vote taken at a meeting of the Rotarians, or even among drinkers at one and only one bar! Its their student governance model. Quote
jacee Posted June 1, 2012 Author Report Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) Tuition talks reach an impasse QUEBEC — After Education Minister Michelle Courchesne pulled the plug Thursday afternoon on negotiations to resolve Quebec’s 16-week tuition conflict, Premier Jean Charest said he expects “a period of calm” now in the province, leaving the door open for an election. The two sides met in negotiations for four days this week in an effort to resolve the $1,778 tuition dispute but Courchesne said despite hard work and good faith on both sides an impasse scuttled the talks ... After Courchesne announced the end of negotiations, the student associations invited her to a makeshift bargaining table, scrounged from a Tim Hortons on the ground floor of the building the talks were held.“There is a chair for Madame Courchesne,” said Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, spokesperson for the Coalition large de l’Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante. “We are waiting for her.” The minister did not show and Nadeau- Dubois, who turned 22 on Thursday, said the CLASSE would return to the streets, announcing the “biggest casserole demonstration in the last two weeks,” referring to the banging of pots and pans, at Montreal’s Parc Jeanne-Mance Saturday starting at 2 p.m.“ Madame Courchesne never agreed to talk about Bill 78. It was bad faith from the beginning to the end,” he added. “We believed n her, we still do, we are still there, we are ready, we are waiting.” Edited June 1, 2012 by jacee Quote
g_bambino Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 Cooperative mode? You mean like bursting in to schools and scaring students who don't agree with you? Or the smoke bombs to force "cooperation" from the rest of Quebec's society. What about the Molotov cocktails that they tried to force on the police? Sure sound like cooperative mode... I don't know about you but to me when I hear cooperative mode what springs to mind is not forcing other people to do anything. Obviously you're anti-democracy. Shame. Quote
g_bambino Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) The students meet, discuss and vote on issues almost every day. Lovely. Now how about you stick to the point that the demonstrations - which include disruption, bullying, threatening, and vandalism - are included by the protesters as part of the exercise of what they've determined to be "direct democracy"? 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. Except, of course, when the "consensus" decision of one group is imposed by that group on others who had no input whatsoever in the consensus making. How wonderful. [ed.: +] Edited June 2, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
dre Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Lovely. Now how about you stick to the point that the demonstrations - which include disruption, bullying, threatening, and vandalism - are included by the protesters as part of the exercise of what they've determined to be "direct democracy"? Except, of course, when the "consensus" decision of one group is imposed by that group on others who had no input whatsoever in the consensus making. How wonderful. [ed.: +] Sorta like the "consensus" around doubling these kids college tuition over the next few years huh? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Sorta like the "consensus" around doubling these kids college tuition over the next few years huh? No, because, in that case, the "consensus" decision of one group was imposed by that group on others who have input in the consensus making. Quote
dre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 No, because, in that case, the "consensus" decision of one group was imposed by that group on others who have input in the consensus making. Almost zero input actually. Post secondary students basically had these things imposed on them by a majority that had already enjoyed their subsidized education, and predictably balk at providing that same benefit to todays youth. This is just another example of Generation: Useless (yes thats us) throwing their own kids under the bus instead of paying their own bills. We want to pass all our public debt onto these people, just none of the perks. Then we wonder why they dont like it... Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Almost zero input actually. Then that is by choice. They can vote if they so wish. Quote
dre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Then that is by choice. They can vote if they so wish. They can vote, but they are statistically insignificant minorty even if every single one of them did. So its really no different. This decision was imposed on them by folks that already GOT their subsidized post-sec, and now faced with fiscal issues that Generation:Deadbeat caused for themselves these students have been identified as an easy to target minority whos futures we can throw under the bus to save a little money. Time will tell whether or not that assumption was right or not. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 They can vote, but they are statistically insignificant minorty even if every single one of them did. That doesn't change the fact that if they voted, they had input. Those who are subject to the "consensus" decisions of the activist students - blocking roads and bridges, making noise in streets at night, preventing students from entering university buildings for class, disrupting classes, etc. - had no input in those decisions. Quote
jacee Posted June 4, 2012 Author Report Posted June 4, 2012 Then that is by choice. They can vote if they so wish. And you think that is the limit of your democratic input and responsibility?Ridiculous. Quote
jacee Posted June 4, 2012 Author Report Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) That doesn't change the fact that if they voted, they had input. Those who are subject to the "consensus" decisions of the activist students - blocking roads and bridges, making noise in streets at night, preventing students from entering university buildings for class, disrupting classes, etc. - had no input in those decisions. Not true. They elected their student leaders. They can attend the student meetings, speak and vote if they choose. And they are free to protest the protesters if they wish. Edited June 4, 2012 by jacee Quote
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) They elected their student leaders. They can attend the student meetings, speak and vote if they choose. They did. But, that was obviously before the student leaders and their supporters started following their brand of "direct democracy" that you spoke of, abandoning things like majority votes (by which the leaders were elected) and adopting "consensus" decision making, as you put it. And what of the residents of Montreal who aren't students and hence part of the student union and can't vote for the leaders thereof? What input did they have in the decision to disrupt traffic and the subway, to take over Montreal streets every night? And you think that is the limit of your democratic input and responsibility? Ridiculous. Indeed. Building straw men to attack is ridiculous. You should therefore stop. [ed.: +] Edited June 4, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
jacee Posted June 4, 2012 Author Report Posted June 4, 2012 No, because, in that case, the "consensus" decision of one group was imposed by that group on others who have input in the consensus making. The legislature operates by simple majority, not 'consensus'. Democracy includes protesting. Freedom of expression defines democracy. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 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. Self-righteous? Do you not mean self-interested? Are we not all self-interested when we spend our money or mark an 'x' on our ballots? Quote
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 The legislature operates by simple majority, not 'consensus'.Democracy includes protesting. Freedom of expression defines democracy. The "consensus" decision of one group was imposed by that group on others who have input in the consensus making. Quote
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Self-righteous? Do you not mean self-interested? No, I meant self-righteous, which is more than simply self-interested. The definition of the former is "sure of the moral superiority of personal beliefs and actions, usually to an irritating degree", which I think fits well. Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 No, I meant self-righteous, which is more than simply self-interested. The definition of the former is "sure of the moral superiority of personal beliefs and actions, usually to an irritating degree", which I think fits well. Oh, I think the self-righteousness--indeed, the outright sanctimony--of those denouncing the protesters matches anything the students themselves have so far produced. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
jacee Posted June 4, 2012 Author Report Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) The "consensus" decision of one group was imposed by that group on others who have input in the consensus making. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but to try to clarify ... - Representative democracy does not operate by consensus but by simple majority. - Casting a ballot every four years is not the limit of our democratic input. Being a democracy, we have the right to protest government decisions, and to influence government policy through direct action. - Student government operates by discussion for consensus-seeking and all students have an opportunity to be part of that process on an ongoing basis. Edited June 4, 2012 by jacee Quote
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Oh, I think the self-righteousness--indeed, the outright sanctimony--of those denouncing the protesters matches anything the students themselves have so far produced. Indeed. How dare they think their right to use a public street or the subway or a university building for their respective intended purposes trumps the self-granted "right" of some students and their enablers to use all of the above and more exclusively as a vehicle to express their almighty and irrefutable message! The bastards. Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Indeed. How dare they think their right to use a public street or the subway or a university building for their respective intended purposes trumps the self-granted "right" of some students and their enablers to use all of the above and more exclusively as a vehicle to express their almighty and irrefutable message! The bastards. Actually, I'm talking of people who aren't anywhere present...and who, despite the conventional protestations, hate the fact of dissent first, and the unruly behaviour second. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Student government [involved in the protests] operates by discussion for consensus-seeking and all students have an opportunity to be part of that process on an ongoing basis. Not the students who were blocked from getting to their classes, or had their classes disrupted, or were harrassed for going to class, all a part of the majority being bullied by a forceful minority. That's not the end product of consensus. Further, the general public prevented from using certain streets, caught in traffic and public transit delays, who's businesses are being negatively affected, etc., have zero input in the so-called "direct democracy consensus (bullshit)" decision making. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.