Quebec student strike

[g_bambino]

They were lawful ones...

Certainly not all were. Taking over streets without prior warning to authorities (so provisions can be made) isn't lawful. Ignoring injunctions isn't lawful. Some of the actions of protesters on campus would, I'm pretty certain, qualify as harrassment, if anyone had chosen to pursue the matter in court.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited June 4, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

It seems you're only happy if people are expressing their dissent in the least effective ways possible. I think many would disagree with you.

Obviously there are people who disagree with me; they're out there demonstrating that they're very special people who's self-granted right to the most effective protest is more important than the rights of anyone else.

[cybercoma]

It seems some will justify illegal behavior and malicious damage and infringements on others rights.

Personally I'm against such behavior as justifiable in a democracy.

No one is condoning the destruction of property or physical violence by either the protesters or the police. It's only in the fantasy world of fascists that look for any excuse to crush dissent that this is the case.

[jacee]

Yea, 'cause students in Quebec are in the same position today as people of sub-Saharan African descent in Alabama in the 1960s. For Chrissakes, get some perspective!

Rosa Parks and Quebec students protests are both protests of law gone bad.

Protest is civil disobedience against unjust laws.

Edited June 5, 2012 by jacee

[Fletch 27]

Did you hear that? Rosa Parks just rolled over in her grave... You really think her battle and these over privileged kids are the same? Shame on you....

Rosa Parks and Quebec students protests are both protests of law gone bad.

Protest is civil disobedience against unjust laws.

[wyly]

are opinions being directed at the protests or what triggered the protests?...when I was young the protests were directed at the US involvement in the Vietnam civil war but public anger was often directed at the act of protesting and those who took part...governments are good at directing public anger at the protesters and deflecting from the issue at hand...

and what is not taken into consideration is the Zeitgeist...will we be looking back 20 years from now concluding the students were correct?...

[CPCFTW]

are opinions being directed at the protests or what triggered the protests?...when I was young the protests were directed at the US involvement in the Vietnam civil war but public anger was often directed at the act of protesting and those who took part...governments are good at directing public anger at the protesters and deflecting from the issue at hand...

I don't think government is directing any anger towards the protesters. Democratic governments are generally reactionary and government response is almost always a reaction to public sentiment.

and what is not taken into consideration is the Zeitgeist...will we be looking back 20 years from now concluding the students were correct?...

Doubt it.

Edited June 5, 2012 by CPCFTW

[dre]

are opinions being directed at the protests or what triggered the protests?...when I was young the protests were directed at the US involvement in the Vietnam civil war but public anger was often directed at the act of protesting and those who took part...governments are good at directing public anger at the protesters and deflecting from the issue at hand...

and what is not taken into consideration is the Zeitgeist...will we be looking back 20 years from now concluding the students were correct?...

I tried to touch on this earlier. These are garden variety economic protests over inflation. Students and their families have a finite ammount of money and that money can buy less and less of the things they need. Food... tuition... gas... energy... medical care... Everything that cant be manufactured in the developing world for peanuts.

This is the same thing that drives food riots in countries where people suddenly find out it takes a months pay to buy a loaf of bread.

And its not a matter of anyone being "correct". The most important economic responsbility of the government is to maintain wage and price stability. If they dont do it, there will be civil unrest or worse.

[wyly]

I tried to touch on this earlier. These are garden variety economic protests over inflation. Students and their families have a finite ammount of money and that money can buy less and less of the things they need. Food... tuition... gas... energy... medical care... Everything that cant be manufactured in the developing world for peanuts.

This is the same thing that drives food riots in countries where people suddenly find out it takes a months pay to buy a loaf of bread.

And its not a matter of anyone being "correct". The most important economic responsbility of the government is to maintain wage and price stability. If they dont do it, there will be civil unrest or worse.

I've been trying to recall a protest movement that looking back years later that wasn't correct in it's dissent...it takes a great deal of anger to motivate a large segment of the population to take part in public protest for a sustained length of time...

IMO there appears to be a lot more discussion on the protest and not much on the social cause of the protest...

[bleeding heart]

I've been trying to recall a protest movement that looking back years later that wasn't correct in it's dissent...it takes a great deal of anger to motivate a large segment of the population to take part in public protest for a sustained length of time...

IMO there appears to be a lot more discussion on the protest and not much on the social cause of the protest...

Great points, Wyly.

What big protest movement do we look back upon, cringe, and say, "Wow, that was a stupid idea!"

[g_bambino]

Rosa Parks and Quebec students protests are both protests of law gone bad.

Protest is civil disobedience against unjust laws.

Do you ever read what people actually write? You don't seem to, since you continually miss the point.

[Guest Peeves]

I've been trying to recall a protest movement that looking back years later that wasn't correct in it's dissent...it takes a great deal of anger to motivate a large segment of the population to take part in public protest for a sustained length of time...

IMO there appears to be a lot more discussion on the protest and not much on the social cause of the protest...

So explain the social 'cause' of the protest in particular that cause against an injustice.

[jacee]

Great points, Wyly.

What big protest movement do we look back upon, cringe, and say, "Wow, that was a stupid idea!"

Good point!

I like the comparison Amir Kadir makes:

“There are two weights, two measures,” Khadir told reporters, saying while peaceful demonstrators are handcuffed, Liberal ministers meeting Mafia figures for breakfast fundraisers and engineering consulting firms working around Quebec’s party financing law to contribute to Charest’s Liberals, do not get the same treatment.

“There is a government that is corrupt, a government that is under the influence of a business elite that absolutely wants to protect the interests of bankers,” Khadir said, calling Bill 78, denounced as a threat to fundamenta rights by Quebec’s human rights commission and the Quebec Bar Association, “an unjust aw that no one accepts.”

“I believe for a people, for an MNA, it is an honour to stand up, to not accept injustice and to accept the consequences,” he added.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/touch/sports/story.html?id=6741085

I believe there will be a time when students won't believe that their parents had to pay tuition, just like we find it hard to believe that students once had to pay tuition for secondary school. People will remember the determination of Quebec students in beginning and persisting in student protests for free tuition.

"When your Mom and I were in university, we protested for months and went to jail so you could have free tuition."

And people will remember that the student strikes led to larger protests against the G20 'austerity-for-all-but-the-rich when governments fell and the people rose up and stopped the greedy and massive transfer of wealth from low income people, workers and the middle class to the 1%.

For protests and social progress, these are 'the good old days'.

[jacee]

you continually miss the point.

Point being ... protest is seldom entirely "lawful" as you demand, but rather protest always has and always will involve civil disobedience against unjust laws.

Just because some politicians - with their hands in the pockets of the rich while the rich rob our tax money - pass laws against us, doesn't make those laws just or right.

And the only ones who fail to acknowledge the truth of this are the 1% and their minions.

It is our responsibility to stop the gravy train of the 1%.

And laws may be broken and the corrupted may pass more laws to try to crush dissent and those laws will be broken too.

[Guest Peeves]

Point being ... protest is seldom entirely "lawful" as you demand, but rather protest always has and always will involve civil disobedience against unjust laws.

Just because some politicians - with their hands in the pockets of the rich while the rich rob our tax money - pass laws against us, doesn't make those laws just or right.

And the only ones who fail to acknowledge the truth of this are the 1% and their minions.

It is our responsibility to stop the gravy train of the 1%.

And laws may be broken and the corrupted may pass more laws to try to crush dissent and those laws will be broken too.

When laws get broken so do a few radical heads. That's called accepting responsibility for breaking laws.

You're entirely wrong about breaking the law as a means of protest. This is a democracy. If a majority says this is the law, and a radical group engages in anarchy, the citizenry expect the legal authorities to protect us from anarchists.

Your terming elected governments and tax payers and the law abider as corrupt exposes your socialist political bent. It didn't work in the USSR and has been shown as more corrupt than any democracy.

So comrade, we welcome dissent within the limitations of the law. Your tirade on 'unjust laws' is simply that. You don't share with us your interpretation of 'unjust laws'.. Are those the ones that want everything to be free...except for the tax payer?

Are those the laws addressing the violent demonstrators that break windows? Burn cars?

[g_bambino]

Point being ... protest is seldom entirely "lawful" as you demand, but rather protest always has and always will involve civil disobedience against unjust laws.

Actually, protest is mostly lawful. Civil disobedience is a form of protest; but the point that continues to evade you is that there is a way to act civilly disobedient without threatening, bullying, or being a hypocrite. Someone raised the example of Rosa Parks; they intended to use her actions as a justification for those of the students in Quebec; both broke laws to make a statement against injustice. But, it's a wholly superficial comparison. Parks broke a specific rule that was exemplary of a whole set of similar rules and laws; she did not threaten anyone, she did not hijack the bus, she did not keep others from getting on the bus or force anyone off the bus, she did not shut down the bus system, she did not insult or fight back against the arresting officers she knew would come. Can the same be said of the protesters in Quebec? They've broken laws unrelated to tuition and done most everything Parks did not. Sending a cheque to their school for the old amount, refusing to pay the larger, new amount, continuing to attend class, regardless, and accepting being removed when the campus police come, would be civil disobedience along the lines of Parks'; focused, non-threatening, and impacting on nobody unrelated to the issue. The way these students and their enablers have actually protested isn't civil disobedience, it's a giant, unsophisticated temper tantrum carried out by people who regard everyone and everything else as secondary to their wants.

[ed.: +]

Edited June 7, 2012 by g_bambino

[jacee]

Actually, protest is mostly lawful. Civil disobedience is a form of protest; but the point that continues to evade you is that there is a way to act civilly disobedient without threatening, bullying, or being a hypocrite. Someone raised the example of Rosa Parks; they intended to use her actions as a justification for those of the students in Quebec; both broke laws to make a statement against injustice. But, it's a wholly superficial comparison. Parks broke a specific rule that was exemplary of a whole set of similar rules and laws; she did not threaten anyone, she did not hijack the bus, she did not keep others from getting on the bus or force anyone off the bus, she did not shut down the bus system, she did not insult or fight back against the arresting officers she knew would come. Can the same be said of the protesters in Quebec? They've broken laws unrelated to tuition and done most everything Parks did not. Sending a cheque to their school for the old amount, refusing to pay the larger, new amount, continuing to attend class, regardless, and accepting being removed when the campus police come, would be civil disobedience along the lines of Parks'; focused, non-threatening, and impacting on nobody unrelated to the issue. The way these students and their enablers have actually protested isn't civil disobedience, it's a giant, unsophisticated temper tantrum carried out by people who regard everyone and everything else as secondary to their wants.

[ed.: +]

It's ironic how those opposed to dissent somehow consider themselves experts on how it 'should' be done, and what is 'technically' wrong with every protest.

The Quebec students and others are now just walking in the streets and hundreds are still being arrested because of the unjust law that says they have to tell police their route.

Protesters are coming from all directions, all neighbourhoods, in smaller groups, converging and diverging for various reasons. They are not a unitary entity with a leader, but diverse and independent protesters. Demanding a route is ridiculous.

Did US civil rights leaders tell the police what white churches they were going to disrupt with 'kneel-ins'? (No ... for obvious reasons.)

The law is unjust and must be broken.

Dissent is the only safeguard of democracy.

Criminalization of dissent is the end of democracy.

And we are very close ...

Edited June 7, 2012 by jacee

[Signals.Cpl]

The law is unjust and must be broken.

Dissent is the only safeguard of democracy.

Criminalization of dissent is the end of democracy.

Please explain in CLEAR terms why and how the law is unjust and anti democratic. While you are at it, please explain in detail how the students are like the civil rights movement in the US a few decades back. I really want to know the similarities of the 2 groups, because some think that they are comparable, just like they are comparable to the arabs who have fought for the much lesser freedoms then those enjoyed by the students in Quebec.

[g_bambino]

It's ironic how those opposed to dissent somehow consider themselves experts on how it 'should' be done...

It's hilarious how you build so many straw men to run around and attack.

The Quebec students and others are now just walking in the streets and hundreds are still being arrested because of the unjust law that says they have to tell police their route.

That's not why they're being arrested.

There's nothing genuine about your "arguments", ever.

[g_bambino]

Please explain in CLEAR terms why and how the law is unjust and anti democratic.

She said so. Isn't that clear enough?

What else can one expect from a self-righteous tyrant like jacee?

[westguy]

I'm starting a new thread because the stupid titles on the other ones bug me.

I don't support "violence" against police, or indiscriminate vandalism, but I do support the student strike wholeheartedly. I believe, and I know the research supports this, that postsecondary education is no longer a 'nice to have', but a necessity, and it should be free to all students just like elementary and secondary.

I believe in the students' right to 'strike' - ie, boycott classes and demonstrate. In fact, I believe in anyone's right to strike/protest/demonstrate against anyone interfering with their legal rights: You do not have to belong to a union to protest your employer, your governments, your school, your hairdresser, landlord, your bank, etc etc: All you need is a protest sign.

And frankly, I really don't care much if someone breaks a bank window to make the point that they are parasites making tons of money off the loans that students need to survive. OK, I know that's controversial and I'm never going to be one doing that nor am I going to encourage others to do it, but it really doesn't bother me much. I'm not going to refuse to protest because 'somebody might ..(fill in the blank)....'

Indiscriminant vandalism and looting bothers me.

Assaulting police bothers me ... peaceful protesters being assaulted by police bothers me too, and is much more common.

After 11 weeks of refusing to negotiate with students, then agreeing to a sit down, then trying to divide-and-conquer students by kicking out the association representing college students (ie, more than half of the protesters), then the other student leaders walking out too ... Charest finally "blinked" (ctv) on Friday.

He avoided losing face by doing it through the media.

Students have already expressed disappointment with the offer, and are still on strike and protesting ... but it's a start.

This is a great article summarizing issues and interviewing protesters, not all of whom are students:

Quebec student protests not just about tuition but battle against ‘greedy elites’

Buried in the middle is an incident that raises a key question:

What is the appropriate role of police in public protests?

Do police have the right to interfere with peaceful protesters?

Do police have the responsibility for squashing protests and enforcing the government's agenda?

It is a common theme among the protesters that the police are the ones to blame for escalating tensions.

Aurélie Pedron, a mother of two completing a Masters degree in dance, was certain that the shattered windows were the work of agents provocateurs out to smear the students. ‘Those people are a greedy elite that only sees education as an investment in human capital and only sees a child as a future employee’.

“When there are vandals on bicycles, with rocks so huge that you could not find them on Ste. Catherine Street, when it’s a bookstore whose window is smashed, do you really think it is students who do that?” she asked. “Don’t take us for idiots.”

Few go so far as to accuse the police of planting trouble-making agents among the protesters, but the belief is widespread that the government is playing up the violence to discredit the students.

“The government approach is to present us as a bunch of vandals,” said Antoine S.-Christin, a student in environmenta geography at Université de Montréal. He said there is no excuse for any violence but in reality the damage has been minimal.

The police, on the other hand, have made liberal use of their tear gas and nightsticks, he said, and conduct “brutal arrests.” Not long afterwards, a police officer on horseback ordered Ms. Pedron to move and began pushing her with his horse when she resisted. The officer grabbed an anti-Charest sign Mr. S.-Christin was carrying before backing off.

Questions:

Why is a police officer assaulting and harassing two protesters who are talking to the media?

Is it because he's trying to intimidate them and prevent them from talking to the media?

Ya think?!!!! :angry:

That's NOT his job.

Why is a police officer grabbing an anti-Charest protest sign?

Is it because he's trying to suppress anti-government free speech?

Ya think?!!!! :angry:

That's NOT his job.

It's time to get VERY serious about what behaviour we will accept and not accept from the police, whom we pay to protect our safety and our rights.

Pushing a protester around with your horse is NOT protecting her safety:

It's unprovoked assault on a citizen.

Grabbing an anti-government protest sign is NOT protecting his right to free speech:

It's attempted theft and suppression of free speech.

It's none of their business what's on my sign.

It's none of their business what I'm demonstrating for/against.

It is the responsibility of police to

-Uphold the constitutional rights of every citizen

-Keep the peace

-Prevent crime

IN THAT ORDER

They can't violate the rights of individuals by tear gassing them to clear the streets to 'keep the peace' nor to 'prevent crime': Constitutional rights of individuals take precedence.

We pay the police to uphold our rights ... so that governments can't use them to suppress protest.

That is perhaps THE fundamental element of our democracy and free society.

We ARE free to disagree with our governments.

We ARE free to protest.

And the very first and most important responsibility of the police is to protect our rights, to protect US from our governments.

It's what distinguishes democracies from totalitarian regimes that intimidate people to prevent protest, throw protesters in jail, torture them and/or kill them or 'disappear' them.

And if you think none of those things would ever happen in Canada ...

Ask an Indigenous person.

Or ask the two protesters (above) who had their right to protest interfered with

BY POLICE ... IN MONTREAL ... YESTERDAY!

Maybe this seems like a small niggling point to some, but perhaps I've seen it too often.

The police have forgotten their primary responsibility to us, and instead act as agents of the state against us.

If we allow that to continue, allow them to intimidate us into staying home from protests, then we are giving up our right to freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of peaceful assembly.

This was the lesson from the G20,

This is the lesson of the Quebec student strike.

Don't let the police push you around.

They have no right.

Remind them that their first responsibility is to protect our right to protest (Section 2 of the Charter).

Then holler their badge number as loud as you can - especially toward the media - and holler "Section 2 violation".

That should do it!

They won't like it, but they can't stop you.

And it has to be done.

The police have made it necessary.

The Quebec students have the lowest tuition in the country because their tuition is subsidized thru transfer payments, of which Alberta contributes the vast majority ( and Alberta students pay 6000$ in tuition. - fucking parasites

[Boges]

So now they're "disrupting" people that want to enjoy the F1 festivities. Montreal worked hard to get that race back and now this? It's great for the local economy.

I wonder if protestors will disrupt the Gay Pride Parade.

[Guest Peeves]

So now they're "disrupting" people that want to enjoy the F1 festivities. Montreal worked hard to get that race back and now this? It's great for the local economy.

I wonder if protestors will disrupt the Gay Pride Parade.

Throwing rocks on subway tracks and gas bombs isn't demonstrating, it's criminal and anarchy. Any that can't see that or that supports such crimes are quite mad.

[capricorn]

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, spokesman for La Classe, has written a letter for publication in France's Le Monde to explain to French citizens the current students strike.

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2012/06/07/la-crise-expliquee-aux-francais

Reaching out to the mother country for moral support? Smacks of colonialism to me.

[Boges]

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, spokesman for La Classe, has written a letter for publication in France's Le Monde to explain to French citizens the current students strike.

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2012/06/07/la-crise-expliquee-aux-francais

Reaching out to the mother country for moral support? Smacks of colonialism to me.

Got to explain why an F1 Race Montreal begged to have back is being ruined by protesters I guess. F1 is big in France right?