Bill C-78 "emergency" legislation

[Andit]

Godwin strikes again......

Witness what happens when silly me tries to throw some levity into a thread while also attempting to have a conversation with the critters - it blows up in my face.


& I do apologize if my words have hurt anyone, I truly do not wish to offend.

[lecale]

.

[Patty Smyth]

I think the police have to lean on the law abiding in order to control this situation. It may seem unfair to limit the number of peaceful protesters, but the more people that are out there, the more cover they provide to the rabble rousers. With only 50 people on the street, the cops may be able to pick out a rioter from the crowd. With hundreds, there is no hope, the troublesome can blend into the crowd and disappear.

Peaceful protesters have to keep in mind that if they provide cover to rioters, they are aiding and abetting the damage and destruction. Unless they turn their attention to making citizen's arrests of the troublemakers walking with their group, they are just as much a part of the problem as those that we deem "rioters"

The new law doesn't prohibit numbers it just requires a filing of a route and notice of 8 hours to the police as I mentioned in New York city they require 12 DAYS notice. This law is fair and the proof is that since it has been put into place the protests have remained peaceful(except the first couple of nights). The police have even stated that although they have been declared illegal becasue no papers were filed they are allowing them to proceed as long as there is no violence.

The demographics of the crowds has also changed and families are now out banging pots for whatever their cause. It is no longer students, just anyone with a gripe or presumed gripe.

Hotel bookings for the Grand Prix have dropped so I hope they are happy now that the tourist season is starting to be affected. With governement revenue down I guess they will have to raise the tuition even higher. Oh well.

[kparker1786]

I'm wiping my hands of this issue. Obviously no one is willing to see through someone else's eyes *shrug* Oh well. I'll go on fighting for the rights of others, be it Canadians or disabled people.

[lecale]

.

[saradouce]

Hotel bookings for the Grand Prix have dropped so I hope they are happy now that the tourist season is starting to be affected. With governement revenue down I guess they will have to raise the tuition even higher. Oh well.

Or they will understand the gravity of the situation. This is what happen when you don't listen to a WHOLE generation.

So bad for the Grand-Prix... I've lived just across the St-Laurent in Longueuil. The**** cars' sounds are making me crazy. Everybody couldn't be happy woth others' actions.

[Patty Smyth]

Or they will understand the gravity of the situation. This is what happen when you don't listen to a WHOLE generation.

So bad for the Grand-Prix... I've lived just across the St-Laurent in Longueuil. The**** cars' sounds are making me crazy. Everybody couldn't be happy woth others' actions.

3 days of car noise versus 105 days of protestors , hmmmmm , Grand Prix brings in millions, protestors drive the economy into the crapper

[GeorgiaK]

Sara, those attending and participating in the Grand Prix and other festivals and events this summer pump a lot of tourism dollars into the economy. This allows people (students included) to work and make a lot of money in a short period of time. Without these jobs, many people, namely students who work, cannot afford their tuition and living expenses. Why should these people be affected by a WHOLE GENERATION? It is not a WHOLE GENERATION that is protesting. There are a lot of universities and faculties that have CHOSEN not to participate in the strike. What about them?

[roseofblack25]

One of my friends lives close to all the action and had a post this morning about the protestors banging pots at 3am meanwhile she has to get up at 6am for work. Needless to say it does not sound like she is a fan of said protests LOL! It was a really grouchy status update...I can laugh about it because I'm not there but I totally get where she is coming from. I would be really upset too if I had to function on less than 3 hours of sleep every night for the last 100+ days.

Don't most areas have noise laws though? Once it gets to a certain point at night is there not some way the police can enforce the noise laws and shut it down? It just seems crazy to me that they are allowed to make noise and keep people awake at all hours of the night, yet someone wouldn't get away with having a house party with loud music and rowdy guests that late at night. The cops would shut it down.

[TaraF]

I'm wiping my hands of this issue. Obviously no one is willing to see through someone else's eyes *shrug* Oh well. I'll go on fighting for the rights of others, be it Canadians or disabled people.

Most intelligent comment in the entire thread. I am with you on this one kparker1786, too bad this topic has gone so far off from the OP.

[Philosoraptor]

Interesting topic, I must say. I'm in the process of reading my copy of the bill at the moment. Less a matter of reading it, granted, than unravelling the references in each part to every other part and following the intended logic.

"The new law is based on three main pillars: It pauses the current school year at institutions affected by strikes; imposes steep fines for anyone who tries blocking access to a school; and limits where, how, and for how long people can protest in Quebec."

This is a pretty concise summation, from what I've gathered so far, but the "limits" as to where, how, etc. are more along the lines of making sure to notify the police when planning a protest of more than ten people. I have yet to find anything referencing groups of more than fifty being disallowed entirely, but the notification restriction does make sense, if the number ten seems a bit arbitrarily low.

My main concern, as well as that, apparently, of most who disagree with the bill, seems to be an outright infringement on the freedoms of speech and association contained in the section on penalties. The link Natalka provided to the article that contains the bill apparently no longer contains the sections in question. Can't seem to find the penal bits. I did copy the document cloud text transcript before it went away, but it's very badly mangled for some reason, and I simply seem to have failed to decipher it. Meantime, the concerning bit (from the article itself) is this:

Offering encouragement for someone to protest at a school, either tacitly or otherwise, is subject to punishment.

"Offering encouragement" would be an exercise of free speech, yes? "Subject to punishment," therefore, would be an infringement on that right. Double-plus uncool. Indeed.

[Patty Smyth]

I'm wiping my hands of this issue. Obviously no one is willing to see through someone else's eyes *shrug* Oh well. I'll go on fighting for the rights of others, be it Canadians or disabled people.

Most intelligent comment in the entire thread. I am with you on this one kparker1786, too bad this topic has gone so far off from the OP.

Interesting comments coming from people who advocate free speech.

[erin9mmm]

Interesting comments coming from people who advocate free speech.

That's what I was thinking, especially when all I have read from the other side of the debate is concern for the people who are trying to make a living during all these protests.

[Andit]

I'm wiping my hands of this issue. Obviously no one is willing to see through someone else's eyes *shrug* Oh well. I'll go on fighting for the rights of others, be it Canadians or disabled people.

I think the problem is that folks get passionate about a topic & see things as black and white, when the reality is that most things in the world are various shades of grey.

Or they will understand the gravity of the situation. This is what happen when you don't listen to a WHOLE generation.

So bad for the Grand-Prix... I've lived just across the St-Laurent in Longueuil. The**** cars' sounds are making me crazy. Everybody couldn't be happy woth others' actions.

But Sara, it`s not a *whole* generation. In the clip I posted, that female student was definitely not in favour of the protests. In fact, she had been attacked by protesting students for daring to go to class. Why should her rights not be respected?

As for the annoyance of the Grand Prix, try being awakened by cowbells, loud music & people screaming into a loudspeaker at 6am on a Sunday to get the enthusiasm up for a marathon (one of half a dozen that has its start line outside my building). On the plus side, I get a reprieve this year, since they`ve torn up the street near me where they usually run (new developments all around me mean they have to stick in hydro, gas, phone, etc lines).

Most intelligent comment in the entire thread. I am with you on this one kparker1786, too bad this topic has gone so far off from the OP.

OK, then let`s bring it back to the salient points - pause the school year so students don`t lose their tuition $ they`ve paid out, fine anyone trying to block students from attending class & limit how folks protest.

Offering encouragement for someone to protest at a school, either tacitly or otherwise, is subject to punishment.

"Offering encouragement" would be an exercise of free speech, yes? "Subject to punishment," therefore, would be an infringement on that right. Double-plus uncool. Indeed.

I suspect it will be less geared towards folks who shout Rah Rah or say Good on ya on message boards like this, but will target those who would bring in a busload of thugs to cause grief.

[Andit]

OK, here is my perspective. Please, those who disagree with me, explain why I am so very wrong.

People can protest all they want to, as long as they don`t do the following:

- cause violence (goes without saying, but I also believe that once the thugs show up, the leaders should stop the protest so as not to give these twits a chance to hide amongst the decent folk

- not impede the flow of traffic (if so many people show up (yippee, congrats) that the protest spills out onto the sidewalk & into the street, then either move to a larger venue or split into 2 groups & spread out - you don`t know where that pedestrian or motorist is going)

- respect noise bylaws (other people have lives to lead which might require quiet)

- let authorities know in advance (if 100+ folks show up, they want to have a medic on hand in case someone faints or worse, it`s not all about suppressing folks`rights to speak)

- respect those with a differing opinion (just because I don`t agree with that POV, doesn`t mean I`m an idiot, thank you very much, I come to my opinions by looking at all sides)


Am I really that off in my line of thinking?