Bill C-78 "emergency" legislation

[Philosoraptor]

Hello again, all. Lively discussion, here, and I'd love to express my agreement/disagreement/pov/amusement on some of the things said. Probably won't get to all of that, since I also want to stick to the main topic. *Sigh* Such is life.

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. ...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.

Salient points, yes. As for the implementation of the law, though, I'd love to agree with you on toward whom certain aspects would be likely to apply, but that's the problem. If that were the case (ie, intention), two significant things would not already have happened. Thusly:
1. The law would not have been worded so as to make it a punishable offense to encourage others to protest, regardless of where/when.
2. The police would most likely have focused on violent protesters/those blatantly causing material disruption, rather than peaceful demonstrators. Truthfully, this might well be a case of overzealousness on the part of a few well-meaning but misguided officers, but from some of the footage I've seen and stories I've heard from folks involved, it certainly does appear to be more of an institutionalised pattern of behaviour.

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?

I entirely agree with you, there. Each person has rights, and for some to insist that others join in a protest (striking from class), is just as bad as denying folks the right to do so.

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.

Rods and cones. I agree that folks tend to get a little involved in significant issues, sometimes to the point where it becomes an ideological dichotomy ("my viewpoint v. anything else"). But, it has to be said: we have colour vision. Very few things are as simple as 'shades of grey', and almost none as simple as 'black and white.' Minor point, I know, but I'm a stickler sometimes.

Thing is, people cry infringing freedom of speech when it comes to bill 78, thinking it's all about them but never think of the rest of the population that do not want to be stuck in the middle of the protests and it does not remove freedom of speech.

Must disagree, here. Again, "offering encouragement = exercise of free speech," "subject to penalty = infringement of freedom of speech." That said, the right belongs to everyone, so I wouldn't think people protesting its infringement are necessarily thinking only of themselves.

Authorities wants structure to avoid any trouble. Those protests are NOT spontaneous at all, they have been planned for a long time. ...The no protest on school grounds is there for a reason, for those that want to use their right to education can do it peacefully without having protesters blocking the school AND entering the school, disrupting classes.

I do agree, here, and completely, both with the poster and the law in question. Nothing wrong with a protest, and, if it helps keep things from getting out of hand (violence, injuries, property damage, people not involved in the protest disrupting it...), it's a good idea to let the police know ahead of time, so they can have folks on hand to help out, if necessary. Likewise, demonstrating on private property (college grounds?) is a little out of line, too.

Thing is, people cry infringing freedom of speech when it comes to bill 78, thinking it's all about them but never think of the rest of the population that do not want to be stuck in the middle of the protests...
Again, that brings me back to them crying for freedom of speech... what about the other's freedom and freedom of speech? Protesters don't care about it, they are the only ones that are 100% right and they own the street, city, schools etc... Life is all about them while they call the "other" side individualists, self-centered and egoistical...

Gotta admit, I'm no mind reader, so I don't know if I should agree or disagree. Do the protesters think/feel this way? Couldn't say. As for the freedoms of others, I agree that they are equally important and should not be infringed upon, either. And, since the bill doesn't seem to discriminate in any way regarding who does the "providing of encouragement," it's arguable that one could face penatlies for saying, "fine, you go to that protest," whether one means it or not. Interesting, no?

...but come on..dragging students out of classes or stopping them from attending is just nuts! If some students are fighting for the rights of free speech and all what freedom stands for, why on earth would some of them take the same rights away from others???

Why, indeed? I wholeheartedly agree that it is the height of hypocrisy to advocate freedom while limiting another's. Just doesn't seem the thing someone legitimately protesting would do. Of course, as we've said, weed out the folks doing the dirty deeds, and what you're left with ought to be the folks with a legitimate beef. Seems to be the case, of late.

It is the anarchists who use public protests, demonstrations, and events to cause problems that are the real problem. They take away from the issues of the protesters and sway the general public opinion to being against large gatherings of any sort.

Speaking as an anarchist, philosophically speaking, I'm mildly offended by the generalised implication, there, but I do know language is flexible. For the record, behaviourally, I'm more inclined to categorise the offenders as nihilists. Meanwhile, I agree. And, with this, as well:

It's sad when i read stuff like this. The good protesters that are fighting tooth and nails for a cause they beleive in are getting swallowed by all the bad apples. It's only gonna make the public more ticked-off and put them all in the same bag.

And this:

That's how I feel. There is nothing wrong with peacefully protesting, but then you get the idiots that think protest means riot and cause destruction and then it all goes south.

In general, your right to Free Speech ends at my ears....

I have the right to ignore you regardless of how good (general) your agruement is..

I hvae the right to carry on my business regardless of what(g) you say

I have the right to go about and not be bullied by (g) you..

I have the right to challenge your "free speech" with mine

Splendid! I absolutely adore this, it's so apt! You are correct, each and every person has the right to protest or encourage another to protest, regardless of how anyone else feels about what they say. Enacting a law threatening penalties and empowering the police to derail a demonstration is just the sort of bullying the public needn't stand for. Citizens do have the right to carry on the business of protest, regardless of draconian measures aimed at silencing them. And when a law is wrong, unfair, and infringing on the rights of citizens, no matter how "good" the legislators may believe their argument in enacting it, it is the duty of free citizens to ignore it.
Finally, to paraphrase your opening, as well as to touch on another point (good on you for tying the two together), "Your (g, I guess) right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." The freedom to passively be in a place or position should be inviolable, and actively opposing it is unreasonable, at best. The right to speak, to protest, is essentially fundamental, and for those inconvenienced by it, that's unfortunate. More reason for early notifications, I'd say. Know a road's gonna be out, or traffic's bad in a particular area? Go another route, right? Great stuff, folks. Loving it.

Oh, one last thing:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05...ht-of-protest/
You know there's something to the protest when the guys who should know are protesting.

[Patty Smyth]

Let me put it this way. Put yourselves in the shoes of a student who went to a college/university in Montreal because it's lighter on their wallets, and in the middle of their studies, the government tells them "If you want to come back and finish your degree/diploma/whatever, you have to pay more and then you can finish school". How pissed would you be? Honestly?

This governement campaigned on these students tuition hikes. It was not a surprise to anyone. They were voted in. This was completely pubic for years. They did not just spring this on them. The amounts were known, they stuck to their "promise".

[erin9mmm]

[Patty Smyth]

Oh, one last thing:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05...ht-of-protest/
You know there's something to the protest when the guys who should know are protesting.

Absolute hypocrites, from the land who burned the charter and made their own. 2 words - Bill 101

Now they embrace the charter - HYPOCRITES

[Kalmel]

Just something i wanted to share.. quote from giveme5bucks.

The proposed tuition fee increase is $1,625 per student, spread over seven years. That’s $232 a year. This is what the students are striking over?

Yeah, it sucks to have to pay more, but that’s life. Prices increase over time. And in the end, even with that increase over seven years, their tuition will still be much cheaper than anywhere else in Canada. In 2016-17, tuition fees in Quebec will still be lower than the Canadian average in 2009-10.

With everything costing more these days, it’s no surprise that tuition fees will also increase. In the real world, that’s what happens. Maybe education is too expensive, but the last time I checked, you have a choice. Nobody is forcing you to get a degree. True, an education might make you more employable and it might create a better future for you, but it’s not guaranteed, and that is a decision that you get to make on your own. Remember that education is a privilege, not a right.

Students that have a desire for higher education will find a way to pay for tuition. Apply for scholarships, grants, bursaries – that’s what they’re there for. The Quebec government has made sure there are plenty out there for those that qualify. Get a part-time job. Take on some student loan debt if you have to. Millions of students have done it before.

in the real world, we all have to make sacrifices. It’s a part of life. With the increase in groceries, gas, housing, etc. that we are facing every day. we are all making sacrifices. And we aren’t pouting or throwing temper tantrums every time something doesn’t go our way.

[Kalmel]

Marni Soupcoff: Don’t throw ‘striking’ Quebec students any bones

Marni SoupcoffMay 28, 2012 – 10:44 AM ET

There’s no good reason to let the “striking” Quebec students paint any resolution of the conflict over tuition hikes as a victory for them. They are now indicating that they may be willing to compromise with the government, and will sit down today for another round of negotiations.

But the province should remain firm and make no departure from its last offer of increasing tuition about $254 over seven years and cutting other fees. Because that was already too generous: a reward for the students’ lawbreaking tantrums that will only encourage further unreasonable fits in the future.

Suppose the students will only agree to a deal in which the government throws in one last small sacrifice as a token to show that it has in some way bent to the students’ will. And suppose the losses to Montreal businesses will be significant if the demonstrations continue through the city’s high tourist season. Shouldn’t Quebec yield just to put an end to the destructive nonsense taking place each evening?

Tempting as that may be, the answer remains no.

Ah, you say, but Jean Charest understandably wants the mess over and done with; and if all it takes to shut the students up is throwing them an inconsequential bone, it will be worth it. But if Quebec gives any more vindication and legitimacy to the group of idiots currently wreaking havoc in its streets, it will be inviting disaster. Every time the province makes any move that causes any inconvenience or unhappiness to any group of people, the obvious move will now be for that group to disrupt and destroy until it has gotten if not its way, then at least several face-saving accommodations.

In a perfect world, demonstrators would take to the street in protest only of consequential violations of rights. Of course, one man’s human right is another man’s spoiled demand. That’s why protesting is – and must be – legal for anyone and any cause. It’s no good having the government judge for which issues it can be questioned. Even something as reasonable as a miniscule tuition hike must be available a permissible reason for doing a bad impression of an oppressed people.

However, what the government can and must do in these situations is 1) insist on protestors respecting the law when they demonstrate; and 2) refrain from backtracking or compromising to appease people who have no credible grievance. That’s the responsibility Quebec has to its taxpaying public. Will it find the strength to live up to that duty, even when doing so could potentially prolong a miserable scene it wants to end?
National Post

[anisa]

just like any tantrum throwing child.

as soon as they start throwing things around, send them to their room for a time out. no bargaining

[Patty Smyth]

Friend of mine is a lawyer, I asked him his take on C-78. Here is his reply. Of course I disagree with him

"I have not read the actual law, but I think it is against the Charter of Rights. What about freedom of associaion, freedom of speech, bill 78 obliges you to advise the government and get some kind of permit or something before a protest march--free is free, do you have to ask the government first to be free. It reminds me of the years of Maurice Duplessis who had this thing against Jehovah witnesses, freedom of religion is freedom of religion, even if you don't like their religion at all, which in my opinion includes free from religion too altogether. This will go to the Supreme Court of Canada for sure.I think the student thing is the tip of the iceberg, there are many things wrong in Quebec society, and all this is starting to come out, not only are students protesting about tuition fees anymore. "

[BC Gal]

Originally Posted by BC Gal
It is the anarchists who use public protests, demonstrations, and events to cause problems that are the real problem. They take away from the issues of the protesters and sway the general public opinion to being against large gatherings of any sort.

Posted by Philosoraptor:
Speaking as an anarchist, philosophically speaking, I'm mildly offended by the generalised implication, there, but I do know language is flexible. For the record, behaviourally, I'm more inclined to categorise the offenders as nihilists. Meanwhile, I agree. And, with this, as well: ....


As far as I know they call themselves anarchists, so you should be offended by them using that word lol. I'm not sure if there is a specific name yet for the people that go around, donning masks and wreaking havoc at public gatherings. They have also been at the Olympic games, the Stanley Cup finals in Vancouver, the G8 in Toronto, etc. Apparently they duck into a back alley to put on a mask and black clothing, go smash stuff, then hide and take off the disguise and blend back into the crowd. It's disgusting.

[lecale]

.

[kparker1786]

This governement campaigned on these students tuition hikes. It was not a surprise to anyone. They were voted in. This was completely pubic for years. They did not just spring this on them. The amounts were known, they stuck to their "promise".

I personally believe they should have only made it for NEW students, NOT the ones that already shelled out money to get an education. Being a disabled Canadian, school for me may be a lot more expensive than for someone who are abled. IE I have to shell out for an FM system etc. But if tuition goes up, I can't afford to even be ABLE (pun intended ) to attend. Granted, I'm not a student, like I mentioned before. But I have several friends who are, and they are very stressed out. Like I said, look at it from their point of view.

Granted again, the protests are no longer about Tuition fees anymore, it's now about their freedom of speech. What I don't understand, is why people (generalized) aren't outraged by this as much as the 100's of people in Montreal. I'm from a tiny little town, I was talking to some people about this and they are SHOCKED that this is happening in Canada. One of my neighbors told me "I'd expect that kind of law in China, but not Canada..." That statement shocked me, but it hit the nose right on the head. It breaks my heart that the Government is trying to suppress their people's freedom of speech. I'm sure Sir John A Macdonald is rolling in his grave right now.

How WONDERFUL that the Lawyers are speaking out! Maybe someone will take notice now

[lecale]

.

[anisa]

nice, a lawyer who has not read it but feels qualified to comment ;p

Lecale, excellent point. in any matter rights are always hand in hand with responsibilities.

even if you come down to a common sense, good morals and values, follow the golden rule level... these immature tactics by some of the students are downright despicable.

the students who are disputing the higher fees... suck it up. unless you had a very specific, iron-clad contract which specificly outlined fee structure for the next 10 years you are out of luck. live with it. it is fair and expected in most cases.

for the ppl whining about their rights being violated *snicker* no such thing is happening. you may assemble, you may protest. no one is stopping you. you are, however, being asked to adhere to some rules of conduct. that is life. a few bad apples have caused this. every single rule and law we have usually has come as a result of bad apples taking advantage of existing rules and laws.

i would like to see a tank roll down whatever main roadway these ppl are protesting on and see who has the conviction to stand in front of it and not move. then we will see how commited these spoiled brats are.

[anisa]

also,

if a University level student is being faced with a $300 hike in tuition over the course of a year and they are not resourceful enough to somehow raise the funds, or cut back on spending, to deal with that measly hike, how will that student be resourceful enough to make a living with their degree(s) when they are out in the real world?

there are no guarantees in life.

[Kalmel]

I know for some, even it's just 254 bucks increase a year..for some it could be difficult..but come on..lol.. geez many kids do have monthly plan phones..the cable.. even the darn computers... just cut one off and that will easily cover the increase. You need the computer..go at the library and use one there..need cable to watch tv...at least take a cheaper plan.. Most of my nephews and nieces have computers, phones, cables, other bling blings... you cant always have your cake with the icing... When i bought my house i paid a certain amount in municipal and school taxes, now one as gone up.. should i kick and scream and demand why they dont charge the increase to the new owners and not me...geez, i wish! LOL

It was said it was going to happen..voila, it's here! 254 bucks a year for 7 years isnt something jumping off a bridge about..seriously! heck, just with the gas increases, i pay twice that a year..humm, wheres that bridge???..LOL