Liberal MPs ask universities if calling for genocide of Jews violates codes

[marshwiggle]

I can't recall having ever spoken in favour of that kind of extreme protest behaviour. Do you have an example where it seems that I did?

No, and I didn't mean to imply that.  As often seems to be the case, your point shifts as you post from one thing to something completely different.

But you have certainly expressed your opinion that people should not do or express certain things in the past----that's why I returned to the drag queen hosting a reading hour in the library. 

Oh, OK. So to put those two ideas together:

• The library board has the responsibility of deciding what goes on in the library.
• People who want to suggest something (or criticize something) can go to the library board through the proper channels.

Loud, obnoxious protests for (or against) something, are not the way to go. This is especially true of protests relying on shaming or intimidating people into silence or avoiding the library altogether.

Anything that has been approved (or rejected) should nevertheless have some process for having it revisited, typically involving something like a 2/3 majority of board members agreeing, or some sort of petition with a large number of signatures. In either case, the idea is that if it appears that there has been a big enough shift in opinion, it can be reconsidered, but just minor shifts above and below 50% shouldn't be allowed to make these interminable debates.

In other words, on all these kinds of issues I'm much more concerned with the process for dealing with them, rather than the specific outcome. I don't lose sleep over elections where my chosen candidate didn't get elected, but I do get annoyed at decision-making processes in institutions that are supposed to be public but where there seems to be a lot of railroading going on by one side or the other. A fair process respects everyone, regardless of point of view; railroading suggests that the "wrong" side are just stupid or nasty.

Does that clarify things?

[Ruralguy]

Are you sure there isn't a process? Or put another way, where isn't there a process, and what is your evidence that there isn't one?

[Wahoo Redux]

Does that clarify things?

So, the issue is not important, it's how it's handled.

Objections to a drag queen in the library should be pursued though a bureaucratic process.  Okay.  Doesn't sound like what you were saying, but fine.  I'm not sure where "sheep" fit into this construct.  And we already have laws that cover public expression.

Note that Civil Rights would not have gone very far if that process were followed in the '70s. 

It also sure aces out a lot of Christian and conservative expression, including anti-abortion protests.

But as long as goose and gander are both treated the same way, I have no objection. 

[marshwiggle]

Does that clarify things?

So, the issue is not important, it's how it's handled.

Objections to a drag queen in the library should be pursued though a bureaucratic process.  Okay.  Doesn't sound like what you were saying, but fine.  I'm not sure where "sheep" fit into this construct.  And we already have laws that cover public expression.

Note that Civil Rights would not have gone very far if that process were followed in the '70s. 

MLK got the idea of non-violent civil disobedience from Gandhi. And Gandhi said that it would only work against a society that was basically good; i.e. that the societal idea of justice would be sufficiently violated by the actions of the state that the laws would ultimately change.

In other words, actions did not involve violence, and they relied on the fundamental values of society to work within  the system to make change.

The "burn it all to the ground" mentality of the extremists (on either side) is antithetical to the methods of MLK and Gandhi.

[Wahoo Redux]

Okay, so we are just opposed to violence, not necessarily peaceful public disruption now? 

[marshwiggle]

Okay, so we are just opposed to violence, not necessarily peaceful public disruption now? 

Absolutely, as long as "peaceful" is understood to exclude actions that hold people hostage in some way, like blocking access to spaces or services, etc. "Disruption" can mean a lot of things.

[Wahoo Redux]

Okay, so we are just opposed to violence, not necessarily peaceful public disruption now? 

Absolutely, as long as "peaceful" is understood to exclude actions that hold people hostage in some way, like blocking access to spaces or services, etc. "Disruption" can mean a lot of things.

Interesting.

That is quite a bit different from

That's why the adults in the room need to be telling them why what they're saying isn't appropriate, rather than just admiring their "youthful enthusiasm" and "naivete".

[Parasaurolophus]

Absolutely, as long as "peaceful" is understood to exclude actions that hold people hostage in some way, like blocking access to spaces or services, etc. "Disruption" can mean a lot of things.

Except disruption.

[marshwiggle]

Okay, so we are just opposed to violence, not necessarily peaceful public disruption now? 

Absolutely, as long as "peaceful" is understood to exclude actions that hold people hostage in some way, like blocking access to spaces or services, etc. "Disruption" can mean a lot of things.

Interesting.

That is quite a bit different from

That's why the adults in the room need to be telling them why what they're saying isn't appropriate, rather than just admiring their "youthful enthusiasm" and "naivete".

Is telling them that what they're saying isn't appropriate somehow shutting down their protest? I didn't advocate arresting them or expelling them.

Absolutely, as long as "peaceful" is understood to exclude actions that hold people hostage in some way, like blocking access to spaces or services, etc. "Disruption" can mean a lot of things.

Except disruption.

So would you call the trucker convoy peaceful, disruptive, or both?

[Parasaurolophus]

So would you call the trucker convoy peaceful, disruptive, or both?

I think you'll find that I was and am consistent on this score. It seemed and seems entirely fine to me for them to drive into downtown Ottawa and block the streets with their trucks. They're allowed to protest, and even to choose where they do it. They don't have to find some farmer's field way out of the way. Protests aren't convenient. They're disruptive, and I accept that. If they weren't, they would never work. (They rarely work to begin with, but imagine how ineffectual they would be if they were convenient for everyone.)

Open flames in an urban location are not okay, however, and they should have been held to local fire ordinances. Threatening and harassing people on the street is likewise unacceptable, and should have been dealt with in the same manner such things usually are. And blaring machine-assisted horns at ear-damaging volumes in residential neighbourhoods at all hours is definitely not okay, and not in keeping with any protests in which I've participated (and that includes the largest in this country's history).

What I found astonishing and troubling was that the authorities did not crack down on them the same way that they've cracked down on the other protests I've participated in. Such behaviour would never have been tolerated--indeed, I've been in crowds beaten, cannoned, and gassed for much, much less. As I said then, I don't think violence was necessary to deal with them, but given how low the threshold for police violence normally is, I can't believe how kindly they were treated by the cops.

And as I said at the time, the invocation of the War Measures Act was excessive and, in my opinion, unwarranted. To the extent it was necessary, it was because municipal and provincial authorities refused to act--and that's extremely troubling.

As for the "truckers" at the border, they were armed and thus not at all peaceful. They merited a much swifter and more forceful response. That they were only dealt with when the US demanded it is likewise troubling.

[marshwiggle]

So would you call the trucker convoy peaceful, disruptive, or both?

I think you'll find that I was and am consistent on this score. It seemed and seems entirely fine to me for them to drive into downtown Ottawa and block the streets with their trucks. They're allowed to protest, and even to choose where they do it. They don't have to find some farmer's field way out of the way. Protests aren't convenient. They're disruptive, and I accept that. If they weren't, they would never work. (They rarely work to begin with, but imagine how ineffectual they would be if they were convenient for everyone.)

Open flames in an urban location are not okay, however, and they should have been held to local fire ordinances. Threatening and harassing people on the street is likewise unacceptable, and should have been dealt with in the same manner such things usually are. And blaring machine-assisted horns at ear-damaging volumes in residential neighbourhoods at all hours is definitely not okay, and not in keeping with any protests in which I've participated (and that includes the largest in this country's history).

What I found astonishing and troubling was that the authorities did not crack down on them the same way that they've cracked down on the other protests I've participated in. Such behaviour would never have been tolerated--indeed, I've been in crowds beaten, cannoned, and gassed for much, much less. As I said then, I don't think violence was necessary to deal with them, but given how low the threshold for police violence normally is, I can't believe how kindly they were treated by the cops.

And as I said at the time, the invocation of the War Measures Act was excessive and, in my opinion, unwarranted. To the extent it was necessary, it was because municipal and provincial authorities refused to act--and that's extremely troubling.

As for the "truckers" at the border, they were armed and thus not at all peaceful. They merited a much swifter and more forceful response. That they were only dealt with when the US demanded it is likewise troubling.

I think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of any sort. I think the media reaction to situations like Oka and Ipperwash, (and other non-Indigenous ones as well), has consistently been critical of law enforcement, so it's hard to imagine any situation so black-and-white that they'd immediately wade in to it. (And of course, in Ottawa all of the different levels of government and law enforcement were at odds about exactly whose jurisdiction it was.)

[Wahoo Redux]

I think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of any sort.

You just need to keep up, Marshy, instead of living in your confirmation bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-cease-fire-protesters-blame-violent-clash-dnc/story?id=104943694

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/us/tyre-nichols-protests-sunday/index.html

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/10/portland-expected-to-pay-300k-to-settle-2020-police-brutality-lawsuit-by-protester.html

And so on...

[Parasaurolophus]

I think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of any sort.

You just need to keep up, Marshy, instead of living in your confirmation bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-cease-fire-protesters-blame-violent-clash-dnc/story?id=104943694

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/us/tyre-nichols-protests-sunday/index.html

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/10/portland-expected-to-pay-300k-to-settle-2020-police-brutality-lawsuit-by-protester.html

And so on...

In fairness, I think marshwiggle meant in Canada. Depending on just what counts as 'forceful', we might even agree.

[Wahoo Redux]

I think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of any sort.

You just need to keep up, Marshy, instead of living in your confirmation bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-cease-fire-protesters-blame-violent-clash-dnc/story?id=104943694

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/us/tyre-nichols-protests-sunday/index.html

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/10/portland-expected-to-pay-300k-to-settle-2020-police-brutality-lawsuit-by-protester.html

And so on...

In fairness, I think marshwiggle meant in Canada. Depending on just what counts as 'forceful', we might even agree.

Fair enough.  The Marshman comments often on US events, particularly university events.

[marshwiggle]

I think we're pretty much on the same page about this. I'm trying to remember the last time there was a "swift and forceful" response to protesters of any sort.

You just need to keep up, Marshy, instead of living in your confirmation bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-cease-fire-protesters-blame-violent-clash-dnc/story?id=104943694

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/us/tyre-nichols-protests-sunday/index.html

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/10/portland-expected-to-pay-300k-to-settle-2020-police-brutality-lawsuit-by-protester.html

And so on...

In fairness, I think marshwiggle meant in Canada. Depending on just what counts as 'forceful', we might even agree.

Fair enough.  The Marshman comments often on US events, particularly university events.

As Para said, I was talking about the Canadian situation, where we have fewer and smaller right-wing protest groups, so most of the protests that get on the news are from the left. As I indicated, many are related to Indigenous issues, which adds a complete extra layer of awkwardness in how to deal with them.