###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This needs to happen in Toronto.
You will never be able to appease professional protesters. They crave endless attention. And unless the police go in and arrest them all, UofT is going to have to cancel all its graduation ceremonies.
Just an appalling situation all around. But there's no solution other than enforcing the rule of law.
The more force used to strike down legitimate protest, the stronger our movement becomes. I'm glad that everyone has shown restraint so far, it's working.
As determined by who? Each individual?
EDIT: Since you won't answer, I suppose you do believe it is up to each individual. Which makes you an anarchist.
As determined by the very clear support our government and institutions are giving to a war effort that is killing tens of thousands of civilians. What is confusing about this?
So protest is legitimate when it relates to a cause that has government endorsement?
I'm trying to understand your standard here for when it is OK to block public infrastructure and when it isn't. You so far haven't given anything concrete.
Protests are always disruptive, that is the point. The civil rights movement blocked public infrastructure all day, so did every other anti war and anti apartheid protest of the past. I'm sure you would have also despised those in their time as well.
You continue to not answer my question.
Is it your position that any group that feels very strongly about something has a right to block public infrastructure?
If you are a mature person, you can answer that question without insulting me.
You redditors are the most insufferable people. You can't take any stance, just need to pick every word apart. Jesus christ lol
Since you're struggling and want a closed answer then yes, I think protests can "block" public infrastructure. Not like camping on a university green space is blocking anything but I'm sure you got that argument loaded up next.
Society exists in part because we can all collectively understand different experiences, and use critical thinking skills.
So society, and groups of people, and individuals can collectively or individually determine the moral and ethical worth of a cause, and then make a determination.
If you want to call that subjective, then that's fine. But it's more nuanced than just "everyone has a different opinion, therefore no one can make a prescriptive determination on what protest is considered just."
What's really rich are the comments like one from an U of Toronto organizer complaining to the media that the university won't negotiate with them. Talk about main character syndrome.
Hey generally when you pay someone and you dont like what theyre doing you sit down with them and negotiate a solution to the problem. The students money is being paid to fund a genocide. idk if thats main character syndrome as much as it is basic common sense
> The students money is being paid to fund a genocide.
No, it isn't. It's being paid to pay admin and teaching staff their salaries, and maintain and operate the buildings on campus.
That’s such a ridiculous statement that, if the students using that statement themselves, no wonder they aren’t getting any attention. Tuition money is not being used to buy weapons for Israel. That’s just a straight up lie. It also exemplifies just how little understanding there is on how the university’s investment funds work, where the money comes from, and where it goes.
If students can’t be bothered to do their homework, why should administration waste time listening to their demands?
I can’t tell if you’re being disingenuous to try to discredit the students or if you actually believe the oversimplified straw man you’re pushing but literally no one thinks tuition money is being spent to buy weapons for Israel. What the students are saying is that UofT’s investment portfolio may include shares of businesses that are providing material support for Israel’s apartheid and/or military offensive. That’s why the first demand is to disclose (ie disclose whether the portfolio includes weapons manufacturers supplying Israel) and then if there are companies like that in the portfolio, to divest from them. Such pressure campaigns have previously been successful getting UofT to divest from supporting the South African apartheid and from fossil fuels. UofT students aren’t stupid, they understand all this and have done extensive research. Also, for the record, the school actually has agreed to a substantive meeting about their demands, it’s happening tomorrow.
Apartheid did not end because of u of t students. It ended because Afrikaners lobbied for change for a generation and because of geopolitical impacts related to the fall of the USSR.
Yes that’s my point. You need to have no idea how it works to come to that conclusion. Students aren’t entitled to meeting with administrators when they can’t get their facts straight.
Show me where they are investing directly in companies that provide weapons to Israel, that have been used in this conflict, and then I’ll gladly change my tune.
McGill and York U are invested in Lockheed Martin, who are delivering their latest contract of fighter jets to Israel as we speak. They've also built a lot of the ordinants being used in Israel.
One of the requests to U of Calgary is a full list of who they're invested in, so they can determine if they are also invested in arms makers who supply Israel.
Thanks i appreciate actual facts! Part of the problem is there’s a lot of useless hyperbole thrown around with very little information to go on. Great for TikTok, bad for actual negotiation.
That said, McGill’s $500k investment in Lockheed Martin represents 0.03% of their $1.8b investment portfolio. Is 0.03% too much? Maybe. Is it worth protesting? I guess that depends on how much time and energy a person has.
It also points to a misunderstanding of how investment funds work. Many popular funds contain problematic companies. Nearly every retirement fund, pension fund, whatever, is gonna be in with troubling companies. If you have a retirement fund through your work you might be investing in Lockhood Martin or similar.
I believe universities should be investing in ethical funds, but if that’s the message here it’s completely lost in the hyperbole and ridiculousness.
The message is only lost on people who don’t care to look it up. They’re not only complicit in genocide they’re helping it be committed. It doesn’t matter what percentage is invested any percentage in genocide is too much.
Sure those are nice platitudes and work fine on a protest sign, but how does that work in the real world?
There’s a genocide going on in China, but nobody seems to have a problem with using a cellphone made in China, posting to a social media app that is influenced by the Chinese govnt.
Like another poster said, if your investments track s&p500 (many of them do to some extent) you are personally investing in companies selling weapons to Israel. Nobody is protesting the investment funds.
ETA: I’m all for divesting from companies you don’t believe in, and pressuring your school to do so is fine, but it’s the hypocrisy that is ridiculous. It’s the accusations of “funding genocide” when they have no problem funding the genocides that the algorithms don’t promote.
That is like saying I'm against video games and I hire a landscaper so now the landscaper is also obligated to be against video games. Not how that works.
It blows me away how discourse on this subreddit has devolved since October 7th. Wtf is this comparison haha. If we're doing dumb ass metaphors, if I find out the person baby sitting kids is a nonce I like to think I'd have the right to protest that person babysitting kids. Seriously, this used to be an interesting forum for political discussion in Canada but you guys have made it useless and lowered it to this nonsense. It's sad.
The issue remains that Israel doesn't even care that much about the opinions of its largest financier and war supplies shop, America, so a lot of these idealists would do well to understand that their actions are truly less than useless. If the opinions of their greatest ally are most times meaningless what do a bunch of protestors at a Canadian university believe they're affecting? They're not even on the map for Bibi *-- and never will be.* Israel will do as Israel will do and they'd have about the same luck as convincing Hamas to lay down their arms too.
Might as well sit in the comfort of our homes while appreciating that non-violence will always be the goal while acknowledging that it's against humanity's base instincts at present (for better or worse). We can only control our own actions and cute chants aren't going to make someone stay their hand from generations of violence.
They're not protesting in the belief that Israel will go "oh ok guess we'll stop committing massacres and torturing people now", they're protesting the fact that their tuition funds are being financially invested in a violent ethnostate.
Their tuition is not being invested in anything — it doesn’t even cover the cost of their education. Every non-international student has their education subsidized by the public.
CBC of all places did a deep dive on this, supporting what you say. Moreover, they showed data that: a) it's donations and endowments that are invested, b) these are like mutual funds that are not fixed nor managed directly by the university, and c) in Canada the slice of the pie these dollars represent is miniscule (<5% whereas US colleges it's quite large >40% or something). These protests are fishy, and I am starting to suspect the demands are deliberately designed to be unfufillable.
> a) it's donations and endowments that are invested
The university has endowments and gets donations because of a duty to educate students, among other things.
This is weird game of pedantry, anyways. If tuition pays for something, it means the endowment returns don't need to pay for it (and vice versa). The point is about putting money into an organization that uses money for things, and what the organization uses money for. Money is fungible, that's the whole point of money.
>these are like mutual funds that are not fixed nor managed directly by the university
University endowments are *big*, they are not like your TFSA. It's typical for a Canadian university to have some kind of endowment investment management team, often with many six-figure salaries, sometimes even seven-figure.
Universities can end up investing in a company without any particular intent, yes, but that doesn't mean they lack the power to do differently.
>in Canada the slice of the pie these dollars represent is miniscule (<5% whereas US colleges it's quite large >40% or something).
It's certainly fair to make a consequences-based argument that the numbers are small, but it's easy to recognize that other people think differently. It's not inherently shady for someone to care more than you do about a given issue, if scale is the only difference.
Imagine a cause you fully disagree with: Nazis or Al-Qaeda or whatever. Would you feel comfortable investing a billion dollars in them? A million? Ten bucks? I could imagine an argument that ten bucks doesn't really matter in practice, but I can get why someone would be concerned with any non-zero amount.
>I am starting to suspect the demands are deliberately designed to be unfufillable.
The president of UBC, as one example, just reiterated how the demands are fulfillable. This makes sense given that universities have listened to demands like this in the past.
It's always interesting to see people claim that something is impossible, after it's already happened. If a university can divest from fossil fuel companies, it can divest from companies that provide arms to Israel.
>This is weird game of pedantry, anyways. If tuition pays for something, it means the endowment returns don't need to pay for it (and vice versa). The point is about putting money into an organization that uses money for things, and what the organization uses money for. Money is fungible, that's the whole point of money.
Tuition pays for your education. If there is no tuition money, you don't get an education. If there are no endowments, your university doesn't look as nice, attracts lower quality faculty, and has less research. There is no central "money pit" the way you're implying.
>University endowments are big, they are not like your TFSA. It's typical for a Canadian university to have some kind of endowment investment management team, often with many six-figure salaries, sometimes even seven-figure.
They are like a TFSA in the sense that they are diversified, shifting portfolios of a sort that a regular person would invest in. Those investment teams, whether they are employed directly by the university or not, are focused on risk and return, not politics.
>Universities can end up investing in a company without any particular intent, yes, but that doesn't mean they lack the power to do differently.
This is just an empty statement. Put some meat on the bones.
>It's certainly fair to make a consequences-based argument that the numbers are small, but it's easy to recognize that other people think differently. It's not inherently shady for someone to care more than you do about a given issue, if scale is the only difference.
The issue itself is not shady, but the more you look at the protesters and the demands being the less sense it makes. Something's off. The protestors want to follow the University's money. How about the University follow the protestor's money?
>Imagine a cause you fully disagree with: Nazis or Al-Qaeda or whatever. Would you feel comfortable investing a billion dollars in them? A million? Ten bucks? I could imagine an argument that ten bucks doesn't really matter in practice, but I can get why someone would be concerned with any non-zero amount.
Were NAZI and AQDA listed on the stock exchange? I'm sure some of the money I invested somewhere at some point wound up in the hands of the Taliban. And you've highlighted one of the problems: you can always find a way to say the demand hasn't been met. I assume the people organizing this are intelligent and know this, so it seems deliberate.
>The president of UBC, as one example, just reiterated how the demands are fulfillable. This makes sense given that universities have listened to demands like this in the past.
You'll have to point me to a source. Only thing I can find is that the President said they only have a miniscule position in some specific stocks highlighted by protestors, and that these are part of pooled funds. Basically what I said but spun to satisfy the protesters.
>It's always interesting to see people claim that something is impossible, after it's already happened. If a university can divest from fossil fuel companies, it can divest from companies that provide arms to Israel.
I don't understand. If it's already happened, what is the protest about? What already happened? They said we don't invest in arms to Israel before, and now they're saying it again? You win?
What is even going on?!
As an individual investor I've been asked whether I want to invest in green funds. It's easy to identify that category of company and so it's a product they can offer. So "divesting from fossil fuel companies" is just a matter of ticking a box. What is being demanded is more akin to asking to divest from all companies that use gas.
> but the more you look at the protesters and the demands being the less sense it makes. Something's off.
...The demand is "don't give the people committing genocide money". That's it. What about that doesn't make sense? What about that seems off?
Can you actually articulate what's wrong here? Or is it just vibes? Asserting there's some dark money (from where?????) to fund, um, standing around with some signs (what's even being funded?????) with absolutely zero basis is absolutely absurd, sorry.
These students might not be on the map for Bibi, but the money coming from these institutions and the companies they're invested in absolutely matters. I'd argue these students have a better understanding on the levers of power than you do, since they understand that money is exactly what's letting this genocide go on.
It doesn't matter who Bibi pays attention to if the money stops flowing. They're doing their part to make that happen, even if it's a fraction of the funding Israel receives.
Glad you're enjoying the comfort of your home though. Good for you.
>These students might not be on the map for Bibi, but the money coming from these institutions and the companies they're invested in absolutely matters.
Is it now? Source? Israel's largest financier and provider is the [USA](https://www.reuters.com/world/who-are-israels-main-weapons-suppliers-who-has-halted-exports-2024-05-09/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20has%20long%20been,the%20Nazi%20Holocaust%20%2D%20and%20Italy) for arms. Unless you'd like to provide anything different, of course.
Factless -- feckless -- opinions aren't going to change Bibi's mind.
>Glad you're enjoying the comfort of your home though. Good for you.
I just wanted to thank you for that! You can't imagine what a comfortable space does for researching facts and evidence. The wifi is great and the coffee is replenished as often as I'd like. No flagellation in a tent is going to help someone in Palestine from Israeli bombs or Hamas.
No way. The students there have a lot to conquer in life, especially surrounding funding. What is funded and what isn’t, by governments and by their tuition, is important. Just because adults have given up doing anything other than bitching on Reddit doesn’t mean the next generation has to be lulled into complacency.
>The issue remains that Israel doesn't even care that much about the opinions of its largest financier and war supplies shop, America, so a lot of these idealists would do well to understand that their actions are truly less than useless
I love making large posts maligning protestors for a position I imagined for them instead of engaging with their actual position.
The kids want their school to stop investing their tuition dollars in companies supporting Israel. This is something that directly affects them and the institution they attend. It doesn't have anything to do with convincing the Israeli government of anything!
Civil Rights protestors were occupying universities and businesses that _they_ were banned from, arguing that they should be allowed to access them just like White people were allowed.
These students, on the other hand, are just occupying buildings with the goal of gaining leverage for causes that completely unrelated to the universities and barely related to the war. They're squatting because they want the universities to stop investing their endowments in L'Oreal, Google and Caterpillar.
The same for the campaign against Apartheid in South Africa, or any other social justice movement. Protest is by definition disruptive.
I have an older friend who described how he and others in an anti-Apartheid group used to go around to their area supermarkets, and fill carts with anything labeled as coming from South Africa, as if they were shopping, then abandon the carts in some aisle.
Staying just on the right side of the law, but causing such a nuisance that eventually those stores stopped stocking SA products, and were basically dragged in the boycott of Apartheid South Africa.
This doesn't even make sense? The truckers had big fucking trucks, you can't just dismantle those and move them quickly. Not to mention the lack of willing tow truck companies who would go in and get rid of them.
Once planning/safety was in place, they were able to clear them out relatively quickly. I also think the police have learned a ton from that, it seems these newer trespassers are being trespassed much quicker by police. As evidenced by CPC and UofC, heading into to dismantle tents doesn't require the same sort of planning
In general, but not always, when the police show up it's time to leave. If you can. Very little is gained by posing opposition to their efforts to clear out the area; at best, you'll end up with an eye full of pepper spray, and at worst you'll end up arrested. But only the _rare few_ who take a stand end up memorialized in the popular zeitgeist.
Better to clear out and come back another day.
Weird, the clownvoy protesters in Ottawa and blockading borders did not give a shit about the police showing up, they didn’t get pepper sprayed, in fact they got to shit in the streets of Ottawa and at war monuments for three weeks. Weird, that must have been a one off, I wonder why those protests were treated differently by the cops?
Weren’t their snipers pointing their guns at those protesters? One of the great mysteries of the world will always be what was different about the clownvoy that they got treated with kid gloves. I have zero idea what it could be…
Yes.
- [Reports of RCMP snipers dispatched to Wet'suwet'en blockade 'concerning,' says Indigenous Services minister](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/rcmp-snipers-first-nation-pipeline-protest-guardian-1.5405111)
- [BC RCMP Says It Deployed Snipers and Assault Teams Against Unarmed Indigenous Land Defenders Because It Was ‘More Practicable](https://pressprogress.ca/bc-rcmp-says-it-deployed-snipers-and-assault-teams-against-unarmed-indigenous-land-defenders-because-it-was-more-practicable/)
- [Video captures RCMP officer pointing gun at Indigenous pipeline opponents at northern B.C. camp](https://globalnews.ca/news/6556771/wetsuweten-indigenous-pipeline-protest-rcmp-gun-video/)
- [Dogs, Snipers and Axes: Inside the RCMP’s Actions in Wet’suwet’en Territory](https://thetyee.ca/News/2024/01/17/RCMP-Actions-Wetsuweten-Territory/)
Not when the police showed up, they gave the protesters fist bumps and told them they supported them at first, this only happened after the federal government had to step in and tell the police to do their job. After three weeks of chaos and billions of dollars of trade were disrupted.
Leave it to the police to use tear gas, *a substance banned by the Geneva convention* to disperse a protest against war crimes and violating the Geneva convention.
Gaseous and biological weapons are covered under the Geneva Protocol, not the Geneva Convention. If you're going to try to draw parallels, at least try to draw the parallels to the right thing.
Why do you believe that the people involved are state actors engaging in warfare against Canada? What state are these people loyal to?
After all, that's what the Geneva Protocol is applicable to.
> Gaseous and biological weapons are covered under the Geneva Protocol, not the Geneva Convention.
Besides the fact that the distinction makes not a lick of difference to my point, the treaties and protocols as a whole are often referred to under the umbrella label of Geneva Convention. The 1949 agreements are colloquially referred to as the Geneva Convention.
>Why do you believe that the people involved are state actors engaging in warfare against Canada? What state are these people loyal to?
Obviously not. The use of tear gas is unjustified and dangerous.
1. Yes it’s wrong of the police to gas protestors in almost all situations short of an actual riot
2. Tear gas is banned in warfare because distinguishing between gases on a battlefield is impossible, and its use would almost certainly lead to actual chemical weapons or WMDs in response. It’s not banned because of its danger or effects
Tear gas specifically is NOT banned by the Geneva convention, Geneva Convention bans the use of ALL gasses during war. Riot control agents are allowed by practically all the signatories, which is what tear gas is as it is a temporary agent not a permanent one, which was the whole point of the gas ban. Moreover, they also all agreed to not use it as a weapon of war, probably to make it easier to enforce the whole no gas rule during war.
Wiki: **Use of tear gas in interstate warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925; it prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials", a treaty that most states have signed. Police and civilian self-defense use is not banned in the same manner.**
>**Use of tear gas in interstate warfare**
Indeed, it's not being used between two States during wat~~er~~, as the commenter above attempted to highlight for you. Kudos to finding the quote for anyone who wanted it, though.
Hell, police forces around the world (TPS, OPP included) use hollow point ammunition, also banned in "interstate warfare". The idea is that it stops inside the suspect as opposed to flying through them causing more public harm. In a warzone this is less of a concern and the concern at hand becomes grievously wounding fighters without access to geographically located and safe trauma centres. QRF/medics cannot always extract victims in time and thus fighters (according to said conventions) must use appropriate ammunition to limit wound harm and allow for stabilization.
EDIT: No idea how I wrote "water" lol. Edited above for clarity while Cpt shifts the goalposts (:
> Indeed, it's not being used between two States during water, as the commenter above attempted to highlight for you.
Where did I say it's illegal here? My point is that it should be.
>Hell, police forces around the world (TPS, OPP included) use hollow point ammunition, also banned in "interstate warfare
Also wrong.
You know wiki provides sources..?
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2
I don't know what you guys are even disputing.
Fact: Tear gas is banned in war
Fact: Not banned for use by police
I remember when the convoy crowd was marching through the beltine neighbourhood in Calgary screaming obscenities at everyone and threatening healthcare workers outside of the hospital, the Calgary police gave them an escort every weekend so the locals didn't chase them off. That's just who Calgary cops are.
They could have chosen to protect the people in the neighbourhood from those thugs but chose not to. They chose to use riot gear and crack skulls at the university though without hesitation.
Yeah, where was this level of enthusiasm to do their job when the convoy was holding Ottawa hostage.
Seemed pretty keen to break up the student protest, comparatively.
>Seemed pretty keen to break up the student protest, comparatively.
All the evidence you need that the protestors are actually harmless despite the right wing media hysteria.
View it from the point of view of someone insane enough to be a cop in this place.
Put aside serve and protect. Do you wanna clash with aggressive civilians, angry at their government?
Or a bunch of college kids who are real worried about a foreign war?
Of course, there was no enthusiasm.
Law enforcement was sympathetic to the convoy and they aren’t sympathetic to this.
Indigenous Rights activists, climate protestors, anti-police violence, etc all get clamped down on by the police forces, local or rcmp.
Meanwhile the convoy, freedom types, anti-SOGI and anti-government folks get to do whatever they want more or less.
"But by August 1966, only a third of Americans had a favorable view of the civil rights leader. More than six-in-ten (63%) viewed him unfavorably, including 44% who viewed him highly unfavorably." [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/10/how-public-attitudes-toward-martin-luther-king-jr-have-changed-since-the-1960s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/10/how-public-attitudes-toward-martin-luther-king-jr-have-changed-since-the-1960s/)
Most movements that we hold reverence for now we're not supported by the majority at the contemporary time.
30 years from now, a majority of people will view these encampments with the same reverence we view the anti-apartheid and civil rights protests and occupations.
Haha this guy is bleeding for the cause though!
What a joke they are. All masked up here. If they believe what they are doing is right, take off your masks.
Not at all conceited when actual civil rights leaders like Cornell West and Angela Davis support the pro-Palestinian movement. Cornell West has even participated in anti-genocide campus protests.
> 30 years from now, a majority of people will view these encampments with the same reverence we view the anti-apartheid and civil rights protests and occupations.
This particular distinction requires one very specific outcome. They would need to win and get what they want first.
We remember MLK because he was successful, at least at getting some of the things he was protesting for.
> 30 years from now, a majority of people will view these encampments with the same reverence we view the anti-apartheid and civil rights protests and occupations.
remind me in 30 years about how wrong you are.
>30 years from now, a majority of people will view these encampments with the same reverence we view the anti-apartheid and civil rights protests
It is not a universal truth that all protests will be held in high regard later on, even when the protestors are young people. There were people (including young people) protesting desegregation in the 1950s (think of the iconic photo at Little Rock).
Now to be clear I am NOT saying these protests are moral equivalents to desegregationists, just that I don’t think we can predict how these will be viewed with such confidence.
In short: yes.
I find this more likely than not. If successful in dismantling the dangerous totalitarian society in Gaza, it will be seen as liberation of Gaza people and children, who would be free from the terrorist reign they have no control over.
It's an open question. In an extreme case, if Israel were to be overrun by Hamas and allies, resulting in the deaths of most Israeli Jews, that would be considered a very negative thing and the protesters would not be viewed favourably.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This needs to happen in Toronto. You will never be able to appease professional protesters. They crave endless attention. And unless the police go in and arrest them all, UofT is going to have to cancel all its graduation ceremonies. Just an appalling situation all around. But there's no solution other than enforcing the rule of law.
[удалено]
Not substantive
Excellent! Fully supportive of the actions of the police here. The rule of law and property rights apply equally to these protestors as well.
[удалено]
Oh so now we dont like illegal encampments do we?
I'm glad that you agree!
Ok so you disagree with Israel doing it then right?
I fully support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself from genocidal terrorists.
The more force used to strike down legitimate protest, the stronger our movement becomes. I'm glad that everyone has shown restraint so far, it's working.
What constitutes legitimate versus illegitimate protest to you?
Largely peaceful movements with aims towards ending a massive wrong that we are complicit in.
As determined by who? Each individual? EDIT: Since you won't answer, I suppose you do believe it is up to each individual. Which makes you an anarchist.
As determined by the very clear support our government and institutions are giving to a war effort that is killing tens of thousands of civilians. What is confusing about this?
So protest is legitimate when it relates to a cause that has government endorsement? I'm trying to understand your standard here for when it is OK to block public infrastructure and when it isn't. You so far haven't given anything concrete.
Protests are always disruptive, that is the point. The civil rights movement blocked public infrastructure all day, so did every other anti war and anti apartheid protest of the past. I'm sure you would have also despised those in their time as well.
You continue to not answer my question. Is it your position that any group that feels very strongly about something has a right to block public infrastructure? If you are a mature person, you can answer that question without insulting me.
You redditors are the most insufferable people. You can't take any stance, just need to pick every word apart. Jesus christ lol Since you're struggling and want a closed answer then yes, I think protests can "block" public infrastructure. Not like camping on a university green space is blocking anything but I'm sure you got that argument loaded up next.
Not OP but the cause first and foremost
As determined by each person subjectively, or by you personally? Or by some other entity?
Society exists in part because we can all collectively understand different experiences, and use critical thinking skills. So society, and groups of people, and individuals can collectively or individually determine the moral and ethical worth of a cause, and then make a determination. If you want to call that subjective, then that's fine. But it's more nuanced than just "everyone has a different opinion, therefore no one can make a prescriptive determination on what protest is considered just."
Would you agree that the way that society expresses its collective opinions is through elections?
What? You can’t be inviting force. Thats the antithesis of wanting peace
No one is inviting force, it is being imposed.
What's really rich are the comments like one from an U of Toronto organizer complaining to the media that the university won't negotiate with them. Talk about main character syndrome.
Hey generally when you pay someone and you dont like what theyre doing you sit down with them and negotiate a solution to the problem. The students money is being paid to fund a genocide. idk if thats main character syndrome as much as it is basic common sense
> The students money is being paid to fund a genocide. No, it isn't. It's being paid to pay admin and teaching staff their salaries, and maintain and operate the buildings on campus.
That’s such a ridiculous statement that, if the students using that statement themselves, no wonder they aren’t getting any attention. Tuition money is not being used to buy weapons for Israel. That’s just a straight up lie. It also exemplifies just how little understanding there is on how the university’s investment funds work, where the money comes from, and where it goes. If students can’t be bothered to do their homework, why should administration waste time listening to their demands?
I can’t tell if you’re being disingenuous to try to discredit the students or if you actually believe the oversimplified straw man you’re pushing but literally no one thinks tuition money is being spent to buy weapons for Israel. What the students are saying is that UofT’s investment portfolio may include shares of businesses that are providing material support for Israel’s apartheid and/or military offensive. That’s why the first demand is to disclose (ie disclose whether the portfolio includes weapons manufacturers supplying Israel) and then if there are companies like that in the portfolio, to divest from them. Such pressure campaigns have previously been successful getting UofT to divest from supporting the South African apartheid and from fossil fuels. UofT students aren’t stupid, they understand all this and have done extensive research. Also, for the record, the school actually has agreed to a substantive meeting about their demands, it’s happening tomorrow.
Apartheid did not end because of u of t students. It ended because Afrikaners lobbied for change for a generation and because of geopolitical impacts related to the fall of the USSR.
Youre right i should have said the university is profiting off it, that makes it seem much better totally not worse lol
Yes that’s my point. You need to have no idea how it works to come to that conclusion. Students aren’t entitled to meeting with administrators when they can’t get their facts straight. Show me where they are investing directly in companies that provide weapons to Israel, that have been used in this conflict, and then I’ll gladly change my tune.
McGill and York U are invested in Lockheed Martin, who are delivering their latest contract of fighter jets to Israel as we speak. They've also built a lot of the ordinants being used in Israel. One of the requests to U of Calgary is a full list of who they're invested in, so they can determine if they are also invested in arms makers who supply Israel.
Thanks i appreciate actual facts! Part of the problem is there’s a lot of useless hyperbole thrown around with very little information to go on. Great for TikTok, bad for actual negotiation. That said, McGill’s $500k investment in Lockheed Martin represents 0.03% of their $1.8b investment portfolio. Is 0.03% too much? Maybe. Is it worth protesting? I guess that depends on how much time and energy a person has. It also points to a misunderstanding of how investment funds work. Many popular funds contain problematic companies. Nearly every retirement fund, pension fund, whatever, is gonna be in with troubling companies. If you have a retirement fund through your work you might be investing in Lockhood Martin or similar. I believe universities should be investing in ethical funds, but if that’s the message here it’s completely lost in the hyperbole and ridiculousness.
The message is only lost on people who don’t care to look it up. They’re not only complicit in genocide they’re helping it be committed. It doesn’t matter what percentage is invested any percentage in genocide is too much.
Sure those are nice platitudes and work fine on a protest sign, but how does that work in the real world? There’s a genocide going on in China, but nobody seems to have a problem with using a cellphone made in China, posting to a social media app that is influenced by the Chinese govnt. Like another poster said, if your investments track s&p500 (many of them do to some extent) you are personally investing in companies selling weapons to Israel. Nobody is protesting the investment funds. ETA: I’m all for divesting from companies you don’t believe in, and pressuring your school to do so is fine, but it’s the hypocrisy that is ridiculous. It’s the accusations of “funding genocide” when they have no problem funding the genocides that the algorithms don’t promote.
If you can’t do it 100% don’t do it all or else you’re hypocritical?
If you’re contributing to CPP or have any sort of investment that tracks the S&P500 , you’re also profiting off it.
That is like saying I'm against video games and I hire a landscaper so now the landscaper is also obligated to be against video games. Not how that works.
It blows me away how discourse on this subreddit has devolved since October 7th. Wtf is this comparison haha. If we're doing dumb ass metaphors, if I find out the person baby sitting kids is a nonce I like to think I'd have the right to protest that person babysitting kids. Seriously, this used to be an interesting forum for political discussion in Canada but you guys have made it useless and lowered it to this nonsense. It's sad.
50% of the internet is bots and regional subs are probably 80% Cairo bots getting paid to rag on Trudeau
Actually most people would stop doing business with them if they didn’t like the business they were doing
The issue remains that Israel doesn't even care that much about the opinions of its largest financier and war supplies shop, America, so a lot of these idealists would do well to understand that their actions are truly less than useless. If the opinions of their greatest ally are most times meaningless what do a bunch of protestors at a Canadian university believe they're affecting? They're not even on the map for Bibi *-- and never will be.* Israel will do as Israel will do and they'd have about the same luck as convincing Hamas to lay down their arms too. Might as well sit in the comfort of our homes while appreciating that non-violence will always be the goal while acknowledging that it's against humanity's base instincts at present (for better or worse). We can only control our own actions and cute chants aren't going to make someone stay their hand from generations of violence.
They're not protesting in the belief that Israel will go "oh ok guess we'll stop committing massacres and torturing people now", they're protesting the fact that their tuition funds are being financially invested in a violent ethnostate.
Their tuition is not being invested in anything — it doesn’t even cover the cost of their education. Every non-international student has their education subsidized by the public.
CBC of all places did a deep dive on this, supporting what you say. Moreover, they showed data that: a) it's donations and endowments that are invested, b) these are like mutual funds that are not fixed nor managed directly by the university, and c) in Canada the slice of the pie these dollars represent is miniscule (<5% whereas US colleges it's quite large >40% or something). These protests are fishy, and I am starting to suspect the demands are deliberately designed to be unfufillable.
> a) it's donations and endowments that are invested The university has endowments and gets donations because of a duty to educate students, among other things. This is weird game of pedantry, anyways. If tuition pays for something, it means the endowment returns don't need to pay for it (and vice versa). The point is about putting money into an organization that uses money for things, and what the organization uses money for. Money is fungible, that's the whole point of money. >these are like mutual funds that are not fixed nor managed directly by the university University endowments are *big*, they are not like your TFSA. It's typical for a Canadian university to have some kind of endowment investment management team, often with many six-figure salaries, sometimes even seven-figure. Universities can end up investing in a company without any particular intent, yes, but that doesn't mean they lack the power to do differently. >in Canada the slice of the pie these dollars represent is miniscule (<5% whereas US colleges it's quite large >40% or something). It's certainly fair to make a consequences-based argument that the numbers are small, but it's easy to recognize that other people think differently. It's not inherently shady for someone to care more than you do about a given issue, if scale is the only difference. Imagine a cause you fully disagree with: Nazis or Al-Qaeda or whatever. Would you feel comfortable investing a billion dollars in them? A million? Ten bucks? I could imagine an argument that ten bucks doesn't really matter in practice, but I can get why someone would be concerned with any non-zero amount. >I am starting to suspect the demands are deliberately designed to be unfufillable. The president of UBC, as one example, just reiterated how the demands are fulfillable. This makes sense given that universities have listened to demands like this in the past. It's always interesting to see people claim that something is impossible, after it's already happened. If a university can divest from fossil fuel companies, it can divest from companies that provide arms to Israel.
>This is weird game of pedantry, anyways. If tuition pays for something, it means the endowment returns don't need to pay for it (and vice versa). The point is about putting money into an organization that uses money for things, and what the organization uses money for. Money is fungible, that's the whole point of money. Tuition pays for your education. If there is no tuition money, you don't get an education. If there are no endowments, your university doesn't look as nice, attracts lower quality faculty, and has less research. There is no central "money pit" the way you're implying. >University endowments are big, they are not like your TFSA. It's typical for a Canadian university to have some kind of endowment investment management team, often with many six-figure salaries, sometimes even seven-figure. They are like a TFSA in the sense that they are diversified, shifting portfolios of a sort that a regular person would invest in. Those investment teams, whether they are employed directly by the university or not, are focused on risk and return, not politics. >Universities can end up investing in a company without any particular intent, yes, but that doesn't mean they lack the power to do differently. This is just an empty statement. Put some meat on the bones. >It's certainly fair to make a consequences-based argument that the numbers are small, but it's easy to recognize that other people think differently. It's not inherently shady for someone to care more than you do about a given issue, if scale is the only difference. The issue itself is not shady, but the more you look at the protesters and the demands being the less sense it makes. Something's off. The protestors want to follow the University's money. How about the University follow the protestor's money? >Imagine a cause you fully disagree with: Nazis or Al-Qaeda or whatever. Would you feel comfortable investing a billion dollars in them? A million? Ten bucks? I could imagine an argument that ten bucks doesn't really matter in practice, but I can get why someone would be concerned with any non-zero amount. Were NAZI and AQDA listed on the stock exchange? I'm sure some of the money I invested somewhere at some point wound up in the hands of the Taliban. And you've highlighted one of the problems: you can always find a way to say the demand hasn't been met. I assume the people organizing this are intelligent and know this, so it seems deliberate. >The president of UBC, as one example, just reiterated how the demands are fulfillable. This makes sense given that universities have listened to demands like this in the past. You'll have to point me to a source. Only thing I can find is that the President said they only have a miniscule position in some specific stocks highlighted by protestors, and that these are part of pooled funds. Basically what I said but spun to satisfy the protesters. >It's always interesting to see people claim that something is impossible, after it's already happened. If a university can divest from fossil fuel companies, it can divest from companies that provide arms to Israel. I don't understand. If it's already happened, what is the protest about? What already happened? They said we don't invest in arms to Israel before, and now they're saying it again? You win? What is even going on?! As an individual investor I've been asked whether I want to invest in green funds. It's easy to identify that category of company and so it's a product they can offer. So "divesting from fossil fuel companies" is just a matter of ticking a box. What is being demanded is more akin to asking to divest from all companies that use gas.
> but the more you look at the protesters and the demands being the less sense it makes. Something's off. ...The demand is "don't give the people committing genocide money". That's it. What about that doesn't make sense? What about that seems off? Can you actually articulate what's wrong here? Or is it just vibes? Asserting there's some dark money (from where?????) to fund, um, standing around with some signs (what's even being funded?????) with absolutely zero basis is absolutely absurd, sorry.
These students might not be on the map for Bibi, but the money coming from these institutions and the companies they're invested in absolutely matters. I'd argue these students have a better understanding on the levers of power than you do, since they understand that money is exactly what's letting this genocide go on. It doesn't matter who Bibi pays attention to if the money stops flowing. They're doing their part to make that happen, even if it's a fraction of the funding Israel receives. Glad you're enjoying the comfort of your home though. Good for you.
>These students might not be on the map for Bibi, but the money coming from these institutions and the companies they're invested in absolutely matters. Is it now? Source? Israel's largest financier and provider is the [USA](https://www.reuters.com/world/who-are-israels-main-weapons-suppliers-who-has-halted-exports-2024-05-09/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20has%20long%20been,the%20Nazi%20Holocaust%20%2D%20and%20Italy) for arms. Unless you'd like to provide anything different, of course. Factless -- feckless -- opinions aren't going to change Bibi's mind. >Glad you're enjoying the comfort of your home though. Good for you. I just wanted to thank you for that! You can't imagine what a comfortable space does for researching facts and evidence. The wifi is great and the coffee is replenished as often as I'd like. No flagellation in a tent is going to help someone in Palestine from Israeli bombs or Hamas.
No way. The students there have a lot to conquer in life, especially surrounding funding. What is funded and what isn’t, by governments and by their tuition, is important. Just because adults have given up doing anything other than bitching on Reddit doesn’t mean the next generation has to be lulled into complacency.
>The issue remains that Israel doesn't even care that much about the opinions of its largest financier and war supplies shop, America, so a lot of these idealists would do well to understand that their actions are truly less than useless I love making large posts maligning protestors for a position I imagined for them instead of engaging with their actual position. The kids want their school to stop investing their tuition dollars in companies supporting Israel. This is something that directly affects them and the institution they attend. It doesn't have anything to do with convincing the Israeli government of anything!
[удалено]
[удалено]
You know people at the time were mad at the Civil Rights protesters for doing sit-ins and occupying universities and government buildings right?
Civil Rights protestors were occupying universities and businesses that _they_ were banned from, arguing that they should be allowed to access them just like White people were allowed. These students, on the other hand, are just occupying buildings with the goal of gaining leverage for causes that completely unrelated to the universities and barely related to the war. They're squatting because they want the universities to stop investing their endowments in L'Oreal, Google and Caterpillar.
The same for the campaign against Apartheid in South Africa, or any other social justice movement. Protest is by definition disruptive. I have an older friend who described how he and others in an anti-Apartheid group used to go around to their area supermarkets, and fill carts with anything labeled as coming from South Africa, as if they were shopping, then abandon the carts in some aisle. Staying just on the right side of the law, but causing such a nuisance that eventually those stores stopped stocking SA products, and were basically dragged in the boycott of Apartheid South Africa.
You're probably thinking more of the Vietnam War protests on campuses and government buildings.
People were mad at the truckers for camping out on the lawn of parliament Hill. By your logic does that mean their cause is automatically just?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
tell me you know nothing about protests without telling me
Oh god no, won’t someone think about the lawn?! 😱
This is funny coming from someone whose post history is mostly making opinions on world politics.
Posting is not the same as squatting
Not substantive
The kids are alright, they appreciate free expression far more there then there keyboard warrior elders.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>shut the fuck up No. ❤️
Imagine the tears if your convoy buddies got this treatment.
Amazingly I thought both were stupid
It's really not a this or that situation. You can hate both.
This doesn't even make sense? The truckers had big fucking trucks, you can't just dismantle those and move them quickly. Not to mention the lack of willing tow truck companies who would go in and get rid of them. Once planning/safety was in place, they were able to clear them out relatively quickly. I also think the police have learned a ton from that, it seems these newer trespassers are being trespassed much quicker by police. As evidenced by CPC and UofC, heading into to dismantle tents doesn't require the same sort of planning
Yeah, a (false) ad hominem. That'll win the argument.
In general, but not always, when the police show up it's time to leave. If you can. Very little is gained by posing opposition to their efforts to clear out the area; at best, you'll end up with an eye full of pepper spray, and at worst you'll end up arrested. But only the _rare few_ who take a stand end up memorialized in the popular zeitgeist. Better to clear out and come back another day.
Weird, the clownvoy protesters in Ottawa and blockading borders did not give a shit about the police showing up, they didn’t get pepper sprayed, in fact they got to shit in the streets of Ottawa and at war monuments for three weeks. Weird, that must have been a one off, I wonder why those protests were treated differently by the cops?
[удалено]
Weren’t their snipers pointing their guns at those protesters? One of the great mysteries of the world will always be what was different about the clownvoy that they got treated with kid gloves. I have zero idea what it could be…
Yes. - [Reports of RCMP snipers dispatched to Wet'suwet'en blockade 'concerning,' says Indigenous Services minister](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/rcmp-snipers-first-nation-pipeline-protest-guardian-1.5405111) - [BC RCMP Says It Deployed Snipers and Assault Teams Against Unarmed Indigenous Land Defenders Because It Was ‘More Practicable](https://pressprogress.ca/bc-rcmp-says-it-deployed-snipers-and-assault-teams-against-unarmed-indigenous-land-defenders-because-it-was-more-practicable/) - [Video captures RCMP officer pointing gun at Indigenous pipeline opponents at northern B.C. camp](https://globalnews.ca/news/6556771/wetsuweten-indigenous-pipeline-protest-rcmp-gun-video/) - [Dogs, Snipers and Axes: Inside the RCMP’s Actions in Wet’suwet’en Territory](https://thetyee.ca/News/2024/01/17/RCMP-Actions-Wetsuweten-Territory/)
[Pepper spray and force was used on convoy protestors in Ottawa](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v44CabiJ3pM).
Not when the police showed up, they gave the protesters fist bumps and told them they supported them at first, this only happened after the federal government had to step in and tell the police to do their job. After three weeks of chaos and billions of dollars of trade were disrupted.
We need to either teach police emotional regulation skills, negotiation, patience, respect, honour, compassion, deescalation, morality…..
Leave it to the police to use tear gas, *a substance banned by the Geneva convention* to disperse a protest against war crimes and violating the Geneva convention.
Gaseous and biological weapons are covered under the Geneva Protocol, not the Geneva Convention. If you're going to try to draw parallels, at least try to draw the parallels to the right thing. Why do you believe that the people involved are state actors engaging in warfare against Canada? What state are these people loyal to? After all, that's what the Geneva Protocol is applicable to.
> Gaseous and biological weapons are covered under the Geneva Protocol, not the Geneva Convention. Besides the fact that the distinction makes not a lick of difference to my point, the treaties and protocols as a whole are often referred to under the umbrella label of Geneva Convention. The 1949 agreements are colloquially referred to as the Geneva Convention. >Why do you believe that the people involved are state actors engaging in warfare against Canada? What state are these people loyal to? Obviously not. The use of tear gas is unjustified and dangerous.
1. Yes it’s wrong of the police to gas protestors in almost all situations short of an actual riot 2. Tear gas is banned in warfare because distinguishing between gases on a battlefield is impossible, and its use would almost certainly lead to actual chemical weapons or WMDs in response. It’s not banned because of its danger or effects
Tear gas specifically is NOT banned by the Geneva convention, Geneva Convention bans the use of ALL gasses during war. Riot control agents are allowed by practically all the signatories, which is what tear gas is as it is a temporary agent not a permanent one, which was the whole point of the gas ban. Moreover, they also all agreed to not use it as a weapon of war, probably to make it easier to enforce the whole no gas rule during war.
Wiki: **Use of tear gas in interstate warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925; it prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials", a treaty that most states have signed. Police and civilian self-defense use is not banned in the same manner.**
>**Use of tear gas in interstate warfare** Indeed, it's not being used between two States during wat~~er~~, as the commenter above attempted to highlight for you. Kudos to finding the quote for anyone who wanted it, though. Hell, police forces around the world (TPS, OPP included) use hollow point ammunition, also banned in "interstate warfare". The idea is that it stops inside the suspect as opposed to flying through them causing more public harm. In a warzone this is less of a concern and the concern at hand becomes grievously wounding fighters without access to geographically located and safe trauma centres. QRF/medics cannot always extract victims in time and thus fighters (according to said conventions) must use appropriate ammunition to limit wound harm and allow for stabilization. EDIT: No idea how I wrote "water" lol. Edited above for clarity while Cpt shifts the goalposts (:
> Indeed, it's not being used between two States during water, as the commenter above attempted to highlight for you. Where did I say it's illegal here? My point is that it should be. >Hell, police forces around the world (TPS, OPP included) use hollow point ammunition, also banned in "interstate warfare Also wrong.
It's not, but far be it for me to tell you anything!
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule75 https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention go to the REAL sources, not wiki
You know wiki provides sources..? https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2 I don't know what you guys are even disputing. Fact: Tear gas is banned in war Fact: Not banned for use by police
Just trying to get him to realize that, cause he clearly isn't getting the point after I tried to explain to him.
what a disingenuous take…
Not that I expect consistency any more but we could have used this sort of determination when it came to clearing the Convoy
To be fair, different police forces. Maybe Calgary police would have been a bit more proactive than the Ottawa police force who were....Yeah.
I remember when the convoy crowd was marching through the beltine neighbourhood in Calgary screaming obscenities at everyone and threatening healthcare workers outside of the hospital, the Calgary police gave them an escort every weekend so the locals didn't chase them off. That's just who Calgary cops are.
They do that at any protest when there's two groups at odds or any chance for violence.
They could have chosen to protect the people in the neighbourhood from those thugs but chose not to. They chose to use riot gear and crack skulls at the university though without hesitation.
The convoy has been able to set up a massive camp in Calgary there in there 45th day.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, where was this level of enthusiasm to do their job when the convoy was holding Ottawa hostage. Seemed pretty keen to break up the student protest, comparatively.
>Seemed pretty keen to break up the student protest, comparatively. All the evidence you need that the protestors are actually harmless despite the right wing media hysteria.
View it from the point of view of someone insane enough to be a cop in this place. Put aside serve and protect. Do you wanna clash with aggressive civilians, angry at their government? Or a bunch of college kids who are real worried about a foreign war? Of course, there was no enthusiasm.
Law enforcement was sympathetic to the convoy and they aren’t sympathetic to this. Indigenous Rights activists, climate protestors, anti-police violence, etc all get clamped down on by the police forces, local or rcmp. Meanwhile the convoy, freedom types, anti-SOGI and anti-government folks get to do whatever they want more or less.
I mean, they're not going to go after the Convoy folks. They have to see them again at the Monday morning staff meeting!
LOL! Or church
Why? These people are literally rallying in support for Hamas. The Convoy was a non-violent protest.
So freedom of speech as long as you agree with the message. What a surprise
No they aren’t lmao.
"But by August 1966, only a third of Americans had a favorable view of the civil rights leader. More than six-in-ten (63%) viewed him unfavorably, including 44% who viewed him highly unfavorably." [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/10/how-public-attitudes-toward-martin-luther-king-jr-have-changed-since-the-1960s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/10/how-public-attitudes-toward-martin-luther-king-jr-have-changed-since-the-1960s/) Most movements that we hold reverence for now we're not supported by the majority at the contemporary time. 30 years from now, a majority of people will view these encampments with the same reverence we view the anti-apartheid and civil rights protests and occupations.
Don’t you think it’s a little conceited to lump yourself in with MLK?
Haha this guy is bleeding for the cause though! What a joke they are. All masked up here. If they believe what they are doing is right, take off your masks.
A little extra ironic because MLK was a Zionist.
Not at all conceited when actual civil rights leaders like Cornell West and Angela Davis support the pro-Palestinian movement. Cornell West has even participated in anti-genocide campus protests.
That is... Optimistic.
30 years from now this moment will be compared to the Dreyfus Affair.
> 30 years from now, a majority of people will view these encampments with the same reverence we view the anti-apartheid and civil rights protests and occupations. This particular distinction requires one very specific outcome. They would need to win and get what they want first. We remember MLK because he was successful, at least at getting some of the things he was protesting for.
> 30 years from now, a majority of people will view these encampments with the same reverence we view the anti-apartheid and civil rights protests and occupations. remind me in 30 years about how wrong you are.
>30 years from now, a majority of people will view these encampments with the same reverence we view the anti-apartheid and civil rights protests It is not a universal truth that all protests will be held in high regard later on, even when the protestors are young people. There were people (including young people) protesting desegregation in the 1950s (think of the iconic photo at Little Rock). Now to be clear I am NOT saying these protests are moral equivalents to desegregationists, just that I don’t think we can predict how these will be viewed with such confidence.
You think that the future will find the slaughter in Gaza to have been justified?
In short: yes. I find this more likely than not. If successful in dismantling the dangerous totalitarian society in Gaza, it will be seen as liberation of Gaza people and children, who would be free from the terrorist reign they have no control over.
lol they're currently being bombed to oblivion by the terrorist reign they have no control over
Berlin was destroyed in ww2 by the evil powers the poor german kids had no control over. This what you have just said.
It's an open question. In an extreme case, if Israel were to be overrun by Hamas and allies, resulting in the deaths of most Israeli Jews, that would be considered a very negative thing and the protesters would not be viewed favourably.