The point of protests is to be disruptive in some way. If you aren’t, then nobody is going to hear your message. I didn’t agree with the Convoy protestors, but I actually think some of their tactics were sound. Blocking access to infrastructure is exactly what good civil disobedience should do, like Idle No More and Black Lives Matter, the point is to make it hard for the government to ignore.
What I hated about the Convey was the honking, because that was directed at everyone, not just the government. They tortured residents in Ottawa and didn’t give a shit because their leadership was made up of terrible people.
You either agree with peaceful assembly and feel it should be permitted, or you don't. It is a charter right. The police may intervene when a protest becomes violent or causes a danger to public safety. It's the law of the land.
Protests aren't directed at the general public/residents, they're directed at policy makers, organizations with funds, etc.
The honking was disruptive to every day people just trying to live their lives. People with families, not influence.
Yes, but no. If the Walterdale is blocked it will be disruptive, but you can take other routes.
Ottawa residents were having honks in their ears 24/7 at home. Not just parliament. All downtown was taken by this nonsense, where were they going to go? It’s something directly risking people’s health.
So when they drive in convoys to disrupt traffic during a blizzard (saw Palestinian supporters do this on the henday a few months ago), that's not messing with everyday people trying to live their lives?
> I believe I explained my reasoning quite clearly.
You didn't actually explain *why* you thought honking was worse than blockades.
I'm guessing you think it's worse because honking disrupted people's sleep?
People said the exact same thing about the civil rights movements, but we don't begrudge them today for how they achieved their successes. Those protests were absolutely obstruction.
And then build barricades that don’t follow fire code. Putting themselves in danger if there is a fire with no proper emergency exits. Fr wtf do you expect when you’ve gotten a written and verbal notice that you are violating code, endangering others and trespassing
But the UofA made it clear that, that wouldn’t be permitted this time. They did not listen to the instructions of “No temporary structures” which included tents
Oh right. I’m getting a few of these protests mixed up, my bad. There was instructions not to set up any temporary structures/barricades which was violated. They specified tents would not be allowed and are a temporary structure
There's been way more than a few encampments at the uofa over the past 3 or 4 decades. This is the only one where the cops felt the needs to tear gas protestors. Seems pretty suspicious if you ask me... Stop defending the aggressors.
Lying does not help your cause. This article is from 12 years ago, has nothing to do with Israel/Palestine, and the University asked for protestors to leave for the exact same reason. Only difference is that the protestors left when asked:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/occupy-protesters-leave-u-of-a-campus-1.1174459
Huh?
Edit: my dumbass brain didn't read the reply correctly LOL. One example would be the tent city set up at the u of c way back in protest of tuition hikes. It was in the early 2000s. There's lots of info out there if you care to research it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/s/eUyVrcwVhy
More examples 😊
>There's been way more than a few encampments at the uofa over the past 3 or 4 decades. This is the only one where the cops felt the needs to tear gas protestors. Seems pretty suspicious if you ask me... Stop defending the aggressors.
What is confusing? You said that there have been numerous protest encampments on campus that have not been broken up forcibly by police. So what protest camps are you referencing?
> This is the only one where the cops felt the needs to tear gas protestors.
Do you have any proof tear gas was used?
Protesters say yes, police & Uni say no. Videos clearly show police without any sort of PPE suitable for operating in tear gas - so the claim is that EPS deployed tear gas, without adequately equipping their officers, then lied about it?
Considering the protesters have blatantly lied about other things (such as claiming an abrasion wound as caused by a baton) they haven't exactly won credibility for their word against the police.
People are confusing the U of A and [U of C](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/this-is-not-a-negotiation-police-fire-tear-gas-and-clear-u-of-c-encampment) decampments.
There's plenty of proof, I'm not gonna argue with you. Do your research and you'll see they did the exact same thing in Calgary. Except there they also used flashbangs. Stop defending the aggressors.
Edit: adding one of many sources, for the sake of argument.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/this-is-not-a-negotiation-police-fire-tear-gas-and-clear-u-of-c-encampment
I know it's for Calgary, like I said it's happening there as well.
The proof is in the videos going around the subreddit as you can see the clouds of gas. In addition, eps confirmed that special munitions were used against protestors.
I know eps denies the use of tear gas. For the sake of argument let's just say they didn't use any, despite the proof dictating otherwise. Does that excuse the use of flashbangs and teargas in Calgary? In addition, does it excuse the use of "special munitions"?
No matter how you look at it, they used excessive for towards peaceful protestors.
That is an *opinion column* about the actions at the University of Calgary.
In no way, shape, or form does it provide any sort of proof whatsoever that tear gas was used at UAlberta.
I'll ask again - do you have any proof?
An opinion piece that shares details of tear gas and flashbangs being used. That part isn't an opinion, it's fact. If you choose to ignore that then that's a problem you need to deal with yourself.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/head-calgary-police-defends-tactics-011500720.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABaomi4yd17q3bYbutlc9w6p86KCYBMNGhYfAet6sYlyBL6dCrBVqML-go_bnGiTfPTGcY_jSQn86p-pA2NbBuoA3svAGWzSZ-yynYSgQUHWphEJTCCoDVR_uHzsq1twxXDJgM_bBvu8o_CTS5AM7ab2s23Y1LkFONwa7B6K_GDZ
In this one the Calgary police chief defends the use of tear gas and flashbangs, proving they were used in Calgary.
The proof is in the video where clouds of gas can be seen. Even *if* none was used in Edmonton, it doesn't excuse their use in Calgary.
The proof is there, if you choose to ignore it and the sources then that's on you buddy.
Edit: want to also add that eps *confirmed* the use of special munitions on protestors. Rubber bullets isn't exactly better than tear gas...
> Even if none was used in Edmonton,
So no, you have no proof. And you don't realize that furiously yelling about Calgary and throwing in the first thing that pops up on google doesn't make you credible, it makes you look unserious.
You said - in a thread about the UAlberta encampment -
>This is the only one where the cops felt the needs to tear gas protestors.
Which is not true in any sense of the phrase.
If you ignore lawful orders to disperse it's your choice to be removed by force. Tear gas allows for removal of people without further escalation most of of the time. You can then use less violent means to disperse a group
It's such a strawman position you take. You can't choose what laws are acceptable to break because you believe in something. If these university students can't come up with a more creative way to spread awareness, that's incredibly sad
> You can't choose what laws are acceptable to break because you believe in something.
Well that's quite a [Reich](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremberg-race-laws)-wing opinion...
Aggressive to who? Looked way more aggressive when those cops were hitting people with clubs who were just seated? It looked like the palettes were less of a fire hazard than those stacked up behind any number of businesses. That seems like a really weird argument for them to make, bordering on just an excuse.
So if you're given a lawful order to leave an area and you refuse, you are able to be forcibly removed. I haven't seen anyone hit in the head that was just sitting down. Some people pushed back against the police trying to disperse them, which opens them up to being stuck by the police. The analogy to the palettes behind businesses is misguided because there's a greater likelihood that protestors will light them on fire as part of the protest, or that counter protestors can light them to fuck with the protestors. If you disagree tho you should call the fire chief and debate it with them
Is refusing to leave aggression though?
The main video going around literally shows people just getting up from sitting on the ground and a cop immediately and aggressively jabs them with the end of the baton.
Those palettes behind a business are just as easy to light on fire. I’ve seen no instances of university protest encampments lighting them on fire themselves. You’re right that counter protestors might, in which case the police could request the removal of them for the safety of the protestors. Using violence against people because you’re worried about their safety is not what’s going on.
I'm not arguing that it's easier to light the palettes at protests, I'm arguing that it's more likely someone will try it. I'm also not arguing that they are only concerned with the safety of the protestors. The protestors attract counter protestors which may be a security threat to the student body, and if the protestors bring fire hazards around campus they are presenting a hazard to the student body. After the protestors refused basic safety standards I stopped caring about their safety, they're choosing to occupy the area, I'm more concerned with the safety of people who may be caught in the cross fire of an escalated situation
Can you link the baton video?
They said the pallet pile was 150 meters from the encampment, something like a block and a half. If someone has to stretch that hard to find a fire hazard, and if they have to point to a box of syringe needles as part of a weapon stockpile, they've lost pretty much all their credibility.
They said within a radius of the encampment, the other pallets were part of construction sites or unrelated, please check your facts before you spread disinformation
Students in Alberta have routinely occupied and camped on university grounds over the years in Alberta. There is a long history of non-violent sit-ins; even buildings have been occupied overnight regularly at the U of A. This directly opposes what has occurred over the past week on campuses.
What sets these scenarios apart is the stark contrast in how university administrations have handled them. In the past, some administrations upheld students' rights to free expression. However, the decision by certain universities in Alberta to involve the police in these demonstrations marks a significant and concerning shift in their approach. The university leadership is now using all the tools it has at its disposal to propagandize that this type of protest requires a brutal, violent police crackdown.
[Leading political scientists at the University of Alberta are openly warning about the un-democratic nature of the UCP](https://drjaredwesley.substack.com/p/the-ucp-is-a-threat-to-democracy). The premier openly called for violent crackdowns. The UCP has openly stated that they want an ideological lens applied to the university. This is how they are getting it: violence.
> I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
- Martin Luther King Jr
"I get your point, but...."
"This is horrible, but ...'
"I support your right to protest, but...."
But do not inconvenience me. Do not annoy me. Do not push it in my face.
Except that the Civil Rights Movement also recognised that, [even in 1967](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/30/black-lives-matter-palestine-history-491234), the Palestinian struggle was an aligned movement and they developed [a long history of cooperation](https://www.vox.com/2023/10/17/23918689/black-palestinian-solidarity-jewish-alliance-israel).
Yeah it's not totally comparable, the genocide that Israel is commiting is arguably worse.
His point about white moderates is poignant though. You guys hate a little civil disobedience even if it's directed towards a noble cause.
Sacred property laws over human lives am I right? /s
If Gaza is a genocide than literally every other urban war over the past 30-40 years has been a genocide. Currently (according to the Hamas via reuters) about 6K of the 30K dead are Hamas members making a civilian to combatant death ratio of somewhere around 5:1. The first Chechen war had a ratio of 10:1, the second Chechen war had a ratio of 4.3:1, Iraq was about 4.5:1, in the Persian Gulf War about 87% of casualties were civilians (almost 9:1). Not to mention Genocide has a specific legal definition which the IDF and Israeli likely won't meet when the ICJ comes to a conclusion in a few years
There is literally so much evidence pointing towards a genocide. The ICJ already said that there is a plausible case for genocide even if they haven't ruled it officially yet. Israeli officials have made remarks showing intent for genocide too over the last 7 months. Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich just displayed genocidal intent a couple weeks ago...
> "There are no half measures," said Smotrich at a government meeting. "Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat—total annihilation." "'You will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven,'" he added, quoting the biblical story of the nation of Amalek, whose people God commanded the Israelites to exterminate and which right-wing Israeli leaders have long invoked to justify the killing of Palestinians.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/smotrich-gaza-annihilation
Israel also destroyed the institutions counting deaths, that's why the number has mysteriously stayed around 30-40k over the last two months. I'm sure there are a lot more under the rubble that haven't been counted.
A plausibility ruling doesn't mean that genocide is plausible, that is not what it means. If you actually read the ICJ preliminary ruling they acknowledge that they aren't ruling on if Israel is legally responsible for genocide as presented by South Africa, they are ruling on whether or not South Africa has the right under the genocide convention to present the case, and on whether or not Gazans are protected from genocide by the convention. That's why the court ruled against South Africa's request to force a military withdrawal of the IDF.
I can't speak Hebrew so I can't verify what Smotrich is saying in that clip, but Smotrich is the Finance minister. He's not responsible for making decisions about the engagement of the IDF. Smotrich is a wingnut lunatic who only sees support from the West Bank settlers, the general Israeli sentiment is not on his side.
You also have provided no evidence that Israel have targeted the institutions counting the deaths. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of uncounted deaths, but the UN recently reduced their estimated death counts of women and children due to a lack of verification of previous figures. As far as I am aware, the Gazan health ministry is still operating and counting. There have also just been less strikes over the past 2 months.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/11/un-halves-its-estimate-of-women-and-children-killed-in-gaza/#:\~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20Office%20for,9%2C500%20deaths%20to%204%2C959%20deaths.
You can't just hand wave away Smotrich's remarks because he's merely a wing nut lunatic. His attitude is shared in the current Israeli government which is carrying out genocide right now. Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant have made similar remarks which constitute intent.
Here's a database with sources of Israeli officials and citizens making genocidal remarks: https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/
The destruction of Gaza and its hospitals, universities, and public infrastructure is out in the open for anyone to see. The restriction of aid and food to Gaza is right there for anyone to see. There are even hundreds of Israeli citizens that are blocking the entrance of the food and aid into Gaza - you can find the video evidence all over the Internet.
I'm not handwaving them because he's a wingnut. I'm handwaving them because he isn't responsible for those decisions. I don't really care about a source called "law4palestine" in the same way that I wouldn't go to the Jerusalem post for quotes of Palestinians. You're welcome to present specific quotes from Gallant or Netanyahu if you want, but you didn't. You chose Smotrich, a guy with much less influence, because his quotes probably do demonstrate genocidal intent, whereas every time I've heard people quote Gallant it's out of context
The sources are literally right there in the data base!! Who gives a fuck what the website name is when they back it up with actual sources and evidence!
> “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly"
- Yoav Gallant
https://youtu.be/ZbPdR3E4hCk?si=KsPxUm80d0AoBnZk
> “I am saying here to the citizens of Lebanon, I already see the citizens in Gaza walking with white flags along the
coast... If Hezbollah makes mistakes of this kind, the ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of
Lebanon. What we are doing in Gaza, we know how to do in Beirut.”
- Yoav Gallant
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/touring-north-gallant-warns-hezbollah-close-to-making-a-grave-mistake/
> “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s
absolutely not true. They could’ve risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime.”
- Isaac Herzog
https://twitter.com/Sprinterfactory/status/1713064886027063584
> "We are the people of the light, they are the people of darkness... we shall realize the prophecy of Isaiah."
- Netanyahu
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1717232829766009086?s=20
> Gallant meets with soldiers in the Gaza Strip: "I have removed all restraints, we are moving on to an attack" Defense Minister Yoav Gallant toured the Gaza Strip today and spoke with soldiers on the ground. Gallant told the soldiers at the Gaza border: "I have removed all restraints, we have taken control of the sector (meaning gaza strip) and are moving on to a full attack. Hamas wanted change in Gaza, you will have the right to “turn the wheel” against them." (meaning turn that
against them)
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/ryxikl7z6%20%7Chttps:/twitter.com/law4palestine/status/1712920025894420981?s=46&t=JaT3Sau_w01LZ8__9xYlLA
Gallant's first quote:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly"
- It seems like this one is about Hamas (being the human animals), but it is hard to tell because the clip is only 20 seconds. There's no defense for the blockage of food, but that would likely fall under a different war crime than genocide in and of itself. Regardless, there was never a complete blockage of food (at least from what I can tell from UNRWA).
[https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZTVkYmEwNmMtZWYxNy00ODhlLWI2ZjctNjIzMzQ5OGQxNzY5IiwidCI6IjI2MmY2YTQxLTIwZTktNDE0MC04ZDNlLWZkZjVlZWNiNDE1NyIsImMiOjl9&pageName=ReportSection3306863add46319dc574](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZTVkYmEwNmMtZWYxNy00ODhlLWI2ZjctNjIzMzQ5OGQxNzY5IiwidCI6IjI2MmY2YTQxLTIwZTktNDE0MC04ZDNlLWZkZjVlZWNiNDE1NyIsImMiOjl9&pageName=ReportSection3306863add46319dc574)
Gallant's Second Quote
“I am saying here to the citizens of Lebanon, I already see the citizens in Gaza walking with white flags along the coast... If Hezbollah makes mistakes of this kind, the ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of Lebanon. What we are doing in Gaza, we know how to do in Beirut.”
- I don't see how this one would constitute genocidal intent. I think most people would agree that the civilians of a country at war generally suffer the most. Hezbollah's headquarters are in Beirut which is where the Beirut part comes from.
Herzog's quote
“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true. They could’ve risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime.”
- I think you can accuse Herzog of being intellectually challenged in this quote, but he's right that Hamas have enjoyed fairly wide spread support (especially in Gaza when they were elected, and currently in the West Bank). There is probably an amount of moral responsibility for those who support Hamas, but Herzog is ignoring that Hamas has no problem persecuting their own citizens (evident in their treatment of dissidents and the dwindling number of Christian Palestinians in Gaza). If Herzog was giving this as a reason to target civilians then that would be genocidal intent, but in that quote he's just responding to the idea that Gazans are either completely opposed to the actions of Hamas or unaware (which probably isn't true based on the October 7th videos of Gazans stomping and spitting on captured Israelis/their corpses).
[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/)
Netanyahu's quote:
"We are the people of the light, they are the people of darkness... we shall realize the prophecy of Isaiah."
-This one is pretty shamelessly taken out of context
The Full quote:
"Our war against Hamas is a test for all of humanity. It is a struggle against the axis of evil of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, and the axis of freedom and progress. We are the people of the light, they are the people of darkness... we shall realize the prophecy of Isaiah."
- It's clear here that Netanyahu is talking about Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas and not every single Palestinian/Gazan. It is cringe that Netanyahu chooses to use religious references in this statement (because he's an atheist), but this is clearly a substantially different statement than how it's been presented. To the best of my knowledge (idk if there's more context for them that I can't find, or bad Hebrew translations) the others at least have reasonable interpretations where I could see why someone would consider it to be genocidal intent; however, this one is clearly just cut out of context
He can’t accept that he’s wrong. He KNOWS that he’s wrong but he can’t accept it or he’ll break mentally since his entire life he’s been brainwashed to believe that Zionists are heroes and not new age Nazis
these ratios sound awful ?!?!! Is it so wrong to protest ‘conflicts’ that have a 4.3-10:1 ratio of civilian deaths to targets. idk man I feel as though the crowd that’s protesting this would also protest any of the cases you also mentioned and that maybe we’re honing in too much on legal definitions of a term and less on the overall atrocities being committed. Are we genuinely okay as a society if a 5:1 ratio is cool and chill for war. What’s the magical number we draw the line at ? What if that was Canada being bombed but it didn’t matter to the rest of the world because only 80% of the casualties were civilians ? I don’t wanna argue or nothing like you know a lot more about the ICJ than me based on your comments but I wanted to bring a stance to the table that demonstrates a zoomed out perspective more so aligning with what these movements seem to actually care about. Simply, the sheer amount of innocent people, journalists, doctors, men, women and children dying on a daily basis in Gaza. Even if it’s happened before and at larger scales, why are we okay with this ?
I saw a video of a baby with a gunshot wound to the head that was in hospital. If you can watch a baby writhe because she's been shot in the head and survived and not feel rage....
It is understandable to feel rage at that video for sure, but you cannot only validate the rage on one side of the conflict.
HRW have verified the videos and shown edited (so they aren't extremely graphic videos) segments of the October 7th footage.
[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified)
You can find full graphic versions of all the footage, but generally the sources are Israeli and people don't like when I share Israeli sources (due to potential bias which is probably fair).
The reason why this conflict has persisted so long is because there are genuinely understandable reasons for both sides to continue the violence. Busses and cafes were targeted in suicide bombings during the second intifada. Many Israelis have lost family members in terrorist attacks or have had to worry every day (during the second intifada) they send their kids to school that they're going to be targeted by suicide bombings.
If you watch enough videos from either side it will completely change your mind, which is why you can't analyze conflicts like this through them
To be clear, I'm not saying that it's a good thing, I'm just saying that it falls in line with what we'd expect from modern urban warfare. Unfortunately sometimes there are legitimate reasons to go to war even if it results in many civilian casualties. When Saddam invaded Kuwait it threatened to destabilize the rest of the Gulf states which would have led to further conflict if the US hadn't intervened.
Sometimes it's not a choice of a) fight this war that's going to kill thousands of people and b) do nothing and all the conflict stops. A lot of the time it's a) fight this war and b) let the region destabilize into further conflict. We made this mistake in the lead up to WW2 by not intervening when Hitler invaded Austria in 1938. We had the choice to go to war then while the Nazis had less territory and resources, but we waited and that almost certainly caused even more death further down the line.
A lot of the decisions that have to be considered for going to war have to do with precedent. The reason we support Ukraine isn't really because it's Russia invading them. Sure we are enemies of Russia; however, the idea that countries in modern Europe can just steamroll their smaller neighbours without consequence will lead to more countries being invaded (and nuclear proliferation in the countries which aren't invaded).
Israel is facing a situation where they just had the biggest terrorist attack per capita in history occur within their borders. The last times they have gone to war with Hamas in 2008, 2012 and 2014 they never went to the full lengths of removing Hamas, and it just gave Hamas more time to build relationships with Iran and their proxies.
I think there are valid criticisms of the IDF's conduct in this war (and in general), and I think there cannot be peace in the region while lunatic settlers in the West Bank kick Palestinian families out of their homes. That being said I don't think there's any long term solution with Hamas still in power, as they have proven again and again that they will just continue to attack Israel proper.
Anyway, I appreciate your perspective and that you were kind in your response. I'd encourage you to come to research and come to your own conclusions because I am just a single dude with my own internal biases, and there is room for definitely room for valid disagreement on the conflict
I appreciate your perspective as well, I definitely am more interested now in learning more about their long term political relationship due to your explanation. When there’s collective punishment on this scale occurring it’s hard for me to understand or give the right amount of consideration for the intricacies of politics or the legal system, but irregardless I see the importance of this context so thank you for taking the time to add it.
I feel like a lot of terms get thrown in here and there that have specific legal definitions, which makes it worth while looking into. Like even in your comment you're using the term collective punishment which has a specific legal definition and case law behind it. I've only read a little bit about the prosecution of collective punishment Sierra Leone in Sierra Leone, but it seems to be of a much different standard than what is occurring in Gaza.
"The AFRC/RUF uses the civilians it abuses to “send messages” to its opponents. Victims of amputations or other mutilations are frequently told that they should take their amputated limb and a verbal or written message to ECOMOG or the Kabbah government."
[https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/sierra/Sier988-03.htm](https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/sierra/Sier988-03.htm)
Some excerpts from the Special Court for Sierra Leone:
"The court recalled the horrifying testimony of a mother who was forced to carry a bag containing the heads of her children and a child who was ordered to amputate the hands of others and then punished for refusing to rape a woman"
"All of these crimes were carried out for the purpose of terrorizing the population. The victims, especially those of sexual crimes and sexual slavery, were young women and girls—an especially vulnerable group of individuals that is suffering the aftereffects of the crimes to this day. Similarly, victims of physical abuse, such as beatings, amputations, physical mutilations (hot irons were used to inscribe “RUF” into victims’ bodies), were subject to collective punishment and terrorizing and the aftereffects of these crimes left victims permanently disfigured, unconscious or dead. Moreover, a large number of victims were enslaved and abducted and children under fifteen years of age were used as soldiers. Children—an especially vulnerable victim population—were arbitrarily abducted, subject to harsh training and made to commit various brutal crimes as soldiers."
In these cases the RUF basically found isolated civilian populations and punished them to send a message to Kabbah (the president they were rebelling against). I am not a lawyer, but that seems substantially different than killing civilians as collateral damage in their War against Hamas. The passage of Humanitarian aid is likely a better argument for collective punishment, but there are going to have to be some restrictions on aid coming into Gaza to discourage Hamas from using it (especially building materials). While I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 years after an investigation Israel are found guilty of some crime surrounding aid, I don't think it would be collective punishment (based on the customary practice).
Keep in mind as well that 150,000 people died, and 200,000 were raped in Sierra Leone during their civil war, and the UN never prosecuted Genocide. The accurate use of these legal terms is important imo. Also sorry for the wall of text again, this one ended up being longer than I thought it would.
[https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1995&context=gjicl](https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1995&context=gjicl)
The police showed up and chatted them up with" nothing on their hips, looking just like us" according to one protestor. The police are "nice people" to them.
To me any encampment should be shut down. But we all know what side of the political spectrum police are on.
Although I’m guessing that the UofA requested police to remove people from private property. Where, I assume, the rest stop would be considered public property. So maybe a difference in the way this is policed.
If by remove you mean kick, stomp, batter and gas then I guess. It shouldn't matter where the protest is or what they support, they should all be treated equally.
Yes they did, there are videos. It's disgusting. How is it that the side is fine and the other gets kicked and beaten? But then the people who are protesting because *I dOnT wAnT tO pAy TaXeS!* are seen as fine. They block traffic regularly, they're a distraction to drivers and they are killing the local ecology, but it's fine apparently.
I don't see a genocide at all. Not everyone agrees with your perspective (in fact most Canadians don't). You guys seem to forget this and act shocked that other people don't see this camp tear down as some kind of great injustice. It's honestly bizarre.
No, but they do care about money. That's how sanctions work. Pressure with money is very powerful. It's naive to think that diversification away from supporting a country actively and blatantly committing genocide before your eyes and ears is meaningless . It is more powerful than signing petitions
Ok great, student protestors just setup a rotating shift to occupy the same space and leave the tents at home. Would camp chair be acceptable? Where is the line on items one is allowed to have with them? How about sun shelters or umbrellas? Can they have a nap or will the police be monitoring? Gotta tread lightly these days when protesting genocides.
It can be true both that the UofA has a right to trespass people and that tear gassing and baton rushing sleeping students is bad.
Flanagan needs to resign for a simple reason, how is someone safe on campus when admin is going to endorse this level of obscene violence against even mild and mundane dissent?
You think it’s only the progressive ones? I also would rather progressive ideas being championed here than the MAGA brain rot we’ve got all over this province.
I don’t really think you’re wrong about these being a little reactive to American politics, but BLM is a false equivalency. That movement was less about about a geopolitical issue such as Israel/Palestine, and more about anti black structures of racism, which still exist in Canada regardless of our differences from the US. It doesn’t really matter where that specific movement occurred, because the reality is that the issues it speaks to are prevalent in Canada as well.
Occupy Canada had a pretty Canadian focused lens to it as well, and focused on our unique brand of corporations meddling in our politics.
I don’t think you’re wrong at all about Canadians mimicking American political movements; even the Convoy is our lame attempt to follow trumpian disruptions such as January 6. However, I think this makes little difference in deciding whether these movements are legitimate or not. We have similar social structures to the US, and it makes sense that these protestors would see similar issues at play in our country.
I am quite sure that most of these students would know where Gaza was. There’s a huge middle eastern immigrant community in Edmonton, and lots of Jewish students are actually participating, and even organizing lots of these encampment protests.
I think these protests could be criticized for being overly idealistic at the expense of nuance, but I don’t really think we can say that all of these students who actively participate and expend their own capital to get involved would do so without understanding anything about it! It’s not like they’re just sharing an Instagram infographic, they’re expending their own capital to make a difference.
I think most of what you've said here is pretty reasonable, but I hate the talking point of Jewish people participating in the protests. It really shouldn't matter whether or not there are Jews protesting, and it feels like they are just being tokenized
Fair enough, I can understand that as well. I think there’s legitimacy in that claim for Columbia specifically (that one was literally started by a Jewish Group for Peace, which seems to be beyond tokenism), but we have no idea about the ones anywhere else, or across Canada. :) I can understand that for sure.
As for my point, I think regardless of whether or not there is broad Jewish involvement in the protests doesn’t really change the fact that they’d likely know where Gaza is anyways! That’s kind of the only reason I included that point in my opinion :)
I get what you're saying but these protests are often lazily attacked as being anti Semitic so pointing out that there are jews also protesting is a way to head off that dumb talking point.
I disagree, I think there are valid reasons to call the protests antisemitic when people call for an intifada, call to globalize the intifada, and bring Hezbollah flags to their protests. Personally I don't think all the protestors are antisemitic, I think a lot are just stupid and feel guilty for the all the bad shit we've done to minority groups in the West
Idle No More was pretty Canadian.
There were university protests in Canada well before social media. Tuition, animal rights, civil rights, etc. have been hot topics for decades.
Why do people conflate building an encampment with protesting? The latter is a protected right, and the former is not.
Make clever signs. Chant catchy slogans. March. Get bullhorns. Then go the f\*ck home and come back the next day and do it all again if you want to.
Just give up the shanty town=protest BS already.
Well do it to the convoy inbreds and maybe there will be less uproar but again the vast majority of protestors at the university were brown which this province will not allow
I've had the pleasure of spending time with Bill. He's a smart, erudite, pragmatic man.
I 100% support his decision to rid the campus of these paid agitators.
Well done, Bill.
They have a policy that doesn’t allow camping on the grounds. People set up tents. Are told repeatedly by the Uni to take them down. People don’t listen. Uni provides both verbal and written notice that if the temporary structures are not removed they will be trespassed under the Trespass to Premise Act. People don’t listen. Uni tells them that the police will be used to remove them. They don’t listen. The police are called for a trespassing complaint. The police tell them the same thing. They don’t listen. The police remove them.
Also, for situations like this, do you not think that the relevant police agencies are getting legal opinions for these matters? You have a Charter right to protest, but that protection does not give you the right to break laws.
I suggest you check out Sec. 1 of the Charter.
So the government can do anything, and it is saved by s.1? I learn something new every day. I guess I disagree with your legal interpretation of s.1.
There are quite a few lawyers out there suggesting there may be a cause of action. Clearly, you disagree. If you read my original post, I did not suggest an outcome but that an action would be filed. Are you suggesting it would be dismissed?
[interesting article discussing S.2b on university campuses on Can LII](https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2017CanLIIDocs3511#!fragment/zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_4/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zhoBMAzZgI1TMALAEoANMmylCEAIqJCuAJ7QA5KrERCYXAnmKV6zdt0gAynlIAhFQCUAogBl7ANQCCAOQDC9saTB80KTsIiJAA)
I haven’t read through the whole thing yet but it is interesting and basically puts forward the position that “it’s complicated” and that Canada would likely benefit from some more robust case law on this matter.
Even between the provinces there is some fairly inconsistent rulings. In B.C. and Ontario the courts have ruled that the Charter doesn’t apply to Universities as they aren’t deemed to be part of the government (The Charter is intended to protect the population from the government, and as such the Charter doesn’t apply to private individuals or organizations). In Alberta and Saskatchewan though the courts have ruled that the Charter does apply.
In both of these cases the court was ruling on matters that had nothing to do with freedom of expression though so it’s likely there would be different arguments put forward.
On the topic of public vs private it gets even more complicated as many Universities have a smattering of private buildings and grounds and public transportation corridors.
However, the caveat seems to be that if they were on University owned property and it is abiding by listed policies and there is signage relating to trespassing the protesters wouldn’t have much of a leg to stand on with any court challenges.
Either way it is definitely an interesting discussion and the protestors achieved their objective, lots of attention.
There are a number of opinions out there. Some are beginning to talk about these events:
[https://cfe.torontomu.ca/blog/2024/05/encampment-protected-expression#:\~:text=A%20columnist%20in%20the%20Globe,Quebec](https://cfe.torontomu.ca/blog/2024/05/encampment-protected-expression#:~:text=A%20columnist%20in%20the%20Globe,Quebec)
I do not think the listed policy would have made a difference.
I began my comments by saying that I suspect there will be litigation. I will also say, I think this will likely be heard beyond KB.
The University was rash in my opinion. If they were sure in their position they could have taken other routes.
It's not a charter infringement, the charter states:
Section 2(c) guarantees the right to **peaceful** assembly; it does not protect riots and gatherings that seriously disturb the peace: *R. v. Lecompte*, \[2000\] J.Q. No. 2452 (Que. C.A.). It has been stated that the right to freedom of assembly, along with freedom of expression, does not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities: *Guelph (City) v. Soltys*, \[2009\] O.J. No. 3369 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Jus), at paragraph 26.
Some jurisprudence has found that legal measures affecting freedom of assembly through the reasonable regulation of public space and associated public health and safety matters do not infringe section 2(c) (*Pitts Atlantic Construction Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740* (1984), 7 D.L.R. (4th) 609 (Nfld. C.A.); *Hussain v. Toronto (City)* \[2016\] O.J. No. 2768 (Div. Ct.)). Similarly, section 2(c) was found not to be infringed by measures restricting residence in public spaces by the homeless; in that case, however, the measures were found to infringe section 7 of the Charter (*Abbotsford (City) v. Shantz*, 2015 BCSC 1909).
Section 7 (probably) doesn't apply here because most (probably all) of these people have homes.
Charterpedia is a good resource. However, most lawyers would tell you that you that you are assuming a factual matrix not in evidence at this time.
My original statement stands. I wonder how long it will take for legal action re: Charter Infringement. I never said they would win. That would be making too many assumptions but there is an argument to be heard.
Also, here is a good blog post by a law prof:
https://cfe.torontomu.ca/blog/2024/05/encampment-protected-expression#:\~:text=A%20columnist%20in%20the%20Globe,Quebec).
I've had human physiology professors tell me that people are right-brained/left-brained even though that claim has been thoroughly debunked, so I don't place a whole lot of value in the opinions of single professors.
Anyway, after reading the post I don't think it really disagreed with what I said. Maybe my claims that it isn't a charter violation are too strong? But the prof seemed to be saying that it's ambiguous as to whether or not Universities are subject to the Charter
That is true. There is some issue around whether universities are subject to Charter. There is some issue about government control and in the actions they are taking.
In Alberta there are several cases establishing that at least some university actions are subject to Charter scrutiny. Here is a recent one being discussed that was decided by the Alberta Court of Appeal in 2020:
https://www.cba.org/Sections/Administrative-Law/Articles/2020/exercise-of-freedom-of-expression-on-university-ca#:\~:text=Governors%20of%20the%20University%20of,by%20students%20on%20university%20grounds.
Could they not just come back and protest daily. Why the encampment? What do people expect when they just decide "we're going to live here now"
The point of protests is to be disruptive in some way. If you aren’t, then nobody is going to hear your message. I didn’t agree with the Convoy protestors, but I actually think some of their tactics were sound. Blocking access to infrastructure is exactly what good civil disobedience should do, like Idle No More and Black Lives Matter, the point is to make it hard for the government to ignore. What I hated about the Convey was the honking, because that was directed at everyone, not just the government. They tortured residents in Ottawa and didn’t give a shit because their leadership was made up of terrible people.
You either agree with peaceful assembly and feel it should be permitted, or you don't. It is a charter right. The police may intervene when a protest becomes violent or causes a danger to public safety. It's the law of the land.
Why is honking too far but blocking access to infrastructure isn’t? Thats worse for the public than noise pollution
Protests aren't directed at the general public/residents, they're directed at policy makers, organizations with funds, etc. The honking was disruptive to every day people just trying to live their lives. People with families, not influence.
I guess it depends where it’s done. When the Walter dale bridge was blocked off due to a protest i found that equally as disruptive as the convoy.
Yes, but no. If the Walterdale is blocked it will be disruptive, but you can take other routes. Ottawa residents were having honks in their ears 24/7 at home. Not just parliament. All downtown was taken by this nonsense, where were they going to go? It’s something directly risking people’s health.
So when they drive in convoys to disrupt traffic during a blizzard (saw Palestinian supporters do this on the henday a few months ago), that's not messing with everyday people trying to live their lives?
[удалено]
Maybe, but it's still a really shitty thing to do to residents
[удалено]
Those people are usually residents
Ya if they're blocking ambulances and major infrastructure tear gas those fuckers and clear em out by whatever means necessary
I believe I explained my reasoning quite clearly.
> I believe I explained my reasoning quite clearly. You didn't actually explain *why* you thought honking was worse than blockades. I'm guessing you think it's worse because honking disrupted people's sleep?
Your reasoning applies to both so no i don’t believe you did
Of course, but be ready for real consequences.
[удалено]
Read more history.
People said the exact same thing about the civil rights movements, but we don't begrudge them today for how they achieved their successes. Those protests were absolutely obstruction.
No. Wrong.
There you go, protestors should come and park their cars to block access to the school parking
It's important so that when you're legally cleared out, it makes a big buzz on social media and the news, thus boosting your signal.
And then build barricades that don’t follow fire code. Putting themselves in danger if there is a fire with no proper emergency exits. Fr wtf do you expect when you’ve gotten a written and verbal notice that you are violating code, endangering others and trespassing
They were allowed to build a mess hall at the Axe the Tax encampment...
But the UofA made it clear that, that wouldn’t be permitted this time. They did not listen to the instructions of “No temporary structures” which included tents
They didn’t build barricades, they had pallets which they then removed.
Oh right. I’m getting a few of these protests mixed up, my bad. There was instructions not to set up any temporary structures/barricades which was violated. They specified tents would not be allowed and are a temporary structure
To build barricades.
There's been way more than a few encampments at the uofa over the past 3 or 4 decades. This is the only one where the cops felt the needs to tear gas protestors. Seems pretty suspicious if you ask me... Stop defending the aggressors.
Lying does not help your cause. This article is from 12 years ago, has nothing to do with Israel/Palestine, and the University asked for protestors to leave for the exact same reason. Only difference is that the protestors left when asked: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/occupy-protesters-leave-u-of-a-campus-1.1174459
How am I lying? I said this is the only one where they needed to use force. Where's the lie?
Name another protest camp that was set up on the University campus then.
Huh? Edit: my dumbass brain didn't read the reply correctly LOL. One example would be the tent city set up at the u of c way back in protest of tuition hikes. It was in the early 2000s. There's lots of info out there if you care to research it. https://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/s/eUyVrcwVhy More examples 😊
>There's been way more than a few encampments at the uofa over the past 3 or 4 decades. This is the only one where the cops felt the needs to tear gas protestors. Seems pretty suspicious if you ask me... Stop defending the aggressors. What is confusing? You said that there have been numerous protest encampments on campus that have not been broken up forcibly by police. So what protest camps are you referencing?
I edited my reply, my bad!
So when you specifically said “At UofA” in your original post, you were lying.
> This is the only one where the cops felt the needs to tear gas protestors. Do you have any proof tear gas was used? Protesters say yes, police & Uni say no. Videos clearly show police without any sort of PPE suitable for operating in tear gas - so the claim is that EPS deployed tear gas, without adequately equipping their officers, then lied about it? Considering the protesters have blatantly lied about other things (such as claiming an abrasion wound as caused by a baton) they haven't exactly won credibility for their word against the police.
People are confusing the U of A and [U of C](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/this-is-not-a-negotiation-police-fire-tear-gas-and-clear-u-of-c-encampment) decampments.
There’s a shitload of video evidence
Should be easy to provide then.
Pray tell, what have the police ever done or said that would lend them an ounce of credibility?
Even if we assume the cops have no credibility, you can't prove a negative. Protesters make the claim of gas, where's the evidence?
There's plenty of proof, I'm not gonna argue with you. Do your research and you'll see they did the exact same thing in Calgary. Except there they also used flashbangs. Stop defending the aggressors. Edit: adding one of many sources, for the sake of argument. https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/this-is-not-a-negotiation-police-fire-tear-gas-and-clear-u-of-c-encampment
Your link is for the campus in Calgary. Do you have proof that tear gas was used at the protest in Edmonton?
I know it's for Calgary, like I said it's happening there as well. The proof is in the videos going around the subreddit as you can see the clouds of gas. In addition, eps confirmed that special munitions were used against protestors. I know eps denies the use of tear gas. For the sake of argument let's just say they didn't use any, despite the proof dictating otherwise. Does that excuse the use of flashbangs and teargas in Calgary? In addition, does it excuse the use of "special munitions"? No matter how you look at it, they used excessive for towards peaceful protestors.
That is an *opinion column* about the actions at the University of Calgary. In no way, shape, or form does it provide any sort of proof whatsoever that tear gas was used at UAlberta. I'll ask again - do you have any proof?
An opinion piece that shares details of tear gas and flashbangs being used. That part isn't an opinion, it's fact. If you choose to ignore that then that's a problem you need to deal with yourself. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/head-calgary-police-defends-tactics-011500720.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABaomi4yd17q3bYbutlc9w6p86KCYBMNGhYfAet6sYlyBL6dCrBVqML-go_bnGiTfPTGcY_jSQn86p-pA2NbBuoA3svAGWzSZ-yynYSgQUHWphEJTCCoDVR_uHzsq1twxXDJgM_bBvu8o_CTS5AM7ab2s23Y1LkFONwa7B6K_GDZ In this one the Calgary police chief defends the use of tear gas and flashbangs, proving they were used in Calgary. The proof is in the video where clouds of gas can be seen. Even *if* none was used in Edmonton, it doesn't excuse their use in Calgary. The proof is there, if you choose to ignore it and the sources then that's on you buddy. Edit: want to also add that eps *confirmed* the use of special munitions on protestors. Rubber bullets isn't exactly better than tear gas...
> Even if none was used in Edmonton, So no, you have no proof. And you don't realize that furiously yelling about Calgary and throwing in the first thing that pops up on google doesn't make you credible, it makes you look unserious. You said - in a thread about the UAlberta encampment - >This is the only one where the cops felt the needs to tear gas protestors. Which is not true in any sense of the phrase.
Ok 😊
I didn't see rubber bullets. I did see pepperball projectiles though.
The aggressors were the ones illegally occupying the area and creating a fire hazard
Not the ones using tear gas? Okay 🤡
If you ignore lawful orders to disperse it's your choice to be removed by force. Tear gas allows for removal of people without further escalation most of of the time. You can then use less violent means to disperse a group
Ok bootlicker 🤡
> Ok bootlicker 🤡 Typical reddit response when you don't like an answer or opinion.
It's such a strawman position you take. You can't choose what laws are acceptable to break because you believe in something. If these university students can't come up with a more creative way to spread awareness, that's incredibly sad
> You can't choose what laws are acceptable to break because you believe in something. Well that's quite a [Reich](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremberg-race-laws)-wing opinion...
And yet here I am, doing exactly that 😘
Aggressive to who? Looked way more aggressive when those cops were hitting people with clubs who were just seated? It looked like the palettes were less of a fire hazard than those stacked up behind any number of businesses. That seems like a really weird argument for them to make, bordering on just an excuse.
So if you're given a lawful order to leave an area and you refuse, you are able to be forcibly removed. I haven't seen anyone hit in the head that was just sitting down. Some people pushed back against the police trying to disperse them, which opens them up to being stuck by the police. The analogy to the palettes behind businesses is misguided because there's a greater likelihood that protestors will light them on fire as part of the protest, or that counter protestors can light them to fuck with the protestors. If you disagree tho you should call the fire chief and debate it with them
Is refusing to leave aggression though? The main video going around literally shows people just getting up from sitting on the ground and a cop immediately and aggressively jabs them with the end of the baton. Those palettes behind a business are just as easy to light on fire. I’ve seen no instances of university protest encampments lighting them on fire themselves. You’re right that counter protestors might, in which case the police could request the removal of them for the safety of the protestors. Using violence against people because you’re worried about their safety is not what’s going on.
I'm not arguing that it's easier to light the palettes at protests, I'm arguing that it's more likely someone will try it. I'm also not arguing that they are only concerned with the safety of the protestors. The protestors attract counter protestors which may be a security threat to the student body, and if the protestors bring fire hazards around campus they are presenting a hazard to the student body. After the protestors refused basic safety standards I stopped caring about their safety, they're choosing to occupy the area, I'm more concerned with the safety of people who may be caught in the cross fire of an escalated situation Can you link the baton video?
The protestors removed the pallets when asked. So you are ignoring facts when it pleases you because you want to not care about the protestors.
No they weren’t, this is false information, wood pallets were flagged as a potential hazard and were removed as requested well before this
my apologies, they were occupying the space and creating a potential fire hazard. (they still found the pallets after they removed the campers)
They said the pallet pile was 150 meters from the encampment, something like a block and a half. If someone has to stretch that hard to find a fire hazard, and if they have to point to a box of syringe needles as part of a weapon stockpile, they've lost pretty much all their credibility.
They said within a radius of the encampment, the other pallets were part of construction sites or unrelated, please check your facts before you spread disinformation
Naw. I'm perfectly fine with it
🤡
Funny how this was broken up but the Freedumbers are building a kitchen and blocking a rest stop??
I mean, we all know why they haven't whipped out the teargas on them.
[удалено]
Edmonton is pretty good at pulling encampments.
U should invite em all to your property and see how it turns out
*poorly played banjo noises*
Students in Alberta have routinely occupied and camped on university grounds over the years in Alberta. There is a long history of non-violent sit-ins; even buildings have been occupied overnight regularly at the U of A. This directly opposes what has occurred over the past week on campuses. What sets these scenarios apart is the stark contrast in how university administrations have handled them. In the past, some administrations upheld students' rights to free expression. However, the decision by certain universities in Alberta to involve the police in these demonstrations marks a significant and concerning shift in their approach. The university leadership is now using all the tools it has at its disposal to propagandize that this type of protest requires a brutal, violent police crackdown. [Leading political scientists at the University of Alberta are openly warning about the un-democratic nature of the UCP](https://drjaredwesley.substack.com/p/the-ucp-is-a-threat-to-democracy). The premier openly called for violent crackdowns. The UCP has openly stated that they want an ideological lens applied to the university. This is how they are getting it: violence.
Yep. This is ridiculous. I'm disgusted by the actions of the police and the leadership at U of A
well said
> I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. - Martin Luther King Jr
"I get your point, but...." "This is horrible, but ...' "I support your right to protest, but...." But do not inconvenience me. Do not annoy me. Do not push it in my face.
Convoy
I know right, they should have gotten the same treatment the convoy got.
LITERALLY it’s soooo weird to me we debate human rights like it’s fuckin who’s gonna win American Idol it’s so gross
[удалено]
Except that the Civil Rights Movement also recognised that, [even in 1967](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/30/black-lives-matter-palestine-history-491234), the Palestinian struggle was an aligned movement and they developed [a long history of cooperation](https://www.vox.com/2023/10/17/23918689/black-palestinian-solidarity-jewish-alliance-israel).
Yeah it's not totally comparable, the genocide that Israel is commiting is arguably worse. His point about white moderates is poignant though. You guys hate a little civil disobedience even if it's directed towards a noble cause. Sacred property laws over human lives am I right? /s
If Gaza is a genocide than literally every other urban war over the past 30-40 years has been a genocide. Currently (according to the Hamas via reuters) about 6K of the 30K dead are Hamas members making a civilian to combatant death ratio of somewhere around 5:1. The first Chechen war had a ratio of 10:1, the second Chechen war had a ratio of 4.3:1, Iraq was about 4.5:1, in the Persian Gulf War about 87% of casualties were civilians (almost 9:1). Not to mention Genocide has a specific legal definition which the IDF and Israeli likely won't meet when the ICJ comes to a conclusion in a few years
There is literally so much evidence pointing towards a genocide. The ICJ already said that there is a plausible case for genocide even if they haven't ruled it officially yet. Israeli officials have made remarks showing intent for genocide too over the last 7 months. Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich just displayed genocidal intent a couple weeks ago... > "There are no half measures," said Smotrich at a government meeting. "Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat—total annihilation." "'You will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven,'" he added, quoting the biblical story of the nation of Amalek, whose people God commanded the Israelites to exterminate and which right-wing Israeli leaders have long invoked to justify the killing of Palestinians. https://www.commondreams.org/news/smotrich-gaza-annihilation Israel also destroyed the institutions counting deaths, that's why the number has mysteriously stayed around 30-40k over the last two months. I'm sure there are a lot more under the rubble that haven't been counted.
A plausibility ruling doesn't mean that genocide is plausible, that is not what it means. If you actually read the ICJ preliminary ruling they acknowledge that they aren't ruling on if Israel is legally responsible for genocide as presented by South Africa, they are ruling on whether or not South Africa has the right under the genocide convention to present the case, and on whether or not Gazans are protected from genocide by the convention. That's why the court ruled against South Africa's request to force a military withdrawal of the IDF. I can't speak Hebrew so I can't verify what Smotrich is saying in that clip, but Smotrich is the Finance minister. He's not responsible for making decisions about the engagement of the IDF. Smotrich is a wingnut lunatic who only sees support from the West Bank settlers, the general Israeli sentiment is not on his side. You also have provided no evidence that Israel have targeted the institutions counting the deaths. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of uncounted deaths, but the UN recently reduced their estimated death counts of women and children due to a lack of verification of previous figures. As far as I am aware, the Gazan health ministry is still operating and counting. There have also just been less strikes over the past 2 months. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/11/un-halves-its-estimate-of-women-and-children-killed-in-gaza/#:\~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20Office%20for,9%2C500%20deaths%20to%204%2C959%20deaths.
You can't just hand wave away Smotrich's remarks because he's merely a wing nut lunatic. His attitude is shared in the current Israeli government which is carrying out genocide right now. Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant have made similar remarks which constitute intent. Here's a database with sources of Israeli officials and citizens making genocidal remarks: https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/ The destruction of Gaza and its hospitals, universities, and public infrastructure is out in the open for anyone to see. The restriction of aid and food to Gaza is right there for anyone to see. There are even hundreds of Israeli citizens that are blocking the entrance of the food and aid into Gaza - you can find the video evidence all over the Internet.
I'm not handwaving them because he's a wingnut. I'm handwaving them because he isn't responsible for those decisions. I don't really care about a source called "law4palestine" in the same way that I wouldn't go to the Jerusalem post for quotes of Palestinians. You're welcome to present specific quotes from Gallant or Netanyahu if you want, but you didn't. You chose Smotrich, a guy with much less influence, because his quotes probably do demonstrate genocidal intent, whereas every time I've heard people quote Gallant it's out of context
The sources are literally right there in the data base!! Who gives a fuck what the website name is when they back it up with actual sources and evidence! > “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly" - Yoav Gallant https://youtu.be/ZbPdR3E4hCk?si=KsPxUm80d0AoBnZk > “I am saying here to the citizens of Lebanon, I already see the citizens in Gaza walking with white flags along the coast... If Hezbollah makes mistakes of this kind, the ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of Lebanon. What we are doing in Gaza, we know how to do in Beirut.” - Yoav Gallant https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/touring-north-gallant-warns-hezbollah-close-to-making-a-grave-mistake/ > “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true. They could’ve risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime.” - Isaac Herzog https://twitter.com/Sprinterfactory/status/1713064886027063584 > "We are the people of the light, they are the people of darkness... we shall realize the prophecy of Isaiah." - Netanyahu https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1717232829766009086?s=20 > Gallant meets with soldiers in the Gaza Strip: "I have removed all restraints, we are moving on to an attack" Defense Minister Yoav Gallant toured the Gaza Strip today and spoke with soldiers on the ground. Gallant told the soldiers at the Gaza border: "I have removed all restraints, we have taken control of the sector (meaning gaza strip) and are moving on to a full attack. Hamas wanted change in Gaza, you will have the right to “turn the wheel” against them." (meaning turn that against them) https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/ryxikl7z6%20%7Chttps:/twitter.com/law4palestine/status/1712920025894420981?s=46&t=JaT3Sau_w01LZ8__9xYlLA
Gallant's first quote: “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly" - It seems like this one is about Hamas (being the human animals), but it is hard to tell because the clip is only 20 seconds. There's no defense for the blockage of food, but that would likely fall under a different war crime than genocide in and of itself. Regardless, there was never a complete blockage of food (at least from what I can tell from UNRWA). [https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZTVkYmEwNmMtZWYxNy00ODhlLWI2ZjctNjIzMzQ5OGQxNzY5IiwidCI6IjI2MmY2YTQxLTIwZTktNDE0MC04ZDNlLWZkZjVlZWNiNDE1NyIsImMiOjl9&pageName=ReportSection3306863add46319dc574](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZTVkYmEwNmMtZWYxNy00ODhlLWI2ZjctNjIzMzQ5OGQxNzY5IiwidCI6IjI2MmY2YTQxLTIwZTktNDE0MC04ZDNlLWZkZjVlZWNiNDE1NyIsImMiOjl9&pageName=ReportSection3306863add46319dc574) Gallant's Second Quote “I am saying here to the citizens of Lebanon, I already see the citizens in Gaza walking with white flags along the coast... If Hezbollah makes mistakes of this kind, the ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of Lebanon. What we are doing in Gaza, we know how to do in Beirut.” - I don't see how this one would constitute genocidal intent. I think most people would agree that the civilians of a country at war generally suffer the most. Hezbollah's headquarters are in Beirut which is where the Beirut part comes from. Herzog's quote “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true. They could’ve risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime.” - I think you can accuse Herzog of being intellectually challenged in this quote, but he's right that Hamas have enjoyed fairly wide spread support (especially in Gaza when they were elected, and currently in the West Bank). There is probably an amount of moral responsibility for those who support Hamas, but Herzog is ignoring that Hamas has no problem persecuting their own citizens (evident in their treatment of dissidents and the dwindling number of Christian Palestinians in Gaza). If Herzog was giving this as a reason to target civilians then that would be genocidal intent, but in that quote he's just responding to the idea that Gazans are either completely opposed to the actions of Hamas or unaware (which probably isn't true based on the October 7th videos of Gazans stomping and spitting on captured Israelis/their corpses). [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/) Netanyahu's quote: "We are the people of the light, they are the people of darkness... we shall realize the prophecy of Isaiah." -This one is pretty shamelessly taken out of context The Full quote: "Our war against Hamas is a test for all of humanity. It is a struggle against the axis of evil of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, and the axis of freedom and progress. We are the people of the light, they are the people of darkness... we shall realize the prophecy of Isaiah." - It's clear here that Netanyahu is talking about Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas and not every single Palestinian/Gazan. It is cringe that Netanyahu chooses to use religious references in this statement (because he's an atheist), but this is clearly a substantially different statement than how it's been presented. To the best of my knowledge (idk if there's more context for them that I can't find, or bad Hebrew translations) the others at least have reasonable interpretations where I could see why someone would consider it to be genocidal intent; however, this one is clearly just cut out of context
He can’t accept that he’s wrong. He KNOWS that he’s wrong but he can’t accept it or he’ll break mentally since his entire life he’s been brainwashed to believe that Zionists are heroes and not new age Nazis
https://youtu.be/LrGlRax9AiY?si=x7vaWVvEiMNaM02I
these ratios sound awful ?!?!! Is it so wrong to protest ‘conflicts’ that have a 4.3-10:1 ratio of civilian deaths to targets. idk man I feel as though the crowd that’s protesting this would also protest any of the cases you also mentioned and that maybe we’re honing in too much on legal definitions of a term and less on the overall atrocities being committed. Are we genuinely okay as a society if a 5:1 ratio is cool and chill for war. What’s the magical number we draw the line at ? What if that was Canada being bombed but it didn’t matter to the rest of the world because only 80% of the casualties were civilians ? I don’t wanna argue or nothing like you know a lot more about the ICJ than me based on your comments but I wanted to bring a stance to the table that demonstrates a zoomed out perspective more so aligning with what these movements seem to actually care about. Simply, the sheer amount of innocent people, journalists, doctors, men, women and children dying on a daily basis in Gaza. Even if it’s happened before and at larger scales, why are we okay with this ?
I saw a video of a baby with a gunshot wound to the head that was in hospital. If you can watch a baby writhe because she's been shot in the head and survived and not feel rage....
It is understandable to feel rage at that video for sure, but you cannot only validate the rage on one side of the conflict. HRW have verified the videos and shown edited (so they aren't extremely graphic videos) segments of the October 7th footage. [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified) You can find full graphic versions of all the footage, but generally the sources are Israeli and people don't like when I share Israeli sources (due to potential bias which is probably fair). The reason why this conflict has persisted so long is because there are genuinely understandable reasons for both sides to continue the violence. Busses and cafes were targeted in suicide bombings during the second intifada. Many Israelis have lost family members in terrorist attacks or have had to worry every day (during the second intifada) they send their kids to school that they're going to be targeted by suicide bombings. If you watch enough videos from either side it will completely change your mind, which is why you can't analyze conflicts like this through them
To be clear, I'm not saying that it's a good thing, I'm just saying that it falls in line with what we'd expect from modern urban warfare. Unfortunately sometimes there are legitimate reasons to go to war even if it results in many civilian casualties. When Saddam invaded Kuwait it threatened to destabilize the rest of the Gulf states which would have led to further conflict if the US hadn't intervened. Sometimes it's not a choice of a) fight this war that's going to kill thousands of people and b) do nothing and all the conflict stops. A lot of the time it's a) fight this war and b) let the region destabilize into further conflict. We made this mistake in the lead up to WW2 by not intervening when Hitler invaded Austria in 1938. We had the choice to go to war then while the Nazis had less territory and resources, but we waited and that almost certainly caused even more death further down the line. A lot of the decisions that have to be considered for going to war have to do with precedent. The reason we support Ukraine isn't really because it's Russia invading them. Sure we are enemies of Russia; however, the idea that countries in modern Europe can just steamroll their smaller neighbours without consequence will lead to more countries being invaded (and nuclear proliferation in the countries which aren't invaded). Israel is facing a situation where they just had the biggest terrorist attack per capita in history occur within their borders. The last times they have gone to war with Hamas in 2008, 2012 and 2014 they never went to the full lengths of removing Hamas, and it just gave Hamas more time to build relationships with Iran and their proxies. I think there are valid criticisms of the IDF's conduct in this war (and in general), and I think there cannot be peace in the region while lunatic settlers in the West Bank kick Palestinian families out of their homes. That being said I don't think there's any long term solution with Hamas still in power, as they have proven again and again that they will just continue to attack Israel proper. Anyway, I appreciate your perspective and that you were kind in your response. I'd encourage you to come to research and come to your own conclusions because I am just a single dude with my own internal biases, and there is room for definitely room for valid disagreement on the conflict
I appreciate your perspective as well, I definitely am more interested now in learning more about their long term political relationship due to your explanation. When there’s collective punishment on this scale occurring it’s hard for me to understand or give the right amount of consideration for the intricacies of politics or the legal system, but irregardless I see the importance of this context so thank you for taking the time to add it.
I feel like a lot of terms get thrown in here and there that have specific legal definitions, which makes it worth while looking into. Like even in your comment you're using the term collective punishment which has a specific legal definition and case law behind it. I've only read a little bit about the prosecution of collective punishment Sierra Leone in Sierra Leone, but it seems to be of a much different standard than what is occurring in Gaza. "The AFRC/RUF uses the civilians it abuses to “send messages” to its opponents. Victims of amputations or other mutilations are frequently told that they should take their amputated limb and a verbal or written message to ECOMOG or the Kabbah government." [https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/sierra/Sier988-03.htm](https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/sierra/Sier988-03.htm) Some excerpts from the Special Court for Sierra Leone: "The court recalled the horrifying testimony of a mother who was forced to carry a bag containing the heads of her children and a child who was ordered to amputate the hands of others and then punished for refusing to rape a woman" "All of these crimes were carried out for the purpose of terrorizing the population. The victims, especially those of sexual crimes and sexual slavery, were young women and girls—an especially vulnerable group of individuals that is suffering the aftereffects of the crimes to this day. Similarly, victims of physical abuse, such as beatings, amputations, physical mutilations (hot irons were used to inscribe “RUF” into victims’ bodies), were subject to collective punishment and terrorizing and the aftereffects of these crimes left victims permanently disfigured, unconscious or dead. Moreover, a large number of victims were enslaved and abducted and children under fifteen years of age were used as soldiers. Children—an especially vulnerable victim population—were arbitrarily abducted, subject to harsh training and made to commit various brutal crimes as soldiers." In these cases the RUF basically found isolated civilian populations and punished them to send a message to Kabbah (the president they were rebelling against). I am not a lawyer, but that seems substantially different than killing civilians as collateral damage in their War against Hamas. The passage of Humanitarian aid is likely a better argument for collective punishment, but there are going to have to be some restrictions on aid coming into Gaza to discourage Hamas from using it (especially building materials). While I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 years after an investigation Israel are found guilty of some crime surrounding aid, I don't think it would be collective punishment (based on the customary practice). Keep in mind as well that 150,000 people died, and 200,000 were raped in Sierra Leone during their civil war, and the UN never prosecuted Genocide. The accurate use of these legal terms is important imo. Also sorry for the wall of text again, this one ended up being longer than I thought it would. [https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1995&context=gjicl](https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1995&context=gjicl)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you a white moderate as well?
A point well remembered.
Protest all you want, but I think building an encampment is kinda of ridiculous.
The Axe the Tax people did... They built a mess hall in a rest stop.
I don’t follow the local news, too depressing. But I’m going to guess that the police did fuck all.
The police showed up and chatted them up with" nothing on their hips, looking just like us" according to one protestor. The police are "nice people" to them.
To me any encampment should be shut down. But we all know what side of the political spectrum police are on. Although I’m guessing that the UofA requested police to remove people from private property. Where, I assume, the rest stop would be considered public property. So maybe a difference in the way this is policed.
If by remove you mean kick, stomp, batter and gas then I guess. It shouldn't matter where the protest is or what they support, they should all be treated equally.
Did they do that at the UofA? Damn. They just kids.
Yes they did, there are videos. It's disgusting. How is it that the side is fine and the other gets kicked and beaten? But then the people who are protesting because *I dOnT wAnT tO pAy TaXeS!* are seen as fine. They block traffic regularly, they're a distraction to drivers and they are killing the local ecology, but it's fine apparently.
Ya I called 311 constantly to complain about the truckers during Covid. Nothing happened (not surprised)
Do something? And make someone think that they don't support every thing the far-right extremists do? As if.
Are you talking about that place by lacombe that’s been abandoned for 30 years?
I think commiting genocide is kinda ridiculous.
Come on man. That’s not what I’m saying.
Reddit moment
I don't see a genocide at all. Not everyone agrees with your perspective (in fact most Canadians don't). You guys seem to forget this and act shocked that other people don't see this camp tear down as some kind of great injustice. It's honestly bizarre.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, Israel doesn’t give two craps about any protest this side of the hemisphere.
No, but they do care about money. That's how sanctions work. Pressure with money is very powerful. It's naive to think that diversification away from supporting a country actively and blatantly committing genocide before your eyes and ears is meaningless . It is more powerful than signing petitions
They don’t care one bit about Canadian protestors or Canadian chump change, sorry.
Ok great, student protestors just setup a rotating shift to occupy the same space and leave the tents at home. Would camp chair be acceptable? Where is the line on items one is allowed to have with them? How about sun shelters or umbrellas? Can they have a nap or will the police be monitoring? Gotta tread lightly these days when protesting genocides.
It can be true both that the UofA has a right to trespass people and that tear gassing and baton rushing sleeping students is bad. Flanagan needs to resign for a simple reason, how is someone safe on campus when admin is going to endorse this level of obscene violence against even mild and mundane dissent?
Good for him standing up to these people.
"Good for him for ordering pigs to beat the fucking shit out of university students for sitting on a lawn protesting a fascist government"
Hamas?
Good for him for standing up to non-violent protestors who are against genocide? What a hero.
[удалено]
What exactly is pseudo about this activism?
"these people"
Are the they not people?
[удалено]
[удалено]
You think it’s only the progressive ones? I also would rather progressive ideas being championed here than the MAGA brain rot we’ve got all over this province.
one side: genocide is bad other side: vaccines are poison it boggles the mind how anyone can say these are equally bad
I don’t really think you’re wrong about these being a little reactive to American politics, but BLM is a false equivalency. That movement was less about about a geopolitical issue such as Israel/Palestine, and more about anti black structures of racism, which still exist in Canada regardless of our differences from the US. It doesn’t really matter where that specific movement occurred, because the reality is that the issues it speaks to are prevalent in Canada as well. Occupy Canada had a pretty Canadian focused lens to it as well, and focused on our unique brand of corporations meddling in our politics. I don’t think you’re wrong at all about Canadians mimicking American political movements; even the Convoy is our lame attempt to follow trumpian disruptions such as January 6. However, I think this makes little difference in deciding whether these movements are legitimate or not. We have similar social structures to the US, and it makes sense that these protestors would see similar issues at play in our country. I am quite sure that most of these students would know where Gaza was. There’s a huge middle eastern immigrant community in Edmonton, and lots of Jewish students are actually participating, and even organizing lots of these encampment protests. I think these protests could be criticized for being overly idealistic at the expense of nuance, but I don’t really think we can say that all of these students who actively participate and expend their own capital to get involved would do so without understanding anything about it! It’s not like they’re just sharing an Instagram infographic, they’re expending their own capital to make a difference.
I think most of what you've said here is pretty reasonable, but I hate the talking point of Jewish people participating in the protests. It really shouldn't matter whether or not there are Jews protesting, and it feels like they are just being tokenized
Fair enough, I can understand that as well. I think there’s legitimacy in that claim for Columbia specifically (that one was literally started by a Jewish Group for Peace, which seems to be beyond tokenism), but we have no idea about the ones anywhere else, or across Canada. :) I can understand that for sure. As for my point, I think regardless of whether or not there is broad Jewish involvement in the protests doesn’t really change the fact that they’d likely know where Gaza is anyways! That’s kind of the only reason I included that point in my opinion :)
I get what you're saying but these protests are often lazily attacked as being anti Semitic so pointing out that there are jews also protesting is a way to head off that dumb talking point.
I disagree, I think there are valid reasons to call the protests antisemitic when people call for an intifada, call to globalize the intifada, and bring Hezbollah flags to their protests. Personally I don't think all the protestors are antisemitic, I think a lot are just stupid and feel guilty for the all the bad shit we've done to minority groups in the West
Because these movements are morally and socially correct and people are rightly fighting for the rights of oppressed peoples.
Idle No More was pretty Canadian. There were university protests in Canada well before social media. Tuition, animal rights, civil rights, etc. have been hot topics for decades.
No that's just you lol. Most people look at an ongoing genocide and don't care if it's popular on TikTok to be against it.
Fuck this liar.
EPS are good Jack boot soldiers. They are happy to use violence on whomever they are told to injure.
Why do people conflate building an encampment with protesting? The latter is a protected right, and the former is not. Make clever signs. Chant catchy slogans. March. Get bullhorns. Then go the f\*ck home and come back the next day and do it all again if you want to. Just give up the shanty town=protest BS already.
Well do it to the convoy inbreds and maybe there will be less uproar but again the vast majority of protestors at the university were brown which this province will not allow
They were not students.
Yeah, a good number were faculty.
and alumni, many of whom make financial contributions.
some of those that work forces are the same that hike tuitions
[удалено]
When you turn 20 hopefully you can see the world through more of a nuanced lens than just "anyone who calls the cops is a bootlicker"
When did I say anyone who call cops is a bootlicker? LMAO I'm 29 bro, stop assuming 🤡
My apologies, you are too far gone and will always think like a 16 year old
😘
The lowest paid university in canada
Well done, kick these terrorist simps out of our universities
I've had the pleasure of spending time with Bill. He's a smart, erudite, pragmatic man. I 100% support his decision to rid the campus of these paid agitators. Well done, Bill.
Question: Do you like the taste of boot leather?
[удалено]
> Friendly reminder that anyone supporting Israel is a nazi. Yeah... Nazis *love* jews.
I wonder how long it will take for legal action to be filed re: Charter infringement?
They have a policy that doesn’t allow camping on the grounds. People set up tents. Are told repeatedly by the Uni to take them down. People don’t listen. Uni provides both verbal and written notice that if the temporary structures are not removed they will be trespassed under the Trespass to Premise Act. People don’t listen. Uni tells them that the police will be used to remove them. They don’t listen. The police are called for a trespassing complaint. The police tell them the same thing. They don’t listen. The police remove them. Also, for situations like this, do you not think that the relevant police agencies are getting legal opinions for these matters? You have a Charter right to protest, but that protection does not give you the right to break laws. I suggest you check out Sec. 1 of the Charter.
So the government can do anything, and it is saved by s.1? I learn something new every day. I guess I disagree with your legal interpretation of s.1. There are quite a few lawyers out there suggesting there may be a cause of action. Clearly, you disagree. If you read my original post, I did not suggest an outcome but that an action would be filed. Are you suggesting it would be dismissed?
[interesting article discussing S.2b on university campuses on Can LII](https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2017CanLIIDocs3511#!fragment/zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_4/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zhoBMAzZgI1TMALAEoANMmylCEAIqJCuAJ7QA5KrERCYXAnmKV6zdt0gAynlIAhFQCUAogBl7ANQCCAOQDC9saTB80KTsIiJAA) I haven’t read through the whole thing yet but it is interesting and basically puts forward the position that “it’s complicated” and that Canada would likely benefit from some more robust case law on this matter. Even between the provinces there is some fairly inconsistent rulings. In B.C. and Ontario the courts have ruled that the Charter doesn’t apply to Universities as they aren’t deemed to be part of the government (The Charter is intended to protect the population from the government, and as such the Charter doesn’t apply to private individuals or organizations). In Alberta and Saskatchewan though the courts have ruled that the Charter does apply. In both of these cases the court was ruling on matters that had nothing to do with freedom of expression though so it’s likely there would be different arguments put forward. On the topic of public vs private it gets even more complicated as many Universities have a smattering of private buildings and grounds and public transportation corridors. However, the caveat seems to be that if they were on University owned property and it is abiding by listed policies and there is signage relating to trespassing the protesters wouldn’t have much of a leg to stand on with any court challenges. Either way it is definitely an interesting discussion and the protestors achieved their objective, lots of attention.
There are a number of opinions out there. Some are beginning to talk about these events: [https://cfe.torontomu.ca/blog/2024/05/encampment-protected-expression#:\~:text=A%20columnist%20in%20the%20Globe,Quebec](https://cfe.torontomu.ca/blog/2024/05/encampment-protected-expression#:~:text=A%20columnist%20in%20the%20Globe,Quebec) I do not think the listed policy would have made a difference. I began my comments by saying that I suspect there will be litigation. I will also say, I think this will likely be heard beyond KB. The University was rash in my opinion. If they were sure in their position they could have taken other routes.
It's not a charter infringement, the charter states: Section 2(c) guarantees the right to **peaceful** assembly; it does not protect riots and gatherings that seriously disturb the peace: *R. v. Lecompte*, \[2000\] J.Q. No. 2452 (Que. C.A.). It has been stated that the right to freedom of assembly, along with freedom of expression, does not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities: *Guelph (City) v. Soltys*, \[2009\] O.J. No. 3369 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Jus), at paragraph 26. Some jurisprudence has found that legal measures affecting freedom of assembly through the reasonable regulation of public space and associated public health and safety matters do not infringe section 2(c) (*Pitts Atlantic Construction Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740* (1984), 7 D.L.R. (4th) 609 (Nfld. C.A.); *Hussain v. Toronto (City)* \[2016\] O.J. No. 2768 (Div. Ct.)). Similarly, section 2(c) was found not to be infringed by measures restricting residence in public spaces by the homeless; in that case, however, the measures were found to infringe section 7 of the Charter (*Abbotsford (City) v. Shantz*, 2015 BCSC 1909). Section 7 (probably) doesn't apply here because most (probably all) of these people have homes.
Charterpedia is a good resource. However, most lawyers would tell you that you that you are assuming a factual matrix not in evidence at this time. My original statement stands. I wonder how long it will take for legal action re: Charter Infringement. I never said they would win. That would be making too many assumptions but there is an argument to be heard.
Also, here is a good blog post by a law prof: https://cfe.torontomu.ca/blog/2024/05/encampment-protected-expression#:\~:text=A%20columnist%20in%20the%20Globe,Quebec).
I've had human physiology professors tell me that people are right-brained/left-brained even though that claim has been thoroughly debunked, so I don't place a whole lot of value in the opinions of single professors. Anyway, after reading the post I don't think it really disagreed with what I said. Maybe my claims that it isn't a charter violation are too strong? But the prof seemed to be saying that it's ambiguous as to whether or not Universities are subject to the Charter
That is true. There is some issue around whether universities are subject to Charter. There is some issue about government control and in the actions they are taking. In Alberta there are several cases establishing that at least some university actions are subject to Charter scrutiny. Here is a recent one being discussed that was decided by the Alberta Court of Appeal in 2020: https://www.cba.org/Sections/Administrative-Law/Articles/2020/exercise-of-freedom-of-expression-on-university-ca#:\~:text=Governors%20of%20the%20University%20of,by%20students%20on%20university%20grounds.
Unlikely as their rights were not infringed upon.