Only one week after protesters established an encampment on the grounds at the University of Waterloo, the administration issued a “formal notice” demanding that it come to an end. Readers of my two previous posts on the ongoing protests will probably understand why this formal notice is a gross violation of free expression and the right to peaceful assembly: the protest has been completely peaceful and it has caused zero meaningful disruption to campus operations. It is confined to a single hilly area. As of yesterday, the last time I viewed the area, not a single laneway, let alone a building, is blocked from access.
Solid arguments, start to finish. The problem is not the students protesting; it is the administration's bogus arguments based on "safety" or "fear." The heavy-handed use of police force to remove protesters is far more concerning and is far more likely to lead to violence.
It's fascinating to juxtapose the invocation of "trespassing", which is often associated with private property, with the various land and territorial acknowledgement that universities often engage in. Appearing to embrace a more public/shared vision of the campus space.
"… almost all of the violence associated with these protests across North America - including recently in Alberta - has not been the result of the protesters but of unacceptably swift and unjustified institutional attempts to shut down otherwise peaceful protests."
The breaking up of the demonstration encampments is more violent than the purported violence in the camps themselves.
The jurisprudence on this is mixed. A landmark SCC case on mandatory retirement rules held that universities were not "government" for Charter purposes many years ago, but since then there are cases where courts have applied the Charter in the campus free expression context. And I've argued that, coupled with the recent Ontario govenrment regulation of 'free speech policies' at Universities, means that the Charter applies in these contexts.
How you can assert that: "In almost all of the circumstances that we're seeing, including at my own university at University of Waterloo, the encampments have indeed been peaceful.” This is factually incorrect. From Harvard to Columbia to UCLA to McGill to U of T and beyond, virtually every encampment has had documented incidents of violence and antisemitism, many of which were outlined in the US House hearings. You double down on this by stating that "the violence associated with these protests across North America has not been the result of the protesters but of unacceptably swift and unjustified institutional attempts to shut down otherwise peaceful protests" while not providing a shred of proof. In fact, as mentioned, the US House cited many incidents of violence and overt antisemitism by encampment members that were not a result of "swift and unjustified institutional attempts" to shut them down, as if that's a legit excuse for that kind of behaviour anyway. I'm all for protesting -- it's paramount in a healthy democracy -- and there is plenty to protest with regards to this conflict, but there is nothing peaceful about targeting, delegitimizing and calling for the destruction of the only Jewish country -- the sole pluralistic democracy in the region -- while turning a blind eye to the Palestinian government of Hamas' actions, like people in these encampments are doing, even if you're not actively beating people up (which HAS happened in many encampments).
In fact, U of T protest camp spokesperson Sara Rasikh, in a news conference, in reference to the university's offer to study the possibility of divestment said: "It's a shame the institution is 76 years, 3 months late in divesting from Israel."
And you have the gall and dishonesty to contend that these are peaceful protests. Either you have no issues lying or you're willfully ignorant.
The fact that you are using the example of this statement, reflecting someone's (however silly, wrong, or offensive) political views, as evidence that these are not "peaceful" protests says it all. I don't think you understand the concept.
Also, if you believe that calling for the destruction of Israel is peaceful, we can instead focus on the documented instances of physical violence by the protestors that I mentioned earlier but you chose to ignore.
Facts say otherwise. You keep me making that claim, and while I point to concrete evidence documented by the US House about antisemitic incidents in the universities I mentioned, you have made empty claims with no proof that runs counter to evidence. Doing so to places like the Canadian Press and passing it off as facts. And, like I said, even when there's no physical violence involved, making statements like the one U of T spokesperson made, who speaks for all hundreds of the encampment members there, is not peaceful. Do you think it is?
Solid arguments, start to finish. The problem is not the students protesting; it is the administration's bogus arguments based on "safety" or "fear." The heavy-handed use of police force to remove protesters is far more concerning and is far more likely to lead to violence.
It's fascinating to juxtapose the invocation of "trespassing", which is often associated with private property, with the various land and territorial acknowledgement that universities often engage in. Appearing to embrace a more public/shared vision of the campus space.
Worth repeating:
"… almost all of the violence associated with these protests across North America - including recently in Alberta - has not been the result of the protesters but of unacceptably swift and unjustified institutional attempts to shut down otherwise peaceful protests."
The breaking up of the demonstration encampments is more violent than the purported violence in the camps themselves.
What have the ON courts held re application of Charter rights (expression), to activities on uni premises?
The jurisprudence on this is mixed. A landmark SCC case on mandatory retirement rules held that universities were not "government" for Charter purposes many years ago, but since then there are cases where courts have applied the Charter in the campus free expression context. And I've argued that, coupled with the recent Ontario govenrment regulation of 'free speech policies' at Universities, means that the Charter applies in these contexts.
How you can assert that: "In almost all of the circumstances that we're seeing, including at my own university at University of Waterloo, the encampments have indeed been peaceful.” This is factually incorrect. From Harvard to Columbia to UCLA to McGill to U of T and beyond, virtually every encampment has had documented incidents of violence and antisemitism, many of which were outlined in the US House hearings. You double down on this by stating that "the violence associated with these protests across North America has not been the result of the protesters but of unacceptably swift and unjustified institutional attempts to shut down otherwise peaceful protests" while not providing a shred of proof. In fact, as mentioned, the US House cited many incidents of violence and overt antisemitism by encampment members that were not a result of "swift and unjustified institutional attempts" to shut them down, as if that's a legit excuse for that kind of behaviour anyway. I'm all for protesting -- it's paramount in a healthy democracy -- and there is plenty to protest with regards to this conflict, but there is nothing peaceful about targeting, delegitimizing and calling for the destruction of the only Jewish country -- the sole pluralistic democracy in the region -- while turning a blind eye to the Palestinian government of Hamas' actions, like people in these encampments are doing, even if you're not actively beating people up (which HAS happened in many encampments).
In fact, U of T protest camp spokesperson Sara Rasikh, in a news conference, in reference to the university's offer to study the possibility of divestment said: "It's a shame the institution is 76 years, 3 months late in divesting from Israel."
And you have the gall and dishonesty to contend that these are peaceful protests. Either you have no issues lying or you're willfully ignorant.
The fact that you are using the example of this statement, reflecting someone's (however silly, wrong, or offensive) political views, as evidence that these are not "peaceful" protests says it all. I don't think you understand the concept.
This is the representative of the U of T encampments. Is that statement peaceful?
Calling for divestment from Israel is not violence, so yes, it is inherently "peaceful". And lawful.
That is not what I asked you. Do you think that statement is peaceful?
Also, if you believe that calling for the destruction of Israel is peaceful, we can instead focus on the documented instances of physical violence by the protestors that I mentioned earlier but you chose to ignore.
Your claims in your original post that most of these campus protests has seen violence perpetrated by protesters is simply untrue.
Facts say otherwise. You keep me making that claim, and while I point to concrete evidence documented by the US House about antisemitic incidents in the universities I mentioned, you have made empty claims with no proof that runs counter to evidence. Doing so to places like the Canadian Press and passing it off as facts. And, like I said, even when there's no physical violence involved, making statements like the one U of T spokesperson made, who speaks for all hundreds of the encampment members there, is not peaceful. Do you think it is?