The University of Waterloo has issued a legal Trespass Notice to the encampment protesters, a mere two days after the release of its Task Force on Free Expression report. The notice states that encampment members who do not immediately vacate the premises “risk facing consequences consistent Trespass to Property Act” (Ontario).
The university administration is being deliberately vague with concerns over safety and disruption so that it can justify a predetermined course of action, which is to get rid of the protesters.
Strictly, I believe the university administration has the authority to administer the university, but, geez, isn't the popular concept of a university a place where students protest?
I don't know who (Board, President, Senate) is responsible for this, but it's a black mark on them.
The administration did what it could to prevent its handling of the encampment from ever being even debated at Senate. There was a request to put this matter on the agenda which was turned down. So the administration is acting on their own here.
Not only does the encampment not block any buildings, it doesn't even block any paths. They're occupying a grassy hill. If there are "added risks" that justify enforcement against the encampment, the University should be able to clearly identify and articulate them.
I'd add: if the protesters were blocking the freedom of movement of others, that WOULD constitute undue interference with campus operations, and I wouldn't object to enforcement. But barring new information, this has consistently been an unobstructive, peaceful protest.
The university administration is being deliberately vague with concerns over safety and disruption so that it can justify a predetermined course of action, which is to get rid of the protesters.
Indeed, I suspect you're right.
Strictly, I believe the university administration has the authority to administer the university, but, geez, isn't the popular concept of a university a place where students protest?
I don't know who (Board, President, Senate) is responsible for this, but it's a black mark on them.
The administration did what it could to prevent its handling of the encampment from ever being even debated at Senate. There was a request to put this matter on the agenda which was turned down. So the administration is acting on their own here.
Does not the "encampment" issue create problems for any business, public or private?
The public health and safety of the campers would be a consideration.
The same expressions of freedom of expression and gathering could be accomplished by picketing daily about the issues at hand without the added risks.
Not only does the encampment not block any buildings, it doesn't even block any paths. They're occupying a grassy hill. If there are "added risks" that justify enforcement against the encampment, the University should be able to clearly identify and articulate them.
I'd add: if the protesters were blocking the freedom of movement of others, that WOULD constitute undue interference with campus operations, and I wouldn't object to enforcement. But barring new information, this has consistently been an unobstructive, peaceful protest.