Quebec Student Protests.

[Jorghnassen]

David Suzuki's perspective, just because.

 

[Caper]

??

Sorry. I meant that in a fiscally responsible sense (and corruption).

 

[tomwaits]

Sorry. I meant that in a fiscally responsible sense (and corruption).

Oh ok, haha. I was like "Since when was there a separationist movement in Illinois?!"

 

[Morrigan]

If you compare the cost to the states where in some of the private universities you can get charged for $160,000 for a four year degree I really don't what they are prostesting about.

So because the neighbour country have it worse, we shouldn't try to protect something good that we have? We should just bend over and take it?

There have always been restrictions on people's ability to protest. Activities that result in public property damage, and/or situations where protester activity affects the freedom of others.

This isn't what Bill 78 does, though. It's pure fascism, plain and simple.

Whether or not you think the student protests are "quite stupid" (feel free to give a better argument than "b-b-but others already pay more in tuition!", if you please), there is no way a sane, rational and non-fascist person should support Bill 78. And not only is the law blatantly repressive, it's completely counter-productive in its goals. Hence the casseroles currently going on.

 

[Caper]

So because the neighbour country have it worse, we shouldn't try to protect something good that we have? We should just bend over and take it?

This isn't what Bill 78 does, though. It's pure fascism, plain and simple.

Whether or not you think the student protests are "quite stupid" (feel free to give a better argument than "b-b-but others already pay more in tuition!", if you please), there is no way a sane, rational and non-fascist person should support Bill 78. And not only is the law blatantly repressive, it's completely counter-productive in its goals. Hence the casseroles currently going on.

Are you a Quebec student?

 

[Davidlpf]

So because the neighbour country have it worse, we shouldn't try to protect something good that we have? We should just bend over and take it?

Just simply realize how good they have it in the first place.

 

[Segnosaur]

Before suggesting that one province is only successful because of its "big pile of valuable stuff" keep in mind that its not just resources, but how they're managed that's important.

...
The assumption isn't that the only reason A is successful is because he happens to be sitting on a big pile of valuable stuff; only that that's part of the reason.

The problem though is that your original post mentioned nothing about how resources are managed. The only reason you gave for "A being successful" is the "big pile of stuff".

 

[Segnosaur]

- May have never attended college/university. So they never had the benefit of "subsidized" higher education.

There's no benefit to living in a well-educated society if you yourself do not attend university?

Guess I should have been more exact when I posted earlier...

There is no direct benefit for me to subsidize another person's education.

Now, you are right in that it is a benefit for a person to live in a "well-educated" society. However, not all areas of academic schooling provide the same level of benefit to society as a whole. It may help me to (for example) subsidize the education of a potential doctor, or engineer. (But then, those people will probably end up earning a significant amount of money so they can afford to go into debt for their education.) On the other hand, the student who studies Underwater Basket Weaving provides little or no benefit to society as a whole (and most certainly less than whatever subsidies are provided to him.)

 

[blobru]

The problem though is that your original post mentioned nothing about how resources are managed. The only reason you gave for "A being successful" is the "big pile of stuff".

Resource management (as what led to the profits) wasn't mentioned explicitly, no. Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

 

[Segnosaur]

If you compare the cost to the states where in some of the private universities you can get charged for $160,000 for a four year degree I really don't what they are prostesting about.

So because the neighbour country have it worse, we shouldn't try to protect something good that we have? We should just bend over and take it?

First of all, keep in mind that its just not the neighboring country that "has it worse"... the average tuition in other provinces is also higher than in Quebec. Yet students there have been paying those higher fees for years. (And without the type of protests that are going on in Quebec.)

Why exactly do you think Quebec students should be entitled to higher education subsidies that (for example) students in Ontario? Are Quebec students incompetent (so they can't handle the higher costs)? Or should we be putting them on some sort of pedestal? (Behold the Quebec student! We should give him everything they want!)

And just who are you referring to when you talk about how good "we" have it? Who is the "we" you are referring to? Remember, its not just the students themselves, but Quebec and Canada has a whole who are affected... Quebec students may "have it good" with higher subidies but that does not mean that the situation is good for Quebec or Canada as a whole.

There have always been restrictions on people's ability to protest. Activities that result in public property damage, and/or situations where protester activity affects the freedom of others.

This isn't what Bill 78 does, though. It's pure fascism, plain and simple.

Ah yes, lets toss around the "fascism" label, like that is some sort of magic talisman.

You do realize that a real "fascist" system has quite a few more restrictions than those imposed by Bill 78. Even if Bill 78 goes too far in trying to fix various problems caused by the strikes, labeling it "fascism" is basically just empty rhetoric... it minimizes the evil of real fascism and makes those applying the label look like wingnuts.

So, just how do you propose the Quebec government handle situations like:

- Student protesters who vandalized the Montreal subway (April 16/May 10), threw Molotov Cocktails (April 16) and blocking commuter traffic (March 21)? Do you consider such activities acceptable?

- Student protestors who attempted to disrupt ongoing classes for students who wanted to be in school (May 16)? Do you feel that the rights of the protesters trumps the right of students who wish to continue studying?

Oh, and by the way, all those events happened before Bill 78 was even introduced.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ca...medium=nextArticleDirect&utm_campaign=/canada

Whether or not you think the student protests are "quite stupid" (feel free to give a better argument than "b-b-but others already pay more in tuition!", if you please)

Ummm... why should we need any more arguments than that?

Why exactly are you assuming that the amount of subsidies given to the Quebec students is necessarily right?

...there is no way a sane, rational and non-fascist person should support Bill 78. And not only is the law blatantly repressive, it's completely counter-productive in its goals. Hence the casseroles currently going on.

Yeah, not like there wasn't vandalism, violence, and general public disruption/destruction before bill 78 was brought in.

Oh wait! There was!

 

[stilicho]

What's your opinion. I think they are kind of stupid.

Here is the background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests

Most people on here are at least left leaning. These people are fairly leftist. But I'm thinking most on here wouldn't even support them.

Try and convince me these protests are worth while and important.

It's mostly political now as the students are generally opposed to the Charest government. The odd part about it is that Charest appears to be surrendering popularity not to the PQ but to the new pro-business party.

 

[stilicho]

....

This isn't what Bill 78 does, though. It's pure fascism, plain and simple.

....

Fascist in the literal sense or in some fairly abstract sense?

Bill 78 is actually just a bad law and an easily ignored one too. I don't see it exactly as a precursor to invading Eritrea.

 

[Madalch]

But then, those people will probably end up earning a significant amount of money so they can afford to go into debt for their education.

So if the education's worth getting, it's worth paying whatever price it takes, even if you do starve to death half-way through your third year. And if your parents can't get you a loan, then you were destined to wait tables for life, anyway.

That sounds a lot like what Ralph Klein would say.

 

[Segnosaur]

So if the education's worth getting, it's worth paying whatever price it takes, even if you do starve to death half-way through your third year. And if your parents can't get you a loan, then you were destined to wait tables for life, anyway.

Oh my god! that sounds horrible!

Too bad its more of a 'made up' situation in your mind.

You do realize that there are various loans and grants supported by various levels of government, with loans given at very good terms. And of course this is in addition to banks who are willing to give private loans.

So, your suggestion that people "starve to death" half way through their education is largely a red herring. (Unless of course a student mismanages their money, or sends it on "beer and popcorn", in which case I don't think its the government's job to handhold everyone.)

And even if there are people who run short on cash mid-way through their education (through no fault of their own), the better solution would be to improve the loans programs (which is part of what the Quebec government offered), rather than simply cutting everyone's tuition.

It also must be repeated... Quebec's tuition is far below that of other provinces. In 2009 Quebec had 68.000 university graduates. Ontario had 98,000 university graduates. In both provinces the number of graduates is roughly consistent with the populations of both provinces. So pretty much the same number of students in Ontario graduate compared to Quebec.

But, I guess that doesn't sound as good as "Oh my god! you hate students! Blah blah Fascism! Blah blah"

 

[lomiller]

For the record I think the students protests are unrealistic. Even with the increase they are paying nowhere near what most otehr people pay for a university education and nowhere near the cost of providing that education. That said...

So because the neighbour country have it worse, we shouldn't try to protect something good that we have? We should just bend over and take it?

This isn't what Bill 78 does, though. It's pure fascism, plain and simple.

Whether or not you think the student protests are "quite stupid" (feel free to give a better argument than "b-b-but others already pay more in tuition!", if you please), there is no way a sane, rational and non-fascist person should support Bill 78. And not only is the law blatantly repressive, it's completely counter-productive in its goals. Hence the casseroles currently going on.

The funny thing is that 2 years ago Segnosaur was outrages that Ann Coulter didn't get the speak even though she cancels the speech herself apparently it was a great offense to freedom of speech.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170850

Then again didn't think the protesters had a right to be heard either. Apparently free speech only applies to things he supports, otherwise you are supposed to shut up and move along quietly.

 

[lopeyschools]

So if the education's worth getting, it's worth paying whatever price it takes, even if you do starve to death half-way through your third year. And if your parents can't get you a loan, then you were destined to wait tables for life, anyway.

That sounds a lot like what Ralph Klein would say.

I don't think anyone is suggesting an American "pay vast sums model" but rather a pay a few more thousand per year. Instead of a hundred days of protest, a hundred days of work might have been a better use of time.

 

[Segnosaur]

The funny thing is that 2 years ago Segnosaur was outrages that Ann Coulter didn't get the speak even though she cancels the speech herself apparently it was a great offense to freedom of speech.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170850

Then again didn't think the protesters had a right to be heard either. Apparently free speech only applies to things he supports, otherwise you are supposed to shut up and move along quietly.

Errr... not really. A total misrepresentation of my opinion.

My opinion has always been that the right of free speech should not belong to those with the loudest megaphone, and that allowing one person to exercise their basic freedoms should not negatively impact the freedoms of others.

Ann Coulter had the right to speak in any format she chose. People attending the speech had the right to assemble and listen to whatever she had to say. Their rights are not trumped simply because people opposed to her want to come there and shout over her. I would feel exactly the same way if (for example) Michael Moore or Robert Fisk were to have a speech and some Canadian conservative group tried to stop the proceedings by blocking entrances or gate-crashing.

Similarly, the students do have a right to complain about the tuition hikes. But their right to complain ends when it involves interfering with the rights of students who actually wish to continue attending class (you know, the right of assembly), and/or the rights of commuters who want to use public transportation systems, and/or the rights of individuals to live without being put in harms way (you know, the right of personal security). Disrupting classes, blocking roads, using smoke bombs in subways, and throwing Molotov Cocktails all interfere with those rights.

The fact that you would characterize my position as "Free speech only applies to things I support" shows either that you are either an idiot, or a liar.

In fact, I never even said I liked Coulter or any of the messages she had.. In the the thread you referred to, I even stated: I am not a fan of Ann Coulter. I have never read any of her books, watched any interviews with her, or read any of her articles. From what I have heard of her, she sounds like an idiot. (This was right in the opening post!) Basically, I was defending someone I don't agree with. So much for your claim that I only like free speech for "things I support".

 

[lopeyschools]

I've talked with some Quebec students on this matter and quite frankly I'm unimpressed with their arguments. Refering to their education as "sacred," led me to believe that they don't really have a good argument, it's just a matter of personnel belief.

I think free education would be nice, but IMHO Quebec simply can't afford it without raising taxes. Quebec already has the highest taxes in the country. I don't really see a problem with student loans either. AFAIK you don't incur interest or have to pay anything until you graduate.

 

[lomiller]

Ann Coulter had the right to speak in any format she chose. People attending the speech had the right to assemble and listen to whatever she had to say. Their rights are not trumped simply because people opposed to her want to come there and shout over her. I would feel exactly the same way if (for example)

If they break laws then enforce the law and arrest them. If they are not breaking any current laws then what is the problem?

A new law would only be required if the activity was currently legal. The analogue would be if they passed a law saying Coulter wasn’t allowed to speak at all, and given that you were outraged that people dared protest her speech or that she cancelled it on her own as a result I can’t imagine how upset you would have been if free speech had actually been hindered...

The fact that you would characterize my position as "Free speech only applies to things I support" shows either that you are either an idiot, or a liar.

The fact that you resort to attacks when people say things you don't like to hear simply supports my position that you only want free speech for things you agree with.

Your rationalizations are just that. If you support free speech you shouldn’t need to justify why it’s good it one case and not in another. As I said above, if laws are already being broken than no new ones are required, if no laws are being broken then the new one can only be because someone doesn’t like what’s being said.

 

[Corsair 115]

As I said above, if laws are already being broken than no new ones are required, if no laws are being broken then the new one can only be because someone doesn’t like what’s being said.

Not necessarily. It may be that current law does not adequately address certain situations, and new law is required to properly deal with those situations.