Words do matter. Statements do matter. Take note, Obama (and presidents to come). Taking a clear and explicit stance on an ostensibly contentious issue does make a difference.

There have been multiple protest marches every day and night for the last three months, and almost no violence (that includes several marches of 200 000+)--and most of the violence hasn't even been perpetrated by marching students, as Montréal's chief of police admits.

Yes, the protests have been extremely disruptive of Montréal's downtown core. Yes, that really sucks and is horrible for business. But it's entirely legal, and hell, that's what protests do and are for. It's the protesters' only bargaining chip. Peaceful protests that aren't disruptive of everyday life don't exactly achieve much.

Either that was a serious misstep, or the provincial government is going to extreme lengths to divert attention away from the ongoing inquiry into corruption and mafia links.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
FWIW, "Law" 78 (scroll down to 'External links' for the English text of the law is draconian and disproportionate, given the state of the situation, unacceptable, and probably unconstitutional.

There have been multiple protest marches every day and night for the last three months, and almost no violence (that includes several marches of 200 000+)--and most of the violence hasn't even been perpetrated by marching students, as Montréal's chief of police admits.

Yes, the protests have been extremely disruptive of Montréal's downtown core. Yes, that really sucks and is horrible for business. But it's entirely legal, and hell, that's what protests do and are for. It's the protesters' only bargaining chip. Peaceful protests that aren't disruptive of everyday life don't exactly achieve much.

Either that was a serious misstep, or the provincial government is going to extreme lengths to divert attention away from the ongoing inquiry into corruption and mafia links.

---

If I'm reading this correctly, this law would essentially abolish the freedom to assembly for quebecians (?).

Strange that such rights are revocable under bills like this. It seems like the most likely course of action is that the protests will simply promptly become disorderly and violent when police are compelled to break them up under the new law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
If I'm reading this correctly, this law would essentially abolish the freedom to assembly for quebecians (?).

---

Yup, you read it correctly. Even the Québec Bar Association has serious doubts about its constitutionality. (Québeckers, by the way.)

quote:

---

Strange that such rights are revocable under bills like this. It seems like the most likely course of action is that the protests will simply promptly become disorderly and violent when police are compelled to break them up under the new law.

---

That's exactly what's been happening. The last few nights have seen what seems to me like an increase in violence, although that's still not saying too much, given how rare violence was before. Tonight, 180 000 marched and two windows were broken (and one protester was mowed down by a car in a hit-and-run). For now, the cops in Montréal don't seem to be enforcing the new law--probably because the number of people marching is just so huge. Today, the city of Sherbrooke became the site of the first arrests under the law, but they only mustered a few thousand people.

I'm actually also quite impressed with the police response (EDIT: in Montréal; I don't know about other regions) so far. There have been a few excesses on their part, but by and large they seem to be waiting until small groups of people assault them before attempting to disperse the mob and start arresting people. Kudos to them for their restraint.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

I can only imagine how much red some people are bleeding because these whiners can't pony up a few more hundred dollars. Stuff like law and dentistry is crazy expensive and, uh, the banks aren't going to care that a bunch of teenagers and frat boys decided to cause trouble.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
The students lost my support the instant they started raiding classrooms (of professional students, not even vanilla undergrads like they are!), threatening teachers and causing havoc.

---

From what I recall, they didn't have your support to begin with.

The events you refer to happened fairly late in the strike (a couple weeks ago), and were hardly ubiquitous. In fairness, however, I agree that what they were doing at UQAM (viz., barging into classes and trying to haul or force people out) is deeply wrongheaded. Porous picket lines are fine in my books, but intimidation is not.

At any rate, the matter of Law 78 is a different matter that has very little to do with the students (except as the impetus for its creation) and a whole lot to do with every other citizen of the province and her Charter rights. It's possible to be against both it and the students.

quote:

---

I can only imagine how much red some people are bleeding because these whiners can't pony up a few more hundred dollars. Stuff like law and dentistry is crazy expensive and, uh, the banks aren't going to care that a bunch of teenagers and frat boys decided to cause trouble.

---

Law students in Québec pay the same as every other student does. Med students pay a titch more ($3000 at U de M and Laval, $5000 at McGill)--the next cheapest places are Newfoundland ($6000) and Saskatchewan (~$12000).

I think it's grossly disingenuous to characterize opposition to budgetary measures as whining just like that. The question that needs to be asked (and answered) is whether the increase in fees is justifiable--and that means looking at existing university spending, historical student and government contributions, cost of living, expected wages and tax contributions, how those factors play out in the other provinces, etc. But you also have to bear in mind that it's a 75% increase, which is pretty dramatic, and that it was initially proposed without any kind of changes to the loans and bursaries system, which left any family (including separated or divorced couples) earning more than $30 000 a year out in the cold. If your combined familial income is $30 000 or so, $4000 in tuition represents 10-15% of your income: that's a big deal.

If you factor in the fact that there was a tuition freeze at $540 from 1968 to 1990 and $1668 from 1994-2007 (so everyone except these students had a free ride, including their parents, employers, the government, etc.), and that these freezes were brought about time and time again because previous generations--again, the people in government today, and the students' parents--did the exact same thing then that the students are doing now, then I think that you at least owe them the benefit of some sort of serious consideration rather than outright dismissal.

quote:

---

They already have BC and Alberta-subsidized cheap tuitions.

---

Do we really have to get into this again? That's just false, and betrays a serious misunderstanding of how transfer payments work. Every single citizen pays the same federal income tax, and a portion of that total is taken out for transfer payments. Yes, some provinces get more in transfers than others. No, that's not unfair, not if you want state-funded hospitals and primary and secondary education across the country even in jurisdictions with tiny or poor populations.

Collectively, Québeckers receive the second least on a per capita basis among the six provinces that receive equalization payments, although lump sum received is far and away the highest--'course, the average income here is about the same as in the Maritimes (NL excluded), which is to say very much lower than in the rest of Canada. Every single province contributes more in federal taxes than they receive in equalization. It is impossible to determine how much any one province contributes to equalization because that's just not how the system works.

quote:

---

What, they want to have it even better than the rest of us? I hope there's a bloody crackdown and tuitions in Quebec triple.

---

The rest of "you" (or us--I did my BA and MA outside the province, at some of the country's most expensive institutions) have it the way "you" do because "you" haven't mobilized against tuition hikes in the same way. When was slated to increase 25% at my UG, we all complained, but none of us took any direct action. Instead, we turned to our parents for the extra cash, or forked it over from summer earnings. It sucked, but we didn't have the strength of our convictions. Perhaps if we had, we'd have gotten a better deal. The responsibility lies entirely with us, however, and our own inaction. So let's stop blaming other people's spending choices for our own crappy situations, shall we?

I don't agree with everything on the student side (e.g. attacking university research is a serious mistake that belies a misunderstanding of how universities operate, and what their missions are, demanding that all kinds of people and corporations submit to an extra tax is the wrong way to go, etc.; by contrast, they're right to criticize administrative spending, which has soared to the detriment of academic spending, and the lack of transparency in university budgets), but that doesn't mean that they don't have a point, or that they're whining.

They have a legitimate beef, a legal right to express that concern, and I (we) have, I think, a moral obligation to engage with that concern (and respect their legal rights) rather than just dismissing them as petulant children. Similarly, Law 78 is a pretty despicable piece of legislation, but I wouldn't turn around and say that this lone fact, if it is such, means that I the provincial government is a bunch of authoritarian pig-dogs. That's the opposite of what's constructive and rational. And unfortunately, a lot of people (on all sides) don't seem to get that.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Yes, the protests have been extremely disruptive of Montréal's downtown core. Yes, that really sucks and is horrible for business. But it's entirely legal, and hell, that's what protests do and are for. It's the protesters' only bargaining chip. Peaceful protests that aren't disruptive of everyday life don't exactly achieve much.

---

Your only bargaining chip is to disrupt local business?
Protests are supposed to screw over hard working people by clogging up the downtown core?

quote:

---

Originally posted by airwalk:
Your only bargaining chip is to disrupt local business?
Protests are supposed to screw over hard working people by clogging up the downtown core?

Why don't you try, I dunno, boycotting education in Quebec and make them feel it in their pocketbooks by paying them no money at all and getting a job for a while or getting your education elsewhere?

---

This seems more reactionary than the old "America, Love it or Leave it" attitude used against those who opposed the Vietnam War in the late 1960's.

Civil disobedience disrupts everyone, not just working poor. It is most effective when those in charge attempt to downplay the importance of an issue, or minimize the number of people adversely impacted or opposed to the official pronouncement on that issue. A large, popular assembly shows the importance of an issue and the numbers opposed. And the right to assemble has always been a tenet of a healthy democracy.

If you are affiliated with the economic elite, and have the resources to relocate wherever you want to obtain your education, such an argument at least makes sense. But this is, at best, a minority view.

If you think of education as a commodity, one that can be easily replaced in quality and cost, such an argument might be made.

Or perhaps if you think education is unimportant, such an argument can be made.

quote:

---

Originally posted by airwalk:
Your only bargaining chip is to disrupt local business?
Protests are supposed to screw over hard working people by clogging up the downtown core?

Why don't you try, I dunno, boycotting education in Quebec and make them feel it in their pocketbooks by paying them no money at all and getting a job for a while or getting your education elsewhere?

---

Who is this "you"? Me? I'm not on strike, my university is and was not on strike, and I'm not an undergrad, I'm a PhD student. And I already have a job, thank you very much.

And where else would they go? Higher education is more expensive everywhere else on this continent, and if you factor in cost of living, Europe would be no better.

When was the last time you encountered a successful and non-disruptive protest? When was the last time you even paid attention to a protest that hadn't caused anyone any trouble? Hell, if you don't live in Québec, how much did you actually hear about the protest for the first two months of its duration? Expecting protests to be non-disruptive in any way, shape, or form is completely unrealistic (note that expecting them to be non-violent is a different story altogether). That kind of expectation is basically tantamount to not recognizing a right to protest altogether.

In most cases, disruptions are minimized because either 1.) there aren't enough people to seriously disrupt things, 2.) protesters lose interest fairly early, or 3.) somebody decides to engage them in a constructive discussion to end the protest, and both sides come to some agreement. But that hasn't really been the case here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
Too bad Charest didn't try enforcing injunctions, eh? Might have been better than making things worse with his new law.

---

The injunctions were to prevent universities and CÉGEPs (and their profs) from cancelling classes due to low/non-attendance and picket lines. They were not against protesters themselves, and did not require protesters to allow students to attend classes. They did require that universities and CÉGEPs take whatever steps were necessary (including using the police to force a way through) to make sure that the hundred or so people who won those injunctions could attend classes.

EDIT: I should probably add, however, that I do think that those injunctions should have been respected, along with the right of whoever did not wish to abandon classes altogether. Unfortunately, things are not always black and white, and the issues admit of several degrees of complexity. The protesters come from many different backgrounds, have a number of different priorities, etc.: it's hardly a monolithic movement, especially at this point.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

The injunctions were to prevent universities and CÉGEPs (and their profs) from cancelling classes due to low/non-attendance and picket lines. They were not against protesters themselves, and did not require protesters to allow students to attend classes. They did require that universities and CÉGEPs take whatever steps were necessary (including using the police to force a way through) to make sure that the hundred or so people who won those injunctions could attend classes.

EDIT: I should probably add, however, that I do think that those injunctions should have been respected, along with the right of whoever did not wish to abandon classes altogether. Unfortunately, things are not always black and white, and the issues admit of several degrees of complexity. The protesters come from many different backgrounds, have a number of different priorities, etc.: it's hardly a monolithic movement, especially at this point.

---

Depending on what new source you read a lot of information was available on the early goings of this movement. The question would be whether the information provided was biased or not. Unfortunately very few people and organization outside of Quebec are sympathetic to the cause of the student unions. Most people are looking at this situation and scratching their heads wondering what these unions are complaining about.

I for one am wondering why the government is even negotiating with the student unions? I understand that there is history and that the sentiments of the protest are part of the ideologies of the Quebec society but I just don't get it. I come from the least unionized part of the country so my experience with unions involves the government by in large ignoring them.

Don't get me wrong, maybe the student unions in Quebec are doing something good for the students; I'm not judging but I just don't get where these unions get their power from? Is the Quebec government that afraid of these unions? Do these union hold that much ability to influence politics?

Personally, the unions lost me when it was documented that even after the tuition raise Quebec will still have the second lowest tuition in the country. On top of this Quebec has the lowest enrollment in post secondary education in the country even with the current tuition levels being the lowest in the country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sys41o:

I for one am wondering why the government is even negotiating with the student unions? I understand that there is history and that the sentiments of the protest are part of the ideologies of the Quebec society but I just don't get it. I come from the least unionized part of the country so my experience with unions involves the government by in large ignoring them.

---

It's not clear to me why unions are involved at all, other than the student unions. I don't think any unions, student or otherwise, have anything to do with the government trying to end the crisis, however. Instead, the most powerful incentive is simply the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are demonstrating regularly, with thousands and even tens of thousands in the streets of Montréal every day. The disruptions to traffic and sales are huge, but they're as nothing compared to the cost of policing the demonstrations, or the economic cost come tourist season. If the protests continue through the Jazz Festival and the F1, the city (and, by extension, the province) is in massive trouble. So that's why they're negotiating: because hundreds of thousands of citizens are unhappy and organized, and because their discontent is very, very costly.

quote:

---

Personally, the unions lost me when it was documented that even after the tuition raise Quebec will still have the second lowest tuition in the country. On top of this Quebec has the lowest enrollment in post secondary education in the country even with the current tuition levels being the lowest in the country.

---

Frankly, I think that argument is a bit of a canard, since the reason tuition is so low is precisely that students have stood up, time and time again, and demanded it. That's not happened in any other province. Instead, perhaps the ROC should be asking why students elsewhere in the country should put up with higher tuition.

Don't get me wrong: I won't really be affected too much by the increase (my research grant and teaching will cover it, and I'll only get hit for two or three years), and I actually think that if it needs to be raised, that's a pretty fair way to do it (especially if the loans and bursaries programs are reformed as suggested in early negotiations). But I'd prefer indexing it to inflation, rather than applying some arbitrary number. The question, however, is whether tuition needs to be raised in the first place. And when you ask that question, the answer is invariably that it's far from clear.

It's far from clear because for decades, universities have been exempt from itemized breakdowns of their budgets, which has led to some seriously shady accounting that allows them to hide surpluses in the operating budget by shifting the funds elsewhere and then claiming operating budget deficits. It's far from clear because administrative hiring and salaries keep going up, while student levels stay steady and full-time hires keep decreasing (at my university, for example, mid-level admin hires have increased 800% in the last eight years despite a stable student population, a decline in tenured/tenure-track hires, and an increase in adjunct hires [as a result, the number of faculty has increased 4% in these last eight years, largely thanks to the move towards contingent faculty]). When you consider factors like these, it's no longer obvious that tuition actually needs to be raised.

I have no problem paying more money, so long as that money goes towards academics and improving the student experience; if it's just there to balance out an administrative hiring spree or ridiculous administrative salaries and compensation packages (e.g. Concordia has handed out $4.1 million in severance pay to just seven individuals since 2009; my university's president makes $560 000 a year plus benefits), then I'm not okay with it. While I disagree with some of the protesters that research and advertising represent unessential spending, I think they have a strong argument from the standpoint of wasted or misused money, and I think that increasing their payments should only come at the end of the line, after careful consideration. Universities aren't businesses, and they shouldn't be run like businesses because they have different priorities, but there are priorities and then there are priorities, and it looks to me like we need to start demanding sound (and transparent!) fiscal accounting policies from our universities.

quote:

---

It seems that the major arguments that the unions are using don't apply and that these unions are just protesting just for the sake of protesting. Lower tuition rates have not influenced more people to attend post-secondary. If this were the case Quebec should have the highest enrollment in the country however Nova Scotia does and Nova Scotia has near the highest tuition levels in the country.

---

While that's true, the full story is a little more complicated than that. More Québec students pay for their own education (about 63%, IIRC) than anywhere else in Canada. Of those receiving parental support, about 61% receive less than $3000 total. The average debt burden is about $15 000, since tuition is so low and an undergrad degree takes just three years to complete. Now, that's certainly not as high as the Canadian average of $27 000. But job opportunities and salaries are much lower here, and the tax burden is much higher. And for the francophone students who are on strike (Concordia and McGill were not officially on strike, and I don't think Bishop's was either), their potential theatre of operations is much smaller (in fact, it's pretty much just Québec because France has very strict requirements).

I just don't see any reason why anyone should unconditionally accept legislation that does not seem in their favour, and I think they're well within their rights to ask for the government's reasoning, and to challenge those reasons if they seem suspect. As far as I can see, that's what's happening. I don't always agree with the students or the tactics that have occasionally been employed, but I also don't see anything fundamentally whiny or greedy about what they're doing. And the Anglophone media has really missed the boat here by jumping immediately to the stereotype of whining and violent Francophone brats.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
If the protests continue through the Jazz Festival and the F1, the city (and, by extension, the province) is in massive trouble.

---

I don't really follow Quebec politics but Quebec's economics is easy to understand. Really high social spending paid for by really high tax rates. Not judging but not the place I would choose to live.

The problem, the way that any economist worth their pay cheque, is that even as high as the tax rates are they are still not high enough to cover the spending. There in lies the trouble the Quebec government is facing, they are damned if they do (raise tuition, taxes, user fees, etc) damned if they don't (go broke or cut services).

This creates the problem that you also describe, low wages which contribute to a very high tax to wage burden. The oppressive tax rates force corporations and workers to leave for greener pastures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Frankly, I think that argument is a bit of a canard, since the reason tuition is so low is precisely that students have stood up, time and time again, and demanded it. That's not happened in any other province. Instead, perhaps the ROC should be asking why students elsewhere in the country should put up with higher tuition.

Don't get me wrong: I won't really be affected too much by the increase (my research grant and teaching will cover it, and I'll only get hit for two or three years), and I actually think that if it needs to be raised, that's a pretty fair way to do it (especially if the loans and bursaries programs are reformed as suggested in early negotiations). But I'd prefer indexing it to inflation, rather than applying some arbitrary number. The question, however, is whether tuition needs to be raised in the first place. And when you ask that question, the answer is invariably that it's far from clear.

---

Call it what you will and suggest that it doesn't affect you but it does. You pay obscenely high taxes for such a small percentage of the population to go to post-secondary school. I would say that directly or indirectly it affects you and everyone else in Quebec regardless of whether they go to post-secondary or not. The only difference is that you took advantage of the low tuition while 75% of Quebec residents haven't.

I'm not criticizing what you are saying or think that you are wrong for accepting this situation; each to their own. I myself prefer to pay for services that I use instead of paying high taxes. I just don't agree with people thinking they should get something for basically nothing when the something they are getting will benefit almost them entirely.

It is funny that you should invoke the "rest of Canada" statement that you have used in the past to differentiate Quebec society and the rest of Canada. Perhaps you don't get much western news out there but when the Provice of Alberta adjusted their budget and forced the post-secondary schools to raise the tuition there were large rallies (comparatively speaking for Alberta) protesting the tuition hikes. The key difference is that with the exception of Vancouver the rest of the country doesn't throw spastic fits and temper tantrums when the government doesn't back down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sys41o:

Call it what you will and suggest that it doesn't affect you but it does. You pay obscenely high taxes for such a small percentage of the population to go to post-secondary school. I would say that directly or indirectly it affects you and everyone else in Quebec regardless of whether they go to post-secondary or not. The only difference is that you took advantage of the low tuition while 75% of Quebec residents haven't.

---

On a long-term timeline, that money is supposed to end up being filtered back to the rest of the public after those students graduate and begin contributing to the workforce with high-paying jobs related to their post-secondary education.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
On a long-term timeline, that money is supposed to end up being filtered back to the rest of the public after those students graduate and begin contributing to the workforce with high-paying jobs related to their post-secondary education.

Unfortunately, the common tendency in areas of high taxation for high-paying jobs is for skilled workers to simply work elsewhere, in which case the tax investment (low tuition rates) is a complete waste of money. This is the primary reason it's so difficult to get meaningful tax reform in the U.S., since our government is extremely wary of passing reforms that would cause Wall Street to move to a more friendly international market, despite the well-documented drawbacks Wall Stree has had on the U.S. economy.

---

What do you think of that law that the one Republican senator tabled regarding the ex-patriot taxation at 30%?

Sorry don't know the name but it is primarily based on the Yahoo.com executive who renounced his US citizenship and moved to Singapore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sys41o:
What do you think of that law that the one Republican senator tabled regarding the ex-patriot taxation at 30%?

Sorry don't know the name but it is primarily based on the Yahoo.com executive who renounced his US citizenship and moved to Singapore.

Is this kind of mentality doing any good or is does it do more harm than good?

---

The law proposal is merely for political points - there are already ex-patriation taxes on the books that the facebook founder had to pay back in november of last year. It's certainly not a good thing to see the number of citizens renouncing their U.S. citizenship increase by 800% over last year, but it's less than a thousandth of a percent of the U.S. population, and for every rich guy that renounces U.S. citizenship, there's 10 chinese families that take their money out of china to come live in the U.S., most of which are considered wealthy.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
So... the Supreme Court ruled in favour of "Obamacare". Must be a sigh of relief for Obama's re-election campaign (and also probably for Romney's, since it gives them fundraising ammunition and some discontent to harness).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
The only problem for Romney is that the "excitable" wing of his party might be more concerned with trying to figure out how to impeach John Roberts. From their perspective, the only thing that matters is compliance with their party line, no matter how untruthful or extreme.

---

The whole Republican party has been trying to claim Obama-care, with the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Kennedy voted against Obama-care, Roberts championed it.

If it works as intended, I think it will be looked back on as a great piece of legislature.

I understand that the Republican party has to posture, especially since their candidate has been pledging to get rid of Obamacare since day one, but still. I feel like that's the only reason to not be happy about this. How would Romney get rid of it now? It looks pretty darn good from either side of the argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
Kennedy is a Supreme Court Judge, Roberts is THE Chief Justice.

The whole Republican party has been trying to claim Obama-care, with the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Kennedy voted against Obama-care, Roberts championed it.

Some think that was what had Alito so furious the last few days. How dare a Conservative Judge actually apply conservative principals, and try to find a way to evaluate a piece of legislation within the context of the Constitution, rather than some litmus test evaluation against a current political dogma.

---