Well, that's what the higher pay is supposed to be covering
While I agree, it feels to me, IMO, that no one is doing a good enough job informing people of this. I have spoken to a few pretty smart, recently laid of contractors that had no idea they were not EI eligible.
PSN: Canadian_llama
0
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
Well, that's what the higher pay is supposed to be covering
While I agree, it feels to me, IMO, that no one is doing a good enough job informing people of this. I have spoken to a few pretty smart, recently laid of contractors that had no idea they were not EI eligible.
I'm of the mind that the ignorance of the law doesn't excuse you when you break it, though I know this isn't illegal. There are probably a lot of people who were told to incorporate a business if they wanted to work for a company that never asked why when they should have. Had they asked the questions and received answers they could have refused to incorporate and not get hired or incorporate anyway and they'd be in the same spot they are in now, just with a better understanding of what is happening.
Well, that's what the higher pay is supposed to be covering
While I agree, it feels to me, IMO, that no one is doing a good enough job informing people of this. I have spoken to a few pretty smart, recently laid of contractors that had no idea they were not EI eligible.
I'm of the mind that the ignorance of the law doesn't excuse you when you break it, though I know this isn't illegal. There are probably a lot of people who were told to incorporate a business if they wanted to work for a company that never asked why when they should have. Had they asked the questions and received answers they could have refused to incorporate and not get hired or incorporate anyway and they'd be in the same spot they are in now, just with a better understanding of what is happening.
Would be nice if there was a mandatory 3 hour learning session or something like that. A lot of these "contractors" are young adults fresh out of school and have no idea how any of that stuff works. you are right that they are fully responsible about informing themselves.
Just got a summons for Jury duty. anyone here been on one and want to share the experience? I'm aware no one is allowed to speak of specifics.
PSN: Canadian_llama
0
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
Just got a summons for Jury duty. anyone here been on one and want to share the experience? I'm aware no one is allowed to speak of specifics.
I have been summoned once and they give you a number to call at a certain time to verify particulars. When I went to call the number I got a message that jury selection was cancelled. So my name stays on the list and I can be summoned again, but I'm not as nervous about it as I was before.
I've been summoned for Jury duty once, went to the courthouse and they had a number of cases that they needed juries for.
Each case had the lawyers present, and they would select jurors with the lawyers being allowed to unselect them if they wanted. Jurors could also request the judge to excuse them. (I seem to recall you could also mail in a form to request exemption).
The cases would also get a couple of reserve jurists in case something happened during the case that caused a juror to be removed from the case.
I ended up being waived by the defense lawyer in the end and didn't serve on the jury.
Meanwhile, in Québec. In Montreal, specifically. In the humanities building of the UQAM, which qualifies as a university-level education centre only by the most technical and tedious reading of the definition.
The student union "voted" a strike in protest of the provincial government's austerity measures and of the fact it's not the PQ. Students, remembering the 2012 strikes that nearly cost them a school year, got legal injunctions to be allowed to go to class anyway. So masked protesters started barging in and disrupting classes, in clear violation of a court order. Some of these masked protesters were caught, and those who were actual students in the UQAM were threatened with expulsion from the university.
This lead to last night, students and non-students who saw an opportunity for random destruction barricaded themselves in a humanities building to protest the protesters' punishment for their illegal protests. Like, building actual barricades with furniture to block entrances and everything, like French students did in the 1700s to end the monarchy, except they're doing it not for social justice but to prevent justice from being carried out. The UQAM called the cops to intervene, and around midnight the cops broke through building windows and dispersed the protesters. They found the building was trashed, and equipment (masks and disguises, and boards with nails) were stockpiled inside.
There were a few arrests, one under the criminal code and the other for municipal violations, and classes have been cancelled in that building for today because of the clean-up required.
Meanwhile, in Québec. In Montreal, specifically. In the humanities building of the UQAM, which qualifies as a university-level education centre only by the most technical and tedious reading of the definition.
The student union "voted" a strike in protest of the provincial government's austerity measures and of the fact it's not the PQ. Students, remembering the 2012 strikes that nearly cost them a school year, got legal injunctions to be allowed to go to class anyway. So masked protesters started barging in and disrupting classes, in clear violation of a court order. Some of these masked protesters were caught, and those who were actual students in the UQAM were threatened with expulsion from the university.
This lead to last night, students and non-students who saw an opportunity for random destruction barricaded themselves in a humanities building to protest the protesters' punishment for their illegal protests. Like, building actual barricades with furniture to block entrances and everything, like French students did in the 1700s to end the monarchy, except they're doing it not for social justice but to prevent justice from being carried out. The UQAM called the cops to intervene, and around midnight the cops broke through building windows and dispersed the protesters. They found the building was trashed, and equipment (masks and disguises, and boards with nails) were stockpiled inside.
There were a few arrests, one under the criminal code and the other for municipal violations, and classes have been cancelled in that building for today because of the clean-up required.
Like, I was young and stupid once but I don't think I was ever this ridiculous.
PSN: Canadian_llama
+4
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
Quebec has a whole other level of activism going on. If it's focused it's great but the chances of it being on target seem iffy.
Meanwhile, in Québec. In Montreal, specifically. In the humanities building of the UQAM, which qualifies as a university-level education centre only by the most technical and tedious reading of the definition.
The student union "voted" a strike in protest of the provincial government's austerity measures and of the fact it's not the PQ. Students, remembering the 2012 strikes that nearly cost them a school year, got legal injunctions to be allowed to go to class anyway. So masked protesters started barging in and disrupting classes, in clear violation of a court order. Some of these masked protesters were caught, and those who were actual students in the UQAM were threatened with expulsion from the university.
This lead to last night, students and non-students who saw an opportunity for random destruction barricaded themselves in a humanities building to protest the protesters' punishment for their illegal protests. Like, building actual barricades with furniture to block entrances and everything, like French students did in the 1700s to end the monarchy, except they're doing it not for social justice but to prevent justice from being carried out. The UQAM called the cops to intervene, and around midnight the cops broke through building windows and dispersed the protesters. They found the building was trashed, and equipment (masks and disguises, and boards with nails) were stockpiled inside.
There were a few arrests, one under the criminal code and the other for municipal violations, and classes have been cancelled in that building for today because of the clean-up required.
Sounds to me like they got what they wanted. They wanted classes cancelled and, despite the university's resistance, made it happen.
I think people are fooling themselves if they don't think this is going to continue and spread and radicalize over the next few years. I heard someone here who was working through the strike got their office trashed, and you know what, that's what happens when the university puts its own people in the crosshairs. All this, "we don't negotiate with terrorists," sentiment that's infected people's brains since 9/11 ignores the fact that you actually have to storm the building and kill the terrorists after - insisting on running things as though nothing is happening is, in and of itself, not an apolitical action, and incites further disruption and escalation by protesters.
For example, 'In a letter sent to the UQAM community in late February, the dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Law, as well as 13 political science professors, claimed in French that acts like “disturbances of meetings and conferences” and “repeated strikes” create a “climate of intimidation” at UQAM and hurt the public image of the university.' (http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2015/03/strike-votes-reach-30000-student-tipping-point/) And once you issue a statement like that, you've absolutely infuriated the strikers, and you've furthermore baited them into intentionally hurting the public image of the university, because you've basically said that you value the university's public image over the issues they value. So they're going to absolutely start targeting your public image.
The union here at UofT didn't get around to it this time, but I'd be completely unsurprised if in 2018, they started targeting alumni and donors and calling them up asking them to stop donating to UofT. People got really mad. They almost hard-picketed Romeo Dallaire. Stupid, perhaps, but governments, along with universities, are creating environments that encourage such stupidity, when... I mean shit, haven't we been complaining about low youth voter turnout and political engagement for years now? So when young people get activated and engaged, rather than redirecting their energies towards civil productive means, instead you try to shut them down and piss 'em off?
I am not as informed as I probably should be but this seems to be people breaking the law/university rules and being punished for it and their friends freaking out. So you are saying they should have let it pass? Is that a precedent we really want to put in place?
Please correct me if I got any facts wrong.
PSN: Canadian_llama
+1
Options
BouwsTWanna come to a super soft birthday party?Registered Userregular
I don't know enough about these protests to comment on their legitimacy, but there is a pretty stark difference between lawful assembly and protest, and barricading yourself in an institution and vandalizing the shit out of it. ESPECIALLY when it's
Meanwhile, in Québec. In Montreal, specifically. In the humanities building of the UQAM, which qualifies as a university-level education centre only by the most technical and tedious reading of the definition.
The student union "voted" a strike in protest of the provincial government's austerity measures and of the fact it's not the PQ. Students, remembering the 2012 strikes that nearly cost them a school year, got legal injunctions to be allowed to go to class anyway. So masked protesters started barging in and disrupting classes, in clear violation of a court order. Some of these masked protesters were caught, and those who were actual students in the UQAM were threatened with expulsion from the university.
This lead to last night, students and non-students who saw an opportunity for random destruction barricaded themselves in a humanities building to protest the protesters' punishment for their illegal protests. Like, building actual barricades with furniture to block entrances and everything, like French students did in the 1700s to end the monarchy, except they're doing it not for social justice but to prevent justice from being carried out. The UQAM called the cops to intervene, and around midnight the cops broke through building windows and dispersed the protesters. They found the building was trashed, and equipment (masks and disguises, and boards with nails) were stockpiled inside.
There were a few arrests, one under the criminal code and the other for municipal violations, and classes have been cancelled in that building for today because of the clean-up required.
Sounds to me like they got what they wanted. They wanted classes cancelled and, despite the university's resistance, made it happen.
I think people are fooling themselves if they don't think this is going to continue and spread and radicalize over the next few years. I heard someone here who was working through the strike got their office trashed, and you know what, that's what happens when the university puts its own people in the crosshairs. All this, "we don't negotiate with terrorists," sentiment that's infected people's brains since 9/11 ignores the fact that you actually have to storm the building and kill the terrorists after - insisting on running things as though nothing is happening is, in and of itself, not an apolitical action, and incites further disruption and escalation by protesters.
For example, 'In a letter sent to the UQAM community in late February, the dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Law, as well as 13 political science professors, claimed in French that acts like “disturbances of meetings and conferences” and “repeated strikes” create a “climate of intimidation” at UQAM and hurt the public image of the university.' (http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2015/03/strike-votes-reach-30000-student-tipping-point/) And once you issue a statement like that, you've absolutely infuriated the strikers, and you've furthermore baited them into intentionally hurting the public image of the university, because you've basically said that you value the university's public image over the issues they value. So they're going to absolutely start targeting your public image.
The union here at UofT didn't get around to it this time, but I'd be completely unsurprised if in 2018, they started targeting alumni and donors and calling them up asking them to stop donating to UofT. People got really mad. They almost hard-picketed Romeo Dallaire. Stupid, perhaps, but governments, along with universities, are creating environments that encourage such stupidity, when... I mean shit, haven't we been complaining about low youth voter turnout and political engagement for years now? So when young people get activated and engaged, rather than redirecting their energies towards civil productive means, instead you try to shut them down and piss 'em off?
I think you're misreading the situation a lot.
For one thing, no one called the protesters "terrorists" or said we shouldn't negotiate with them. Quite the opposite, if you recall from 2012, the government and universities were quite willing to meet with them and negotiate a solution. This year... well their demand is a complete 180 on the austerity measures of the government, so really there's not much to debate over, nor are a handful of student unions the people who should be negotiating for this in the name of the entire province. So there's not room for dialogue, but not because the authorities are not willing but because the student unions painted themselves into an unnegotiable position.
Moreover, negotiations only work when both sides are willing to abide by the result. In this case, a debate took place in front of the courts, and the pro-strike lost. The spark for this event was that the strikers decided to disobey the court's injunctions and illegally disrupt classes.
For another thing, it is exactly a "climate of intimidation". There is no other words to describe an environment where a few individuals are trying to impose their will on an indifferent or opposing majority using force. And it is a minority, organizing "assembly meetings" of their partisans only, using public hand-raised votes, or even repeated votes and recounts until they get the result they want. They are going through the university wearing black disguises and masks and disrupting classes; definitely a tactic meant to intimidate. And who is taking these courses? Students. The vast majority of them. The very same students who the union is supposed to be representing. The ones who were forced to go to courts to wrestle the right to attend classes from their unions. The unions are literally intimidating their own members at this point.
The students and profs trying to go about their semester normally are the victims here, not the instigators as you seem to imply. And a riled-up mob breaking the law is not a political action.
For another thing, it is exactly a "climate of intimidation". There is no other words to describe an environment where a few individuals are trying to impose their will on an indifferent or opposing majority using force. And it is a minority, organizing "assembly meetings" of their partisans only, using public hand-raised votes, or even repeated votes and recounts until they get the result they want. They are going through the university wearing black disguises and masks and disrupting classes; definitely a tactic meant to intimidate. And who is taking these courses? Students. The vast majority of them. The very same students who the union is supposed to be representing. The ones who were forced to go to courts to wrestle the right to attend classes from their unions. The unions are literally intimidating their own members at this point.
The students and profs trying to go about their semester normally are the victims here, not the instigators as you seem to imply. And a riled-up mob breaking the law is not a political action.
It's my understanding that a portion of the activists in question aren't students, or at least not UQAM students, but are involved with the student union. I was wondering if anyone else has more information on this.
Meanwhile, in Québec. In Montreal, specifically. In the humanities building of the UQAM, which qualifies as a university-level education centre only by the most technical and tedious reading of the definition.
The student union "voted" a strike in protest of the provincial government's austerity measures and of the fact it's not the PQ. Students, remembering the 2012 strikes that nearly cost them a school year, got legal injunctions to be allowed to go to class anyway. So masked protesters started barging in and disrupting classes, in clear violation of a court order. Some of these masked protesters were caught, and those who were actual students in the UQAM were threatened with expulsion from the university.
This lead to last night, students and non-students who saw an opportunity for random destruction barricaded themselves in a humanities building to protest the protesters' punishment for their illegal protests. Like, building actual barricades with furniture to block entrances and everything, like French students did in the 1700s to end the monarchy, except they're doing it not for social justice but to prevent justice from being carried out. The UQAM called the cops to intervene, and around midnight the cops broke through building windows and dispersed the protesters. They found the building was trashed, and equipment (masks and disguises, and boards with nails) were stockpiled inside.
There were a few arrests, one under the criminal code and the other for municipal violations, and classes have been cancelled in that building for today because of the clean-up required.
Sounds to me like they got what they wanted. They wanted classes cancelled and, despite the university's resistance, made it happen.
I think people are fooling themselves if they don't think this is going to continue and spread and radicalize over the next few years. I heard someone here who was working through the strike got their office trashed, and you know what, that's what happens when the university puts its own people in the crosshairs. All this, "we don't negotiate with terrorists," sentiment that's infected people's brains since 9/11 ignores the fact that you actually have to storm the building and kill the terrorists after - insisting on running things as though nothing is happening is, in and of itself, not an apolitical action, and incites further disruption and escalation by protesters.
For example, 'In a letter sent to the UQAM community in late February, the dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Law, as well as 13 political science professors, claimed in French that acts like “disturbances of meetings and conferences” and “repeated strikes” create a “climate of intimidation” at UQAM and hurt the public image of the university.' (http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2015/03/strike-votes-reach-30000-student-tipping-point/) And once you issue a statement like that, you've absolutely infuriated the strikers, and you've furthermore baited them into intentionally hurting the public image of the university, because you've basically said that you value the university's public image over the issues they value. So they're going to absolutely start targeting your public image.
The union here at UofT didn't get around to it this time, but I'd be completely unsurprised if in 2018, they started targeting alumni and donors and calling them up asking them to stop donating to UofT. People got really mad. They almost hard-picketed Romeo Dallaire. Stupid, perhaps, but governments, along with universities, are creating environments that encourage such stupidity, when... I mean shit, haven't we been complaining about low youth voter turnout and political engagement for years now? So when young people get activated and engaged, rather than redirecting their energies towards civil productive means, instead you try to shut them down and piss 'em off?
I think you're misreading the situation a lot.
For one thing, no one called the protesters "terrorists" or said we shouldn't negotiate with them. Quite the opposite, if you recall from 2012, the government and universities were quite willing to meet with them and negotiate a solution. This year... well their demand is a complete 180 on the austerity measures of the government, so really there's not much to debate over, nor are a handful of student unions the people who should be negotiating for this in the name of the entire province. So there's not room for dialogue, but not because the authorities are not willing but because the student unions painted themselves into an unnegotiable position.
Moreover, negotiations only work when both sides are willing to abide by the result. In this case, a debate took place in front of the courts, and the pro-strike lost. The spark for this event was that the strikers decided to disobey the court's injunctions and illegally disrupt classes.
For another thing, it is exactly a "climate of intimidation". There is no other words to describe an environment where a few individuals are trying to impose their will on an indifferent or opposing majority using force. And it is a minority, organizing "assembly meetings" of their partisans only, using public hand-raised votes, or even repeated votes and recounts until they get the result they want. They are going through the university wearing black disguises and masks and disrupting classes; definitely a tactic meant to intimidate. And who is taking these courses? Students. The vast majority of them. The very same students who the union is supposed to be representing. The ones who were forced to go to courts to wrestle the right to attend classes from their unions. The unions are literally intimidating their own members at this point.
The students and profs trying to go about their semester normally are the victims here, not the instigators as you seem to imply. And a riled-up mob breaking the law is not a political action.
The concept of negotiating regarding this current student strike is also quite absurd as there is no tangible thing to negotiate around.
Student unions are meant to represent the interests of their members (i.e: other students). In 2012, they were protesting the student fee hike. There could be an argument that it was within their member's interest to support this, and it was a tangible topic to negotiate around.
This current strike has nothing to do with student interests. They're protesting a wide range of issues - virtually all of the governments economical policy - not only on education but also in healthcare, doctor's salaries, childcare, public employee raises, environmental policies, mining projects, oil exploitation, etc. Their official stance is to roll back every single policy the government has put out since 2014, and to stop using oil forever. That's not a credible position to negotiate around.
Nobody is arguing that students should not be allowed to protest these topics, but students going on strike to stop the government from using fossil fuels makes about as much sense as a automobile worker union going on strike to stop whale hunting. That's not their role. If they're against it, they're free to organize protests outside of school hours.
At this point, student associations are trying to push a political agenda under the guise of student interests. They claim they can forcefully stop students from their own associations to attend classes, because their vote to strike was democratic, even though calling the current student association anything close to democratic would only hold by a tinpot dictator's definition of the word.
Most votes are not done anonymously, but by hand count. They are done during class hours, and see frequent use of stalling tactics such as multiple recounts so that students who actually want to study in school are forced to leave or otherwise miss classes/labs/exams, until only a handful of militant students remain so they can pass the vote.
Of course, when a student association votes to not go on strike, the protesters conveniently ignore their own argument about respecting democracy and proceed to block class access to everyone, often resorting to intimidation, vandalism and physical violence.
I think you're mistaking my comments on inevitability with comments on legitimacy. Legality is not an effective limitation on people's anger and frustration. By all means, summon the riot police and shoot them in the face with tear gas canisters, and decry their lack of reasonableness and legitimacy. I don't really see these as effective solutions towards de-escalating the situation.
At some point in time, our society will need to come to terms with a widespread mood of disenfranchisement amongst today's youth, and an increasing diminishment of our collective faith in governmental institutions. For better or for worse, one way or another.
Being wrong has never in human history ever stopped people from acting.
hippofant on
+5
Options
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
Well, that's what the higher pay is supposed to be covering
While I agree, it feels to me, IMO, that no one is doing a good enough job informing people of this. I have spoken to a few pretty smart, recently laid of contractors that had no idea they were not EI eligible.
I'm of the mind that the ignorance of the law doesn't excuse you when you break it, though I know this isn't illegal. There are probably a lot of people who were told to incorporate a business if they wanted to work for a company that never asked why when they should have. Had they asked the questions and received answers they could have refused to incorporate and not get hired or incorporate anyway and they'd be in the same spot they are in now, just with a better understanding of what is happening.
Would be nice if there was a mandatory 3 hour learning session or something like that. A lot of these "contractors" are young adults fresh out of school and have no idea how any of that stuff works. you are right that they are fully responsible about informing themselves.
Just got a summons for Jury duty. anyone here been on one and want to share the experience? I'm aware no one is allowed to speak of specifics.
Hey, I was on a jury for a murder trial less than a month ago.
It was an... interesting experience, but not one that I'm eager to repeat.
The selection process is pretty boring though. I'd say the main thing is to bring something that can keep you occupied for several hours. The courts are glacial.
I think you're mistaking my comments on inevitability with comments on legitimacy. Legality is not an effective limitation on people's anger and frustration. By all means, summon the riot police and shoot them in the face with tear gas canisters, and decry their lack of reasonableness and legitimacy. I don't really see these as effective solutions towards de-escalating the situation.
At some point in time, our society will need to come to terms with a widespread mood of disenfranchisement amongst today's youth, and an increasing diminishment of our collective faith in governmental institutions. For better or for worse, one way or another.
Being wrong has never in human history ever stopped people from acting.
This does not give them the right to interfere with the large majority of students that are there to get an education. Want to protest government spending on public servants? Great! Organize a march, write a pamphlet or dance in the street for all I care. Blockading and vandalizing a school is not, or even has been, the correct response and will be met by police response as it should.
They are the ones that choose to escalate the situation. Schools are for learning and now some young people are going to learn that actions have consequences and some of those are expulsion and a criminal record.
i have a few friends in academia and there seems to be a wide disconnect with how the real world works sometimes. Any professor that supports these actions should be fired on the spot. Like, if some dudes shut my work down and I grabbed a sign and started marching... I would no longer be employed. Why should this be any different?
i have a few friends in academia and there seems to be a wide disconnect with how the real world works sometimes. Any professor that supports these actions should be fired on the spot. Like, if some dudes shut my work down and I grabbed a sign and started marching... I would no longer be employed. Why should this be any different?
Why should this be the same? Shit, I have my criticisms of academia, but this is some seriously skewed thinking, as highlighted by the weasel-wording of "the real world" vs the "unreal" world, and the assumption that the "real world" is the desirable outcome. Like... "I have a few friends in Canada, and there seems to be a wide disconnect with how the real world works sometimes.... Like if some dudes shut down my work OR grabbed a sign and started marching, they'd be run over by tanks or arrested and thrown into a dark hole and never heard from again. Why should this be any different?"
I honestly do believe that our society's in for some seriously tumultuous times in the future. We're still not adapting to the Information Revolution, particularly in labour markets, income inequality is shooting through the roof, affordability and financial security are on a sharp decline, and even if we get past all that, climate change is going to be hitting us hard in the next 50 years or so. Whether you think what's happening in Quebec is right or not, I think that, unless we really change our approach, we're in for more of the same, and, in many ways, by electing conservative governments, I suspect we're only exacerbating the societal change that is coming for us one way or another.
Well, Nova Scotia's finance minister just killed the province's film industry. The Film Tax Credit was slashed, and 'Film and Creative Industries Nova Scotia' will be dissolved into 'Nova Scotia Business Inc' (which as of January is run by one Laurel Broten. I still don't get how the fuck that happened. Her previous contribution to NS politics was a tax revision plan that everybody thought was terrible). Instead, they'll allot $6 million for all creative industry across the province, including Film, Music, Publishing, etc (the film tax credit amounted to about $24 million on its own, and typically brought in about $150+ million in return)
They cut a large number of public sector jobs, which isn't unreasonable on its own, except that the bulk seem to be in tourism. They're also closing a number of tourism operations around the province.
They're getting rid of the post-secondary tuition cap, so those rates will probably jump soon, making things harder for local students and making our schools less appealing to international students.
Oh, they eliminated the healthy living tax credit too, which will mostly impact low income folks.
They've already begun the defensive rhetoric of "See, it sounds terrible, but that's how you know it's the right decision. Some bullshit about tough choices".
What a fucking idiot.
Like, yes, some drastic measures had to be taken in this province, but these particular changes just seem like they'll make things worse in the long run.
Edit: Our previous finance minister, Graham Steele, has chimed in, calling the change to the Film Tax Credit a "calamitous mistake". He goes on to say "I have never seen a budget changed after it was introduced. There's a first time for everything — and this is the time.".
i have a few friends in academia and there seems to be a wide disconnect with how the real world works sometimes. Any professor that supports these actions should be fired on the spot. Like, if some dudes shut my work down and I grabbed a sign and started marching... I would no longer be employed. Why should this be any different?
Why should this be the same? Shit, I have my criticisms of academia, but this is some seriously skewed thinking, as highlighted by the weasel-wording of "the real world" vs the "unreal" world, and the assumption that the "real world" is the desirable outcome. Like... "I have a few friends in Canada, and there seems to be a wide disconnect with how the real world works sometimes.... Like if some dudes shut down my work OR grabbed a sign and started marching, they'd be run over by tanks or arrested and thrown into a dark hole and never heard from again. Why should this be any different?"
I honestly do believe that our society's in for some seriously tumultuous times in the future. We're still not adapting to the Information Revolution, particularly in labour markets, income inequality is shooting through the roof, affordability and financial security are on a sharp decline, and even if we get past all that, climate change is going to be hitting us hard in the next 50 years or so. Whether you think what's happening in Quebec is right or not, I think that, unless we really change our approach, we're in for more of the same, and, in many ways, by electing conservative governments, I suspect we're only exacerbating the societal change that is coming for us one way or another.
A: The real world does not have tenure and let you do whatever you want and not get fired.
B: Students that are university, most with grants, loans or help from family don't truly know what working for your sustenance means and usually only have to worry about themselves and do not have dependents.
C: The fact that students are protesting expulsions for the reasons stated earlier in this thread are an example of the bubble some of them live in. Most adult, working Canadians would agree this is not acceptable behavior.
Discussion is great. Aimless protesting and disruption does nothing but alienate people from your cause. They are acting as children and are being treated as such.
Nova Scotia will soon make it easier for individuals to select/change their gender designation on government IDs. It sounds like this will include birth certificates. The main goal of the amendment is to improve equality for transgender people in the province.
I think you're mistaking my comments on inevitability with comments on legitimacy. Legality is not an effective limitation on people's anger and frustration. By all means, summon the riot police and shoot them in the face with tear gas canisters, and decry their lack of reasonableness and legitimacy. I don't really see these as effective solutions towards de-escalating the situation.
At some point in time, our society will need to come to terms with a widespread mood of disenfranchisement amongst today's youth, and an increasing diminishment of our collective faith in governmental institutions. For better or for worse, one way or another.
Being wrong has never in human history ever stopped people from acting.
Legality is not an effective limitation on people's anger and frustration, but it is an effective limitation on their ability to commit crimes. And when a crime is committed, calling the cops is absolutely an effective solution. If anything, not calling them and allowing thugs to trample freely the rights of law-abiding people is what will cause escalation.
Moreover, these protests are not a symptom of widespread youth disenfranchisement. First of all, they're not widespread, quite the opposite, they are a handful of students using sham strike votes as excuse to take to the streets.
That's not to say that we don't have problems as a society. But these student are neither acting in response to these problems nor doing anything helpful about these problems.
I think you're mistaking my comments on inevitability with comments on legitimacy. Legality is not an effective limitation on people's anger and frustration. By all means, summon the riot police and shoot them in the face with tear gas canisters, and decry their lack of reasonableness and legitimacy. I don't really see these as effective solutions towards de-escalating the situation.
At some point in time, our society will need to come to terms with a widespread mood of disenfranchisement amongst today's youth, and an increasing diminishment of our collective faith in governmental institutions. For better or for worse, one way or another.
Being wrong has never in human history ever stopped people from acting.
Legality is not an effective limitation on people's anger and frustration, but it is an effective limitation on their ability to commit crimes. And when a crime is committed, calling the cops is absolutely an effective solution. If anything, not calling them and allowing thugs to trample freely the rights of law-abiding people is what will cause escalation.
Moreover, these protests are not a symptom of widespread youth disenfranchisement. First of all, they're not widespread, quite the opposite, they are a handful of students using sham strike votes as excuse to take to the streets.
That's not to say that we don't have problems as a society. But these student are neither acting in response to these problems nor doing anything helpful about these problems.
Uh. I think these protests are clearly a symptom of youth feeling disenfranchised - I didn't say it was youth disenfranchisement - and I also didn't say that the protests were widespread. These protesters, along with many other young Canadians, have clearly lost faith in the ability of our political processes to effect the change that they desire. Perhaps there are always people who feel that way, but clearly many young people do not feel like voting is meaningful and presumably, if these protesters thought that was a way to effect change, they would pursue that means instead, and if that number was low, they likely wouldn't have achieved this level of critical mass.
The calls appear to have targeted Brown backers with “non-English names,” Mark Towhey, executive director of the Brown campaign, said Tuesday.
I'm also hearing from a friend that the response to the Vancouver oil spill was slowed because the federal government closed the closest coast guard station in BC, though it also seems the spill was contained without significant harm?
Uh. I think these protests are clearly a symptom of youth feeling disenfranchised - I didn't say it was youth disenfranchisement - and I also didn't say that the protests were widespread. These protesters, along with many other young Canadians, have clearly lost faith in the ability of our political processes to effect the change that they desire. Perhaps there are always people who feel that way, but clearly many young people do not feel like voting is meaningful and presumably, if these protesters thought that was a way to effect change, they would pursue that means instead, and if that number was low, they likely wouldn't have achieved this level of critical mass.
Yeah, speaking of critical mass... According to CBC, there were hundreds of students* in the mob barricaded in the UQAM two nights ago, and other reports hover around 500 people. Cool, right? Well, there was another protest yesterday. A peaceful silent protest organized by the student union and advertised on all the media, also in the UQAM, to protest everything else the other did plus the police action against the other protest. And you know how many students showed up for that one? About 100. Funny that, how two protests organized by the same group at the same place for the same cause end up bringing it such different numbers, when the only difference is that one is violent and destructive and the other is peaceful and silent... That critical mass of people you speak of might be there (honestly I question how 500 people is a critical mass for social change, but that's a different debate), but its interest does not seem to "effect change" as you assume.
FYI, there are some 43,000 students at the UQAM, so saying that 100 to 500 protesters represent anything at all about the mood of these students is quite an unjustified stretch. Saying these 500 people have somehow the right to prevent the other 42,500 from attending their classes is insane - the fact this small mob has managed to gain that power against the vast majority of students is exactly why people refer to their actions as a "climate of intimidation". And saying these 500 people somehow represent the "widespread feelings" of the roughly 1 million Québécois in the 15-24 age bracket is lunacy.
Oh, and on the silent protest yesterday... seems that one went off without problems. No vandalism, no police action, no violence whatsoever. A proper exercise of one's right to peaceful assembly and protest. That is a good thing.
*This is assuming everyone in that mob were students, which we don't know and many suspect they weren't. Non-students anarchists and rebels-without-a-cause have a history of coming out in these events and using them as covers to vandalize and attack things.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is preparing to bring in a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, an ambitious move that could amount to the nation’s single largest salvo in the battle against global warming.
The new system would be linked with Quebec and California’s current cap-and-trade program, government and industry sources said, creating a carbon market of 61 million people and covering more than 60 per cent of Canada’s population.
Ok, so now you have the news and can make up your own opinion before I launch into mine.
I don't think he is the nutbat he is professing to be, even if he is full of shit - this guy is as Conservative as they come, I still remember him from all those years ago when my parents became Conservative members to help get him as the official Conservative name on the ballot. I genuinely think he left the Conservatives because he wanted to stir up trouble in their favour. Rather convenient in my opinion that since quite a few MPs and voters identify as Christians, to claim they are being harassed and persecuted by media and the NDP.
I'm not sure the right questions are being asked about James Lunney's actions and who it benefits, instead it seems to be focused on his outlandish statements.
Alberta PC have been in power for a long time. Things are not going good so people are choosing to go more conservative with Wild Rose or more socialist with the NDP
I'm wondering if the comparisons between Alberta and Norway and their sovereign wealth/heritage funds and how they compare today have anything to do with the discontent. There's an argument to be made that the oil wealth has been mismanaged and there was not proper planning for when the boom times go away.
I'm wondering if the comparisons between Alberta and Norway and their sovereign wealth/heritage funds and how they compare today have anything to do with the discontent. There's an argument to be made that the oil wealth has been mismanaged and there was not proper planning for when the boom times go away.
The lawyer who successfully sued the City of Hamilton for 900k after he and a friend got drunk and hurt himself tobogganing on city property is now running for Liberal MP
Posts
While I agree, it feels to me, IMO, that no one is doing a good enough job informing people of this. I have spoken to a few pretty smart, recently laid of contractors that had no idea they were not EI eligible.
I'm of the mind that the ignorance of the law doesn't excuse you when you break it, though I know this isn't illegal. There are probably a lot of people who were told to incorporate a business if they wanted to work for a company that never asked why when they should have. Had they asked the questions and received answers they could have refused to incorporate and not get hired or incorporate anyway and they'd be in the same spot they are in now, just with a better understanding of what is happening.
Would be nice if there was a mandatory 3 hour learning session or something like that. A lot of these "contractors" are young adults fresh out of school and have no idea how any of that stuff works. you are right that they are fully responsible about informing themselves.
Just got a summons for Jury duty. anyone here been on one and want to share the experience? I'm aware no one is allowed to speak of specifics.
I have been summoned once and they give you a number to call at a certain time to verify particulars. When I went to call the number I got a message that jury selection was cancelled. So my name stays on the list and I can be summoned again, but I'm not as nervous about it as I was before.
Each case had the lawyers present, and they would select jurors with the lawyers being allowed to unselect them if they wanted. Jurors could also request the judge to excuse them. (I seem to recall you could also mail in a form to request exemption).
The cases would also get a couple of reserve jurists in case something happened during the case that caused a juror to be removed from the case.
I ended up being waived by the defense lawyer in the end and didn't serve on the jury.
MWO: Adamski
[story]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/axl-rose-snoop-dogg-tweet-support-for-trailer-park-boys-plea-for-tax-credit-1.3021379
The student union "voted" a strike in protest of the provincial government's austerity measures and of the fact it's not the PQ. Students, remembering the 2012 strikes that nearly cost them a school year, got legal injunctions to be allowed to go to class anyway. So masked protesters started barging in and disrupting classes, in clear violation of a court order. Some of these masked protesters were caught, and those who were actual students in the UQAM were threatened with expulsion from the university.
This lead to last night, students and non-students who saw an opportunity for random destruction barricaded themselves in a humanities building to protest the protesters' punishment for their illegal protests. Like, building actual barricades with furniture to block entrances and everything, like French students did in the 1700s to end the monarchy, except they're doing it not for social justice but to prevent justice from being carried out. The UQAM called the cops to intervene, and around midnight the cops broke through building windows and dispersed the protesters. They found the building was trashed, and equipment (masks and disguises, and boards with nails) were stockpiled inside.
There were a few arrests, one under the criminal code and the other for municipal violations, and classes have been cancelled in that building for today because of the clean-up required.
Like, I was young and stupid once but I don't think I was ever this ridiculous.
Sounds to me like they got what they wanted. They wanted classes cancelled and, despite the university's resistance, made it happen.
I think people are fooling themselves if they don't think this is going to continue and spread and radicalize over the next few years. I heard someone here who was working through the strike got their office trashed, and you know what, that's what happens when the university puts its own people in the crosshairs. All this, "we don't negotiate with terrorists," sentiment that's infected people's brains since 9/11 ignores the fact that you actually have to storm the building and kill the terrorists after - insisting on running things as though nothing is happening is, in and of itself, not an apolitical action, and incites further disruption and escalation by protesters.
For example, 'In a letter sent to the UQAM community in late February, the dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Law, as well as 13 political science professors, claimed in French that acts like “disturbances of meetings and conferences” and “repeated strikes” create a “climate of intimidation” at UQAM and hurt the public image of the university.' (http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2015/03/strike-votes-reach-30000-student-tipping-point/) And once you issue a statement like that, you've absolutely infuriated the strikers, and you've furthermore baited them into intentionally hurting the public image of the university, because you've basically said that you value the university's public image over the issues they value. So they're going to absolutely start targeting your public image.
The union here at UofT didn't get around to it this time, but I'd be completely unsurprised if in 2018, they started targeting alumni and donors and calling them up asking them to stop donating to UofT. People got really mad. They almost hard-picketed Romeo Dallaire. Stupid, perhaps, but governments, along with universities, are creating environments that encourage such stupidity, when... I mean shit, haven't we been complaining about low youth voter turnout and political engagement for years now? So when young people get activated and engaged, rather than redirecting their energies towards civil productive means, instead you try to shut them down and piss 'em off?
Please correct me if I got any facts wrong.
I think you're misreading the situation a lot.
For one thing, no one called the protesters "terrorists" or said we shouldn't negotiate with them. Quite the opposite, if you recall from 2012, the government and universities were quite willing to meet with them and negotiate a solution. This year... well their demand is a complete 180 on the austerity measures of the government, so really there's not much to debate over, nor are a handful of student unions the people who should be negotiating for this in the name of the entire province. So there's not room for dialogue, but not because the authorities are not willing but because the student unions painted themselves into an unnegotiable position.
Moreover, negotiations only work when both sides are willing to abide by the result. In this case, a debate took place in front of the courts, and the pro-strike lost. The spark for this event was that the strikers decided to disobey the court's injunctions and illegally disrupt classes.
For another thing, it is exactly a "climate of intimidation". There is no other words to describe an environment where a few individuals are trying to impose their will on an indifferent or opposing majority using force. And it is a minority, organizing "assembly meetings" of their partisans only, using public hand-raised votes, or even repeated votes and recounts until they get the result they want. They are going through the university wearing black disguises and masks and disrupting classes; definitely a tactic meant to intimidate. And who is taking these courses? Students. The vast majority of them. The very same students who the union is supposed to be representing. The ones who were forced to go to courts to wrestle the right to attend classes from their unions. The unions are literally intimidating their own members at this point.
The students and profs trying to go about their semester normally are the victims here, not the instigators as you seem to imply. And a riled-up mob breaking the law is not a political action.
It's my understanding that a portion of the activists in question aren't students, or at least not UQAM students, but are involved with the student union. I was wondering if anyone else has more information on this.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
The concept of negotiating regarding this current student strike is also quite absurd as there is no tangible thing to negotiate around.
Student unions are meant to represent the interests of their members (i.e: other students). In 2012, they were protesting the student fee hike. There could be an argument that it was within their member's interest to support this, and it was a tangible topic to negotiate around.
This current strike has nothing to do with student interests. They're protesting a wide range of issues - virtually all of the governments economical policy - not only on education but also in healthcare, doctor's salaries, childcare, public employee raises, environmental policies, mining projects, oil exploitation, etc. Their official stance is to roll back every single policy the government has put out since 2014, and to stop using oil forever. That's not a credible position to negotiate around.
Nobody is arguing that students should not be allowed to protest these topics, but students going on strike to stop the government from using fossil fuels makes about as much sense as a automobile worker union going on strike to stop whale hunting. That's not their role. If they're against it, they're free to organize protests outside of school hours.
At this point, student associations are trying to push a political agenda under the guise of student interests. They claim they can forcefully stop students from their own associations to attend classes, because their vote to strike was democratic, even though calling the current student association anything close to democratic would only hold by a tinpot dictator's definition of the word.
Most votes are not done anonymously, but by hand count. They are done during class hours, and see frequent use of stalling tactics such as multiple recounts so that students who actually want to study in school are forced to leave or otherwise miss classes/labs/exams, until only a handful of militant students remain so they can pass the vote.
Of course, when a student association votes to not go on strike, the protesters conveniently ignore their own argument about respecting democracy and proceed to block class access to everyone, often resorting to intimidation, vandalism and physical violence.
At some point in time, our society will need to come to terms with a widespread mood of disenfranchisement amongst today's youth, and an increasing diminishment of our collective faith in governmental institutions. For better or for worse, one way or another.
Being wrong has never in human history ever stopped people from acting.
Hey, I was on a jury for a murder trial less than a month ago.
It was an... interesting experience, but not one that I'm eager to repeat.
The selection process is pretty boring though. I'd say the main thing is to bring something that can keep you occupied for several hours. The courts are glacial.
Anything you want to know more specifically?
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
This does not give them the right to interfere with the large majority of students that are there to get an education. Want to protest government spending on public servants? Great! Organize a march, write a pamphlet or dance in the street for all I care. Blockading and vandalizing a school is not, or even has been, the correct response and will be met by police response as it should.
They are the ones that choose to escalate the situation. Schools are for learning and now some young people are going to learn that actions have consequences and some of those are expulsion and a criminal record.
i have a few friends in academia and there seems to be a wide disconnect with how the real world works sometimes. Any professor that supports these actions should be fired on the spot. Like, if some dudes shut my work down and I grabbed a sign and started marching... I would no longer be employed. Why should this be any different?
Why should this be the same? Shit, I have my criticisms of academia, but this is some seriously skewed thinking, as highlighted by the weasel-wording of "the real world" vs the "unreal" world, and the assumption that the "real world" is the desirable outcome. Like... "I have a few friends in Canada, and there seems to be a wide disconnect with how the real world works sometimes.... Like if some dudes shut down my work OR grabbed a sign and started marching, they'd be run over by tanks or arrested and thrown into a dark hole and never heard from again. Why should this be any different?"
I honestly do believe that our society's in for some seriously tumultuous times in the future. We're still not adapting to the Information Revolution, particularly in labour markets, income inequality is shooting through the roof, affordability and financial security are on a sharp decline, and even if we get past all that, climate change is going to be hitting us hard in the next 50 years or so. Whether you think what's happening in Quebec is right or not, I think that, unless we really change our approach, we're in for more of the same, and, in many ways, by electing conservative governments, I suspect we're only exacerbating the societal change that is coming for us one way or another.
They cut a large number of public sector jobs, which isn't unreasonable on its own, except that the bulk seem to be in tourism. They're also closing a number of tourism operations around the province.
They're getting rid of the post-secondary tuition cap, so those rates will probably jump soon, making things harder for local students and making our schools less appealing to international students.
Oh, they eliminated the healthy living tax credit too, which will mostly impact low income folks.
They've already begun the defensive rhetoric of "See, it sounds terrible, but that's how you know it's the right decision. Some bullshit about tough choices".
What a fucking idiot.
Like, yes, some drastic measures had to be taken in this province, but these particular changes just seem like they'll make things worse in the long run.
Edit: Our previous finance minister, Graham Steele, has chimed in, calling the change to the Film Tax Credit a "calamitous mistake". He goes on to say "I have never seen a budget changed after it was introduced. There's a first time for everything — and this is the time.".
A: The real world does not have tenure and let you do whatever you want and not get fired.
B: Students that are university, most with grants, loans or help from family don't truly know what working for your sustenance means and usually only have to worry about themselves and do not have dependents.
C: The fact that students are protesting expulsions for the reasons stated earlier in this thread are an example of the bubble some of them live in. Most adult, working Canadians would agree this is not acceptable behavior.
Discussion is great. Aimless protesting and disruption does nothing but alienate people from your cause. They are acting as children and are being treated as such.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1279500-n.s.-amends-vital-statistics-act-to-let-people-choose-gender-on-ids
Nova Scotia will soon make it easier for individuals to select/change their gender designation on government IDs. It sounds like this will include birth certificates. The main goal of the amendment is to improve equality for transgender people in the province.
Legality is not an effective limitation on people's anger and frustration, but it is an effective limitation on their ability to commit crimes. And when a crime is committed, calling the cops is absolutely an effective solution. If anything, not calling them and allowing thugs to trample freely the rights of law-abiding people is what will cause escalation.
Moreover, these protests are not a symptom of widespread youth disenfranchisement. First of all, they're not widespread, quite the opposite, they are a handful of students using sham strike votes as excuse to take to the streets.
That's not to say that we don't have problems as a society. But these student are neither acting in response to these problems nor doing anything helpful about these problems.
Uh. I think these protests are clearly a symptom of youth feeling disenfranchised - I didn't say it was youth disenfranchisement - and I also didn't say that the protests were widespread. These protesters, along with many other young Canadians, have clearly lost faith in the ability of our political processes to effect the change that they desire. Perhaps there are always people who feel that way, but clearly many young people do not feel like voting is meaningful and presumably, if these protesters thought that was a way to effect change, they would pursue that means instead, and if that number was low, they likely wouldn't have achieved this level of critical mass.
---
On another note, the Ontario PC party is being unsurprisingly racist in surprising new ways. Patrick Brown accuses Christine Elliott’s campaign team of harassing supporters:
I'm also hearing from a friend that the response to the Vancouver oil spill was slowed because the federal government closed the closest coast guard station in BC, though it also seems the spill was contained without significant harm?
Oh shit.
Yeah, speaking of critical mass... According to CBC, there were hundreds of students* in the mob barricaded in the UQAM two nights ago, and other reports hover around 500 people. Cool, right? Well, there was another protest yesterday. A peaceful silent protest organized by the student union and advertised on all the media, also in the UQAM, to protest everything else the other did plus the police action against the other protest. And you know how many students showed up for that one? About 100. Funny that, how two protests organized by the same group at the same place for the same cause end up bringing it such different numbers, when the only difference is that one is violent and destructive and the other is peaceful and silent... That critical mass of people you speak of might be there (honestly I question how 500 people is a critical mass for social change, but that's a different debate), but its interest does not seem to "effect change" as you assume.
FYI, there are some 43,000 students at the UQAM, so saying that 100 to 500 protesters represent anything at all about the mood of these students is quite an unjustified stretch. Saying these 500 people have somehow the right to prevent the other 42,500 from attending their classes is insane - the fact this small mob has managed to gain that power against the vast majority of students is exactly why people refer to their actions as a "climate of intimidation". And saying these 500 people somehow represent the "widespread feelings" of the roughly 1 million Québécois in the 15-24 age bracket is lunacy.
Oh, and on the silent protest yesterday... seems that one went off without problems. No vandalism, no police action, no violence whatsoever. A proper exercise of one's right to peaceful assembly and protest. That is a good thing.
*This is assuming everyone in that mob were students, which we don't know and many suspect they weren't. Non-students anarchists and rebels-without-a-cause have a history of coming out in these events and using them as covers to vandalize and attack things.
What is going on
http://www.nanaimodailynews.com/news/lunney-exits-early-from-his-own-news-conference-1.1819668
Ok, so now you have the news and can make up your own opinion before I launch into mine.
I don't think he is the nutbat he is professing to be, even if he is full of shit - this guy is as Conservative as they come, I still remember him from all those years ago when my parents became Conservative members to help get him as the official Conservative name on the ballot. I genuinely think he left the Conservatives because he wanted to stir up trouble in their favour. Rather convenient in my opinion that since quite a few MPs and voters identify as Christians, to claim they are being harassed and persecuted by media and the NDP.
I'm not sure the right questions are being asked about James Lunney's actions and who it benefits, instead it seems to be focused on his outlandish statements.
Albertans don't like taxes.
Or at least, no one I've talked to in Alberta (where I live) has brought up increased taxes as a reason
Then what is it? I'm honestly asking. I don't have any Albertans to talk to, so I'd love to know.
MWO: Adamski
Wait, there's an argument that it hasn't?
http://www.brunouggenti.com/