Student Strike #10: aux 100 prochains jours
Comments
@ cco
Probably not, though evidently they had prettier window dressing for their election campaigns back then.
For the benefit of people who don't read French:
cco is saying "How times have changed" because this ad for the PLQ actually advocated for "completely free tuition—from elementary school to university, inclusively, provided that the student has the required talent and will".
"This incredible movement sparked by the student strike against increased tuition fees has morphed into a powerful mass movement against austerity measures and repressive policies."
http://rabble.ca/news/2012/05/night-march-magic-quebec-peoples-movement-....
-
the news clipping says the Liberals supported free education from public school to university, including housing, clothes, and other needs of students, that the province is responsible for providing education.
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
The faculty association at Wilfrid Laurier University has pledged its support to striking students in Quebec.
At a general meeting on Thursday morning, the association voted to provide $10,000 to help defray legal costs amassed by student groups or individuals, said president Judy Bates.
The association will also send a letter to Quebec Premier Jean Charest denouncing the passage of an emergency law, Bill 78, and its “attack on civil liberties and human rights,” Bates said.
The association joins a host of other groups and unions from across Canada that have sent money to Quebec to go towards everything from fines to the buses and food needed for the ongoing protests.....
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/730756--laurier-faculty-to-s...
Quebec's education department chided employees this month for openly supporting the student strike movement while on the job, QMI Agency has learned.
QMI obtained a memo, dated May 3, sent to all ministry employees reminding them of their ethical obligations.
"A few employees of the education ministry are wearing symbols connected with the anti-tuition-hike movement when they are at work and performing their duties," read part of the memo.
"You have the obligation of loyalty and allegiance towards (the education department), which requires you to defend the interests of the ministry."
The memo is part of a series of documents related to a complaint against the ministry that a department staffer filed with Quebec's Human Rights Commission.
A source close to the case said the employee has complained to the commission about the emergency law enacted on May 18, that bans spontaneous protests of more than 50 people and imposes heavy fines on anyone caught preventing someone from attending classes.....
http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/national/2012/05/25/19799761.html
Excellent strategic manoevre to gain popular support and to deflect attempts by authority to brand the protests 'illegal'. Moving away from confrontation with authority toward a popular revolt a la Orange Revolution will snowball.
Of course, the passionate embrace of pot banging is an added bonus.
"There were no reports of injuries or casualties." from post 71 link.
vs.
"There were calls for an independent investigation into how one demonstrator, Maxence Valade, lost an eye and another, Alexandre Allard, was knocked unconscious – suffering a skull fracture and brain contusion after being hit in the head by what many witnesses said was a plastic bullet." Vancouver Sun, Montreal Gazette, http://www.vancouversun.com/news/never+seen+police+like+this/6582164/sto..., linked from Co-op Montreal noted in post 70,which had a clear report.
Students who protested at the FTAA in Quebec City were injured with plastic bullet wounds, some were beaten, hospitalized, and a Quebec police provocateur dressed as a protester was proven to be throwing rocks at Montebello. It's good that police are being held accountable following the G20. When will police behaving illegally get charged in Quebec for current protests?
---
i'm glad the CBC was clear about
"Bill 78, which was adopted last week to widespread criticism.." (post73).
i'll read through other items...
Ha! I suppose that's the kind of "riot and mayhem" we can agree upon, Mneimöller.
It's good to hear that the Greens critiqued Bill 78, which would affect all 'spontaneous gatherings of 50 people or more', including Indigenous dissent. Indigenous people lived on the land first, and have rights...
It's good Quebec students are challenging Bill 78 in court, that Wilfred Laurier faculty are supporting the students, that people in towns and villages and other cities, provinces, and internationally are acting too, noting the inequality and injustice rampant today.
One hundred days opposing harrassment and assault- physical, economic, political, and emotional, is a Strength.
re:83, on Harper's shameful record- 'Canadian voters are responsible for this', well, perhaps not entirely, given electoral fraud, which ought to be investigated and reported, not swept under the rug. Also, though we may experience set-backs, it's never 'the end of social justice'..
re:93; Quebec's education dept. issued a very heavy-handed statement: "You have the obligation of loyalty and allegiance towards (the education department), which requires you to defend the interests of the ministry." Was that spelled out in employment contracts? And even if it was, the interests of the ministry are to defend the interests of students, to support full funding and to stop increased debt for students, rather than help bankers get richer.
It's in all our interest to defend the interests of students, and defend our own interests against illegal and irresponsible behaviour by those in power.
Responsible government behaviour involves spending -creating- money, debt and interest-free, to provide universal public services and jobs, and laws to restrain bankers' power to prevent responsible government.
Events unfolding in Quebec are so insprining when everything coming from the Harper Regime is so bleak. Let's hope this people power spreads.
That's my hope in this very bleak landscape.
The obligation of loyalty (of an employee toward its employer) is a legal obligation set out by the Civil Code of Quebec that applies to all employment contracts.
But there are other norms at play here than the obligation of loyalty—most particularly freedom of expression.
The article isn't clear on what exactly the memo said, though, so it's hard to comment further on that. (Were they asked not to wear the red square? Not mentioned. Were disciplinary measures threatened/taken? Not mentioned. Etc.)
Wow. That's a piece of law right out of the 12th century. Is there a clear definition of what that means? Because the way the minister seems to be spinning it is that they have to support the policy of the government of the day.
Does that include requiring that government workers vote for them too?
@ cco
Probably not, though evidently they had prettier window dressing for their election campaigns back then.
Wow, good find, cco!
Latest polls have them around 10%
http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.ca/2012/05/pq-and-liberals-neck-and-neck-as-caq.html
Well the terms "master-servant relationship" are still used sometimes to this day...
This is in no way specific to Quebec BTW: the same kind of obligation exists WRT employment contracts in common law jurisdictions.
Here's something:
It of course doesn't go that far.
There are a number of cases revolving around employees wearing pins, or t-shirts, etc. at work. The results vary depending on the circumstances. Ergo my saying that we don't know much from the article about what exactly the memo was asking.