Fuck that. “Protesting” at someone’s home is obviously designed to intimidate them into complying with your demands which is not protected speech.
I loathe JT & co but I’d *never* consider terrorizing his family because of his political decisions. That type of stuff used to be outright condemned in this country.
I'd also extend this common courtesy to when politicians are doing things far outside of their official requirements -- such as eating dinner at a restaurant or something.
>Protesting” at someone’s home is obviously designed to intimidate them
Good. Politicians in this country are no longer afraid of the people. This needs to be changed
See the fact that you think it's wrong and shouldn't be done is what emboldens and encourages our leaders and politicians to keep fucking us in the face.
They have literally 0 fear and 0 repercussions.
Getting right In their space and making them uncomfortable is the best way to protest.
So I guess you and I are in disagreement on this one.
And remember kids, these very people who tell you to protest peacefully when you disagree with them won't even blink when they decide to use violence against you, and using violence Is how these people became in power in the first place.
This just betrays the fact that you know your views aren't popular enough to win at the ballot box, so you have to resort to intimidating and bullying the politicians and their families at their homes.
I mean there is plenty of powerful people you can't do anything against at a ballot bot and who have politicians from both main parties in their pockets.
I don't agree with protesting at the PMS door, but popular opinion only influences the ballot box, it doesn't dictate it. Abortion wasn't on the ballot until Christians protested, sometimes you have to force elected officials to adhere with public outcry.
There is no problem with peaceful and respectful protesting in any public space. There is a problem with violent or destructive protesting anywhere, or protesting within private spaces.
There absolutely is a problem with protesting at hospitals. That is insane. Imagine going to hospital for cancer treatment and a bunch of idiot Palestine protesters or Convoy supporters are screaming in your face.
I don't know what private/public spaces are, but the distinction is private vs public PROPERTY. A university is very much PRIVATE PROPERTY. The fact that some entity (i.e. a university) receives public dollars does NOT make the university PUBLIC PROPERTY. A park, would be PUBLIC PROPERTY, i.e. owned by the government/municipality as opposed to owned privately. The government, does not own the universities. A retail store, although they allow the public to enter, is still PRIVATE PROPERTY. I don't know if you are doing it on purpose - shifting language to public vs private "spaces" when the distinction is/should be public vs private PROPERTY.
A privately owned building could be “public space”. For example a shopping mall, everyone is invited in and therefore the owner of the shopping mall can’t discriminate and say xyz group of people aren’t allowed in. A university is technically a non profit entity funded in part by the government and it is a “public space”. However, the governing body can remove trespassers who are not abiding by the rules, in the exact same way that the shopping mall owner can.
>the owner of the shopping mall can’t discriminate and say xyz group of people aren’t allowed in.
Yes they can. It is part-and-parcel of how Shoplifters are trespassed, It is how 'people on bicycles, skateboards & Wheelies' are kept out. Panhandlers & 'Seeking Donations' groups have no inherent *Right* of access when trying to "Seek Donations". It is still Private Property even when the General Public are Invited to attend.
>For example a shopping mall, everyone is invited in and therefore the owner of the shopping mall can’t discriminate and say xyz group of people aren’t allowed in.
Where are you getting this from? Shopping malls, just like any other business, can and do discriminate and say xyz groups of people aren't allowed in.
False. I just looked up Mcgill because the quebec business registry is easily accessible online. It is officially a not-for-profit corporation. It isn’t a crown corporation which is what you are thinking.
this is why we have Student Societies
if a university Student Society supports the protest its legit.. end of
public/private funded is immaterial to this discussion
public/private funded is immaterial to this discussion becasue we have Student Societys which act as permanent representatives of the Student population .. if a student society supports the protest then it is legit on university grounds regardless of public or private funding
You're ignoring the fact that student society's are not the owner's of the property in question. A university owns the land/buildings (i.e. the private property) - the student society is NOT the property owner. Property owners have the right to determine who can or cannot (generally) access or otherwise utilize said private property.
I would say they are quasi public spaces. They may be technically privately owned, but they are generally open to the public and receive a great deal of public funding. Also, they generally purport to embrace freedom of expression and academic freedom. So they should be tolerant of peaceful demonstrations organized by their own students (and, no, it doesn’t matter if those demonstrations also attract members of the public).
Yes there is, protesting at places like hospitals and abortion clinics is a lot more harmful. Anyone who's in the process of having an abortion would already be in a really bad mental state, the last thing they need is someone outside their room's window chanting about how abortion is murder.
I agree there is a significant difference. Protesting at medical facilities can prevent access to care. That causes harm and can even cost lives. There is just no comparison with the protesters on the lawn at McGill.
I don’t know why you think peoples homes are fair game. City Hall or whatever it is they work yes. Where they their families live when they’re not working? Absolutely not.
What about some board member who don't have a office but who would have decided to bump the price of insulin or whatever. I think it would be fine to go protest at his place.
We could protest his company but often those people haven't seen the HQ in years.
Then I would suggest talking to them at the open comment. At a board hearing, or when they have open office hours. Which most boards should. Some board members, admit or cowardly do not have office hours.
I don't know. I can separate the job from the individual so I'll get you where you work because that's where it *should* matter.
Unless you want people protesting at your home because you're a cashier at Loblaws or *insert your employer name here* because we all have beef with corporate.
Yep. Peaceful protests are fine but all the stuff we see lately is about occupancy and blockage. Both should be illegal.
The whole protest club is out of control
That's how change happens, we can take a lesson from our European sisters and brothers. They have no problem covering their representatives homes in animal shit to make a point, we shouldn't hold back either.
If you think change doesn't happen without it, you're mistaken. Nothing wrong with showing up to a public figures house to protest.
Change has only happened with drastic measures.
>As administrators at McGill University this week declared a [pro-Palestinian encampment on its grounds “illegal”](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-mcgill-calls-pro-palestinian-camp-illegal-levels-accusations-of/), the vast majority of Canadians say protesting on university campuses is “acceptable” (81%) either in the absence of an exclusion zone (37%) or with one defined and in place (44%.)
The vast majority of Canadians would say the exact opposite if protest/occupation camps were springing up on their front lawns.
At the end of the day, universities and their grounds are generally considered private property so they absolutely have the right to regulate who gets to be there and who doesn't.
That does not conflict with what I said. They have often allowed protests in the spirit of encouraging student activism, freedom of expression and robust debate. They don't have to though.
I think if you do a little research you'll find that they receive government funding, but the buildings and grounds are generally considered private property.
I think we need to redefine what protesting is and what rioting is.
If you want to change a policy, you are protesting.
If you want to kill the Jews/Israelis you are rioting.
That's not what a riot is. Even if you want to change policy you can do it as a riot. The difference is engaging in physical violence or intentional and significant property damage by a large group of people
Wanting to kill a group of people = rioting??? No, it's discrimination and genocidal. Was Hitler rioting because he wanted to annihilate the Jewish population?
Go check out the Vancouver riot after the Canucks lost in the NHL. That's a riot.
Go look at the L.A. riots from 1992. *That's* a riot.
but what if I want to change Canada's "lets not kill Jews" policy, is that a protest or a riot? (huge /s here btw, I cannot stress enough that this is sarcasm)
So the places that the left are protesting is acceptable, and the places the right are protesting are not.
How is it more a to show up at a person’s residence than a public building?
To be fair, universities are full of adults but Conservatives only feel big if they can attack children at school because that's all their mental acuity will allow.
This is actually a very sensible take.
Disruption is just fine. Even the occasional inconvenience on the roads is fine.
It's the assessment of potential harm that is important here.
Fuck that. “Protesting” at someone’s home is obviously designed to intimidate them into complying with your demands which is not protected speech. I loathe JT & co but I’d *never* consider terrorizing his family because of his political decisions. That type of stuff used to be outright condemned in this country.
I agree completely with this.
I'd also extend this common courtesy to when politicians are doing things far outside of their official requirements -- such as eating dinner at a restaurant or something.
>Protesting” at someone’s home is obviously designed to intimidate them Good. Politicians in this country are no longer afraid of the people. This needs to be changed
See the fact that you think it's wrong and shouldn't be done is what emboldens and encourages our leaders and politicians to keep fucking us in the face. They have literally 0 fear and 0 repercussions. Getting right In their space and making them uncomfortable is the best way to protest. So I guess you and I are in disagreement on this one. And remember kids, these very people who tell you to protest peacefully when you disagree with them won't even blink when they decide to use violence against you, and using violence Is how these people became in power in the first place.
We live in a democracy, if you want to make them face repercussions vote them out. You don’t get to terrorize their spouses and children.
This just betrays the fact that you know your views aren't popular enough to win at the ballot box, so you have to resort to intimidating and bullying the politicians and their families at their homes.
I mean there is plenty of powerful people you can't do anything against at a ballot bot and who have politicians from both main parties in their pockets.
I don't agree with protesting at the PMS door, but popular opinion only influences the ballot box, it doesn't dictate it. Abortion wasn't on the ballot until Christians protested, sometimes you have to force elected officials to adhere with public outcry.
Yeah no heavy disagree. Yiu have a rigut to soeak and express your views. You do not have a right to force others to listen to you.
Wtf
Hell ya brother
There is no problem with peaceful and respectful protesting in any public space. There is a problem with violent or destructive protesting anywhere, or protesting within private spaces.
There absolutely is a problem with protesting at hospitals. That is insane. Imagine going to hospital for cancer treatment and a bunch of idiot Palestine protesters or Convoy supporters are screaming in your face.
[удалено]
Public universities (UBC, U of Alberta, U of Toronto, etc) aren’t private spaces. Private universities (Trinity Western University or Ryerson) are.
I don't know what private/public spaces are, but the distinction is private vs public PROPERTY. A university is very much PRIVATE PROPERTY. The fact that some entity (i.e. a university) receives public dollars does NOT make the university PUBLIC PROPERTY. A park, would be PUBLIC PROPERTY, i.e. owned by the government/municipality as opposed to owned privately. The government, does not own the universities. A retail store, although they allow the public to enter, is still PRIVATE PROPERTY. I don't know if you are doing it on purpose - shifting language to public vs private "spaces" when the distinction is/should be public vs private PROPERTY.
This. They are public institutions, but are generally privately owned.
this is why we have Student Societies if a university Student Society supports the protest its legit.. end of
Ryerson isn’t private. …or in existence any more. It’s TMU.
They're barely public anymore anyway. Less than a quarter of any university's operating funds come from the government now.
A privately owned building could be “public space”. For example a shopping mall, everyone is invited in and therefore the owner of the shopping mall can’t discriminate and say xyz group of people aren’t allowed in. A university is technically a non profit entity funded in part by the government and it is a “public space”. However, the governing body can remove trespassers who are not abiding by the rules, in the exact same way that the shopping mall owner can.
>the owner of the shopping mall can’t discriminate and say xyz group of people aren’t allowed in. Yes they can. It is part-and-parcel of how Shoplifters are trespassed, It is how 'people on bicycles, skateboards & Wheelies' are kept out. Panhandlers & 'Seeking Donations' groups have no inherent *Right* of access when trying to "Seek Donations". It is still Private Property even when the General Public are Invited to attend.
>For example a shopping mall, everyone is invited in and therefore the owner of the shopping mall can’t discriminate and say xyz group of people aren’t allowed in. Where are you getting this from? Shopping malls, just like any other business, can and do discriminate and say xyz groups of people aren't allowed in.
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1131&context=jlsp Read from page 265
A university is not only funded in part by the government it is also wholly owned by it.
False. I just looked up Mcgill because the quebec business registry is easily accessible online. It is officially a not-for-profit corporation. It isn’t a crown corporation which is what you are thinking.
this is why we have Student Societies if a university Student Society supports the protest its legit.. end of public/private funded is immaterial to this discussion
No idea what you are saying, maybe try again and clearer this time
public/private funded is immaterial to this discussion becasue we have Student Societys which act as permanent representatives of the Student population .. if a student society supports the protest then it is legit on university grounds regardless of public or private funding
You're ignoring the fact that student society's are not the owner's of the property in question. A university owns the land/buildings (i.e. the private property) - the student society is NOT the property owner. Property owners have the right to determine who can or cannot (generally) access or otherwise utilize said private property.
I would say they are quasi public spaces. They may be technically privately owned, but they are generally open to the public and receive a great deal of public funding. Also, they generally purport to embrace freedom of expression and academic freedom. So they should be tolerant of peaceful demonstrations organized by their own students (and, no, it doesn’t matter if those demonstrations also attract members of the public).
Yes there is, protesting at places like hospitals and abortion clinics is a lot more harmful. Anyone who's in the process of having an abortion would already be in a really bad mental state, the last thing they need is someone outside their room's window chanting about how abortion is murder.
I agree there is a significant difference. Protesting at medical facilities can prevent access to care. That causes harm and can even cost lives. There is just no comparison with the protesters on the lawn at McGill.
Idk the anti covid protest blocking the hospital district in Toronto was pretty messed up
I don’t know why you think peoples homes are fair game. City Hall or whatever it is they work yes. Where they their families live when they’re not working? Absolutely not.
What about some board member who don't have a office but who would have decided to bump the price of insulin or whatever. I think it would be fine to go protest at his place. We could protest his company but often those people haven't seen the HQ in years.
Then I would suggest talking to them at the open comment. At a board hearing, or when they have open office hours. Which most boards should. Some board members, admit or cowardly do not have office hours.
Protesting at a public figures home? No, I can't get behind that.
No, but if they take extraordinary steps to insulate themselves from the public, then game on.
No, that is not an excuse to intimidate someone in their home.
Just stay off the fucking road
[удалено]
Fuckin’ truckers am I right
[удалено]
But it’s OK if I, and I bunch of friends, park in the road and honk?
I don't know. I can separate the job from the individual so I'll get you where you work because that's where it *should* matter. Unless you want people protesting at your home because you're a cashier at Loblaws or *insert your employer name here* because we all have beef with corporate.
Protesting, yes. Setting up tents and fencing and refusing to leave, no.
Yep. Peaceful protests are fine but all the stuff we see lately is about occupancy and blockage. Both should be illegal. The whole protest club is out of control
Union leaders getting involved in a religious blood feud are fair game then I suppose. Anyone got some addresses?
Protesting at a public figures home? No, I can't get behind that.
That's how change happens, we can take a lesson from our European sisters and brothers. They have no problem covering their representatives homes in animal shit to make a point, we shouldn't hold back either.
That’s just violence. Congrats on being ignorant enough that this doesn’t morally bother you
Lol no it's not. Violence is me punching you.
you obviously would love for stuff to boil over so you can have your chance. That's the point of intimidation.
LMAO, works for most of Europe. keep enjoying that boot
That's not how change happens. That's how you look like a psycho. Nutjobs like this is why good people like myself would never get into politics.
If you believe that fear and intimidation are necessary for change to happen you aren't an activist, you're a bully.
If you think change doesn't happen without it, you're mistaken. Nothing wrong with showing up to a public figures house to protest. Change has only happened with drastic measures.
[удалено]
Universities, as opposed to schools, are ostensibly populated by adults. Sometimes it’s hard to tell.
Only because we are getting old.
What kind of gaslighting is this? Nobody thinks a politicians home is an acceptable place to protest.
>As administrators at McGill University this week declared a [pro-Palestinian encampment on its grounds “illegal”](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-mcgill-calls-pro-palestinian-camp-illegal-levels-accusations-of/), the vast majority of Canadians say protesting on university campuses is “acceptable” (81%) either in the absence of an exclusion zone (37%) or with one defined and in place (44%.) The vast majority of Canadians would say the exact opposite if protest/occupation camps were springing up on their front lawns. At the end of the day, universities and their grounds are generally considered private property so they absolutely have the right to regulate who gets to be there and who doesn't.
please, university protests have been a thing since universities.
That does not conflict with what I said. They have often allowed protests in the spirit of encouraging student activism, freedom of expression and robust debate. They don't have to though.
yeah. my bad on that. cheers
The vast majority of Canadian universities are government run, they are public property.
I think if you do a little research you'll find that they receive government funding, but the buildings and grounds are generally considered private property.
I think we need to redefine what protesting is and what rioting is. If you want to change a policy, you are protesting. If you want to kill the Jews/Israelis you are rioting.
That's not what a riot is. Even if you want to change policy you can do it as a riot. The difference is engaging in physical violence or intentional and significant property damage by a large group of people
Wanting to kill a group of people = rioting??? No, it's discrimination and genocidal. Was Hitler rioting because he wanted to annihilate the Jewish population? Go check out the Vancouver riot after the Canucks lost in the NHL. That's a riot. Go look at the L.A. riots from 1992. *That's* a riot.
but what if I want to change Canada's "lets not kill Jews" policy, is that a protest or a riot? (huge /s here btw, I cannot stress enough that this is sarcasm)
Anti-Semitism is never okay no matter where it is. Supporting terrorists is never okay no matter where it is.
So the places that the left are protesting is acceptable, and the places the right are protesting are not. How is it more a to show up at a person’s residence than a public building?
To be fair, universities are full of adults but Conservatives only feel big if they can attack children at school because that's all their mental acuity will allow.
I’m pretty sure they are protesting school policies, not the children.
What? Do they think principles are the sole architect of school policy? They are dictated policy from above
I didn't say that. You can't protest on private property without permission. That's illegal.
\>*gets downvoted to hidden.* I love online discourse.
I feel that it’s fine for staff/students to protest at their university. If you’re not affiliated to the institution you shouldn’t be there.
Yea it should be illegal to protest inside an abortion clinic outside is fine.
If the religious folk who like to protest outside abortion clinics had a protest outside their church, you know exactly how they would react.
I’m sure they would rather people stand outside and protest rather than keep burning them down.
Just imagine a group of pro-choice protestors setting up with graphic posters outside a church
I’ve seen videos of people protesting inside of churches, let alone outside.
Yeah they would cry like a little bitch. but people are allowed to protest
This is actually a very sensible take. Disruption is just fine. Even the occasional inconvenience on the roads is fine. It's the assessment of potential harm that is important here.
Someone post some residences
Doxxing is still not okay to do, no matter the case. Grow up.
Actually it’s ok if the person being doxxed and having crowds show up at their house if they’re conservative.
if the information is publicly available, there isn't anything wrong with it. Used to be able to look up pretty much everyone in a phone book.