I've been following the fallout from this G20 summit through Twitter, YouTube and other media over the past few days. I wasn't there myself, but I have some experience as an observer during protests, so a lot of what I saw and heard was familiar.

The first thing you have to know about large protests - and the police action that comes with it - is that it's all more of a public relations war than anything else. Neither side is interested in harming the other (permanently), nor do they seriously expect that the other side will listen to reason and compromise. Instead, their shared goal is to convince the court of public opinion that the opposing side is an evil, heartless monster menace and they are the innocent victims (it's a battle the police tend to win, by the way - as a post-G20 poll shows).

And that wouldn't be so difficult. All either side has to do to get on the public's good side is behave. Don't antagonize, don't attack, don't resist, don't break the law.

The problem with large protests (just about anything large enough to bring out the riot squad) is that while the majority - even the vast majority - do behave during these events, a minority of both sides doesn't. And those are the ones people focus on. The ones who let their frustrations get the better of them, the ones who think the ends justify the means, or the ones who are just straight-up assholes.

And so, in the days after the G20, both sides have been screaming out half-truths to anyone who will listen, trying their best to exaggerate the extreme actions of the other side while dismissing or rationalizing their own excesses.

Here are a few of those outrageous claims. Some might be true, others not. I don't know, because it seems everyone who does know the truth is too clouded by their political agendas to speak it properly. But I'm willing to guess the truth lies somewhere between the two sides.

Corporate media ignored the protesters' demands

I haven't found much media coverage of what the protesters were actually there to say (though the Globe and Mail did a good job of interviewing various interest groups before the summits). Then again, I haven't found much independent media coverage of that either - though there is some. The big message I'm getting from the protester side is about the police, as it unfortunately tends to be.

There's a post at the Toronto Media Co-op about how people should actually look at the G8-G20 magazine and discuss it. The post's first comment said: "I would discuss the magazine with you but every time I try to read a page I want to vomit." (Open-minded, no?) Other comments that followed brought the discussion back to police and protesters.

If anything, there's far too much media coverage of the G20 protests, considering what happened. And that, of course, has to do with the fact that it happened in Toronto. Because so-called national media are based there, anything that happens there suddenly gains more national significance than it would if it had happened in Halifax or Saskatoon.

We have articles from the Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, National Post, Globe and Mail, CTV and CBC chronicling the sometimes disturbing claims of peaceful protesters. Can't get more corporate/mainstream than that.

UPDATE: Craig Silverman has some analysis of this at the Columbia Journalism Review.

Protesters were abused by police

Temporary police holding cell used during G20 summit in Toronto (photo: Toronto Police)

I've heard all sorts of exaggerations when it comes to so-called "police brutality" - a shove with a baton to get someone to move will be described as a violent, unprovoked attack on an unarmed person (extra points if they're frail or pregnant). This protest was no different. The most minor of police jostles becomes a brutal attack in the eyes of the protesters.

A disturbing report from student journalists recounts stories about ... well, let's be honest, it's more discomfort and inconvenience than it is abuse. But police say everything was on tape, and they're willing to face any complaint.

In fact, the police later gave a tour to the media of this supposed hell hole that people were taken to after they were arrested. These metal cages doesn't look particularly appetizing, but they're jail cells. And when detainees are complaining about the taste of the cheese sandwiches they were given, you have to wonder what kind of treatment they expected.

I'm not defending what the police do. I too have been shoved with a baton and grabbed with a forceful arm. It's really uncomfortable, and in many cases it hurts. But I would never use the term "brutality" to describe something done to me, and it's rare to find cases that go beyond scrapes or bruises, even more so when the victim was following police orders and acting peacefully.

This makes me question some of the things said about police action after the arrests. Amy Miller, who calls herself an independent journalist but is clearly on one side of this conflict, said "I was told I was going to be raped". Maybe she's right. Maybe a police officer said something that went way too far. Maybe this girl was strangled as she said.

Maybe. But with the clear agenda they have in reporting these events, it's hard to distinguish between truth and exaggeration.

But before you dismiss it all, consider this opinion piece by TVO's Steve Paikin, who witnessed the protests first-hand and is hardly a radical anarchist. He didn't say what the police did was abusive. He didn't say it was illegal. He didn't do any amateur legal analysis or use ridiculous hyperbole. But he painted a picture and said the police overstepped their bounds, said they "overreacted" and said the scene was "frightening".

I'm much more likely to believe a story like that than one that says "OMG police pig storm troopers were illegally assaulting and abusing innocent peaceful protesters and must answer for their war crimes against humanity!!!!" - no matter how many MDs they drag out.

Besides, the real abuse of human rights was the denial of shopping.

Protesters were heavily armed

Toronto police put on an impressive display (a chainsaw? really?) of weapons seized during the protests. Police chief Bill Blair gave this telling quote during the press conference: "No one should be so naïve as to think these people were there for the purpose of lawful protest."

The message is clear: the protesters were armed, here to cause violence, and we police officers were entirely justified in what we did because of it. It's only because of us, they say, that Toronto wasn't destroyed by an angry mob.

But while the press conference was impressive, there's a few problems with the logic used. The first is that there aren't enough weapons there to account for all the protesters present at the G20 summit, nor even those 1,000 or so arrested. So clearly some were arrested who were unarmed.

Second, the police definition of "weapon" is very liberal. One person was arrested and faces weapons charges for carrying a Swiss army knife. Other weapons put on display included goggles, bicycle helmets, tennis balls and walkie-talkies, the Globe says.

Finally, many of the weapons put on display were not taken from G20 protesters. That chainsaw? The crossbow? Unrelated, the police admitted. The chain mail? It's from a guy who was on his way to a live-action role-playing game.

Even what's left after you dismiss all of these are questionable: "gas masks, cans of spray paint, a replica gun, saws, pocket knives, a staple gun, a drill, a slingshot, chains and handcuffs." How much damage can you see any of the above doing to a police officer in riot gear? Or to an unarmed dignitary if they do get through?

There were clearly some weapons brought in with the purpose of doing damage at the G20 protests. But it was a small number, and the police were clearly trying to exaggerate it to gain public sympathy.

Undercover cops acted as agents provocateurs

I've always found this myth a bit far-fetched. It's one thing to suggest that undercover police officers have infiltrated activist ranks before and during protests. I expect that to happen. But to take it to the next level and say that those officers are the ones that are causing the violence? That they are the ones setting fire to police cars and breaking windows - all with the support of uniformed officers - just so the police can win a PR war? That the Black Bloc itself is nothing but a creation of police forces, whose broader goal is to give fellow officers an excuse to abuse innocent people and "criminalize dissent"?

It smacks of a conspiracy theory along the lines of the U.S. planning 9/11. And it just doesn't make any sense. (We'll set aside for a moment the unlikelihood of a giant conspiracy involving hundreds of people being carried out over and over and no official evidence of it ever leaking to the media).

And if the Black Bloc are nothing but undercover police provocateurs, if the "real protesters never wear masks", then why do I see banners saying "We are all Black Bloc!" in a sympathy protest in Vancouver? Were those also police agents? And if so, why didn't they smash anything? Why are people defending the actions of the Black Bloc, even psychoanalyzing them in a sympathetic way?

Video after video on YouTube describes "agents provocateurs", but at best they show cops in civilian clothing - with no evidence that they damaged anything or provoked anything - or people dressed in black vandalizing property - with no evidence that these people are police officers or being protected by them.

I'd have dismissed such crazy talk entirely had I not known about a protest in Montebello in August 2007.

Shortly afterward, a video went up on YouTube of a union leader convinced that three guys in army boots and bandanas were in fact cops sent to bring an unstable element to the protest. One of the three had a rock in his hand. They stood there quietly, trying not to react. Eventually they moved closer to the line of SQ cops. Despite one of them carrying a rock for no apparent purpose, less than three feet away from riot cops, the SQ did nothing. Not a shove, not a yell.

As the other activists (including some wearing masks) turned on the three guys, they inched closer to the riot cops, and appeared to start a conversation with them. Eventually they pushed - walked, even - behing the SQ line and were taken into custody with no resistance whatsoever.

It was just incredibly suspicious. It became even moreso when a picture surfaced showing the three mysterious men were wearing the same type of boots as the uniformed SQ cops.

Individually, none of these things is proof of anything. Even together, the evidence is circumstantial. I remained unconvinced.

Then the SQ admitted it: They were undercover cops. That guy had no intention of using that rock, the SQ said. Holding it in his hand was just a way of getting behind enemy lines.

Whether they were agents provocateurs is up for debate. But this episode did show that police do go undercover, and do pose as violent protesters. More importantly, it showed me that sometimes the crazy activist conspiracy theorists are right.

The police allowed the Black Bloc to run amok to bolster their PR case

Just like there are those who don't believe the U.S. organized 9/11 but believe they allowed it to happen, there are those who think the police willingly turned a blind eye to Black Bloc tactics so that they could run to the media and say "look at what our enemies are doing!" - and so they could take out their primal aggressions on peaceful protesters.

A billion dollars was spent on security, with thousands of police officers brought in from all over the country. They had plenty to rough up peaceful protests, but they couldn't stop a handful of Black Bloc troublemakers from breaking windows of businesses? Why was it up to random citizens to stop the looting?

There are all sorts of reasons why police won't stop a vandal. Usually it's because they don't think they can do so safely, keeping their officers protected. (Their first priority is their own safety, not that of their cars.) But the decision to retreat is usually a result of a lack of manpower, which I can't imagine could have been the case here. At least not longer than it would take for dozens of riot cops to march a few blocks.

A police review will probably shed some light on how the vandalism and police car fires were allowed to happen (and it's one of those things that the non-activist public actually wants to know from the police).

But as with the previous conspiracy theory, I just don't see the motivation. Are we to believe that the police are thugs who take a sick pleasure out of beating up innocent people? That they would orchestrate some massive conspiracy so they could give some kids a few bruises? Or maybe it's some complicated ruse to increase their budget? If that were the case, you'd think the union would have denounced it by now. Unless, of course, we have to believe that they're in on it too.

Then again, maybe it is true. A CityNews reporter recounts a police officer saying that the more arrests they made, the more funding they would get. Probably a joke, perhaps an exaggeration, a guess or a misunderstanding of policy, but it makes you wonder.

The police say they'll find and prosecute the vandals, but it's hard to see them being very effective after the fact, even if they think they have a case against people like Jaggi Singh.

Protesters protected and supported the Black Bloc

It's true that part of the way the Black Bloc works is to use the massive crowd of protesters as cover. But even in the videos showing their destructive tactics, you can see people denouncing them. One bystander even took matters into his own hands to stop looting from a broken store window.

While a sympathy protest was held in Vancouver, another one is being organized where they're not welcome.

There are protesters who support the Black Bloc, who think that the battle against capitalism will someday result in all-out armed revolution and create a new world order. But they're in the minority.

At the G20, nobody stopped police officers from arresting Black Bloc members. The cops just weren't there.

That said, protesters, journalists and all those bystanders taking cellphone videos have to understand that they're part of the problem. Each one forms part of a mob that will dissuade police from rushing in to stop the destruction. Like in any riot, people gawking and taking pictures and video - as well-intentioned as they may be - only encourage more of the same.

Toronto was a police state

Sure, that fence was high, and some officers probably went too far (in many cases bringing out some really strange logic), but comparing Toronto to some middle eastern dictatorship is going a bit far. Real police states don't protect people even as they're arresting them.

There are legitimate criticisms of the encroachment on civil liberties that took place during the G20 summit, including unprovoked searches and the confiscation of non-dangerous belongings. But exaggerating this will only serve to push away any public sympathy and have the victims be branded as radicals with no sense of reality.

Putting up a video that shows a police officer saying "this ain't Canada right now" - now that speaks volumes.

Police targeted Quebecers

It's a strange claim, but some people are saying that people with Quebec license plates or who spoke French were being harassed by police officers. The first of these claims came from CLAC, the anti-capitalist radicals who support vandalism as a legitimate form of protest, and I think it's far more likely police were profiling CLAC members because of their political views than because of their province of origin or spoken language. But still, it's not far-fetched to believe that some police officers let their prejudices get the better of them.

Police targeted journalists

Looking at the videos from the G20 protests, it seems every second person had a camera and was calling themselves an "independent journalists." In reality, a lot of those people were just activists with blogs.

One of the most high-profile cases is Jesse Rosenfeld, who was described as a journalist with The Guardian. But he's not. He writes for a section of the Guardian's website called "Comment is free" - and the Guardian itself describes him as a Canadian "freelance journalist."

I don't know what Rosenfeld's motivations were. Maybe his interest was strictly journalism. Maybe he was out to present an agenda. But he is either misrepresenting himself or being misrepresented as being a class of journalist he's clearly not.

Don't get me wrong, independent media is very important, and websites like the Toronto Media Co-op have been very useful in my research here, but to suggest that they present straight news without a political agenda is ridiculous.

The fact that so much footage made it to the Internet - even from some people who had been arrested - suggests the police weren't exactly trying to shut down journalism (independent or otherwise) on a massive scale.

Male officers performed strip searches on female detainees

The allegations are all over the Internet (along with allegations that police raped and tortured people), but the police deny it. And since the stories all seem to come from the same single report, it's hard to give it too much credibility.

Police fired on protesters

Saying police "opened fire" gives the incorrect impression that live bullets were used, but otherwise this one appears to be true. I'm sure some context is missing from the above video, but clearly the police made use of nonlethal projectile weapons as a form of crowd control.

They probably think they were justified somehow.

Police did a good job

More than a week after the summit, Toronto City Council voted unanimously to praise the police for their work. This, after an inquiry had been called, but before it had collected any evidence. One councillor - a mayoral candidate - even argued the police were "too nice".

These motions have no real power. They're entirely symbolic. But they send the wrong message - that the city is on the side of the police, and the complaints of the protesters are without merit. As much as I'm skeptical about some of the reports made by some protesters, there are too many of them which are too consistent, backed by too much video and photographic evidence to be dismissed outright.

Police are only human, it's expected some of them should lose their temper like some protesters did

Yes, police are human. It's understandable that some would let their emotions get the better of them and they go too far. That doesn't make it right.

Police, especially in situations like this, have to bend over backwards to the point of absurdity to protect the safety and rights of everyone - including the protesters. That's their job. If anyone steps out of line, they should be punished. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be police officers.

Eye for an eye is not acceptable as a police tactic. Protesters will be rude, insulting and uncooperative. It's mean, and in many cases uncalled for, but unless a law is broken, it's perfectly legal, and they should be allowed to do it.

It's not fair. But neither is the fact that police have weapons and protesters don't. Police must accept more responsibility for their actions.

The amount of arrests is evidence of the nefarious intentions of the protest mob

There were more than 900 arrests made during the G20 summit. It's the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. Twice as much as were made during the October Crisis - you'll recall people actually died during that, and even then it was controversial.

But what's more important than the large number of arrests is the comparatively small number of prosecutions. Most people were released - after hours of detainment in disgusting wire cages - without charges.

There are two reasons this might happen: 1) The charges are so minor that police deem it a waste of time and resources to prosecute them; 2) The charges are so difficult to prove that police don't believe they'd get a conviction.

In both of these cases, one really should call into question the arrest itself, no?

I've seen protest arrests, followed by hours of detainment, where people are released after signing a document waiving their rights (say, by agreeing not to protest under certain conditions). Even though they know they did nothing wrong, and the police have no case, they sign over their rights in exchange for their freedom. It's wrong, but it keeps repeating itself.

A week after the protest, the number of people still detained - the number facing serious charges - is in the low double digits. Is 900 arrests really justified when only 10-20 did anything the police are seriously prepared to prosecute?

This whole summit could have been done over teleconference

It borders on the absurd, but some are suggesting that in-person conferences among world leaders should be done away with and that everyone should just meet using teleconference systems like Skype.

Aside from missing the point - should major policy be set by the whims of violent protesters? - many experts argue - and I tend to agree - that face-to-face contact between world leaders does make a difference. But, by all means, cut down some of that staff of 500 President Obama brings with him to these things.

Police were given sweeping new powers after laws were secretly passed

Speaking of absurd, there was news just before the G20 began that Ontario lawmakers had secretly passed a law that gave the police the power to detain or even arrest people just for approaching the giant fence separating the G20 from the rest of Toronto.

The media made a big deal of these new police powers. People were arrested using them. But it turns out the laws people were complaining about never existed, despite the police making everyone think they did. Isn't it wrong for a police officer to pretend there's a law that doesn't exist, and particularly to act on it?

Even the police chief was in on it:

Asked Tuesday if there actually was a five-metre rule given the ministry’s clarification, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair smiled and said, “No, but I was trying to keep the criminals out.”

In other words, he helped to fool everyone. About, you know, the law. Are there also secret parts of the constitution the government is just choosing not to publicize? This is the law, for crying out loud!

The review

Amnesty International is calling for an independent inquiry. The Toronto police have said they would review their procedures, but it sounds more like reviewing their tactics than actually investigating to see if any of them might have crossed the line. There will be an independent investigation, but not a full inquiry. Who knows how detailed it will be.

I think a full inquiry makes sense here, for a number of reasons. First, because of the amount of money involved. A few million dollars on an inquiry seems like a drop in the bucket compared to hundreds of millions spent on security. Saving just a few percent next time would more than compensate for the cost of the inquiry.

Second, this isn't a one-off, isolated event. This entire production will repeat itself the next time world leaders meet in Canada. The larger issue needs to be explored, with clearer guidelines given to police about how to deal with protesters, and better procedures in place so that peaceful protesters are allowed to demonstrate freely while those who commit criminal acts are found and arrested before they can do any damage to property.

But I have a feeling that even such an inquiry would change little about how police and protesters confront each other. The idea that they could come to a peaceful understanding and just let each other be ... well, that's just another myth.

UPDATE (Sept. 4): The Toronto Star has a look back at the G20, which helps explain a bit about the police and the Black Bloc.

Related Posts

• Bixi in Toronto
• Google Street View coverage maps
• Flash mob is the new protest
• Can you feel the love, t.o.night?
• Astral strikes again

Police officers monitor a "flash mob" protest on St. Jacques St.

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you probably know my opinion on so-called "flash mobs". The term is poorly defined (mostly because the groups most associated with the term find it demeaning and refuse to describe themselves that way), but most people seem to have settled on the definition of a bunch of strangers meeting in a public place, doing something strange and then leaving.

That "something strange" is open to debate. In some cases, it's harmless fun for fun's sake. In others, it's a highly-choreographed stunt. I wouldn't really describe every seemingly spontaneous public performance as a flash mob, but as long as people are having fun I'm not going to complain.

My issue is that, because "flash mob" is popular among youth, various groups with agendas are trying to use it to their advantage. In some cases, the intentions are honorable, like fighting cancer. But it's also been used to promote beer, or create "viral videos" to drum up interest in some convoluted advertising campaign.

Now, it seems, it's also being abused for political activism.

Protest on St. Jacques St., above the Decarie Expressway

I really shouldn't have expected anything different from this "flash mob" protest organized by the anti-Turcot-project protesters. But heading down there with my camera, I saw plenty of mob and very little flash. In fact, no flash. They were just kind of standing around there. Did I miss the flash part?

Peter McQueen holds up a sign for passing motorists

I'm on the fence about the Turcot Interchange project as proposed by the Ministère de transport. I agree with a greater need for public consultation, and that we should prioritize public transit, and that forcing people to move should be avoided whenever possible, but I'm not sure with some environmentalists' conclusion that we should keep the concrete spaghetti mess in the sky.

Does this count as advertising?

Still, it's a free country. Let people protest. It's better that people express their opinion on these kinds of projects than have nobody question them before they turn into giant sinkholes of taxpayer money.

A green square pinned to chests signifies ... greenness?

Taking a page from the red squares used during student protests against Jean Charest's Liberal government (which had mixed results - a plan to convert bursaries into loans was reversed, but tuition increases went ahead), the protesters wore green felt squares. This particular square is on the shirt of Jacob Larsen, who wrote a post announcing the event on Spacing Montreal.

Perhaps green squares were appropriate because a bunch of faces were recognizable names from the Green Party, NDP and Projet Montréal:

Peter McQueen

There was Peter McQueen, a perennial Green Party candidate who's running for Projet Montréal in the coming municipal election.

Anne Lagacé-Dowson

And Anne Lagacé-Dowson, who left CBC Radio to run in a federal by-election for the NDP. She would eventually lose a general election to Liberal Marc Garneau. Since then she's been heard on weekends on CJAD.

Police cars ready to move in a block away

Despite these being fairly low-risk candidates for violence, police were there in force. Two cars around the corner, another four vans a block away. There were about as many police officers as protesters.

More coverage at Neath's Turcot blog and the Facebook group.

Three in a day

All this I would have dismissed if it were a unique case. But it was actually the third of three different protest-flash-mobs in a single day for three different causes.

At about the same time at Place des Arts, there was a flash mob for climate change. The "flash" part was apparently just making a lot of noise and standing behind a banner, which doesn't sound that different from every other protest that has ever occurred. Oh, there's something about freezing in place too, you know, to make it cool. And holding cellphones in the air (you see, because it's a "wakeup call", get it?)

And then earlier in the day, a flash mob for peace. This one even got the mayor to take part (he apparently wasn't too busy preparing to have his re-election hopes flushed down the toilet).

I used to like going to "flash mobs" because they were fun. I like organized fun, even with strangers (I even have an entire category for it on my blog). And even if the term "flash mob" had no real meaning, at least it had fun.

But now they've taken the fun out of it.

Related Posts

• Why I don’t believe anything I’m told about G20 protests
• All you need is fun
• The Michael Jackson publicity stunt
• Turcot: Keep the eyesore?
• CBC funeral lacks names to mourn

I'm horrible at crowd estimates. Guess for yourself how many people turned out.

Tuesday was the day the CBC was supposed to announce which of its employees it was going to lay off. The SCRC, which represents CBC and Radio-Canada employees in Quebec and Moncton, planned for a day of mourning at noon to draw attention to those names.

Unfortunately, the CBC made no such announcement, and the people who turned out still don't know who's being fired and who's being kept on, even though the corporation has already started the process of laying people off.

UPDATE: CBC says 180 people will get the pink slip on May 27 and 28.

Free hot dogs and cheeseburgers!

One would like to think union solidarity was the primary motivation behind the crowd, but there was a really long lineup for the free hot dogs and cheeseburgers. It made me want to work there, until someone reminded me what they pay in union dues.

Soon, after some socializing, it was time for the speeches from union leaders.

Alex Levasseur

This is Alex Levasseur. He gave a strong speech about how the Conservative government is attacking culture, specifically francophone culture in Canada. I found that statement odd for two reasons: first, the cuts were made by the CBC, not the government, and second, the cuts affect English services as much as they do French services.

True, the government did refuse the CBC's request for additional "bridge" financing to make up for plummeting advertising revenue, but it's spin to turn that into a government decree of hundreds of layoffs.

Sadly, not a single word of the speeches was in English. The SCRC union is usually labelled somewhat inaccurately as the "French" CBC union because it represents Quebec and Moncton, but it also represents anglos in those areas. Montreal is also Radio-Canada's headquarters, where most of its network programming originates.

I had a little game of "spot the anglo" going. With help of some insiders, we could name about 10.

Spot the photographer

Despite not really having any news to deliver, the event got quite a bit of media attention...

... even from some of the CBC's competitors.

So far I see articles in Le Devoir, Canadian Press, Rue Frontenac and Metro, in addition of course to Radio-Canada itself.

After the speeches, a fake coffin was carried at the head of a procession a few feet down the street ...

Look at that line.

...and then carried back. I guess it made sense to them.

Nancy Wood gestures with a hot dog

There's an anglo. I get 10 points!

(The hot dog wasn't actually for her, it was for newsreader Joanne Bayly, who like many of the anglos at CBC Radio had to stay inside to deal with a live broadcast.)

Ange-Aimée Woods, being tough

Ange-Aimée Woods, who works on the Daybreak team, doesn't know if she's on that list the CBC doesn't want to share. She was one of the last people hired permanently in the department (even though she's been there for half a decade), which would theoretically mean she'd be one of the first to get a pink slip.

The CBC says those notices will come by the end of next week. At that point we'll have some bodies to put in that casket.

Related Posts

• Union to mourn as axe falls at CBC
• A Mary Christmas
• CBC’s “renewal” cuts budget, expands newscasts
• CBC cuts 800 jobs
• CBC to become a lot less fashionable

Maison Radio-Canada

"D-day for some..or maybe me" is how Ange-Aimée Woods describes the Facebook group she setup to spread the word about a "day or mourning" organized by her union. On Tuesday, the real brunt of those 800 job cuts hits as the corporation reveals a list of the positions deemed "redundant", and the employees it has decided it can live without.

The union, which as you can imagine is steadfast against this move, is planning an hour-long demonstration outside Maison Radio-Canada (corner René-Lévesque and Panet, metro Beaudry) at noon, in solidarity with those getting pink slips (who don't yet know who they are):

We are organizing a demonstration to mark this day of mourning.

We will be out on the sidewalk with our “redundant” colleagues, a callous classification of the employees who are the heart and soul of the CBC.

We will gather on René-Lévesque in front of the main entrance to the Maison de Radio-Canada at noon to show our colleagues that we stand with them and management that we don’t agree with sacrificing the next generation of employees for flashy equipment. Senior management likes to say that the CBC’s most valuable asset is its people.

Let’s counter their cynicism with our most valuable asset: our solidarity and our voices.

Related Posts

• CBC funeral lacks names to mourn
• A Mary Christmas
• CBC’s “renewal” cuts budget, expands newscasts
• CBC cuts 800 jobs
• CBC to become a lot less fashionable

Here's a slideshow of photos I took (I was late because someone - probably a protester - killed power to the tracks just before it was to begin, but Luc Lavigne has better photos from the beginning of the protest anyway).

The Collectif opposé à la brutalité policière, which organizes the protest, is outraged (OUTRAGED!) that the city and police are now demanding that they be provided with the route the protest takes so that streets can be closed ahead of time. They say they did their best to minimize violence and property destruction because they asked people not to break things when the protest started.

Of course, just as the police protect their colleagues who surpass their authority, protesters protect the masked vandals who are more interested in getting away with what they can than they are making a point. So we get wanton property destruction (which only serves to sway public opinion away from one's cause) and mass arrests (which no doubt caught a bunch of innocent bystanders in its huge net - La Presse is trying to track them down).

What's sad, of course, is that police abuse of power is a real issue that deserves attention. The Fredy Villanueva case is already the subject of a public inquiry (which makes me wonder what exactly the protesters want in this case) and the death of Robert Dziekanski brought police procedure and Taser use to strong public criticism.

In the end, the public sympathy for victims of police brutality is undermined by protests such as these, because they show that when properly prepared for an onslaught of rock-throwing anarchists, cops (for the most part) keep their cool and keep the peace.

Similar thoughts from Patrick Lagacé,

Related Posts

• Police brutality protests revisited
• Why I don’t believe anything I’m told about G20 protests
• Flash mob is the new protest
• Flats happen to the best of us
• CBC funeral lacks names to mourn

Two guys at an anti-FTAA protest in 2003: Should they be arrested for covering their mouths?

In one of those stories that sound like they should be on The Onion, Montreal Mayor Gérald Tremblay is asking City Council to approve a rule that would make it illegal for protesters to wear masks.

Don't get me wrong. The vast majority of protesters who wear ski masks to protect their faces do so because they know they will do something illegal and they don't want to be identified.

But that doesn't make this any less of a gross attack on freedom of expression.

The press release makes mention of an exception for "valid reasons", which I would imagine includes "it's freezing outside" and "I'm a Muslim woman" but not "I'm shy" or "I just don't want people taking pictures of me".

But the validity of those reasons would be up to police officers to judge (and maybe, if you have enough money, a court to overturn later). It gives them more power to harass or detain people who haven't done anything wrong.

If I were more confident in our legal system, I would just laugh this off as something that would immediately get overturned by a court. But I'm not that confident anymore.

Arrest people who do things that are illegal, and charge them for doing those illegal things. Don't start systematically removing people's rights because statistics show it will help keep the peace better.

UPDATE (Jan. 28): No surprise, there was a protest to protest against the protest law.

Related Posts

• Metro screws up, but it’s just the wrong name
• Montreal, where data is becoming free
• Mordecai’s dilemma
• Tout l’monde transpire jusqu’aux orteils
• Sergakis’s ad turn and the development “loophole”

Spot the non-union flags at this protest

On Saturday, I went downtown to Protest Central (the Guy Favreau building) to check out the pro-coalition protest. I had wanted to stop by the "Rally for Canada" anti-coalition protest, but that never materialized in this city.

Coming out of the building, I noticed a lot of presence from labour unions. I did some quick number-counting. There were 150 flags with union logos on them. The number of signs, flags and banners without union logos were so few that I have pictures of them all below.

The numbers, and the speeches given during the rally, showed something worrisome: this protest wasn't about the grass roots standing up for democracy. It was about unions and separatists wanting to push the government more toward the left.

Party logos: 3

A lone sign carried the name of would-be prime minister Stéphane Dion

The NDP was represented by a big banner and kids in orange tuques

The Communist Party of Quebec (with cliché old-guy-with-beard) apparently supports the coalition, not that it matters.

Quebec flags: 1

A single, giant Quebec flag waves independently over the crowd

I won't fault the lack of Quebec flags, since the single flag was also the largest one there. Besides, as I explain below, Quebec pride was not lacking here.

Canadian flags: 0

Yes, that's right. Aside from the two flags permanently stationed on flagpoles outside the federal building, there was not a single Canadian flag flown at this protest. Considering they want the coalition to run the federal government, and the Tories are trying to turn this into a national unity issue with their "Rally for Canada" and separatists-are-traitors hyperbole, this seems like a really stupid mistake to make.

Patrick Lagacé said in a recent column that:

"Il faut sortir un peu du Québec pour comprendre à quel point le sentiment canadien est absent, chez nous. ... Je parle plutôt d'un sentiment collectif. D'une canadianité, si je puis dire, très visible. Je parle d'un attachement ostentatoire. Je parle de drapeaux canadiens immenses qui flottent au vent, dans les parkings de stations-service ou de centres commerciaux."

I don't think I need to go to Alberta to see that Canadian pride was mostly absent here.

Political signs

Fortunately, some people did get the point. There were generic "COALITION OUI"/"COALITION YES" signs being handed out, while others used their creativity to make their own signs expressing their arguments. Some did better than others.

A sign uses a pictograph to denote that the Tories are a minority.

This sign invites you to "count the seats", and I actually found myself doing so. According to this graph, it's 14 Conservative seats to 17 coalition seats. If only the House of Commons was actually this small.

Signs demonize Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a way that won't change anyone's mind.

These signs were cute, even though they're preaching to the choir.

Coffin uses an acronym to explain its case.

This coffin (at least, that's what I think it was) was clever, but not clever enough. "Laconfiance" is not a word, last time I checked my Larousse. "Liberté" might have been a better choice, but I'm sure you can come up with something better.

The politicians

Can't have a political protest without politicians. In between speeches by labour leaders, student union leaders, feminists and other special-interest groups, an MP from each of the parties represented by the coalition got a chance to speak to the crowd.

Wherever there's a microphone and camera, Liberal MP Denis Coderre is there.

Denis Coderre, never one to shy away from the spotlight, gave a speech in which he said "the whole country is watching." They no doubt were, and I'm sure some might have noticed the lack of flags, the overwhelming presence of unions, and the cheering for sovereignty and the Bloc.

The NDP's only Quebec MP, Thomas Mulcair, preaches to the coalition choir.

Tom Mulcair carried the NDP banner (well, not literally), giving a speech I've long-since forgotten.

Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe is surrounded by news cameras before he gives his speech.

But the real rock star here was Gilles Duceppe. Partially because he was the only party leader present, partially because since he never has any power he can't screw anything up and his approval ratings are high, and partially, I would quickly learn, because this crowd was made up mostly of hard-core sovereignists.

Gilles Duceppe goes over his speech beside the stage (note the union jacket he's wearing).

The speech started off (as many did) by noting that this was Dec. 6, the anniversary of the Polytechnique shootings. Everyone, including Duceppe, turned this into a women's issue, which I personally don't get. Are men not affected by who's running the government? Is pay equity really the biggest issue in all this, and does it somehow compare to killing 14 women?

Duceppes speech has some hand-written modifications

It was clear the moment Duceppe was announced that this crowd was on his side. Labour unions are known for being pro-sovereignty, and they just ate up everything he said.

Gilles Duceppe ends his speech by saying sovereignty is the best way for Quebecers to stand up for themselves.

I could barely get my camera in what with all the women swooning at his very presence. But between the orgasmic cheers, I could hear him make reference to Quebecers electing their first female prime minister (yeah, right), and some angry comments about "Harpeur" in Ottawa running around like a king.

His speech ended, naturally, by endorsing sovereignty as the ultimate solution to Quebec's democratic problem with Ottawa. That might have caused Liberal and NDP supporters to cringe, since they're trying to downplay that whole this-coalition-is-supported-by-people-who-want-to-break-up-our-country thing. Of course, Duceppe doesn't care. He's not trying to win votes in Calgary, and he's not trying to become prime minister.

It's clear that Duceppe is a fine orator. Far better than Stéphane Dion (in both official languages). It's easier, of course, to attack the sitting government than to defend it. But he does it well.

But like Coderre said, "the country is watching," and this protest may only have confirmed their worst fears: This coalition is a huge win for separatists, and the motivation of many behind it is the deterioration of national unity and the independence of Quebec. Not only is it bad that the Bloc has a veto over government legislation, but the Bloc sees this as a step in the path toward sovereignty.

A mobile food vendor knows business when he sees it.

Are there any non-union issues here?

But back to the union flags. Those were the most visible, and far more union speakers were brought out than any other group.

It's not that unions don't have a legitimate interest here. One of Harper's ideas was to restrict the right of federal employees to strike. This is clearly a union issue and their presence makes sense.

But 150 union flags to 0 Canadian flags means this protest was overwhelmed by union interests. That might not matter to the NDP, which is essentially run by labour unions, or the Bloc, which continually counts on their support in Quebec. But the Liberals?

And what about issues where labour issues might conflict with other leftist causes? Would forestry, fishing or resource extraction, industries where jobs are dependent on the slow destruction of our environment, get as much tough love from the government if labour unions they owed their existence to were trying to protect jobs?

These dogs learn to work together (oh those protest flings...)

In the end, it doesn't matter

Of course, when it comes down to it, the general public have no say in this matter. They expressed their will in October when they elected 308 representatives to the House of Commons. It's now up to them to decide how they want the government to work. Party leaders can get guidance from the grassroots, but the decisions will still be made in back rooms. And politics, not democracy, will be their guidance.

Children attend some sort of family Christmas concert at Complexe Desjardins, blissfully unaware of the politics outside.

Related Posts

• Disorganized organizing
• CBC funeral lacks names to mourn
• YASTGB: Bloc’s campaign bus sends mixed messages
• CRTC looking at eliminating top-40 radio restrictions
• Bell Canada, our Do Not Call overlords

rallyforcanada.ca

On the Rally for Canada website (which features "latests twitter posts"), the rallying point for the anti-coalition forces is listed as "Trudeau's office", which I assume means Justin Trudeau's constituency office at 625 Faillon Street E.

But if you go there, you'll probably be standing with a small crowd of gramatically-challenged Tory supporters. Everyone else is going to Complexe Guy Favreau on René-Lévesque Blvd. W., the federal building which for some reason has always been turned into Protest Central by anyone with anything to say to the federal government. That protest is the one the Liberals, the unions and the Make Parliament Work website are pointing people to. It also has over 500 people RSVPed on Facebook, which means at last five of them will show up.

Personally, I don't think public protest is going to change anything here (is Stephen Harper going to give up power because some a few hundred Montrealers that wouldn't have voted for him anyway told him to?). I also doubt most of the people attending these protests would have the same positions if the tables were turned and Stephen Harper was trying to use the Bloc to take power away from a minority Liberal government.

But hey, if you want to walk out in the cold carrying a sign, go nuts.

Related Posts

• Coalition of the unions and separatists
• YASTGB: Bloc’s campaign bus sends mixed messages
• CRTC looking at eliminating top-40 radio restrictions
• Bell Canada, our Do Not Call overlords
• Gas company critics are hypocrites

Now, the left being what it is, there are discussions happening in these forums about whether or not it makes sense to stage such a protest. Logicians point out two major points against it:

1. This is a California state proposition, has nothing to do with Canada, and Californians probably wouldn't appreciate us telling them what to do with themselves
2. Prop 8 already passed, the people have spoken, and you can't undo a democratic decision just because you don't agree with it.

The meeting is at 1 p.m. at McGill's Roddick Gates, and then proceeds to the U.S. consulate on Ste. Alexandre.

Related Posts

• Why I don’t believe anything I’m told about G20 protests
• Flash mob is the new protest
• CBC funeral lacks names to mourn
• Union to mourn as axe falls at CBC
• Brutality

Employees carry signs outside 1010 Ste. Catherine St. W.

As Canadians went to the polls today, editorial, advertising and reader service employees at the Gazette staged a lunch-hour information picket line, carrying signs and handing out leaflets explaining the situation to passers-by. The union, which is negotiating with management for a new contract (the previous one expired June 1), received a strong strike mandate but has so far not exercised it. Conciliation talks are scheduled for next week.

Journalists and other Gazette employees hold picket signs to attract public attention.

Turnout was pretty good considering there are less than 200 members affected (this includes the entire editorial department). Picket signs surrounded the building on all four sides for about an hour and a half.

Union vice-president Irwin Block gets interviewed by a radio reporter. His T-shirt reads "The Gazette is Montreal, not Winnipeg."

Media coverage was very light, considering there's this whole election thing is going on (have you voted yet?) and all hands on deck fanned out to swing ridings. But a radio reporter and photographer showed up, so you might see a tiny bit of coverage.

The key, though, is that this is just the beginning of the union's public information campaign (should such a campaign become necessary).

Reporter William Marsden hands an information leaflet to a bus driver

Roberto Rocha: Communist hippie

Meanwhile, The Link covers the Gazette labour conflict and byline strike, and has an editorial which posits that in the new digital age, quality of journalism becomes key and wire copy doesn't cut it anymore.

And La Presse also covers the Gazette today, focusing on the Canwest student scab situation. It includes a new explanation from Canwest, that the student freelancers would be needed mainly to provide material to other newspapers to compensate for the Gazette loss (Canwest has no Montreal bureau and relies on Gazette copy for news from Canada's second-largest city). Of course, such articles would also be available to The Gazette.

UPDATE: Michel Dumais looks at the recent labour action around Canadian newspapers, and Le Devoir has an adorable photo of Phil Authier.

UPDATE (Oct. 16): Hour and Mirror both mention The Gazette's union issues in their editions this week. Hour has a really good article by Jamie O'Meara arguing against the outsourcing of Gazette jobs (and includes one of my photos to illustrate it). Mirror makes The Gazette its insect of the week for Canwest's attempts to recruit student scab labour.

Related Posts

• Canwest gets another break
• Gazette editorial employees reject contract offer
• Vultures circling as talks continue
• Gazette staff start byline strike
• Gazette editorial dept. votes 98% for strike mandate

The mainstream media will give it a photo or short video clip highlighting the worst infractions, with a short brief mentioning how many people showed up, how many were arrested and what kind of damage there was. The next day, we might see an editorial decrying violence to make a point.

The alternative media, meanwhile, will go a bit more in depth about the protesters' motives (without questioning those motives or the reasons given for them). They'll also go in depth about accusations of police brutality, usually without trying to get the police's side on the matter.

The truth, meanwhile, seems to be lost in the middle as the media takes one side or the other.

When I wrote about the protest last year, I concluded that "The entire purpose of anti-police brutality protests is to prompt police brutality."

While I still believe that to be true (having police brutality at an anti-police-brutality protest helps the protesters' case -- or at least they think it does), I should expand on it a bit. It becomes an excuse for both the police and the radical elements of the anonymous, anarchist, anti-capitalist army to descend into pointless violence just to express their frustrations.

A semi-anonymous person interviewed by The Link said it much the same way (emphasis mine):

“I think in the same way that some of the protesters feel it’s a day they can let out their frustration, I think a lot of the cops feel that way too. And they like it that way,” said Paquette, who’s been homeless in Montreal for over 10 years. Few participants were willing to give their names to the press for fear of recrimination.

You'd think they'd find some more healthy and less expensive way to do so. Maybe a game of paintball or something?

I don't mean to make light of the situation (though compared to things that happen around the world, with people dying and stuff, it's kind of hard not to laugh at these people by comparison). But both sides use excessive force with no useful purpose, and nobody seems to care.

The protesters come from various backgrounds. Some are homeless people tired of being banned from every park and pushed out like some fruitcake nobody wants to eat. Some are legitimate victims (or friends of victims) of police brutality who want to speak out. Some are student activists who will support any leftist cause even if they don't fully understand it. Some are radical anti-capitalists wearing ski masks who think that trashing a few McDonald's signs will somehow bring about a new world order.

And, yes, some are undercover cops. (I don't want to minimize how boneheaded an idea that was, and how negatively it affected the reputation of the SQ and all other police forces dealing with protesters, and though we can never be entirely certain, I'll assume that most of the radical protesters aren't undercover cops.)

The actions of some protesters are bent out of a (perhaps understandable) frustration. But that frustration isn't a license to damage property or throw rocks at police. You can't simply take advantage of the mob in order to shield yourself from consequences.

And that peaceful mob consciously shields the lawbreakers out of some twisted sense of solidarity. In Montebello, those who took rocks got singled out by the crowd, who made it clear that they would not be protected. That earned the legitimate protesters brownie points. It made regular people sympathize with them, and made the police (and their agents provocateurs) turn into the bad guys.

If that happened here, public opinion about these protests would change considerably.

The police, meanwhile, could use these protests as a opportunities to be the bigger person. But they don't. They respond to transparently ineffective attacks on their massive body armor by literally chasing down protesters like a herd of wild bulls. They use force indiscriminately, against protesters, passers-by and journalists who get in the way. They make arrests by rounding people up like cattle, hitting them with a fine and then releasing them a few blocks away. They make people agree not to participate in protests in order to escape prosecution.

I want to re-emphasize that last sentence in case anyone missed it: Those who are arrested, whether they did anything wrong or not, are told to sign agreements saying they won't participate in public protests. It's legal, because people have the choice of going through a long court battle and facing jail time, but only Jaggi Singh is going to go through that on principle.

All this to say that those who take a side in this are either clueless, delusional or lying.

Other coverage of the protest:

• The Muse (Memorial University of Newfoundland)
• The Mirror
• The Gazette
• Canadian Press/CBC
• CTV

Elsewhere in the blogosphere:

• "ANARCONS"

Related Posts

• Brutality
• Why I don’t believe anything I’m told about G20 protests
• Flash mob is the new protest
• CBC funeral lacks names to mourn
• Union to mourn as axe falls at CBC

At 12:30pm, protesters gather at Ste. Catherine and McGill College to protest against the Saskatchewan seal hunt, which is starting up again for another season. Killing seals is apparently evil for some reason.

At the same time, a protest against the war in Afghanistan gathers at the corner of Peel and René-Lévesque. I guess that means they either haven't read the Manley report (PDF) or they agree that it was obviously a huge government conspiracy to force the mission to be extended and funnel defence spending to ... uhh... the corporations... yeah.

So whom do you value more? Seals or Afghanis?

Related Posts

• Why I don’t believe anything I’m told about G20 protests
• There always has to be a first
• Flash mob is the new protest
• CBC funeral lacks names to mourn
• Union to mourn as axe falls at CBC

Related Posts

• If only bus drivers had writers like these
• Screaming matches are not interviews
• The tuition debate is over
• Mouvement Montréal français is right about Second Cup
• RadCan needs geography lessons

Acting like Bill O'Reilly doesn't make you a better interviewer. When you invite a leader of the student protest movement on your show and yell at him like a madman, it doesn't make people agree with your position more. In fact, people already agree with your position that protesters provoke police and that the tuition hikes are modest and don't necessitate this kind of response.

So why are you yelling like a baby who thinks nobody is listening to him? You invited the guy on your show to speak his mind. At least let him speak.

Mongrain Clenche Porte Parole Etudiant 50 Dollar
Uploaded by mediawatchqc

UPDATE (Nov. 19): Mongrain's contract expires next spring, and he doesn't seem worried about his future.

UPDATE (Nov. 20): via Patrick Lagacé comes this example of classic Mongrain:

Related Posts

• The tuition debate is over
• Student lobby groups need a reality check
• More cries of “police brutality”
• Jean-Luc Mongrain quits TQS
• So so so, solidarité? Is that the best you could come up with?

The first, by the CEGEP-heavy, highly militant unlimited-strike-at-the-tip-of-a-hat ASSÉ, is this Thursday afternoon. (The event's tagline is telling: "Parce que la lutte continue, tabarnak !!!")

The second, by the bigger-budget, more organized PR-savvy FEUQ, is the following Thursday.

The reason behind the two protests is nothing more complicated than the two groups engaging in a pissing contest with each other. Rather than put aside their differences and come together, student groups prefer to fight and sue each other.

But even if this wasn't the case, the protest is pointless for one simple reason: They've already lost the battle.

In the last provincial election, Liberal leader Jean Charest made it abundantly clear he intended to unfreeze tuition and raise it by a small amount. ADQ leader Mario Dumont even wanted to go further. Those two parties took over 2/3 of the seats in the National Assembly.

The public, meanwhile, made it very clear that keeping Quebec's tuition the lowest in Canada is not their top priority. Even some students think our tuition is too low, and would prefer to see more student money go into the education system.

These protests (and the laughable "unlimited general strike", which hurts no one but the few students participating in it) are organized on the assumption that the public supports them. But it doesn't. And tying up downtown traffic so that some hippies can yell how $200 a course is too much to pay for university education isn't going to help their cause at all. It will just piss people off and make them think that these students have far too much free time on their hands that they could be spending earning money to lessen their tuition load.

The tuition debate is over as far as the government is concerned. If you're going to try to revolutionize the way Quebec finances post-secondary education, you have to convince the voters to think like you. That means a big, honest education campaign, not a protest.

And don't hold your breath expecting attitudes to change overnight.

Related Posts

• Student lobby groups need a reality check
• Screaming matches are not interviews
• More cries of “police brutality”
• Angryphones and frangryphones
• Mouvement Montréal français is right about Second Cup

The tiff was caused when the coffee giant decided it would remove "Les Cafés" from its coffee shop's signs and just become "Second Cup". They can do this, despite Bill 101, because Second Cup is a registered trademarked, like McDonald's, Wal-Mart and Future Shop.

MMF wasn't happy with this. So they protested. No firebombing or anything like that, but they held signs and asked people to take their patronage elsewhere (Starbucks? Java U? Tim Horton's? Dunkin Donuts?)

Good for them.

I'm no fan of Bill 101, and I oppose government over-regulation of commercial signs. But this isn't government regulation, it's regular citizens expressing their right to free expression in attempting to get a company to change its ways. Second Cup's signs should be French not because the government forces it on them, but because it's respecting the population to speak to them in their language. Imagine having English-only signs in China, or Spanish-only signs in the U.S. It's understandable for a mom-and-pop operation or a store in an ethnic village, but for a major company it's a slap in the face to French-speaking Quebecers.

Second Cup's move was just plain stupid. It's not like nobody recognizes "Second Cup" when it's "Les Cafés Second Cup". Instead, this smacks of a decision made by a clueless manager who has far too much free time on his hands and doesn't know anything about Quebec politics.

Hopefully they'll come to their senses and leave "Les Cafés Second Cup" alone.

Related Posts

• Angryphones and frangryphones
• The McKibbin’s kinda-non-story
• The tuition debate is over
• Oh the poor oppressed Quebec white man
• Howard Galganov is still an idiot

It's a simple mistake to make, and almost understandable, but it's still not what they're protesting.

Related Posts

• The Toupin Blvd. “solution”
• Making the case for a quieter Toupin Blvd.
• The other Cavendish extension
• Strong winds out west
• The Toupin Blvd. plan

Reaction has been mixed. The Gazette calls it a victory for regular people who should be able to travel freely without inconvenient traffic jams. Dennis Trudeau, meanwhile, worries about future protesters getting sued because their marches might cause traffic disruption.

Both sides have reasonable points, but I have to side with Trudeau. A traffic jam is an inconvenience, but there's no constitutional right to free roadways. There is, however, a right to assemble, protest and express yourselves on political issues. The latter right should take precedence.

Protesters already wear masks and keep their routes secret because they fear police repression. Making these things actionable is just going to drive them further into lawlessness and make those protesters angrier.

Related Posts

• Journalism died today
• So so so, solidarité? Is that the best you could come up with?
• Screaming matches are not interviews
• Libel chill is warming slightly
• Fabrikant gets his way

Yet this province seems to be the largest battleground for student protests in North America. They protest tuition fees, which are too high because they're above zero (some protests involve CEGEP students, whose tuition fees actually are zero). They protest government cuts to loans and bursaries. They protest the colonial capitalist imperialistic racist empire bent on ... evil of some sort.

And, of course, they protest each other.

Five student associations from Concordia, McGill and Dawson are suing each other over control of the Quebec chapter of the Canadian Federation of Students. Concordia's graduate association is planning to pull out of the organization over this dispute which has seen two competing executives appointed. (UPDATE Sept. 13: The Concordian -- yeah, I know -- has a detailed story on what's going on)

"Regional" (read: not Montreal or Quebec City) groups at UQTR, UQO and UQAR are threatening to leave the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ) over their concerns the group is too Montreal-centric, and create their own lobby group to represent just their interests.

Currently there are three post-secondary lobby groups in Quebec. In addition to FEUQ (considerd the grown-up group because they sit down and negotiate with the government) and CFS-Q (considered almost renegade by its parent national organization and with little weight in Quebec because it only represents the two anglophone universities and an anglophone CEGEP), there's ASSÉ, the Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante, which is a newer, more militant group that accepts nothing short of free education for all.

To give an example, the Concordia Student Union has been a member of all three organizations over the past few years, paying student money to three redundant organizations. They recently dropped ASSÉ (which was the cheapest of the three but also the most ineffective), and now pay money only to two.

And yet despite this, Jean Charest was returned to power with the clear intention of raising tuition, and fees are going up. FEUQ is threatening strikes, but they've already lost the battle. The public voted for tuition increases, and a few hundred students choosing to waste their money by not going to class isn't going to get anyone to change their mind.

All three groups need to take a moment to figure out why they're losing (even many students don't support their positions -- though I don't see too many of them lining up to donate money to the universities), and change their strategy before they become even more irrelevant than they already are. Once that happens, student unions will start pulling their funding and the Quebec student activist movement will implode.

UPDATE (Sept. 25): A judge decides to keep the offices off-limits to both groups until the issue can be reviewed further. The SSMU is happy, while the CSU is not.

Related Posts

• The tuition debate is over
• Screaming matches are not interviews
• More cries of “police brutality”
• So bad, it makes the CSU look good
• Mouvement Montréal français is right about Second Cup

Then they draw up a press release, send it to the media, and hope it sticks.

Of course, in today's media, rewriting press releases as news is fast, easy and therefore commonplace. So a lot of them start sticking, even if they don't pass the smell test.

• Guy makes political statement with profanity, for the sole purpose of getting noticed by the media? OUTRAGE!
• Political ad has random letters for half a second spell out "PTORN" over two lines, which looks a bit like "PORN"? OUTRAGE!
• Police keeping an eye on your protest? OUTRAGE!:

"...helicopters, shining bright lights, flew at a very low altitude, at the level of treetops, where the camp was being held.  This act demonstrates but one strategy to discourage the direct opposition put into place against the SPP summit."

When they start finding real people who are actually outraged about these things without the cattle-prod prompting of political campaign directors, they can start thinking that it's newsworthy.

Related Posts

• So so so, solidarité? Is that the best you could come up with?
• Screaming matches are not interviews
• The tuition debate is over
• Mouvement Montréal français is right about Second Cup
• RadCan needs geography lessons