Earlier this week in Montreal, a bunch of public sector employees decided to have a marshmallow roast … or something like that. Matt Gurney shares his thoughts:
The protest in front of Montreal’s city hall was illegal. And not just on a technicality, as many protests are, if they run afoul of noise ordinances or local curfew and trespass laws. Those rules are routinely overlooked in the interests of protecting our right to gather and demonstrate, as it should be in a free society. No, this Montreal protest included more serious crimes — such as setting a fire — which was clearly intended as an act of political intimidation.
It’s appalling that the fire was set at all, but the truly troubling thing is that local police were present and did nothing. They had every right to intervene — indeed, they had a duty. Montreal has in place a controversial law known as Bylaw P6. Put in place during the “Maple Spring” student protests of 2012, the bylaw makes it illegal for protesters to cover their faces and mandates that police be notified in advance of a protest, and that such notice include the intended location or route for the event. The protest outside city hall did not comply with the bylaw. And then, of course, there’s the fire setting thing, too.
The former 2012 student protest leader Gabriel Nadeau Dubois who was the representative for CLASSE expressed his solidarity with the police union. Dubois is currently a philosophy student at the U. of Montreal and was doing research for the CSN-Construction on the history of collective agreements in the construction industry:
‘Former student protest leader Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois is offering moral support to the Montreal policemen’s brotherhood and pointing out in an open letter in La Presse this morning that even though police and students were often at odds during the student street demonstrations of 2012, times have changed and the student’s cause then, is police union’s cause now.
Nadeau-Dubois says the participation of uniformed police officers at the pension plan protest at city hall this week, shows that the austerity programmes the students opposed have become the same instrument used by government to eliminate negotiated pension benefits for civil servants.
He says now police officers find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion, but he adds, the cause of public employees is just, their pension plans have been stolen from them and despite past history, he will defend their right to fight for what was agreed to through negotiation.’
In turn the police must appreciate Nadeau because they really cleaned up in the amount of overtime the ‘student strike’ caused. Luckily for taxpayers the two other opportunistic student leaders either failed to win a seat in the National Assembly or lost their seat during the recent election.
Nicola, isn’t it always “lovely” when ‘A’ & ‘B’ agree wholeheartedly about how ‘C’ (the taxpayers) should treat them?! Ughhhhh 🙁
No Robert, you got it all wrong. It was not “public sector employees”, let’s call a spade a spade. It was policemen and firefighters setting the fire. It is amazing that in Canada police officers and firefighters can start a fire in front of city hall. Don’t you know? When policemen and firefighters do it, that means it is NOT illegal. Truly a third world country.
http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/francois-cardinal/201406/18/01-4776742-so-so-so.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_vous_suggere_4776564_article_POS3
Benjamin Franklin said that democracy is 2 wolves and one sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
Daniel, excuse me? There are only two kinds of workers in Canada:
– Private Sector
– Public Sector
Unless something has changed in Montreal since I last checked, ALL police officers & firemen are PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS.
. . . Coming to an Ontario Public Sector Union near you.
Or, what we like to call “Wynneing”.
Because when you have to cut $12.5b from your budget, the outcry from those ripped from the public teat is loud, long and as useless as tits on a bull.
Geez, we all know that Robert. I was taking issue with the euphemistic use of the expression “public sector employees” to hide the true identity of these people. These are people who transgress the law despite being paid to enforce it.
I disagree with Mr. Gurney’s claim that the rules and laws should be overlooked in the face of demonstrations and protests. We’ve had enough of them in the past, on all manner of issue that people felt strongly enough about, and we’ve looked at them from the perspectives of agreement, disagreement, or indifference, and we know that the future holds plenty more. It is a good thing to have definite laws and rules that differentiate between how the citizens of a democracy demonstrate, on the one hand, and how rioters and revolutionaries disrespect and try to overthrow that democracy on the other hand. The demonstrators, the police, and innocent third parties caught too close to the event should all understand clearly where that line is drawn. Neither stomping on legitimate protest nor allowing the “right people” to get out of hand serve society well.
The down hill slide started when Mike Pearson granted the federal public sector unions the ‘right’ to collective bargaining.
My apologies. Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to discern in the written word.
The term I find even more ironic these days is “civil servant”!
what a joke, a by-law that is supposed to control a protest. does anyone see the idiocy in this?