Montreal protests: a photo blog

Before I went to Montreal I joked to a friend about getting caught in the middle of a protest. You know those French people like to protest, and they've been doing a lot of that lately. The target of the anger: the government's plan to raise tuition fees from by far the lowest in the country to a little bit higher but still by far the lowest in the country.

Anyhow, flash forward to Friday as the wife and I were taking a stroll through Old Montreal on our way the Montreal Science Museum. Do de do de do ... (that's the sound of us strolling along.)

It appeared to be an ordinary day. People milling about. Young adults chatting on a street corner, one of them wearing ski goggles. Hmm, that's kind of weird. Oh well. This is Montreal ... anything goes!

Do de do de do ... Oh! Look at the pretty building. I think I'll take a picture of it:


Did I notice the guy with his face covered? No. But then again, this is Montreal .. anything goes.


However it was impossible not to notice all the cops closing off streets. Every block, more cop cars. A helicopter hovering over head. Yup, something is definitely brewing here, but wha .... oh:


Ah ... I think we'd better keep walking dear. Dodedodedodedodedo.

What I didn't know was that the pretty building pictured above contained the Premier, and became the focal point of this only minutes later: Montreal student protest turns violent

Later that afternoon we passed back that way and everything was more or less back to normal, except for the dozens of police cars and trucks lining the streets, some of which had smashed windows.


We had successfully avoided the riot, but the movement itself goes on, and you can see signs of it everywhere. People with red swatches pinned to their jackets, red balloons tied to lamp posts, statues with red tape over their mouths ...

You see, a protest is just a protest, but when you add a COLOUR to rally around it becomes a revolution. Every good revolution has a colour.

Unfortunately for the students, every good revolution also needs something else: popular support, and this the students don't appear to have. I was told by people on TV whom I'm sure are reliable that the majority of Quebecers support the tuition increase, to their credit, and are getting annoyed by the blocked streets and mayhem and such. Yet the protests have been going on for almost four months, and don't show any sign of abating. The semester is a write-off for the striking students anyhow.

I can't even begin to guess at the cost to the Quebec taxpayers of all the destruction, but more especially the mountains of police overtime that go into containing these protests. I don't know how many cops were out last Friday, but I think it was all of them.

In a way it might have been fun to get right in the middle of the mayhem and get the genuine riot experience. I even thought about starting a Riot Tourism business. Search out hot spots around the world where chaos is about to erupt, and take customers there to experience an adrenaline rush that only getting hit by pepper spray or rubber bullets can provide. I'm sure there's a market for that.

Thoughts on the UofM CUPE 3909 strike vote

This past Friday, the University of Manitoba union CUPE 3909 representing teaching assistants, markers, and tutors voted to authorize strike action, rejecting the University's contract offer. The issue: wages, job security, and guaranteed hours, according to union President Matt McLean.

When I was at the U of M, I was all three of those things: TA, marker, tutor, as well as a research assistant. In fact, I too participated in a strike vote. I voted "no". Why? Because I had accepted my wage and conditions of employment when I took the job. What grounds did I have to demand more?

Besides, all of these jobs pay very well, relatively speaking. I was paid about double what I made at my weekend job. These were by far the best paying jobs I had in my life, at the time. Oddly, the hourly wage for a marker has not changed much from when I was doing it, although TA wages have gone up a fair bit. Even still, the $13/hr you make as a marker is better than what most students could expect at any alternative employment, which often involves a spatula.

In addition, it was common to get paid for more hours than were worked, especially for markers. My first marking job: I handed back the papers and told the professor that it took me 25 hours to complete them, even though he told me in advance that his budget was for 50 hours. "Are you sure it didn't take you 50 hours?" he asked? "No, only 25" I said. He looked at me like I was some crazy person, before explaining that normally profs are expected to spend their whole budget. I was only being honest, but I didn't know about "the understanding." I didn't make that mistake again.

On principle, I don't generally agree with striking for wages or job security. There are economic implications to having an inflexible labour market that such actions can lead to, but my general attitude can be summed up more simply as: "If you aren't happy with your job, get a different one." Mind you: the work force for these jobs is a captive one -- you can't exactly get a job as a TA at SFU when you're a student at the U of M. But on the other hand, these are plum jobs, and there is a lot of competition for them. I would have done the work for half the money, not just because I needed the money, but because at that stage of my life a TA position was by far the best looking thing on my résumé.

Although I don't agree with striking for wage increases or job security, I can understand the motivation in some circumstances -- but not this one. These are not career jobs. A person can not expect to be a marker or student lecturer for any more than a few years. Job security should be a non-issue, and the wages, for a student, are good. There is no rationale for striking in this stituation except for greed.

Collective bargaining agreement

Free water is good ... unless it's filling your basement

It's kind of ironic that, as flood waters are set to wreck a path of destruction throughout the Red River Valley, the students and President of the U of W are banning bottled water because it should not be "commoditized." What about when you have so much of it that it's destroying your house. Then can you commoditize it? I am a little bit surprised that Mr Lloyd Axworthy is playing along with this misguided starry-eyed idealism, but I guess taking away personal choice fits his ideology. (Maybe I was a starry-eyed idealist myself when I voted for him as an MP many years ago.)

There is also the environmental angle -- all of that plastic being used and thrown out or recycled: One thing that I remember quite clearly from my days in University is that when you pull a water fountain out of a wall and carry it into class with you, it doesn't work anymore. It needs to be attached to the wall in order to function properly. Therefore, it is very likely that students will continue to purchase bottled beverages from vending machines, even though water is no longer an option. They will simply have to choose from other alternatives like Iced Tea, Pepsi or Mountain Dew. Those atrocious plastic bottles will still end up in the recylcing bins -- the only difference being that the students throwing them in there will be fatter and have worse teeth than before.

Could this be another example of well-intentioned but heavy-handed policy having unexpected negative consequences? It is, if nothing else, a reminder of why it's a good thing that Axworthy is no longer in politics.

links: fp sun

Increase the drinking age? No.

This story is a day old already, but I am not the most punctual blogger, so forgive the lateness:

One Winnipeg school division wants the minimum drinking age increased from 18 to 19:

Peter Carney, chairman of St. James-Assiniboia School Division, says increasing the legal drinking age would help discourage students from coming intoxicated to class or other school functions. <ctv>

however:

Carney says there have been no incidents involving intoxication in his division this school year, and adds that even without a change in the law, the school's penalties are severe.

so if I read this correctly: you have rules in place already, and there is rarely a problem to begin with, so .... wtf?

"It would be nice to quote the law, and not just school rules," he told CTV News.

Ah.

This appears to be a classic strategy from the socialist playbook: "even the most trivial problem can be resolved with more legislation". It's in there. You can look it up. basically, Carney wants the law changed because a few principals in his schools are too lazy to enforce their rules, on the rare occasions that it may be required.

The legal age being 18 didn't stop me from drinking when I was 15. I don't think the increase to 19 would do a whole lot. In fact it could rob young adults of some valuable experience. For me, my high school drinking years prepared me very well for the alcoholic onslaught of University. Imagine if you went in as an alcohol virgin, and got thrown into that pub-crawling, beer-bashing, Aggie How-Downing booze-fest with no prior experience of how well you handle your booze, how to contain hang-overs, or what type of sourpuss you prefer. That could be very dangerous, and could tarnish the University experience for many.

Ergo, the drinking age should stay where it is. q.e.d.

Money grows on trees

Or it must seem that way to our provincial government, who's solution to every problem is to throw money at it. The latest example?

EDUCATION Minister Peter Bjornson has taken school boards by surprise this afternoon by introducing a moratorium on closing schools. ... To keep schools open, government would provide greater funding [FP]

Why close redundant half-empty schools when you can dip into the bottomless well of tax dollars to keep them open?

I like this part:

"To determine the most effective ways to use these buildings to serve their communities on a long-term basis, we will consult with school divisions about the regulations."

Did he say that with a straight face? I want to see some video.