Quebec’s repressive response to student protests
2012Eric Kupka 2012-09Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 8 →
The words are the paper's own, from its digital file; the division into articles was made by machine, so a box or caption can end up inside the article next to it.
Scan page 8
8 SOCIALIST ACTION SEPTEMBER 2012 As reported here previously, the Lib eral provincial government of Quebec is imposing a sharp rise in university and college tuition over the next seven years. This sparked massive demon strations by students and their sup porters throughout the spring and summer, some of which have attracted over 300,000 protesters.
However, Quebec Premier Jean Cha rest remained unmoved during the protests, and ultimately responded by having the National Assembly pass Bill 78, now Law 12, known in the sanitized language of the legislation as “an act to enable students to receive instruction from the post-secondary institutions they attend.”
Despite its name, the law is much more about silencing and repressing protesters than enabling students to attend class. It prohibits any gather ings in school buildings and on school grounds, and within 50 meters of the outer limits of school grounds, which “could result” in denying students ac cess to classes. It also requires all orga nizers of demonstrations involving 10 or more people to give advance notice to local police of the demonstration’s date, time, venue, route, and duration, and allows the police to unilaterally or der a change in venue and route. A vio lation of these provisions could result in a $1000 to $35,000 fine for individu als, or a $25,000 to $125,000 fine for organizations.
Bill 78 has been criticized by the Quebec Bar Association and the Cana dian Association of University Teach ers, among others. A law professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal called it the “worst law” that she has seen since the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970, which brought Canadian troops onto the streets of Montreal.
Student associations brought a legal challenge against Bill 78, on the basis that it infringes on constitutionally protected rights such as freedom of expression. An early attempt at an in terim injunction against implementing the law failed, although the case re mains before the courts.
Quebec has long been admired for its so-called “social-democratic” char acter—unique in North America and exemplified by its low post-secondary tuition rates. With the Liberals now at tempting to shift the province closer to the continent’s neoliberal mainstream through its tuition hike plan, outsid ers have been inspired to see the Que Student protester at May 4 Liberal convention in Victoriaville, Quebec.
becois rise en masse to defend their progressive gains—conquests of the nationalist movement in the 1960s.
Socialists stand with the students and workers of Quebec and demand an im mediate repeal of Law 12, and cancel lation of the planned tuition hikes. We back the call of the leftist Québec Soli daire party to eliminate all university and college tuition fees. n Church OKs Israeli boycott The general council of the United Church of Canada, the country’s larg est Protestant denomination, voted in mid-August to support a boycott of goods produced in Israeli settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The 350 delegates to the United Church council, representing nearly three million Canadians who identify with the church, spent six hours de bating the boycott recommended by an internal report that named the Is raeli occupation of Palestinian terri tory as a major obstacle to a two-state settlement of the conflict.
Increasingly, a one-state solution is seen as the only just and effective path by Palestinian, labour, and hu man rights bodies. But the boycott idea itself is enough to raise the ire of pro-occupation forces and to expose the growing isolation of the Zionist apartheid state.
In the months preceding the council vote, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and a group of nine Canadian Liberal and Conservative senators heavily lobbied U.C. members against “taking sides.” But after hearing many views, the church council voted to take a side—against the occupation.
— BARRY WEISLEDER
Scan page 9
Just prior to the start of the 2012 Canadian Auto Workers union (CAW) Collective Bargaining and Con stitutional Convention, held in Toronto Aug. 20-24,