NoKings in Ottawa? Sort of.

Canadians are polite, 
but the US Amb is a dick

 Tricky to keep the American name for an event about royalty when, yes, Canada remains a Constitutional monarchy.  Yet no one was too fussed yesterday about calling the protest NoKings.  King Chuck is not that popular here.  They called it No Tyrants in the UK and in other places with more popular kings (Sweden, etc).  Anyhow, I joined the festivities yesterday.  I haven't been to too many protests, and protesting Trump in Canada seems a bit silly.  But given that the US Ambassador to Canada is a relentless dick and that we live in the darkest of times and my vaccine side-effects hadn't kicked in yet, I went downtown to join the protestors.

Despite having no art skills and lousy handwriting, I managed to make a legible sign (at least on one side).  I tried to invoke the spirit of John Oliver on the other side--F.U., Make Me--but it didn't look that good and it didn't fit with most of the positivity of the rest of the signs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perfectly anticipated 
Trump's post last night.

The protest started at 2pm next to the US embassy, and I'd guess there were a couple hundred of us.  We eventually walked around the building and block.  For a while, we were stuck on the next street and it kind of felt like we were protesting the stylish restaurant across the street called Social. The signs were a mix of Canadian nationalism, fraternity with Americans in their time of plight, hate for Trump, and miscellaneous causes.  

We got a lot of cars passing by to honk at us, although Ford F-150s tended not to.  And notably, the pickup. from New York (NY plates) did not seem pleased to see us. 

 

 

The organizers had a weak speaker and didn't really have the best speaking voices, so I didn't listen to them much.  The most popular music of the day was Green Day's American Idiot. 

Canadians do very much feel anger and empathy at this moment in time.  While a defining characteristic of Canadian identity is not being Americans, it really is not an anti-American country.  But it is definitely an anti-Trump country, as the leader of the Conservative Party found out last spring (but continues to forget as he keeps plagiarizing Trump's rhetoric).  

At this moment  in time, Canadians can't do much besides boycott American products and refuse to travel to the US (well, except me, I am headed south for a conference later this week and then to family for Thanksgiving in late November).  So, what they can and did do is march in solidarity.  Again, very positive spirits among the crowd mixed with sadness and anger for all of the unnecessary cruelty and suffering.  Oh, and I don't think Trump is coming back anytime soon, as the protests for that would be ar larger. And he is such a fragile person. 

So, here are some pics I took below.

The walk around the embassy

One of several Star Wars-related signs.

We had a couple of frogs, one unicorn, one baby shark, and a triceratops.

More than a few Epstein references

Some aforementioned Canadian Nationalism.

He ain't wrong.

A common spirit--hey, neighbors, what is wrong with you?
We'd like to go back to our quiet contempt about your health care system 
as well as resentment for your domination of Stanley Cups.

Triceratops.  They might be extinct, but democracy isn't.... yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some Basic Thoughts About Anti-Semitism, University Protests, and the Far Right BS Machine

 Watching students getting arrested and expelled was bad.  Watching them get pummeled by right wing assholes (Zionists or far right provocateurs) with the cops' permission and watching cops use "rubber" bullets that are super dangerous has been even worse.  I have many thoughts about all of this so let me spew a bit to figure some of this stuff out.

Some really basic stuff about identity and anti-semitism:

• No individuals or groups are actually acting on behalf of entire ethnic groups despite, oh my, all of the assumptions and data I used when I was an ethnic conflict scholar.  This means:
• Not all allies of Israel are Jews.  
• Not all pro-Palestinians are Muslims.  
• Not all Jews are pro-Israel at this moment. 
  
• What is anti-semitism?  Hatred of Jews.  Criticism of Israel can be anti-semitic but is not necessarily.  Israel is a country, and it has a government.  All governments can and should be criticized when they abuse people and engage in bad policies.  Identifying Israel with all Jews can be anti-semitic because it is generalizing about an entire group.  Not all Arabs or Muslims are pro-Saudi Arabia AND criticism of Saudi Arabia is not always Islamophobic.  

Are these various encampments and anti-Israel protests anti-semitic? It depends.  Sorry, but it is not clear--it depends on their demands, their statements, their treatment of Jews.  If they happen to have a bunch of Jews within them, then they are probably not anti-semitic. 

Back to basic stuff, this time about punishing students:

• Any punishment of students should involve some kind of due process.  No student should be evicted without a big hunk of due process.
  
• Students should not be suspended or expelled or evicted for engaging in collective dissent as long as it is not violent.  Universities are supposed to places where speech should be at its freest.  
• Such protests can be inconvenient and/or annoying--that is how they make themselves known. When I mentioned this on social media, someone raised the John Lewis line about good trouble.  
• What protests should not do and protestors can be punished for is threatening other students. But that raises two important distinctions:
• individual punishment, not collective punishment.  Entire groups of students should not be punished for the statements of individuals or actions of individuals especially if those folks happen to be off campus (see the non-students outside of Columbia)
• Saying negative things about Israel may hurt one's feelings but does not count as threats.  Again, not all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.  The actual words and actions matter.  It may suck for Jewish students to be on campuses where there are protests against Israel as insults of those sharing one's identity does hurt one's own self-esteem.  But hurt feelings are not tantamount to violence or assaults.  
  
• No president of any university should be calling in the cops to arrest their students unless their students are engaged in or threatening to engage in violence.  Campuses need to be safe for all students, including those engaged in dissent.  Calling in the cops is an escalation that can and often leads to violence.  The students at many of these places have been harmed, way out of proportion to whatever their alleged crimes.  These universities have failed a very basic part of their mission--to protect their students.  Again, there are now cops on campus using rubber bullets and pepper spray.
• Everyone should have learned by now that no one controls the cops in North America AND they like to escalate AND infiltration is probably too benign of a word to address how deeply the far right is embedded in North American police forces.  So, calling the cops is worse than throwing gasoline on a fire because the latter has no illusion of deniability.

Now, let's get to the far right bullshit of all of this: Republicans, Fox, and the rest of the far right apparatus complaining about "anti-semitic" students on college campuses is just bad faith bullshit.  These folks are not interested in protecting Jews, or they might have spoken up a bit with all of the anti-semitism whipped up by the far right.  Charlottesville?  Remember that?  Where were these folks who are so concerned with anti-semitism when the Nazis were yelling about Jews not replacing "us"?  Where were these folks when George Soros was being used to incite anti-semitism?  Oh wait, many of these folks were doing precisely that.  Fuck all of them.  

Ok, one last thing: to put this into context, if Nazis have the right to march into Jewish neighborhoods, like Skokie, Illinois, then even if the students were all anti-semites, they have a right to protest.  So, again, why is it ok for far right anti-semites to protest but not far left?*  To be clear, I am not saying that the students are all anti-semites, but just making the point that if they were, they would still have a right to protest.  On college campuses?  I am not so sure since many have hate speech regulations.  

All I do know for sure is that the college administrators have failed their students and have also abetted the far right in undermining higher education. The urge to do something should have been ignored  The semesters in these places were winding down--they could have easily outwaited the students.  Move graduate ceremonies if you must, but for fuck's sake, don't invite cops onto campus to beat your students and professors!

* I fear far right anti-semitism more than far left.  Why?  First, the far right has far more power.  Second, if one did the math, I am pretty sure the far right anti-semites have killed far more Jews than the far left.  When Netanyahu and others hang out with ideological kindred anti-semites "since everyone out there is anti-semitic," they are just giving those with the greatest ability and the most violent history more deniability. 

Rooting for the Cops? Well, Yeah

Some say yesterday was a sad day in Ottawa, but I was pretty elated.  After two years of watching cops repress Black Lives Matter protestors, I am now rooting for cops as they arrest far right extremists that have occupied downtown Ottawa.  Does that make me and mine hypocrites?  No, for a couple of reasons focusing on both the conduct of the protests and the content.

First, I don't remember BLM protesters using kids as shields.  I don't remember BLM groups trying to use arson as a tool of mass murder (yes, some BLM protests had fires, but no attempts to lock down and then burn an apartment building).  BLM groups did not harass and assault health care workers, the media, or passersby who were masks.  This has not been a peaceful protest despite the hot tubs and singing.  The far right extremists in town have been bullying storeowners and threatening the residents.  

Second, the content also matters.  BLM protesters were protesting police brutality, and the police kept on providing more evidence that the BLM cause was just.  The far right extremists in Ottawa were opposing ... heaps of stuff as their crazed conspiracy shit metastasized.  They oppose vaccine mandates and mask restrictions at a time where these are two of the best ways to mitigate a pandemic.  Their MOU (a memorandum of understanding because a manifesto would have sounded too commie?) called for the elected government of Canada to be tossed out by those who don't have the power to do so (the Governor General and the Senate).  They are really upset that Trudeau is in power--but that is because the parties they favor and that pander to them lost.  The election was partly over mandates with the Conservatives pandering to the far right and the far right party focusing very much on this.  And they lost.  60% of Canada voted against these two parties.  Yes, Trudeau only got a third of the vote, but the pro-vax mandate, pro-mask restrictions parties won bigly.  Oh, and most of the restrictions are actually set at the provincial level.  

For three weeks, Ottawans were not upset at the cops for being too brutal, but that they didn't do anything at all except seemingly empower the worst of the worst.  We sincerely worried about white supremacists within the police force.  So, when we finally saw the police carefully, slowly, methodically push back and use much less force than the police forces of the US at the various BLM protests, we were and are elated and relieved.  The behavior of these cops has been quite restrained--so far, no one has been beaten.  Yes, windows were broken when folks refused to get out of their vehicles.  But they had been repeatedly warned.  I do wonder if any kids were taken into protective custody, but that is on the parents, who were repeatedly warned.  

While the far right media are trying to make this thing a colder version of Tianamen square, we have to remember that (a) the protesters in China were pro-democracy while those in Ottawa are anti-democracy; and (b) we have no idea how many were killed that day in China, and we know how many were killed in Ottawa (zero).  

Ultimately, it comes down to this: we want the cops to protect and serve the public, not themselves and not far right extremists.  Yesterday and again today, the police in Ottawa are serving the public.  

And, yes, there might be a hint of bias in all of this because:

 

Standing Up For the Flag By Kneeling

I have not commented much here on the whole Kaepernick kneeling story, but Trump's speech tonight compels me.

Which better honors the flag? Protesting the treatment of African-Americans in the US, and, in doing so, risking one's career?  Or grandstanding in front of flags and castigating a football player who has engaged in non-violent dissent? 

Yes, American history is complex, and so when one refers to American values, one can talk about freedom or one can talk about greed and xenophobia.  Pretty sure that the values that are valued are those that focus on the very basics of American democracy--free speech, free press and all that stuff we are proud of and not so much the awful stuff that provokes shame and embarrassment--slavery, internment, etc..  So, when I say that Trump is un-American, I am referring the former stuff and not the latter, but he is reminding me so very much about that ugly side.  He is of that ugly side, through and through.  He is racist, he is xenophobic, he is so very greedy.  He incites hate and violence.  He inspires his team to steal from taxpayers (Tom Price).  The kleptocracy is more than just family business.

So, when players raise their fist on Sunday or kneel or do whatever else, they are being far better Americans than Trump.  I certainly hope there are more protests this week, as Trump's targeting of Kaepernick is once again him using a bullhorn and not a dog whistle.  He dares to "defend the flag" via appeals to white supremacy and why not?  Impunity is his thing.  All we can do is call him on it and protest and rally and vote.

I have no doubt with whom I stand and with whom I'd like to kneel. 

We are All Muslims

With the prospect of Muslim registration, I thought I would join others by changing my twitter handle to a more Arabic/Muslim sounding name.  Or at least one that I used in college when I had to write two papers for a Politics of the Mideast class, where I had to take both Israeli and Palestinian perspectives.

The basic idea is that if the Trump government wants to register Muslims, the first thing that the resistance must do is register as Muslims.  This poses some risks, but one of the challenges for repression is to identify the target group.  If we are all Spartacus, then who gets repressed?  It may not be sufficient, but it is a first step.

To be clear, also, when I saw "the resistance", I am speaking of non-violent dissent.  While there is much to fear, non-violent protest tends to work better than violence.  It poses risks, and one might want to invest in self-defense if one wants to be a helpful intervener rather than passive bystander.  Four years is a long time, so we need to focus on both the short run and the long run--how to prevent or block awful policies and awful nominees while developing the capacity to win the next elections.

I have no experience in any of this, so I will be relying on and repeating the advice of people who are far sharper than I am.  The one thing that we are quickly learning is that institutions only constrain behavior if people are willing to defend the institutions.  Otherwise, it is all just paper.  Anyhow, changing my twitter id is the very least I could do.  In time, I hope to figure out what else I can do.

The Silliest Distraction and the Enduring Power of Harry Potter

Lots of crossfire on the internet about whether it is right or not to invoke the fiction of Harry Potter as we grapple with the reality of Trump as President-Elect of the United States. People are saying that the reality is so serious that we should not rely on children's stories to inspire us or to provide insights into the present day.

Readings of the Semi-Spew know my answer to that is to reject that argument.  Why?

First, do not diminish the coping mechanisms that people rely on.  The immediate future is so dark that if fiction provides comfort, fine.  If some booze provides comfort, drink.  If chocolate chip cookies or cinnamon buns provide comfort, then eat.  We are now living in a very difficult situation, so let's not fight about coping mechanisms.

Second, fiction of all kinds has been useful to inspire people who seek to resist racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and all forms of creeping and not so creeping authoritarianism.  Stories about successful resistance, fictional or real, can help people as they grapple with the harsh realities.

Third, Harry Potter, in particular, is a widely shared piece of pop culture. In an age of "too much TV" and with fragmentation of popular culture, there are very few pieces of fiction that resonate widely.  Harry Potter is enormously popular both as books and as movies, with an entire generation (dare I call them millennials) exposed to the characters and themes.  What themes?  How about resisting intolerance?  How about fighting against repressive governments?  How about working with others to support those who are alienated and excluded? The reason why people are referring to Harry Potter right now is that the stories resonate.  Trump is not Voldemort, but they and their movements share many traits--the demonizing of others whether they are Muslims or Mudbloods, the need to conform with the majority, the use of disinformation, efforts to divide those who resist, and on and on.  Oh, and the fact that those who have read the HP books are more tolerant might be more than just a bit significant.

One can go into greater depth and specificity about how various elements of the HP world help folks make sense of contemporary politics in the US (and UK!).  My point here is that it is wrong to dismiss Harry Potter and other pieces of pop culture that might actually do some good.  If folks don't want to use HP, they can rely on Star Wars, which is also about rebelling against racist autocracts.  "Save the rebellion, save the dream" is not a bad call to battle.  And for the Trump fans who read me, when I say battle, I mean political, non-violent resistance.

Anyhow, much work to do, so fighting over this stuff is, indeed, distraction sauce.

Oppressed Oberlin

I have gotten a bunch of emails, tweets, and facebook messages all pointing me at the same New Yorker story about Oberlin.  As an alum of Oberlin, I am very familiar with all the aspects of this story:

• the holier than thou far left folks who see oppression and offense everywhere who then want to, um, oppress others
• the real problems facing a place that tries to be diverse and tolerant
• the smug media who love to generalize about all of academia from the selected samplings of some not entirely representative students who are at a school that is not at all representative
• the basic "these kids" stuff that Dan Drezner delineates so well. [No, Dan, you do not have to fear about how Williams will be covered because the reporters know that they will always have Oberlin when they want to tell a story about those crazy kids]

I kept refusing to read the article because I knew it would be painful. Why?  First, I identify with Oberlin, so attacks upon it are attacks upon my self-esteem (I have read enough social psychology to understand this process).  Second, I knew that the article would take the most annoying stuff uttered by some young students and run with that, rather than put it into context.  There are plenty of Obies now as there were then in my time who were not far left.  Sure, the place is super-liberal, but many of those liberals have both real concerns about the existence of white supremacy and other challenges but also real concern that one can go too far.  Third, I knew that the discussion of this story would distract people from some of the legitimate concerns of the folks involved.

As an Obie, I am familiar with the salient events of the past year or so--the list of demands (which appall me as an academic--tenure to be granted or denied by the whims of some selection of mobilized students), the anti-semitic writings of a prof, and the responses of the administration and on and on.  I knew that this stuff would get played in the most annoying ways possible.

Let me take one example: the part of students wanting no sub-C grades.  There is so much wrong about this particular point.  First, the students were not demanding the end of sub-C grades forever--they just wanted these grades not to count during a particularly turbulent semester, and had an historical precedent (the spring of Kent State--which is not that far away from Oberlin) that suggested this is not an unrealistic policy.  Second, I have no clue why the students would demand this since Oberlin's grading system already wipes out an sub-C minus grades (maybe they just wanted to get rid of C-'s for the year?).  That's right--if you get a grade below C-, you get a "No Entry" which means it disappears from the transcript.  The point of this is to encourage students to take risks and experiment.  In my time, this was the system, and students tended not to bail on the final in hopes of turning a C into an NE--I wish I had done so for Micro-economics.  This one bit of the story thus illustrates why the students are so confusing--why are they seeking something they already have--and how the outsiders have no clue about Oberlin.
Update: In 2004, the school changed the grading system so that sub C-'s would remain as real grades.  Too bad.  I liked the old system as it was very Oberlin--encourage experimentation.  I guess pass/nopass still facilitates that somewhat.

I get that the students have real concerns--that students of color feel that they have less support than they should.  In my time, there was some racist graffiti that was found on campus, which led to a day or two of activities including much discussion by the non-white students about what they were experiencing and I learned a great deal.  This self-examination is not a bad thing--one reason places like Oberlin want diverse student bodies is that we can all learn from each other about our varied experiences and perspectives in ways that don't require individual students to be asked "so, what do you as an African-American student can tell us about everyone of your race?"  At Texas Tech, I had very white classes with only one or two Latinos and African-Americans.  Each day, they knew that whatever they said would be taken as what their entire ethnic group believes, which is quite a burden.

These students have grown up at a time of both an African-American president and a resurgence of racism (birthers and all that), so it is understandable that they are confused, challenged and outraged.  One of the two major parties is in the process of nominating someone who appeals to white supremacists, misogynists and xenophobes.  These students have observed that the justice system in the US is unjust--mass incarceration, the deaths of many unarmed people of color at the hands of the police, and on and on.  If they were not outraged, then I would think that there is a significant problem.

What to do with that passion, that frustration?  That is hard to figure out.  On the bright side, I have recently learned that the Obies of my time are achieving great things: winning Pulitzer Prizes,  rebuilding schools, etc.  As always, I blame Lena Dunham (joking!)


 

Responding to Militia

Lots of folks are angry on my twitter feed that US government is not doing more to confront the miltia folks who have occupied a federal building housing the offices of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  They note the contrast between black kids getting shot within two seconds of police arrival and the patience the government has with white folks bearing arms while threatening federal officers.

My first reaction was to post this:

My second reaction is to welcome the patience, I guess.  I think the most successful part of the US government's handling of the white supremacist insurgency is to treat it like crime and not like terrorism. This denies the militias legitimacy as a political movement AND reflects the lessons of the 1990s.  That is, Waco, Ruby Ridge and the like did not work out so well for the federal government, so a more patient approach made more sense.  The irony here is that we realized domestically that using a heap of force against a domestic terrorist movement can backfire but have not realized the same internationally.

Maybe it helps that the political dynamics in the US, where the right wing shuts down serious consideration of the radical right as a threat to US security, buttress this approach, but again the question foes of the militias have to ask is this: do we want to give the militias what they want?  That is, violence?

Like many of reactions to the international hotspots where the demand is for more, I am always confused about what is more and about the tradeoffs.

And for those noting the hypocrisy between how blacks and Muslims are treated versus white militia folks, the right answer is not more violence against the latter, but less violence against the former.

Oh, and if it is not clear from my previous writings on this, I found these militia folks to be deluded, dangerous, and deranged.

Be Careful What You Ask For: Tales of Unfortunate Training

The students around the US have been demanding diversity and other training for faculty, administration and staff.  This makes sense, but I have a few cautionary tales about such stuff.

My first tale is of a diversity training exercise at Texas Tech a couple of years into my time there in the mid-1990s.  It, alas, did not go well.  The first speakers of the day built much enthusiasm for the rest of the effort by telling us that we had to do it as big brother was making us and that the aim was to avoid lawsuits.  Not that diversity should be celebrated, but that we just had to keep our noses clean essentially.

So, that was the start.  It got worse.  One of the trainers was trying to explain the distinction between disparate impact--that a policy or law could treat groups differently even if there was no intent.  The person mentioned height requirements in fire departments.  So far, so good as this is a classic example that would select out women.  Nope, they didn't go there.  Instead, the person mentioned "Orientals" at a time where that was clearly not an appropriate term, and then joked about how the short Orientals must be able to fight fires in Japan somehow.  Ug cubed.

In sum, awful.  The trainers were far less tolerant and far more likely to cause a lawsuit than most of those being trained.

My second tale is of the sexual harassment training my department received over the years in the late 90s.  Every year, the person would come to the department to discuss stuff, and each year some of my colleagues (always the senior faculty) would do their best to trivialize the training and attack the trainer's expertise.  The political theorist (who was an awful person on so many levels) would ask whether his Nietzche book with a bare-breasted woman on the cover would be considered sexual harassment.  The constitutional law prof would attack the trainer's knowledge of the law.  This happened at least twice, because I eventually swore that I would stand up the next time and ask my colleagues that if they could agree not to prey upon our graduate students, then maybe we can not do these training exercises.  Um, yeah.  But we never had another training of this kind, so I never had the chance to cash in on that vow.

Of course, I don't mean to trivialize the demands of the various students at the various colleges and universities.  I just want to caution folks that training does not cure stupid, and it does not cure those with malice in their hearts.  And folks with not bad intentions may end up doing stuff that is problematic with or without training.

I am still trying to figure out the events and reactions at all of these colleges and universities.  All I know is that South Park was right:

“@SouthPark: "There's a time and a place for everything- and it's called college." #SouthPark #College” pic.twitter.com/fBNLYg11XZ

— Baker Sosa (@MASTERCHEFBAKER) January 25, 2015

Whining Works

Ok, I cannot and should not take credit for a change in corporation policy, but the coincidence amuses me.

While I was traveling, I found out via social media that Chili's, the restaurant chain, was supporting an autism awareness group that supported the anti-vaccination movement.  Since I am, ahem, virulently opposed to the anti-vaxxers, I was most disappointed to see that the only fast food restaurant at my terminal in Calgary was Chili's.   I tweeted my frustration

annoyed the only fast food past security at YYC is anti-vax @Chilis I guess I will buy the overpriced meh stuff on the plane #antivaxkills
— Stephen Saideman (@smsaideman) April 6, 2014

and eventually Chili's tweeted back at me, so I responded thusly:

.@Chilis @texasinafrica @DaveedGR problem is you are still supporting an anti-vax charity http://t.co/MQXxeu9IfQ so no support from me 1/2
— Stephen Saideman (@smsaideman) April 6, 2014

.@Chilis @texasinafrica @DaveedGR basic reality is if you give to their good works, it means they can use others to support anti-vax 2/2
— Stephen Saideman (@smsaideman) April 6, 2014

and then a friend tweeted me the news:

When @smsaideman refuses to buy airport Chili's, big corporations back down: http://t.co/eBuECfTRmU
— Laura Seay (@texasinafrica) April 7, 2014

Looks like the voices of pro-vaccine Americans are stronger than those of misguided antivax orgs. @Chilis cancels. http://t.co/eBuECfTRmU
— Laura Seay (@texasinafrica) April 7, 2014

Clearly, I was not the only one upset at Chili's and I am sure others were tweeting at/about the food chain.  Sure, they might not have known better.  The reality is that if you give money to a group that supports a conspiracy theory that is leading people to undermine the collective good of having a vaccinated population, those folks who tend to buy into this thing we call science are going to get upset.  Companies have a hard time these days dancing between different motivated opponents who can tweet/facebook/blog/whatever their various concerns.  A good rule of thumb might be to stick with science?

Anyhow, I jokingly took credit for the change, as Laura was just teasing.  The folks who deserve the credit are those who got out the news, as it is easy to tweet and retweet.  It is harder to keep track of all these companies and the questionable charities that some support.

A Quick Note on Race and Riots

Some folks on twitter have argued that the expectation of riots after the Martin/Zimmerman verdict is racist.  No, it is just basic social science.  While much of what I learned about riots is from Donald Horowitz's Deadly Ethnic Riot book, my understanding here is informed by my observing the Rodney King riots as a grad student in nearby San Diego and the implications of IR theory.*

* It is not an accident I started thinking about security dilemmas and ethnic conflict just as other folks were thinking of the same thing elsewhere. 

The basic idea is that when groups are sent signals that the justice system does not work, that the state is a combatant rather than an adjudicator of disputes, then domestic society starts to look a lot like international relations with arms races (people stealing guns) and strange alliances (rival gangs working together against the police).  One reason why the riots in this case have been far less intense than the LA rights after the King verdict is that the person who got off was not a cop.  In the King case, cops who clearly beat a guy were acquitted, basically telling the African-Americans of LA, who were already familiar with other problems with the LA cops (The Shield was almost a documentary) with the Rampart division, that there was no law in LA, just rival gangs with some wearing blue.

In this case, which I have not followed very closely, there is a lot in play, so it may be harder to mobilize.  Also, police have gotten far more organized and equipped* for dealing with large scale dissent and near riots.  We need to also appreciate that there has been much peaceful dissent, which speaks well of the folks organizing and participating in these protests.

*  There is, of course, the ongoing debate about the militarization of the police, which is something else I have not followed too closely but perhaps a topic for another time.

Anyhow, this is not over yet, of course, with violence last night in Oakland and large protests in LA and elsewhere.  All I wanted to point out that it is not racist to think that members of an ethnic group that has repeatedly faced unequal justice (the story about the woman getting twenty years for firing a gun in the air is pretty striking) might engage in some violence in response to a disappointing verdict. 

I have otherwise stayed out of this because I did not follow the trial and do not understand the legal stuff involved.  So, this is all I am going to say about this for now.

No Such Thing as Bad PR (Protest Category)?

I see that it is now students' turn to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.  Just as we see a spate of articles outside of Canada that, more or less, gullibly swallow the student line on things, the student protestors start indicating their contempt for the cops by, well, Nazi-saluting them.  Holy bad photo op, Batman!

From the National Post

Sure, they are trying to be snarky and sarcastic and are not really indicating that they are Nazis or prefer fascism.  They are trying to do the opposite.  I get that.  But it does look really bad on TV and in newspapers.  It allows folks to take offense, as they are wont to do when Nazis are invoked.

To be abundantly clear, there are damn few parallels between Maple Spring and the uprisings around the world that have Spring in their name.  This is not Prague Spring, where the Czechoslovaks sought to democratize in the face of Soviet tanks in 1968.  This is not Arab Spring, where folks protested against dictatorship.  This is a year where we actually had a spring in Montreal--nice weather, that is.  Yes, the riot police have targeted some bystanders, but compared to other outbreaks of dissent, the level of repression, even in Bill 78, is modest.

So, likening the Montreal police to the Nazis just makes the students look like they are the ones that are out of touch, that they are the ones who have lost perspective, that they are the ones who need to re-think.  Indeed, even the leader, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, of the more extreme group, CLASSE, has disavowed this even as he was slow/reluctant to disavow the violence of the spring (smoke bombs in the metros, vandalism, violating injunctions).  Perhaps he knows his PR better than he knows what civil disobedience really is (emphasis on the civil). 

I am not really offended by the outbreak of Nazi-esque salutes.  I am not surprised.  As this goes on and on, the organizations involved on all sides have more opportunities both to make bad decisions and to lose control of their supporters/agents.  On the other hand, I am offended by folks who buy into the rhetoric too easily.  Maple Spring, my ass!

Back to the Past

Just got this email from McGill:

 

A message from Jim Nicell, Associate Vice-Principal (University Services)

As has been the case at dozens of other institutions in recent days, McGill has been the recipient of an envelope containing a white powder.

In all other cases of envelopes containing powder the substances have turned out to be harmless.

Police put a small area in the James Administration Building off limits for a short period of time, before advising us that the area could be reopened. The police informed us that they are of the view the substance is not harmful and business throughout the James Administration Building can continue.

Not only are there literally limbs flying around the country, but someone is imitating the anthrax-folks of 2001, sending powered via the mail to various places to protest.  This time, the protest is aimed at Liberals and Anglophone institutions in Quebec (the body parts seemed to be aimed at a variety of targets).  The powder has proven to be harmless, but, if the intent is to scare people, then it is ... terrorism, right?

Is this a proportionate response to the protests of the spring and the provincial government's attempts to squash said protests?  Nope.  No, this is not probably being done by the main student groups, but their fellow travelers are doing them no favors.  Or favours for that matter.

Lovely.

More Expertise on Political Violence

There is a new blog on the block: Political Violence @ a Glance.  I would recommend it even if I were not one of the bloggers.  I am in great company as the folks who will be blogging here are a bunch of sharp people who study political violence--IR scholars and Comparativists and especially those who dwell at the intersection of these two fields.

Quick Hits and Runs on Quebec Protest Stuff

Another depressing morning reading coverage of the Quebec protests and what they portend for the future of the province (have I mentioned how thrilled I am to be moving in 25 days?  Oh, I have?  Never mind). 

Let me just address a few stories and reactions:

• There is an interesting piece in the Globe and Mail about some entrepreneurial folks who have been translating the French press into English since there seemed to be such a divide in coverage and perceptions.  There are a few problems with this.  First, there are Anglophones who have been supporting the students.  Just check out the past couple of days of pieces in the Montreal Gazette written by McGill profs.  Second, maybe the problem is with the French media?  Given that public opinion is not pro-student and is especially not pro-student outside of Montreal, perhaps it is not the English media that have a bad grasp of what is going on but the French media.  Of course, there are language politics in play, as ably analyzed by Jacob Levy, but not all of the French folks love the status quo.
• Past QC protests gave us the current generation of leaders. which explains much.  If this is true, then the future of Quebec is mighty dark indeed.  These student protest leaders have little control over their groups, their groups have dubious legitimacy given how voters were conducted and given how the overwhelming majority of students are not represented by these groups.  Oh, and the leaders' positions on injunctions raises questions about their democratic credentials if democracy has anything to do with the rule of law.  Yes, I sound like a reactionary, but when Your Rights are more important than my rights because you feel yours intensely, well, that is not good for me or actually even for you.  
• As I remarked the other day, this impasse is entirely understandable given the politics of the situation.
• There is an interesting question raised and addressed today: why this battle?  why now?  Charest has often surrendered quite quickly and easily to smaller protests.  Perhaps he read the public well and the students poorly?  That is, the public was/is not willing to pay higher taxes for low tuition, but he misread the staying power of the students.  I am reluctant to draw big lessons from all of this because the protestors themselves are hardly a unified entity.  People are seeing in this effort what they want to see.  If this was a great awakening, then wouldn't the protests continue if the government froze tuition for a few years?  No, the students will go back home, having won their narrow objective even as little progress would have been made on really making the government accountable.  Of course, I could be reading too much in to this.  Perhaps this is a genuine awakening---but again only of 1/3 of the population are "awakened." 
• I have mixed feelings about Mario Dumont, who used to lead a popular third party that did well in one election by relying on xenophobia.  But he is right here:

“Would you consider the total incapacity to make change in a society an awakening? I'm not so sure,” says Mr. Dumont, who embraces the free-market ideology the protesters are railing against. “It's a bit exaggerated. The basis of this whole thing is the refusal of one group to pay more for a given service. There's nothing more ‘business as usual' than that.”

And that is why I am relieved to be leaving Montreal--the longer I stay in Quebec, the more right-wing I feel: anti-union, pro-law and order, etc.  That makes me very uncomfortable.  I am not sure how things will change when I move to Ontario (as I am aware that province has problems as well), but I am pretty sure that my position on the spectrum will shift back to the middle, more or less, where I am far more at home.

Impasse

I am shocked that there is an impasse between the Quebec government and the students who have been protesting the proposed tuition hike.  Ok, not shocked. Why not shocked? 

Well, if the government really makes a significant compromise, it will look like its surrendering to violent tactics.  Also, the government has gotten whatever standing in the polls by rebuffing the students. 

I am not surprised to see the students keep on keeping on.  First, there are three groups having representatives at the meeting, so that fact by itself suggests impasse.  The more people who can say no (can veto the agreement), the harder it is to come to an agreement.  It does not take a sharp game theorist/scholar of comparative politics to figure this out, but it does not hurt.  Further, the student leaders have been getting heaps of attention from the media so why would they want this to end.  Yes, I am suggesting that the interests of the leaders and the interests of the students might not be identical!  Shocking?  Of course not.  The "costs" of not compromising are currently non-existent for the students since the threat of classes being cancelled is no longer operative (they got pushed to August).  So, why give in?  It would mean less media attention, less ego-stroking, and, also, why give in when only the other side seems to be pressured?

The student proposal seems to be a two year freeze where the lost tuition would be replaced by reductions in tax credits. 

 She and her fellow student leaders said their proposal would have avoided fee hikes for two years by instead reducing the income-tax credit on post-secondary tuitions — a move that would have been cost-neutral for the government, which was one of its parameters during bargaining.

So, this would mean that the kids would not be paying more but parents might be?  Now we have some generational conflict!  Oh, and why would Charest do this?  He would be giving a group that will not vote him, the students, what they want, and alienating a group that might vote for him (the parents).  So, this really is a non-starter.  Plus, would the agreement be: two year freeze and then the planned increase in tuition? If so, it is hard to see CLASSE supporting that.

Thus, we are left with continued unrest.  Less violent than before, noisier, and little chance for progress.  I really don't see how this ends.  The government could submit to mediation, but will not submit to arbitration unless it games the results.  The government simply cannot freeze tuition after all of this.

That's my take.  What is yours?

Protest is a Many Splendored Thing

I think the ongoing strife in Quebec is quite the Rorschach test.  People can find something in the past 14 weeks of events whatever they want to find: entitled students, oppressive government, corruption, the power of unions, the divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada, a battle against capitalism and neo-liberalism, whatever.

Bill 78 did not create an unholy alliance between student protesters, unions and the Parti Quebecois.  That existed before, as the PQ was supporting any effort to attack the Liberals as good governance has never been its mission.  Unions supported the students because they are not thrilled with the Charest government.  There were already folks involved in the movement spouting off the usual rhetoric about capitalism and neo-liberalism.  But Bill 78 did cause folks who believe in civil liberties, such as this McGill Poli Sci student, among others to oppose the government.

I understand that Occupy movements have been complaining about capitalism and that neo-liberalism is a nice thing to blast.  I do ponder what the hell would be the alternative.  Socialism?  Where is that working out?  I do believe in well-regulated capitalism, so I wish the focus of mobilization in Quebec would be good governance rather than tuition avoidance and whatever is now being demanded with the expanded coalition of the mobilized.  Indeed, this thing was never has coherent as advertised, but seemed to be since the two non-CLASSE groups tied themselves to CLASSE which sought a rollback in tuition and then some.  Negotiations were already hard since CLASSE was never interested in any kind of compromise, but now that the "movement" has grown to include folks seeking the end of capitalism, well, good luck bargaining on that.

Given the union funding behind the students and given the principal-agent problems on both sides, I am skeptical that this will end soon.  So, expect a summer of protests with occasional outbursts of violence.  I guess I picked the right summer not to attend the Just for Laughs festival.

The Mounting Costs of the Quebec Mess

The costs to Montreal and to Quebec are mounting.  Check out this piece.  Obviously, people should not stop dissenting simply because it imposes costs upon the society.  Indeed, imposing costs is a logical way to get heard and force a bargain (since bargaining is often about the power to hurt the other).  But what this does point towards is the dis-proportionality of the entire situation. 

The student protests over tuition increases never really seemed proportionate to the change in tuition.  Yes, tuition was going up, but mostly to offset past freezes.  Yes, to double from the lowest in Canada to, well, the lowest in Canada, but not beyond that.  Sure, one could be concerned about the future beyond that, but the level of rhetoric and mobilization and threats to property went quickly beyond what a $1/day increase seemed to warrant.

The government has acted disproportionately as well.  Bill 78 is a hammer, not a surgical tool, so it has unified much of the folks who might otherwise have competing concerns.  I do think the initial alterations were proportionate--extend the tuition increases two more years so the growth is slower, provide more assistance.  But the reactions since and the rhetoric--less than helpful.

Of course, my posts here have not always been exactly proportionate either.  I mean, I said the students don't understand math or their interests.  That may be true.  Well, it is true.  But there are legitimate grievances.  Lots of education money has been wasted on excess construction (UQAM), new satellite campuses (several), the costs of changing administrations with buyouts (Concordia), and other stuff (McGill has some $$ offices, more admin).  Corruption in Quebec does have an impact on the quality of construction at the universities.  But the real source of the new tuition increase is really the old tuition freeze--something like thirteen or more years followed by very token increases ($50/year).  The basic idea here is that the students pay a share, something like 20%, of the costs of their education, with the province (taxpayers) picking up the rest. 

Some of the groups (all?) may want zero tuition as that is what they perceive to be their right under some old documents, but that would require significantly more money to be spent by the province at a time where taxes are quite high and debt is higher still. 

So, the government cannot bargain much more since it cannot agree to a freeze without, well, surrendering entirely.  The students have no unity but have tended to tie themselves to the more extreme demands, which means that they have little accountability, little responsibility and every reason to keep on keeping on, especially now that the threat of cancelled or postponed classes has taken place. 

The costs, like casualties in a war, will simply continue to increase, unless somebody finds a way to profit off of this.  Hmmmm.... maybe red-patch dolls? Charest pinatas? 

McG Smooth Move of the Year

I have been pretty critical of McGill's handling of dissent this year, so I must take my bandana hat off to the folks running the place.  They sent out a memo today addressing the question of what happens to those students who have been admitted to McGill but will not have completed their requirements (no certification of completion of credits at CEGEPs closed by the shenanigans). 

As the situation unfolded, we anticipated that a number of those admitted would in fact have difficulty in finishing on time. Accordingly, we have designed special provisions to ensure that most of the affected CEGEP students – presently estimated to be about 330 individuals – should be able to begin our fall term on time.

Wow!  What a smart way to go.  Rather than being stuck by past rules and fear of future precedents, the administrators decided that being caught up in the turmoil should not hinder a student's educational journey.  Sure, one can look at this as a raised middle finger at protesters and/or the Quebec government since it is saying that McGill is beyond and above the petty problems and that efforts to derail things will fail, at least at McGill.  But I think this is the right thing.  Sure, some of the students who have not completed are being given a reward for the dissent they supported.  But others, who did not vote or voted against strikes, will not see their lives disrupted by the poor choices of the organizations and the government.

So, on this, woohoo, McGill!