What the student struggle reveals
Two CP writers have a piece on how the student strike has revealed a break between the right and the left in Quebec – something anyone who reads this blog and its comments can see for themselves.
Victor-Lévy Beaulieu talks about the violence used to subdue students, the suggestion of agents provocateurs within the ranks of the protesters, and his distaste for the mayor’s new anti-protest laws, which echo similar laws written by Jean Drapeau in the 1960s.
ant6n 12:19 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
One thing that’s interesting about the left-vs-right debate is that there seems to be a complete lack of perception of the actual spectrum that exists. That spectrum also exists for the tuition themselves. It’s like
1) Pay all students to study (half-socialism)
2) free tuition
3) 1988 level tuition
4) frozen tuition
5) tuition adjusted for inflation
6) tuition adjusted for minimum wage
7) 1968 tuition (gov’t proposal)
8) Ontario tuition
9) UK tuition/Canadian international rates
10) Actual cost per student
11) US ivy tuition (run-away capitalism)
For students, who are personally affected, and who work to pay their studies and don’t want to go into debt, the breaking point is around 6 and 7.
But from a government point of view, if you look at the actual difference in funding, it’s actual a rather minuscule difference.
This issue seems ridiculously polarized for what is at stake for the government and the budget. And people seem ridiculously polarized against each other even if they almost agree.
Kate 12:34 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
It kind of does. I do wonder at times what Jean Charest is doing while shoving the tuition strife in front of our lenses. Plan Nord skulduggery?
Hamza 13:11 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
I kinda see it as a generational divide firstly. The young and the young in mind seem to have want no personal gains but do care deeply about the future progress of the province. The old and old fashioned refuse to consider anything beyond a fairly narrow argument , essentially thus – Quebec tuition is cheapest in Canada, ergo you have nothing to protest over , ergo don’t protest.
The left-right thing only comes in to play once those two frames of mind try to reconcile their POVs.
Hamza 13:15 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
That should’ve come out as ‘don’t seem to want any personal gains’ .
I also get the feeling that mr charest, a master politician, has been trying play all of us like a fiddle .
mdblog 13:29 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
It really is a polarized debate at this point, with the leftists (best characterized here by Hamza and quatzelok) as deliriously consumed by their own dogma as any right wingers ever were. To me, those against the boycott seem quite reasonable, but then again I am a product of my own biases too I suppose. Life isn’t perfect, but stomping your feet and crying how unfair everything is and demanding to be given what you want in no way characterizes the kind of political discourse I would want for me and my family. We are in need of constructive solutions that build the future for all of us. Not just those who agree with your own particular ideology.
ant6n 14:24 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@mdblog
“delriously consumed by their own dogma”; “stomping your feet and crying how unfair everything is”
That language is extremely polarising. And it’s really sad that you weren’t even trying. You are the opposite of being constructive.
Hamza 15:54 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Ideology shmidelogoy. I’ve been calling for a negotiated settlement (as has Gab Nadeau) since Victoriaville. It’s the Charest-ists who’ve lunged in support of direct violence. In the last few days, I’ve read everything from a pro-caning column (thx national post) to tear gassing the bastards to just straight up having armed gunmen escort student scabs to class (thx gaz).
These weren’t neo-nazi blogs or the ravings of Richard Nixon from 1972. This stuff was and is being mass published in modern Canada. Really?
If you have to beat us to shut us up , that means it’s *your* ideology that has lost. Any government that needs to resort to force to quiet its citizens (that we still are, I think) has already lost.
jeather 16:34 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Actual cost per student > student tuition cost, because schools have other sources of funding. This is probably especially true at Ivy League schools, which have lots of money in endowment funds (Harvard is free for people whose families make less than 65k/year or something).
Bill Binns 16:41 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@Hamza – There is no such thing as a “student scab”. As far as I (and Google) can tell, nobody has ever been accused of being a scab for attending school. This term has been invented for this student boycott and makes no sense whatsoever in this context.
Spock 18:34 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
There are two categories here:
1. The “students” who are spoiled bastards and want everything or else they will disrupt life and destroy property.
2. The students that want to get an education and then work and contribute to the social fabric of Canada.
Lets allow #2 to do what they want and need.
mdblog 01:18 on 2012/05/17 Permalink
@ant6n “You are the opposite of being constructive.” I guess there is some common ground between me and the student activists after all! Actually, no. The only thing these students are interested in is fighting “the man” and destroying (yes, that’s what they want) our civilization.
You think you know what’s best for all people? How presumptuous of you.
At least I own up to my biases, which is something I can’t say for you or anyone involved with the student boycott. My life, as imperfect as it is, is the life I know, and I would prefer it to the alternatives thank you very much.
I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, but if you want some constructive ideas:
1) Cancel the $400 million dollar investment in the Quebec City arena.
2) Get rid of the OQLF, Bill 101, and the language police
3) Legalize marijuana and tax it like you do alcohol
What have you done that’s so constructive? Oh right, nothing.