[wat0n]

^ Enforcing the law is not "reactionary", harassment and vandalism are not speech.

Not when Israel gets a free handout of billions of dollars every year from the US taxpayer, talk about socialism!

That is not enough and in any event is largely a subsidy to American arms manufacturers.

[Sherlock Holmes]

While we're on the subject of Netanyahu:

[Deutschmania]

I wasn't comparing Israel to Nazi occupied France, I was comparing Nazi occupied France to Zionist occupied Palestinian territory.

Therefore I was comparing Zionist Israel (the occupier today) to the Nazi Third Reich (the occupier in 1940).

One does need to be careful in making points such as this , as it would be expressly prohibited under the new proposed law against anti-Semitism . So , unless you are fortunate enough not to be living in a country such as the "land of the free" , you could get penalized in some way .

[Unthinking Majority]

I wasn't comparing Israel to Nazi occupied France, I was comparing Nazi occupied France to Zionist occupied Palestinian territory.

Therefore I was comparing Zionist Israel (the occupier today) to the Nazi Third Reich (the occupier in 1940).

Either way, its ridiculous.

[Unthinking Majority]

While we're on the subject of Netanyahu:

Sounds more like Hamas.

[wat0n]

Sounds more like Hamas.

It applies to both.

Netanyahu did try to destroy Israel's institutions before this war, I think there would have been no October 7 if he had not done so.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sounds more like Hamas.

Hamas don't have a nation to burn down, they are living at the pleasure of the Zionists. The West bank is occupied and Gaza has been an open prison where nobody goes in or out unless the Israelis say so. Gaza is denied the right to an airport or a navy, even access to their own oil reserves yet Israel has zero right to impose such restrictions.

Israel is a cancer, doomed to fail and when it does implode Jew and non-Jew will pay the price for colluding with the colonial powers who will simply sit on the sidelines and watch as they always do.

This is nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust or antisemitism, neither of which originate in Palestine, the entire project is the creation of the British and Americans, they planted the seeds, they have been watering the garden for decades and sooner or later they will just walk away. The Jews have been brainwashed into hating their brethren, did you know that many Palestinians are descended from Samaritans?

The region, its religions, its ethnicities have been exploited by the colonial powers, divide and conquer and today we see the colonial instigators blame one side then the other side, the entire middle east peoples have been used like chips on a poker game, chess pieces, toys and they do not understand.

When the nations that support Israel also supported slavery, genocide of Aborigines and Native Americans, apartheid in Africa, theft of resources from India, and so much more, then it should be clear - these "friendly" nations are ravenous beasts, wolves in sheep's clothing. The United States, Britain, Canada... are no friend of Jew or Arab.

The United States NEVER acts out of benevolence, nor does the British Empire, this fact is their biggest secret, this is hidden at all cost, they want the peoples of the Middle East to be compliant and tools in their hands and that is what has happened. The "State of Israel" serves the geopolitical interests of outside powers, not the interests of ordinary Jews and Arabs.

[Pants-of-dog]

The police attacked the encampment here in Edmonton at the University of Alberta campus.

Police used batons and apparently some weird sort of pepper bullets.

So we have police using violence against a peaceful protest.

[Unthinking Majority]

People used to say this about civil rights marches, the chants of equality for all was really a call for blacks to take everything from the whites. That is exactly the kind of rhetoric that was all over the place before and during the civil rights upheaval.

Lol another ridiculous comparison. Hamas literally says in their 2017 Charter that Palestinian territory is from the river to the sea and it all belongs to them.

I'm sure there are actual sane protestors who want peace and a fair 2 state solution chanting this chant, but then they're naive to what they're actually saying. It's an anti zionist chant. Look it up on Wikipedia.

[Pants-of-dog]

Lol another ridiculous comparison. Hamas literally says in their 2017 Charter that Palestinian territory is from the river to the sea and it all belongs to them.

All of Canadian land belongs to the Indigenous people from whom it was taken by force.

Note that this does not necessarily mean that all of my family and friends who are not Indigenous (including me) should all die.

I'm sure there are actual sane protestors who want peace and a fair 2 state solution chanting this chant, but then they're naive to what they're actually saying. It's an anti zionist chant. Look it up on Wikipedia.

The same article mentions many other interpretations.

[wat0n]

All of Canadian land belongs to the Indigenous people from whom it was taken by force.

If we go by this nonsense, all of the land between the river and the sea belongs to the indigenous people, the Jews, from whom it was taken by force.

Note that this does not necessarily mean that all of my family and friends who are not Indigenous (including me) should all die.

What does it mean exactly?

[Unthinking Majority]

The police attacked the encampment here in Edmonton at the University of Alberta campus.

Police used batons and apparently some weird sort of pepper bullets.

So we have police using violence against a peaceful protest.

Groups of people who break the law, like trespassing, and won't leave after being asked many times to leave need to be forced to comply with the law somehow, like riot police dispersing them or arrested. Nobody is allowed to camp overnight and erect barricades and take over campus property if that is against campus rules, which it is at basically every university.

A non- violent protest doesn't mean they aren't breaking laws, like trespassing. The ottawa trucker convoy did not engage in violence but were breaking local laws like illegal parking and thus were dispersed by riot police and some arrested.

Nobody in this forum including yourself would be ok with a group of protestors camping out on their front lawn at their house and them putting up barricades and tent encampments. And when you ask them to leave and they wouldn't, everyone here would call the police to have them removed, even if they were otherwise peaceful. No protestor has a right to break the law, and law-breakers aren't victims. If you refuse to follow the law after warnings to obey and you're hit with rubber bullets, batons, and arrested you're not a victim.

[Pants-of-dog]

Groups of people who break the law, like trespassing, and won't leave after being asked many times to leave need to be forced to comply with the law somehow, like riot police dispersing them or arrested. Nobody is allowed to camp overnight and erect barricades and take over campus property if that is against campus rules, which it is at basically every university.

There were no barricades. Everyone was able to access campus property.

No one was doing anything harmful or dangerous, so no, the use of batons and pepper bullets is not warranted.

The justification for police violence is noted.

A non- violent protest doesn't mean they aren't breaking laws, like trespassing. The ottawa trucker convoy did not engage in violence but were breaking local laws like illegal parking and thus were dispersed by riot police and some arrested.

After several weeks, the trucker convoy (which was violence on many occasions) was dispersed. The protest was there less than 24 hours.

Nobody in this forum including yourself would be ok with a group of protestors camping out on their front lawn at their house and them putting up barricades and tent encampments.

Who cares what people are “ok” with? Centrists and liberals on this forum are okay with genocide, famine, police brutality, and colonialism (but not tents). Why should I give any weight at all to what people in this forum are morally comfortable with?

And when you ask them to leave and they wouldn't, everyone here would call the police to have them removed, even if they were otherwise peaceful. No protestor has a right to break the law, and law-breakers aren't victims. If you refuse to follow the law after warnings to obey and you're hit with rubber bullets, batons, and arrested you're not a victim.

So people who broke Nazi law by hiding Jews are the bad guys and were deservedly punished. Laws are a weak justification for unwarranted police violence.

[Unthinking Majority]

There were no barricades. Everyone was able to access campus property.

No one was doing anything harmful or dangerous, so no, the use of batons and pepper bullets is not warranted.

The justification for police violence is noted.

The school trespassed them. They said they can protest but not camp out. The police then have an obligation to enforce the trespass. If you have a beef here it's with the school, not the police. We can have a debate whether schools should allow students and non-students setting up many dozens of tents and occupying parts of school property around the clock, but it's up to the school and they need to authorize it since it's their private property.

Most university campus grounds in Canada are private property. Therefore students and non-students don't have an inherent right to set up large protests on the property, and if they are trespassed the police will enforce it just like any other private property.

If anything, the protestors should have asked for authorization from the school to do so. If they were denied then there's not much they can do other than write letters to the school or take it up with the student union. The students don't have a right to just make up their own campus rules and set up tents wherever they want.

Yes I do support police enforcing the law, using violence if necessary in cases of trespassing if the trespassers refuse to leave upon being given a lawful order.

After several weeks, the trucker convoy (which was violence on many occasions) was dispersed. The protest was there less than 24 hours.

What violence? Even if they were violent it is irrelevant as they were breaking other laws. The convoy occupation I agree was allowed to remain for far too long, but government at different levels were too cowardly to take responsibility, as were the police as nobody could agree which level of police and government had jurisdiction for fear of bad PR.

Who cares what people are “ok” with?

Private property owners care about who or what is allowed on their property. You don't have a right to peaceful protest on private property. End of discussion.

So people who broke Nazi law by hiding Jews are the bad guys and were deservedly punished. Laws are a weak justification for unwarranted police violence.

Nazi Germany was a fascist dictatorship with no universal legal human rights, such as is the case under a liberal democracy. In a liberal democracy specific individuals don't get to decide which laws to follow and not follow, the people decide through their elected representatives . Protest rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights do not extend to private property. End of discussion.

Trespass orders are not tyrannical Nazi dictates. If someone is on your private property and won't leave after being asked, the property owner has the legal right to trespass them and force their removal, and this extends to police officers too who also don't have any right to be on your private property without a warrant or unless an active crime is in progress.

[Pants-of-dog]

The school trespassed them. They said they can protest but not camp out. The police then have an obligation to enforce the trespass. If you have a beef here it's with the school, not the police. We can have a debate whether schools should allow students and non-students setting up many dozens of tents and occupying parts of school property around the clock, but it's up to the school and they need to authorize it since it's their private property.

Most university campus grounds in Canada are private property. Therefore students and non-students don't have an inherent right to set up large protests on the property, and if they are trespassed the police will enforce it just like any other private property.

If anything, the protestors should have asked for authorization from the school to do so. If they were denied then there's not much they can do other than write letters to the school or take it up with the student union. The students don't have a right to just make up their own campus rules and set up tents wherever they want.

Yes I do support police enforcing the law, using violence if necessary in cases of trespassing if the trespassers refuse to leave upon being given a lawful order.

Then you support people being beaten for peacefully protesting a genocide.

And the trespass charge is dubious since people are allowed to walk on the campus grounds at night.

What violence? Even if they were violent it is irrelevant as they were breaking other laws. The convoy occupation I agree was allowed to remain for far too long, but government at different levels were too cowardly to take responsibility, as were the police as nobody could agree which level of police and government had jurisdiction for fear of bad PR.

Private property owners care about who or what is allowed on their property. You don't have a right to peaceful protest on private property. End of discussion.

Yes, you do have a right to peaceful protest on private property. Moreover, campuses, like malls, are public spaces as well as being private property.

Nazi Germany was a fascist dictatorship with no universal legal human rights, such as is the case under a liberal democracy. In a liberal democracy specific individuals don't get to decide which laws to follow and not follow, the people decide through their elected representatives . Protest rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights do not extend to private property. End of discussion.

So then why are you arguing that the cops get to break the law?

Trespass orders are not tyrannical Nazi dictates. If someone is on your private property and won't leave after being asked, the property owner has the legal right to trespass them and force their removal, and this extends to police officers too who also don't have any right to be on your private property without a warrant or unless an active crime is in progress.

It is a university campus. The protesters are allowed to be on the campus.

And since it was a peaceful protest, no violence was needed.

But the cops used violence, and the university used cops to stifle dissent.

Which part do you think is morally more awesome? The beatings by the cops or the way the university wants to stop people from criticizing a genocide?

[Unthinking Majority]

Then you support people being beaten for peacefully protesting a genocide.

And the trespass charge is dubious since people are allowed to walk on the campus grounds at night.

Yes, you do have a right to peaceful protest on private property. Moreover, campuses, like malls, are public spaces as well as being private property.

It is a university campus. The protesters are allowed to be on the campus.

And since it was a peaceful protest, no violence was needed.

But the cops used violence, and the university used cops to stifle dissent.

Which part do you think is morally more awesome? The beatings by the cops or the way the university wants to stop people from criticizing a genocide?

The school said the students can protest on campus, no issues there. The part against their regulations is setting up tents and encampments overnight on school grounds, so they issued a trespass notice and asked them to remove their dozens of tents and encampment. They didn't comply, so they called the cops who removed the tents and arrested and released a few who wouldn't comply, threw things at the cops etc.

Many students came back the next day and protested without tents with no issues, no cops came to remove them, so the issue isn't about stifling dissent. Students have set up tents before for other kinds of protests and they were also removed, it's against regulations.

Yes you can walk on mall property too, but you can't setup dozens of tents and sleep on mall property.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

So again we see the debate about whether or not people should have tents, and how tents justify police violence.

Because they were not trespassing. they were not violent, they were not erecting barricades, they were not blocking access.

In fact, they were not doing many of the things that people have been accusing the protesters of doing. Yet they also received a violent police response.

So we know the police response is not necessarily about all these things the protesters are accused of doing.

[Unthinking Majority]

All of Canadian land belongs to the Indigenous people from whom it was taken by force.

According to who? They signed treaties with the Crown, not by force. Though some land, like in northern BC, is still unceded. See the The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which enshrined land rights for indigenous people.

This is in contrast to Israel, which was taken by military force by the Roman empire and then the Muslim Caliphate empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Jerusalem

In Jerusalem post-WWII:

Jordan undertook systematic destruction of the Jewish Quarter including many synagogues.[34] Under Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem, all Israelis (irrespective of their religion) were forbidden from entering the Old City and other holy sites.[35] Between 40 000 and 50 000 tombstones from ancient Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery were desecrated.[36][unreliable source?] In the Old City of Jerusalem, the Jewish Quarter was destroyed after the end of fighting. The Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue was destroyed first, which was followed by the destruction of famous Hurva Synagogue built in 1701, first time destroyed by its Arab creditors in 1721 and rebuilt in 1864

East Jerusalem was Islamized during the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank between 1948 and 1967, as Jordan sought to alter the demographics and landscape of the city to enhance its Muslim character at the expense of its Jewish and Christian ones. At this time, all Jews were evacuated, and restrictions were imposed on the Christian population that led many to leave the city. Ghada Hashem Talhami states that during its nineteen years of rule, the government of Jordan took actions to accentuate the spiritual Islamic status of Jerusalem.[40] Raphael Israeli, an Israeli professor, described these measures as "Arabization".[41]

While Christian holy sites were protected, and Muslim holy sites were maintained and renovated,[42] Jewish holy sites were damaged and sometimes destroyed.[43] According to Raphael Israeli, 58 synagogues were desecrated or demolished in the Old City, resulting in the de-Judaization of Jerusalem.[44][45][46] Oesterreicher, a Christian clergyman and scholar, wrote, “During Jordanian rule, 34 out of the Old City’s 35 synagogues were dynamited.” [47] The Western Wall was transformed into an exclusively Muslim holy site associated with al-Buraq.[48] 38,000 Jewish graves in the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives were systematically destroyed (used as pavement and latrines),[49][50] and Jews were not allowed to be buried there.[44][45] This was all in violation of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement Article VIII - 2 "...; free access to the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives;...."[51] Following the Arab Legion's expulsion of the Jewish residents of the Old City in the 1948 War, Jordan allowed Arab Muslim refugees to settle in the vacated Jewish Quarter.[52] Later, after some of these refugees were moved to Shuafat, migrants from Hebron took their place.[53] Abdullah el Tell, a commander of the Arab Legion, remarked:

"For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible."

[Unthinking Majority]

@Unthinking Majority

So again we see the debate about whether or not people should have tents, and how tents justify police violence.

Because they were not trespassing. they were not violent, they were not erecting barricades, they were not blocking access.

In fact, they were not doing many of the things that people have been accusing the protesters of doing. Yet they also received a violent police response.

So we know the police response is not necessarily about all these things the protesters are accused of doing.

They were issued a trespass order. They refused to comply with the order and dismantle the encampment, the police made them leave to enforce the law. Nothing else is relevant.

You just said they weren't trespassing, which is a lie. I can go into Walmart no problem, but if I set up a tent to sleep overnight without violence they will issue a trespass order, and if I refuse to comply the police will come and remove me by force.

[Pants-of-dog]

According to who? They signed treaties with the Crown, not by force. Though some land, like in northern BC, is still unceded. See the The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which enshrined land rights for indigenous people.

You were asked to find where in that is the text that shows that all Canadians must die. Since you have not shown that, it can be assumed that it is a difficult interpretation to support.

Now, if I were to simply replace “Canadian” with Israeli (or Chilean or US), we would have the same criticism of settler colonialism and still no call for genocide.

Thus. using critiques of settler colonialism as grounds for an accusation of genocide is difficult to support.

They were issued a trespass order. They refused to comply with the order and dismantle the encampment, the police made them leave to enforce the law. Nothing else is relevant.

No.

Police brutality as a reaction to a peaceful protest is illegal, an overreach of government power, and anti-democratic.

This is relevant.

You just said they weren't trespassing, which is a lie. I can go into Walmart no problem, but if I set up a tent to sleep overnight without violence they will issue a trespass order, and if I refuse to comply the police will come and remove me by force.

The public is not allowed into a Walmart store at all hours of the night,

The public is allowed on university grounds at all hours of the night.

So being on university grounds is not trespassing.