[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I have been asking you what the tweet is about.

So we see that this protest was the subject of police assault much sooner than any right wing protest.

This indicates an inequality in the way the law is applied. Quelle surprise

[wat0n]

Nonsense. The tweet by the local SJP chapter shows an encampment on April 22.

Just because you're a weasel who disregards sources you do not like does not change that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then quote it.

Like I did.

I guess the CBC is gaslighting everyone.

[wat0n]

You can open the tweet yourself.

[Pants-of-dog]

What did the CBC quote say?

It specifically mentions the encampment was open two days.

Is the CBC lying? Yes or no?

[wat0n]

Maybe CBC was unaware of that tweet.

Or are you saying we shouldn't listen to SJP when it comes to their own political action?

[Unthinking Majority]

Since the campus is public space that can be entered and used by anyone at any tome of day, it is not trespassing.

Provide evidence of this. Provide evidence that all campuses are public and not private property. If it is public property, provide evidence that people legally can set up protest encampments without a permit.

Then provide evidence that anyone assaulted a cop.

No, i'm not the ones making the legal claim they were assaulted. Ask the cops or wait for a trial.

Your faith in cops and law does not seem to be grounded in facts...

When did I ever express "faith in cops"? Strawman ignored.

No, this was definitely not true for the first three or four weeks of the protest.

This bad faith argument ignorant of facts and context will be ignored.

Ao we have cops openly breaking the law, not being punished, and yet we are also supposed to believe that the law is just and fair.

How do you reconcile that?

I said the law is largely just and fair, with exceptions. I never said the application of the law is just and fair. If you need this point explained to you yet another time please go back to high school and learn basic reading comprehension. If you have problems with memory and reading retention please see a doctor. If you want to manipulate my opinions into some evil boogeyman inside your head you crave on arguing with then look elsewhere, twitter perhaps. Either way, this continued strawman will be ignored.

Since you're unable to argue without strawmen and bad faith nonsense, this discussion is over.

[Pants-of-dog]

Maybe CBC was unaware of that tweet.

Or are you saying we shouldn't listen to SJP when it comes to their own political action?

Are they lying?

Yes or no?

Provide evidence of this. Provide evidence that all campuses are public and not private property. If it is public property, provide evidence that people legally can set up protest encampments without a permit.

Some parts, such as the road accessing the transit centre, are public property. Others, such as where the encampment took place, are public spaces, even if they are private property.

This is supported by the simple fact that anyone can access these spaces at any time of day or night.

No, i'm not the ones making the legal claim they were assaulted. Ask the cops or wait for a trial.

We have video evidence showing cops hitting protesters with batons.

Since there is no evidence of anyone hitting a cop, it is reasonable to assume that the accusation may not be true.

When did I ever express "faith in cops"? Strawman ignored.

This bad faith argument ignorant of facts and context will be ignored.

The inaction of Ottawa police during the convoy protest was even discussed in the House of Commons, if I recall correctly.

I said the law is largely just and fair, with exceptions. I never said the application of the law is just and fair. If you need this point explained to you yet another time please go back to high school and learn basic reading comprehension. If you have problems with memory and reading retention please see a doctor. If you want to manipulate my opinions into some evil boogeyman inside your head you crave on arguing with then look elsewhere, twitter perhaps. Either way, this continued strawman will be ignored.

Since you're unable to argue without strawmen and bad faith nonsense, this discussion is over.

You said the law itself is just.

Then we started dissecting that belief.

When we look at real world conditions , such as the police actions vis a vis protests against the Gaza genocide, it becomes hard to believe that.

If cops hide their badge numbers while hitting peaceful protesters with a baton, there is nothing “the law” can or will do.

And the leader of this little team of cops must have knowingly allowed those cops to do that. That person is not getting fired.

If the system allows cops to beat people exercising their democratic rights, the system is opposed to democracy.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog if I had to bet, I'm guessing that CBC was either unaware or the previous encampment was interrupted for some time.

[Pants-of-dog]

Feel free to support one of those with evidence.

Anyway, the encampment was there two days, which is far less time than right wing violent protests are allowed to go on.

[wat0n]

Such evidence was already provided: The SJP U of A chapter posted it on April 22.

I will also note many of the encampments in the US went on for weeks, so it's not like an isolated case or anything like that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since @wat0n has no disagreement with any of my claims, we can move on.

——————

Meanwhile, Congress is grilling university presidents for not being punitive enough with campus protesters. Apparently, accusing everyone of antisemitism is seen as a good way to get support.

[wat0n]

Since @Pants-of-dog is unable to actually address the evidence and can only weasel out, we can safely assume he has no actual way to justify giving deferential treatment to racist rule-breaking leftists.

[Pants-of-dog]

The law going through congress tying funding to anti-bigotry is specifically focused on antisemitism.

Since this law is obviously being passed in opposition to the protests, and because it does not address any other form of bigotry (e.g, anti-Blackness, transphobia, sexism, et cetera), and because of the aforementioned police violence, the state clearly shows deferential treatment to the supporters of the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

[wat0n]

What law? The law codifying current Title VI enforcement practice?

Why do you support antisemitism, @Pants-of-dog?

[Pants-of-dog]

So no disagreement with the fact that the law does not address any other form of bigotry.

No disagreement with the fact that the law is being passed to criminalize the ongoing protests.

And no disagreement with the fact that the cops give preferential treatment to right wing protests.

[wat0n]

Title VI covers much more than just antisemitism. The law only codifies current definitions in use since 2018 and does not lift the protections against other forms of illegal discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Why do you stand by antisemitism @Pants-of-dog?

[Pants-of-dog]

No one knows what @wat0n is going in about. He should explain how this contradicts the fact that the new law going through congress does not address any form of bigotry other than antisemitism.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog yeah, it's clear you don't know what the law you're railing against is about. Even though you got a link to it ITT.

The law doesn't need to address other forms of bigotry besides antisemitism because they're already addressed in currently existing Title VI. This law only codifies existing interpretation of "antisemitism" used in Title VI enforcement.

Maybe if you actually bothered to read the law you would be aware of what it is about and could have an informed opinion.

[QatzelOk]

No one knows what @wat0n is going in about.

No one knows what you are going on about either.

Your anonymous two-line retorts amount to the same thing on every thread on every subject:

Prove that the report is lying.
Quote where I said that.
Since you have no counter-argument, we can continue..


That you respond to wat0n's "contentless" posts with bland counter-sentences that contain no content either... makes entire threads really boring to follow. You are killing discussions, both of you, perhaps intentionally.