Columbia faculty members walk out after pro-Palestinian protesters arrested - Page 37 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15316062
AFAIK it's the other way around, although it's still a low number. And most Americans are still against them.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:Which hostages the few held by Hamas or the many held by the Israelis?


Israel doesn't have hostages.

Hamas does.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:Learn to read, did I even use the term "equivalent"? no!


Right, you think calling for the genocide of Israelis is OK.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:I see you like to attack imaginary arguments that nobody has made.


Hey, I was just being charitable if anything.
#15316064
Israel has literally thousands of people who have been “detained” without charges or trial.

This is no different from kidnapping and confining hostages, save that the group doing it is a state instead of a non-state actor.

Considering how western governments have been using state power tp silence dissent about Israel outside of the occupied territories, it is no surprise that the Israeli government is also using anti-democratic means.
#15316070
wat0n wrote:Israel doesn't have hostages. Hamas does.


Using two different terms for what is essentially the same form of detention, is simply propaganda, disingenuous.

The Israeli system of detention is (like so many things) the subject of UN resolutions, do you know anything about it? if you don't why pretend, if you do then share with me here, some of the questionable practices that go on?
#15316073
wat0n wrote:No, it's not. Those "children" are either charged or released.

Not exchanged.


Unfortunately for you the facts are at variance with your deluded apologist ramblings - read this and tell if you disagree with any of it please.

Children in Israeli Military Detention

snippet:

It is understood that in no other country are children systematically tried by juvenile military courts that, by definition, fall short of providing the necessary guarantees to ensure respect for their rights. All children prosecuted for offences they allegedly committed should be treated in accordance with international juvenile justice standards, which provide them with special protection. Most of these protections are enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The paper concludes with 38 specific recommendations grouped under 14 broad headings designed to improve the protection of children in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international laws, norms and standards.
#15316074
wat0n wrote:No, it's not. Those "children" are either charged or released.


I must tell you that I challenge your desperate apologetics here, not to influence you or educate you but to inform the open minded uninformed browser, people who don't know much about the Palestine problem and happen to peruse these discussions.

It is to them at whom my posts are aimed, you are merely putty in my hands, used to reveal to others the true level of denial and depravity and racism that is routinely spewed by the racist xenophobic Zionist.

People read these threads, they see the nature of the posts, they can see for themselves who is rational and backed by facts and who is the extremist, the denialist, the desperate, those who will stop at nothing, those who will say white is black and wrong is right and false is true.

So keep it up, with every ridiculous post you submit the record grows, it is the words of the Zionists themselves that proves their depravity.
#15316079
Sherlock Holmes wrote:Using two different terms for what is essentially the same form of detention, is simply propaganda, disingenuous.

The Israeli system of detention is (like so many things) the subject of UN resolutions, do you know anything about it? if you don't why pretend, if you do then share with me here, some of the questionable practices that go on?


They are not "essentially the same thing". It is not the same to take civilians hostages for exchanging them for convicted combatants and civilians, or those awaiting trial, with detaining an armed combatant or a civilian doing things like attacking soldiers or other civilians with stones (or worse). Even more so if this person will either be released or charged at some point.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No one is denying that the IDF and Israeli government is kidnapping and confining children.


Only if you want to draw a false equivalence as part of an effort to justify the October 7 massacre and campus antisemitism.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:Unfortunately for you the facts are at variance with your deluded apologist ramblings - read this and tell if you disagree with any of it please.

Children in Israeli Military Detention

snippet:


How is this equivalent to hostage taking again?

For all the bad things mentioned in the report, they're tried and, eventually, released. Hostages are not tried and are only released when the kidnapper gets what he wants.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:I must tell you that I challenge your desperate apologetics here, not to influence you or educate you but to inform the open minded uninformed browser, people who don't know much about the Palestine problem and happen to peruse these discussions.

It is to them at whom my posts are aimed, you are merely putty in my hands, used to reveal to others the true level of denial and depravity and racism that is routinely spewed by the racist xenophobic Zionist.

People read these threads, they see the nature of the posts, they can see for themselves who is rational and backed by facts and who is the extremist, the denialist, the desperate, those who will stop at nothing, those who will say white is black and wrong is right and false is true.

So keep it up, with every ridiculous post you submit the record grows, it is the words of the Zionists themselves that proves their depravity.


If something's desperate is the attempt to defend and justify the October 7 massacre and genocidal chants by Hamas supporters. If you're talking to a neutral observer, you're doing hell of a bad job here.

In reality, you're just spewing hatred and coming up with post-hoc excuses.
#15316098
Pants-of-dog wrote:Note that my argument does not centre around not believing in the law.

You argument has centered around wanting the university and the police to ignore the law and not enforce it because you believe the people breaking the law were righteous. Now based on the opinion of one legal scholar from another province based evidence they didn't cite your opinion has changed.

I believe the law exists. I believe it is unequally applied. I believe it is inherently unjust.

Unfortunately there are occasionally laws which are unjust or that are applied unequally or unfairly. This is the cost of living in a human society with humans with their own biases writing and enforcing the laws. All we can do is do our best to make the law more fair and more accountable, which have done for millennia and will continue to do.

The fact that the university and the cops went ahead and assaulted the protesters even though encampments are legal on Alberta campuses supports that claim and contradicts the idea that laws are applied equally,

You nor anyone else has cited any Alberta law or case law that states that encampments without permit/authorization are legal on Alberta campuses or anywhere else in Alberta cities, whether on private or public land. Until I do i'll assume that ordinarily property and trespass laws are applicable.

Yes, that is why I included the phrase “or mistaken” in my claim.

Ok fair enough, I missed that.


Okay.

As far as I can tell, the cops showed up, looked around, and then out out an advisory for the public to use alternate routes.

As far as I know, they are still blocking the highway.

If that's the case it's insane. People shouldn't be able to arbitrarily hijack public infrastructure. Getting a permit for a protest march in the street for a few hours, especially on a weekend, seems fine to me.

And if the protesters are blocking the highway and the coos do absolutely nothing, what does that mean?

It means the cops aren't doing their jobs, which is to enforce the law and maintain the peace.

Yes, I know the difference.

I will try again one last time: when one witnesses a situation where the police create inequality, how can you tell if it is a problem with the laws or with the applcation?

If someone thinks the police acted unjustly, they'd have to review the law, and also review all of the evidence of what happened in that circumstance to see if the cops were following or not following the law.

Let's remember that neither cops nor protestors are saints 100% of the time. The cops might have acted wrongly here, but protestors are also just as capable of committing illegal acts of violence, which could legitimate the use of batons, it totally depends on what events unfolded. Note that the police allege that some protestors were assaulting them by throwing objects at them, and at least one protestor was arrested for assaulting a police officer.

For me it doesn't matter who may have committed illegal acts of violence in this case (cops or protestors), what matters is that those who did so are held accountable, because illegal acts of violence shouldn't be tolerated in our society. My priority is justice, not the interests of one group or another.

Well, this is what this thread is about.

Batons were used by the police against the protesters.

Is this an example of the cops acting wrongly or the law being wrong?

I don't know, and it could be neither. You're assuming it's always wrong for police to use batons. It depends on the circumstance. Police have a right to self-defense and they have a right to assault people who resist arrest in order to complete the arrest, for instance.

Students physically blocking other students from accessing public parts of campus is rude. It may even be illegal depending on how it was done.

The footage shown in this thread shows a man trying to cross a line of protesters. The protesters stand in his way and do not move aside when he approaches. In order to avoid physical contact, the man stops and tries to go another way only to again be stopped in the same way; i.e. without physical contact.

This is definitely rude and morally questionable. It does not seem illegal, though. And it does not have the same implications of government overreach as police batons hitting peaceful protesters.


A makeshift barricade (such as the ones protecting the protesters at UCLA when the counter protesters attacked so violently) is a flimsy thing. At most, one could argue that the protesters destroyed some random signage when they vandalized some parking signs for materials.[/quote]
Students completely took over (occupied) pieces of university property that's free for all students to use and walk through without authorization, and used barricades and human chains/barricading to keep some students out, typically based on political opinion or ethnicity. That's not illegal, but it's against the rules of many of these universities, including rules against discrimination. Students have a right, provided by many if not all of these universities, to be free from harassment and discrimination based on religion, race etc.

The illegal part is when the universities issued trespass orders when the students failed to comply with university regulations re: the encampments and the students failed to comply with those trespass orders. I suppose it's possible the encampments were legal in Alberta, but I've yet to see any law or legal decision showing this. What i've read from the AB case law is that the judge ruled that the Charter applies to universities in AB, therefore freedom to protest applies. But freedom to protest in itself doesn't include the freedom to put up encampments without permit, similar to how the Ottawa convoy truckers weren't allowed to just park in the street and set up encampments and other temporary infrastructure.

This makes the (easily disproved) assumption that democracies always act in a democratic manner.

When the USA had slaves, it was a democracy. The laws that impelled slavery were “determined by the representatives of the voting citizens” as you put it.

No. There are no judges or bailiffs running behind the cops watching them.

Cops can't be charged with a crime, and if illegal acts are caught on camera or eye witnesses or other evidence shows a cop broke the law the courts can hold them accountable.

Then the cops allowing the protest to disrupt highway traffic are doing something wrong, or the cops at the U of A did something wrong.

Neither are being punished.

If someone did something wrong they may be punished if someone decides to press charges or make a complaint to the PD or sue etc.

If you are correct, the only answer is that the cops and the courts are both corrupt.

Look at that. We found that Alberta (a conservative province in a well developed western country) has a justice system that is so corrupt that police are not held accountable.

No, you're making a lot of assumptions here.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

If a cop breaks the law by abusing their authority and commits illegal violence against the public they are objectively an antidemocratic entitled brat, no?
#15316099
Pants-of-dog wrote:Note that my argument does not centre around not believing in the law.

You argument has centered around wanting the university and the police to ignore the law and not enforce it because you believe the people breaking the law were righteous. Now based on the opinion of one legal scholar from another province based evidence they didn't cite your opinion has changed.

I believe the law exists. I believe it is unequally applied. I believe it is inherently unjust.

Unfortunately there are occasionally laws which are unjust or that are applied unequally or unfairly. This is the cost of living in a human society with humans with their own biases writing and enforcing the laws. All we can do is do our best to make the law more fair and more accountable, which have done for millennia and will continue to do.

The fact that the university and the cops went ahead and assaulted the protesters even though encampments are legal on Alberta campuses supports that claim and contradicts the idea that laws are applied equally,

You nor anyone else has cited any Alberta law or case law that states that encampments without permit/authorization are legal on Alberta campuses or anywhere else in Alberta cities, whether on private or public land. Until I do i'll assume that ordinarily property and trespass laws are applicable.

Yes, that is why I included the phrase “or mistaken” in my claim.

Ok fair enough, I missed that.


Okay.

As far as I can tell, the cops showed up, looked around, and then out out an advisory for the public to use alternate routes.

As far as I know, they are still blocking the highway.

If that's the case it's insane. People shouldn't be able to arbitrarily hijack public infrastructure. Getting a permit for a protest march in the street for a few hours, especially on a weekend, seems fine to me.

And if the protesters are blocking the highway and the coos do absolutely nothing, what does that mean?

It means the cops aren't doing their jobs, which is to enforce the law and maintain the peace.

Yes, I know the difference.

I will try again one last time: when one witnesses a situation where the police create inequality, how can you tell if it is a problem with the laws or with the applcation?

If someone thinks the police acted unjustly, they'd have to review the law, and also review all of the evidence of what happened in that circumstance to see if the cops were following or not following the law.

Let's remember that neither cops nor protestors are saints 100% of the time. The cops might have acted wrongly here, but protestors are also just as capable of committing illegal acts of violence, which could legitimate the use of batons, it totally depends on what events unfolded. Note that the police allege that some protestors were assaulting them by throwing objects at them, and at least one protestor was arrested for assaulting a police officer.

For me it doesn't matter who may have committed illegal acts of violence in this case (cops or protestors), what matters is that those who did so are held accountable, because illegal acts of violence shouldn't be tolerated in our society. My priority is justice, not the interests of one group or another.

Well, this is what this thread is about.

Batons were used by the police against the protesters.

Is this an example of the cops acting wrongly or the law being wrong?

I don't know, and it could be neither. You're assuming it's always wrong for police to use batons. It depends on the circumstance. Police have a right to self-defense and they have a right to assault people who resist arrest in order to complete the arrest, for instance.

Students physically blocking other students from accessing public parts of campus is rude. It may even be illegal depending on how it was done.

The footage shown in this thread shows a man trying to cross a line of protesters. The protesters stand in his way and do not move aside when he approaches. In order to avoid physical contact, the man stops and tries to go another way only to again be stopped in the same way; i.e. without physical contact.

This is definitely rude and morally questionable. It does not seem illegal, though. And it does not have the same implications of government overreach as police batons hitting peaceful protesters.


A makeshift barricade (such as the ones protecting the protesters at UCLA when the counter protesters attacked so violently) is a flimsy thing. At most, one could argue that the protesters destroyed some random signage when they vandalized some parking signs for materials.[/quote]
Students completely took over (occupied) pieces of university property that's free for all students to use and walk through without authorization, and used barricades and human chains/barricading to keep some students out, typically based on political opinion or ethnicity. That's not illegal, but it's against the rules of many of these universities, including rules against discrimination. Students have a right, provided by many if not all of these universities, to be free from harassment and discrimination based on religion, race etc.

The illegal part is when the universities issued trespass orders when the students failed to comply with university regulations re: the encampments and the students failed to comply with those trespass orders. I suppose it's possible the encampments were legal in Alberta, but I've yet to see any law or legal decision showing this. What i've read from the AB case law is that the judge ruled that the Charter applies to universities in AB, therefore freedom to protest applies. But freedom to protest in itself doesn't include the freedom to put up encampments without permit, similar to how the Ottawa convoy truckers weren't allowed to just park in the street and set up encampments and other temporary infrastructure.

No. There are no judges or bailiffs running behind the cops watching them.

Cops can't be charged with a crime, and if illegal acts are caught on camera or eye witnesses or other evidence shows a cop broke the law the courts can hold them accountable.

Then the cops allowing the protest to disrupt highway traffic are doing something wrong, or the cops at the U of A did something wrong.

Neither are being punished.

If someone did something wrong they may be punished if someone decides to press charges or make a complaint to the PD or sue etc.

If you are correct, the only answer is that the cops and the courts are both corrupt.

Look at that. We found that Alberta (a conservative province in a well developed western country) has a justice system that is so corrupt that police are not held accountable.

No, you're making a lot of assumptions here.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

If a cop breaks the law by abusing their authority and commits illegal violence against the public they are objectively an antidemocratic entitled brat, no?
#15316113
Unthinking Majority wrote:You argument has centered around wanting the university and the police to ignore the law and not enforce it because you believe the people breaking the law were righteous. Now based on the opinion of one legal scholar from another province based evidence they didn't cite your opinion has changed.


Again, you misunderstood.

To insist that this is my argument after I have corrected you is a strawman and will be ignored.

Nor do you seem to disagree that this completely destroys the argument that the cops could do what they want since it was supposedly illegal.

Unfortunately there are occasionally laws which are unjust or that are applied unequally or unfairly. This is the cost of living in a human society with humans with their own biases writing and enforcing the laws. All we can do is do our best to make the law more fair and more accountable, which have done for millennia and will continue to do.

You nor anyone else has cited any Alberta law or case law that states that encampments without permit/authorization are legal on Alberta campuses or anywhere else in Alberta cities, whether on private or public land. Until I do i'll assume that ordinarily property and trespass laws are applicable.

Ok fair enough, I missed that.

Okay.


And the evidence I have provided is still more than the evidence provided by those who say the encampment was illegal.

Your assumption is not evidence.

If that's the case it's insane. People shouldn't be able to arbitrarily hijack public infrastructure. Getting a permit for a protest march in the street for a few hours, especially on a weekend, seems fine to me.

It means the cops aren't doing their jobs, which is to enforce the law and maintain the peace.

If someone thinks the police acted unjustly, they'd have to review the law, and also review all of the evidence of what happened in that circumstance to see if the cops were following or not following the law.

Let's remember that neither cops nor protestors are saints 100% of the time. The cops might have acted wrongly here, but protestors are also just as capable of committing illegal acts of violence, which could legitimate the use of batons, it totally depends on what events unfolded. Note that the police allege that some protestors were assaulting them by throwing objects at them, and at least one protestor was arrested for assaulting a police officer.

For me it doesn't matter who may have committed illegal acts of violence in this case (cops or protestors), what matters is that those who did so are held accountable, because illegal acts of violence shouldn't be tolerated in our society. My priority is justice, not the interests of one group or another.


And so we get back to the topical question:

How do you reconcile all this with the fact that cops used batons on peaceful protesters?

I don't know, and it could be neither. You're assuming it's always wrong for police to use batons. It depends on the circumstance. Police have a right to self-defense and they have a right to assault people who resist arrest in order to complete the arrest, for instance.


Did any of that happen at the protest?

Students completely took over (occupied) pieces of university property that's free for all students to use and walk through without authorization, and used barricades and human chains/barricading to keep some students out, typically based on political opinion or ethnicity. That's not illegal, but it's against the rules of many of these universities, including rules against discrimination. Students have a right, provided by many if not all of these universities, to be free from harassment and discrimination based on religion, race etc

The illegal part is when the universities issued trespass orders when the students failed to comply with university regulations re: the encampments and the students failed to comply with those trespass orders. I suppose it's possible the encampments were legal in Alberta, but I've yet to see any law or legal decision showing this. What i've read from the AB case law is that the judge ruled that the Charter applies to universities in AB, therefore freedom to protest applies. But freedom to protest in itself doesn't include the freedom to put up encampments without permit, similar to how the Ottawa convoy truckers weren't allowed to just park in the street and set up encampments and other temporary infrastructure.


The Ottawa trucker convoy were allowed to just park in the street and set up encampments and other temporary infrastructure, They are doing it again as we speak here in Alberta.

Explain why these protesters do not get the baton while peaceful protesters opposed to a genocide get hit by cops.

Cops can't be charged with a crime, and if illegal acts are caught on camera or eye witnesses or other evidence shows a cop broke the law the courts can hold them accountable.


The cops that hit protesters with batons were caught on camera.

They were also caught without any identification or badge number on their uniform which is alo illegal since it prevents accountability.

If someone did something wrong they may be punished if someone decides to press charges or make a complaint to the PD or sue etc.

No, you're making a lot of assumptions here.

If a cop breaks the law by abusing their authority and commits illegal violence against the public they are objectively an antidemocratic entitled brat, no?


Can you describe a situation that explains what is going on here in Alberta with cops beating some protesters and letting others get away with crimes, that does not include the corruption you claimed was responsible?
#15316114
wat0n wrote:Only if you want to draw a false equivalence as part of an effort to justify the October 7 massacre and campus antisemitism.


The Oct 7th attack was justified, it was a reaction to an existential threat to Palestinians, their land, their rights, their freedom.

If killing 35,000 most civilians and bombing schools and hospitals and shooting children hiding in churches is justified (as it is by the Zionist madmen) then so too is the killing of 1,000 civilians.

So if Israel claims its actions since 1948 are justified because of an existential threat to Jews then by definition such actions are justified. If you tell me you are justified in bombing my house because I might be a threat then I am therefore equally justified in bombing your house first.
#15316115
wat0n wrote:Only if you want to draw a false equivalence as part of an effort to justify the October 7 massacre and campus antisemitism.


The Oct 7th attack was justified, it was a reaction to an existential threat to Palestinians, their land, their rights, their freedom.

If killing 35,000 most civilians and bombing schools and hospitals and shooting children hiding in churches is justified (as it is by the Zionist madmen) then so too is the killing of 1,000 civilians.

So if Israel claims its actions since 1948 are justified because of an existential threat to Jews then by definition such actions are justified. If you tell me you are justified in bombing my house because I might be a threat then I am therefore equally justified in bombing your house first.
#15316116
wat0n wrote:Only if you want to draw a false equivalence as part of an effort to justify the October 7 massacre and campus antisemitism.


The Oct 7th attack was justified, it was a reaction to an existential threat to Palestinians, their land, their rights, their freedom.

If killing 35,000 most civilians and bombing schools and hospitals and shooting children hiding in churches is justified (as it is by the Zionist madmen) then so too is the killing of 1,000 civilians.

So if Israel claims its actions since 1948 are justified because of an existential threat to Jews then by definition such actions are justified. If you tell me you are justified in bombing my house because I might be a threat then I am therefore equally justified in bombing your house first.
#15316121
Sherlock Holmes wrote:So if Israel claims its actions since 1948 are justified because of an existential threat to Jews then by definition such actions are justified. If you tell me you are justified in bombing my house because I might be a threat then I am therefore equally justified in bombing your house first.


Oh I see. And tell me, when Palestinians went on a rampage and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population of places like Hebron in 1929, massacring over 60, were they justified too? The Israeli state had not been established, and there had been no instances of any even remotely comparable armed action against Palestinians by Jews.
#15316122
wat0n wrote:Oh I see. And tell me, when Palestinians went on a rampage and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population of places like Hebron in 1929, massacring over 60, were they justified too? The Israeli state had not been established, and there had been no instances of any even remotely comparable armed action against Palestinians by Jews.


I'm just pointing out that there's no way we can excuse one side in a dispute to carry out atrocities and not excuse the other side too. The Israelis ALWAYS claim to be the victims, their actions are always justified but the inhabitants of the illegally occupied territories are ALWAYS labelled "terrorists".

Regarding Hebron in 1929 anyone can read up on the history and situation at that time. If they do so they will discover that tension and fear had been rising within the Arab community since the Balfour declaration issued by the British 1917. The Sephardic Jews in Hebron had lived in relative peace with Arabs for many centuries too, the violence can be traced back to the colonial powers meddling in the region first with their betrayal of the Arabs who routed the Ottomans for the British and then with the Balfour declaration.

You can make up your own "explanation" if you like, I really don't care, but the history indicates that Jews and Arabs live in relative peace together for centuries, the tension, anger and violence we see today is the result of British and American geopolitics and the fostering a racial supremacist form of Zionism which became modelled on German Nazism.

This stuff is not hard to investigate, there are plenty of documentary records that support this view.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on 22 May 2024 22:57, edited 1 time in total.
#15316123
Sherlock Holmes wrote:I'm just pointing out that there's no way we can excuse one side in a dispute to carry out atrocities and not excuse the other side too. The Israelis ALWAYS claim to be the victims, their actions are always justified but the inhabitants of the illegally occupied territories are ALWAYS labelled "terrorists".

Regarding Hebron in 1929 anyone can read up on the history and situation at that time. If they do so they will discover that tension and fear had been rising within the Arab community since the Balfour declaration issued by the British 1917. The Sephardic Jews in Hebron had lived in relative peace with Arabs for many centuries too, the violence can be traced back to the colonial powers meddling in the region first with their betrayal of the Arabs who routed the Ottomans for the British and then with the Balfour declaration.

You can make up your own "explanation" if you like, I really don't care, but the history indicates that Jews and Arabs live in relative peace together for centuries, the tension, anger and violence we see today is the result of British and American geopolitics and the fostering a racial supremacist form of Zionism.


Oh so you are justifying that ethnic cleansing then, heh?

And your narrative isn't true either. The very Jewish community of Hebron was also massacred during the Ottoman era, from time to time. And Jews, being Dhimmis, lived under second class status not different from that of African Americans during Jim Crow.
  • 1
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 65

The problem for Trump is that he kept lying even a[…]

World War II Day by Day

July 23, Tuesday Benes forms Czech government-i[…]

Harris' shambolic 2020 campaign for president. Sh[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

By the way Trump gave an interview after the atta[…]