Response is influenced by protest tactics

Content of the article

As recent years have seen various protest movements under different banners, it has become clear that politics often trumps principle. Tolerance of protest tactics seems to be directly related to the level of empathy we have for a cause that exposes us to hypocrisy and double standards.

We saw this again with the recent decision by the University of Calgary (U of C) to remove a police protest camp. But if protesters descend on the U of C grounds at the end of 2021 and vow to stay until administrators lift vaccine and mask mandates, it's easy to imagine those parties being pushed back.

Content of the article

Content of the article

This is not to say that the hypothetical cause or the real-life anti-Israel cause espoused by these campus camps cannot or should not be expressed. There is also a fine line between the right to protest on campus and the university's right to control its property and prevent trespassing.

It's fair to debate whether U of C was too hasty or justifiably cautious in switching camps, but it also misses the point. Ultimately, the question here is whether universities should resort to political ultimatums and, in effect, issue the heckler's veto.

The university should have made it clear from day one that, regardless of how long they were willing to stay, they would not reward the tactics and behavior of the protesters with their demands.

These camps are not just groups of people gathered to condemn Israel. They took over parts of the campuses and promised to hold the universities hostage until they did what they wanted. The demands are about forcing the university to “disassociate” itself from Israel, but they don't seem to know if there's anything to protest about in the first place. One of their “demands” is that the university “fully disclose” its investments and decision-making processes.

Content of the article

Content of the article

They also make demands on how future investment decisions should be made, not specifically about Israel. They also want the university to adopt a very clear and unequivocal stance on Israel and the Palestinians.

How to make such decisions? What if there are students who want a closer relationship with Israel? Should they occupy campuses until they hit the road? Should universities really be making policy and investment decisions based on which groups are most disadvantaged?

Last week, a group of law professors from the University of C and the University of Alberta (U of A) issued a letter calling on the universities to, among other things, remove trespass notices and allow students to “temporarily peacefully protest.” camps on the territory of the university”.

Of course, not only students are attracted to these camps. Here, the word “temporary” creates a lot of pain.

The professors cite a 2020 court ruling in which the U of A violated the free speech rights of an anti-abortion group on campus. While the universities should heed the decision, it's important to note that this was really a “temporary” protest and not an attempt to occupy the campus to pressure the U of A to adopt or abandon any policy.

Content of the article

Yes, “temporary” protests should be allowed, but what about a protest that vows not to leave until their demands are met? We encountered it at the motorcade protest in Ottawa. After what happened in Ottawa, it's clear that other cities will be quick to respond if something similar happens. U of C's response should be seen in this context.

Simply put, it is reasonable for universities to reject such ultimatums and make it clear that they do not reward such tactics. People who tend to disagree should think long and hard about how they would feel if the other party did it.

Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge airs weekdays 12:30-3pm on QR Calgary (770AM / 107.3FM) [email protected] Twitter: @RobBreakenridge.

Content of the article