Originally Posted by Taunton

She talked about inching forward, not charging through. Her intentions were not to hurt anyone.

This is not an example of threatening violence against unionists.

Exercept from the thread:

As if I would actually do that. What you do is drive slowly, inch forward, and they'll move out of the way - its common freakin' sense. You block me, I will do what I can to get through.

If they don't move, then what?
Intentions and what actually happens during the event are another thing. Motorists will be fairly riled up and both sides will probably be agitated, regardless violence from either side is unacceptable.

I don't want TAs getting hurt, either from CUPE or people who are anti-CUPE.

Originally Posted by AYuen

mike: " “continuing to work during a strike” is called “scabbing”. where i come from scabs watch their backs."

from: http://unit1bargaining.wordp ress.c...able/#comments

I dunno, I think that's pretty clear.

I've also gotten "We're not responsible for the actions of angry strikers."

The full... contextualized text of that...

Originally Posted by PilotMal

The aim is not to hurt anyone. Jeeze.

As if I would actually do that. What you do is drive slowly, inch forward, and they'll move out of the way - its common freakin' sense. You block me, I will do what I can to get through. They are legally un-able to touch you in any way, and I'm presuming that means my car as well. I want to be able to get to my class on time and not have some stupid union block my way - they're harming the students, when they should be taking their fight to the administration.

Her point wasn't "watch your backs" but, that her belief is that picketers cannot legally touch her, and she believes that extends to her car as well.

Apples to oranges. One was a threat to scabbers, while the other is an unmalicious (perhaps legally incorrect) statement. There is no vindictiveness in her post, especially since she is framing it in non-violence.

Originally Posted by deadpool

The full... contextualized text of that...



Her point wasn't "watch your backs" but, that her belief is that picketers cannot legally touch her, and she believes that extends to her car as well.

Apples to oranges. One was a threat to scabbers, while the other is an unmalicious (perhaps legally incorrect) statement. There is no vindictiveness in her post, especially since she is framing it in non-violence.

Regardless, you cannot touch or threaten someone with your car.

If there is a picketer and they refuse to move. Regardless of whether they cannot touch you (and your car), if you drive into them even slowly it can be considered assault on your part. In many cases, if you say something like "I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but I support your constitutional right to strike" you're more likely to get through faster (and with less reprecussions) than running people over. You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

It's just like with letter writing, being an ass to an MP won't get you anywhere. If you're polite, indicate that you are aware of their opinion, and put in facts arguing your case then you're more likely to be listened to even if you disagree.

I don't think she would be personally vindicative. But there have been situations, such as the incident at York, where people have driven through picket lines causing injury to picketers. I don't want that to happen here at McMaster.

No but like I said. She is wrong on her interpretation of legalities, but is not malicious.

It comes down to basic legal philosophy. There is no mens rea in her statement, but there is in the statement of those threatening scabs.

We need to just let her know that she can't do that, and I'm sure that there won't be a problem. Those threatening picket-line crossers (henceforth I shall refer to them as champs) do so knowing that what they are doing is illegal, immoral and unethical.

But yes, I agree that we need to see non-violent protest in this. If the picketers drop the chip on their shoulder and remember that we students pay (far too) much for our educations and do not go overly radical (unlike what we've seen CUPE members do -- leading to them being kicked out of MUSC) and understand that the fight is with the administration and not the students, there should be no issue.

We have no place for radicalism on campus.

"where i come from scabs watch their backs"

Sounds like a threat to me? I'm pretty sure if anything happens to the "champs" that someone will try and figure out who this anonymous commenter is.

By the way, doesn't that scream "I have something to hide" if you say stuff like that published under a name other than your own?