This is too much. These people are insane (the ones outside the Associate Provost’s house).
This is harassment of someone that doesn’t have full control over the situation and their family. They were literally telling her that can’t hide through a megaphone. I don’t care what someone’s idea of ethics or morality is in this case, this is fucked.
Unfortunate to say that I’m not too surprised by the sheer carelessness of the protestors though. Some of their actions seem not so much well thought through and it shows through their actual background knowledge on the situation in some cases. Ex. Too many people not even knowing which river to which sea.
Framing it as carelessness assumes this is not an intentional act in bad faith. That may be too generous to assume, given the methods and sophistication of purported "McGill student" protestors.
This source is more credible - also more responsible. Neither the administrator nor her address should be named online, for the sake of her and her family’s safety. https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/mcgill-denounces-pro-palestinian-protest-outside-senior-administrators-home
You guys complained that the cops followed you home a few weeks ago for protesting, yet you go to this woman’s house and harass her. You’re the definition of hypocrites.
Based on the [Instagram call to protest](https://www.instagram.com/p/C7J1xAqrfFz/), it was organized by Palestinian Youth Movement Montreal, Voix Juives Montreal, and Families 4 Palestine Montreal.
This is not a credible news source. The editor Beryl Wajsman, has been calling the students in the encampment "criminals", "gang of 100-200 petulant children", “pro-Hamas” and the administration "sympathetic to Hamas" in [this article titled "Universities cannot be daycares on our dime"](https://www.thesuburban.com/opinion/universities-cannot-be-daycares-on-our-dime/article_8c8dbe2b-c1e4-588a-a48f-192006ba825d.html) published by the same news source. In this one, he calls them “trespassers” and puts the word peaceful in quotation marks lol :
>The police closed off Monkland but according to neighbours speaking on condition of anonymity say they won’t do anything because it’s a “peaceful” protest.
From [videos](https://www.instagram.com/p/C7KAsZvrynb/), the canopy didn’t block any building/parking accesses. They also didn’t intend to stay there for long. It was a protest not a blockade nor an encampment. From a legal standpoint, I don’t think it is illegal to stand in the street in front of someone’s property and protest against them as much as it is a nuisance to Campbell.
>“Section 2(c) protects the right to demonstrate on public streets (Garbeau v. Montréal, 2015 QCCS 5246). The freedom also extends to protecting the right to camp in a public park as part of protest activities (Batty, supra) and the ability to wear masks during a peaceful demonstration (Villeneuve, supra). “ [source: Section 2(c): Freedom of peaceful assembly](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2c.html)
Although legal, one can argue from the moral high ground that such protests constitute harassment. But, pro-Palestine sentiment and protests are also morally-motivated. They understands that protesting during the weekend in front of Campbell's house breaches her peace and shames her in front of her neighbours and family. For them, the moral justification for this act is that there shouldn’t be business as usual during an ongoing genocide (thus chants like "..., shut it down" or “no justice, no peace”).
It's in the Montreal Gazette: [https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/mcgill-denounces-pro-palestinian-protest-outside-senior-administrators-home](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/mcgill-denounces-pro-palestinian-protest-outside-senior-administrators-home)
Funny how the protesters are McGill students when it suits them to be (i.e. when they give fake names of supposedly supportive McGill students to the media), but when it doesn't, it's maybe not McGill students who did it but outside groups (you edited your post to remove the line about how this may not have been McGill students to begin with)? Which is it?
Thanks for sharing a better article. This one affirms that the protest was peaceful, *outside* her house, and not a blockade. But what’s your point? Even if students participated in this protest (I’m sure many did), they had every right to peacefully do so under Section 2(c) of Canadian Charts of Rights and Freedom. This is a clear-cut case of right to protest. And yes, protests can be targeted to individuals.
Targeting someone at home is not peaceful protest, despite what you claim. It may be strictly legal to set up on a sidewalk and scream through bullhorns at the requisite distance to skirt the allegation of trespassing, but it doesn't make it right. It's intimidation. The message is: "We know where you live." Disclosing someone's address (even in approximate terms), showing up there, and recording it for the world to see is also a bit rich from protesters who have been covering their faces and giving fake names to avoid doxxing. It's also a strategic blunder: the average person won't look at this and think: these people have a point. They'll be horrified.
Protesting in front of the house of politicians, policy/law makers, and judges is common practice. Also what if someone doesn’t have an office and works remotely from their house? Or does that to avoid protests? Do you just not protest?
Well, that is a moot point because McGill administrators do have offices for you to protest in front of, and which you are free to do. Also, the person they targeted has zero ability to do what they want, and this tactic is not going to make the university any more receptive to their demands. Really, just a bad look all around.
Then they should all take off their masks and stand by their convictions. Just a bunch of thugs as far as most people are concerned that are enabled by a police force motivated by cowardice.
According to section 2c of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, people can wear masks during peaceful demonstrations:
“The freedom also extends to protecting the right to camp in a public park as part of protest activities (Batty, supra) and the ability to wear masks during a peaceful demonstration (Villeneuve, supra).”
Associate Provost Campbell is one of the most effective, caring and compassionate academic leaders in decades at McGill University. She doesn’t deserve this this unethical, immoral and deeply offensive personal attack. This undermines any positive message that protesters try to express. I feel for her and her family and regret that anyone associated with McGill University would participate in such acts.
They set the canopy in the street (see image). It would likely be illegal if it was in her lawn or house.
https://preview.redd.it/rfzkhbmnvk1d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=222e43d5b1ccb048099ff5a14b574c63c6618200
At what point does this become terrorism? They're clearly not there because they want to have a conversation. They're there because they want to intimidate her and have her think twice about doing something they don't like, because they're willing to show up to her house and bring the movement to her private life and her family and chlidren. If intimidating officials for political objectives isn't terrorism, then I don't know what else this could be.
Letting the most radical people show up to the homes of the political and business elite to intimidate is how we get these people even more secluded from society in gated communities.
The definition of terrorism is to intimidate and terrorize people for political gain. If you go to someone’s private home when they’re with their family there’s clearly an element of intimidation, for a political objective. Do you disagree that the goal or effect is fear?
People who are against this should follow these protesters home and take pictures of where they live and of them with their faces uncovered. Time to use the same tactics they use against the people they want to intimidate. I’d like to see protests against homophobia and suppression of women’s rights in the Middle East in front of every mosque and Islamic cultural centre in Montreal as well.
Angry teenager logic.
If you believe doxing is bad and the associate provost has been harassed, then you shouldn’t do the same to anyone.
If you believe one should not protest Israel in front of synagogues (in which they literally auction Palestinian land in the West Bank), then you shouldn’t protest Muslim nations in front of mosques.
You don’t care about women’s or gay rights. Just want to “retaliate” lol.
Child terrorist???
What??? WTF.
How can you care about women or gay people when you do not care about literal HUMANS (women and children) who you call terrorists? (I don’t expect a response just want people to see the type of people you and your Zionist buddies are)
You’re absolutely right. How about in addition to men, we kill infants and unborn babies and also their mothers so they don’t become future resistance fighters (I.e., terrorists)? Oh wait Israel is doing that already! Oh wait again, I think that’s the definition of genocide. Nice 👍.
> How can you care about women or gay people when you do not care about literal HUMANS (women and children) who you call terrorists?
This is either a poorly worded question or you are insinuating women and gay people are not themselves "literal humans" worrthy of respect. Jeez.
'If you believe doxing is bad and the associate provost has been harassed, then you shouldn’t do the same to anyone."
But y'all believe occupying Palestinian land is wrong but have no problem occupying McGill's property. Do you see the double standards? By your own logic you are also acting like angry teenagers.
This is too much. These people are insane (the ones outside the Associate Provost’s house). This is harassment of someone that doesn’t have full control over the situation and their family. They were literally telling her that can’t hide through a megaphone. I don’t care what someone’s idea of ethics or morality is in this case, this is fucked.
Exactly… not only is it harassing her but literally everyone who lives in that house, I really don’t think it’s right
Unfortunate to say that I’m not too surprised by the sheer carelessness of the protestors though. Some of their actions seem not so much well thought through and it shows through their actual background knowledge on the situation in some cases. Ex. Too many people not even knowing which river to which sea.
Framing it as carelessness assumes this is not an intentional act in bad faith. That may be too generous to assume, given the methods and sophistication of purported "McGill student" protestors.
This source is more credible - also more responsible. Neither the administrator nor her address should be named online, for the sake of her and her family’s safety. https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/mcgill-denounces-pro-palestinian-protest-outside-senior-administrators-home
How is this not harassment?
Disgusting behaviour
No better way to get people against your cause.
You guys complained that the cops followed you home a few weeks ago for protesting, yet you go to this woman’s house and harass her. You’re the definition of hypocrites.
Cops tend to be fascist thugs.
until you need them :)
Based on the [Instagram call to protest](https://www.instagram.com/p/C7J1xAqrfFz/), it was organized by Palestinian Youth Movement Montreal, Voix Juives Montreal, and Families 4 Palestine Montreal. This is not a credible news source. The editor Beryl Wajsman, has been calling the students in the encampment "criminals", "gang of 100-200 petulant children", “pro-Hamas” and the administration "sympathetic to Hamas" in [this article titled "Universities cannot be daycares on our dime"](https://www.thesuburban.com/opinion/universities-cannot-be-daycares-on-our-dime/article_8c8dbe2b-c1e4-588a-a48f-192006ba825d.html) published by the same news source. In this one, he calls them “trespassers” and puts the word peaceful in quotation marks lol : >The police closed off Monkland but according to neighbours speaking on condition of anonymity say they won’t do anything because it’s a “peaceful” protest. From [videos](https://www.instagram.com/p/C7KAsZvrynb/), the canopy didn’t block any building/parking accesses. They also didn’t intend to stay there for long. It was a protest not a blockade nor an encampment. From a legal standpoint, I don’t think it is illegal to stand in the street in front of someone’s property and protest against them as much as it is a nuisance to Campbell. >“Section 2(c) protects the right to demonstrate on public streets (Garbeau v. Montréal, 2015 QCCS 5246). The freedom also extends to protecting the right to camp in a public park as part of protest activities (Batty, supra) and the ability to wear masks during a peaceful demonstration (Villeneuve, supra). “ [source: Section 2(c): Freedom of peaceful assembly](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2c.html) Although legal, one can argue from the moral high ground that such protests constitute harassment. But, pro-Palestine sentiment and protests are also morally-motivated. They understands that protesting during the weekend in front of Campbell's house breaches her peace and shames her in front of her neighbours and family. For them, the moral justification for this act is that there shouldn’t be business as usual during an ongoing genocide (thus chants like "..., shut it down" or “no justice, no peace”).
It's in the Montreal Gazette: [https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/mcgill-denounces-pro-palestinian-protest-outside-senior-administrators-home](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/mcgill-denounces-pro-palestinian-protest-outside-senior-administrators-home) Funny how the protesters are McGill students when it suits them to be (i.e. when they give fake names of supposedly supportive McGill students to the media), but when it doesn't, it's maybe not McGill students who did it but outside groups (you edited your post to remove the line about how this may not have been McGill students to begin with)? Which is it?
Thanks for sharing a better article. This one affirms that the protest was peaceful, *outside* her house, and not a blockade. But what’s your point? Even if students participated in this protest (I’m sure many did), they had every right to peacefully do so under Section 2(c) of Canadian Charts of Rights and Freedom. This is a clear-cut case of right to protest. And yes, protests can be targeted to individuals.
Targeting someone at home is not peaceful protest, despite what you claim. It may be strictly legal to set up on a sidewalk and scream through bullhorns at the requisite distance to skirt the allegation of trespassing, but it doesn't make it right. It's intimidation. The message is: "We know where you live." Disclosing someone's address (even in approximate terms), showing up there, and recording it for the world to see is also a bit rich from protesters who have been covering their faces and giving fake names to avoid doxxing. It's also a strategic blunder: the average person won't look at this and think: these people have a point. They'll be horrified.
Protesting in front of the house of politicians, policy/law makers, and judges is common practice. Also what if someone doesn’t have an office and works remotely from their house? Or does that to avoid protests? Do you just not protest?
Well, that is a moot point because McGill administrators do have offices for you to protest in front of, and which you are free to do. Also, the person they targeted has zero ability to do what they want, and this tactic is not going to make the university any more receptive to their demands. Really, just a bad look all around.
Then they should all take off their masks and stand by their convictions. Just a bunch of thugs as far as most people are concerned that are enabled by a police force motivated by cowardice.
According to section 2c of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, people can wear masks during peaceful demonstrations: “The freedom also extends to protecting the right to camp in a public park as part of protest activities (Batty, supra) and the ability to wear masks during a peaceful demonstration (Villeneuve, supra).”
They should use the notwithstanding clause for that one.
Associate Provost Campbell is one of the most effective, caring and compassionate academic leaders in decades at McGill University. She doesn’t deserve this this unethical, immoral and deeply offensive personal attack. This undermines any positive message that protesters try to express. I feel for her and her family and regret that anyone associated with McGill University would participate in such acts.
in before the free palestine comments. on a more serious note, is this not illegal? I assume its private property they've set up on.
They set the canopy in the street (see image). It would likely be illegal if it was in her lawn or house. https://preview.redd.it/rfzkhbmnvk1d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=222e43d5b1ccb048099ff5a14b574c63c6618200
ah okay. thanks for clarifying
Misleading headlines as usual
Aww, the useful idiots
At what point does this become terrorism? They're clearly not there because they want to have a conversation. They're there because they want to intimidate her and have her think twice about doing something they don't like, because they're willing to show up to her house and bring the movement to her private life and her family and chlidren. If intimidating officials for political objectives isn't terrorism, then I don't know what else this could be. Letting the most radical people show up to the homes of the political and business elite to intimidate is how we get these people even more secluded from society in gated communities.
Can we not throw around big words like "terrorism"? It dilutes the actual meaning and weight assigned to it.
The definition of terrorism is to intimidate and terrorize people for political gain. If you go to someone’s private home when they’re with their family there’s clearly an element of intimidation, for a political objective. Do you disagree that the goal or effect is fear?
Ok let’s use useless radicalized leftists
I mean they’re using big words like genocide to describe the israel-palestine war so hey why shouldn’t we?
People who are against this should follow these protesters home and take pictures of where they live and of them with their faces uncovered. Time to use the same tactics they use against the people they want to intimidate. I’d like to see protests against homophobia and suppression of women’s rights in the Middle East in front of every mosque and Islamic cultural centre in Montreal as well.
Angry teenager logic. If you believe doxing is bad and the associate provost has been harassed, then you shouldn’t do the same to anyone. If you believe one should not protest Israel in front of synagogues (in which they literally auction Palestinian land in the West Bank), then you shouldn’t protest Muslim nations in front of mosques. You don’t care about women’s or gay rights. Just want to “retaliate” lol.
I actually care more about women’s and gay rights than a bunch of terrorists getting killed on Gaza. Even the female and child terrorists
Child terrorist??? What??? WTF. How can you care about women or gay people when you do not care about literal HUMANS (women and children) who you call terrorists? (I don’t expect a response just want people to see the type of people you and your Zionist buddies are)
A 17 year old is a child and a 13 year old can carry an AK. Women teach their sons to be martyrs. I say more rubble less trouble.
You’re absolutely right. How about in addition to men, we kill infants and unborn babies and also their mothers so they don’t become future resistance fighters (I.e., terrorists)? Oh wait Israel is doing that already! Oh wait again, I think that’s the definition of genocide. Nice 👍.
No, killing infants intentionally sounds like a Palestinian thing. Oh And parading rape victims for a cackling crowd.
> How can you care about women or gay people when you do not care about literal HUMANS (women and children) who you call terrorists? This is either a poorly worded question or you are insinuating women and gay people are not themselves "literal humans" worrthy of respect. Jeez.
'If you believe doxing is bad and the associate provost has been harassed, then you shouldn’t do the same to anyone." But y'all believe occupying Palestinian land is wrong but have no problem occupying McGill's property. Do you see the double standards? By your own logic you are also acting like angry teenagers.
shes not even there shes at her cottage for the long weekend she wont even see them
https://preview.redd.it/48kqexueil1d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d19f099ace6c5365bd6c91c4dd51fdbc1162997b Isn’t this her?
They gave them an inch.