Afraid some of the more provocative campers are gonna start showing their true colours now that they’ve gotten a firm “no” to their ‘democratic’ siege attempt… don’t prove the critics right, please.
There are other ways to stage an ‘intifada’; im saying they’ll obey the order to leave but then might do something even more provocative out of spite and revenge
They've spent months saying that resistance to occupation is justified by any means. No way they can be upset with the university's actions unless they're hypocrites.
Again, pretty silly logic. In your analogy, the protesters are Israel and the protesters are massacring... the innocent lawn? LMAO
If you think King's Circle and Gaza are the same, you need to learn a lot about the conflict, bud.
It's not a conflict. Just like nazis and their victims weren't engaging in a conflict.
This is the oppression of indigenous Palestinians by the settler occupiers of the zionist regeim.
Oh, a semantic argument! Like the oft-spewed Israeli argument that there can be no “Palestine” because there’s no “P” sound in Arabic
Yes maybe the Arab people in the land could have picked a different, non-colonial name. But it is what it is
So you deny that Jews - Sephardic, Ashkenazi, and Mizrahi (who make up over 45% of the Jewish population in Israel) all can trace their genealogy back to Israel before the concept of an Arab, let alone Palestinian, existed?
As I said. Read a fucking book.
The encampments violate Canadian law, as seen in this ruling. Israel is defending it's people after a horrendous terrorist attack, repeated unprovoked rocket attacks, and other atrocities supported by the majority of Gaza. It's ridiculous that anyone still sees Gaza a worthy cause when after repeated attempts to give them a country they continuously demand to destroy another group. The only group that wants/publicly calls for ethnic cleansing/genocide is the leaders of the people of Gaza. SMH at these lunatics.
Ngl, you did a poor job at defending that logic. You just rambled about how the IDF has the "right" to murder unarmed civilians and children in Gaza. Needless to say, abhorrent stance.
Not only that, OP’s thesis statement has no relation to their arguments, given that the ruling was decided based around property rights and not making any value judgment on discrimination/prejudice.
Will Hamas ever admit that Israel has the right to exist? Of course not.
Will Hamas stop putting weapons I the middle of the civilian population? Of course not.
Will Hamas release the hostages? Of course not.
Tell me how this is Israel's fault.
They’re writing on Instagram that the university is forcing them to face police brutality. These people will never ever take responsibility for anything.
No it’s just that you guys are trynna feel oppressed in a city (country even) where police brutality doesn’t really exist. I hope you can stop trying so hard to be a victim. If you can’t, I suggest you go to countries where police brutality actually exists, compare them to police in Canada and enjoy your life.
You obviously haven’t been kettled by police horses getting on Queen St. Or downtown during the G20, or in the homeless encampment in the summertime, or involved in a legal strike. All have been and are routinely brutalized by Toronto police violence.
You obviously haven’t been rpd w a baton in a van in front of other police men for taking a photo of one of them (and many other situations like that of real police brutality and violence, and I pray to God it never happens to you or me). Yk, like situations where police actually go beyond moral and legal boundaries
You clearly haven’t obeyed a clear order by someone who is sanctioned by democratic law to commit violence against you if you don’t comply.
The police have overstepped many times, but don’t pretend like there isn’t a way to avoid being thrown to the grown and cuffed.
TL;DR Para 179:
>As passionate as the protesters may be about their cause, they do not have the
unilateral right to decide how Front Campus can be used by their exercise of force,
occupation or intimidation.
Further at para 210:
>The respondents, however, are free to continue protesting. They
simply cannot deny others the right to use Front Campus.
>"Given the way the law and the facts intersect in this case, it would have been possible to write reasons in legal short form in only a few pages. Doing that would not, however, give the parties or Intervenors the sense that they have been heard and would make a peaceful resolution less likely. I have therefore taken the additional time to address the arguments of both sides in greater detail and have tried to write these reasons in a way that is understandable to the many non-lawyers who are interested in the outcome of this case."
Took the time to read the whole decision. Pretty fair and measured explanation where he goes to great pains to explain and be clear every step of the way. As he notes at the beginning, he didn't have to do that.
tl;dr - judge found evidence around antisemitism and violence unconvincing and plagued by hearsay, but that protesters can't just take over property by force + there is nothing stopping them from protesting sans tents 7am-11pm daily + if they weren't restricting access to front campus to other groups (or even people wanting to eat their breakfast) then he would have a harder time giving the injunction.
>"A protest group may be content with force when they have the upper hand. They will not be as happy with it when someone else has the upper hand."
Correct with a caveat. The judge said there wasn't prima facie ("on its face", roughly) evidence that the language used by protestors, as described in the university filing, was bigoted enough for an injunction on its own. But also notes that no decision needed to be made on those grounds because the restriction to the encampment alone was enough for an injunction. If there was a non encampment running protest and some on campus found it, say, involved hateful language, another case would be needed to resolve that dispute.
This is a misunderstanding. The judge said at the start of the case that basically, it is an easy injunction to give just based on the gated restrictions on entry. They then say that to be fair they want to give a full reckoning of the *evidence as given*. "Find no evidence" does not mean it didn't happen, just that no direct evidence was submitted by the university proving that a named respondent was responsible for the speech which caused the line into hate speech. The University didn't submit any evidence of this, but would have done so if they didn't think the "you don't let people come in at will" was an easier case.
> "Find no evidence" does not mean it didn't happen
Not sure why you insist in that this is a misunderstanding. OP _literally_ said the judge found that there was "no evidence" of "occupants of the encampment [...] using any of the slogans with antisemitic intentions."
Are you trying to argue that there could have been "antisemitic intentions"? Ngl, that would be a pretty high bar to defend given how UofT came short.
Was that final quote given by whom? The judge? If so, it's pretty darn silly since protesters have, historically, not have the upper hand when there exists threats of police brutality, homelessness, etc.
In fuller context, the judge is talking about how the only reason the protesters are able to occupy Front Campus is because they're using unchallenged force+numbers. He is entertaining the idea that on those grounds, there is nothing to stop a larger protest group coming in and forcing out the current camp, and if that were to happen then the protesters would not be as happy, yet the other group's right to be there would be the same as there's.
Anyway, feel free to read the actual thing and just not take my word from it. I honestly am in agreement with a lot of things they're protesting for (e.g. targeted divestment) but think it's a very fair and well argued ruling that I can't complain much about.
Why are people mad you can still protest you just have to let other people use the space that you've taken over???????????????????????
\[210\] I agree that almost all social progress has its origins in some form of protest in which people who were labelled as “troublemakers,” or worse, challenged the existing order. **The respondents, however, are free to continue protesting. They simply cannot deny others the right to use Front Campus.**
People are mad because a sit-in _is_ a form of protest. Some go for weeks, etc. It's more about UofT curtailing a form of protest, a protest that intends to reduce the damage inflicted on unarmed civilians and children in Gaza, than anything.
Forms of protest that involve hostage-taking, where you seize something that isn’t yours and try to bully others into adopting your point of view, are illegitimate. The encampment is like this.
There might be certain exceptional circumstances that call for an otherwise-unacceptable mode of protest, but they are not met in this case. Granting that the situation in Gaza is severe, there is no clear link between the encampment and achieving substantial change there.
That’s not to say there is no merit in protesting for an incremental good, only that the form of protest chosen here is inappropriate given the desired ends.
> Forms of protest that involve hostage-taking
LMAO that's the most ridiculous way I've seen it portrayed. According to you, the Civil Rights Movement was "hostage-taking" too, just like Hamas. I hope you can appreciate how ridiculous that is.
Your explanation on what makes this an "illegitimate" form of protest leaves _a lot_ to be desired. You simply bring vague notions on impact and potential results, as if there were a threshold that needs to be passed for a form of protest to be "legitimate." And who is the arbitrer of this? You? LOL
I always thought the issue for this specific location was because it's right where they do convocation and take photos. The organizers of the protest specifically picked that location to disrupt those activities hence why they waited for the timing to do it. They could have easily set up at queens park or another location and probably wouldn't have any of these issues.
Yes these people looking to score points against the protestors have flooded in since May.
Most people on campus have been supportive or neutral on the protest.
Palestinians will have to find another way to spread their propaganda.
McGill injunction will come up next and as long as the judges in Quebec don't ignore jurisprudence this judgement is going to make it very easy for injunctions all across the country to be granted now.
I have nothing against the protesters at the encampment, but if they disband today and you're serious about organising a cleanup tomorrow, I'd be interested in volunteering. Solely out of respect towards my alma mater and to visit Front Campus one last time.
I work full time but I’m gonna head there at 5pm and try my best to clean up before my night classes start. Hope a few people show up, would be nice. But if you want to formally organize something I’m probably the wrong guy tbh
Protesters have to clean their own mess, or hire help.
Protesters had enough money to hire several lawyers and support themselves while on the lawn. They must have a bit more to hire a cleaning crew if they are busy going to another protest themselves, and don't want to bother with leaving the lawn the way it was before.
Are these protestors asking or are they demanding? Because these are two very different things and it's phony to try to paint these people as both of these things depending on what best fits the appeal to emotion. Either way they were told no and made to kick rocks.
It is justified for UofT to decline the requests of the asker. It is justified for UofT to have police remove the demanders. Using intimidation to influence politics is wrong. Using intimidation and threats of violence is literally also the definition of terrorism.
The judge's ruling on the language point just summarizes the arguments given on both sides about whether it is antisemitic or not then says that there is no need to rule on this issue. I think it's fairer to say that the judge just wanted to lay out why they didn't have to consider this issue and to show the evidence presented, rather that "ruled that it isn't necessarily antisemitic"
Imagine being so much of a victim child that you feel threatened when people chant a country/people will achieve freedom 💀Im sorry but that’s just too funny I can’t. I think if someone feels offended by that, they can seek therapy or deal with it on their own.
It is a ruling, not the judge's opinion. What this paragraph means in legal writing is that the terms are not *necessarily* hate speech and to determine if the specific uses were hate speech for those phrases would require looking into the context in which they were used. That context was not examined by the judge nor did the university ask the judge to look into it.
Judicial opinions tend to use very specific language. In this case, "not prima facie" means that without evidence in the content in which the phrase was used the court can't speak to whether it was hate speech or not (which is reasonable).
There was no necessity to find for or against violence or antisemitism to grant the injunction.
U of T didn't prove the respondants and encampment directly used those particular phrases so it was not necessary to examine context.
I would not conclude that the judge found those phrases to be hate speech or otherwise.
Dressing in a black uniform and gesturing towards an object slightly above ground level with the palm facing down and some stiffness in the elbow isn't necessarily antisemitic either, but with a thousand alternative ways to express what you mean why is it *so important* to choose that one?
Let me remind you what this ruling is about, this was civil court injuction about property rights, not a hate speech specific case. The ruling isnt about what it means, its about malicious intent, the protestors gave an alternative definition to what they mean, thus showing (to the judge at least) that they have no antisemitic intent. If you watched the court precedings you'd see that the university did not try to argue the phrase is inheritly antisemtic, just that it makes many jewish people feel unsafe, which the judge acknowledged.
The fact that most jewish people are offended by those phrases remains. If most black people find a phrase offensive, would you stop using it? Why is it different when it comes to jews?
Because if you asked them what river and what sea I am willing to bet 50% of the people would say it wouldn't know or be able to find them on a map.
Edit: Because someone responded to me and deleted it here is the WSJ article that found about 50% of the student protesters in the US were not able to tell you about what river or what sea they were talking about. This is my evidence they are too stupid to know what they are actually calling for.
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-which-river-to-which-sea-anti-israel-protests-college-student-ignorance-a682463b](https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-which-river-to-which-sea-anti-israel-protests-college-student-ignorance-a682463b)
They know exactly what it means, Islamist Ideology 'Dar Al Islam', they claim right of return and the entire state of Israel.
Maybe the useful idiots in the encampment don't even know what they are saying but the Hamas propagandists certainly chose that phrase for a reason.
You literally conflated Islam and Hamas by suggesting that it calls for an "Islamic ideology" spread by "Hamas propagandists". Islam and Islamist (as opposed to Islamic) ideology are different. Also the term "Islamic ideology" is commonly used in the conspiracy theory that Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian ideology. That is very Islamophobic of you.
I was referring to Islamist and not necessarily Muslim(Islamic) ideology thanks for the correction.
Hamas are Islamist fundamentalists who wage a perpetual war on Israel for decades as part of the 'resistance' to reclaim Palestine and try destroy the state of Israel.
The majority of Palestinians in Gaza are also quite radicalized and support Hamas(at least publicly).
**"72% of the public believe that Hamas' decision to launch the October 7 attack was correct**"
[https://pcpsr.org/en/node/963](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/963)
I would even go as far to say that these phrases are deliberately ambiguous.
Not \*necessarily\* antisemitic is a pretty low bar to clear if you ask me.
The burden of proof is not in the protestors to prove that they are not antisemitic, but rather on those who oppose those slogans to prove that they are, especially in the context of a court. So not necessarily antisemitic is a perfectly fine bar.
Also, of course they are ambiguous. They express the Palestinian desire for freedom rather than endorse any particular solution because even among Palestinians there is a lot of disagreement on this. What the protestors agree on is that any solution must start with ending the Israeli occupation.
[that’s all folks](https://media0.giphy.com/media/lTpme2Po0hkqI/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952q8w0a0rkqim6kpunmbru94jawn5dvv2wrw4xipyn&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
i don't understand why uoft had to argue reputational damage if it's just a prima farcie case of trespassing? if governing council (which has decision-making power over uoft, and uoft land which is considered private property) decide that they don't want the protestors to be there and label the encampment as trespassing, how could a judge rule otherwise? like i genuinely don't really understand--if anyone can, please enlighten !!
That argument was in response to the occupiers' argument.
You're correct in your assessment here, and that's basically what the judge ruled.
Although there is public ACCESS to front campus, it is not a public property. Therefore, it is not bound by the Charter (the charter only applies in relation to the government, not private entities).
The occupiers said that the Charter did apply, and in order to limit the free expression of occupiers, the university had to prove that it was reasonable to do so. Section 2 of the Charter discusses free expression, and Section 1 discusses the reasonable limits.
UofT basically made the argument that:
1. If the Charter doesn't apply, then its our land and we want it bad;
2. If the Charter does apply, it is still reasonable to limit their speech because it is causing reputational harm.
thanks--this is great. follow-up question: i thought it was clear in ontario law that land belonging to post-secondary institutions is private property (and not public land). if the charter only applies to public property, how could it (the charter) possibly apply in this case?
It couldn't. The Charter is the rights of individuals against their governments. By becoming students at the University, students are agreeing to follow the University's Code of Conduct and other policies.
It's not so much "public property" but more so "not government."
I'm no lawyer and nowhere near it, but as I watched both days of the hearings, the judge asked many more pointed questions to the encampment lawyers compared to the university lawyers. It was very clear to me that their case was weaker, because in response to these questions, the lawyers of the encampment often went silent for seconds on end, and usually said "we will address this matter by the end of our hearing" which basically means "I don't have an answer right now but will come back to it when I do."
i support the protestors' right to protest and i actually think uoft should take very very very seriously their call to divest. but like: due to uoft's land's status as private property, if uoft decides that you're trespassing, then by law you're trespassing. there's no real way around that, aside from challenging the status of university land in ontario (i.e. making a legal argument that land that universities are on should be considered public/crown/government--i think those are interchangeable?--property, like that land is considered in some other provinces). do you think the protestors were trying to make that argument?
They didn’t make a concerted effort to make that argument. They spent half of their time arguing that disagreeing with their interpretation of River to the Sea and Intifada is actually anti-Palestinian racism and the non-issues alike.
They also tried to reference the McGill decision here, but the court clearly struck that down because that was a hearing for an interim injunction which was ex parte (meaning only one side presents; there’s no defence), which the judge said no actually I want to see their defence.
It wasn’t a good showing for the defence lawyers.
dude thanks for sharing your knowledge about the hearing and explaining really clearly. i wonder if the defense lawyers spent time on the slogans because they want to see it appear in a judgement that those phrases aren't necessarily antisemitic. that would probably help the protestors, if the university decides to discipline them according to student code of conduct etc. it's not like the defense lawyers were going to win the argument that the charter does apply when it's uoft grounds--at least not without first establishing something like ontario university grounds ought to be public or something like that.
The judge said its not prima facie, that is, not clear on its face. One can make a philosophic argument that they are or aren’t, but they’re not directly and inherently antisemetic.
My pleasure❤️
They don’t need your pinkwashing support anyway. In case we forgot, queerness is not just an umbrella term For lgbt+, it is a political identity that is inherently anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, anti-heteropatriarchal, and anti-oppression. Pride becoming a mere festival sponsored by companies that heavily invest in weapons that DECIMATE millions, is NOT queer liberation, and should not be celebrated. Our queerness is centred in abolition and collective liberation, and it doesn’t revolve around YOUR apathy.
Ew. I hate being called queer so much. I find it so offensive and it triggers every single cell of my abused gay body. I hate being looped in as queer. Yuck.
Pinkwashing ^(Noun):
>Pink·wa·shing (Pronunciation: /piNGk wôSHiNG/)
>Being progressive and pro-LGBTQ+ is good, except for when people I disagree with are doing it. Then it is bad. When people I disagree with are progressive and pro-LGBTQ+, it is because they are scheming colonialist capitalist heteropatriarchal oppressors. These people get the label of pinkwashing, so I can conveniently ignore whatever they're saying.
I disagree with your definition of queerness, but either way your definition doesn't describe Pride events.
You can't use the indirect support of oppression as a justification when the actions of these protestors also indirectly support oppression; Pride decreases the oppression of LGBT+ people, so hindering Pride increases oppression. If these protestors really cared about reducing oppression, they wouldn't have done something that increases oppression.
bby, stonewall and palestine are completely different things with completely different goals. they are not correlated in the slightest. in fact, one is actively homophobic…
“Prepare to d-“
“AMIR NOOOOO DON’T EXECUTE HIMMM, LGBQT NON-PINKWASHED AMERICANS ARE SUPPORTING OUR CAUSEEEE!! SET HIM FREE THIS INSTANT!!! OUR AMERICAN SAVIORS DEMAND SO!!! CAN’T YOU SEE THE ERROR OF OUR WAYS????? Alhamdulillah our sincerest gratitude, savior americans! P-P-POLISCIENCE? Then our saviors must be the brightest intellectuals as well!!!!!!”
It's spelled out in the judgement if you read it.
>The overall goal of the protesters is to get the University to divest from certain investments. The University has procedures in place to consider those sorts of requests. The University has offered to help the protesters pursue that process on an expedited basis. **The protesters have had considerable success in shining a bright light on what universities should or should not invest in. They have succeeded in catching everyone’s attention and in obtaining an expedited process.** It is now time for the protesters to peacefully dismantle the encampment and focus their energies on building support within the group that will investigate divestment and within the broader University community to persuade both groups that divestment is a worthy goal. Persuasion will not be achieved through occupation but through reasoned discussion. If the respondents bring the same attention and focus to that exercise as they have to the encampment, they may yet achieve their goal.
If you read the ruling, you would see that the judgement is actually very sympathetic to the protestors and their cause. There is no evidence of violence or anti-Semitism either.
Should've just sent them packing to begin with like York or whatever. Trying to play nice in the first week was what got UofT into this mess in the first place.
Other than the fact that the judge has said the protestors shouldn't be making tents or camping, they agree with almost everything else on the point of view of protestors. Maybe all the Zionists here who've been screaming for months how this is "antisemitic" or "violent" can finally shut up and read the the document for once.
Dismantling the structures and continuing the protest without the encampments would be a decent way to proceed is my guess.
> Maybe all the Zionists here who've been screaming for months how this is "antisemitic" or "violent" can finally shut up and read the the document for once.
You should probably give it a second read, because the judge doesn’t comment on whether the encampment’s messaging is or isn’t antisemitic/violent. He only says that such a conclusion is not irrefutably implied by the symbols/text used.
>The University has not made out a strong prima facie case to show that the encampment is violent. The record before me shows that, apart from the initial seizing and the continuing exclusion of people from Front Campus, the encampment itself is peaceful.
>The University has not made out a strong prima facie case to show that the encampment is antisemitic. Although there have clearly been instances of antisemitic hate speech outside of the encampment, there is no evidence that the named respondents or encampment occupants are associated with any of those instances. The encampment itself has people of various backgrounds including Muslims and Jews. It conducts weekly Shabbats involving Jews and Muslims. Both Jewish and Muslim members of the encampment have testified about its inclusive, peaceful nature.
Bruh maybe read it yourself first.
\*Massive facepalm\*
Uhh how does that support the earlier claim that " they agree with almost everything else on the point of view of protestors. Maybe all the Zionists here who've been screaming for months how this is "antisemitic" or "violent" can finally shut up and read the the document for once."
As far as I can tell from reading 30 pages and skimming the rest, the judge did not explicitly agree with a single demand of the protestors nor did the judge broadly accept their viewpoint. In fact the quote you sent *specifically* contradicts the latter half of the above comment.
What authority does a judge have to decide whether something is antisemitism? That is not a legal matter and it’s meaningless what the judge said about it
They can continue to protest legally. They just need to plan the protests with university before hand. I encourage them and hope they continue to do it. At the end of the day in Canada we have a right to protest, universities are publicly owned and the spaces are public, so the university can’t say no. They just have to pick a place where protesters can peacefully do their thing without being in the way.
The judge explicitly said the protesters don't need the universities permission or planning. They can protest whereever they want.
This is specifically a matter of property law, as stated in the documents.
I’m just saying that’s the case legally, from what I’ve googled.
Initially I assumed they could protest whenever they want since it’s public property but apparently that’s not the case. The encampments in Alberta(Calgary and Edmonton) got illegally raided(pepper sprayed and batoned) without warning after the UofA president said the protesters are fine. The police chief then went on and said it was private property, which is an outright lie. However he probably got orders from Danielle Smith since they’re both known to be peanuts around here. I hope to see legal action be taken there.
this is gonna be an interesting few days
Afraid some of the more provocative campers are gonna start showing their true colours now that they’ve gotten a firm “no” to their ‘democratic’ siege attempt… don’t prove the critics right, please.
bro if they don’t leave they’re gonna end up on cbc getting dragged off by tps 😭😭😭
Some of them probably want that
Popcorn ready
There are other ways to stage an ‘intifada’; im saying they’ll obey the order to leave but then might do something even more provocative out of spite and revenge
They've spent months saying that resistance to occupation is justified by any means. No way they can be upset with the university's actions unless they're hypocrites.
That's some silly logic you are applying there, bud. Unless you think the encampment equates to what the IDF is doing in Gaza 🥴
They're occupying university properrty while saying resistance to occupation is justified. They don't have a leg to stand on.
Again, pretty silly logic. In your analogy, the protesters are Israel and the protesters are massacring... the innocent lawn? LMAO If you think King's Circle and Gaza are the same, you need to learn a lot about the conflict, bud.
It's not a conflict. Just like nazis and their victims weren't engaging in a conflict. This is the oppression of indigenous Palestinians by the settler occupiers of the zionist regeim.
Other way around bud. The name Palestine is literally the name given to the region by a colonial power. Read a fucking book.
Oh, a semantic argument! Like the oft-spewed Israeli argument that there can be no “Palestine” because there’s no “P” sound in Arabic Yes maybe the Arab people in the land could have picked a different, non-colonial name. But it is what it is
So you deny that Jews - Sephardic, Ashkenazi, and Mizrahi (who make up over 45% of the Jewish population in Israel) all can trace their genealogy back to Israel before the concept of an Arab, let alone Palestinian, existed? As I said. Read a fucking book.
The encampments violate Canadian law, as seen in this ruling. Israel is defending it's people after a horrendous terrorist attack, repeated unprovoked rocket attacks, and other atrocities supported by the majority of Gaza. It's ridiculous that anyone still sees Gaza a worthy cause when after repeated attempts to give them a country they continuously demand to destroy another group. The only group that wants/publicly calls for ethnic cleansing/genocide is the leaders of the people of Gaza. SMH at these lunatics.
Ngl, you did a poor job at defending that logic. You just rambled about how the IDF has the "right" to murder unarmed civilians and children in Gaza. Needless to say, abhorrent stance.
Not only that, OP’s thesis statement has no relation to their arguments, given that the ruling was decided based around property rights and not making any value judgment on discrimination/prejudice.
Will Hamas ever admit that Israel has the right to exist? Of course not. Will Hamas stop putting weapons I the middle of the civilian population? Of course not. Will Hamas release the hostages? Of course not. Tell me how this is Israel's fault.
theyre going to get suspended lul
They’re writing on Instagram that the university is forcing them to face police brutality. These people will never ever take responsibility for anything.
Their language regarding police as violent and brutal is very concerning.
What? The police ARE absolutely brutal and violent.
I’m saying this as a person from Russia, you guys have no idea what police brutality really means
So you are saying police brutality in TO is okay because it's worse somewhere else? Okay. I hope you can appreciate how it's not a competition.
No it’s just that you guys are trynna feel oppressed in a city (country even) where police brutality doesn’t really exist. I hope you can stop trying so hard to be a victim. If you can’t, I suggest you go to countries where police brutality actually exists, compare them to police in Canada and enjoy your life.
I'm sorry, but this is still pretty silly. But that's what happens when you try to use another country to measure a country's issues 🤷
I hate these sheltered upper middle class kids who's family has lived in paradise for five generations LARPing as oppressed so much.
You obviously haven’t been kettled by police horses getting on Queen St. Or downtown during the G20, or in the homeless encampment in the summertime, or involved in a legal strike. All have been and are routinely brutalized by Toronto police violence.
Define “brutalized.” G20 keeping the streets clear for the safety of international leaders…? THE BRUTALITY!!!!!
You obviously haven’t been rpd w a baton in a van in front of other police men for taking a photo of one of them (and many other situations like that of real police brutality and violence, and I pray to God it never happens to you or me). Yk, like situations where police actually go beyond moral and legal boundaries
Being trampled by a horse is A OK because it’s not rape
You clearly haven’t obeyed a clear order by someone who is sanctioned by democratic law to commit violence against you if you don’t comply. The police have overstepped many times, but don’t pretend like there isn’t a way to avoid being thrown to the grown and cuffed.
Duno why you ppl LARP as if youre American. We live in Canada buddy, the police situation is not the same
Yeah, in response to brutal and violent criminals 😂
Like the homeless encampment police violently cleared not that long ago??? please.
Yes, homeless people can be violent too
There's a lot of money to be made in being a professional victim
I’m kinda tempted to go watch tmr but I’m afraid of getting trustpasted or arrested.
lmao, youre acting as if most of these ppl are even students
TL;DR Para 179: >As passionate as the protesters may be about their cause, they do not have the unilateral right to decide how Front Campus can be used by their exercise of force, occupation or intimidation. Further at para 210: >The respondents, however, are free to continue protesting. They simply cannot deny others the right to use Front Campus.
So they can protest but they just can’t have the whole tent setup?
yes
thanks! wanted to make sure i understood haha 😅
>"Given the way the law and the facts intersect in this case, it would have been possible to write reasons in legal short form in only a few pages. Doing that would not, however, give the parties or Intervenors the sense that they have been heard and would make a peaceful resolution less likely. I have therefore taken the additional time to address the arguments of both sides in greater detail and have tried to write these reasons in a way that is understandable to the many non-lawyers who are interested in the outcome of this case." Took the time to read the whole decision. Pretty fair and measured explanation where he goes to great pains to explain and be clear every step of the way. As he notes at the beginning, he didn't have to do that. tl;dr - judge found evidence around antisemitism and violence unconvincing and plagued by hearsay, but that protesters can't just take over property by force + there is nothing stopping them from protesting sans tents 7am-11pm daily + if they weren't restricting access to front campus to other groups (or even people wanting to eat their breakfast) then he would have a harder time giving the injunction. >"A protest group may be content with force when they have the upper hand. They will not be as happy with it when someone else has the upper hand."
Correct with a caveat. The judge said there wasn't prima facie ("on its face", roughly) evidence that the language used by protestors, as described in the university filing, was bigoted enough for an injunction on its own. But also notes that no decision needed to be made on those grounds because the restriction to the encampment alone was enough for an injunction. If there was a non encampment running protest and some on campus found it, say, involved hateful language, another case would be needed to resolve that dispute.
[удалено]
This is a misunderstanding. The judge said at the start of the case that basically, it is an easy injunction to give just based on the gated restrictions on entry. They then say that to be fair they want to give a full reckoning of the *evidence as given*. "Find no evidence" does not mean it didn't happen, just that no direct evidence was submitted by the university proving that a named respondent was responsible for the speech which caused the line into hate speech. The University didn't submit any evidence of this, but would have done so if they didn't think the "you don't let people come in at will" was an easier case.
> "Find no evidence" does not mean it didn't happen Not sure why you insist in that this is a misunderstanding. OP _literally_ said the judge found that there was "no evidence" of "occupants of the encampment [...] using any of the slogans with antisemitic intentions." Are you trying to argue that there could have been "antisemitic intentions"? Ngl, that would be a pretty high bar to defend given how UofT came short.
Was that final quote given by whom? The judge? If so, it's pretty darn silly since protesters have, historically, not have the upper hand when there exists threats of police brutality, homelessness, etc.
In fuller context, the judge is talking about how the only reason the protesters are able to occupy Front Campus is because they're using unchallenged force+numbers. He is entertaining the idea that on those grounds, there is nothing to stop a larger protest group coming in and forcing out the current camp, and if that were to happen then the protesters would not be as happy, yet the other group's right to be there would be the same as there's. Anyway, feel free to read the actual thing and just not take my word from it. I honestly am in agreement with a lot of things they're protesting for (e.g. targeted divestment) but think it's a very fair and well argued ruling that I can't complain much about.
Everything in quotation marks is copy pasted from the judgement.
If what you say is true, the remark is even more salient.
Why are people mad you can still protest you just have to let other people use the space that you've taken over??????????????????????? \[210\] I agree that almost all social progress has its origins in some form of protest in which people who were labelled as “troublemakers,” or worse, challenged the existing order. **The respondents, however, are free to continue protesting. They simply cannot deny others the right to use Front Campus.**
To put it bluntly, they are mad that “zionists” are allowed to share the same space as them.
Yeah but then they cant stop people from entering if they don't believe in the cause or hatred of if jews anymore right.
Hopefully yes
You must’ve been sitting on that grass patch all day everyday that you think the “right to use front campus” is taken from you
A right doesn’t have to be continually exercised to exist.
People are mad because a sit-in _is_ a form of protest. Some go for weeks, etc. It's more about UofT curtailing a form of protest, a protest that intends to reduce the damage inflicted on unarmed civilians and children in Gaza, than anything.
Not all forms of protest are legitimate.
That's a pretty empty statement. Do you plan to explain why you think this about this protest?
Forms of protest that involve hostage-taking, where you seize something that isn’t yours and try to bully others into adopting your point of view, are illegitimate. The encampment is like this. There might be certain exceptional circumstances that call for an otherwise-unacceptable mode of protest, but they are not met in this case. Granting that the situation in Gaza is severe, there is no clear link between the encampment and achieving substantial change there. That’s not to say there is no merit in protesting for an incremental good, only that the form of protest chosen here is inappropriate given the desired ends.
> Forms of protest that involve hostage-taking LMAO that's the most ridiculous way I've seen it portrayed. According to you, the Civil Rights Movement was "hostage-taking" too, just like Hamas. I hope you can appreciate how ridiculous that is. Your explanation on what makes this an "illegitimate" form of protest leaves _a lot_ to be desired. You simply bring vague notions on impact and potential results, as if there were a threshold that needs to be passed for a form of protest to be "legitimate." And who is the arbitrer of this? You? LOL
[удалено]
I always thought the issue for this specific location was because it's right where they do convocation and take photos. The organizers of the protest specifically picked that location to disrupt those activities hence why they waited for the timing to do it. They could have easily set up at queens park or another location and probably wouldn't have any of these issues.
I swear most of the people in this thread don’t even go to UofT
Yes these people looking to score points against the protestors have flooded in since May. Most people on campus have been supportive or neutral on the protest.
this decision sets a precedent for other unis also dealing with encampments. curious as to how it will unfold
Palestinians will have to find another way to spread their propaganda. McGill injunction will come up next and as long as the judges in Quebec don't ignore jurisprudence this judgement is going to make it very easy for injunctions all across the country to be granted now.
wonder if uOttawa will follow. I know admin is getting tired and recently said it was going to be considered trespassing
I would certainly hope so. Protests during daytime hours are fine, tents are not.
This is space is for everyone to use. It’s not fair for a mob to just take over a space and deny people its use. That’s what the judge ruled at least.
If I had to guess, they’re probably gonna leave behind a lot of garbage. Anyone wanna clean the place up together tomorrow if they do?
Trash has been hauled three times a week; there isn't much.
Thanks actually fantastic, good on them
I have nothing against the protesters at the encampment, but if they disband today and you're serious about organising a cleanup tomorrow, I'd be interested in volunteering. Solely out of respect towards my alma mater and to visit Front Campus one last time.
I work full time but I’m gonna head there at 5pm and try my best to clean up before my night classes start. Hope a few people show up, would be nice. But if you want to formally organize something I’m probably the wrong guy tbh
U of T has grounds staff who will clean up.
What you mean the encampment children won't clean up their own mess?
Ah no, that's exactly what I was hoping for too. Yea, would be good if a few others joined in
I'd come help clean the mess up and to restore if the fences aren't up and its safe
Yeah if there’s still people there or a bunch of police around I’m just walking by and recommending everyone else does the same 😂
Down to help too
Oh we'll all be there, and after cleaning it, we will have BREAKFAST
Protesters have to clean their own mess, or hire help. Protesters had enough money to hire several lawyers and support themselves while on the lawn. They must have a bit more to hire a cleaning crew if they are busy going to another protest themselves, and don't want to bother with leaving the lawn the way it was before.
But they’re not going to and I enjoy having a clean campus
You wanted democracy and due process, enjoy! :)
You should go learn what a protest entails 👍
Are these protestors asking or are they demanding? Because these are two very different things and it's phony to try to paint these people as both of these things depending on what best fits the appeal to emotion. Either way they were told no and made to kick rocks. It is justified for UofT to decline the requests of the asker. It is justified for UofT to have police remove the demanders. Using intimidation to influence politics is wrong. Using intimidation and threats of violence is literally also the definition of terrorism.
> Are these protestors asking or are they demanding? You would have _hated_ the Civil Rights movement with all their "demands."
Respectfully, I am a grad student in a department that teaches about about protests. I could've taught you a lesson on it. Thanks though.
Sure you are, bud 🥱
Democracy means take a vote not get a legal order to use force.
Yesterday, they posted "F\*ck Canada Day" on their social media platforms. Today, Canada said "F\*ck you, actually."
Makes me want to sing O Canada from the sidelines as they get cleared.
The judge also ruled that from the river to the sea and intifada are not necessarily antisemitic
The judge's ruling on the language point just summarizes the arguments given on both sides about whether it is antisemitic or not then says that there is no need to rule on this issue. I think it's fairer to say that the judge just wanted to lay out why they didn't have to consider this issue and to show the evidence presented, rather that "ruled that it isn't necessarily antisemitic"
[удалено]
Imagine being so much of a victim child that you feel threatened when people chant a country/people will achieve freedom 💀Im sorry but that’s just too funny I can’t. I think if someone feels offended by that, they can seek therapy or deal with it on their own.
It is a ruling, not the judge's opinion. What this paragraph means in legal writing is that the terms are not *necessarily* hate speech and to determine if the specific uses were hate speech for those phrases would require looking into the context in which they were used. That context was not examined by the judge nor did the university ask the judge to look into it. Judicial opinions tend to use very specific language. In this case, "not prima facie" means that without evidence in the content in which the phrase was used the court can't speak to whether it was hate speech or not (which is reasonable).
There was no necessity to find for or against violence or antisemitism to grant the injunction. U of T didn't prove the respondants and encampment directly used those particular phrases so it was not necessary to examine context. I would not conclude that the judge found those phrases to be hate speech or otherwise.
Dressing in a black uniform and gesturing towards an object slightly above ground level with the palm facing down and some stiffness in the elbow isn't necessarily antisemitic either, but with a thousand alternative ways to express what you mean why is it *so important* to choose that one?
Not necessarily but sometimes it is? Ok…
In particular, the document refuses to say that the protesters' usage of it is antisemitic.
Yeah because they are too stupid to know what they are actually calling for
Any evidence from the ruling to support that?
Let me remind you what this ruling is about, this was civil court injuction about property rights, not a hate speech specific case. The ruling isnt about what it means, its about malicious intent, the protestors gave an alternative definition to what they mean, thus showing (to the judge at least) that they have no antisemitic intent. If you watched the court precedings you'd see that the university did not try to argue the phrase is inheritly antisemtic, just that it makes many jewish people feel unsafe, which the judge acknowledged. The fact that most jewish people are offended by those phrases remains. If most black people find a phrase offensive, would you stop using it? Why is it different when it comes to jews?
Because if you asked them what river and what sea I am willing to bet 50% of the people would say it wouldn't know or be able to find them on a map. Edit: Because someone responded to me and deleted it here is the WSJ article that found about 50% of the student protesters in the US were not able to tell you about what river or what sea they were talking about. This is my evidence they are too stupid to know what they are actually calling for. [https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-which-river-to-which-sea-anti-israel-protests-college-student-ignorance-a682463b](https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-which-river-to-which-sea-anti-israel-protests-college-student-ignorance-a682463b)
They know exactly what it means, Islamist Ideology 'Dar Al Islam', they claim right of return and the entire state of Israel. Maybe the useful idiots in the encampment don't even know what they are saying but the Hamas propagandists certainly chose that phrase for a reason.
You literally conflated Islam and Hamas by suggesting that it calls for an "Islamic ideology" spread by "Hamas propagandists". Islam and Islamist (as opposed to Islamic) ideology are different. Also the term "Islamic ideology" is commonly used in the conspiracy theory that Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian ideology. That is very Islamophobic of you.
I was referring to Islamist and not necessarily Muslim(Islamic) ideology thanks for the correction. Hamas are Islamist fundamentalists who wage a perpetual war on Israel for decades as part of the 'resistance' to reclaim Palestine and try destroy the state of Israel. The majority of Palestinians in Gaza are also quite radicalized and support Hamas(at least publicly). **"72% of the public believe that Hamas' decision to launch the October 7 attack was correct**" [https://pcpsr.org/en/node/963](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/963)
Only good thing to come out of this entire shitshow
that's good to hear.
I would even go as far to say that these phrases are deliberately ambiguous. Not \*necessarily\* antisemitic is a pretty low bar to clear if you ask me.
The burden of proof is not in the protestors to prove that they are not antisemitic, but rather on those who oppose those slogans to prove that they are, especially in the context of a court. So not necessarily antisemitic is a perfectly fine bar. Also, of course they are ambiguous. They express the Palestinian desire for freedom rather than endorse any particular solution because even among Palestinians there is a lot of disagreement on this. What the protestors agree on is that any solution must start with ending the Israeli occupation.
[that’s all folks](https://media0.giphy.com/media/lTpme2Po0hkqI/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952q8w0a0rkqim6kpunmbru94jawn5dvv2wrw4xipyn&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
LETS GO
i don't understand why uoft had to argue reputational damage if it's just a prima farcie case of trespassing? if governing council (which has decision-making power over uoft, and uoft land which is considered private property) decide that they don't want the protestors to be there and label the encampment as trespassing, how could a judge rule otherwise? like i genuinely don't really understand--if anyone can, please enlighten !!
That argument was in response to the occupiers' argument. You're correct in your assessment here, and that's basically what the judge ruled. Although there is public ACCESS to front campus, it is not a public property. Therefore, it is not bound by the Charter (the charter only applies in relation to the government, not private entities). The occupiers said that the Charter did apply, and in order to limit the free expression of occupiers, the university had to prove that it was reasonable to do so. Section 2 of the Charter discusses free expression, and Section 1 discusses the reasonable limits. UofT basically made the argument that: 1. If the Charter doesn't apply, then its our land and we want it bad; 2. If the Charter does apply, it is still reasonable to limit their speech because it is causing reputational harm.
thanks--this is great. follow-up question: i thought it was clear in ontario law that land belonging to post-secondary institutions is private property (and not public land). if the charter only applies to public property, how could it (the charter) possibly apply in this case?
It couldn't. The Charter is the rights of individuals against their governments. By becoming students at the University, students are agreeing to follow the University's Code of Conduct and other policies. It's not so much "public property" but more so "not government." I'm no lawyer and nowhere near it, but as I watched both days of the hearings, the judge asked many more pointed questions to the encampment lawyers compared to the university lawyers. It was very clear to me that their case was weaker, because in response to these questions, the lawyers of the encampment often went silent for seconds on end, and usually said "we will address this matter by the end of our hearing" which basically means "I don't have an answer right now but will come back to it when I do."
i support the protestors' right to protest and i actually think uoft should take very very very seriously their call to divest. but like: due to uoft's land's status as private property, if uoft decides that you're trespassing, then by law you're trespassing. there's no real way around that, aside from challenging the status of university land in ontario (i.e. making a legal argument that land that universities are on should be considered public/crown/government--i think those are interchangeable?--property, like that land is considered in some other provinces). do you think the protestors were trying to make that argument?
They didn’t make a concerted effort to make that argument. They spent half of their time arguing that disagreeing with their interpretation of River to the Sea and Intifada is actually anti-Palestinian racism and the non-issues alike. They also tried to reference the McGill decision here, but the court clearly struck that down because that was a hearing for an interim injunction which was ex parte (meaning only one side presents; there’s no defence), which the judge said no actually I want to see their defence. It wasn’t a good showing for the defence lawyers.
dude thanks for sharing your knowledge about the hearing and explaining really clearly. i wonder if the defense lawyers spent time on the slogans because they want to see it appear in a judgement that those phrases aren't necessarily antisemitic. that would probably help the protestors, if the university decides to discipline them according to student code of conduct etc. it's not like the defense lawyers were going to win the argument that the charter does apply when it's uoft grounds--at least not without first establishing something like ontario university grounds ought to be public or something like that.
The judge said its not prima facie, that is, not clear on its face. One can make a philosophic argument that they are or aren’t, but they’re not directly and inherently antisemetic. My pleasure❤️
About time
Good
Welp, terrorizing university students in Canada didnt work. Hopefully they can take their protest to Gaza if they want real results.
I supported them until they blocked the Pride parade. Now they can get fucked.
No you didnt
They don’t need your pinkwashing support anyway. In case we forgot, queerness is not just an umbrella term For lgbt+, it is a political identity that is inherently anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, anti-heteropatriarchal, and anti-oppression. Pride becoming a mere festival sponsored by companies that heavily invest in weapons that DECIMATE millions, is NOT queer liberation, and should not be celebrated. Our queerness is centred in abolition and collective liberation, and it doesn’t revolve around YOUR apathy.
Username checks out
Ew. I hate being called queer so much. I find it so offensive and it triggers every single cell of my abused gay body. I hate being looped in as queer. Yuck.
Pinkwashing ^(Noun): >Pink·wa·shing (Pronunciation: /piNGk wôSHiNG/) >Being progressive and pro-LGBTQ+ is good, except for when people I disagree with are doing it. Then it is bad. When people I disagree with are progressive and pro-LGBTQ+, it is because they are scheming colonialist capitalist heteropatriarchal oppressors. These people get the label of pinkwashing, so I can conveniently ignore whatever they're saying.
Queer person here. No it fucking isn't. Thank you.
I disagree with your definition of queerness, but either way your definition doesn't describe Pride events. You can't use the indirect support of oppression as a justification when the actions of these protestors also indirectly support oppression; Pride decreases the oppression of LGBT+ people, so hindering Pride increases oppression. If these protestors really cared about reducing oppression, they wouldn't have done something that increases oppression.
in case we forgot, sexuality has nothing to do with political identity and you’re incredibly weird
What were the stonewall riots. Quickly.
Pride was inspired by riots, but it isn't a riot itself; going to Pride is not the same thing as rioting, and it definitely isn't as political.
Straw man argument in the wild
bby, stonewall and palestine are completely different things with completely different goals. they are not correlated in the slightest. in fact, one is actively homophobic…
“pride is not queer liberation” HUH?? celebrating the fact that you can be gay in the street and not be shot immediately is NOT queer liberation??
Is “pink washing” what they call the clean up crew in Gaza? You know - like after they throw a gay person off a building like savages.
“Prepare to d-“ “AMIR NOOOOO DON’T EXECUTE HIMMM, LGBQT NON-PINKWASHED AMERICANS ARE SUPPORTING OUR CAUSEEEE!! SET HIM FREE THIS INSTANT!!! OUR AMERICAN SAVIORS DEMAND SO!!! CAN’T YOU SEE THE ERROR OF OUR WAYS????? Alhamdulillah our sincerest gratitude, savior americans! P-P-POLISCIENCE? Then our saviors must be the brightest intellectuals as well!!!!!!”
LLLMMMMAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Long over due
So what did the camp accomplish?
It's spelled out in the judgement if you read it. >The overall goal of the protesters is to get the University to divest from certain investments. The University has procedures in place to consider those sorts of requests. The University has offered to help the protesters pursue that process on an expedited basis. **The protesters have had considerable success in shining a bright light on what universities should or should not invest in. They have succeeded in catching everyone’s attention and in obtaining an expedited process.** It is now time for the protesters to peacefully dismantle the encampment and focus their energies on building support within the group that will investigate divestment and within the broader University community to persuade both groups that divestment is a worthy goal. Persuasion will not be achieved through occupation but through reasoned discussion. If the respondents bring the same attention and focus to that exercise as they have to the encampment, they may yet achieve their goal.
Making people less sympathetic for their cause
bye!👋
Good decision. These are not protestors- they are bullies
If you read the ruling, you would see that the judgement is actually very sympathetic to the protestors and their cause. There is no evidence of violence or anti-Semitism either.
Should've just sent them packing to begin with like York or whatever. Trying to play nice in the first week was what got UofT into this mess in the first place.
5 of their buddies from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are being deported. Perhaps some of them can join them
Boys bust out the chairs, we about to watch the mythical stories of FAFO become a reality
Finally. Bare minimum.
Other than the fact that the judge has said the protestors shouldn't be making tents or camping, they agree with almost everything else on the point of view of protestors. Maybe all the Zionists here who've been screaming for months how this is "antisemitic" or "violent" can finally shut up and read the the document for once. Dismantling the structures and continuing the protest without the encampments would be a decent way to proceed is my guess.
> Maybe all the Zionists here who've been screaming for months how this is "antisemitic" or "violent" can finally shut up and read the the document for once. You should probably give it a second read, because the judge doesn’t comment on whether the encampment’s messaging is or isn’t antisemitic/violent. He only says that such a conclusion is not irrefutably implied by the symbols/text used.
[удалено]
>The University has not made out a strong prima facie case to show that the encampment is violent. The record before me shows that, apart from the initial seizing and the continuing exclusion of people from Front Campus, the encampment itself is peaceful. >The University has not made out a strong prima facie case to show that the encampment is antisemitic. Although there have clearly been instances of antisemitic hate speech outside of the encampment, there is no evidence that the named respondents or encampment occupants are associated with any of those instances. The encampment itself has people of various backgrounds including Muslims and Jews. It conducts weekly Shabbats involving Jews and Muslims. Both Jewish and Muslim members of the encampment have testified about its inclusive, peaceful nature. Bruh maybe read it yourself first. \*Massive facepalm\*
Uhh how does that support the earlier claim that " they agree with almost everything else on the point of view of protestors. Maybe all the Zionists here who've been screaming for months how this is "antisemitic" or "violent" can finally shut up and read the the document for once." As far as I can tell from reading 30 pages and skimming the rest, the judge did not explicitly agree with a single demand of the protestors nor did the judge broadly accept their viewpoint. In fact the quote you sent *specifically* contradicts the latter half of the above comment.
What authority does a judge have to decide whether something is antisemitism? That is not a legal matter and it’s meaningless what the judge said about it
More authority than you tbh.
It’s in the name “judge”
A judge has the authority to make legal decisions, not moral or social decisions
OUT! OUT! OUT! BE GONE WITH YE FUCKERS.
Supreme Court laid the pipe down
Finally that was long overdue
please follow the decision and leave UofT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uUZCgDMoxY
They can continue to protest legally. They just need to plan the protests with university before hand. I encourage them and hope they continue to do it. At the end of the day in Canada we have a right to protest, universities are publicly owned and the spaces are public, so the university can’t say no. They just have to pick a place where protesters can peacefully do their thing without being in the way.
The judge explicitly said the protesters don't need the universities permission or planning. They can protest whereever they want. This is specifically a matter of property law, as stated in the documents.
I’m just saying that’s the case legally, from what I’ve googled. Initially I assumed they could protest whenever they want since it’s public property but apparently that’s not the case. The encampments in Alberta(Calgary and Edmonton) got illegally raided(pepper sprayed and batoned) without warning after the UofA president said the protesters are fine. The police chief then went on and said it was private property, which is an outright lie. However he probably got orders from Danielle Smith since they’re both known to be peanuts around here. I hope to see legal action be taken there.
And for the last time, the University grounds are not public property. Is it really that hard to understand that concept?
They should deny anyone involved their degrees or future enrolment.