• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Hamas invaded Israel 2023

"I also want to state clearly that the unnecessary use of force that I witnessed against our students, after they were already off campus and on the north side of Saskatchewan Drive, is something that I will never forget. The sound of nonlethal weapons being fired and the sight of batons wielded by militarized police against unarmed students on an apparently public sidewalk after they had been complying with the demand to slowly and peacefully protest their way off campus, is still with me. I feel traumatized as an observer and can only imagine what the students, faculty, and community members are experiencing.

"Indeed, I remain extremely shaken, and am still haunted by the sound of guns and the echo of the menacing chant of 'Move! Move! Move!' from heavily-armed militarized police marching with an intent to do violence to peaceful protestors. Not only was this police action unjust and at odds with the university’s mission and values: it caused real and deep harm to all it targeted."

Ice Cube Friday GIF


These liberal universities are finally getting a taste of their own woke agendas. The irony is sweet.
 

Harvard's pro-Palestine protesters announce they're ending encampment

Harvard's pro-Palestine protesters have announced they're ending the campus encampment after three weeks as their demands were ignored. The group leading the protests, Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine, said on Tuesday they had voted to end the encampment on Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Only 3 weeks? Don't quit! You had them on the ropes!

Abdul, can you talk some sense into these quitters?
 

Harvard's pro-Palestine protesters announce they're ending encampment



Only 3 weeks? Don't quit! You had them on the ropes!

Abdul, can you talk some sense into these quitters?

I'm noticing that some users on this site struggle to use proper or credible news sources (that MSN news link shared above had like 5 lines on the Harvard story and 10 pages of Ads), but that's ok guys, I'm here to help where I can.


Here it is from the Harvard Crimson itself, it seems that Harvard agreed to negotiate and it was mutual. I'm glad about this outcome rather than violent police intervention:

Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine Ends Harvard Yard Encampment | News | The Harvard Crimson/


From the link of you don't want to read the whole article:
"The decision to peacefully end the encampment came after University President Alan M. Garber ’76 and HOOP organizers negotiated a peaceful end to the protest. Garber’s administration agreed to promptly begin reinstating at least 22 students from involuntary leaves of absence and offered protesters a meeting with members of the University’s governing boards about divestment"

Sorry, been busy with commemorating the Nakba when my father and his family were ethnically cleansed by European Zionist terrorist groups (look up Nakba) but will try to make time for you guys.
 
I'm noticing that some users on this site struggle to use proper or credible news sources (that MSN news link shared above had like 5 lines on the Harvard story and 10 pages of Ads), but that's ok guys, I'm here to help where I can.

Here it is from the Harvard Crimson itself...
The jokes just write themselves.
 
Sorry, been busy with commemorating the Nakba when my father and his family were ethnically cleansed by European Zionist terrorist groups (look up Nakba) but will try to make time for you guys.
Hey abdul, I'm sorry to hear about your father and his family. The Nakba itself was unnecessary. The Zionists could have had their country without having to forcefully expel the Palestinians and leveling their villages (one state solution), and there is absolutely no justification for any of the more than 800 Palestinians who were murdered various massacres in the process (nor the 230+ Jewish civilians who where murdered). It is unfortunate that, as far as I can tell, no one has ever been held accountable for any of these massacres.

On a related note, what's your stance on October 7th, by the way?
 
Twice now, lawyers have bungled applications to obtain injunctions at McGill.
This is very surprising since the rules, laws and required thresholds to obtain injunctions are very well known and pretty hard to screw up if there’s an actual case to be made (which presumably there is).
Either the lawyers are purposely throwing these applications or the judge are highly activist and sympathetic to Hamas. Both are quite possible in Quebec but here, again, a judge tells the lawyers to go back and do it right.

 
Twice now, lawyers have bungled applications to obtain injunctions at McGill.
This is very surprising since the rules, laws and required thresholds to obtain injunctions are very well known and pretty hard to screw up if there’s an actual case to be made (which presumably there is).
Up to this point you are doing fine.
Either the lawyers are purposely throwing these applications or the judge are highly activist and sympathetic to Hamas. Both are quite possible in Quebec but here, again, a judge tells the lawyers to go back and do it right.
At this point you've lost the thread of the argument in order to throw in a conspiracy theory or two.

The issue with injunctions is that while the law is clear that a judge can issue one "when right and just" - the tests are open to flexible interpretation including the "balance of convenience"; "suffering irreparable harm", "adequate alternate remedies", and whether the relief is "prohibitive" (restricting someone from doing something) or "mandatory" (compelling someone - like the police - to do something). In short, the law provides guidance as to when an injunction might be appropriate but much depends on the factual circumstances involved. Judges have a high degree of discretion when determining whether or not an injunction is an appropriate remedy. It has nothing to do with being activist or sympathetic to Hamas.

Suggesting that lawyers are "purposely throwing these applications" is equally ridiculous. Lawyers represent their clients' position. When it comes to injunctions, clients are almost always stressed because something that another party is doing is interfering with their day to day operations. They want that activity stopped and stopped now. They frequently insist on going to court even when lawyers are advising them that their case isn't strong enough or is a balancing act that may go against them. A lawyer who purposely throws a case would quickly find themselves to no longer be a lawyer.

The fact of the matter is that injunctions are one of those things where you can't predict with 100% certainty as to what aspects of the facts a judge will decide are the ones which will get him to grant or deny an application. The rights to a peaceful demonstration or protest are highly regarded in this country. Any judge would be loath to stop that unless there is clear evidence that the court needs to interfere and that the ambit of the relief requested is narrow and the least intrusive to that right.

🍻
 
I’ve been a corporate and commercial lawyer for twenty years and seen worse things than university lawyers throwing injunctions, especially in the last 10 years.

There is a reason almost no corporate contracts are governed by the laws of Quebec or attorn to Quebec unless they absolutely have to or see some spurious reason to do so.

For a judge to be advising an applicant to back and try again, and what information they should be bringing to obtain the injunction - information the Court specifically notes that the applicant already has - is illustrative that McGill is either not well represented or really doesn’t have the desire to succeed on this.
 
I’ve been a corporate and commercial lawyer for twenty years and seen worse things than university lawyers throwing injunctions, especially in the last 10 years.
I was a litigation lawyer for 25 and never saw any lawyer throw a case or even remotely suspected one of doing so. For eight of those years I served as a bencher on Manitoba's law society on the complaints investigation and later discipline committee and never once ran into a case like that. If anything it would be a case of representing a client too zealously so as to cross the line ethically.

There is a reason almost no corporate contracts are governed by the laws of Quebec or attorn to Quebec unless they absolutely have to or see some spurious reason to do so.
I've no experience with Quebec laws, but I can certainly understand how a whole continent that functions on a British Common law derivative concept would want to avoid attorning to the only civil law jurisdiction.
For a judge to be advising an applicant to back and try again, and what information they should be bringing to obtain the injunction - information the Court specifically notes that the applicant already has - is illustrative that McGill is either not well represented or really doesn’t have the desire to succeed on this.
I do not have a copy of the transcript, only some fairly superficial news reports. A judge that says you failed to meet this test because you don't have that evidence can easily be interpreted as "suggesting" evidence that they should bring. Having said that, how can you accuse a judge of being sympathetic to Hamas if he's telling the university how to do their case so that they can get an injunction. I've seen nothing to suggest that he told them to bring evidence they already have. I'm not sure how "evidence that they already have" relates to "evidence already presented in court" which is quite a different matter.

The only thing I see is that this was an application for a "provisional injunction" (which I assume is something akin to either an interim or interlocutory injunction under common law). All that I see in the reports is the judge saying: you do not have enough for a provisional injunction; there are issues here (the right to peaceful protest v the status of university grounds as private property, etc) that require a further and fuller hearing than one that should be determined on an urgent basis because there is no real urgency here. This is a typical position a trial court could and does takes in interlocutory injunction motions.

IMHO, your conclusions as to the hidden motives of either the university's lawyers or the judge are untenable. I'll be happy to reconsider my views if you come back with some solid facts.

🍻
 
I'm noticing that some users on this site struggle to use proper or credible news sources
Absolutely. Some of us aren't very good with putting effort into citing news sources. Arguably just being lazy.

Some of us aren't good at answering questions, or responding to answers when we ask other members questions. Arguably debating in bad faith and poor integrity.

Here it is from the Harvard Crimson itself, it seems that Harvard agreed to negotiate and it was mutual. I'm glad about this outcome rather than violent police intervention:
So they gave up before any divestment actually happened? All it took was agreeing to meetings? That was easy, I bet Harvard gives in on day 1. Harvard is going to tell all those Israeli linked donations and investment gains to piss off.

Sorry, been busy with commemorating the Nakba when my father and his family were ethnically cleansed by European Zionist terrorist groups (look up Nakba) but will try to make time for you guys.
Your father was killed during Nakba?
 
Back
Top