theacharnian

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceqg440v0gxo

They are not doing the bombing in Gaza. They are protecting the ones doing the bombing in Gaza.

There is only one context in which Palestine Action is "a terrorist organization such as Hamas" and that's the depraved legislation that the idiots in Westminster passed. The bravery of the 83 year old priest this article is about lays bare the depravity and stupidity of this absolutely idiotic legislation. Your comment on the other hand, by using this idiotic comparison buys into this aberrant degeneracy. Why do you do that?

Damaging equipment that is being used to conduct genocide is not vandalism, it's human fucking decency.

smrt fasizmu sloboda narodu

Nobody wants to hear your antisemitic bullshit.

Oh boy wait till you hear what the suffragettes were willing to do for another righteous cause, a bit over a century ago. I don't know man, maybe the government should start reexamining its policies if ordinary people among its citizens are willing to start breaking into airbase and damaging their own planes.

Maybe all that has something to do with the fact that they were literally chattel slaves until the 1850s, that they were genocide by the Nazis in the Porajmos and targetted for Canada style ethnic cleansing since then, while no reparations or serious affirmative action ever took place.

Decouple from this idiotic country's economy. It's going to take a while but we all have to do it. Too much risk of stupidity spreading.

Lol, sure Donnie, raise the price of the thing I wasn't going to buy anyway.

Corporate for-profit social media? No thanks, I've seen this movie before. Get back to us when it's a non-profit or a coop.

It sounds innocuous and simple but it isn't. This is a good explanation:

Bursting the bubble (zone): Resisting Toronto’s anti-protest bylaw – Canadian Dimension https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/bursting-the-bubble-zone-resisting-torontos-anti-protest-bylaw

This is National Post right wing scaremongering and attacking academic freedom. "Risks legitimizing" is absolutely ridiculous language that tries to put weird meta-limits on academic freedom.

This is a funded SSHRC project, which means it had to be written up as a research grant proposal which was then vigorously peer reviewed at the federal funding agency level. For this framing to be accepted it means that in this scientific community, this framing is a valid epistemological framework.

Then if you read the actual project page, as opposed to the National fucking Post you see clearly written:

Disclaimer

This research project is an exploratory, education-focused inquiry grounded in the principles of the need for impactful evidence-based policy research, academic freedom, intellectual integrity, and social and ethical responsibility towards participants (and policy impact). It seeks to understand and inform educational policies and practices in Canada by engaging with the lived experiences of Canadian immigrant communities now residing in the GTA/Ontario and who came from Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Caucasus and Central Asia—countries that regained or gained independence following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

This project does not carry any political or ideological agenda. We are aware of the complex history of the Soviet Union, including the widespread experiences of oppression along national, linguistic, religious, class, and other lines. We are also aware of the contested nature and various uses of terms such as "post-Soviet". Our usage of this term is meant exclusively to describe countries that were once part of the Soviet Union.

Importantly, our study’s principal focus is on these communities' Canadian educational experiences. However, given that attitudes towards Canadian education are influenced by participants' prior knowledge and experience, and the qualitative-constructivist paradigm of the study, our participants often explain by sharing their educational experiences before coming to Canada, including those from both pre-independence and independence periods.

We are committed to the responsible and respectful use of data and language in our analysis and reporting.

Which means that the researchers are engaging actively with the actual problematic epistemological limits of the framing. This is what actual scholarship looks like, whereas the National Post hit piece is only interested in a sensationalized moral panic playing on right wing stereotypes about academia.