There was an article in last week’s Economist about the increasing violence of the protests being one of the best things to happen to Charest’s otherwise very unpopular government. As the level of violence increases, public sympathy is bound to shift to a government that is - belatedly - willing to negotiate.
I have been following this since March, and agree with much of what Jerk has to say about the half measures taken by Charest leading up to the strikes. What I don’t agree with is the altruism that he ascribes to the student leaders. Listening to the various “leaders” or representatives of the student groups, I get no sense that they are motivated by anything other than immediate self-interest. One student striker was even indignant that she was still expected to write an exam at the end of term: this was a denial of her right to protest evidently. Good luck with that argument should you ever be employed. “I can’t be expected to finish my work when I’m protesting world hunger!” No, but it might lead to you experiencing same…
I have often thought that ‘legitimate’ protesters should take it upon themselves to expose the criminal element that hides out amongst them, and unmask those bent only on mischief and destruction. Given the manner in which the Charest government sought to implement the increases (i.e. without any input from students), I can certainly understand their complaint. However the longer they are allowed not only to run riot, but to interfere with the rights of those students who just want to attend classes, the fewer options Charest will have.
And as others have noted, the Montreal police are not noted for a soft-handed approach.