UdeM vandalized with paint
A building façade at Université de Montréal was vandalized with red paint early Tuesday, and a woman was arrested. The act is being described as a pro‑Palestinian gesture although this is only a statement from police. Quipsters on reddit surmised she might have mistaken it for a Tesla dealership.
Ephraim 18:26 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
Yeah, not a good look. And thankfully it wasn’t red hands. I am tired of people thinking that their right to free speech means they have a right to vandalize private or public property and that the rest of the world has to bear the costs of it. I hope, at a minimum, she is presented with a bill for cleaning it off.
Ian 18:31 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
Interesting that the TVA site now blocks you if you have an ad blocker but still autoplays their videos. Insult to injury.
@Ephraim yeah red paint sure is a terrible injjustice compared to crimes against humanity. Good call.
Chris 19:01 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
The Université de Montréal has committed crimes against humanity?! That’s news to me. If she vandalized the Israeli embassy I might agree with Ian, but I agree with Ephraim.
Ian 19:31 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
Oh right, I forgot the consensus was that this woman was protesting wrong. Silly me.
Chris 20:44 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
So Ian, if I think you behave incorrectly, or hold an incorrect opinion, am I allowed to paint your house red?
Ephraim 21:05 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
@Ian – Not a single thing that we do here in Montreal will have an effect on any of this. But moreso, costing UdeM money (or frankly anyone who is not directly related) to clean up, is not going to change anything at all. If anything, I sympathize more with UdeM. And the total waste of paint, money and worker’s wages on removing this. It was just a waste of time, money and even effort.
So, if someone smeared magenta paint on a McDonald’s, would it make me more or less sympathetic with the Houthis? Nope. Orange paint on the Museum of Civilization? Vanta Black on a Kia Nero EV? Fuzzy Wuzzy Brown on a vacuum cleaner?
Ian 05:51 on 2025-03-26 Permalink
A university is ntot a private home, nor is a commercial retail store. That you two are conflating these says a lot about how you see the role of universities in our society. Further, you sound like the politicians who see someone drawing fangs on their election posters as an act of violence.
That said, how is painting a Tela outlet not a valid act of protest? Or paintballing the home of a known fascist? You two are gatekeeping “valid” protest because you don’t like what’s being protested, I suspect. It’s not like this woman committed arson or planted a bomb, let’s be real here.
Chris 07:41 on 2025-03-26 Permalink
>A university is ntot a private home, nor is a commercial retail store.
Well, duh. But why do you draw the line there? Why is it wrong to protest at an individual’s but not a store/school? If the same reprehensible act has been committed by both, you say we can protest one but not the other?
And speaking of which, what exactly has UdeM done wrong?
>you sound like the politicians who see someone drawing fangs on their election posters as an act of violence
Nope. I reject that modern definition of speech (or drawing) being violence.
>Or paintballing the home of a known fascist?
A private home? Wait, didn’t you just say we were conflating those? So I *can* paint a private home if I disagree with the inhabitant???
>You two are gatekeeping “valid” protest because you don’t like what’s being protested, I suspect.
Nope. Perhaps it’s you justifying vandalism and property damage because you *like* what’s being protested.
Let’s try something you (probably?) don’t like: militant veganism. UdeM probably holds investments in meat processing companies (via stock holdings). Maybe you do too. If I find killing animals reprehensible, it’s ok that I paint UdeM and your house blood red?
>It’s not like this woman committed arson or planted a bomb, let’s be real here.
Sure, no one’s saying she should be thrown in jail forever. Ephraim’s suggestion of making her literally pay to undo her damage is a pretty minimal punishment I think.
Ephraim 08:38 on 2025-03-26 Permalink
So, what you are saying is that if I disagree with what’s happening in Iran, I’m entitled to deface the chalet at Mount-Royal park? NO! Sorry, I’m entitled to walk around a sidewalk with a sign. I’m entitled to scream, cry, shout and even burn an Iranian flag. I am NOT entitled to damage public or private property with indignity.I’m not entitled to throw paint on your car because I don’t like the brand. I’m not entitled to slash your tires because I don’t want you driving a car, I’m not entitled to drive a tank on to the UdeM campus and roll over the public art.
You lose me when you damage property. Every single time. I don’t care if it’s public or private. Someone is paying that cost in the end. Damage your own property… I don’t care, but not others. No one else needs to bear the burden of the costs of your tantrum.
jeather 09:24 on 2025-03-26 Permalink
I will note, somewhat tangentially, that I believe a significant portion of the attacks on Tesla dealerships are faked because they aren’t selling and this gets them more as an insurance payout, though I don’t have specific ones I believe are or aren’t real attacks. (Relatedly now that it’s being called terrorism I wonder if insurance policies which exclude terrorism will exclude these attacks.)
Ian 13:28 on 2025-03-26 Permalink
Oh so this is all about MONEY. I see. Oh no my property, lol. What makes you think people don’t paint my house already? It’s called graffiti, I live in a. city. Whatever. I love that you guys think that’s the big “gotcha”.
@jeather it’s crossed my mind, too.My life insurance does specifically say that if I get injured or killed in a riot even if I’m not involved with it, or by an act of terrorism, I’m not covered – which seems kind of unfair, really.
Ephraim 20:12 on 2025-03-26 Permalink
@Ian – So, you are saying that it’s okay for people to tag your house with political slogans? So I can put up a support for the IRGC support tag on your entire house and you are happy to have to spend the day and expense to remove it? I doubt it. Go out with your lovely sign, your flag and walk down St-Catherine street with it. I might even support it (well, not for the IRGC, but maybe for other causes) but damaging property and my sympathy lies with those tagged… definitely not with your protest. And that’s the point of protest, to get sympathetic ears.
Ian 20:29 on 2025-03-26 Permalink
Do you understand how graffiti works? People tag whatever the heck they want.
And no, that’s not actually the point of protest. There are different kinds of protest, all equally valid, whether you admire their aesthetic dignity or not. You are not the gatekeeper of protest; nobody is.
Ephraim 22:08 on 2025-03-26 Permalink
Yes, I understand how it works. (And why I have always removed all of it quickly, so they get no joy out of it.)
The point is, when you damage property, like she did in this case, it doesn’t move the protest forward. Like Mai Abdulhadi… no one is talking about that protest at all. Frankly, this protest fell entirely on deaf ears… all we are talking about is the damage to the building.