Updates from March, 2019 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 12:06 on 2019-03-31 Permalink | Reply  

    The Canadian Women’s Hockey League is abruptly going out of business at the end of April, leaving Les Canadiennes in limbo.

    • Faiz Imam 20:41 on 2019-03-31 Permalink

      I’ve been a fan from the Stars days, and this is a huge bummer, I try to go see a game or two every season. Its some of the cheapest good hockey you could get.

      Their games the past few years have been very well attended, all their small arena games were sold out and their games in Laval also drew quite well.

      The league added a team in China paid for by the Chinese government(who wants to be competitive for the next olympics) so we thought that was a sign of more financial stability. They also started getting more sponsorships and a small salary recently.

      The hope is that this is the start of a new league run with/by the NHL, and if so the Canadiennes could come back in a similar form to what they are now. But apparently this was a huge shock. No players knew, no staff were told. It just happened.

      There is a huge international hockey tournament next week, and unfortunately this event will cast its shadow over what should have been an important event.

      Something will have to be done. The entire canadian womens national team save one player plays in this league.

    • EmilyG 09:00 on 2019-04-01 Permalink

      I think it would be nice if the city would give money to this cause instead of baseball. But I don’t know if that’s the way allocation of funds works, and I don’t know if the city can help with this.

  • Kate 08:54 on 2019-03-31 Permalink | Reply  

    Various entities are determined not to obey the new religious symbol law. Québec solidaire has resolved against the law. Montreal West mayor Beny Masella says no, Westmount says no and various other towns have also done so. Bill sponsor Simon Jolin-Barrette has denied the request that Montreal should be made an exception to the law – I mean, why should it, when the whole point of the law is to make Montreal more blandly normative to the rest of Quebec? It would take all the fun out of the exercise for the CAQ.

    Update: Martin Patriquin on the new law in the Guardian.

    • Brett 11:01 on 2019-03-31 Permalink

      No need for the exception; quite the opposite in fact : Montreal’s already got a head start on the law by removing the crucifix from city hall.

    • Kevin 11:16 on 2019-03-31 Permalink

      It is one thing for a legislature to remove a religious symbol.

      It is another for people to think that only those wearing religious symbols are biased.

      Does a priest stop being a priest when he removes his collar? For Quebecers the answer is somehow yes.

    • Blork 14:43 on 2019-03-31 Permalink

      Similarly, is a random person on the street unbiased just because they’re not wearing a hijab or a kippa or a turban? (Or a cross.)

      If I wear a wide-lapelled suit and a fat tie to my job at the Régie du whatever, does that mean I’ll discriminate against anyone who doesn’t like 1970s fashion? If a gay judge has a rainbow tattoo on his arm, does that mean he is biased against straight people? What if he had the tattoo removed, or covered. Does that change his bias? If a police officer is female and wears the female police uniform, does that mean she’s prejudiced against men? And even if she is, does imposing a gender-neutral uniform remove her prejudice?

    • JP 21:19 on 2019-03-31 Permalink

      Are bindis allowed? They can be purely for fashion, or cultural, or religious…

      Would a necklace with a pendant of my zodiac sign be ok?

      Is my tanned skin permitted or is that also too foreign and exotic/scary as well?

    • Brett 21:21 on 2019-03-31 Permalink

      Blork’s question regarding a piece of male clothing nicely illustrates the problem about this bill’s purported intention to affirm the religious neutrality of the state but which instead moves the topic of the debate into what people should and should not wear. The question should be about religion and not about fashion. Although certain religions do prescribe a dress code, and some are more strict about it than others, the reality is that it’s an oversimplification to claim that religion has only to do with one’s fashion choice when religions are far more complex than that. Certain religions do prescribe a dress code, so the real debate should be whether or not employees who work for a religion-free state should have their right to display a religious symbol trumped by the right of the state to impose a uniform to all of its employees.

      By removing the crucifix the Government at City Hall has demonstrated that displaying an ostentatious religious symbol flies in the face of the idea that the state is truly non religious. Therefore I see it as being hypocritical for some Councillors to then claim that representatives of this neutrally religious state should be permitted to wear religious symbols.

      As for the bias argument, I say sure, we all have bias and there are probably cases where we might have a tatooed skinhead judge or a police officer who is anti-Chinese. But likewise there’s no quick way to prove that someone who wears an ostentatious religious symbol isn’t automatically a religous fundamentalist. But our legal system which treats everyone equal before the law will deal with those cases accordingly. Moreover, the fact that such overt racism is frowned upon in society is testament to our tolerance and also to the fact that such incidences are rare.

    • jeather 10:54 on 2019-04-01 Permalink

      There is not a “female police uniform” and a “gender neural police uniform”, putting in darts does not change the uniform.

    • Blork 11:37 on 2019-04-01 Permalink

      Until fairly recently the hats were different.

    • jeather 12:09 on 2019-04-01 Permalink

      In which case surely there was a female hat and a male hat.

    • Blork 12:17 on 2019-04-01 Permalink

      Not sure why you’re so bothered by a minor detail, but yes, there was a female hat and a male hat.

    • jeather 12:23 on 2019-04-01 Permalink

      I’m objecting to calling one uniform female, specifically, as the male uniform is not gender neutral

    • qatzelok 12:47 on 2019-04-01 Permalink

      @Blork: “If a police officer is female and wears the female police uniform, does that mean she’s prejudiced against men? And even if she is, does imposing a gender-neutral uniform remove her prejudice?”

      If the female uniform consists of a black leather bikini with badges on the nipples (ostentatious), then yes, moving towards gender-neutral uniforms will help remove the stigmatism of being female (and of being male) from that job, and help ensure that her position is purely about maintaining law and order.

  • Kate 08:21 on 2019-03-31 Permalink | Reply  

    After a year and a half in the mayor’s chair, Valérie Plante has changed up her executive committee, reassigning a lot of specialties. Item ends with a list of who’s now on the committee and what their role is.

  • Kate 08:16 on 2019-03-31 Permalink | Reply  

    There’s a boil-water advisory in Anjou, Sunday morning.

  • Kate 09:56 on 2019-03-30 Permalink | Reply  

    CBC has a piece here on making nightlife safer by having security enforce polite behaviour on dance floors in clubs.

    Really? When you go out, you’re putting yourself out there. You’re taking chances. A dance club is not a daycare. This reminds me of the thing about Osheaga and the woman who blamed security because someone may have put something in her drink. How could security have watched over every detail of adult human behaviour, to the extent of intervening when someone left a drink untended?

    If you go out and take chances to meet people in a sexually charged setting, you need to accept responsibility for yourself. You’re a grown-up now, you can’t expect the grown-ups to step in whenever anything upsetting happens. But some people do seem to think this is normal and desirable.

    • steph 14:08 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      Training security to recognize predatory behavior is a great initiative.

    • Blork 15:46 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      @steph, that is a great initiative, but it doesn’t mean you just hand over all responsibility for your safety to the security people when you go out.

      The problem is (in my opinion) that so many young people were brought up in hyper-secure environments with helicopter parents hovering so closely for so long that the children never learned how to take responsibility for themselves, or even how to take risks. This sounds like the ranting of an old fart but it’s well documented.

    • qatzelok 17:53 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      I agree with you here, Kate. This is dumb.

      Nightlife is supposed to be dionysian – dark and mysterious.

      If you want safe and controlled, go dancing at 2 in the afternoon to a brightly-lit space with lots of security cameras.

    • Hamza 13:40 on 2019-03-31 Permalink

      if you’re a normal , boundary-respecting person then this shouldn’t really affect you, and in fact, may come in handy one night. for a lot of other folks, it can make an otherwise uncomfortable or unsafe experience that much safer. on the other hand, for a nightclub owner, nobody wants to have their business get a reputation for being ‘that sketchy place where i got sexually assaulted.’

    • jeather 18:03 on 2019-03-31 Permalink

      By “enforce polite behaviour” I think you mean “stop people from harassing and assaulting others”.

    • Meezly 12:16 on 2019-04-01 Permalink

      Back in my day, young women used to frequent gay night clubs because the men there would leave anything female the f*ck alone. I wonder why that was such a popular thing to do….? It may come as a shocker, but sometimes girls just wanna go to a night club to enjoy themselves and not have some slimeball grind up against them. The liberty to dance in a nightclub with your friends unharassed can be a rare and wonderful thing for a young woman. Take back the dance floors, I say!

    • Bill Binns 13:38 on 2019-04-01 Permalink

      I don’t know. I agree on the Osheaga case completely but I think clubs are different. I remember an Ex girlfriend explaining to me why she stopped going to clubs even though she loved dancing. She said you could have 300/500 people in a club and one or two assholes that didn’t understand the word “no” or took “no” as a highly offensive personal insult would ruin it for everyone.

      Getting rid of these types of guys is just good business. Douchebags will cause the girls to leave and when the girls leave the guys will leave as well.

  • Kate 08:58 on 2019-03-30 Permalink | Reply  

    I’ve been told (not for the first time) to stick to Montreal news and stop posting about Quebec, but when the mayor is the target of violent hate messages over her measured response to Bill 21, it shows that the CAQ’s secularity bill is Montreal news.

    I’ve seen dozens of pieces on the subject of the bill, and hope to get around to a survey sometime this weekend, but the best analysis I’ve read has been this brief piece in Le Droit, a source I don’t often get to. Patrick Duquette puts his finger on a fact about Quebec that needs more analysis: that the new law stems from bad memories of the grande noirceur when Quebec was totally the creature of the Roman Catholic church, and a resulting fear of a return to the social dominance of religion.

    That a bare 3% of the population here are Muslim doesn’t seem to matter; that they chose to leave predominantly Muslim countries and that only roughly half of them (by reports I’ve seen) are religiously observant doesn’t seem to matter. None of them want to impose sharia law here, nobody’s knocking on doors trying to convert anybody.

    It used to feel like we were still fighting the Hundred Years War here between England and France, but do we have to re-enact the Crusades as well?

    • Jack 13:09 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      With Kate and I will repeat it again, if you want to see where this “fear” comes from pick up a Journal de Montreal. Listen to ” La Joute”, watch LCN and TVA. Go to Quebec city, turn on your radio. Islamophobia is omnipresent and packaged to sell…….stuff.
      Something good happened this afternoon, Quebec Solidaires members just told their parliamentary delegation that the membership is decisional. They have decided that they will be the only party in the National Assembly not to target minorities for electoral gains in places where their are not any. Thank You.

    • qatzelok 17:50 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      When the rich and powerful want to control a people, they divide them with fear of one another. As a media creator, it’s important not to take part in fear mongering either way. Otherwise, you’re not a neutral observer, but a participant.

      A lot of media participate in this game of dividing people over trivial things.

  • Kate 08:40 on 2019-03-30 Permalink | Reply  

    The judge in the pitbull case has refused to block the order to euthanize the dangerous dog that attacked six people last summer.

  • Kate 20:39 on 2019-03-29 Permalink | Reply  

    La Presse says the newly unveiled REM trains will be fit for our climate and the Gazette follows suit, but Global says forthrightly that the trains, manufactured in India, have not been tested in winter conditions and TVA says they’re peu habitué à l’hiver.

    • Uatu 13:06 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      You’d think that a winter proof design would be the 1st thing to consider when buying a train for our environment. Just waiting for the anger and frustration when it breaks down and every one is stranded because the non compete clause makes the REM the only transit option across the Champlain.

    • DeWolf 19:24 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      There are very few cities with a winter as harsh as Montreal. Harbin in China is about the only equivalent I can think of, and it is not as snowy. Even Moscow isn’t quite as cold or snowy. I wonder where trains could have been tested to ensure they are “winter-proof.”

      I’ve heard Ottawa’s problems with its light rail system goes well beyond the actual rolling stock.

  • Kate 19:59 on 2019-03-29 Permalink | Reply  

    An 85-year-old woman was killed Friday afternoon as she crossed de Lorimier on Jean-Talon. No details here about the vehicle involved.

    That’s two pedestrian victims this week – one young, one old.

    • Alex L 20:21 on 2019-03-29 Permalink

      Sad, sad, sad… and frustrating, again.

  • Kate 18:46 on 2019-03-29 Permalink | Reply  

    Fr Claude Grou returned to his tasks at St Joseph’s Oratory on Friday but says he hasn’t forgiven the man who attacked him a week ago. His alleged assailant is being evaluated at the Pinel Institute.

    • BB 20:10 on 2019-03-29 Permalink

      Sounds like the priest has forgiven the attacker.

      “This is someone, from what we heard, who has problems with his health,” Grou explained. “I have no rancor towards this person – I’m going to keep him in my prayers, because this is someone in need of support and prayer.”

    • Kate 20:44 on 2019-03-29 Permalink

      When I first read the piece at that CTV link they did say he hadn’t forgiven. I think this is a question of content update.

  • Kate 13:17 on 2019-03-29 Permalink | Reply  

    A man was shot six times in his car outside his house in Côte-des-Neiges Friday morning. He was taken to hospital in critical condition.

    Checking the map I see the street’s in the tiny Glenmount enclave.

    Update: The man has died. Homicide #6.

  • Kate 09:46 on 2019-03-29 Permalink | Reply  

    A taxi driver slashed his own arm on camera during a news interview on LCN, so cabbies have suspended pressure tactics for the moment.

    • Blork 12:05 on 2019-03-29 Permalink

      According to CBC Radio news, the driver who slashed himself owes the bank more than $1,000,000 for taxi permits that he owns, and those permits will be almost worthless if the law passes. Yikes.

    • Chris 12:08 on 2019-03-29 Permalink

      Yikes indeed. Banks will loan that much to people that earn so little? I didn’t think so…

    • john B 12:23 on 2019-03-29 Permalink

      @Chris: Of course they will if you have collateral. In this case he owns several taxi permits, which are/were worth a lot, but if their worth becomes zero the bank will probably come after him, not his permits.

    • Blork 12:28 on 2019-03-29 Permalink

      Hopefully the loan is to his business and not him personally, as that at least gives him some protection.

      This guy is not alone, although I don’t know how many people own multiple permits. But even if you only own one, your loan for it can easily be in the six figures. I’ve always thought that permit system was a racket, and this is (one of the reasons) why.

    • Bert 20:33 on 2019-03-29 Permalink

      I have some tulip bulbs for sale, as well as some land in Florida.

      The permit system is a racket, as are other government run programs like property taxes, income tax, etc. What broke the permit system is the government not being able to regulate the car sharing industry. In my opinion Uber et al. waddles and quacks.

      This reminds me of a story I listened to a year or so ago. I think it is this guy: https://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-taxi-king-rise-fall-2017-8#default-on-a-loan-from-citibank-leads-to-bankruptcy-filings-4

    • Marc 10:26 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      It seems like it would only be fair for the government to buy back the permits at fair market value if they’re going to suddenly change the law. When they destroy homes to build highways aren’t the people normally compensated?

    • Kate 10:40 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      Marc, when you’re expropriated the government gives you its assessment of the value of your property, which isn’t necessarily the amount you would’ve made if you’d sold it voluntarily in the normal way.

      I think the same thing may be applied here in the case of the permits.

    • Marc 10:40 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      Ok I actually bothered to read a bit and I see that they are offering compensation, but I guess the issue is that having $45,000 in your pocket is not the same as having a permit which generates income. And also that a highway could be deemed a useful public utility. Has the government actually given any good reasons for changing the law?

    • Kate 10:42 on 2019-03-30 Permalink

      Has the government actually given any good reasons for changing the law?

      Now, that’s a valid question I have not seen answered.

  • Kate 07:04 on 2019-03-29 Permalink | Reply  

    When you’re sardined in a metro train or cursing on a gridlocked highway, remember there are now two million people living on this island.

    It doesn’t say, but I wonder how much the population rises during weekdays when commuters are here working.

  • Kate 07:01 on 2019-03-29 Permalink | Reply  

    Some notes on where not to drive this weekend.

  • Kate 06:49 on 2019-03-29 Permalink | Reply  

    A three-alarm fire that broke out overnight in Griffintown is still burning as the sun comes up. The building contained a car wash with offices upstairs, so it’s assumed nobody was there during the blaze.

    • Mr.Chinaski 10:34 on 2019-03-29 Permalink

      Alphaplantes right next to it will be demolished for a new condo complex, so I guess we can easily rule that it wasn’t an accident.

    • CE 12:10 on 2019-03-29 Permalink

      I wondered when that place would burn down.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc