This piece in The American Lawyer (powered by law.com) wins the dissonance prize of the year: Litigation Giant Follows Johnny Football to Montreal.
There is nothing in the article about football or Johnny Manziel. It’s a completely dry technical piece about some kind of finance litigation.
Maybe it’s just me, but the headline on this piece about Mascouche buying a piece of land for a park is red raggy, as is the tone.
Une forêt «anglaise» aux Québécois
Observations:
1. An English person is not, by definition, ever Québécois, even if they acquire land here and evidently intend to settle here
2. The land has now been reclaimed for the Québécois
This piece of land was bought in 1766 by Gabriel Christie, who’d been involved in the Plains of Abraham battle. Ironically, Christie was not even English – he was from a prominent Scottish family with a tradition of serving in the British army.
According to the timeline in the Journal story, in the years since 1766 the land has changed hands among people with both English and French surnames, as well as a monastic community. But the taint of having belonged to an invading anglais apparently lingered till its present deliverance to the Québécois.
I’m not saying this writing or headlining is deliberate provocation, by the way. But it’s working from assumptions. I’m reminded of the conversation I had on a visit to the organic farm where I got a farm basket, back in about 2003. The farm was near the Richelieu river, and the farmer told us the nearby town used to be really nice, but was spoiled when the English came… in 1760. Then he looked at me – the only anglo in the room – as if for an apology. I shrugged and told him my Irish ancestors had their own problems with the English at the time but I don’t think it was a satisfactory response.
Some notes on local films premiering at the Festival des films du monde.
A vintner originally from France has put in seven hectares of vines in Senneville, in the Far West of Montreal island.
Friday morning Québec Solidaire folks were handing out flyers at Jarry metro. The graphics were attractive and the message was pushing QS’s idea to cut transit fares by half.
Part of the text says this would be a way to get more people out of cars and into public transit.
I wonder whether it’s true. Obviously it couldn’t hurt, especially given the higher prices of off-island transit passes, but it seems to me the real siren song of private car ownership is comfort and convenience, not price.
As readers know, I don’t drive. That means hauling supplies for self and cat via transit and foot, in all weathers. (I get bags of cat litter delivered – everything else I carry.) Right now I have two cumbersome pieces of dead electronics sitting here which I’d love to ditch, but getting them to the Ecocentre isn’t easy. I can totally see the charm of having your own haulage equipment sometimes and I can understand how it’s almost irresistible if you live off-island or have a group of people to provide for. Cutting the fare from $3.25 to $1.75 wouldn’t make much dent in that.
How else can politics dissuade the car owner? In town there’s Communauto and other car-sharing services, one way to reduce the sheer number of cars on the street. Maybe services like this need to be better supported and distributed.
This is leaving aside whether the STM and other transit authorities could manage with the cut in revenue. But that’s a whole other issue.
François Cardinal looks gloomily at Montreal’s problem with the CAQ.
Weekend driving notes from Radio-Canada and from La Presse.
City lawyers are preparing a lawsuit against Tony Accurso in an attempt to take back $42 million they think was lost in construction contracts to Simard-Beaudry and Louisbourg that were truqués.
Reply