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.

       
      c
      Compose new post
      j
      Next post/Next comment
      k
      Previous post/Previous comment
      r
      Reply
      e
      Edit
      o
      Show/Hide comments
      t
      Go to top
      l
      Go to login
      h
      Show/Hide help
      shift + esc
      Cancel