Updates from December, 2020 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 22:41 on 2020-12-07 Permalink | Reply  

    La Presse and Radio-Canada are featuring items about city hall opposition complaining about city deficits, but once again, I don’t see one word from Lionel Perez about how he could’ve managed things any better when a pandemic struck.

    I am so tired of political grandstanding. Earlier today, the CBC report on vaccines had to include a kvetch from Erin O’Toole, who seems as vapid as his predecessors at the head of Canada’s Conservatives, saying Trudeau had mishandled the matter, and you want to shake these people and demand how they think they would’ve done better.

    If an opposition politician has a reasoned argument or position against the party in power, it’s one thing. Just carping for the sake of getting mentioned in the media is bullshit.

    • Clément 09:24 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

      And meanwhile, one of O’Toole’s MP (Derek Sloan) sponsors an antivax petition and somehow, O’Toole manages to blame Trudeau for his MP’s irresponsible behaviour.

    • jeather 09:58 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

      And you thought it might be parody.

    • Clément 10:24 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

      As was suggested on Reddit, the Beaverton should sue O’Toole for copyright infringement.

    • Daniel 11:17 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

      It seems transparent and, yes, vapid. But I have to assume that it’s working on some segment? Doesn’t make it less disappointing.

      A better line of useful criticism would be the bazillions of dollars the government has spent. Sure, a lot of it had to be spent. Most of it, probably! But that’s at least a better line of inquiry than “what is your to-the-minute timeline for a bunch of vaccines that haven’t yet been approved or delivered?”

    • Kate 11:31 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

      Exactly. These weak politicians leap on aspects of the evolving situation that nobody could be expected to predict. Criticizing someone in power for not knowing things before anyone else, or not being decisive when a situation is still in flux, is so irritating. But you’re right, Daniel – if a person is already disposed to hate Plante or Trudeau, it doesn’t matter if the criticism makes any sense, they’re likely to buy it.

    • jeather 11:40 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

      I don’t think Trudeau has covered himself in glory, but I don’t think he’s been terrible. He’s done some things well, other things poorly, but on the specific question of the vaccines I think he’s probably done as well as could be expected given the limitations on production within Canada.

    • Bill Binns 11:53 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

      When these emergencies hit, it’s rarely the politicians currently in power that are to blame for being unprepared. We have no “rainy day fund” and it’s pouring. I bet that 50 million Coderre spent on the now disappeared string of signs and Adirondack chairs that was supposed to lead tourists from the Old Port to the mountain. Or the 40 million spent on twinkle lights for the Jacque Cartier. The 700 million we spent bailing out the geniuses at UQAM after Ilot Voyageur would surely be useful now.

    • Kate 12:13 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

      The reason Canada doesn’t have vaccine production capability any more lies with Stephen Harper’s cuts, but I haven’t seen Trudeau wasting time putting the Tories down for their disdain for science.

    • Tim S. 13:33 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

      I suspect both Liberals and Conservatives are equally responsible for the mess. I gather it was actually Mulroney’s fault we don’t have domestic vaccine production:
      Also, I don’t know all the details of health care administration over the years, but how much of the crisis in our hospitals goes back to Lucien Bouchard and Paul Martin?
      That said, my attempts to keep track of what’s going on in other countries suggest that places with more robust health care systems just seemed to be a little more complacent about the virus a little longer, and ended up in the same place anyways.

    • Uatu 19:15 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

      You don’t even have to go back to Bouchard. Fatty Barrette’s austerity measures did a big number on hospitals just a couple of years ago

    • Kevin 00:08 on 2020-12-09 Permalink

      It’s kludge on kludge on kludge. Systems that are too large for any one person to understand, and armies of bureaucrats working at cross-purposes.

    • david145 13:09 on 2020-12-09 Permalink

      On the austerity bit, tell me something isn’t coming when you look at a chart like this: https://twitter.com/stephanebruyere/status/1330956847906480129/photo/1

  • Kate 22:33 on 2020-12-07 Permalink | Reply  

    Someone found a raven in a box this weekend and it turned out to be the Ecomuseum’s stolen bird, although who took it and why may never be known.

    • Kate 22:29 on 2020-12-07 Permalink | Reply  

      The Marguerite-Bourgeoys School Service Centre (ex school board) was ordered to pay $65,000 to a family in TMR whose kids experienced years of racist taunting and bullying. But a Human Rights Commission order is not binding, so the mother may have to fight for it.

      • JaneyB 09:57 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        That mother has the patience of Job, thankfully. It’s appalling that she had to complain in 2018 so that the “school workbook that included the n-word remove it”. And then there’s the indifference to the relentless racist bullying of her kids.

      • Kate 10:29 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        I couldn’t help thinking if she’d sent her kids to school in adjoining Park Ex, they wouldn’t have been bullied for not being white – the school populations there are much more diverse.

      • jeather 11:44 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Can’t really blame her for wanting to send the kids to the local school in the area where she lives.

      • Kate 12:09 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Not really blaming her, just thinking that one solution to her problem was just there on the other side of l’Acadie. The real solution involves educating the teachers at the TMR school, but that takes time and may not work.

      • jeather 12:18 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        It’s a pretty limited solution — even assuming the schools are the same quality (looking in 2015, that school had something like an 80% average on the primary exams, 28th in the province), then you are saying that it’s fine for the school to teach racism as long as it’s to affluent white kids?

      • Kate 12:24 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Of course not, jeather. Obviously the situation has to be fixed in that school (and its associated board or service centre) for everybody. But changing a culture takes time and, as I say, sometimes doesn’t even work. If it’s your kids, and they have only so much time in school, and they’re being harassed to misery where they are, one option would simply be to move schools. I give this woman props for trying to change things where she is.

      • Joey 12:33 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        @Kate it’s not so easy to send your kids to a public school aside from the one they are zoned for – even within the same school board/service centre. There is a process but it’s complicated and admittance is only confirmed a few days into the school year, and ther is no guarantee that a student’s spot will be available the following year.

      • Kate 12:37 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        I didn’t know that – thanks.

      • steph 19:59 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Imagine if all the ParkEx parents could just send their kids to the TMR school. It’d be an outrage.

    • Kate 18:47 on 2020-12-07 Permalink | Reply  

      An SRB (fast bus lane) to link Sauvé and Côte-Vertu stations (buckling a large part of the orange line) will go into service in a week or so. (I know “mi‑décembre” seems like a long way off, but it’s next week!)

      • Rebecca 11:00 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Slightly more information (and a map!) is available on the STC site:
        English: http://www.stm.info/en/about/major_projects/major-bus-projects/bus-priority-measures-bpm/srb-sauve-cote-vertu

      • Kate 11:31 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Thank you, Rebecca!

      • DeWolf 14:18 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        What’s being built on Pie-IX is a true BRT/SRB. The stops look more like train stations, with platforms and shelters, and the buses will have their own dedicated right-of-way so they don’t have to interact with traffic at all. By contrast, what’s happening on Côte-Vertu seems more like a branding exercise, because it’s basically just a regular old reserved lane, albeit one that is in operation 24/7. The lane is still vulnerable to being blocks by illegally parked cars and drivers turning right.

        It’s certainly not a bad effort but I think it’s misleading to call it an SRB, which may lead to similarly watered-down SRB lines in the future.

      • DeWolf 14:22 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Also, another complaint: ever since the STM introduced the “10 minutes max” network of buses, the reality of these busy lines seems to have become “no more often than 10 minutes.” Before Coderre’s cuts to bus service, the 80 ran every 3-6 minutes throughout the day. Now that frequency has been reduced to 10 minutes. Not surprisingly, ridership has plummeted over the past decade.

        With 40,000 riders a day, the 121 Sauvé bus should really be running every 5 minutes. 10 minute frequencies is the bare minimum for such a busy line and having a permanent reserved lane won’t do anything to address that problem.

      • Ephraim 11:38 on 2020-12-09 Permalink

        There is one thing that I never understand about these lanes. Why don’t they add brick red tint to the asphalt, so you can clearly and unquestionably see that it’s a bus lane! I mean, there is a brick red asphalt tint for a reason… why not use it? And the colour is mixed in, so it’s not paint.

    • Kate 18:42 on 2020-12-07 Permalink | Reply  

      Devimco has no immediate plans to build a baseball stadium in the Peel Basin – yet – but are not ruling it out.

      • Kevin 11:52 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Quebec and pro sports are like Lucy and the football.

    • Kate 14:11 on 2020-12-07 Permalink | Reply  

      Justin Trudeau has announced 249,000 vaccine doses will arrive in Canada by the end of the month. Obviously it will be some time before we can all get it, but it’s a start.

      • Faiz imam 17:28 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        Trudeau said that the amount will be distributed to each province as a proportion of their population.

        Quebec is 23.23% of Canada.

        That means we will get just under 58,000 doses, or 29,000 people.

        Quebec has 190k people above the age of 85, and another 190k people between the ages of 80 and 85.

        There are 45,000 doctors in Canada, 290k nurses and 51k social workers. That’s 386k, or 90k in Quebec.

        All to say, these doses are a good start, but We have to hope the shipments in the new year are much higher.

      • Michael Black 18:36 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        But since this one needs two shots, we get half that number vaccinated.

        Nobody’s explained it to me, but if I can’t get vaccinated about May, I’m out till about November. The drug I get every six months negates any vaccine.

      • Joey 19:53 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        Faiz, at today’s press conference the provincial health minister said he expects to receive enough doses to vaccinate 650K people by end of March, IIRC. Seemed to be enough to vaccinate all healthcare workers and CHSLD residents.

      • Clément 09:17 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        This article in La Presse breaks down the 12 prioritized groups as well as the estimated number of people in each group.
        So by spring, we should already have close to a million people vaccinated, so somewhere around group 5 or group 6. I say that’s pretty good news.

      • Joey 12:34 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        @Clément once the priority populations (CHSLD & private seniors’ residents, healthcare workers, those over 80, etc.) are vaccinated, there will be enormous pressure to ease the COVID-19 restrictions, even as a majority of the population remains unprotected.

    • Kate 13:42 on 2020-12-07 Permalink | Reply  

      The city has announced the creation of a green corridor from the Bois-de-Saraguay down to Angrignon Park in the island’s west end.

      Update: Report in La Presse on these plans.

      • JaneyB 10:03 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        That’s great news plus it’s like a stealth Cavendish Extension – but only for cyclists and pedestrians.

    • Kate 10:38 on 2020-12-07 Permalink | Reply  

      The Journal notices that, while all restaurant dining rooms must be closed in Covid red zones, somehow seven restaurants are operating normally at the airport, and even Quebec City’s airport has an open establishment. However, they explain it: airport facilities are not subject to Quebec’s rules. Story sort of fizzles out with yet another plea from a restaurateur to explain the scientific basis of closures to him again.

      • Ephraim 11:12 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        How about this. We allow restaurants to open, but you have to sign the register with your medicare number and for 21 days following and the restaurant is billed for the medical costs in those next 21 days. Still want to open the restaurant?

      • JoeNotCharles 11:34 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        It doesn’t say which restaurants these are, but most restaurants in airports are laid out more like food courts , with no enclosing walls, so much better air circulation. And if you’re in an airport, there’s nowhere else to eat. (Sure, you could get food “to go” and then go and eat it elsewhere in the airport, but there’s no functional difference – you’re still at a seat “inside” although in a cavernous room.)

        From that standpoint, it might make sense to allow food courts to open too, with a large mandated space between tables. But airport restaurants are for a specific, captive audience, so it’s less likely that they’ll fill up and risk people crowding each other, and it’s much easier to police a handful of restaurants at the airport to be sure they’re under capacity than to police every food court.

        So, yeah, this makes perfect sense to me.

      • Chris 11:52 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        Plus, it’s not like the the airports are as crowded as usual.

      • Kate 12:03 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        That’s the thing about the item. It starts with a headline and lede as if the Journal’s trying to create a little scandal, a little stir – and then it’s, oh yeah, they’re not actually breaking any rules…

      • Douglas 15:06 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        How about politicians take a pay cut too every time they force businesses to shut down and lose money.

        You bet politicians will ever be so careless about killing people’s livelihoods off?

        They are part of the privileged class that doesn’t care what happens when thousands of business go bankrupt.

      • Kate 15:21 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        Douglas, if by now you don’t understand the public health necessity to limit transmission of this virus, I can’t help you.

        Hospitals are starting to cut surgeries again to get things lined up for a Covid rush. This is because we couldn’t shut down seriously enough.

      • Kevin 16:36 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        If the choice is killing livelihoods or killing people, I know which I’d choose.

        I also know that if people were actually staying home like they should, you’d have been able to get back to work months ago.

      • Ephraim 17:39 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        We need the government to CUT the number of people allowed in a store again. They are putting too many people in at the same time at the large surface stores. The small stores are doing better with keeping the numbers low. Maybe some of the grocery stores should push people back to ordering for pick up instead of shopping inside? Too many people are out shopping as an activity instead of just buying what they need and being done with it.

      • MarcG 17:48 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        I went to Jean Coutu for something necessary on a Saturday night when they’re quiet and passed by the dollar store on the way – people just hanging out, browsing the knick-knacks.

      • Chris 19:01 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        >If the choice is killing livelihoods or killing people, I know which I’d choose.

        Of course, the difficulty is the difference between:
        a) me loosing *my* livelihood vs *other* people dying
        b) others loosing *their* livelihood vs *me* dying

        If you’re young and/or poor, you might care more about (a), but if you’re rich and/or old you might care more about (b).

      • MarcG 19:11 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        Isn’t the assumption that anyone is “losing their livelihood” wrong? It’s not like chefs are having their limbs chopped off – they’re going to be unemployed for a bit and then get back to business. You don’t have to be old or rich to realize that’s much less important than the permanent death and disablement of others, and a possibly crippled health care system leading to more of same.

      • Michael Black 19:25 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        They say that people with little money are more inclined to see serious effects from the Virus. Maybe existing conditions, maybe other factors.

        It’s a delusion to dismiss the Virus as only an “old people” problem.

        The wider the spread, the more likely it will hit people who will be affected badly. And the more people who get seriously ill, the heavier the burden. The news just said “routine” medical stuff is being cut back, to avoid hospital overload. That may cause worry, and complications or death.

        It’s way more complicated than a simple dismissal.

        I haven’t stayed home for my health for almost nine months, I’ve stayed in because I will be a burden. And in February it will be two years of not-normal.

      • Uatu 21:04 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

        Today they called another code surge for the ER here at the Glen. A perfect time for Douglas to come on down to present his ideas to the staff …. /S

      • Chris 02:28 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        To be clear, my last comment was in generalities, not how I personally look at it.

        >You don’t have to be old or rich to realize that’s much less important than the permanent death and disablement of others

        Much less important to who? Humans are often self-centred. If X doesn’t affect me, I might not give a damn.

        >It’s a delusion to dismiss the Virus as only an “old people” problem.

        Didn’t say “only”. But as a matter of probabilities, it affects the old worse.

      • Ephraim 08:07 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Douglas, your assumptions are entirely wrong… government makes money from taxes, taxes which are dependent on your business being open and healthy. They have every interest in your business being open. The same way that they have every interest in your success, be it in the stock market or just getting a better salary… the more you make, the more they can tax.

        Shall we employ a little critical thought to this… what real benefit would government have in bankruptcy? The more bankruptcy, the less money going into the pot and the more people getting benefits that have to be paid out. And if being a politician is a career move, then these are all votes you lose.

      • Douglas 10:13 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Kevin and Kate

        You choose livelihoods over lives everytime you allow people to step in cars to go to work.

        The amount of economic destruction done compared to number of lives saved has been a totally awful trade.

        By the way. Rich people don’t suffer from this pandemic. Its all the blue collar workers that suffer and all we do for them is say “good luck” and throw some change at them.

      • Douglas 10:16 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        If government cared about not sending poor restaurant owners and workers into bankruptcy they would allow them to operate their restaurant tables again.

        If politicians salaries were tied to % of industries they shutdown they souldn’t dare kill off the restaurants because they are scared of a few potential bad articles.

      • Kevin 12:24 on 2020-12-08 Permalink


        Let me be totally clear: I sympathize with your plight, but these are extraordinary times. I know many doctors who have not had a single day off since March. The days they are supposed to be home they are getting calls about patients, about protocols, about how to deal with this effing disease.

        I know one public health doctor who was getting phone calls in the middle of the night every single night from March until September.

        So let’s put in it proportion. 333 people died on Quebec roads in 2019. Covid-19 has killed that many people in Quebec in the past 2 weeks.

        The number of deaths would be far, far higher if we did nothing. And the spillover effects would be worse.
        If, say, one of your restaurant co-workers needed stitches, they’d have no chance of getting that at an ER. There wouldn’t be any room for such a minor case.

        As for your income, the CERB provided $500 a week. EI provides the same. No, that’s not the same as what they got before, but that’s not pocket change– and it’s not taxed. The maximum payout is $30,000 per year — which is the same as earning $54,000 before taxes.

      • Matthew H 14:49 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Kevin, CERB is taxable as ordinary income. It’s not tax free!

      • Ephraim 15:13 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Douglas: Critical thinking doesn’t mean that restaurant owners are more important than anyone else. the majority are more important than the minority. You do the best for the most amount of people that you can. And I’m saying this from the perspective of someone who’s business is ENTIRELY shut down and who can’t deliver meals to make money… I mean, shut…. I haven’t really made money since March. Because, let’s be realistic, who’s travelling and I’m in the tourism business. So, should we reopen that? NO.

        Healthcare is NOT elastic, it’s finite. We can’t create much more… we can create a little more… a few rooms a few beds, call in doctors and nurses from retirement, get a few ventilators. But at some point it is totally finite. And when I say finite, that means that doctors have to make a choice on who’s life it is they save. It is a limited resource.

        In restaurant dining contributes to healthcare costs abnormally in the current situation because the longer you sit inside with others, the higher the chances of leaving with COVID. So, who’s to absorb that liability? Is the restaurant owner willing to cover that cost? No.

        Society is a greater good than restaurants, hotels, bars and cinemas. It’s not forever, it’s temporary. But government can’t recover easily from “Sorry your partner died, we just thought that someone else was more worthy of care”. Because it’s not a value we accept. We accept triage, when needed, up to the point of where people needlessly die. It’s the one taboo in our society… we try to limit deaths. And yes, government has an interest in your death too, because your entire RRSP (unless you have a spouse) has taxes due on the day you die. You no longer get to spread it out over the years from 65 and on. It all comes due, hitting much higher marginalized tax rates. And yet, government would rather you not pay it that way.

      • Ephraim 15:15 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        Both CERB and CRB are taxable. In the case of CERB, the government did not deduct any taxes, so it is all due on the 30th of April. In the case of CRB, they deducted $200 a month for taxes, but it’s provisional… like all tax deductions.

      • Chris 17:37 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        >the majority are more important than the minority

        This should be true, but isn’t in so many other cases, climate change being a big example.

      • Ephraim 20:11 on 2020-12-08 Permalink

        International Relations are chaotic, since no one is really in charge.

        It’s one of the things about the conspiracy theorists who talk about the UN as an army or government… nope, it’s a building of chaos. No one has any control and nothing actually sticks

      • Kevin 00:13 on 2020-12-09 Permalink

        Mathew H and Ephraim
        Thank you for correcting me.

    • Kate 10:25 on 2020-12-07 Permalink | Reply  

      Police and firefighters have moved in Monday morning to dismantle the tent city on Notre‑Dame and send the inhabitants to shelters. The action is being led by the fire service following the tent fire on the weekend.

      …Of course, they can’t go to shelters, not in the daytime. Shelters are only open at night.

      Rima Elkouri tells us about a man who’s been on the street for six years and needs some help getting off it.

      • Kate 00:54 on 2020-12-07 Permalink | Reply  

        Police say they can’t fine a church in St-Michel which holds unmasked gatherings, but CTV notes that attendees were locked out on Sunday because the church was operating without a permit. So maybe authorities have found a way to get around the legal limitations on what police can do around churches.

        • dhomas 04:15 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          Montreal media seems to have a problem with the word “flaunting”. It’s at least the second time I see them use it instead of “flouting”.
          Insert Inigo Montoya meme: “you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”.

        • steph 09:59 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          Seems like the rule not to break up religious services was easily resolved by withdrawing the religious permit.

        • Kate 10:26 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          dhomas, it’s still “flaunting” on the CTV headline Monday morning.

        • Matthew H 11:56 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          It says “flouting” now. They even updated the URL.

        • Kate 12:05 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          Montreal City Weblog, fixing English usage in Montreal one word at a time.

          You know one thing that’s kind of disappeared since I kvetched about it a couple of years back? Calling traffic jams “headaches”. I made the case that encouraging drivers to situate their discomfort inside their own bodies was unhelpful to an extreme. Seems some people listened.

        • Chris 12:46 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          “Police said they can’t hand out fines due to a section of the Criminal Code that prevents them from breaking up religious services.” First, that’s a non-sequitur. They could hand out fines without actually breaking up the service.

          But, sigh. Yet another privilege for people just because they have an opinion on how the universe was created and how people should conduct themselves. The Constitution grants Freedom of Assembly but it’s been temporarily taken away from everyone else, it should be taken away from these people too, it doesn’t matter the purpose of their assembling.

        • Daisy 13:32 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          There is a very old tradition that churches are sanctuary spaces. This is why sometimes people at risk of deportation occasionally end up living in churches for months at a time, such as people whose refugee claims were denied.

        • Chris 13:51 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          Child marriage is a very old tradition also. Something being an old tradition doesn’t automatically mean we should continue it. Besides, we’re talking about a temporary change, not a permanent one.

        • Tim S. 14:48 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          And just because something is associated with religion doesn’t automatically mean it’s a bad idea.
          Also, I hate to break it to you Chris, but getting rid of organized religion will not prevent people from being assholes. Check out the Pornhub discussion for non-religious alternatives to child marriage.

        • Chris 16:09 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          >And just because something is associated with religion doesn’t automatically mean it’s a bad idea.

          Correct, of course. It being “associated with religion” isn’t why “it’s a bad idea”. It’s a bad idea because there’s a very contagious virus going around. The type of gathering is irrelevant. It being a religious gathering is irrelevant (or should be). All large gatherings should be prohibited. Why should these folks be exempted? Because they have a profound opinion about something? So what, we all do, on innumerable topics.

          >Also, I hate to break it to you Chris, but getting rid of organized religion will not prevent people from being assholes.

          Also correct, of course. But I made no such argument.

        • mare 16:16 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          Don’t we have a state of emergency that gives extended powers to the police? I hope they don’t have to use it but this seems like one of the cases they should. Before you know it we have church weddings with hundreds of people. And busy funerals afterwards, possibly related.

        • Kate 16:37 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          mare, as the piece says toward the end, there’s something in the Criminal Code that stops police from interfering in church services. I don’t know what the law actually says and would be curious to know.

          I have a feeling it may date from the response to the era when Duplessis tried to stamp out the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

        • Ephraim 17:40 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          I thought that there was a limit of 25 people at a church? Nothing stopping police from handing out tickets after counting the first 25 to leave, no?

        • Chris 19:04 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          Ephraim, mare, read the article. The police refuse, and claim they can’t.

        • GC 19:49 on 2020-12-07 Permalink

          Handing out tickets to people as they leave would not require breaking up the service…I guess? I have also not read the law in question, nor am I legally trained…but there must be a creative way around this?

        • Ephraim 11:42 on 2020-12-09 Permalink

          Chris… the can’t and they refuse are two different things. They refuse is punishable by being taken to the commission, by time off without pay, demotion, service in the office, etc. It’s dereliction of duty. And the superior who accepts this, without legal proof, should be replaced. That’s why we change police chiefs. (And frankly, we still need one with some gumption anyway, since they all let them get away with racism.)

      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