An unoccupied building is on fire midday Friday on Ste‑Catherine at de la Visitation. Noon radio news said Beaudry metro station is closed for the moment.
Updates from October, 2021 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
Kate
-
Kate
The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of comic Mike Ward, ordered in 2016 to pay $35,000 to Jérémy Gabriel after mocking him during his act. “There is no right not to be offended” as Julius Grey says.
CharlesQ
What a great victory for bullies and internet trolls everywhere! Ward didn’t just make a joke about Gabriel, he picked on him because of his handicap. He made it part of is act (including jokes about trying to drown him) for three years at every shows, made jokes online and on other shows about him, made a puppet in Gabriel’s image, etc. It was systematic harassement. How heartless do people have be to think this is a great day for free speech, I don’t know.
Kevin
The SCOC argument boils down to Gabriel taking the wrong action. It says Gabriel should have sued for defamation — not gone to a Human Rights Tribunal and said he was a victim of discrimination.
https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2021/39041-eng.aspxChris
CharlesQ, Trump was “bullied” by just about every comedian, should that be allowed in your view?
Kate
Both men chose to put themselves into the public eye. If you do that, to whatever degree, you need to expect criticism. But that’s as far as your bizarre equivalence goes, Chris. Punching down is morally not the same as punching up.
Chris
Kate, I was/am interested in how people with CharlesQ’s viewpoint would treat the two people differently, and why.
And even if one grants that “punching down is *morally* not the same as punching up”, I think there’s a good case that they are *legally* the same.
H. John
I think it’s going to take a few days for people to sort out what the court has or hasn’t said. Both the majority and minority decisions are well argued. The minority decisions was penned by Rosalie Abella and Nicholas Kasirer (former McGill, Dean of Law).
I’ve only made it through the majority decision so far. The decision is 136 pages.
It might be useful to remember that the complaint they had to deal with was for discrimination, not for harassment.
The majority suggests that had the complaint been for harassment they might have sided with CharlesQ.
One thing is really clear, the SCC took a direct swing at the at the Commission and Tribunal for a line of decisions, including this one, that have expanded the Commissions jurisdiction in a way that the court thinks was never intended.
From the decision (the numbers are the paragraphs):
4. It is important to begin by noting that this question draws attention to a trend by the Commission and the Tribunal, in their decisions, to interpret their home statute, the Quebec Charter, as giving them jurisdiction over cases involving allegedly “discriminatory” comments made by individuals, either in private or in public. With respect, we are of the view that this trend deviates from this Court’s jurisprudence and reflects a misinterpretation of the provisions at issue in this case…
[5] It must be recognized at the outset that the Quebec Charter, which elevates freedom of expression to a fundamental freedom, was not enacted to encourage censorship. It follows that expression in the nature of rude remarks made by individuals does not in itself constitute discrimination under that statute. But this does not mean that the Quebec Charter can never apply to expression of this kind in very specific circumstances.
[29] In addition to being based solely on the content of expression and not on its discriminatory effects, that line of decisions, which includes the Tribunal’s judgment, dispenses with any fair balancing of freedom of expression and protection of the right to the safeguard of dignity. It therefore creates a second avenue of recourse for discrimination, parallel to an action in defamation, to compel a person to answer for the harm caused by their words, with a much less onerous burden of proof on the complainant, who is in fact not required to bring their own proceedings if the Commission agrees to act on their behalf.
[30] In our view, that line of decisions raises serious concerns in light of our precedents on freedom of expression. A discrimination claim is not, and must not become, an action in defamation. The two are governed by different considerations and have different purposes. A discrimination claim must be limited to expression whose effects are truly discriminatoryThe Court then moved on to deal with what is necessary to prove discrimination:
[44] Where a discrimination claim is based on a freedom or right guaranteed by any of ss. 1 to 9, the plaintiff must therefore prove on a balance of probabilities:
1. A “distinction, exclusion or preference”;
2. based on one of the grounds listed in s. 10;
3. that has the effect of nullifying or impairing the equal recognition or exercise of a right whose protection is called for in light of s. 9.1 in the context in which it is invoked.Having looked at each of the three, the Court noted:
[97] The Tribunal’s conclusion on this point is contradictory. First, it found, [TRANSLATION] “[i]n light of the evidence as a whole”, that Mr. Ward “did not choose [Mr. Gabriel as a target] because of his handicap”, but rather “because he was a public personality who attracted public sympathy and seemed to be ‘untouchable’” (para. 86). The distinction identified at first by the Tribunal was therefore not based on a prohibited ground. Its analysis should have ended there.
The Commission/Tribunal found that
10. À la lumière de l’ensemble de la preuve, dont le numéro du spectacle « Mike Ward s’eXpose » et le témoignage de monsieur Ward, le Tribunal conclut que, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, c’est parce qu’il est une personnalité publique qui attire la sympathie du public et paraît « intouchable », comme Grégory Charles ou Céline Dion, que Jérémy a été pris pour cible. Il n’a pas choisi Jérémy à cause de son handicap.
The majority then went on to say that on the complaint of discrimination the complainant failed on 1,2, and 3.
In ending the majority said:
[113] Accordingly, the Commission did not meet the requirements for succeeding under ss. 4 and 10 of the Quebec Charter. But this conclusion does not mean that Mr. Gabriel was without recourse following these events. Other recourses were available. For example, though we express no opinion on the chances of success of these alternative recourses, Mr. Gabriel could have invoked the protection against harassment provided for in s. 10.1 of the Charter because of the fact that he had been bullied. He could also have brought an action in defamation. However, neither the Commission nor the Tribunal has jurisdiction over defamation. The combination of the norm of equality in the Quebec Charter and the right to the safeguard of dignity cannot confer such jurisdiction on them indirectly.
Kate
Thank you, H. John! It’s interesting to see the case as a struggle between the court and the two human rights bodies.
CharlesQ
@chris Big differences. Trump chose his points of view and that’s what people made fun of, Gabriel didn’t choose his handicap. Trump is an “adult”, Gabriel wasn’t. Trump chose to run for president of the USofA, Gabriel sang for the pope once. Not sure how can anyone equate those two.
EmilyG
Yes, Chris, we already know that you like to dump on marginalized people. It’s getting old.
Kate
Alas, it’s Chris’s major argumentative gotcha, to equate two things which are not the same, whether it’s dogs and pigs, or Jérémy and Trump.
Chris
Boy, I’m bad at expressing myself apparently. It’s like I need to write a thousand words for anything to be sufficiently clear for people to not read in their worst assumptions. I apparently can’t even ask a question without people thinking I’m making some kind of argument.
EmilyG, where did I dump on anyone? I asked a fellow commentator to expand on his viewpoint. Please re-read.
CharlesQ, thanks for your reply. I agree there is a difference between things people choose (like their opinions) vs things they have no control over (like, say, skin colour). I can see how some would argue this should be a dividing line for criticism/comedy. But Trump was not only made fun of for his chosen views, but also for physical characteristics beyond his control, like hand size, penis size/shape, and balding. And this too was done by professional comedians. So if that line should not have been crossed for Gabriel, should it have been for Trump? / Gabriel being a minor is a good point, indeed. / Yes, being POTUS makes one much more of a public figure than singing for the pope once, but it seems impossible to define an ‘amount of fame’ where criticism/comedy becomes legal/illegal.
-
Kate
A helicopter flyby at 11:45 and an honour guard will precede the funeral service for firefighter Pierre Lacroix at noon at Notre-Dame.
(While scanning for articles about the deceased man, this turned up: Une bannière pour Pierre Lacroix à Denver. Curious what link Denver could have with a Montreal firefighter, I had a look. It’s a different Pierre Lacroix.)
Update: Nice account of the funeral and ceremonial gestures around it from Radio‑Canada. I imagine even more firefighters would have been there, had there not been a building burning up on Ste‑Catherine Street.
-
Kate
Bill Brownstein writes about an unstaffed 24-hour automated super-dépanneur opening in Griffintown. Already I’m seeing this as a possible site for a horror movie, but maybe that’s the Halloween decor around my neighbourhood getting into my brain.
Meantime, my ‘hood is facing losing its dep. The couple from China who’ve run the corner store at least since I’ve lived in Villeray (2005) are being turfed out by their landlord by the end of the year, and the woman tells me she needs a break anyway, after so many years of standing behind the counter all day. People are sad – the family has been part of our local scene for so long.
I don’t know whether it’s typical, but are city neighbourhoods becoming more like dormitory suburbs? Since living here, I’ve seen the loss of the corner bakery, the loss of one of the two independent deps and now the other. Is the implication that it’s no longer necessary to have the basics for sale within a short walk, because of course we all drive?
Ali
Wait till the ultra-fast grocery delivery startups start popping up in Montreal as well.
Jonathan
Many boroughs like VSP are actually losing population as demographics squeeze household size downward and rich families convert plexes into single family mansions with mitoyen walls
Kevin
I think it’s the opposite — all those commercial streets that are doing well, as pointed out in La Presse the other day — are neighbourhoods where thousands of people live within walking distance.
DeWolf
I agree with Kevin. There aren’t fewer neighbourhood businesses than there used to be, but demographics and tastes are changing, so the commercial landscape has shifted. Most of those corner retail spots on residential streets in Villeray are becoming cafés, lifestyle shops or other businesses than can make a decent profit even at a low-traffic location.
Deps in particular have been dropping like flies all over Montreal. The smoking rate has been cut in half over the past 20 years, people are more discerning in what they drink, and people are more mobile than they used to be – which doesn’t mean they’re driving to a strip mall for their necessities, just that they’re willing to walk an extra five or ten minutes to the main commercial strip where they can go to a good fruiterie or one of the countless zero-waste bulk food stores that have popped up recently. If you look at the deps that are surviving, they’re either in high-traffic locations or they’ve gone a little upscale, selling craft beer, local products and prepared food.
Kate
Not only businesses. One of the closed deps I describe became residential, and the woman at the still-open dep says there’s a strong chance her dep will also be transformed into residential space. (But it was clear she didn’t care, or didn’t want to care, what becomes of it when she’s gone.)
JaneyB
The green grocer/dep seems to be doing well in Verdun. I do most of my grocery shopping at 2 of them because their prices are so much lower than at IGA. One of the owners is very animated about how less smoking has cut into his profits so I guess that’s an issue. The leasing costs are crazy-high so I’m not sure how they do it – I don’t buy that many carrots, after all. The chip & smokes deps must be just barely making it.
Blork
So if you want a bunch of free stuff, just shoulder surf your way into Aisle24 behind someone who has the app, fill your bags, and walk out.
Ephraim
dhomas
@Blork if you want to steal, you’re better off doing it at a dep that doesn’t have a bunch of cameras in it.
About the concept, I’m pretty sure this company eventually wants to be acquired by Amazon. The concept seems far too similar to the Amazon Go stores they are also deploying. This looks like a convenience store version with less tech.
Ephraim
@dhomas – You don’t actually check out at Amazon Go stores. You simply bag it as you take it and leave. The system automatically bills you. https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/amazon/139650-what-is-amazon-go-where-is-it-and-how-does-it-work
dhomas
@Ephraim Right, that’s what I meant by “with less tech”. With the Amazon tech, it could be completely automated.
Kate
I was down on St-Viateur on Friday for the first time in awhile, and noticed both its dépanneurs are gone. The Dary is just locked up, and Dépanneur La Rose, facing the church, has been turned into a hipstery little deli.
Ian
Dary got booted by the owner who was hoping to turn it into a restaurant, then covid hit. Rose had something similar happen but the hipster pizza joint squeaked in at an opportune moment. The hipster place at J-M & St. V used to be a grocery, too. The only one left is the little dep next to Batory, the longstanding Polish deli on the north side.
CE
St-Viateur is pretty much turned into a food court for the tech workers on the other side of St-Laurent.
JS
When I moved to St-Viateur 20 years ago there were 5 deps between St Laurent & Parc.
steph
Knowing that deps have survived for years on cigaretts and alcohol, I won’t shed a tear seeing them disappear. I think our communities will be better for it.
Kate
Well… I’ve bought toilet paper at mine (not all the time, but it’s been handy in the depths of winter), cat food (ditto), occasionally chips, soda or beer, I’ve put STM tickets on my Opus card, I once bought the best ramen I ever had there (and stopped buying it when I noticed how much sodium was in the flavour packet), I’ve had things printed out off their computer, and once when I was feeling strangely dizzy and weird I left my spare house key with the dep lady so someone could pick it up and feed my cat if I was in the ER a long time (I wasn’t, and I was fine).
So I will miss the corner dep when it closes.
MarcG
I’m thankful to have a corner dep that will likely never close (near a metro station and a school). Even though I haven’t been in it in 19 months, I used to use and appreciate it in the same way Kate describes.
-
Kate
Once again the inbound La Fontaine tunnel will be closed over the weekend and other traffic calamities are on the menu.
Reply