CBC is reporting the removal of a teacher from a classroom in Chelsea, in western Quebec, for wearing hijab, as if it’s remarkable that the school board is merely obeying the law.
Update Friday afternoon: CBC radio news just had a clip of François Legault saying blandly: “They should never have given this person a job. They knew the law.” Link on this story.
Some bidding weirdness is reported around the dotty idea to install a suspended footbridge on the Olympic tower which has ended up with no valid bids, possibly because the terms are impossible: “Visitors will walk on a metal platform without a guardrail, suspended about 160 meters from the ground. Participants will be held up by an overhead rail with cables and harnesses.”
Why is that impossible? It’ll be an attraction, and people will have to pay for it. And then get fitted in a harness with a security cable and then they can enjoy a very airy walk outside. It exists elsewhere, no idea why nobody bid.
Ah, the impossibility is that a Quebec firm has to bid on it, but that firm also need experience with having made such an installation before. And no Quebec firm has that experience, and they couldn’t just sign a contract with an Ontario firm. Would have been fun if this 160 metre high project was awarded to the lowest bidder though.
(I guess the fact that the Olympic Stadium tower is inclined makes the project a lot more complicated. You can’t just drive a giant crane onto the field.)
It sounds from the story that they wanted the outfit that did something like it for the CN Tower, but this was ruled not fair. You can’t write a tender that’s so specific that only one known firm can respond.
Does anything happen inside the olympic stadium? I lived down the street for a year and couldn’t tell
@Jeff: right now, it’s a pretty massive vaccination center. I went to get my kids vaccinated there last weekend.
Lots of offices in the tower as well. Desjardins has a few floors.
It’s much prettier since Desjardins moved in as they renovated the tower quite extensively.
I couldn’t find any “before and after” you pics, but here’s what it looked like before the renos:
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/03/54/d9/1f/olympic-tower-olympic.jpg
And here’s how it looks now:
https://cdn.archpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/OlympicTower_Montreal_Exterior.jpg
Those new windows make quite the difference.
A teacher was injured Thursday morning in an assault at a St‑Michel high school; a student has been arrested in what is described by TVA as a stabbing.
There’s a startling 1,807 new cases of Covid reported Thursday in Quebec, although only one new death in the last 24‑hour cycle.
The “cases are increasing but don’t worry it’s all part of the plan” phase is my favourite part of the pandemic cycle.
Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois has successfully needled François Legault over the baseball stadium. Go go Gabriel!
Nothing quite as depressing as watching government in action. That big baby needs to go. Can’t even answer a simple question.
Can someone explain the hot dog part? Is there some story about hot dogs I don’t know about? Is it some weird “all dressed” being an anglicism?
I don’t think it’s subtle: “Moi, mon steamé, au baseball, je l’aime all dressed ketchup, mais pas d’argent public.”
Nadeau-Dubois was born in 1990, so he would’ve been 14 when the Expos left. Was he buying himself hot dogs at a baseball game before that? Maybe.
The only political reference about hot dogs that comes to mind was when Pierre Trudeau called Robert Bourassa a mangeux de hot dogs but I don’t think it’s involved here.
Nothing like an ad hominem to deflect, right M Legault? Wow! Didn’t even answer the damn question. I wonder why…
All of this talk is irrelevant unless Major League Baseball is in fact open to expansion. Is it? The question of TV revenues, for example, is not just one for Montreal itself but for MLB. I have no idea how they compute these things, but it’s amazing how little attention is paid to the organization that actually decides which cities will get a team, not to mention their expectation that governments will subsidize private ownership without getting any stake in return.
Also, there was comment a few days back about tourists filling the seats. But don’t professional teams rely on season ticket holders, not to mention corporations renting luxury skyboxes, as a more stable source of money?
@PatrickC MLB has stated it won’t address expansion until it has a new collective agreement (MLB locked out its players a few days ago) and its problem child franchises (Tampa Bay, Oakland) resolve their problems, chiefly by shaking down municipal governments for new stadiusm. That said, the Mtl baseball plan is to build two (!) new parks in Tampa and Montreal, with the team playing in TB during the spring and late fall and Montreal hosting the summertime games. So it would be neither an expansion nor a relocation, but a newfangled “sister city” type of deal. I assume the game plan for Bronfman et al all along has been to use this model to eventually have the team move permanently to Montreal but the level of commitment to this idea seems pretty strong. Hard to imagine the politicians in Tampa paying for all or part of a new facility – I’ve been to the TB stadium and it’s as dreadful as the Big O – and then letting the Rays up and walk away, though stranger things have happened. Anyway, MLB seems open enough to the idea, and I suppose it makes sense – you get all the revenue of operating in two markets, you get two new stadiums built, and you don’t have to split the new $$ with a separate new owner nor do you increase the number of players. If the calculation is that Mtl and TB are both viable as part-time MLB cities but not full-time ones, this model actually makes a lot of sense…
@kate have we forgotten Luc Ferrandez’s “anglos who like to eat hot dogs”???
The idea of moving a baseball team to Montreal came up years ago when the Rays were unsuccessful is shaking down Tampa Bay to build a new stadium.
This year the Rays finished on top of the American League, and Tampa has a new mayor who in the past week had talks with the team about funding a new stadium, and is going to send them a proposal by the end of the month.
Nobody cares about baseball. I remember in the 70s and 80s when the world series was all over TV and radio. Now I don’t even know who won this year. Might as well just setup a cricket stadium as that would probably get more interest
@kevin the Tampa mayor’s office is working on a “scaled back” stadium plan specifically for a split-season club, meaning no roof, implicitly endorsing the sharing agreement with Montreal
People have been voluntarily cleaning up the Falaise St‑Jacques and now there’s a promise it will be turned into a linear park officially. The same people are still holding out hope that the footbridge over the Turcot, promised years ago, will be built some day.
I walked by the St-Henri end on the weekend and the path seems pretty much finished, nothing to stop anyone from using it. Might be just missing signs and an official opening in the spring.
Nice, Andrew. Where’s this being shot from, on the map?
That’s the east end of the path on Pullman. I just discovered they’ve already added the path to google maps
Interesting, Andrew. Thanks. Not surprisingly, though the path’s route is shown on satellite view, the pictures haven’t yet been updated to show the actual path. Do you know if there’s a safe way to get down to the path from eastern NDG (Girouard, say)? And are bikes welcome on the path? Always looking for alternate routes to Lachine and points west — next summer isn’t that far off.
It starts at the foot of Decarie, along St. Jacques kitty corner from the MUHC. It parallels St. Jacques down to St. Antoine then turns west and runs past the location of Andrew’s photo and seems to end at Blvd. Ste Anne de Bellevue just below the big UHaul self storage place where there s another shelter like the one in the photo.
Jack 19:18 on 2021-12-09 Permalink
I was hoping our community would show more courage in the face of a law that discriminates openly. A law that conspires to make all of us in education hypocrites. You can’t teach diversity and inclusion and allow one of your colleagues to be discriminated against. We are complicit.
Kate 20:13 on 2021-12-09 Permalink
What choice do they have? It is the law.
steph 20:29 on 2021-12-09 Permalink
Civil disobedience. You think the government will send in the army?
Kate 21:03 on 2021-12-09 Permalink
I don’t know what punishments are written into the law, but I presume they could withhold funding from the school or the board.
walkerp 21:06 on 2021-12-09 Permalink
This is Quebec, famous for civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws.
carswell 21:06 on 2021-12-09 Permalink
@steph No, but here’s a scenario. Egged on by the nationalist media, the government turns it into an uppity anglo/immigrant issue — a gift to Legault in the run-up to the next provincial election. And the government could just fire (and possibly have arrested) the school board’s management, put the board under hyper-obedient tutorship and use this as an excuse to be even harder on and more suspicious of English-language school boards.
DeWolf 00:52 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
I think it’s pretty clear that the Western Quebec School Board, which openly opposes Bill 21, is hoping this will become a cause célèbre. And it has, so their tactic worked.
DeWolf 00:56 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
That said, I’m not sure if it’s an effective tactic. The outrage will likely lead to accusations of Quebec bashing and it could do more harm than good.
The thing about Bill 21 is that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore relies on the notwithstanding clause to exist. That clause needs to be renewed every five years. The only way to defeat Bill 21 is to replace the CAQ with a party willing to respect our basic human rights. Not an easy task, given the political landscape in Quebec, but more feasible than fighting the law in courts, given we have a fucked up opt-out clause in our constitution.
H. John 03:15 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
As a Quebecer I’m genuinely ashamed that this is happening here. I think we have to do everything we can to let politicians, of whatever stripe, know that we will remember where they stood on this question.
It isn’t an open or shut case. The CAQ, and their Minister responsible for eliminating human rights, used s. 33, aka “the notwithstanding clause”.
Their problem is that the clause can not be used to override all sections of the constitution. It applies to only certain parts of the charter. For instance, women’s rights protected under S.28 can not be overridden.
“28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”
So Muslim men can grow a beard, for religious reasons, and teach; but how women dress should keep us up at night.
This will be a long court battle. The federal government should have by now indicated that the resources available to the department of justice would be helping to make the argument against Bill 21.
H. John 03:57 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
A useful timeline on some of the challenges:
https://ccla.org/major-cases-and-reports/bill-21/
Meezly 09:52 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
I for one am very tired of seeing nationalist rhetoric in the guise of secularism as a neutral and idealistic principle. There are inclusive ways to uphold genuine secularism without resorting to a harmful law such as 21.
John B 10:34 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
Wasn’t Bill 21 supposed to let people at least keep their existing jobs?
Kate 10:38 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
John B, I thought I understood the same. You could keep your job but you would never be allowed to take a different position or a promotion. I assume from this story that the young woman must have been hired since the bill was passed, so she didn’t have the acquired right, but it has not been spelled out in any story I’ve seen.
The school board should have made it clear to her what the consequences were if she refused to remove the hijab. It is their job to enforce the law. So I presume they knew this would be challenged.
Uatu 11:47 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
Well more teachers for the ROC I guess
Daniel 12:35 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
John B, my understanding was the same. I’d like to know what triggered this. Knowing that the school board moved on this without any apparent trigger makes me wonder if it’s meant to set up legal challenges, as mentioned above.
(The school year has been in progress for a while now, I’ve not seen any reporting on someone raising a complaint that prompted the removal… So why now?)
Em 13:01 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
I saw an interview that suggested the board hadn’t realized she wore a religious symbol, BUT I think it’s more likely the school was hoping a judge would grant the EMSB’s request to suspend the application of the law while it’s still before the courts. The judge refused in November.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8362044/quebec-court-of-appeal-rejects-emsb-request-stay-bill-21/
Kevin 13:12 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
English boards have asked for the law to not be applied while it is being challenged, but a judge denied that request earlier this year.
This teacher was hired after the law was passed, so it looks like The powers that be were hoping for that exemption to be granted.
As for Quebec Bashing, well we all know that just means anyone who disagrees with MBC.
Meezly 18:24 on 2021-12-10 Permalink
It’s so, so f**ked up, you can’t have a rational discussion at all about Bill 21 with its supporters. I have had two now. Any criticism of it being an unjust law and they take it as a personal attack on them. Even the fact that it violates the Charter, it’s like, go educate yourself on how the Quebec never signed the constitution. you’re the one who’s ignorant.
It’s not about our human rights but theirs. What chills me is the utter lack of empathy for Muslim women and then going on how this is what civilized society expects of them and the thinly veiled Islamophobia because they don’t bother with differentiating between a moderate Muslim and an Islamist. The attitude of well, if they can’t compromise, then they are free to go somewhere else.
Meezly 10:18 on 2021-12-11 Permalink
@H. John – that is a very interesting point.
The notwithstanding clause and the federal charter gets brought up a lot but why don’t I see many discussions about the Quebec Charter? Even though State Laicity is of fundamental importance, what if a laicity law impinges on a persons rights and freedoms?
http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/c-12
carswell 10:46 on 2021-12-11 Permalink
@Meezly The Quebec charter of “rights and freedoms” was amended to make
French Catholicismlaicity paramount and block any avenue of appeal under that law. Kind of like a permanent notwithstanding clause but without the recurring public embarrassment of exempting Quebec from the Canadian charter..Meezly 11:09 on 2021-12-11 Permalink
@carswell. Thanks for the response. But where in the charter does it say that laicity is paramount? Is it that it’s of “fundamental importance”? It seems so contradictory.
carswell 11:18 on 2021-12-11 Permalink
There are two references to laicity in the charter. The preamble declares it to be of fundamental importance. Section 9.1 stipulates that “democratic values, State laicity, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Quebec” take precedence over individuals’ “fundamental rights and freedoms.” Together they do the trick.
carswell 11:31 on 2021-12-11 Permalink
While the dismissed teacher worked at Chelsea Elementary, she could have just as well been at St. John’s/John Paul II School or St. Michael’s High, both of which are operated by the Western Quebec School Board. (Don’t have the time or inclination to try and see if they have large crosses on near the entrance, as several Montreal schools still do.) Pretty much tells you all you need to know about Quebec’s State laicity.
Meezly 11:35 on 2021-12-11 Permalink
Thanks @carswell. In 9.1: “In exercising his fundamental freedoms and rights, a person shall maintain a proper regard for democratic values, State laicity, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec.”
But also in 9.1: “In this respect, the scope of the freedoms and rights, and limits to their exercise, may be fixed by law.”
There is some hope for change.
carswell 11:51 on 2021-12-11 Permalink
It’s legislation and so can be changed at any time if the provincial government decides to do so. The CAQ and PQ voted for the laicity bill, the PLQ and QS against. Am unaware of the PLQ’s or QS’s current stance on the act but do know that voting against a bill doesn’t necessarily mean either party would rescind the act once in power. And who knows when anyone except the CAQ will be in power. Bottom line: don’t hold your breath.
Ian 18:59 on 2021-12-11 Permalink
I’m actually pretty surprised the union isn’t involved. Teacher’s unions are generally pretty staunchly supportive of hired staff, even if she didn’t have a permanent posting. If the conditions of her employment changed she should still have accumulated hiring priority for available posts. If she got hired after the bill became law that might be another story… but that’s not clear from the way this is being reported.