Updates from September, 2023 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 23:11 on 2023-09-10 Permalink | Reply  

    A man was found unconscious at Berri-UQAM on Sunday evening and brought to hospital. Evidence suggests a younger man tripped him.

    A man was shot in Cartierville on Sunday evening, but is in stable condition.

    TVA also reports a road marking error which drivers are finding confusing in Ahuntsic.

    • GC 19:54 on 2023-09-11 Permalink

      Oh, man. That photo of the turning lane is gold.

    • Kate 09:15 on 2023-09-12 Permalink

      As a non-driver I wouldn’t even have noticed it.

    • GC 18:57 on 2023-09-13 Permalink

      If I encountered it while driving, I could see myself completing the turn and then wondering “Wait. Did I really just see that???”

  • Kate 20:40 on 2023-09-10 Permalink | Reply  

    British cyclist Adam Yates won Sunday’s race over Mount Royal. Intense analysis from Cycling News.

    • Kate 20:34 on 2023-09-10 Permalink | Reply  

      At least four serious overdoses sent people to hospital, and others were treated on site, in a single incident downtown Sunday.

      Update: This happened in a homeless shelter and affected at least eight people.

      Two pedestrians were injured in St-Laurent in a strange accident involving a vehicle and a lamppost. Update: More details from TVA. Keeping in mind mare’s warning below about the morbidity of it, the brief video is here.

      Update: The driver in that incident is facing charges.

      • mare 22:33 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        I unfortunately saw the video of the car racing into the pedestrians, and I wish I hadn’t. It was brutal. This was the least accidental ‘accident’ I’ve seen. Vehicular manslaughter is a better term, even though the victims might survive. The victims weren’t pedestrians going for a stroll on the sidewalk. They were spectators waiting for another race (there were a lot of other people watching) and this guy thought he could sneak out of the Porsche dealer parking lot and floor it. He hit the pedestrians first before he crashed into the lamppost that broke and fell down from the violent impact. Had the lamppost not been there there would have been many more victims.

        I hope the driver of this overpowered car loses his license for life, but for some reason that never happens.

    • Kate 17:03 on 2023-09-10 Permalink | Reply  

      As regular readers will know, I rarely post photos. But I took what I felt to be a mildly newsworthy photo yesterday and posted it, and have rightfully been criticized for doing so.

      The photo did spark some interesting discussion, so I’m unwilling to simply delete the whole thread.

      I do, however, promise never to post a photo of a person again, in this blog or anywhere else.

      I have also altered the photo to make it unrecognizable.

      • MarcG 17:13 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        I’m still seeing the original photo and I don’t think it’s cached in my browser. Perhaps the thumbnails didn’t get regenerated when you updated the image in WP.

      • H. John 17:20 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        @Kate. Clearly your choice; but I would leave it. I thought some of the remarks were thoughtful.

        In Aubry the Supreme Court mentioned art. 36 of the CCQ in passing:

        36. The following acts, in particular, may be considered as invasions of the privacy of a person:

        (5) using his name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other than the legitimate information of the public;

        The court didn’t have to consider whether Aubry met the requirements because the defence had said that the picture was taken solely for artistic purposes. The issue of legitimate information wasn’t argued, and didn’t form any part of the decision of the court.

        As Teresa Scassa, U of Ottawa, has written:

        “In both Aubry and Tremblay, the context changes once an individual’s presence or movements in public space become the focus of specific attention.”

      • Bert 17:21 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        It does seem to be cache. Just saw the old one. CTRL-SHIFT-R in Firefox and it now shows the edited photo.

        That said, if you are in public, you should not expect any privacy, as long as the photo is for non-commercial purposes.

      • Blork 17:46 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        Bert, please read the thread, especially the stuff about Aubry vs. Éditions Vice-Versa; what you say is NOT true. It is not as simple as that.

      • Kate 17:46 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        Thank you, MarcG. I hope the thumbnail is regenerated now.

      • Bert 18:05 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        Blork, when I was replying there was only the first reply, H. Johns reply was not there and the new site does not announce new posts.

        That said, the post quotes “purpose other than the legitimate information of the public” I consider Kate’s post legitimate, even if the post was to signal to anyone that could help the person in distress.

        The “focus of specific attention” part can be taken so widely that , in my opinion, it is of no value, much like the “legitimate” part of the initial part. …. For whom?

      • H. John 18:07 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        @Blork Freedom of expression and the public’s right to information was not raised or argued in Aubry, and therefore the decision did not include any analysis of it.

        The court was clear:

        “The respondent’s right to privacy must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the appellants’ freedom of expression and the public’s right to information, ….”

        and later

        “I do not think it appropriate to specify, in the context of the present case, the circumstances in which the public interest prevails over a person’s right to his or her image.”

      • Blork 18:44 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        Bert, in the case of Kate’s photo, yes, it could be interpreted as “socially useful information.” (As I’ve been saying all along.) But that is NOT the same as the blanket statement that “if you are in public, you should not expect any privacy, as long as the photo is for non-commercial purposes.”

        There’s another case from 2014 where a woman in Quebec City who was wearing a hijab was photographed at a market with her husband. She was not recognizable but he was. A journalist used the photo to illustrate the growing presence of hijabs in the city. She sued, saying the photo made her feel humiliated — and that the presence of her husband made her recognizable. She won and was awarded $7000. That photo was not for “commercial” purposes, it was for editorial purposes, which is arguably “socially useful information,” yet she still was successful in her case.

        Source: https://www.eloisegratton.com/blog/2014/09/26/a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words/

        H. John, I’m not going to argue with you. It would take hours and a law degree to sort through the ins and outs of the judgment, because depending on which paragraph you read it goes one way or the other. There are as many comments in there that contradict the ones you picked as there are ones that support it.

        Such as: “The Quebec courts have applied the principles of civil liability to allow compensation for the prejudice resulting from the use of a person’s image without his or her consent. According to the authors, these judicial interventions have created a right to one’s image at issue in the present case. The reasons of the Court of Appeal include a detailed account of the evolution of Quebec and French jurisprudence and doctrine, and that account is entirely satisfactory.”

        And: ” In the case at bar, I am of the view that the dissemination of the respondent’s image constituted a violation of her privacy and of her right to her image. In the abstract, to appropriate another person’s image without his or her consent to include it in a publication constitutes a fault.”

      • H. John 20:52 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        @Blork Both of the quotes you’ve cited are taken from the Chief Justice’s dissent. They do not form part of the court’s decision.

        I did take hours. I read the decision carefully before posting.

        I’m quite comfortable recognizing the difference between dissent, obiter comments, and the ones that really formed the decision. I learned how to do that when I earned my first two law degrees.

      • Blork 21:50 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        Ok then. Point taken. I’ll taken another look with my lay eyes tomorrow.

      • Meezly 22:02 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

        Thanks for your attention, Kate. I was never offended by the photo, but I did want to express the potential implications of using images of vulnerable people without their consent.

        When I was a film student back in the days when people were still shooting on actual film, my profs always stressed the importance of having release forms handy if we were shooting street scenes, public spaces, etc. So I had assumed that this was a basic requirement for all media-based professions. How easily many of these litigation cases been avoided had the basic courtesy of asking permission been exercised by journalists!

      • Kate 11:17 on 2023-09-12 Permalink

        I’m sure you’re right, Meezly. I have no right to anyone else’s image. I have been schooled.

    • Kate 16:10 on 2023-09-10 Permalink | Reply  

      People lined up Sunday to get their hands on a rivet from the old Champlain bridge.

      • Kate 10:12 on 2023-09-10 Permalink | Reply  

        The Grand Prix cycliste has just started on Park Avenue under one of those rains that sounds like it’s prepared to go on all day.

        • Kate 09:49 on 2023-09-10 Permalink | Reply  

          News of the major earthquake in Morocco is upsetting for Montreal’s estimated 37,000 residents from that country. CBC has a video; CTV talks to a Montreal councillor who happened to be there on vacation.

          La Presse has an Agence France-Presse piece explaining the quake, including that the area is not known for seismic activity.

          • DeWolf 10:19 on 2023-09-10 Permalink

            37,000 in Montreal proper, but 70,000 if you include the suburbs. Which is about 70% of Canada’s total Moroccan population.

        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