Denis Coderre was reported recently to owe thousands to Revenu Québec. Now we find out he also owes the feds, for a grand total of nearly $400K.
I don’t think Coderre had much chance of heading the Quebec Liberals, but this evidence of personal mismanagement will probably sign and seal it.
Christophe Folla, who founded the Groupe Sutton real estate company, has pleaded guilty to ordering nine fires to be set to damage his competitors. He’s already been sentenced to five years – and he’s 71 years old. Did anyone think to ask him what kind of company he was keeping, that he knew guys prepared to torch buildings for him?
Man, don’t piss this guy off. Sheesh.
Quebec has refused to fund additional warming centres for the homeless.
Later, the city will be blamed for not doing more.
Mélanie Dupont has become the first woman to head the SPVM’s major crimes unit. Dupont is quoted as particularly concerned about crimes against women, but it displeases me to see her quoted saying “Tous les dossiers, c’est une mère, la sœur de quelqu’un.” Men’s lives have value in themselves; women’s, in that they’re of value to someone else. Even coming from a woman.
Agree. That expression has always bugged me for the same reasons too.
By the same token, look at the commonly used “crimes against women” or “violence against women”. Why are “men” almost always omitted when this phrase is used?
“Most terms used to describe the types of violence women experience hide the everyday reality for many women throughout the world that the perpetrators of this violence against women, and indeed even against other men, are men.
Gender‑neutral language is continually used; for example, family violence, domestic violence, intimate partner violence, violence in the home, sexual assault, and community‑based violence. Each of these terms masks the reality that the overwhelming majority of these forms of violence are gendered, that is, they are perpetrated by men upon women. Even when the issue is gendered by referring to violence against women, the gender of the perpetrator is often omitted.”
From the White Ribbon Campaign, the largest global male‑led movement to stop men’s violence against women.
By the same token, look at the commonly used “crimes against women” or “violence against women”. Why are “men” almost always omitted when this phrase is used?
The reasons women are assaulted or murdered tend to be different from men, in the broadest sense. Looking at the homicide numbers: a fair number of the men who get killed are involved in gang activity, while there’s only one woman that’s been killed here recently in connection with gangs, and it was because she was the wife and daughter‑in‑law of gangsters.
Women get killed because of domestic strife, and often the attacks are by their partner or recent ex‑partner. A few men get killed for that kind of reason but it’s not prevalent.
So I do think it’s worth examining crimes against women as a different social phenomenon. But I think we still need to understand, as a society, that their lives were of value because they were living human beings, first, and not primarily because of their family relationships to men.
I’ve seen much, much more use of femicide for murders of women (especially if it is by someone they know), I think as a way to distinguish it as a specific thing.
“Even when the issue is gendered by referring to violence against women, the gender of the perpetrator is often omitted.” Is this done subconsciously? Do we do this because the media does it?
Kate, you couldn’t even identify the gender in your phrase: “Women get killed because of domestic strife, and often the attacks are by their partner or recent ex‑partner.” Was that subconscious or intentional?
Again, what I’m trying to say, that if women have value as human beings first, then why when it comes to violence, the emphasis is placed on women, as if they’re somehow to blame for their victimization and men get a free pass?
And very much like “c’est une mère, la sœur de quelqu’un”, we’ve been conditioned by society to relegate women AND diminish the impact of male violence against women.
Crimes perpetuated by men against women has been part of the same social phenomenon that has had centuries to mold mindsets and define toxic gender roles.
“Violent men kill women because of domestic strife.”
“Often the attacks are by their male partners or former male partners.”
“Men inflicting violence against women.”
“Crimes perpetuated by men against women.”
It’s not that hard!
I apologize for my ignorant assumptions and will try to do better.
I appreciate you pointing this out, Meezly. It seems like the same linguistic mechanism used whenever death or harm in an unequal relationship is described (e.g. drivers vs. pedestrians & cyclists, “good guys” vs “baddies” in a war), and for sure it’s easy to internalize and have it affect your thinking.
>Gender‑neutral language is continually used…
Uh, yeah, welcome to the last several decades. Gender neutral language is heavily en vogue.
Strikes me as interesting to advocate for gender specific language when it’s mostly men doing something bad, but if it’s mostly men doing something good, ex firemen, we want to call them firefighters.
I see where you’re coming from Meezly but gendering or not has been/is becoming a very murky topic all around for various different subjects and I think there’s a tendency to extend that neutral language to other facets. I think it’s great to point it out but I wouldn’t be overly critical of anyone if they don’t say “violence against women by men” all the time. I think it’s understood that it’s usually if not always men. I do feel there’s some hypocrisy in the culture….as a woman, I don’t want to share bathrooms with men (the new gender neutral ones they have at shopping malls, for example) but I’ve gotten a lot of pushback for sharing that opinion at work recently…I felt like my apprehension around men in that context was not an acceptable sentiment at all. I understand it might seem like apples and oranges but I feel like I’m being told “stop gendering” all around!
Canadian Architect has praise for a new building facing the Old Port.
Editing to add: planned in the Old Port (see below).
This building doesn’t yet exist. I wish Canadian Architect had made it clear that we’re looking at renderings and their descriptions are of a hypothetical building.
The site is fenced off and it seems construction will begin soon.
https://forum.agoramtl.com/t/de-la-commune-saint-gabriel-5-etages/9075
To be fair it does say it’s in design development and slated to be complete in 2026. But they definitely should include it toward the beginning of the text.
I just looked at the images and the renderings are so realistic I assumed it was finished.
Well, me too. Is anything around us real, or is it all AI?
@Jonathan Yes indeed, I should not comment before I’ve finished my morning coffee.
As homeless encampments grow around town, CBC finds that the official response to them is uneven, depending on the borough’s policies and land ownership rather than a city‑wide approach.
CBC also notes that Quebec doesn’t keep count of deaths among the homeless.
The Canora and Édouard-Montpetit REM stations are expected to open in fall 2025, so CDN‑NDG borough plans to hold consultations over reordering roads and adding new bike paths. The STM also plans to add a new bus route, although there are no details yet.
Ephraim 13:00 on 2024-12-05 Permalink
Being bad at politics doesn’t seem to be a disqualification anymore. We let Mulroney and Harper lead the Conservatives—Mulroney took $300K from Schreiber, was allegedly tied to the Airbus Affair, and tried to de-index old age pensions. Harper misled Parliament about F‑35 costs, appointed Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau (some of the worst senators in history), implemented the disastrous Phoenix pay system, raised OAS eligibility from 65 to 67, and packed the CBC with cronies, making it bloated without improving its quality (which stayed high despite his meddling).
In Quebec, the list is just as bad: Duplessis’s patronage and orphan scandals, Bourassa’s James Bay corruption, Lévesque’s high unemployment and stagflation (with Parizeau, his economic minister, also to blame), Charest’s construction corruption and daycare pay-to-play schemes, Marois’s stagflation, and Legault’s health care mismanagement and divisive policies.
Do I really need to bring the worst of the American examples? They elected someone with a felony conviction for falsifying business records and who clearly doesn’t understand what tariffs actually do.
Orr 13:17 on 2024-12-05 Permalink
@Ephraim: in case anyone thinks OAS eligibility starts at age 67, it starts at age 65. My low-information friend argued strongly that no, it starts at 67, then I showed him the actual OAS website.
Ephraim 15:01 on 2024-12-05 Permalink
It was 67 under the Tories. The Liberals promised to move it back to 65. It was the theft of 2 years of everyone’s lives. We are better off to adjust premiums than we are to adjust eligibility. Besides, most people over pay into the system. But that’s a different problem.
Tim 11:06 on 2024-12-06 Permalink
@ephraim: Nobody directly pays into OAS. It is the first line in this document: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/esdc-edsc/documents/programs/old-age-security/reports/oas-toolkit/OAS_Toolkit-EN-Static.pdf
You are confusing it with CPP.