Montreal City Weblog

Kate 22:20 on 2026-05-13 Permalink Reply  

• Nicholas 23:07 on 2026-05-13 Permalink

  Wait, a parade in honour of a saint is not allowed, even if there’s no praying and even if this cultural nationalist fête has been going on for years? Ok Google, remind of this in exactly six weeks.

• Joey 09:35 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  Anyone else get the sense this is the Plateau borough sort-of thumbing their nose at the province, given that they probably could have gotten away with issuing a permit?

• jeather 09:43 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  This is clearly malicious compliance, yes.

• Kate 09:57 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  jeather and Joey, that’s my reading of it too, especially since the item adds “Le SPVM tolérera et encadrera l’événement dimanche.”

  Nicholas, the St Patrick’s parade could be described the same way – a parade in honour of a saint, cultural nationalism, no praying. But I’ve seen the Santo Cristo and it’s very much more devotional than St Patrick’s, I think people were singing hymns and that’s tantamount to prayer, no?

• R T 11:23 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  It’s definitely the case that Santo Cristo is more religious, but it’s a bit of a sorites paradox: How many people need to sing hymns and pray for it to count? If six weeks from now, I go out in the street and start praying, will they have to shut the whole thing down? What if I get 100 of my friends to do it with me?

• Meezly 12:45 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  The annual parade has been happening since 1979. It’s another case of religion/culture/tradition intertwining, and yet another example of hypocrisy, and yet another minority group being unfairly punished because of exclusive secularism. How many times has the QC govt made the excuse of not removing a Catholic symbol because of tradition and/or culture?

• jeather 12:49 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  What religion do you think this parade is about exactly? I’m sorry for the people who are caught up in this from no fault of their own, but the entire reason it’s being banned is because it’s a Catholic parade and if the law is going to hit religious parades, well, let’s make sure it hits Catholics too. (I have not seen this one and have exactly zero opinion about it specifically.)

• bob 13:10 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  All these measures are worth it to them just to stick it to Muslims.

• Meezly 13:21 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  My thoughts went faster than I could write to clarify more clearly, but was thinking more in the line of francophone Catholicism vs non-francophone, ie. non-white Catholicism. Easier for the powers that be to marginalize the latter than the former. It may seem like they’re tackling Catholicism in general but again, for me at least, it’s targeted secularism.

  I have seen this parade go by my neighbourhood for many years, it clearly means something to the community and doesn’t harm anyone who’s not involved (unless you’re a driver who’s been caught unawares). I’m not religious but I find it lovely to observe, so I guess I have some personal opinion on it.

• jeather 14:29 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  So there are two questions.

  One: is this a good law in general, and is it well-defined specifically about what is “religious” and how many people count etc etc? We’ve discussed both of those fairly extensively.
  Two: given the law against public prayer, does this parade count? “It is shocking to see people blocking traffic, taking over public space without a permit, without warning, and then turning our streets, parks and public squares into places of worship,” Roberge said in November. This seems exactly like what he’s referring to.

• Nicholas 14:46 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  The incoherence of all of this is that if you have a very religious society then religion will be a part of most traditions, and so if you want to remove the religion you have to remove the traditions. But people like tradition, so you get this Calvinball where tradition is ok for some even if it is inherently religious.

  One of the oldest still played traditional English folk songs is Greensleeves. It had many lyrics at the time, mostly not religious, but centuries later one of the most popular versions was What Child Is This? So is it a religious hymn or a folk song? What if you sing one and I sing the other? What about the Christian blasphemous rewriting of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah (don’t look it up)?

  Our fête nationale is named after a major religious figure. It is celebrated on the feast day of this saint, who was designated the patron saint of French Canadians by the Pope. It was first celebrated in Canada at least as early as 1606, and has been a part of French Canadian culture since it started existing. The society named after it installed a giant cross on the mountain overlooking its most important city. I could go on.

  It’s now much more a cultural and national event, but you can’t erase this tradition. Some people will still revere the religious substance. Unless you create a whole new holiday, it is inherently intertwined with religion forever, like Christmas and Easter and St. Patrick’s Day. Pretending it’s not is rank hypocrisy. Applying different legal standards to some traditions but not others is clearly unconstitutional, which is why they need the notwithstanding clause. And in this case they’re denying a permit but still allowing it to happen by giving it a police escort, the same police who, if the permit denial is just, should be arresting these people. It makes no sense because the entire premise of this movement can’t reconcile removing religion but keeping traditions formed based on religion.

• Meezly 15:21 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  Thanks for expanding on this, Nicholas. Indeed it’s very difficult to separate religion from culture, even in societies that have managed to separate state and church. Secularism ideally should be neutral to all faiths and not promote hostility or marginalize groups from society. But in practice it’s not, at least in places like QC and France, it tends to be weaponized. You can ask yourself if it’s a good law by simply asking, is it harming anyone needlessly?

• R T 16:04 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  Nicholas’s point about how the police should be arresting participants if the permit denial is just brings up how this entire law is likely ultra vires and outside the province’s jurisdiction.

  The ban on public prayer is a law pretending to be about the management of public spaces under provincial jurisdiction (parks and roadways) but in pith and substance it is really about regulating general behavioural conduct—about prohibiting and punishing a public wrong, ie, a crime, which is under Federal jurisdiction—and about the regulation of religion, which is not a civil right under provincial jurisdiction and therefore also under Federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has already held that provinces cannot contort their powers in order to make laws where the subject matter is de facto criminal (Switzman) or is de facto in relation to religion (Saumur).

  This law isn’t really about making sure our parks are available for others to use or that our roads are clear for vehicles. Both that this law only applies to religious gatherings and also the public statements of the people who passed them make clear that this law are actually about criminalizing conduct that they don’t like, conduct which happens to be religious, and crime and religion are not within provincial jurisdiction.

• jeather 16:55 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  I don’t like the law. I do like that the first use (that’s making headlines?) is against Catholicism.

• Ian 20:39 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  Interestingly there was a big Lag Ba’omer party on my street last week, with Hutchison closed above Lajoie and a big event on the lot there where the tile factory used to be, Hebrew house music thumping well in to the evening, and a big bonfire. It’s always fun, definitely gives Beltane vibes… and clearly religious.

  Is Cathy Wong trying to stick it to catholaicité? Beef with the Portuguese? Looking to jinx Brazil at the World Cup? We may never know.

• DeWolf 21:26 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  I think as jeather said, it’s malicious compliance, a way to provoke the CAQ. Who knows what the political backstory is.

  @Ian I was there for the last few minutes of it. Didn’t realize the party had moved from Jeanne-Mance to the big empty lot on Hutchison. In enjoyed how it ended with a big Yiddish speech and then someone saying in English, “Thank you to the city of Montreal… and the fire department.”

• Nicholas 22:03 on 2026-05-14 Permalink

  Ian, the organizer says in the video the borough mayor and local councillors support them, but that the staff refused the permit. Of course the politicians can say whatever they want, but the staff are required to follow the law, dubious it may be, and I’m sure a staff lawyer said no.

• EmilyG 11:47 on 2026-05-15 Permalink

  Sergio Da Silva on Instagram:
  “Like it or not, religion is an inextricable part of public life and community gathering. The perceived — and I would argue nonexistent — good this will do pales in comparison to the harm it will cause to community gathering, social cohesion, and community infrastructure. Newly arrived immigrants often find refuge in the church and the events and networks built around it. It may seem like a small thing to many, but for new arrivals, these spaces are often essential in helping them start their new lives with as many resources and connections as possible.”
  (https://www.instagram.com/p/DYVtUltRNA3/)

• Kate 16:31 on 2026-05-15 Permalink

  Thank you, EmilyG. Sergio Da Silva is so often a voice of reason.