Download the 2025 calendar!
Quebec has adopted a bill to restrict international student enrolment according to unstated “government priorities”.
The province is also worried about signs of religion in schools and is planning to strengthen the Loi sur la laïcité de l’État to make such outrages impossible in future and find ways to punish the offenders. Like maybe, penance?
Weekend notes from CityCrunch, La Presse, CultMTL.
Where not to drive on the weekend.
Ceremonies and lighting will mark the 35th anniversary of the killings at the Polytechnique on Friday.
Rima Elkouri talks to the man who was interim director of the school at the time.
Videos from Radio-Canada and a long opinion piece in the Globe and Mail.
It’s noticeable how in recent years the massacre has come to be described as a feminicide or as an anti‑feminist act. It was only in 2019 that the plaque on the memorial park in Côte‑des‑Neiges was reworded to acknowledge this. For a long time after 1989 there was a strong tendency not to want to look straight at the killer’s motives – to kill feminists and keep women out of the public sphere – and acknowledge that they had been made as explicit as they could be.
Shelter spaces are in such short supply that some are being offered a chair for the night because there are no beds.
Radio-Canada has a short list and map of the most dangerous intersections topped with the corner of Crémazie and St‑Michel.
Friday marks the 35th anniversary of the massacre of women at the Polytechnique, by a man. CityNews talks to Nathalie Provost and Heidi Rathjen, who were both present that day, Provost among the wounded.
The federal government may be about to add more gun models to the list of forbidden firearms. Its gun buyback program has not collected a single gun. CP has a timeline of the cultural observances and changes since that day in 1989.
Quebec is going to appeal a 2022 ruling that outlaws police spot checks on the grounds that they foster racial profiling. Quebec hopes the Supreme Court will see things its way, rather than confirming what both the Quebec Superior Court, and the Quebec Court of Appeal have already decided.
In other fun legal news, the Supreme Court has chosen not to hear an appeal about the legality of the 1982 patriation of the Canadian constitution. Oldtime PQ stalwart Daniel Turp plans to take the matter to the United Nations Human Rights Council because after all, poor Daniel, he’s had his human rights denied for too long.
This would be much easier to prove if the police were required to input all their reasoning into a computer before stopping someone. That way, if the logic holds up and the statistics show the stops are truly random, the Crown prosecutors would have solid data to back them up. On the other hand, if the reasoning doesn’t hold up, we could hold officers accountable—perhaps even docking their salary—for wasting time based on their own biases. And send them back for retraining. So they have something to lose as well.
I am disappointed that Prof Turp is spending his valuable time chasing after these windmills. He and his students did great work a few years ago pushing the Feds when they permitted the sale of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, including documenting the human rights abuses that the Saudis committed with them in Yemen. He could be doing the same examination of the many parts and munitions that Canadian companies are currently selling “off the books” to the US to then be given to Israel.
Yep.
It’s that time of year when people like to say, “It’s that time of year when everyone but me forgets how to drive.”
The pilot project deemed a success, dogs are now to be allowed in the metro outside of rush hours.
On the other hand, electric bikes and scooters are not allowed.
It’s fascinating to see dog culture in different parts of the world. If you go to many parts of Europe, dogs are everywhere, they’re just a normal part of life, but they’re also very obedient. I’ve been in Hong Kong for the past several weeks and this used to be a very dog-unfriendly city, but things have changed dramatically and suddenly there’s lots of dog-friendly spaces, but in a sometimes absurd way – like dog-friendly shopping malls that are just luxurious air-conditioned dog parks on the weekend.
Montreal is a bit hostile to dogs and I think allowing them in more places would be a good thing, but it really depends on whether they’re behaved or not. North American dog culture is generally very permissive and indulgent but that doesn’t work in an urban context. Gentrified Brooklyn is like a nightmare in that sense – spoiled dogs and spoiled children.
After being bitten by a dog, I’ll NEVER be ok with being around them.
The same people who insist that a man must be the head of the household and demand obedience in all things are the same people who let their dogs run wild and say “but he’s a good boy” when the animal attacks someone.
After a dog attacks someone, should we put the animal to sleep, or the owner?
It’s like the old hotel adage: “Children and dogs are welcome – with well-behaved owners”
Don’t love dogs on the metro but it was bound to happen. I’ll just move away to another section like I usually do. At least all the wagons are connected, so it’s easier to move.
And, I thought they were supposed to be muzzled on the metro but they rarely ever are.
The permanent rule also includes a requirement for muzzles.
As a dog-owner, I am not in favour of the kind of carte blanche that a lot of dog people want – basically the right to let their pets off-leash anywhere and everywhere. However, it would be really great if there were more dog-friendly businesses – coffee shops, restaurants, etc. I can think of one Mile-End cafe that allows pets (another used to but seems to have become intolerant, I’m assuming for permit reasons), plus one pharmacy that welcomes dogs. It would be great to be able to hang out socially indoors with a chill dog (and I would be the first to split if the dog wouldn’t cooperate). I’m new to the dog owning world, but everybody tells me Montreal is about as dog-hostile as it gets in North America. Surely we can aim for middle of the pack.
I was going to get upset about the e bike ban, but after reading it they do have a point
Lili + Oli was dog friendly for a long time, then got in trouble for it, but has I believe been inching back — mostly it’s so busy I don’t go there anymore. I am perfectly happy with a mix of dog friendly and dog unfriendly cafes and terrasses, but do feel that we do not need dog friendly pharmacies or grocery stores, things which are necessities. (That said, given it’s apparently illegal to tie your dog up outside while you run in to pick something up, we could change that.)
Just jumping in to give you a rim shot for the “middle of the pack” line, Joey. Well played. 🙂
I don’t think any business that prepares food should an allowed to have dogs inside and it’s crazy to me that there are people that think it’s ok.
CE
As long as the animal stays out of the food prep area I don’t mind. We do have cat cafés, after all 😉
One of my favourite local cafés is very dog-friendly. I don’t mind that dogs are welcome on the terrasse in the summer, but it isn’t a treat for me to have my coffee next to someone’s dog indoors. I don’t know whether it’s legal, but they also welcome cats and toddlers, so it’s kind of a free‑for‑all.
I wouldn’t ask a fellow patron to move or leave with their dog, but I’d move if I had to, and I wouldn’t choose to sit down beside them.
@jeather you can get animal meds at the pharmacy, which I guess is some kind of justification (similarly, malls with pet stores allow dogs). As for the rule about tying your dog up, in our experience, neighbourhood panhandlers are always eager to keep an eye on your dog and do a great job
@CE do you think they let the dogs in the kitchen? Next time you go grab a coffee and a croissant, count how many people wash their hands before eating (spoiler, it’s zero). Pet-friendly coffeeshops are common all over North America – are all those cities full of crazy people?
I also think public policy should accomodate my pets. Specifically, my face-sized Huntsman spiders.
You don’t need to bring the dog in to get the meds, though. I don’t care about malls, I am fine with a range of non-essential places allowing or not allowing pets as they wish, but I think that pharmacies and groceries, in particular, needn’t be pet-friendly. (I’ll accept allowing pets in actual carriers, not NYC subway “carriers”.)
Most dog owners are fine, of course, but it would be nice if there were a lot more pushback by them against the ones who aren’t fine and let their dogs run around on the terrasse/in the playground full of kids/etc.
I think a lot of the recent pushback is against poorly socialized dogs.
I’m of the opinion of dogs should not be allowed in most Montreal parks. I and many of my friends have had negative encounters with loose, large, aggression dogs on Mont Royal walking trails. My friend was attacked. Off-leash dogs should be a very big fine, at the minimum several hundred dollars.
A homeowner in Ahuntsic was renovating his garage and found an old heating oil tank buried in it. On trying to do the right thing about extracting it and decontaminating the soil, Samuel Rousseau ran into a kafkaesque entanglement of city bureaucracy to do with getting a grant to support the work and have it certified done.
The city has chosen sites for the modular housing to be built quickly to house the homeless: along Louvain West, and on a piece of the Hippodrome land.
Meantime, the warming centres which were supposed to open on December 1st – the date for which those camps were demolished on the theory that people would have somewhere to go – aren’t ready to open yet. But La Presse reports that there was a fire in one of the remaining Notre‑Dame Street sites on Wednesday that needed firefighters to put it out.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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!
Nicholas 14:38 on 2024-12-06 Permalink
Saw a doctor yesterday who was wearing a cross necklace. It was ostensibly under his scrubs, but the v neck was so low that it was easily visible most of the time.
jeather 14:59 on 2024-12-06 Permalink
Signs like schools with saint names? And though I don’t know what they refer to specifically re “missing school to be at the mosque”, is it taking specific religious holy days off, or is it a teenager just coming in late every day and saying it’s because they were praying.
Joey 15:18 on 2024-12-06 Permalink
I note that La Presse includes “teachers speaking Arabic to one another in the teacher’s lounge” as a violation of the secularism law. It seems to be conventional wisdom that French is the lingua franca of public schools, so much so that it’s common to hear of kids being yelled at by lunchtime monitors for speaking English in the playground, but what this has to do with religion is beyond me.
Spi 15:56 on 2024-12-06 Permalink
So is this an admission that banning religious symbols accomplished next to nothing in insuring that schools would be secular but was just a pretend measure
Margaret 08:29 on 2024-12-07 Permalink
If Legault’s intent is to stop prayer in public places, I think the Pope’s travel team need to know for a future visit. Also, are the more religious Christmas carols a form of prayer? Are holiday markets then restricted to carollers singing ‘Frosty the Snowman’ under his vision for strengthening the restrictions???
Uatu 08:47 on 2024-12-07 Permalink
Next Good Friday should be interesting to see the secular Inquisitors round up the scofflaw participants of the stations of the cross pilgrimage.
jeather 11:26 on 2024-12-07 Permalink
That’s just a historical recreation, Uatu.
Kate 12:37 on 2024-12-07 Permalink
Legault wants to stop all praying in public – so, as Uatu asks, what about that cross pilgrimage? What about the Portuguese parade for Senhor Santo Cristo? Will they too be shut down?
jeather 13:47 on 2024-12-07 Permalink
Kate, we all know that these will be waved away as somehow not falling into the category of prayer or religious. Cultural, or historical, or some other excuse. Perhaps the law will be carefully written to exclude them, or they’ll just find an exception later.