Updates from April, 2012 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 23:29 on 2012/04/30 Permalink | Reply  

    The woman tossed from a caleche after its horse spooked and bolted on Notre-Dame met the animal Monday and both seem to be well.

  • Kate 23:22 on 2012/04/30 Permalink | Reply  

    After watching the Twitter #manifencours tag marching up and down the streets of the city for hours nightly, it flitted across my mind that some of the protesters must be getting into better shape; OpenFile discovers it’s a fact.

    Thousands of people are conducting a march as I type this, and a “manifestation lumino-silencieuse” was also held at Berri Square.

    • Chris 07:12 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      :) same goes for the photogs and cameramen running up and down the protest lines with all that gear strapped around them all this time.

  • Kate 18:14 on 2012/04/30 Permalink | Reply  

    Examples of détournement being done by bixipoesie.ca – all kinds of quotes and bits of text covering the commercial messages on all but one Bixi at a stand in my neighbourhood.

    • qatzelok 19:12 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      What a wonderful way to correct mental environmental pollution. With positive messages that actually make you a better person, rather than a more eager consumer.

    • Jon Evans 19:51 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      I’m not sure if no one else thinks these things through, but let’s take a little journey through the logical series of events that will take place as long as ads on Bixi bikes continue to be covered up:

      People will no longer see the ads paid for by companies to Bixi.
      Companies will realize ad space on Bixi bikes aren’t worth much (or anything, or even have a negative value if Bixi bike advertisers are singled out as ‘mean old corporations who pollute our sight lines’).
      Companies will pay less money to advertise with Bixi or even stop advertising with them all together.
      Bixi no longer generates much ad revenue, and therefore must raise prices or ask for more government money or go out of business.
      People switch back to cars or public transport and people buy more gas! Yay!

      In any case, I’m pretty sure the goal of the people covering these ads won’t be reached since their theory on what will happen seems to be:

      Cover up Bixi ads.

      Why do these people want to make Bixi bikes more expensive and therefore less appealing to people? Damn right wingers and their schemes. I mean, there’s no way left wing hippie liberals could possibly be that stupid, right? And Qatzelok has to be a conservative spy and not actually just a complete moron.

    • ant6n 21:28 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Whoever covers those ads clearly does not have PROFIT!!! as the final goal.

    • Richard 21:49 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      So now we are calling people complete morons. Do we really have to talk to each other in this way?

    • qatzelok 21:50 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Jon, you’ve convinced me that the only way we can ride bicycles is to let corporations brainwash us with Pavlov’s dog prompts. There is no other way.

    • Kate 23:53 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Sorry, I was out. Jon Evans, that kind of speech is not acceptable here. No ad hominem – says so in the notes on commenting. Any future comments will be screened.

    • Alex J. 02:31 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      No-one has addressed the core of Jon’s argument and I tend to agree with him. (Même si j’aurais évité les insultes.) If I want a product or service (e.g. a Bixi bike) at a price inferior to what the market would otherwise make me pay, it seems reasonable to accept small advertisements such as those. (Bien sûr ceux qui militent pour la nationalisation et la gratuité totale des Bixi seront déçus!) D’aileurs j’aimerais poser la question aux personnes qui prônent cette espèce de “pureté sans publicité”: c’est quoi au juste le fondement de votre philosophie? Dites-moi si je me trompe, mais ça a drôlement l’air d’une extension de la “lutte anti-capitaliste”…

    • Ian 04:46 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      ‘People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

      You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

      Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

      You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.


    • JS 07:44 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Bixi ads are like those warning labels on cigarettes – they turn invisible after initial exposure. Bixipoésie is kids screaming “Look at me!” The actual content of their détournement is the shallow piffle of overgrown children everywhere.

    • David Tighe 07:45 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      I see nothing wrong with ads on Bixi bikes if they reduce the cost of my subscription. I think covering them up is a puerile gesture.

    • mdblog 07:49 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      I have no problem with ads on Bixis but I understand if some people do. What I do find intriguing is Ian’s post. It made me ask the question: Who are “The Advertisers”? I think the answer, as disturbing as it may be for all the “revolutionaries” out there who are fighting “the man”, is that The Advertisers are all of us.

      If the medium is the message, then the content is the audience. – McLuhan

    • JS 08:07 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Isn’t Banksy a millionaire artist who, like the bixipoétes, isn’t content to just put his “content” on public view but has to remind you who to make the cheques out to? How long before “Best of bixipoésie” books start showing up at local craft fairs? Banksky vs corporate logos – it’s just a matter of taste. How many trees have to die to print those fancy art books, and who knows what the environmental impact of that coated stock is? Honestly, I’ve lived in Bixi country the whole time and I’d be hard pressed to name any of the advertisers? Who pays attention to this stuff except those clamoring for s a piece of that attention?

    • Martin 08:11 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Lots of talk about the goodness of ads here, not much talk about the goodness of poetry.

    • Spock 08:19 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Vandalism at its finest.

    • j2 09:40 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      How about the bixipoésie pay for placement, if they feel so strongly about it?

    • ant6n 09:43 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Somebody should put Rio Tinto and Desjardins stickers on top of the bixi poesie stickers, to make a point.

    • j2 09:54 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Clicked reply too soon – my concern is losing the use of Bixi because of other peoples ideals about advertising. I try to live a NoLogo life, this is a real service with human benefit subsidised by advertising, as opposed to useless noise in the environment.

      (I can’t help but wonder how many of them are wearing Nike logos, etc?)

    • qatzelok 11:17 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      @ mdblog “The Advertisers are all of us”
      If that’s the case, then the poetry is also from all of us. Advertising is a form of corruption of the human spirit. To defend it, is like defending traces of pharamaceutical drugs in our water supply by saying that “Glaxo-Klein is all of us.” As is soylent green, right?

    • Tux 12:41 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Forcing someone to become a roving billboard is offensive. They PAY the guys who drive billboard trucks around, but Bixi riders are PAYING for the privilege of doing an advertiser’s work. I get that ads subsidize Bixi, and that’s good, I want Bixi prices low, but there must be a better way. Just putting ads on the stations say. Or have ad-bikes be only a small percentage of bikes in the system and get a small discount for riding one.

      Personally, I would do my damnedest to search for extra revenue streams in the local community rather than relying on corporate sponsors. Where are the local small business ads on Bixis? Why is it all Telus and Desjardins?

    • Kate 13:44 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Tux, the answer to the second part of your question is that it’s simply easier to make one or two big deals with corporations and print up a whole lot of inserts with one or two campaigns on them and off you go.

      Selling ads piecemeal to small businesses – persuading them they should advertise, getting their logos and information, then trying to collect the nickels and dimes they owe – is a lot more work and requires a whole lot more staff. Big corporations have whole departments for giving away money to improve their image with the public. Small companies often don’t get this idea even if it would be very beneficial for them to do so, and of course don’t necessarily have the funds for it either.

      I’m not saying what Bixi is doing is right but it’s almost inevitable given the situation.

    • Josh 14:29 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Tux, I don’t see how anyone’s been forced. If you don’t like having an ad on your bike, there’s a simple solution: buy your own bike!

    • mdblog 15:05 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      @ qatzelok

      Tell me something that isn’t the corruption of the human spirit! Besides, are you the self-anointed guardian of the human spirit? I certainly don’t remember granting you the right to tell me what’s good for my soul.

      By the way, unless you were raised in abject poverty and never received a dime of social assistance, you have consumed more precious global resources by the time you were 5 than the great majority of human individuals throughout the world will in their entire lifetimes. How dare you do such a thing and then claim to be representing something as sacred as the human spirit!

      The fact that you are using a computer to comment on this website means that you are supporting a vast capitalist network of designers, engineers, logistics providers, managers, primary material extractors (see mining), shareholders, patent holders. You are supporting the use of third world labourers who put together the electronics inside your computer and the cell phone in your pocket. You are supporting the destruction of natural habitat that needed to be flooded in order to generate the hydroelectricity you’re using right now. And don’t get me started on how many hydrocarbons needed to be burned to transport the materials needed to build the dams in the remote north, not to mention the carbon intensity of producing millions of tonnes of concrete.

      If Bixi can’t put ads on the bikes to help pay for the system and keep the cost down, then you have to stop using a computer. Trying to defend it is like trying to defend the very worst evils of capitalism such as traces of pharamaceutical drugs in our water supply!

    • ant6n 00:58 on 2012/05/02 Permalink

      Bixi should consider an “adopt a bike” program, allowing people their own messages, poems, images or possibly personal ads. Make it open for individiuals and small business.

    • Nigel Spencer 14:59 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

      Why not rent out the space: “Your poem here-$5. a week”?

    • Nigel Spencer 15:02 on 2012/05/07 Permalink

      Better yet, a contest with a $5. entrance fee? The winner goes on the Bixis in a chosen neighbourhood for a month. Maybe even one “winner” per Bixi station?

  • Kate 12:29 on 2012/04/30 Permalink | Reply  

    Rima Elkouri meets a Hasidic man running a blog about his community – she doesn’t provide a link, but it seems to be Outremont Hassid that she’s talking about.

    She makes one error, mentioning that the Russian Orthodox parish couldn’t hold its Easter procession because of the borough’s temporary ban, but it went ahead anyway, as reported by Radio-Canada on April 15.

  • Kate 12:03 on 2012/04/30 Permalink | Reply  

    A site called bixipoesie.ca is under attack by official Bixi people because it hopes to replace Bixi ads with poetry and slogans.

  • Kate 11:34 on 2012/04/30 Permalink | Reply  

    While banks in the US, UK and elsewhere were getting very public bailouts in 2009, Canada quietly passed $114 billion to its banks, a fact only coming to light now.

    • qatzelok 12:49 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      The reason this massive brown envelope was handed out so “quietly” is because our media is so corrupt. The Gazette probably ran ‘a crossing guard story’ on its front page that day.

    • Josh 15:33 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      That money was given out so that banks had liquidity to keep credit rolling for small- and medium-sized businesses. Taxpayers made all their money back and then some. If the issue is the secrecy and speed with which it was done… well, better to have inflexible governments who cannot respond when there is a crisis?

    • qatzelok 19:14 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Yes, without stealing our tax dollars, those banks wouldn’t have had anything to play pretend banker with. And if banks can’t hang onto their own money, then it’s the taxpayer’s job to hand over all the money that was earmarked for social programs. Josh, if the mafia needs a PR person, I think you ought to send them your CV.

    • Josh 20:23 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      qatzelok: ALL THE MONEY AND THEN SOME was returned to the treasury. What part of that is difficult for you?

    • Marc 20:31 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      @ Josh: Please don’t feed the trolls.

    • Josh 20:49 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Right. Sorry.

    • qatzelok 21:53 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      “ALL THE MONEY AND THEN SOME was returned to the treasury. What part of that is difficult for you?”
      I’ll admit that the shell game that the Banksters are playing moves pretty fast. Which is why they need to be quickly defanged before they destroy anything that they haven’t destroyed already.

    • Spock 08:23 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      qatzelok, maybe you should go live in Cuba. This was you can enjoy the best of what communism has to offer as well as great weather….

    • Kate 09:07 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Guys, qatzelok is here by my permission. I know trolls. qatzelok is not a troll, and I will not tolerate name-calling here.

    • qatzelok 11:18 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      @ Spock: “maybe you should go live in Cuba”

      A friend of mine just got back from two weeks in Cuba, and she had a great time. So I guess that was a compliment. :)

    • Spock 18:46 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Staying at a resort is not Cuba. Scrounging around for a loaf of bread is… that’s the Cuba i refer to my friend.

  • Kate 10:11 on 2012/04/30 Permalink | Reply  

    Last year’s sale of a Pellan diptych (replaced by a photo of the Queen) was only the beginning of a fire sale of valuable works of art by the federal government.

    • Ian 10:51 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      According to the CBC News Alerts twitter feed, “DFAIT says it has no plans to selloff Canadian art work . Works could have included Riopelle, Kurelek, Borduas#cdnpoli”

    • Kate 10:57 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Here we go – Foreign Affairs minister stops the sale.

  • Kate 09:06 on 2012/04/30 Permalink | Reply  

    The taxi incident video is spreading through the internet – not a great bit of PR for Montreal, leaving aside the actual incident, in which the cabbie and one of the other men seen in the video are being charged.

    Another video spreading like wildfire is Lipdub Rouge, made by striking students at Dorchester Square – there’s even a separate soundtrack with the lyrics. Metro has also put up a list of 25 videos connected with the student strike.

  • Kate 08:41 on 2012/04/30 Permalink | Reply  

    Tolls and a new gasoline tax are being studied as new ways of raising funds for public transit. La Presse’s Bruno Bisson inquires into the sources of transit funding and alternatives.

    • paul 09:44 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      We should all go on ‘strike’
      Maybe maybe even throw smoke bombs in classrooms to make our point?

      (Sorry Kate for the unnecessary snark)

    • Spock 08:25 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      We should burn Revenue Quebec offices, trash gas stations and throw molotov cocktails at buses…

      If the students can do it then so can hard working people…

      Oh that’s right, we have morals. :)

    • Pierre 17:11 on 2012/05/18 Permalink

      if drivers have to help pay for transit, how about bicyclists have to help pay to maintain roads.

    • Kate 18:56 on 2012/05/18 Permalink

      Those bike tires really chew up the roadbed, don’t they?

  • Kate 20:47 on 2012/04/29 Permalink | Reply  

    Projet Montréal candidate Érika Duchesne has been declared winner in the Vieux-Rosemont byelection. Official numbers.

  • Kate 18:16 on 2012/04/29 Permalink | Reply  

    This should get more press than it is: the Harper Tories have passed a new law saying foreign temp workers can be paid less than the “prevailing wage”, a decision that till now their immigration minister has rejected.

    • Raoul 07:31 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      great, instead of screwing illegals on the black market you can screw temps legally. And im the same breath they ask why unemployed persons dont take these jobs. With measures like these coming into play, it should be pretty obvious there is less money in some of those jobs than there is on EI or welfare. Lets face it the only reason they are temp is because the govt doesnt want them claiming more benefits then what they earned in those shitty jobs.

    • Kate 09:13 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      I assumed they’re temporary jobs because the people doing them aren’t landed immigrants – they’re brought here for the contract and are supposed to go home at the end of it. The phenomenon’s most familiar in Quebec with the Mexicans who come here to do the harvest, but with this new law we’ll see a lot more of it. Employers love this kind of thing – they get their work done cheap, but don’t have any payroll taxes or commitment to their workers, it’s like being rolled back to the 1890s.

      I would have to say, about this: where are the big unions? They should be outraged about it. Workers are workers, regardless of where they come from and their citizenship status. Because people are poor and are willing to put up with crap should not devalue their humanity.

    • Adam 09:13 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Let me get this straight: the government is making it easier for foreigners to get a job here, and your objection is that it’s bad for the foreigners? If it’s such a bad deal, don’t worry: none of them will take the work. If they take the work, it’s because they think that it’s the best available option. Would you prefer the government not have created this new class of visa?

      Yes, it would be better to just have open borders, period, but it’s not going to happen and any step that lets people come here to find a better life is an improvement. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    • Adam 09:14 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Kate, what planet do you live on? You seem to think that the alternative to these jobs are high-paying jobs. It’s not: the alternative is NO jobs. Unskilled workers are not going to get a high wage because no one is going to pay them $20/hr for labour that is only worth less than half of that. That’s just economics 101.

    • Adam 09:15 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      And incidentally, unions are certainly going to be against it because unions as a general rule HATE immigration. They want to keep the labour supply as limited as possible, and that means keeping the greasy foreigners out.

    • Kate 09:25 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Adam, if people living here are undercut by temp workers who work for less and with no benefits, those people will be pushed to work (legally or illegally) for lower money and fewer or no benefits. The bottom is already out of our labour situation illegally – I have seen this with my own eyes, I’m not making it up – and the Tories, instead of sticking up for people who have clawed their way into Canada and are trying to make ends meet, has just officially cut them loose to fend for themselves. No, I am not happy about it. I live on this planet and I feel more for the people at the low end, not for the employers.

    • Adam 10:24 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Yes, obviously supply increases, prices fall. Again, economics 101. In other words, what you’re saying is that we should keep out foreigners to restrict the labour supply. And if that condemns them to a miserable subsistence existence in their own countries instead of trying to make a better life for themselves here, well, that’s not your problem. Out of sight of of mind?

      Keep telling yourself that this is about Big, Bad employers if it makes you feel better, but the truth is that it’s about poor people in poor countries and whether they’re entitled to the same opportunities to improve their lives as the rest of us.

    • Kate 11:16 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Are you happy with pure social darwinism, where when “supply” increases, some should be allowed to starve while others prosper? If so, your position makes logical sense.

      It costs more to live in our climate than in the south. That alone is a factor that works against this two-tier plan, and against making people established in Canada “compete” with workers from the south.

    • Adam 11:36 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Kate, the scenario you’re describing is exactly what is happening now. The people who are suffering just happen to be suffering outside of Canada. Are you saying that since it’s happening abroad, it doesn’t count?

      No one has the right to protect his or her standard of living by forbidding other human beings from competing against them. It’s obscenely immoral.

      For crying out loud, you are literally arguing that poor people should keep suffering “over there” instead of coming here to seek a better life. Are you really comfortable with that position?

    • Kate 12:00 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      If it’s happening abroad we can’t do anything about it. We can do something to make sure people here are not treated shabbily – whether they’re established here as immigrants or not. If we’ve admitted people as immigrants and citizens, it means we’ve made some kind of commitment to them, and yes, as things stand, with nation states and borders, they should get priority in our concerns, without making that mean treating other people like crap.

      Of course we have the right to protect our standard of living, to fight for reasonable payment for work, for health care, for safe clean places to live. I’d even say we have the duty to fight for better lives, because history shows we don’t get what we don’t fight for, and the minute we give up the struggle, things start being taken away from us.

    • Robert H 12:06 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Adam, of course Kate isn’t arguing that foreign workers should suffer. She doesn’t think that millions of struggling Canadians should have to give up hard-won gains to make it easier for certain employers to exploit foreign workers. The borderless world you claim won’t happen will quickly arrive with laws like this: we will have a majority prole class made up of people resigned to eking out a life-long living in low-paying work. The race to the bottom drags down everybody till we all might as well be living in China, Russia, or Uzbekistan. Since you don’t seem to mind people who have little to begin with doing with less, ask yourself what YOU are willing to give up. You make a sin out of aspiration.

    • mdblog 12:18 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Adam, your logic is confounding. I imagine that if Kate argued that we should be fighting against the suffering of people throughout the world (which she is not) you would claim that this is uneconomic and senseless.

      Canada has a proud tradition of integrating and helping immigrants going all the way back to the natives helping the Europeans (the French) survive here when they first arrived. It’s one of the core values of our country and one that I applaud Kate for standing up for.

    • Adam 13:05 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      “If it’s happening abroad we can’t do anything about it.”

      Yes, we can. We can let them come here and enjoy the same opportunities as the rest of us.

      “ask yourself what YOU are willing to give up”

      Let foreign workers compete with me. I’m up to the challenge.

      “You make a sin out of aspiration.”

      You mean the aspiration of people who are willing to give up their lives and all that they know for a new country in the hopes of having something better for themselves and their children? That aspiration? Because that’s the one that you seem to have a problem with and that I’m in favour of nurturing.

      “easier for certain employers to exploit foreign workers”

      Please put this repulsive canad to bed. Foreign workers come here because they want to experience what you call “exploitation” – in other words, a job.

      You people are tying yourselves into knots to avoid facing the fact that at the heart of what you are advocating is closing borders to poor people from poor countries so that they can’t strive for a better future. It’s appalling. I wonder if you’d make the same argument to their faces: “Sorry, but you’re just going to have to stay here and continue to be stuck in poverty while I enjoy my Western lifestyle back in Canada. Anyways, good luck!”

    • Kate 13:51 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      We can let them come here and enjoy the same opportunities as the rest of us.

      But that’s precisely what we’re not doing. We’re bringing them here to do work more cheaply than we do, and shipping them home when we no longer “need” them. If you think all workers should be treated that way, then I guess it’s OK by you. It isn’t by me.

      I have never, ever said we should close our borders, so please stop it with that straw man you’re punching. Many people immigrate to Canada every year and, once here, need to be treated like the rest of us. The Tories are making it harder to get into Canada, and although the details of this new plan are not clear, it wouldn’t surprise me if part of the deal is that they agree not to become refugees or otherwise make a bid to stay permanently. But I admit I’m just guessing this is how it may work.

      However we slice it, creating a class of second-class citizens is a very bad trend, both for the people being treated like commodities, and for people here who struggled to come here (borrowing some of your overemotional rhetoric) hoping to be treated better than this.

    • Adam 14:48 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Kate, the question here is simple: are you in favour of allowing more unskilled workers into this country or not? If you are, then it shouldn’t matter that it’s a crappy program that only allows them in temporarily. It’s something, and it’s better than nothing. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Conversely, if you are upset that this program is likely to depress wages (which it will, if foreigners take advantage of it), then the logical implication of that belief is that we should *not* allow unskilled workers to immigrate here. How could you possibly simultaneously oppose this program because it will depress wages *and* support generally relaxing restrictions on unskilled worker immigration? That would depress wages even more.

      I know that you don’t mean to argue that we should close the borders, but it’s the obvious conclusion of the argument that a greater supply of labour is bad because it pushes wages down. Unless you would argue that we should only allow rich, skilled workers into Canada, which I doubt you would.

      Yeah, I don’t want a second class of visa, either. Yeah, who the hell knows what Harper’s motives are. But since realistically, the alternative isn’t free migration but rather no program of this kind at all and (as you say) just making it harder to get into Canada, it’s better than nothing and I’ll give the government half a cheer for implementing it.

    • Adam 14:55 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      “If you think all workers should be treated that way, then I guess it’s OK by you. It isn’t by me.”

      And just to be clear, this program would do nothing but make a new option available to foreigners. It’s not as good an option as it might otherwise be, but no one is going to take it unless they think it’s the best alternative they have. So giving them a lousy option is better than nothing. Again, something is better than nothing.

    • qatzelok 15:15 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Adam’s corporatist benevolence (`lots of good jobs for all the poor foreigners’) ignores the role that Canadian corporations play in keeping other nations poor through military attack and collusion with large financiers. Most of those ‘poor foreigners’ would be happier back in their native country, if Canadian corporatists would just stop bombing them and bankrupting them via our dictators.

    • Adam 15:44 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      qatzelok gets the prize for non-sequitur of the day. Seriously, is changing the subject to imply that I believe random things that are totally unrelated the best you can do? Did I say something that sounded like I was pro-war? Do you think it might be possible to be both pro-peace *and* pro-open borders? If we stop the war and open the borders, even better.

      And, “corporatist benevolence” indeed. Now apparently being in favour of making it easier for poor foreigners to get jobs is corporatism. I guess I should be grateful that I’m the victim of such corporatist exploitation (also called a job).

    • mdblog 15:58 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Adam, go get a drink, take a valium, smoke a joint; whatever you need to do to calm down and think some of this out. It may sound crazy, but you may not be as infallible on this issue as you think.

    • Adam 16:55 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      Sorry mdblog, but I get worked up about this kind of thing. At least when conservatives argue for keeping people out, they will admit that they just don’t like foreigners. That’s the kind of intellectual consistency I can get behind, in a sad way.

    • David Tighe 07:56 on 2012/05/01 Permalink

      Reducing the wages of foreign workers by 15% is a very retrograde step. The logic behind it is to drive down wages for the lowest paid workers. The main effect will be to bring down the “prevailing wage” as employers maximise use of cheaper labour. It is I agree astonishing that the unions do not complain but I think that unions have long ceased to defend other than pockets of highly paid and protected workers.

  • Kate 18:11 on 2012/04/29 Permalink | Reply  

    McGill Daily has an item on how resistance is not violence. The World Health Organization defines violence: Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.

    Another demo is to begin at Berri at 8:30.

    • Hamza 05:27 on 2012/04/30 Permalink


    • mdblog 10:43 on 2012/04/30 Permalink

      The comments under the article are fascinating. Seriously, Mcgill has some very smart people studying there and their opinions are worth noting.

  • Kate 17:50 on 2012/04/29 Permalink | Reply  

    I wrote some brief notes on the Vieux-Rosemont byelection on OpenFile yesterday.

    The Rosemont paper says that by 6 pm, only 19% of eligible voters had cast a vote.

  • Kate 15:04 on 2012/04/29 Permalink | Reply  

    Kahnawake Mohawks narrowly voted down a proposed casino plan in a referendum on Saturday, the third time the idea has been presented to them in one form or another since 1993.

  • Kate 15:02 on 2012/04/29 Permalink | Reply  

    Short text and graphic video of an altercation between a pedestrian and a cabbie late Saturday, after which the cabbie runs deliberately right over the guy.

    • ant6n 16:46 on 2012/04/29 Permalink

      Was there ever anything about that police car accelerating through a small group of protestors on wednesday or thursday or so? It looked pretty bad on tv, although everybody was able to jump (barely) out of the way.

    • Kate 18:26 on 2012/04/29 Permalink

      I can’t say I’ve seen footage of that, but if it turns up I’ll post it.

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