Updates from February, 2013 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 16:34 on 2013/02/26 Permalink | Reply  

    A crowd CBC radio just estimated at 10,000 is on the move; the demonstration has been declared illegal.

    Update: Ten arrests – including an unusual one by the RCMP. Some photos.

    Pauline Marois says the social crisis is behind us.

     
    • Doobious 18:08 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      That’s a lot of douche-bags in one place.

    • Alex L 18:39 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @ Doobious. Very constructive commenting.

    • Ian 18:41 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      I assume he meant the police. :D

    • denpanosekai 19:57 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      From my window it looked more like 3-4000. Whatever. Shigoto shigoto…

    • Al 20:58 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Nah I think he meant the collectivists/statists/socialists roaming the streets. I love the fact they are biting the PQist hand that fed them tho – pure d-light.

    • walkerp 21:43 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      I applaud their vigour. They are keeping the fight going even after the major victory of turfing the Liberals. We live in a democracy and so few of us actually participate in any meaningful way beyond snide, smug superior commentary of the safe and fearful.

    • Bill Binns 07:20 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      @walkerp – Forming a mob and throwing rocks and snowballs at the Police is not participation in a democracy. These people are raging against the democracy after not being handed the benefits they demanded. Participating in a democracy means you have to be ready to suck it up when your opinion is in the minority and you don’t get your own way.

      If a bunch of suburban and rural unilingual francophones can’t get what they want from the PQ, they may as well give up now or attempt to form their own party.

    • Ian 08:28 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      4 arrests for throwing objects (snowballs), 4 arrests for “illegal assembly”, 2 arrested for throwing rocks/ breaking windows. So we can assume 2 legitimate arrests out of 10, 000 (estimated) protestors (and we don’t hear if they were formally charged or simply arrested) – which gives the cops the right to disperse the entire demonstration. Hardly a “mob”, Bill. And since when did the SPVM become such delicate flowers that throwing a snowball counts as “aggresion armée”? We’re talking cops with shields, helmets, and full riot armour here, not a bunch of frail, helpless civil servants. Note that this is a day after these delicate flowers were caught on video beating a cameraman for La Presse.

    • Ephraim 08:32 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      Frankly, I think we should throw the cost of damages and policing into the university education budget. You want to assemble peacefully, no cost. You violate the peace, you get 25 to 50 extra people in your classroom, because we can’t afford an extra prof.

    • Ian 08:38 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      Frankly, I think if the SPVM stopped using helicopters instead of communicating crowd movement with one another by police radio or checking their iPhones the “old fashioned way”, they would save a lot of money. In an article last year it was noted that it costs at least 1,000 an hour per helicopter. I saw 4 helicopters in the sky and heard them for about 8 hours, so that’s 32k a day (not counting pilot salaries, maintenance costs, or fuel costs) completely wasted. Multiply that by last summer. How many tuitions would that have paid for, I wonder? We spent 32k yesterday to monitor people THROWING SNOWBALLS. Can you say overzealous policing? That’s sure how it looks to me.

    • Bill Binns 08:58 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      @Ian – Completely agree on the helicopters and would add that the huge police presence is usually unnecessary as well. Let’s not minimize yesterday’s violence however. The Gazette says “snowballs, chunks of ice and rocks”. How many snowballs, chunks of ice and rocks should someone have to be pelted with while doing their job? They were also throwing these things at police mounted on horses which could be extremely dangerous.

      The cops should stay out of the demonstrations right up until they announce they are illegal. Once that determination is made, they should go in full force and be prepared to make hundreds of arrests if needed.

    • Ian 09:15 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      They say “snowballs, ice, and rocks”, I hear “snowballs made from dirty snow”. You know how when kids get into snowball fights one of them always ends up crying about how there was a rock in the last one when maybe there was a bit of gravel or how a snowball packed too hard was a chunk of ice and they totally did it on purpose, boo hoo hoo? Yeah, that.

    • Ian 09:19 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      And yes, we SHOULD minimize it. 4 arrests out of 10 000 people is hardly a riot. If you’re scared that a horse might get hit by snowballs, maybe you shouldn’t be using horses as a tactical weapon – and let’s face it, that’s what the purpose of horses in a crowd control situation is. The NYPD were roundly criticised for using horses against the Occupy protesters last year, for instance. http://www.thenation.com/article/164167/why-did-nypd-use-horses-occupy-wall-street-protesters#

    • Bill Binns 09:35 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      “The Nation” came down on the side of OWS? Gasp! What did the Daily Worker and Mother Jones have to say? Let me go grab some equally relevant Fox News links regarding OWS.

      Crowd control is the main job of mounted police in an urban environment. Being mounted on horses allows cops to see over the crowd and for the crowd to more easily see the officers. Do you also blame the cops for the damage done to several police cars yesterday because they should not have brought cars to a demonstration?

    • walkerp 09:44 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      @Bill Binns:

      “suburban and rural unilingual francophones” What are you talking about?

      Yeah, you might want to go out and actually meet some of these students. I know quite a few of them and while it is not the largest sample size, I can tell you that they are mostly bilingual and quite urban. I don’t really know what that has to do with anything though.

    • qatzelok 09:58 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      Bill Binns: “The cops should stay out of the demonstrations right up until they announce they are illegal. Once that determination is made, they should go in full force and be prepared to make hundreds of arrests if needed.”

      Hosni Mubarak wants his strategy back.

    • Bill Binns 10:23 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      @Walkerp – I have to admit that I do not know any of the Red Square folks. I do however, know several Concordia students and some McGill and Concordia employees and they don’t know any Red Square folks either. This “crisis” has been an overwhelmingly francophone event and even within that group skewed heavily towards UQAM.

      http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/24/barbara-kay-quebecs-mindless-mobs-reflect-frenchenglish-divide/

    • Kate 10:39 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      You think Barbara Kay understands what’s going on here, on the ground?

    • Ian 10:40 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      “The National Post” came down on the side against the student protestors? Gasp! It might be where you live, Bill – I live in the Plateau and I saw red squares on young and old, English and French alike last summer. I also know quite a few peopel that work at Concordia and McGill, and they all wore the square. I participated in marches with tens of thousands of people at a time, hundreds of thousands at the height of the protests. I participated in the nightly casseroles in my neighbourhood, with neighbours of all ages, from children to retirees. I’m not sure what rock you were hiding under not to have heard about it.

      I’m fairly certain your enclave doesn’t exactly reflect the overall mood of the street – I work near the Westmount/NDG border and nobody in NDG or Westmount wore the square. Hardly surprising, that.

    • Bill Binns 11:25 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      I seem to remember one public poll after another showing support for the tuition increases and bill 78 over the summer. Maybe your enclave was the exception and not the rule.

    • Ian 12:12 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      The increases, to some extent, but with bill 78 you’re making stuff up. That was what spurred the cassseroles and turned the summer from a student movement into a popular movement, with people starting to question the constitutional validity of the suppression of legitimate protest including people from within the legal system. In the end, I seem to remember the PLQ losing the government even though Charest thought his law-n-order “tough guy” routine would play well and people saw right through the charade. I remember quite well that you personally tried to minimize and dismiss the magnitude of hundreds of thousands of people in the streets last year so I’m not sure why you’re acting like we haven’t heard all your tired old lies before.

    • Bill Binns 12:57 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

    • Ian 14:04 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      I’m just as capable of searching this site as you are, Bill. Your selective memory fools nobody. Funny that you keep choosing Toronto newspapers for your insights into Montreal’s situation.

    • Philippe 14:19 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      From this La Presse article:

      “Une mince majorité de Québécois, 51%, appuie l’adoption de la loi spéciale, mais une forte majorité de répondants se range derrière la quasi-totalité de ses dispositions.”

    • Bill Binns 14:29 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      @Ian – I don’t doubt you are capable of searching on your own. I posted those links because you accused me of “making things up” and called me a liar in the same comment. Both links came from the first page of a Google search for “montreal student protests public support poll”.

    • Ian 15:22 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      Linking a single poll from a student strike that lasted over 100 days is a bit rich. Philippe, you posted a crop poll from May 19 – by the 26th this is what the CROP poll found (according to the CBC):
      61 per cent of Quebecers think Bill 78 won’t resolve the crisis.
      44 per cent think the government is responsible for the deadlock.
      36 per cent point the finger at student groups.

      Bill – you can cherry pick all you want but you simply can’t hand-wave away over 100 days of protest, hundreds of thousands of student protesters in the streets, the birth of the spontaneous, the neighbourhood-based casserole movement blocking downtown streets night after night for weeks, and the fall of the Charest government… and that one of the first things Marois did when elected – on the first day, in fact – was to repeal bill 78.

    • Philippe 15:40 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      @Ian: And yet, from that very same May 26th poll:

      “Globalement, les Québécois approuvent à 70 % – à 81 % à Québec – la loi spéciale interdisant de bloquer l’accès aux cégeps et universités, à la fin du mois d’août; à 70 % l’obligation de prévenir à l’avance les policiers du trajet que suivra chaque démonstration comptant plus de 50 participants; à 71 % que toute manifestation, étudiante ou pas, soit soumise aux règles édictées par la loi 78.”

    • Ian 15:51 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      So hear we are with the same poll being clearly interpreted in different ways depending on the slant of the writer of the article, what does this prove? One poll, out of a student strike that went on over 100 days. Re-read what I said to Bill – you can cherry pick all you want but …

    • Philippe 16:43 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      It’s only cherry picking if you’re omitting contrary data. I can’t find any poll that shows majority public opposition to the hike or bill 78. I think part of the issue is that those polls reflect on one hand, favorable opinions to the tuiton hike, and on the other, increasing dislike for Jean Charest’s cynical grin and the Liberals in general.

  • Kate 15:29 on 2013/02/26 Permalink | Reply  

    Don’t put that shovel away yet. Check-moi this weather warning: 15 to 25 cm of snow starting Wednesday afternoon, followed by more on Thursday.

     
    • Bill Binns 16:21 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Woohoo, bring it on! (Said the guy who works from home and doesn’t own a shovel)

    • Tux 16:31 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      *sigh* (Says the guy who commutes by public transit from NDG to DDO) At least it’s not getting cold… so I won’t freeze my butt off when the bus is, inevitably, late due to the snow.

  • Kate 07:45 on 2013/02/26 Permalink | Reply  

    Things sound very tense in the fire department with bad feeling there between management and workers.

     
  • Kate 07:44 on 2013/02/26 Permalink | Reply  

    For years Montreal has acquiesced in the official Quebec line that everything should be unilingually French, so it’s a bit of a shift to see some support for Pierrefonds-Roxboro keeping its bilingual status. But I have a feeling this support may not linger past the end of the Applebaum era.

     
    • qatzelok 09:58 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      If Pierrefonds were a shopping center, I’d be in favor of keeping it bilingual as well. This would help ensure bigger profits from West Island anglo consumers. But if it’s a community, then I’d prefer to see it speak one language together. Which is it?

    • Kate 10:12 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      You’d prefer, but not everyone sees an unquestioned benefit in monoculture.

    • qatzelok 10:13 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Malls are all about revenue generation, and not about building community. Moneyculture.

    • Philip 10:14 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      qatzelok, do the sheeple have a chance at freeing themselves? Or are you content with keeping them enslaved to the apparent corporate angloworld interests so that you can keep preaching your morally elite worldview?

      There’s progress, and then there’s the opportunity for a cheap jeer. I think you prefer the latter.

    • qatzelok 10:16 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Philip: “There’s progress” Really? Where? Most of the Anglos in Montreal come from non-Anglophone cultures that were forced by economics to forget their mother tongue. Is this the “progress” you recommend?

    • Philip 10:28 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      No. As a lowly and un-liberal-arts-educated scientist, I can’t recommend progress. I can just hope good things happen and support what seems right. And part of me believes that sometimes you’ve got the right ideas for how we can make the world (including Quebec) better.

      Is there a problem with mall culture or moneyculture of whatever you’re talking about there? Yes, of course. But instead of making it apparent, you defer to your attack on West Island Anglos and their cultureless scourge on society. It’s a cheap jeer. For you who clearly knows a lot about the wrongs of our society, you’re giving zero chance for things to change, for people to change. Meanwhile, these people have lives and families and clearly aren’t apologetic (nor self-aware) of the [apparently/arguably] bad things they’re doing. They keep living their life, and nothing changes.

      Cynicism doesn’t lead to progress.

    • Ian 10:30 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      qatzi, that’s absurd. You can’t make such a sweeping (and incredibly inaccurate) generalization without at least explaining the mental gymnastics involved in such a statement. For example, most of the Jews in Montreal are anglos because as non-catholics they weren’t allowed in the French school board – which, conversely, is why so many of the Irish did assimilate into francophone culture. Essentially the real force of segregation historically is the church, not the language, and the catholic church were very xenophobic.

    • Kate 10:31 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      A lot of the people you mention are trilingual, qatzelok. I have friends who speak English, French AND Italian, Portuguese, Arabic or Vietnamese. And they benefit from it, or can you simply not see that people gain access to more possibilities in life by knowing more languages?

      Also, you’re very fucking snotty about money. Who’s paying your bills if you can be so disdainful of people’s need to work, need to earn money, need to buy things for themselves and their families?

    • Philip 10:35 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Continued, qatzelok:

      “This would help ensure bigger profits from West Island anglo consumers.”

      You’re saying you have no issue with squeezing money out of the hopeless sheeple because they’re not worth a damn.

      “Most of the Anglos in Montreal come from non-Anglophone cultures that were forced by economics to forget their mother tongue.”

      And now all of a sudden West Island anglos were actually the victims of the pressure of capitalism, and lost their culture due to the evil force of society.

      You can’t make anything out of that. Where are you standing?

    • Blork 11:17 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Wait a sec… qatzelok said “If Pierrefonds were a shopping center, I’d be in favor of keeping it bilingual as well. This would help ensure bigger profits from West Island anglo consumers. ” Then he said “But if it’s a community, then I’d prefer to see it speak one language together.”

      This implies that anglo consumers in the West Island can only function in English. Yet he wants the “community” to “speak one language together” (by which he obviously means French).

      So what he’s really saying is that he does not consider anglos to be part of the community. He’s saying that the “community” consists of Francophones speaking French together while the anglos stand outside of it and can do nothing but shut the f*ck up and go shopping.

      Nice community spirit there, qatzelok.

    • qatzelok 11:20 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @ Philip: “all of a sudden West Island anglos were actually the victims of the pressure of capitalism,”

      This is only “all of a sudden” because we aren’t taught to think about the implications of Irish people fighting for English. “They starved us to death and killed our language, and now, we fight for their right to dominate others.”

      And Blork, shopping isn’t what makes a community. Cooperating and talking together are what make a group of people come together. If we continue to define ourselves as “anglo,” we will not be able to participate in Quebec society as anything more than consumer drones.

    • Blork 11:22 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      qatzelok, I invite you to re-read my comment and then to try to find any connection between it and your reply to it.

    • Philippe 11:22 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @Ian: In view of your obvious expertise on Franco-Catholic antisemitism, I’d like you to peruse and debunk this discrepant article. Make sure to especially refute the parts where the author poses the question “But was not English Quebec just as anti-Semitic, or more so, than French Quebec of the period?” and appears to answer by the affirmative. Thanks.

    • dwgs 11:24 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Philip, the problem here is that, as a scientist, you tend to approach things logically. Trying to parse qatzi’s arguments using logic is a fool’s game.

    • qatzelok 11:25 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @ Kate: “I have friends who speak English, French AND Italian, Portuguese, Arabic or Vietnamese. ”
      How many of your friends speak Gaelic? Oh well, it’s made Ireland a lot more “world-class” to speak the same language as 300 million people. Gaelic never had anything to offer the world except radical thought and victim memes. Right?

      “Also, you’re very fucking snotty about money.”

      No, I’m “snotty” about MONEY. I realize we’re supposed to grovel at material excess and bling, but I just find the whole status-competition thing morbid and stupid. And that so many people grovel at the wrong type of values is why the human race is heading into the abyss of pollution and social dysfunction. Be careful who you aren’t snotty to.

    • Ian 11:26 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @Philippe – your “tu quoque” argument doesn’t address my point – Jews assimilated into Quebec culture as anglos becasue the catholic church wouldn’t allow them in teh french schools. And yet, somehow, the English school board did.
      @qatzi – like Blork, I invite you te re-read my comment, particularly in light of my comments about the assimilation of the Irish. Have you never heard of Pointe-St-Charles?

    • Kate 11:32 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @qatzelok, your distinction escapes me. You’re not snotty about money but about MONEY?

      I’m not talking about overconsumption. People need access to work and money so they can have a place to live, food to eat, clothes on their back, educate themselves and their kids – lots of basic non-flashy stuff that does not come free. You sneer at people’s need for these things like an aristocrat for whom it has always come without any effort.

      I have Irish friends who learned Irish in school (it is not called Gaelic there). There’s TV and radio in Irish and literature in it and in parts of the country it’s still spoken. To be honest I think I’d benefit more from knowing Mandarin or Spanish than Irish right now, but then I don’t live there.

    • Churchy McGee 11:37 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      It’s amazing how, for a province so apparently modern and forward thinking, it can’t seem to get past this notion that geographic and political regions need to have official monolingualism to protect ‘culture and identity.’

      This is no different from far-right organizations in Eastern Europe, who in lieu of scape-goating Anglophones for all their worldly troubles, scapegoat gypsies, Jews, Muslims, anyone really, who doesn’t fit the mold.

      What can I say, you can’t be progressive while holding on to the ignorance of your ancestors.

      Do we want lower education costs or do we want to continue funding go-nowhere subject-specific ‘summits’, the $25 million the OQLF takes in to harass tax-payers and small-business owners, trips for Marois to Scotland and Catalonia and Davos, our own pseudo-consulates etc?

      I mean, how dumb are we?

      How stupid have we become?

      We don’t negotiate, we riot. We hold our breath. We scream and yell and bitch and we feel we’re accomplishing something. But we’re not. We’ve been inert for 30+ years.

      It’s probably Québec’s most endearing and depressing quality. The Francophones are generally as ignorant and reactionary and stupid as the Anglophones. Retarded peas in a retarded pod.

      Is it any wonder we can’t secure investment, rid ourselves of corruption, and prevent our brain drain? is it any wonder immigrants are cautious about wanting to become Québécois (or Canadian for that matter?)

      We, who insist on our uniqueness, yet define ourselves by seeking outside approval.

      We, who insist on our egalitarian nature while building further walls to prevent integration.

      We, who dream of rose-coloured futures while trying to ‘correct’ the problems of foreign empires from hundreds of years ago.

      We’re setting up our own society to collapse under the weight of accumulated idiocy.

      And quite frankly, we’ll deserve our failure.

      The people of this province (of all language groups and political orientations) all too often make me sick and disgusted.

      So count me among the many who are leaving; I swore I never would, but I also swore I wouldn’t let petty patriotism hold me back.

      It’s all we are anymore, petty patriots.

    • jeather 11:40 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Apparently a community cannot come together if they share two languages, or if they share a single language and that language is English.

      There is actually a really interesting discussion about language loss in a interconnected era — not about French, which isn’t in any danger — but the loss of cultural community/language X doesn’t mean that cultural community/language Y has nothing except money-obsessed sheeple.

      If Quebec society is defined by being francophone, other people can never be part of it — no matter how good my French is, I will never be francophone.

    • Philippe 11:54 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @Ian: the problem with your “argument” is that the causality you imply isn’t as obvious as you imply. If French had been the language of prosperity at the time instead of that of the working class, I strongly doubt Montreal Jews would be as overwhelmingly English-speaking today…

    • Ian 11:58 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Didn’t take you long to bring up that nasty stereotype now, did it? Nice to know you’re racist as well as ignorant of history.

    • dwgs 12:00 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      In support of Ian’s argument (do we really need to do the snarky “quotes” thing?), I give you the Montreal Italian community (Catholic) which live way more in French than the Montreal Greek community (Orthodox).

    • Kate 12:07 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Didn’t you understand Ian’s point? Jews were not allowed in Catholic schools. It was not their choice to make.

    • Philippe 12:35 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @Kate: No, I’m saying that being barred from the Catholic school system is not a sufficient obstacle to acquiring a language. Did European Jews (or Roma, for that matter) living in or originating from Catholic countries not speak whatever majority language was spoken in these countries? I doubt francophones were barred from teaching Jews in Quebec, if there had been an incentive to, they would naturally have set up a parallel system.

      @Ian: I’m afraid the stereotype of the greedy Jew is more prominent in your mind than in mine because I didn’t see the second degree reading of what I wrote until you jumped on it (in bad faith, I’m sure, but no matter). Let me rephrase: I strongly doubt that any community would choose to assimilate with the economically disadvantaged group under most circumstances.

      @dwgs: I don’t know, I’m not sure the Italian community’s linguistic allegiance really supports Ian’s argument, they are still far more anglophile than more recent waves of immigrants from North Africa, Vietnam and Lebanon, for instance.

    • jeather 12:53 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      You know that the Jews didn’t set up a parallel system, right? They went to the public schools that would take them — the Protestant school board, which was predominantly English. (They also created a few private schools, though I don’t actually know when most of those were founded.)

    • Blork 12:53 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @Philippe, actually, most European Jews and Roma were multilingual, speaking Hebrew (or Romani) first, then whatever language(s) they needed to get by in their local environments.

    • Philippe 13:17 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @Blork: It’s my understanding that Hebrew was revived as a spoken language only relatively recently, but I take your point. Note however that this is not at variance with my own point, which is that a community will take on “whatever language(s) they [need] to get by”. That they didn’t pick French as one such required language only reinforces the point that they didn’t need it.

      @jeather: I know they didn’t, I’m saying if there had been a need to ensure economical or social success, they would have.

    • Ian 13:19 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @Philippe – “North Africa, Vietnam and Lebanon” were all former French colonies – or didn’t you realize that? And as to your point about choosing to assimilate based on economic advantage, I reiterate: look at Pointe-St-Charles, Montreal’s traditional Irish neighbourhood – now almost entirely Francophone, still with Irish last names. I stand by my assertion that linguistic divides in this province are a historical legacy of religion, not economics. Large numbers of immigrants from Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco, and Vietnam are all post-Quiet Revolution.

    • jeather 13:20 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      You mean Yiddish or Ladino, Blork. Hebrew as a spoken language of daily use was not really big in Europe. Those languages are dying now.

      Jews at the time wanted to be part of the community. I don’t think they chose English schools because they thought it would help them succeed, they chose it — at first — because they weren’t allowed in the French schools, and then later because if your religious community chose English, when you immigrated you’d choose English as well to stay part of it.

    • Charles 13:21 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @Philippe: Il n’y avait pas grand choix dans le temps (avant les années 60), soit les écoles francophones catholiques (qui n’acceptait même pas les italiens catholiques….) ou les écoles anglophones protestantes. C’est tout (il y avait peut être des exceptions mais pas beaucoup).

    • Philippe 14:00 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @Ian: Stand by your assertions all you want, as long as you realize the value of the unsourced opinions of (semi-) anonymous internet posters.

      From Jewish School Question – Protestant School Board:

      “For part of the Jewish community, the “Jewish School Question” served as further proof of the need for a separate school system. But this issue only deepened rifts in a community already divided by labour strikes and the “kosher meat wars.” Established “uptowners,” represented by the Jewish Educational Committee and leaders such as Maxwell Goldstein, regarded separate schools as a threat to integration and endorsed negotiating for increased rights under the Protestant system. In contrast, immigrant “downtowner” “nationalists,” led by H. M. Caiserman, Michael Garber and Louis Fitch, viewed a separate Jewish panel as an opportunity to strengthen Jewish identity. Represented by the Va’ad Ha’Ir (Jewish Community Council), “downtowners” had the support of the Canadian Jewish Chronicle and the Yiddish Keneder Adler newspapers.”

      Emphasis mine. It goes on to say that:

      “In 1930, the David Bill (named after its sponsor, MLA Athanase David) passed, allowing for a separate Jewish school board and publicly funded schools. The law came under pressure from the Catholic leadership, allied with an increasingly antisemitic press, which viewed a Jewish school board as subversive. Taschereau, too, grew less supportive. Meanwhile, the Jewish board’s positions were filled with “uptowners” who again tried to negotiate a deal with the Protestants. Without consulting the rest of the community, the board managed to secure legal tolerance (instead of privilege) for Jewish students to attend Protestant schools, but nothing more. Hiring discrimination persisted, as did the lack of tolerance for Jewish holidays, and Jewish students were still forced to learn Christian religious teachings.”

      Is there anyone left to dispute the notion that, while certainly Catholic Quebec was clearly mostly hostile to the Jewish community, there was, at some level, a conscious choice by at least some prominent Jewish leaders that the Jews were better served by integrating with the Protestant minority?

    • qatzelok 14:36 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      The reason Jews and Protestants were kept out of the Catholic schools was because of a sharp difference in moral values.

      Catholic schools promoted cooperation and community, while Jewish/Protestant schools emphasized personal excellence. These ideals are incompatible in the same ways that cars (personal excellence) are incompatible (and thus not allowed on) bicycle lanes (cooperation/community values).

      And while Personal Excellence culture has won all its wars worldwide, it has destroyed the earth in the process. Community and cooperation are natural for mammals, while competitive status seeking was a failed (mega-failed) experiment.

      All these “debates” about Anglo rights in Quebec are about the Personal Excellence of a few business predators.

    • Blork 15:03 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      Clarification: when I said “Hebrew” I meant Yiddish (thanks for the correction, jeather). But I meant Romani in reference to the Roma people.

    • jeather 15:06 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      They “chose” the Protestant system because they weren’t even allowed to attend the Catholic system. I agree that some people thought the Jews were better served by integrating with the only group would accept them, but not that they chose the Protestants over the Catholics because they figured they’d get more power that way.

      Qatzelok, you have no idea what you’re talking about wrt Judaism and individualism vs community.

      I see what you mean, Blork, I misread you.

    • Philippe 15:09 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      @jeather: Did you read the article? It says they chose the Protestant system not only over the Catholic one, but also over a proposed parallel Jewish system.

    • Philippe 15:13 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      “The case eventually reached the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which in 1928 stated that Jews in fact had no legal rights in the Quebec public school system due to the BNA Act, but that Quebec could create a separate Jewish panel.”

      It’s a fascinating read, and short, you really should have a look at it.

    • jeather 15:35 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      I did read the article. I agree that there was a debate about joining the current public school system. They did not “choose” the Protestants over the Catholics, because they were not allowed into the Catholic school system. They chose English/Protestant schools over French/Catholic because for 25 years, they were allowed in the English schools and not allowed to make their own school board. After that, there was a decision made that they would stay with the Protestant schools instead of starting their own.

      This is all very interesting, but it clearly says that they chose English not for some sort of perceived power but because the primary and secondary school system was more open at the time.

    • Ian 15:54 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      What jeather said. Personally I throw up my hands and walk away from trying to correct the obviously racially-motivated historical revisionism I’m seeing in this comment thread.

    • Kevin 07:49 on 2013/02/27 Permalink

      You’re all fucking wrong.
      ALL OF YOU.
      First off @qatzelok is wrong because — well he’s wrong on so many levels, but in this case it’s mostly because he’s trapped in the stupid philosophy that there can only be one language per culture (and he’s also wrong because of his ‘anglos do not have culture they have money’ ethos that he imbibed from his mother’s teats, when she wasn’t chastising him for being a horrible person).

      Secondly you’re all wrong because you’re arguing with @qatzelok, which is like arguing with a ‘bot.

  • Kate 07:41 on 2013/02/26 Permalink | Reply  

    At the CEIC Monday it came out that onetime city public works director Robert Marcil knew his subordinates were schmoozing with contractors and thought it was normal.

     
    • Chris 09:48 on 2013/02/26 Permalink

      ‘normal’: “conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected”. Alas, sounds right. :(

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel