Updates from March, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 22:12 on 2017/03/02 Permalink | Reply  

    The SPVM likes to settle racial profiling cases out of court. La Presse also says that of 89 complaints of this type made to the human rights commission since 2012, 84 concerned the police department.

     
  • Kate 21:24 on 2017/03/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Construction on the new bridge is at least three months behind because of the difficulty of transporting large pieces to the site over the existing bridge. Video report worth watching to see the progress of construction and the scale of pre-constructed module that’s causing the problem.

     
  • Kate 21:18 on 2017/03/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Denis Coderre, who’s supposed to be resting, is annoyed about the merger of Outremont and Mont-Royal provincial ridings that’s going to happen instead of the abolition of Sainte-Marie–Saint-Jacques. He hadn’t been thrilled about that either, seeing both options as reducing the political clout of the city.

     
    • rue david 01:50 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      It’s a pretty interesting dilemma from a city clout perspective. For the PLQ, those are cabinet seats, so it’s a big deal. But Sainte Marie-Saint Jacques represents core pre-Harel Montreal. Which is more important: ensuring the city’s political ideas are well-represented in the National Assembly or bringing home the bacon in government.

    • ant6n 11:01 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      The is not a dilemma at all unless you accept gerrymandering and corruption. The Parliament does not exist to the benefit of the liberals, and Montreal should not make any assumptions like your subtle “what’s good for the liberals is good for Montreal”.

      So proper representation is more important.

    • Kevin 13:03 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      Look at the numbers.
      The new merged riding will have 1.5 times the number of voters as SMSJ.
      More voters are also being squeezed into adjacent ridings, making them much larger than Massé’s riding.

    • Jack 16:15 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      Look at the numbers !
      Check out the ridings in rural areas and the number of voters they have. Its why the National Assembly trends so white and catholic, 15 out of 125 members are not pure laine, which would seem to be demographically impossible.This impacts our politics.

  • Kate 21:16 on 2017/03/02 Permalink | Reply  

    A study by L’Institut de recherches et d’informations socioéconomiques (IRIS) says publicly owned infrastructure will be sold cheap to the Caisse de dépôt so they can build the REM.

    More details from the IRIS blog on the Journal de Montréal site.

     
  • Kate 20:59 on 2017/03/02 Permalink | Reply  

    The man who sent the threat to Concordia has been named: Hisham Saadi – CTV has Hicham. So far, no explanation why a man with an Arab-sounding name threatened Muslim students. Was this some wacky attempt at a false-flag operation?

     
    • Ephraim 23:04 on 2017/03/02 Permalink

      Uhm… not all Arabs are Muslim. And Lebanon is home to Muslims, Druze and Christians. And not to mention that the Muslim faith itself is divided in Shia, Alawi, Zaidi, and Sunni. And of course there are atheists, agnostics, etc. The family name is definitely Lebanese.

    • Chris 23:07 on 2017/03/02 Permalink

      And: it’s not as if some Muslims don’t hate other Muslims. :( (Not that that’s unique to Muslims, sadly it’s endemic to our species.)

    • Kevin 08:11 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      CTV has corrected the spelling. It’s Hisham.

    • Kate 11:32 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      Ephraim, Chris, you’re right. It would still be interesting to hear about this man’s motivations.

    • Josh 11:42 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      They mentioned on CJAD 800 this morning that he had recently been ejected from the Ph.D. program there due to unsatisfactory academic progress, and may have had an exam scheduled the day he called in the threat.

    • Blork 11:58 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      That he bothered to create that “letter” with logos, and researched where to send them implies he didn’t do it on a whim. Most likely he’s an isolated and unstable guy who sits at home and stews in his own indignation, and this was just his way of IRL trolling.

  • Kate 12:03 on 2017/03/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Can landlords ask you not to smoke in your apartment? Yes, if it’s written into the lease. But they can’t refuse to rent to a smoker if that person agrees not to smoke in the apartment. (Will most smokers really stick to this, especially on cold or rainy days? I have my doubts. But the landlord would have to monitor the tenants to prove it.)

    This article is mostly about a new legal opinion requested by an anti-tobacco lobby. The main issue is that apartments aren’t airtight, and adjoining tenants can be annoyed or inconvenienced by someone else smoking. A tenant’s right to smoke in their own home is overridden by other tenants’ rights not to deal with the smoke. Nothing’s said here about fire risk or stinking out the apartment itself.

    (Ironically, the only time I’m actually annoyed by smoke from neighbours or their guests is in summertime when they’re smoking outside on the front porch, a few feet from my window…)

     
    • Ephraim 12:15 on 2017/03/02 Permalink

      If someone repeatedly smokes indoors the smell is difficult to deal with. You usually need to use either a oil based primer followed by a shellac based primer or an alcohol based primer, to lock down the smells. A more expensive proposition, considering that you need at least one or two coats plus the labour. Should the landlord pay for this, or the tenant who did it?

    • carswell 13:26 on 2017/03/02 Permalink

      I wish my downstairs neighbours smoked in their apartment. As it is, they smoke on the balcony and they do so a lot during balmy weather. When my window is open, the smoke wafts into my office. Very disagreeable.

      It’s kind of a variant on the no-smoking-at-the -workplace phenom. The smokers congregating on the sidewalk and around entrances mean I’m exposed to significantly more secondhand smoke than I used to be. It may be great for their fellow office workers but it isn’t for pedestrians.

      Kind of makes me wish cigarettes were banned.

    • Ian 17:51 on 2017/03/02 Permalink

      I’ve been asked by potential landlords for about the last 12 years if I smoke inside, with the tacit understanding that were I to do so they would not rent to me. Fair enough.

      In any case, worth noting all the smoking restrictions apply specifically to smoking within x metres of various types of spaces with the exception of while walking on a city sidewalk. So basically, as long as the smoker is moving, nobody can say anything about it. Your neighbour on their stoop, or on their balcony? You could ask politely in much the same way that you could ask your neighbour to get their kids to stop running up and down the apartment on Saturday morning. Maybe they’ll listen, maybe they won’t.

    • Hamza 03:23 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      It annoys me when people in other apartments play shitty music, cook smelly food, stomp around in their boots, engage in loud or aggressive sex, watch reality TV and yeah even if they dress in annoying clothing (MAGA hats) but HEY – it’s their dwelling and they can do as they damn well please.

      For all of those reasons and plenty of my own, I choose to and allow others to smoke in my apartment.

      Can everyone just stop being friggin’ tobacco/noise/pet/whatever fascists and just learn to get along?

      Whatever happened to ‘no place for the government in the bedroom’?

    • j 09:00 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      Only objection I have is those who smoke pot on their balconies and get their neighbours unwittingly high from the second-hand smoke.

    • ant6n 11:27 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      … Asking people to be considerate is equivalent to “government in the bedroom”. Got it.

      Cue Cartman: wha’eva, I do what Ah want!

    • Bill Binns 14:33 on 2017/03/03 Permalink

      Looking at the smoking issue helps me understand why gun nuts in the US will not give up a single millimeter (such as restrictions on the mentally ill buying guns). That worst case scenario you imagine (the government is going to take all your guns) is not only possible but very likely to happen in a relatively short amount of time if you allow any momentum whatsoever to build.

      15 to 20 years ago we started to see the first no-smoking sections in restaurants and the earliest rules about smoking at work. At that time, if you had said “before you know it you won’t even be able to smoke outside or in your own home”, you would have been laughed at or accused of ridiculous hyperbole. 15-20 years later, here we are. You can’t smoke in a great many locations outside and you will soon not be able to smoke in your own home. And let’s face it, we are heading towards a total ban on smoking. It’s just that instead of banning cigarettes (the government makes too much money off them), we are trying to ban places to use them.

      This is a pretty convincing argument that if you care about something a great deal (guns, smoking, traditional marriage, the right to own an automobile, the right to an abortion, your wood stove etc), you would be wise not to make even the smallest compromise ever. Dig in, draw a line in the sand right where you are standing and fight every battle like you are fighting against you worst case scenario.

    • ant6n 00:35 on 2017/03/04 Permalink

      Ugh

  • Kate 11:36 on 2017/03/02 Permalink | Reply  

    National Post’s Graeme Hamilton looks at the crucifix flap from the middle distance. “When it comes to religious symbols in Quebec, some are more equal than others.”

    Gaëtan Barrette, who at first said it wasn’t his concern what hospitals did in such a matter, is quoted as saying it’s not religion, it’s heritage. That seems to be the party line even across party lines.

    At least Garnotte gets a cartoon out of it. As does Côté.

     
  • Kate 10:32 on 2017/03/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Police arrested a man early Thursday in Côte-des-Neiges and are questioning him over the bomb threat that led to an evacuation of Concordia’s downtown buildings Wednesday.

    Items say it isn’t known whether the suspect had ties with Concordia, but the text of the threat describes details of Concordia life that sound like he, or someone known to him, had spent time there.

     
  • Kate 10:23 on 2017/03/02 Permalink | Reply  

    The riding of Sainte-Marie–Saint-Jacques will be preserved following a new decision by the DGEQ. It was also decided to rename Crémazie riding after Maurice Richard, who lived there for many years.

     
    • Kevin 11:14 on 2017/03/02 Permalink

      Mont Royal and Outremont are being merged. That means two cabinet ministers will not be happy.

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