The Montréal Français group is organizing a protest this Sunday, starting at 1 p.m. at Mont-Royal metro. They’re celebrating the 30th anniversary of Bill 101 and want it strengthened, specially in light of a recent court decision that ruled an extension of that law unconstitutional.
Oh to live in a province one day where people can speak French without fear of government repression…
The Journal de Québec have won a case before the Commission des relations du travail du Québec, which ruled today that four employees of the newspaper were illegally working as scabs during the labour conflict which has dragged on since April. The Journal was criticized by its union for a sudden increase in the number of managers just before the lockout began.
For more information on the labour conflict, you can go to MediaMatinQuebec, the website setup by the locked-out workers.
The Sûreté du Québec are admitting that they did use undercover police officers at the protests in Montebello. The article doesn’t make it clear that they’re referring to the same officers in this video, which has gained traction in the press lately.
But the official SQ statement on the matter makes it clear: They’re cops.
Though I still agree with some that say the evidence was far from conclusive, with the amount of media attention this was getting it was just a matter of time until the government was forced to respond.
Now come the fun questions: Are all the extremist elements of these protests actually undercover cops? Are some of the more recognizable activists (*cough*Jaggi Singh*cough*) actually cops? Were these guys just holding rocks to keep their cover or were they actually expected to throw them at their colleagues? (CP says they never threw any rocks and that’s how their cover was blown)
The biggest question, of course, is what is the point in all this? The police had previously acknowledged that they used under cover agents to tell what plans were in advance. But what’s the point of planting someone who’s going to throw rocks? And if just throwing rocks at armored police isn’t such a bad deal, why are protesters tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, arrested and beaten for it?
In the meantime, union leader Dave Coles should file a complaint of assault against this officer for a shove about 48 seconds into the video.
UPDATE: Great minds…
UPDATE: Oh Aislin…
UPDATE (Dec. 6): Months after the fact, for some reason, the Globe and Mail looks back on this video and the people in it.
Chris Hand of Zeke’s Gallery was featured in a National report on lawsuits against blogs. The video was posted to YouTube in what I’m sure was an entirely legal non-infringement of CBC’s copyright.
The folks at CKUT Radio-McGill can rest easy. The CRTC today renewed their license for seven years until 2014, with only a minor change to its Canadian content rules. The decision also includes “suggestions” (to have board positions be longer than a year) and “reminders” (that board positions must be mostly university community members and at least 80% Canadian citizens).
Oh yeah, and make sure not to be discriminatory and stuff, even though you weren’t actually discriminatory before.
TVA is taking the credit for Montreal police cracking the 1984 murder of actress Denise Morelle (Wikipédia). She’s the person that tiny park on Rivard Street near the Mont-Royal metro is named after.
Maybe this will provide some encouragement for other unsolved crimes (more info).
Ever consider using GoJit or Dicom for deliveries? You might want to reconsider, because apparently they don’t keep track of their packages, and won’t reimburse you when gross negligence causes tonnes of merchandise to grow legs and disappear right under their noses.
Last week Quebec Superior Court ruled that the company was liable for $90,000 of boots that were lost in 2004. The company had offered a laughable $6,000 compensation when the 88 cartons over six palettes disappeared, and never called the police to report a theft.
Considering these actions take “gross incompetence” to a new level, the $118,307.65
judgment against them (plus interest retroactive to 2004) seems small.
UPDATE (Aug 8th): Just got off the phone with a VP at GoJIT. Apparently they haven’t received the decision yet from their lawyer, so won’t comment (too much) on the legal case. But apparently the compensation situation is an industry standard, and not just GoJIT policy. Look out for the interview in an upcoming article.
Someone complained to the Gazette about video cameras in the men’s room at Cours Mont Royal. Apparently, according to the proprietor, the cameras aren’t running, due to that minor matter of it being illegal to film someone in a bathroom.
But they say it’s working, deterring illegal acts like drug dealing, vandalism, gay sex, peeing on the floor, and, of course, forgetting to wash one’s hands.
I just hope Jeff Goldblum doesn’t get his hands on it.
Montreal Police (“Montreal Police Service”? I guess it’s technically correct, but it sounds really weird) is upset at YouTube videos that show their officers at work.
Their beef specifically seems to be about two videos (shot by the same person) which identifies the officers by name giving him tickets. This one refers to the officer as “conne-stable” (very original). The SPVM’s beef with this one (a five-minute argument over a parking meter) is more curious perhaps, since the officer gives his consent for the video to be posted online.
They’re just two in a small sea of videos of encounters with police. It’s perhaps telling that some people are reaching for the camera the moment they’re pulled over, assuming that the officer might pull something illegal.
Dollard-des-Ormeaux mayor Ed Janiszewski isn’t unusual. He’s like a lot of suburban mayors. But that doesn’t make his ideas less silly.
In a bid to stop those Evil Teenagers Up To No Good (TM), Dollard’s council passed a new by-law prohibiting loitering in public areas of the town.
“Loitering” has always been one of those terms I found odd. It sounds bad, like something a drug dealer or gang member would do. But what is it, exactly? Well, technically, “loitering” means “being somewhere just because you feel like it.”
Now, you might think a law forbidding people from standing in a public place without a grown-up reason would seem somewhat unconstitutional. In fact, such laws have been declared unlawful in the U.S. But still they persist. Businesses and other institutions have “no loitering” signs posted outside, and laws are drawn up with complicated definitions to try to outlaw something which feels illegal but is not actually a violation of any law.
The logic is best explained by this Janiszewski quote:
“Kids aren’t all bad. They need to hang out, to be with their peer group, but it shouldn’t be in public. They should be at their home or at somebody else’s home.”
Yes, folks. Dollard’s mayor doesn’t want kids hanging out in public.
Next time adults wonder why kids feel alienated or rebellious, maybe they might consider that adults are taking away kids’ rights to be kids.
Sandra-Ann Fowler, the tenant who took her landlord to the Régie du logement over her right to smoke in her apartment (and therefore subject her landlord’s family to traces of second-hand smoke) has won her case.
CTV’s Brian Britt calls it a “victory for smokers’ rights advocates”, and a spokesperson for a smokers’ rights group seems to back him up.
Unfortunately, this simply isn’t true. The ruling stated that because a ban on smoking was not in the lease, Fowler has the right to smoke, even though the application form said smokers were not allowed.
In fact, the ruling apparently suggested that bans on smoking are in fact legal if they are in the lease.
I’d hardly call that a victory. She got off on a technicality, that’s all.
Ever wonder why the Journal de Montréal doesn’t have a real website? Legal reasons, apparently.
Apparently the Journal’s union contract has some vague language about the use of its members’ work on the Internet. It states that the Journal’s parent organization can use the content online, provided certain silly requirements are met (the Journal’s logo has to appear, and people can’t be assigned exclusively online unless they’re given a new job title or something).
An extra sentence added later says that the employer should negotiate before starting a new website.
The union tried to sue, claiming Quebecor broke the agreement by setting up this kinda-website without talking to them first.
The judge saw right through their flimsy argument, referring the case to union arbitration.
Hopefully that will talk some sense into both sides. This is a really stupid reason for the Journal not to have a true web presence for itself.
The Zeke’s Gallery non-issue has escalated to a request for injunction in court.
