As those who are regular readers know, I'm not a great fan or supporter of the private education provided for and by the Montreal's Hasidic community, but the abrupt withdrawal of funding by the Quebec Education department based on the fact that classes are segregated begs some serious opposition. The Montreal Gazette questioned quite rightly whether the move was just strictly political and undertaken to quell the voices of anti-religionists and anti-accommodationists.
There are many legitimate reasons to restrict or remove funding from these religious fundamentalist schools, who by and large ignore provincial rules concerning curriculum, but removing their funding with little notice based on the notion that separate classes for boys and girls runs contrary to Quebec values is strictly not kosher. That Quebec education minister Michelle Courchesne chose to act against the Hasidic school and no other school that are gender based smacks of discrimination.
There is legitimate academic debate concerning separate boys and girls classes. Many moons ago, I myself was streamed into an all boys class in grade seven at the Protestant School Board's Van Horne School in Snowdon, while the girls were sent off to their own class.
Was it good or bad? Dunno...
We were told by authorities that boys and girls had different educational requirements and separate classes would help focus on the different developmental needs of each group.
I guess that rationale doesn't run counter to Quebec values, but separating the sexes basesd on religious values obviously does. That being said, banning and tolerating the exact same practice based on different motives is hard to defend.
If this prohibition is applied by the education department equally across the board, it will have an effect on countless private schools across the province who also practice single-sex education, the majority which are Christian faith-based.
Does this ruling mean that all-girl schools like Miss Edgar and Miss Cramps (high school) could lose their government subsidy if they refuse to accept male students? There are dozens and dozens of schools in the same boat.
I don't particularly like religious fanatics who practice self-imposed apartheid. I particularly have little use for Hasids and their fundamentalist values.
That being said, it is incumbent on all of us to defend any minority when they are under attack strictly based on their religion. It is called DISCRIMINATION and as a good citizen I will defend the Hasidic school's right to be treated as equally as the Christian faith-based schools or the secular single sex schools.
What makes this blatant religious attack more disturbing is that the French press has roundly applauded the action of the minister. There's a constituency of left-wing nationalist stateists that have been waiting a long time to punish the Hasidic community. It's too bad that they can't see the attack on the Hasidic school for what it is- payback for all those pesky accommodations.
SHAME!!!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Quebec's National Day of Procrastination
In Quebec, December 15th is the last day by which all motorists must have their cars outfitted with snow tires. Tire shops across the province are jammed today with some staying open until midnight to accommodate the back log of those who perpetually leave things to the last minute.
As I drove through the west Island of Montreal this afternoon, it was apparent that there was also a run on Christmas trees. With Christmas just ten days away it's a case of better late than never, as panicked shoppers (mostly men) finally get it in gear.
It would be useful if Quebec would mark the date, December 15, as an unofficial holiday, to be known as "PROCRASTINATOR'S DAY."
Those with an inclination to leave things to the last minute, would have a date that they could reference, one which would serve as a reminder that it's just nine more days until Christmas Eve, their favourite shopping day!
As I drove through the west Island of Montreal this afternoon, it was apparent that there was also a run on Christmas trees. With Christmas just ten days away it's a case of better late than never, as panicked shoppers (mostly men) finally get it in gear.
It would be useful if Quebec would mark the date, December 15, as an unofficial holiday, to be known as "PROCRASTINATOR'S DAY."
Those with an inclination to leave things to the last minute, would have a date that they could reference, one which would serve as a reminder that it's just nine more days until Christmas Eve, their favourite shopping day!
Koodo Ad in Bad Taste?
This ad is part of a series that depicts Koodo telephone users with exaggerated mouths.
I'm certain that the company wasn't trying to be racist, but isn't this version of a black guy with huge lips and teeth just a bit it off-putting?
I'm certain that the company wasn't trying to be racist, but isn't this version of a black guy with huge lips and teeth just a bit it off-putting?
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Pie in the Sky Greening of Quebec
For personal reasons I don't usually write negatively about Premier Charest, but I shall make an exception and comment on his speech about reducing greenhouse gases out of profound admiration for his unbridled 'chutzpah.'
I couldn't help but get a chuckle at the ridiculously amateur and completely ineffective plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that he outlined in his speech on November 24th. It was patently clear that he hadn't put much effort or content into his plan, correctly and cynically concluding that nobody in the press would dare to tell him that his plan was as phoney as an Emperor with no clothes.
That the press took him seriously and failed to challenge him on the crock that he spouted was another case of failed journalism.
As skillfully as David Copperfield, our illustrious premier used the tried and true magical device of misdirection to concentrate and direct our focus elsewhere. Suffering from scandal after scandal and in virtual free fall in the polls, the Premier decided to re-focus the subject of public debate in the faint hope of changing the dynamics of a government in trouble.
And so, out of the blue, Premier Jean Charest announced, with a straight face, that by 2020, the province will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels, a goal similar to the target the European Union has adopted. The idea is so absurd, it as testament to his sang-froid and his confidence in his ability to mislead convince us.
Let's do some high school math to figure out what his proposed reduction actually means. For argument's sake, let's assign a number of 100% to the benchmark 1990 emissions level that the Premier referred to. To reduce emissions by the 20% that the Premier proposed, we'd have to get down to 80% of that number. Considering that our emissions have risen by 26% since 1990, we'd have to cut greenhouse emissions by a whopping 36% in ten years to achieve Mr. Charest's goal.
Doable? Not a chance!
To pretend that it is, is nothing but pure fantasy, as realistic as Canada's Kyoto Accord commitment wherein we promised to cut emissions by a paltry 6% and failed miserably, actually increasing our output by 26%. Deja Vu?
How does the Premier intend to get to this mythical land of environmental equilibrium? Through a nonsensical and unrealistic mixture of hyperbole, magic and fantasy. His plan doesn't even stand up to the most cursory of analysis.
Let's quickly expose Mr. Charest's ideas as pie-in-the sky.
Increasing Public Transportation. People take public transport because a car is either unaffordable or inconvenient. If Mr. Charest thinks he's going to convince a significant number of those people, for which a car is affordable and a convenient alternative to public transport, to switch, out of an altruistic respect for the environment, he is sadly out of touch with the human condition. A fact that environmentalists ignore, is that public transport is only marginally more environmentally friendly than cars. Aside from rush hour, buses and trains run all day long, near empty, while cars remain parked. At any rate public transport ridership in Canada has been increasing by less than ½ of one percent per year, unimpressive at best. If Mr. Charest increases that figure by ten-fold (a mean feat) it will mean a paltry 5% increase in public transport use, hardly a breakthrough.
Lower emission Standards. The internal combustion engine has progressed to the point where new efficiencies are going to be marginal at best. The only way to lower emissions is to mandate smaller cars with smaller engines. The other alternatives is to eliminate cars. Do you think Mr. Charest is planning to enact legislation setting upper limits on size and horsepower or by banning the second family car?
Electric Cars. I'm not even going to comment. Perhaps Mr. Charest's next suggestion is that we power our cars with foot power à la Fred Flintstone.
For Mr. Charest and the citizens of Quebec discussing the reduction of carbon emissions without addressing the proverbial 'Elephant in the Room" is disingenuous.
Instead of nonsensical solutions, Mr. Charest and the good citizens of the province should address the problem of the hundreds of thousands of wood burning stoves, still in use in Quebec, which represent a monumental environmental disaster. While several Quebec cities have recognized the problem and moved to ban the purchase or installation of new stoves, nobody is remotely considering a plan to get rid of the old ones.
If Mr. Charest was the least bit interested in making genuine progress in reducing Quebec's emissions, he'd start by dealing with this environmental disaster, one that can be actually remedied rather easily, or a least with less pain and expense than other solutions that reduce emissions.
Quebec has the lowest electricity rate in North America and forcing the public to switch to electric heating from wood (or oil and gas, for that matter), would be the first logical step in lowering our carbon footprint. If Quebeckers are the environmentalists that they claim to be, we would embrace a law that would phase out wood-burning stoves and gas and oil furnaces. Electricity may cost more than fossil fuels, but the cost-benefit co-efficient is the highest of any currently available option to lower carbon emissions. Banning fossil fuels as heating devices, would be the first real step to changing our lifestyle and a concrete commitment to change. It's a no-brainer.
So why isn't the Premier talking about meaningful change? Because deep down, he knows that real change is hard to sell. The public, despite the talk, isn't really ready to sacrifice. That's why our carbon footprint continues to grow.
I once heard an environmentalist question an audience, asking how many people had really made a significant change in lowering their personal carbon footprint, a change that entailed considerable personal hardship or expense. Nary a hand went up.
Instead of real change, our Premier talks about mythical electric cars. The media eats it up and the public is satisfied that we're supposedly on the way to doing something.
Deep down, none of us really care enough to change our lives, and none of us are prepared to take a significant hit in our pocketbook or in our lifestyle.
As we poke fun at world leaders who have jetted over to the Copenhagen conference on climate change in private planes and who are flitting about the city in oversized limousines, let us accept that we are every bit as hypocritical.
Mr. Charest, you are not alone....
I couldn't help but get a chuckle at the ridiculously amateur and completely ineffective plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that he outlined in his speech on November 24th. It was patently clear that he hadn't put much effort or content into his plan, correctly and cynically concluding that nobody in the press would dare to tell him that his plan was as phoney as an Emperor with no clothes.
That the press took him seriously and failed to challenge him on the crock that he spouted was another case of failed journalism.
As skillfully as David Copperfield, our illustrious premier used the tried and true magical device of misdirection to concentrate and direct our focus elsewhere. Suffering from scandal after scandal and in virtual free fall in the polls, the Premier decided to re-focus the subject of public debate in the faint hope of changing the dynamics of a government in trouble.
And so, out of the blue, Premier Jean Charest announced, with a straight face, that by 2020, the province will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels, a goal similar to the target the European Union has adopted. The idea is so absurd, it as testament to his sang-froid and his confidence in his ability to
Let's do some high school math to figure out what his proposed reduction actually means. For argument's sake, let's assign a number of 100% to the benchmark 1990 emissions level that the Premier referred to. To reduce emissions by the 20% that the Premier proposed, we'd have to get down to 80% of that number. Considering that our emissions have risen by 26% since 1990, we'd have to cut greenhouse emissions by a whopping 36% in ten years to achieve Mr. Charest's goal.
Doable? Not a chance!
To pretend that it is, is nothing but pure fantasy, as realistic as Canada's Kyoto Accord commitment wherein we promised to cut emissions by a paltry 6% and failed miserably, actually increasing our output by 26%. Deja Vu?
How does the Premier intend to get to this mythical land of environmental equilibrium? Through a nonsensical and unrealistic mixture of hyperbole, magic and fantasy. His plan doesn't even stand up to the most cursory of analysis.
"Mr. Charest said he plans to reach the new objective by investing in public transportation and adopting tough regulations to reduce automobile emissions similar to the strict standards set in California. The province is also hoping rapid development and marketing of electric automobiles will significantly reduce its dependency on fossil fuels." Globe and MailElectric Cars Ha Ha!!!!
Let's quickly expose Mr. Charest's ideas as pie-in-the sky.
Increasing Public Transportation. People take public transport because a car is either unaffordable or inconvenient. If Mr. Charest thinks he's going to convince a significant number of those people, for which a car is affordable and a convenient alternative to public transport, to switch, out of an altruistic respect for the environment, he is sadly out of touch with the human condition. A fact that environmentalists ignore, is that public transport is only marginally more environmentally friendly than cars. Aside from rush hour, buses and trains run all day long, near empty, while cars remain parked. At any rate public transport ridership in Canada has been increasing by less than ½ of one percent per year, unimpressive at best. If Mr. Charest increases that figure by ten-fold (a mean feat) it will mean a paltry 5% increase in public transport use, hardly a breakthrough.
Lower emission Standards. The internal combustion engine has progressed to the point where new efficiencies are going to be marginal at best. The only way to lower emissions is to mandate smaller cars with smaller engines. The other alternatives is to eliminate cars. Do you think Mr. Charest is planning to enact legislation setting upper limits on size and horsepower or by banning the second family car?
Electric Cars. I'm not even going to comment. Perhaps Mr. Charest's next suggestion is that we power our cars with foot power à la Fred Flintstone.
For Mr. Charest and the citizens of Quebec discussing the reduction of carbon emissions without addressing the proverbial 'Elephant in the Room" is disingenuous.
Instead of nonsensical solutions, Mr. Charest and the good citizens of the province should address the problem of the hundreds of thousands of wood burning stoves, still in use in Quebec, which represent a monumental environmental disaster. While several Quebec cities have recognized the problem and moved to ban the purchase or installation of new stoves, nobody is remotely considering a plan to get rid of the old ones.
...."This is as rational as banning the purchase of new cars but letting people continue driving gas guzzlers."What is more disheartening is that 90% of the wood stoves currently in use in Quebec, are the old inefficient ones that burn up to 94% less cleanly than the newer models, the ones that follow EPA standards. Quebeckers who heat with wood and who are too cheap, lazy and inconsiderate to upgrade their equipment in the name of lowered emissions, are the real environmental bandits among us. Instead of carping about the Alberta Tar Sands, why don't we Quebeckers and Mr. Charest concentrate a little closer to home. An inconvenient truth, perhaps?
..."Environment Canada asserts, for example, that a conventional wood stove, burning for nine hours, emits as much particulate matter – known historically as soot – as a car driven 18,000 kilometres."
...."Combined, Montreal's wood stoves emit as much particulate matter as a car driven 207 billion kilometres. -NEIL REYNOLDS Globe and Mail
If Mr. Charest was the least bit interested in making genuine progress in reducing Quebec's emissions, he'd start by dealing with this environmental disaster, one that can be actually remedied rather easily, or a least with less pain and expense than other solutions that reduce emissions.
Quebec has the lowest electricity rate in North America and forcing the public to switch to electric heating from wood (or oil and gas, for that matter), would be the first logical step in lowering our carbon footprint. If Quebeckers are the environmentalists that they claim to be, we would embrace a law that would phase out wood-burning stoves and gas and oil furnaces. Electricity may cost more than fossil fuels, but the cost-benefit co-efficient is the highest of any currently available option to lower carbon emissions. Banning fossil fuels as heating devices, would be the first real step to changing our lifestyle and a concrete commitment to change. It's a no-brainer.
So why isn't the Premier talking about meaningful change? Because deep down, he knows that real change is hard to sell. The public, despite the talk, isn't really ready to sacrifice. That's why our carbon footprint continues to grow.
I once heard an environmentalist question an audience, asking how many people had really made a significant change in lowering their personal carbon footprint, a change that entailed considerable personal hardship or expense. Nary a hand went up.
Instead of real change, our Premier talks about mythical electric cars. The media eats it up and the public is satisfied that we're supposedly on the way to doing something.
Deep down, none of us really care enough to change our lives, and none of us are prepared to take a significant hit in our pocketbook or in our lifestyle.
As we poke fun at world leaders who have jetted over to the Copenhagen conference on climate change in private planes and who are flitting about the city in oversized limousines, let us accept that we are every bit as hypocritical.
Mr. Charest, you are not alone....
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Are the Montreal Canadiens Fudging Attendance Figures?
No matter, I was concerned with weightier matters, namely why the Canadiens continue to claim sell-outs when it appears that tickets are unsold.
Even though the city of Montreal had just survived it's first big snowstorm of the year, it didn't seem likel that it would affect attendance, as the streets were quite passable after a magnificent job by snow cleaning crews and for the fact that the Stanley Cup champions, the Pittsburgh Penguins were in town.
Sydney Crosby is always a huge draw here in Montreal, but perhaps his recent refusal to give any more interviews in his rudimentary French has taken the sheen off his halo among the Francophone fan base, who have in the past, considered him a semi-native son in virtue of his junior career in Rimouski.
I did arrive quite late to the game because some genius planner had the bright idea to run the Olympic Torch Relay through the downtown core at the exact moment some 22,000 fans were arriving for the Canadiens game. Various parts of Ste. Catherine Street and René Levesque Boulevard were shut down and grid-lock quickly took hold. It was close to eight o'clock before I got to the Bell Centre entrance on La Gauchetière street and I was quite surprised to see a tickets for sale sign posted on the electronic message board attached to the building;
Now this was well into the first period and nary a soul was in the ticket office buying anything.
Not surprising since a plethora of scalpers were giving tickets away at below cost right in front of the building.
I waited for the P/A announcement thanking the fans for another sellout, but it never happened. Come to think of it, the Canadiens haven't announced attendance since early in the season.
The box score in the morning paper, once again announced a sell-out and Red Fisher of the Gazette mentioned the sell-out in his column. I remain highly sceptical....
I saw the same thing earlier this year at an Islanders game, but since I had arrived on time, I figured that they could possibly sell-out.
Are there cracks forming in the hitherto Habs sell-out phenomena?
It's already happened to the Toronto Maple Leafs who were unable to sell out all the luxury suites at Air Canada Centre for the first time in 10 year.
The Ottawa Senators are also suffering an attendance slump. A recent game against provincial rivals, Toronto, had thousands of tickets unsold.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the crappy on-ice performance of these three teams is a factor.
I shudder to think what will happen to attendance in the dead of winter in late February if the Canadiens and Sens are below .500 and unlikely to make the playoffs.
Incidentally the hockey movie that was produced in conjunction with the 100th year anniversary is bombing in the theatres. The dud, 'Pour toujours les Canadiens' had a horrible opening weekend, with sales of only $112K in close to 100 screens throughout the province.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)