Shoe Boycott Brings Unintended Benefits.

Watching an interview with Yves Archambault, the owner of the LE MARCHEUR shoe boutique (the store subject to an anti-Israeli boycott,) had me playing the devil's advocate in my head, as the owner told Mario Dumont how terribly debilitating the boycott was.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not in favour of the boycott, but my 'Doubting Thomas' nature had me watching the interview with a pronounced measure of skepticism.

I've added subtitles (they are not comprehensive, so no complaining) so that you yourself can watch and make your own determination

My journalistic radar was triggered by Mr Archambault's tale of woe. Certainly it isn't as bad as all that?
Now as an old retailer myself, I understand that this type of publicity is priceless. The store has seen its sales skyrocket, notwithstanding what the owner tells us.

There are stories telling of people making large purchases including one of a woman buying $3,000 worth of shoes in one shot! Link

Each week people who never heard of the LE MARCHEUR before, cross the city to descend on the store to do their part to show solidarity and to participate in a 'buycott"
It's become a bit of a tourist attraction, always a good thing for business!

I remain sympathetic, but pleeese, Mr. Archambault, you're laying it on a bit thick!

As for PAJU, the group organizing the boycott, even in spectacular failure, they have accomplished what they never have been able to do before before- get exposure.

This rag-tag group of communists, socialists, Israel-bashers are finally getting their fifteen minutes of fame, so I don't imagine they're going to give it up!

Although they temporarily called off the boycott because of the threat of a fascist group attending the demonstration, they'll be back, count on it.
These people have spent a lifetime being ignored, yet they persevere. Do you honestly think they'd give up the limelight over a little detail like success or failure?

And so they'll return, much to the secret appreciation of Mr. Archambault and the press which is having a field day covering the story.
Everybody's a winner.

Everybody, except for one lonely politician.....

More Language Nonsense from Pierre Curzi

Last week Parti Quebecois language critic Pierre Curzi came out once again in favour of extending Bill 101 to Quebec cegeps (junior colleges,) and it appears that the separatist party is reluctantly moving towards that position, egged on by language militants and 'Chicken Littles' who are parroting the refrain that Quebec is in imminent danger of becoming as English as Ontario. LINK

Mr. Curzi's argument in favour of enforcing the language law is twofold, the first notion is that students who graduate from French high school and opt for English cegep, will magically transform into 'cursed' anglophones (a racist concept to begin with.) His second assertion is that the numbers of these 'turncoats' is alarming. LINK{fr}
Both ideas are utter tommyrot.

He references a self-serving 'sky is falling' study that he himself prepared, one which is fatally flawed, biased and scientifically unsound.  LINK{fr}

See my blog piece debunking his nonsense conclusions in another language study.

From this study, he builds from a false foundation to arrive at a similarly flawed logical conclusion.

Mr Curzi claims that about 3,500 Francophone and Allophone students (about half and half) who graduate French highs school opt for English cegep and that this fact, in and of itself, represents a danger to the French language. He further posits that when they finish their education they are more likely to accept an English-speaking job in Quebec, which will ultimately complete their descent into the hell of Anglicization.

Let us consider the alternate truth;

According to Mr. Curzi this means that an additional 135,000 students will have passed through  English cegep over the next 35 years.
Exactly how and why he chooses 35 years is as unfathomable, his rational that 35 years is the usual length of a career is about as relevant as the price of tea in China.
It's more likely that he chose this number to pump up the volume, he could have chosen 100 years, 10 years or 1 year.
Even at Mr. Curzi's own reference point, it's hardly a frightening scenario, even for language militants. The number represents about .005 percent of the population per year, or about 1.5% of the population over 35 years. Not exactly earth-shattering.

But let's keep it simple and discuss the 3500 students a year that opt for English cegep after having attended French high school.

Mr. Curzi intimates that these students will be 'lost' to the French side of the linguistic equation by virtue of their attendance at English cegep, but here's where Mr. Curzi conveniently ignores reality by failing to consider or refusing to accept the following;

• Of the 3500 students, the majority are already bilingual (and already lost) before entering English cegep.
• Of the 3500 students many are already eligible for English schooling under Bill 101 and have chosen French high school out of choice.
• Of the remaining minority of 'bone fide' francophones who make the balance of the 3500 students, very few give up their linguistic heritage just because they learned English or have accepted an 'English' job.

How much these factors mitigate Mr. Curzi's contention that all these students are 'linguistically transferred' or lost to the French side is a matter of conjecture, because no data really exists. I would suggest that the number is exceedingly small.

Again, let's consider some other truths; (I'll refer to these above-mentioned students as 'the 3500')

Most of the 3500 who Mr. Curzi refers to, are hardly francophones at all, about half are allophones and about half of the remainder are the children of French/English families who have chosen a French language path.

Almost one-third of Quebec anglophones choose a francophone or ethnic (or combination thereof) life partner, an amazing statistic that testifies to the fact that anglophones, francophones and ethnics get on pretty well.
Of these 'mixed' families about 65% of the children graduate from French high school, notwithstanding that ALL OF THEM are eligible for English education.

At any given time, almost 13% of all English-eligible students attend FRENCH school, by choice. 
(Readers can attest to this fact in the comments section. Please do.)

But going to French school doesn't change the fact that one of the parents of these mixed couples is English and almost all these children are BILINGUAL, based on their two-language home life. For these children going to English cegep makes sense, their parents keen that their bilingual children have the best of both worlds.
And so, sadly for Mr. Curzi, applying Bill 101 to cegeps, would not affect these students, as THEY ALREADY QUALIFY for English schooling and would continue to attend English cegep even if Bill 101 was extended to cegep!
You can safely knock out a significant number of the 3500 as being affected by Bill 101.

As for the balance of the 3500, how many have already chosen English as a language path before entering cegep? Well, almost all of them, to be sure......

The vast majority of students who hail from all-francophone families and who have attended public French school all their lives, cannot attend English cegep because they cannot speak English.
Students graduating from the French public system are generally unable to order breakfast in English, let alone successfully attend classes in English.
That is why 96% of these students go on to French colleges and universities.

It is only the already bilingual graduates of French high schools who have the capacity to go to English cegep, a fact that is never considered by Mr. Curzi.
If he thinks that dissuading these already bilingualized students from attending English cegep will forestall their ability to work in English he's a day late and a dollar short, that ship, as they say, has already sailed.

Most of the allophone students (half of the 3500) who opt for English cegep are already firmly assimilated in the anglophone community. According to MR. Curzi's own figures, 39% (or about 600 of the 3500) of them already speak English in the home, notwithstanding the fact that they were forced to attend French schools as per Bill 101. These are the students who talked English among their friends at recess (much to the chagrin of teachers) and who lived their lives completely in English outside school.
Recovering these students to the French side by virtue of forced French cegep is well nigh impossible, they've maintained their English language and culture for over a dozen years during French primary and high school. The die is already cast.

Of the remaining students of the 3500, who are bone fide francophones and who have chosen cegep  in order to become bilingual, what proof does Curzi offer us that they will become anglophones? Its my observation, that for those who have lived their entire school and home life in French, learning a second language and even working in a second language will not magically turn them into anglophones.

Just because a bilingual francophone speaks English at work, doesn't mean that he or she has abandoned French at home. Actually far from it. Remember, their children must still attend French school and in almost all cases the language of the home is French.

So how many students are actually being 'linguistically' transferred to English because of the open door policy of admissions at English cegeps?

Impossible to say, either for me or Mr. Curzi. There is no usable data available.

Mr. Curzi intimates that the number is 100% of the 3500, a ridiculous notion.

Me, if I'd have to pick a number, it would be less than one hundred, no more. Really.

Now consider this;

Almost two thousand students who graduate from English high schools choose to go to French cegep, of their own volition. A reverse 'language transfer' if we were to accept Mr. Curzi's logic.

Do these anglophones magically turn into francophones by virtue of the French cegep experience? Hardly.
But if Mr. Curzi was honest and applied his logic evenly across the board he'd have subtracted these students from the the number transferring to English cegep. Fair is fair.

Somehow I doubt that will happen.....

Here's an interesting  comment written under the Montreal Gazette story concerning the issue of imposing Bill 101 on English cegeps;

I am a child of bill 101. My parents are immigrants, came to Quebec 45 years ago.

I went to school in French (elementary and high school). I then chose to go to Marianopolis (English) and McGill (english). I had a choice between engineering at McGill in English or at Ecole Polytechnique in French (I got accepted to both) but opted for McGill due to the better reputation. While at McGill, i took the opportunity to study two courses at Polytechnique. The only french aspect to engineering courses was putting a french spin on non-french words and units.

I then went to grad school, in french, at HEC. The freedom to flip back and forth between french and english schools (starting in CEGEP) allowed me to develop my language skills and writing skills in both languages, making me a tremendous asset to my employer.

I spend my days correcting my colleagues and supervisors' emails. And the worst of them are the ones written, IN FRENCH, by unilingual, FRANCOPHONE QUEBECOIS. You know, the "pur laine".

Lets keep this province in the dark ages, keep voting for PQ and keep sacrificing our economic prosperity to preserve an archaic, destitute form of "french". Lets keep blaming the English language for all the ineptness of the francophone "leaders" of this province (nation har har). LINK

And so, good readers... every time you hear a French language militant quoting statistics invoking the spectre of French language doom, you can safely stick your fingers in your ears and shout;

"LA-DEE-DA!.......LA-DEE-DA!.... I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

It is all self-serving crap. Balderdash!

It's the same logic that militants use to remind us that Quebec gets a raw financial deal from Canada.

It just ain't so!......but hey, I'm only one voice in the wilderness....

Further reading Does Going to French School Make You a Francophone?

REMINDER- How to publish your comment with an anonymous alias

Five Billion Reasons to Say No

There's not much I can add to slag Gilles Duceppe's demand that Stephen Harper's Conservatives cough up an additional 5 billion dollars to Quebec in order to secure the Bloc Quebecois' votes in the upcoming Spring budget. LINK

Commentators and journalists have been attracted to the story like bees to honey or like flies to......well... suffice to say there's been a lot of ink and bandwidth devoted across Canada expressing universal rage and condemnation coupled with the supplication that Mr. Harper must do the honourable thing and reject the unholy demand that Quebec be paid off to insure that the government of the day remains in power.

In politics we call Mr. Duceppe's demand, gamesmanship or horsetrading. In real life we call it blackmail.
But no matter.

While columnists rage  at Mr. Duceppe's unmitigated effrontery, they have unfortunately entirely missed the point.

It should be patently obvious, even to the most naive political observer, that Duceppe formulated his demands to pick at the scab of Anglo resentment in relation to Quebec entitlements and to generate the exact anti-Quebec reaction that he has.
If he really wanted the money, he would have pursued the matter behind closed doors, horsetrading with a senior Conservative operative to 'cut a deal.' That's how things are done in Ottawa.

And so it was never about the money, it was about exacerbating the never-ending Canada versus Quebec polemic. In that respect Duceppe has again scored a brilliant victory as Canadians fall neatly into his 'piege'. It's surprising that so few commentators are able to see past the ridiculous demand, such is their hatred for Duceppe and their belief that he is an unsophisticated clown.
Canadians are used to taking people at face value, they assume that if someone says something, they actually mean it. When it comes to Gilles Duceppe, it's a rather naive assumption as he is a grand master at negotiating in bad faith.  

As ridiculous as Canadians find his demands, not so in Quebec, where the theme that the  province is chronically short changed by Ottawa plays well and where that special ability to employ voodoo accounting methods leads to the inevitable conclusion of financial oppression.

In Quebec, defending the principle of asymmetrical benefits has been raised to an art form and where any argument, no matter how vacuous can be invoked to justify the notion that Quebec is a financial victim of federalism.

Illustrating this phenomenon is the recent demand that Quebec receive in excess of 50% of the economic spin-offs in relation to the F-35 warplane contract signed with Lockheed Martin, based on the fact that Quebec is the historic home to Canada's aircraft industry.
Notwithstanding, when Ontario is awarded a disproportional slice of contracts in relation to military vehicles, because the automotive industry is Ontario-based, the howls of favouritism are raised in Quebec by nationalists claiming that Ottawa is once again, unfairly advantaging its favourite son.

Quebeckers are champion debaters and can always find an argument to counter any claim that they somehow advantaged. With just 22% of the population and 60% of the equalization pie, Quebec nationalists will tell us, with a straight face, that certain other provinces get 'proportionally higher benefits than Quebec.

When called out on the discrepancies, Quebec will claim that they are short-changed in other programs including military spending, native subsidies (because Quebec has comparatively few natives) or fishery programs because they are not an ocean province.

On and on it goes.
The debate is such that by the time all the facts and figures are bandied about by both sides, enough confusion reigns so that those who are predisposed to believe Quebec is spoilt, or alternately, deprived, can satisfy themselves that their position is solid. 

Voters have only so much capacity to absorb facts and figures and let's face it, considering that most can't balance their own cheque-book, understanding the vagaries of federal/provincial transfers is like quantum mechanics.

Most voters end up siding with the politician that they intend voting for and so any argument that makes the least sense, is accepted, as long as it sounds good. The Bloc is expert at making the 'these' shallow arguments, meant to confuse and confound the truth.
Ask Mr. Duceppe to explain why the Earth is flat and he'll produce a perfectly rational argument that will undoubtedly convince his constituency that it is indeed so!

So why did Mr. Duceppe stir the pot?

Well it seems that he smells an election coming or is ready to trigger one himself.

Mr. Duceppe, flush with Canadian cash via federal election campaign grants, favourable polling numbers and the likelihood that another hung parliament is in the offing, is looking for an issue to which the party can hang its hat onto.

It is clear that  Mr. Duceppe will base his campaign on what Quebec doesn't receive from Ottawa, rather than what it does.
It's simple clean and appealing, as long as nobody challenges him on the numbers, he'll be fine. In Quebec there remains no federalist a la Stephane Dion (who is now a spent force)  to challenge or call out Mr. Duceppe over his fantastical and self-serving numbers.

If polling numbers remain firm, there will be no majority government. Mr. Harper will be returned to power under the very same circumstances as before.

There will be no coalition between the losing parties and that means we'll be right back where we started, 300 million dollars poorer (the cost of an election)  and an almost identical minority government.

And so Mr Duceppe and the Bloc endure.
While some commentators in Quebec are questioning the wisdom of voting for a party that is delivering nothing to Quebec, the Bloc has once again cleverly found a new argument to justify its existence.
It now portrays itself as the only political option available that can thwart a Conservative majority government, a scenario which they portray as apocalyptic. A Parliamentary majority would deliver to Mr. Harper the means to chop down Quebec and to reduce it to 'just another province' status, something they portray as an unmitigated disaster.

They may be right.....

Amir Khadir Being Destroyed By Shoe Boycott

While PAJU continues its weekly Saturday  boycott of the LE MARCHEUR shoe store in Montreal, it's becoming clear that the only real damage being inflicted, is the ongoing publicity nightmare that is consuming the reputation of Amir Khadir and the Quebec Solidaire party.

Each Saturday a rag-tag group of Israel-bashers, consisting mostly of a combination of communists and self-loathing Jews, continue to protest in front of the Le Marcheur shoe on St. Denis street in Montreal, despite the fact that the continued 'action' has blown up rather poetically in their faces.
The demonstration has become a circus and is now attracting yahoos, including fascist Jean-Roch Villemaire the separatist/anti-immigration activist who was convicted last year for attacks against anglos. Link
It seems that when it comes to Israel-bashing both communists and fascists find common ground in Quebec! Read: L'extrême droite avec l'extrême gauche?(fr)
(A shout out to PIERRE F. for the heads-up)

***********************************************************************************

 LATE BREAKING NEWS!!!!

 Late yesterday PAJU has called a temporary halt to their boycott due to, according to them, facists joining their numbers. This blog piece already made reference to  Jean-Roch Villemaire and his MNRQ group  joining the boycott.... LINK

***********************************************************************************

Last week, politicians of all political stripes  dropped by the Boutique to offer support including Conservatives Steven Blaney and Rudy Husny, Liberals Marc Garneau and Marlene Jennings, Provincial Liberal Lawrence Bergman, ADQ members,Gérard Deltell and François Bonnardel as well as the PQ's Martin Lemay. 

It's patently clear in which direction the political winds are blowing. It seems that politicians of all parties (except Quebec solidaire) want to get in on the anti-boycott bandwagon.

For enemies of Mr. Khadir, it's the boycott that keeps giving!

Let me quickly refresh your memory as to the events leading up to this post.
Mr. Khadir, a radical separatist/socialist/communist member of Quebec's Parliament and the lone representative of the like-minded Quebec Solidaire party participated in a boycott demonstration in front of a Montreal independent shoe store that sold a small amount of Israeli made shoes.

Mr. Khadir handed out flyers encouraging clients not to shop in the store until it stopped selling the aforementioned shoes.

His participation in that boycott against the merchant blew up in his face as the media objected to a sitting member of Parliament participating in a boycott of a small Quebecois merchant, who had broken no laws. At first, Mr. Khadir made the mistake of defending his actions which proved to be a huge mistake which he likely regrets.

In reaction to all this, a concerted effort led by conservative journalist Eric Duhaime is afoot to expose, humiliate and denigrate the hitherto popular Khadir, something that has blindsided the usually media-savvy Khadir.

For Mr. Khadir, a quick apology and an admission that his presence at the protest was a mistake would have neatly defused the negative impact of his actions.

After all, everyone makes mistakes and Mr. Khadir's popularity was such that he could easily have withstood a small error in judgment.

Like Martha Stewart and Conrad Black, celebrities who thought they could brazen it out, they are often punished with a barrel of hurt when they fail to acknowledge a misdeed.

And so Mr. Khadir continues to be pilloried.

He first defended his position by reminding all who would listen that Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu both have called Israel an Apartheid State, but when the attacks became personally directed at himself, he characterized himself a victim of the "Israeli Lobby"
And so Mr. Khadir is  now telling us the Mr. Duhaime, Mr. Dutrizac, Mr. Martineau, his chief detractors in the francophone press (all respected journalists) are  part of that international Jewish conspiracy!

Mr. Khadir is fighting back because the attacks have become utterly vicious. In a radio interview with  Benoît Dutrizac, the journalist railed against Mr. Khadir without any pretense of respect, treating him like trash and demanding that Khadir call off the PAJU dogs.
Khadir defended himself saying he has no control over the group, but Dutrizac reminded him that his father was front and center demonstrating, to which Khadir answered that he was "not his father's keeper" What fun!
At the end of the interview, Dutrizac actually tells Khadir that he hopes the demonstrators get attacked. Listen to the interview(fr)

The issue has neatly veered away from the Israeli question, to the ethics of a sitting member of Parliament boycotting a small law-abiding merchant and realizing where the debate was going, Mr. Khadir, now in full damage control (too little, too late) lied changed his story and said he never discouraged clients from shopping in the store and was rather just encouraging them not to buy Israeli shoes.

He publicly asked for a meeting with the merchant to smooth things over, but the merchant told reporters that Mr. Khadir, notwithstanding what he was now saying, did indeed tell customers not to shop in his store and that he didn't see any point in meeting with Mr. Khadir. 

On the Quebec solidaire web site Khadir attempted to rewrite history.

"Contrary to what has beeen told, I don't believe in a boycott of this store, but a boycott of the Israeli products" Link

A few days ago ultra-conservative journalist Eric Duhaime exposed Mr. Khadir's revisionist view of his actions.

Appearing on Mario Dumont's television shoe, Mr. Duhaime destroyed Mr. Khadir's assertion that he never told clients not to shop in the store, by offering up a picture of Mr. Khadir handing out flyers that explicitly called for a boycott of the store, not the shoes. Touché!

He then reminded viewers that Jimmy Carter had actually apologized and asked forgiveness of the Jewish community for his 'apartheid' remarks.

As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so."- Jimmy Carter

"Al Het" refers to the Yom Kippur prayer asking God forgiveness for sins committed against Him. In modern Hebrew it refers to any plea for forgiveness. LINK

As for Desmond Tutu, Mr Duhaime also told viewers that the anti-apartheid cleric appears to see apartheid everywhere, even in Canada, referring to our treatment of natives.
Mr. Tutu also appears to be a fan of all 'underdogs,' including the 9/11 terrorists.

"He explained (Tutu) that the hijackers had been “willing to pilot a plane and  go to their deaths” because they were making a desperate plea for relief from the “poverty, hunger, and disease” that plagued the people of  their homelands"Link

Richard Martineau of the Le Journal de Montreal has also called out Khadir for making false arguments, specifically by misinterpreting statements by Professor Stephen Scheinberg an ex-director of the B'nai Brith who has been critical of Israel. The professor was aghast that he was being used by Mr. Khadir as an argument to support the boycott. Link

Mr. Martineau quoted the professor as saying that as a Zionist, he reserves the right to criticize the Israeli government, but does not support a movement that seeks to dismantle Israel, not reform it. 

Francois David, leader of Quebec solidaire party sensed the danger to her party and has tried to end the controversy by declaring that Mr. Khadir had made a mistake and that the issue was now closed. Perhaps Quebec Solidaire's position supporting the boycott made her a bit uncomfortable.

But others are not letting things go.
Mr. Khadir has still not acknowledged his mistake or apologized.

As long as the demonstrations continue, Khadir will be blamed and will continue to live a public relations nightmare. The condemnation is such, that not even his usual defenders in the Clique du Plateau or Radio-Canada dare speak out in his defence.

The longer it goes on and criticism of Khadir rages in the media, the harder it will be to shake off the political fallout. Opinions are being re-shaped.

I previously told you that Khadir was invincible in the Plateau Mont-Royal riding.

That may be changing.



Further reading.....:

Amir Khadir Has Jumped the Shark!
Amir Khadir Has a Lot to Hide
Communists Frolic at Khadir Chalet
Amir Khadir's Silence is Deafening
Quebec's Most Popular Politician- Ugh!.....

Good News!........Standing Firm on Religious Accommodation Pays Off

The question of religious accommodation sparks fierce debate and at its extreme, pits ultra-conservatives who believe that no accommodation should be offered against ultra-liberals who believe that freedom of religion is paramount and that accommodation is a fundamental right.

Most Canadian's are middle-of-the-roaders, believing that reasonable accommodations are fair as long as they don't violate Canadian values. It's an eminently reasonable position and reflects the common good sense and fairness that is the hallmark of Canadian society.

And so it is, that the kirpan represents a contentious issue among those who are in the middle, (those on the extreme ends of the debate have long established their positions) who rightfully fret over the dilemma of whether or not to provide the accommodation. There is room for difference of opinion and fair debate, even among those who are not dogmatic.

But there are some accommodations that all Canadians should object to, accommodations that are in direct contradiction to Canadian values of equality, respect and fairness.

In Quebec, the Hasidic community, a 10,000 member sect of fundamentalist Jews has been systematically refusing to educate their children in accordance with minimum standards as designated by the education department.
It isn't a case of minor differences, the Hasids impose upon their children a regimen of up to 35 hours per week of religious study, leaving just six hours to accommodate the three R's and all the other basic subjects.

I'm sure that most Canadians would agree (perhaps not the Montreal Gazette Editorial board) that an average of just one hour a day for French, English, math and science is just not 'kosher.'  Many might argue that such a situation can easily be considered child neglect or abuse.

The Hasids may disagree, but Canadians have long accepted that the government can impose compulsory schooling for both boys and girls as well a syllabus that both public and private schools must abide by.

The Quebec government has been aware of the academic 'problem' in Hasidic schools for years, but has treaded lightly, fearful of being accused of antisemitism.

Polite attempts by the government to prod the schools into any sort of compliance has failed miserably, with the Hasids employing legal delaying actions as well as threatening the government that the communities would up and leave the province, casting the aspersion that Quebec is intolerant.  And so the stalemate has endured for years, up until last year when the government found its backbone and initiated legal proceedings.

The ongoing debate over accommodations and language has cast the Hasids directly into the media spotlight and the press has been up in arms over the fact that the Hasids don't teach French in their schools with lessons provided in Hebrew, Yiddish and English exclusively, much to the chagrin of the you-know-whos. 

And so last year, emboldened by a of dose of language 'Dutch Courage' the government moved to have the school's public funding withdrawn and in some cases, the licenses revoked.
The Hasids reacted as they always have, by stonewalling and threatening legal action. But alas for them, these tactics did not work.

Faced with the very real possibility of having their school de-funded, a blow that would effectively close the institutions, the Hasids in one school did the impossible.

Instead of fighting, they decided to switch. They decided to comply.  Amazing!

After consulting their spiritual leader in Jerusalem, who gave his blessing to their plans to integrate, the Belz Hassidic community, which runs the religious school, undertook measures to fall in line with the education department's demands.

The school enacted the teaching of French from the earliest grades on  and extended classes until 6:45PM to make room for the other mandatory subjects, hitherto ignored or given short shrift.
Unqualified teachers were replaced by qualified French teachers able to teach the standard curriculum.
Another massive concession was the school's commitment to teach science. As you know fundamentalist schools (of all religious stripes)  have somewhat of a problem with this.

The changes at the school are epic, changes that the school is actually quite proud of.

"To integrate, we need to be able to communicate with the man in the street and in the stores" noted one school official.

 Read the whole story (fr)

Wow! That's quite a change.

If there are lessons to be learned it is that sometimes a government needs to stand up and just say "NO"
In this case the Hasids, in the face of a committed government position, decided that it was time to change and meet the government half-way.
The community will always remain devoutly Hasidic, but perhaps better educated and better able to function in a French Quebec. That is basically all the education department demanded.

Everyone is a winner.
It shows that religious communities can make concessions without destroying their beliefs.

If the government remains firm with the Sikhs over the kirpan, it's only a matter of time before that community accepts that compromise is necessary and that they cannot wear the dagger in certain public situations.

When they do comply, they will find that their religious piety hasn't been affected, they will remain Sikhs who venerate God in their own way. It will be a change, but a small one and eventually it will be no big deal.

Nothing is written in stone, religious customs can and do evolve, but sometimes a push is needed. Those liberals who advocate in favour of the kirpan in public are enablers who delay the inevitable integration of Sikhs in mainstream society.

If there is a moral to this story, it is "Just say No"

Like a child who refuses to eat his dinner and is faced with the same plate at each subsequent meal by parents who are even more stubborn, eventually the child eats. It's called good parenting.

Ultra-religious communities cannot maintain certain practices and remain good citizens. Our society is open and pluralistic, but there are limits which must be defended if our societal values are to be protected.
It doesn't mean that we want to impose secularism upon the devout, not by a longshot. Nobody is asking Sikhs or Hasids to abandon their faith.
We are ready to compromise and accommodate, but compromise is a value that these communities have to adopt as well. 

Remaining firm and upholding the shared beliefs that make us Canadian is a noble enterprise. The lesson that we learned in the above story is that they ultra-religious communities can also can evolve to share those values, while remaining true to their core beliefs.

Let us not fall into the liberal trap that says that we must accommodate at all costs.

It's too expensive a price to pay.