"While we obsess over the legality of the language of signage, Montreal English
speakers are taking the city, district by district, based on institutional bilingualism imposed on us by our cowardly politicians. They are
laying the foundations of a future Anglophone metropolis in the heart of Quebec, dispossessed of it's native language."
If ever there's a place where Anglos would flaunt the Quebec signage law, the one that forbids English from taking a predominant form on commercial signage, it would be in that bastion of Anglo arrogance, Westmount Square, the shopping mall that sits under the office and apartment complex on St. Catherine in the city of Westmount.
In my second instalment, I confidently confront the popular myth and urban legend that Montreal is going English in terms of commercial signage.
With my trusty IPhone camera I snapped a couple of photos before a grouchy security guard demanded to know what I was doing and ordered me to cease and desist when I told him the truth.
Notwithstanding, here's a photo montage of what I found. I swear to all the gods of journalistic integrity that I am reporting fairly. In fact, I made it a point to search out any illegal signs.
There's two types of signs in the mall, those placed by the management of the mall and thoses placed by the merchants. Let's start with the first category.
Hmmm. Not a lot of English here. What are all those old English biddy's to do. The English on the parking signs is so small, they probably need to learn French to understand what's going on....It's a plot!
By the way, the tiny "STOP" as opposed to the large "ARRET" is a perfect touch, demonstrating that language also trumps safety!
Now for the stores;
Nope , no big English scofflaws here, but I did try to find a sign that brazenly humiliated the the sign laws and after almost giving up the search, I found this pearl in the garage;
It all started over a municipal campaign poster that raised the ire of nationalist and French language militants.
Barbara Charlebois was running for office in Gatineau's Alymer District (a decidedly English neighbourhood) and erected campaign posters that were almost completely English. The one word in French that was included was misspelt. ('voter' should have read 'votez')
Notwithstanding that Quebec's language laws do not apply to political material and her signs were completely legal, a storm of controversy erupted over the apparent 'insult.'
For Jean-Paul Perreault, president of Impératif Français
"It's revolting...", "It's shows a lack of sensibility and respect for the city in which she seeks public office...." It's a return to linguistic arrogance" Ahemm....
For Quebec radical Jean-Roch Villemaire it was the last straw. He issued an ultimatum to Ms. Charlebois to remove the signs or else he would remove them himself. True to his word, he uprooted the signs and immediately took credit for the act.
For Mr. Villemaire, it was not his first encounter with Ms. Charlebois who is a board member of the Regional Association of West Quebecers, an organization that he had been harassing over their advocacy in favour of increased English usage in government.
A group called "Ligue de défence nationale" had previously sent Ms. Charlebois a threatening email.
“If French has taken a certain place in Quebec it is because of the
radical and sometimes violent FLQ during the ’60s, provoking an exodus
of Anglo-Montrealer businesses storefront by storefront,” the message
said. “We are its reincarnation. We will win.”
Turns out the email was sent by none other than Mr. Villemaire, who at first denied his involvement, but was outed as the author of the threats by journalists who traced the messages to Mr. Villemaire's computer.
He later admitted all, in a defiant statement.
"As of late, I've sent several emails to West Quebecers and
Barbara Charlebois demanding that they stop anglicizing Quebec. I also wrote "Français", "Québec libre" et "FLQ" on two windows and the West Quebecers sign. I removed about a dozen of Ms. Charlebois' election signs. I didn't commit any act of violence, nor did I make any calls to violence either.
Mr. Villemaire was probably feeling the heat of a police investigation which was closing in on him. His antics caught the attention of not only local police but those charged with protecting Canada against terrorism. It's obvious that he has reconsidered his position and toned down the rhetoric.
His statement made a point to emphasis that he was not a terrorist and had not preached violence, likely in an effort to avoid more serious charges. It's also likely that his lawyer explained to him that militancy aside, he could find himself on the 'NO-FLY' list.
Apparently Mr. Villemaire is not made of the same stuff as Che Guevera.
Villemaire is a hateful windbag who ran for the Parti Indépendentiste during the
2008 Quebec provincial election and collected about 150 votes, about the same amount as the Marxist-Leninist candidate, so his level of support is rather limited. It's no surprise, according to the Ottawa Citizen, he's an admirer of Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini and
European neo-fascists as well. There's not much support for a fascist-separatist radical in a riding that counts a lot of Federal government workers as it's mainstay.
At any rate, police charged him with simple mischief, to which he has pleaded not guilty. He's extremely lucky to get off with the relatively light charge.
Had he spray painted a hate message on a Mosque instead of an Anglo organization, he'd be looking at a hate crime.
His trial is to take place later this year and it will be interesting to see if he turns it into some sort of show event, but it's doubtful.
He seems to be getting good legal advice and the "Innocent " plea is likely a device to buy time for his lawyer to negotiate a plea. Meanwhile I bet Mr. Villemaire will be on his best behaviour. Watch.
I hope I'm wrong. He has already admitted doing the deeds he is charged for. If he claims that his actions were justified in court, he'll be crucified.
Perhaps the very best commentary of the whole affair was written by an excellent blogger TYM MACHINE over on the conservative web site, Republique de bananes.
For those without French I am providing a small translation;
"Imagine for a moment that the opposite situation occurred on to the other side of (Ottawa) river. Suppose there was a municipal election in Ottawa and a candidate in a largely French district, 'Vanier' for example, decided to
post election signs in French only, since no law prohibits this in the city of Ottawa and in the province of Ontario (as in the case in Quebec.)
Following
this "affront" to English voters, certain unscrupulous individuals complain in the English media that they feel abused and insulted by this behaviour. They
call for the delinquent candidate to remove the unilingual placards within 24 hours or face the consequences
... 24 hours go by and still no action from the individual offender. He or she says it is his right and he or she will not give in to blackmail by extremists. The complainers get angry and take action. They remove the signs and paint hateful
graffiti like "Frogs, go home" on a building belonging to an
association of Francophones of Ottawa.
I wonder how the Jean-Paul Perreaults and the Jean-Roch Villemaires of the world would react to this
fictional aggression, this heinous crime of Francophobia taking place just 20
km from home?"
Recently a great deal of ink has been spent decrying the fact that McGill is over-funded as compared with Francophone institutions and unfairly benefits from corporate and private donations as well federal government largess.
The refrain goes on and on, but took a decidedly different and strange twist last week, with many articles complaining about the fact that McGill has given up financing it's MBA program through government subsidies, by going the private route.
Early this year, McGill announced that the MBA program in the Desautels Faculty of Management would switch to a "self-funded model" beginning in Fall 2010. The move will see the faculty forgo funding from the Quebec government and cover costs by raising tuition rates to $29,500 per year for the two-year program. The increase in tuition will affect all students. Currently, Quebec students pay an average of $1,672.80 per year, while other Canadian students pay $4,675.68, and international students pay $19,890.....THE McGILL TRIBUNE
McGill, frustrated that it's MBA program rated poorly against other top notch universities decided that it could only compete by spending more on the program. Since they were already spending $10,000 more than they were taking in between the government subsidy and tuition, they decided to abandon the public model completely and build an elite program by charging students the full cost of $29,000 per year.
"But if Quebec is unwilling to pay for the $10,000 shortfall, it's time that they stopped opposing McGill's real-world solution..."THE McGILL TRIBUNE
But of course that's not how nationalists saw it. Why what happens at McGill is of such importance to them is puzzling, after all the school turned down the public money. Strangely, commentators raged against the decision, claiming it to be a harbinger of things to come over on the Francophone side.
"How
far does the particular status of McGill allow it to preserve it's
reputation by imposing fees of nearly $ 30 000 for an MBA? In
deciding to self-finance its entire program and forgo a public subsidy, the Montreal university flouts the rules and opens the door to a
practice that could well spread to other faculties. This is a worrying precedent...
"In
fact, the price tag attached to this certificate guarantees that the
owner comes from a wealthy background, he probably has powerful
connections and that his network could potentially be beneficial for a
company. As such, he deserves a big salary...." Show romanization
"....McGill is demonstrating that what interests it, is to recruit rich people, not bright students. Long term, it does not make for very capable managers, but it can provide a lot of generous donors. Isn't that what counts?"
"It's unfair to expect other students - like us - to make up that
$10,000 when the average MBA student is 28 years old, works in private
industry, and commands an average annual salary of $80,000 upon
graduation."
"The best way to penalize McGill would be to hit it where it distinguishes itself from all other Quebec universities. The
department could order that in the future, McGill include, a
proportion of revenue from its foundation in its annual financial
statements, in order to reduce the grant paid annually to the
Department Education.
Janet Bagnall is by far my least favourite Montreal Gazette columnist. She's even more annoying than the Gazette's in-house separatist, Josée Legault, who's vapid missives are about as interesting as is a 100 page PQ policy paper.
Mizz Bagnall is the Gazette's resident whining womens libber, who is ever prepared to blame men, successful men, unsuccessful men, male politicians, rich and successful nations run by men, big companies run by men, big government run by men, male bullies and finally, men in general, for all the world's ills.
Her latest missive, Blame the U.S. and France for Haiti's woe is true to form, with 'Blame' being the central theme of yet another column that would get a 'F" from any journalism professor in the country.
In her heavily 'borrowed' piece from assorted journalists and activists, she blames the United States, France and the World Bank for all of Haiti woes. It's the interfering and scheming western world that sought to enslave, rape and dominate this island paradise which has led Haiti down the path of mediocrity.
What else is new?
While proffering all sorts of facts and figures, Mizz Bagnall seems to have little understanding of the math involved.
Here she complains, pirating citing an article in the ultra-left wing THE NATION, that Haiti is saddled with a burdensome debt load.
"Haiti spent $57.4 million to service its debt, Richard Kim reports, a sum that dwarfed the $39.2 million it was given in foreign aid for education, health care, and other services...."
58 million dollars does not "dwarf" 40 million by any stretch of the imagination, perhaps a billion would. Using the 'dwarfed' adjective gives the false impression that there is a wide gap between what Haiti owes and what it gets from the international community. It's a sin of omission not to include in this aid number, donations provided by NGOs, private charities and church groups. (not all aid comes in cash from sovereign governments)
While Mizz Bagnall intimates (quoting Mr. Kim) that this 58 million dollar debt is crushing, it is anything but. Using the figures that she quotes herself, the total amount of debt comes out to under eight dollars per Haitian per year, not a game changer, even for the impoverished Haitians. If you subtract from this number a revised aid figure that accounts for all foreign aid, there isn't any gap at all.
"An economically "reformed" Haiti has seen its 1990 per-capita GDP of $617 fall to $425 by 2004."
This statement is the one I object to the most. Why use outdated statistics (2004) other than to mislead? In 2009 Haiti's per capita GDP was US$660. Link
It's funny how you can make figures dance according to your own agenda. One could safely conclude that Haitians income rose by more than 50% since 2004.
Let's put this whole debt issue into context. The Haitian national debt is somewhere between 600 and 700 million dollars. This number reflects the fact that $1.5 billion of debt has been written off by the international community, quite recently. The money that Haiti does owe, is a relatively small amount even considering Haiti's impoverished condition. It's probably that small because no legitimate banker in their right mind would ever lend the country a dime. At any rate, when apportioned to the 9.6 million Haitians, it works out to less than $70 of debt per person or about one and a half months of salary. By contrast each Canadian owes approximately one and a half years of salary, as their portion of our public debt.
"No sooner had Haiti's slaves declared their freedom and established Haiti as a republic, than France imposed reparations of 150 million francs - under the threat of a trade embargo. Haiti had to borrow from the U.S. to pay the French. It took Haiti until 1947 to pay off about60 per cent of the loan, valued in 2003 dollars at more than $21billion."
Even if it's true, so what? The debt was paid off in 1947. What have they done since then?
Many countries have overcome hardship and adversity and lived through circumstances much worse than Haiti. Germany and Japan are example of countries that have emerged from the dust heap, their people humbled and discouraged, their homeland reduced to a pile of rubble after World War Two, to emerge as powerhouse nations in just twenty or thirty years.
"When the International Monetary Fund extends a helping hand to Haiti,as it did this week, strings are usually attached. According to information posted by Kim, the IMF's conditions include switching from domestic consumption to exports, devaluation of local currency, a sell-off of public goods and services, and a reduction in the salaries and size of the civil service. Haiti's public-sector employment is the lowest in the region at less than one per cent."
Like all apologists, shilling for struggling nations in need of cash, Mizz Bagnall repeats the complaint that the World Bank imposes harsh rules and restrictions as a condition of securing a loan.
I don't know which world she lives in, but in this one, bankers always exact conditions when lending money.
Does she honestly believe that the World Bank imposes these conditions in order to be cruel and vindictive?
Without conditions, is there any doubt that the money would go down the same sinkhole as before? The Haitian economy is so badly mismanaged and corrupt, that any rules would be a positive step.
Haiti ranks 150th out of 180 countries in terms of business climate. It takes over three years to get a construction permit. Does Mizz Bagnall really think we should give them carte blanche?
Here's a report on the basket case that Haiti is: Doing Business in Haiti
The logical conclusion of Ms. Bagnall's column is that out of guilt, we should send gads of money to Haiti and leave them to sort things out.
It is without a doubt, the very worst of ideas and one that would insure that future generation of Haitians will be doomed to live in the same misery and squalor as Haitians find themselves in today.
Sometimes, Mizz Bagnall, the fault lies within. Sometimes blaming others is not helpful.
What Haiti needs ismore interference, not less.
If ever there was an example of a country in need of an intervention, it is Haiti. The United Nations should step in, dissolve it's government and create a trusteeship.
It isn't something new, the UN has run mandates before. For the sake of future generations of Haitians, the world organization needs to take this drastic step.
Like drug addicts and alcoholics that have hit bottom, sometimes an intervention is the only reasonable course of action. Anything else is time, money and effort wasted. Lives are at stake.
Sometimes, you just have to take stock of yourself.... and stop blaming others.....
Listening to apologists like Janet Bagnall will only exacerbate the hopeless situation.
If there's anything unionized employees of Quebec's liquor monopoly, (Société des alcools du Québec) learned from their ill-fated strike four years ago, it's that it's a lot better to cooperate with their employer than fight.
Throughout the three month strike the employer managed to operate about 10% of it's 400 retail locations with management personnel. The stores operated at full capacity with customers seemingly unaffected, except for the longer drive, lineups at the checkout and the diminished selection. Customers were inconvenienced but not to the point of supporting the strikers, after all booze is booze and those in need will make the effort and suffer the inconvenience. Amazingly the SAQ made more money during the strike then before or after, thus providing us with the lesson that the SAQ has too many locations and employees.
At any rate, the days of confrontation between the union and the SAQ is over. A brand new collective agreement calls for a massive raise for employees.
On Thursday morning Jean-Luc Mongrain (TVA) interviewed representatives of both management and the union and it was as if they were brother and sister, singing in harmony.
Mongrain has a very particular way of interviewing. While remaining deferential and polite, his acerbic and well researched inquiries are to the point and quite disarming.
Throughout the interviews, Mr. Mongrain continued to pound home the point that the new deal provided an experienced SAQ cashier/clerk a salary of, wait for it---- $28.71 an hour.
No it's not a typo, $28.71 an hour for punching the cash register and pointing the way to the Chablis aisle.
What are the qualifications for this job? A high school diploma.
A first year medical resident, a doctor, is paid about $20 an hour. A clerk in your average retail store makes between minimum wage and $12 an hour.
How good is the salary? Well, during the negotiations, the union was offered performance bonuses which they promptly voted against. After all who needs to work hard for a small bonus when you're already making $29 an hour?
Both the union and the company representatives tried to explain away the increase based on a pay equity settlement which was mandated by law and with which they had no control over.
The pay equity law forces companies to match salaries in categories of jobs that are traditionally manned by females to those of comparable male dominated groups. To read more about the ridiculous lengths that this law goes to, read my post.
And so the SAQ employees who man (or woman) the registers got a big salary boost because of the interpretation of law that declared the women discriminated against, in terms of renumeration.
But a closer look and a rigid application of the law shows that employees did not qualify at all for this pay equity settlement.
The law provides that when a certain job description or type is occupied by over 60% females, those employees (both male and female) are subject to the pay equity legislation and may be eligible for compensation (an investgation is required.)
But in the case of the SAQ, the cashier/clerks group comprises of only 57% females and thus does not qualify for pay equity!
When pressed on the issue, an SAQ spokesman spokeswoman, Isabelle Merrizi explained that even though the employees didn't technically qualify, the number of woman in the catagory was growing and that within a couple years would breach the sixty percent line. They decided as a company to face the issue early. Arrrggghhh!!!!!!
What company in the world would make such a stupid decision? Could you imagine a boss in private industry doing the same?
The whole story stinks to high heaven.
Instead of giving the employees a pay equity settlement based on future projections, wouldn't a prudent employer just hire an equal number of men and women and maintain the status quo?
The fact, that the SAQ is increasing the amount of woman in this category is in itself discriminatory. Isn't it against the law to announce beforehand that more women than men will be hired?
The truth is that the bosses at the SAQ don't really care. They are lazy and don't want another strike, they had to work too hard during the walkout. Working the register is something they hadn't bargained for and they'll do anything to avoid it in the future, including giving away the candy store.
The SAQ produced $800 million in profits for the government last year. If that profit fell to $750 million, it's no skin off management's nose. Nobody ever gets fired for non-performance and hey, labour peace has a price....
