On Wednesday, October 18, 2017, the provincial government of Quebec passed a law entitled “Bill n°62: An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality.” The Law can be read here.

Within contained the opening salvo against the state’s fiercest enemy, people wearing sunglasses who board buses… (Insert shock music, “Dun, dun, dun dah.”) Or perhaps the government is really trying to get you to take off that face mask as you get on the bus in the frigid depth of a Quebec winter where – 40 is the day’s highest temperature. Both of which are proposed reasons for this bill. Wink wink, nudge nudge. In fact, only someone in a coma would miss that this neutrality bill is anything but. It is aimed squarely at the Muslim women wearing the Burqa or the Niqab; the burqa is the full face covering allowing the women a small grill in which to see out of.  The Niqab is a veil where the eyes can be seen. News reports have spoken of this law applying to the Hijab which is the headscarf alone. This is not the case as the law refers to covering up of the face.

This law was rushed into place by the government to shore up its falling numbers among soft nationalists. It’s a win-win for the government. It gains them needed votes among the soft nationalist province wide. It also gains them votes in the lily white communities around Quebec City and it hurts them not at all among the minorities in Montreal. The government recently lost a by-election in Louis-Hébert, a riding outside of Quebec City. It was a wake-up call. So to cater to the islamophobic nature of isolated white communities they passed this law that can only be seen as an attack on the Muslim minority, which is a growing concern among the people who live in Quebec City. Meanwhile in Montreal, a cosmopolitan city of minorities and immigrants, the lack of a political opposition that can take up the slack of the voters who do not want to vote for the liberals, makes the whole island one collective hostage to the liberals. They have nowhere else to go, no one to vote for except the liberals because all other parties, the CAQ, PQ or Quebec Solidaire are all even more offensive to these ethnic groups.

Now if you thought that this was cynical, hold on to your hat!

Just how many people does this law apply to? Millions of Muslims? Thousands perhaps?

“Frédéric Castel, a researcher at Université du Québec à Montréal, estimates there are between 50 and 100 women — out of some 150,000 Muslim women in the province — who wear the veil. The Muslim Council of Montreal believes there are fewer, telling BuzzFeed Canada in a statement that there are “no more than 50 women in Quebec.'”

Quote found here.

So for all the drama of passing this law, the payoff is in the strengthening of the liberal bond with the soft nationalist, white, Islamophobic vote, not alienating the minority vote in Montreal, even if they are nominally the target, but in fact, the real target is 50 to 100 women. These women, by what they wear alone, make them targets for insult and attacks, “Halloween is next week… (Insert cuss word for female gentiles or female dog.)” They are further isolated from their own religion, as this is not a tenant  of the Qur’an but an imposed law made by males in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to further control and demean their women into servitude and subservience. Thus deprived of public services like riding a bus, women will only be allowed to drive next year in Saudi Arabia, so most do not have any training on how to drive cars. So they are forced to take public transport, only now they are not allowed to do so. The Bus Drivers unions are all saying they will not be the ones enforcing this law. Women in such conditions who try to better themselves by getting an education are also not allowed into class or even onto the school grounds covered up. In theory, they cannot take this government service of being educated while wearing the Burqa or the Niqab, University professors are also coming out and refusing to do anything about this new law. Worse yet, the government has not even come up with any sort of guidelines for drivers or teachers on what to do if any of those 50-100 women do show up asking for service. Now how cynical is that?

You just have to guess that it can even get worse. And it does.

6 legal cases for Niqab In Canada

This matter has been tested in court and without even referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the courts have ruled such laws to be unenforceable to illegal. This law will surely be declared unconstitutional in three to five years, long after the next election to be held October 2019. Talk about cynical and why politicians are held in such low respect? Need I say more upon this subject?

One last comment from Justine Trudeau, at least he got this right; “We shall defend the rights of ALL Canadians.” And rightly so.

 
Continue reading →

The city of Montreal has a service where you can rent a bike for a while, be it an hour or a day. The question is should we keep it or let it blow away with the wind. Why? Because it is costing Montreal money to subsidies this service. Here is how the argument works outs. By any legal sense, accounting sense and or professional sense Bixi made a profit. This is certified by the General Accountant of Montreal under the rules of accounting in both Provincial and Federal law covering these matters. However, having said that, we then enter the details of the financial statement and see where some doubt comes from. In it, we see the city has paid some 3 million dollars to the company, counted as part of its revenue, as a donation, thus not repayable. This is clearly greater than the profit made some 1 million dollars rounded up. So therefore Bixi, without such aid did not make a profit. Please note, we have shifted the question from being one of profitability to that of long term sustainability without such assistance or taking thus public cooperation, not for profit and turning the rules of a private For Profit Company which does not get help from the government. This however is an unfair turn. The part of Bixi, the international arm of it, that is paid royalties from places like New York and London for the Bixi idea, is making vast profits. The city had to sell this part of the program as it is incompatible with the city’s charter to make a private sector profit or enter into a business arrangement. So if the two, which were once the same company, were again merged, there would be no need for the city to give a subsidy to Bixi, as it would be making a profit on its own terms, without subsidies. So there you go, half full or half empty. I leave the question to you. However, I repeat by all that is considered to be the legal standard of accounting principles, Bixi did indeed make a profit and is making a profit as certified by the Auditor General of Montreal, and would be the acceptable as a professional opinion in any Canadian court of law where their opinion asked. Changing the nature of the question then allows for the answer to be that Bixi did not make a profit. However, if we allow the change to our primary question, we must return the public and the private together, in order to make the comparison. For it is only because of the nature of the city, not allowed to own the For Profit part of Bixi that the profitable side was sold.  In other words, you cannot have it both ways; either we treat Bixi as a fully private or fully public corporation.  In the fully public side, we see now, it is profitable by the rules set up by accounting. If we turn to the private side, we cannot fight with one arm ties behind our back, or sold off to ensure that Bixi remains true to being a public trust and not making a private profit. So rejoining the two parts seem to be only fair to see if they make a profit and they do. So in either case, when regarding this question, we must look to both sides of the issue and see what is to be seen. Not merely make an assertion of no viability on financial grounds, when the ground work and history is completely ignored.