Skip to main content

who polices the police?

if you're in montreal, that's not a rhetorical question. while i've criticised some who've associated themselves with montreal's student protests for stupidly attacking the city's metro system, i have to say that last night, the city's police force found a way to one-up them.

apparently responding to protest supporters shouting insults at them from a terasse, the montreal police- who are apparently rather more sensitive than one might think- ransacked the bar where the verbal protestors were drinking, causing damages, chaos and a massive headache for the bar's owner.

said owner is justifiably confused, since the purpose of the highly restrictive bill 78 [that became law this week, proving that governments can work very quickly when they want to] was ostensibly to protect downtown business owners who were threatened by the protests' renegade elements who might smash their windows or spray-paint their doors. instead, it's resulted in an independent small business owner [le st. bock is a microbrewery pub in the city's dynamic latin quarter] having his establishment doused in pepper spray, his night's income largely lost [most everyone fled in panic, leaving a lot of unpaid bills].

here's a video taken from the bar's security cameras, along with an interview with le st. bock's owner [in french]:



i hope mr. guimond does press the police for answers, because i'd love to know what they are. in the meantime, i guess we'd all do well to remember that the montreal police are apparently very sensitive about being teased and if you do want to help out le st. bock by buying a drink at their establishment, you might want to be sure to wipe down your chair if you're wearing shorts.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …