Translating the printemps érable

One year later.

Sun, 19 May 2013 11:16:00 -0400

Today is the one year anniversary of this blog. I started it on May 19th, a Saturday morning, on my couch in my pajamas, feeling angry and disempowered by what I had been reading in the news, and seeing outside my window (and the massive disconnect between the two). I am someone who aspires to be an activist, but who rarely lives up to such goals. But watching the escalation of the conflict last spring, and particularly the way that mainstream media sources seemed to have so little regard for masses of young people having their human rights so blatantly violated, I was finally compelled into this modest form of action. I was shocked when, within 24 hours, dozens of people were joining me in the unglamorous job of translating worthwhile French sources on the conflict into English. Very quickly, this blog became an incredible group effort, something sustained by the drive and feelings of urgency of dozens of people, many of whom did not know each other, reaching out from across Montréal, Québec, Canada, and some even around the world. I am proud that I now count many of our volunteer translators among my good friends.

A lot of thoughtful words have already been written reflecting on the events of last spring and summer, and connecting them to where we are now. I won’t rehash them here except to reiterate the general themes of these missives; we did something incredible, but our system is still profoundly broken. After the last provincial election, when it seemed that the movement was going into a well-deserved period of rest, most of the local regular translators of this blog met up for a drink. We talked about the future; we did not want to squander all the energy and experience we had gotten from this project. We brainstormed ambitious plans. And I remember, distinctly, making a timeline for when we would put up a “goodbye” message on this blog, which we kept putting off, and never got around to doing. But one of the biggest lessons I have learned from doing this blog is that something that you can’t brainstorm is a sense of momentum. You just have to let things happen as people feel they need to. And so, since the end of the printemps érable, this blog has had quiet moments, but it has also had busier moments, especially at the height of Idle No More and in the fight to abrogate By-law P-6. Last summer, this project was my life; I would work on it constantly, hungrily, until the wee hours of the morning. Since then, it has been largely run by Patricia, who was the very first stranger to get in touch and volunteer her services, 24 hours after I created this blog. It has evolved under her careful guidance. I am glad we never put up that “goodbye” message. I, perhaps, was going into hibernation last fall, as my own energy waned, but that didn’t mean that the whole project would; the incredible thing about collective projects is that energy can shift from one person to another as it needs to. There is always space for some to be tired and to need rest, and for others to carry us forward. I hope the same happens with our larger movement as well.

So a year on, what can I say about this strange project, begun so impulsively, yet sustained until today? I can’t tell you what it tangibly accomplished, in terms of contributing to the social movement that swept this amazing place we call Québec, as we are still assessing its effects, and many of us hope that it isn’t actually over. I know that it did, nevertheless, teach me about the importance of communication, and of using as many creative and innovative means as possible to spread information, ideas and experiences, especially in political climates where there is such hostility to that kind of dissemination. This project exploded so quickly last spring because we were so hungry to know, and to talk to each other, and to counteract the noise of compassionless pundits and newspapers that do little more than reiterate demagogic government press conferences. We fought that damaging noise with substance, passion and solidarity. I was stunned, for example, when I published this open letter, and it garnered an enormous and emotive response. I wrote it very quickly, one evening after coming home from casseroling, which is evident in some of the awkward and repetitive turns of phrase that it contains. I was a bit embarrassed that this flawed piece of writing took off like it did, before I could edit it with a clearer head. But to me, that letter, as well as this entire project, became evidence of what can be accomplished when we are all thinking together, and in the same direction. So often, we feel isolated, like our way of viewing the world is ours alone. Our current political system and discourse are essentially designed to make us feel that way, such that we forget that we are all in this together. Last summer, a lot of us felt profoundly connected, and like we really, really understood each other. This blog was a lesson in solidarity, not just as an important political concept, but also as a way of being. Both are powerful and crucial.

I write this little anniversary reflection during another moment that fills me with the kind of anxiety that prompted me to begin this modest project. I feel on edge due to the mass arrests happening in Montréal; the Marois government’s hypocrisy and disregard for the poor; and the Harper government’s relentless contempt for the people it governs, as it steals our money, destroys our land, ignores the urgent needs of First Nations peoples, and whittles away at our social safety net. I am anxious not just because of the actions of people in power, but also because of how little the media sources with the loudest voices seem to care. How much longer can all of this go on for? I feel sick with worry over what is to come. But I am at least grateful that over the past year, this project taught me that there are ways that I can contribute, and that when my contributions come together with those of others, our anxiety can be transformed into something amazing.

So thank you to everyone who ever contributed to this blog, whether you did a single translation or 100, or you sent us some corrections, or a link to an article you thought was important, or you just read us or reblogged us or retweeted us or liked us on Facebook. Thank you, sincerely, for helping me feel less powerless. I would be glad to know if we, at any point, helped you feel less powerless too. The ability to give each other such a gift will help with all the fights still ahead of us.

As this was such a group effort, if you did contribute to this blog in any way, no matter how small or how big, I would love to invite you to write a “one year later” reflection as well. I will be happy to post them; just email translatingtheprintempsderable@gmail.com. Thank you, again, for being a part of this. Last spring and summer felt like a crazy dream. It will stay with me for the rest of my life.

Best wishes,

Anna, Translating the printemps érable

You, Madame Marois (Voir)

Thu, 09 May 2013 12:19:00 -0400

May 9, 2013 Marc-André Cyr

Original French Text: http://voir.ca/marc-andre-cyr/2013/05/09/vous-madame-marois/

The Marois government is putting into place a “Special commission to examine the events of the spring of 2012”. The objective, you have surely guessed, is not to respond to demands for an inquiry on police brutality, but rather to see that a revolt of this scale never happens again.

Strikes, demonstrations and civil disobedience are effective modes of action. The allow the population to deal with what is affecting them. They are, in effect, the only means at its disposal to really become a social and historical actor.

The people becoming something other than a long series of anonymous X-es? The people becoming something other than a more or less biased poll? The people becoming something other than a spectator of their own existence? It is definitely necessary to see that such a disaster never reproduces itself, this the government has well understood.

Why the student rebellion? Why so many people angry? Our leadership class is so self-important, so used to basking in its fantastical fairy tales that it refuses to see what is nevertheless a fact so obvious that it is brilliant like the sun.

If the people are rebelling, Madame Marois, it’s because of you.

You and everything you represent.

You and your “red square” of circumstance.

You and your predictable hypocrisy.

You and Léo Bureau-Blouin.

You and the cuts that have been bleeding out our welfare for over thirty years.

You and the bankers at the service of an infinite accumulation of money.

You and the technocrat bureaucrats of the destruction of our environment.

You really want to know why people are angry? Do not point the finger at the Liberals, they are exactly like you. Look instead in the mirror, Madame Marois. You are not an alternative. You are made of the same corrupt stock. You are steeped in the same mercenary sauce.

It is you and your friends, Madame Marois, the lack of ideas that you personify that push us into the streets.

You and the manufacturers of servile opinions.

You and your dead language, your language of vinegar.

You and Jean Charest, the plague or cholera.

You and your management without ideals and without ideas.

You and your protected, violent, brutal, stupid, cowardly and imbecilic police.

You and your contempt for the poor.

You and your ersatz of sovereigntism void of content.

You, your words, your actions and your inaction.

It is not fashionable to use these words. They are too charged full of meaning for our era which no longer has any, but it is nevertheless this that we are talking about. You are like the others, Madame Marois. You are bourgeoise. A bourgeois class serving itself.

A bourgeoise who perfectly embodies mediocrity and the degeneration of our political institutions.

“No mercy. We can see right through you.” – Claude Gauvreau

***

Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.

*Translating the printemps érable is a volunteer collective attempting to balance the English media’s extremely poor coverage of the student conflict in Québec by translating media that has been published in French into English. These are amateur translations; we have done our best to translate these pieces fairly and coherently, but the final texts may still leave something to be desired. If you find any important errors in any of these texts, we would be very grateful if you would share them with us at translatingtheprintempsderable@gmail.com. Please read and distribute these texts in the spirit in which they were intended; that of solidarity and the sharing of information.

Maple Spring: The government dismally misses the boat (L'actualité)

Thu, 09 May 2013 00:07:00 -0400

Josée Legault May 8, 2013

Original French Text: http://www.lactualite.com/opinions/le-blogue-de-josee-legault/commission-sur-le-printemps-erable-le-gouvernement-rate-lamentablement-le-coche/

Photo : A. Gravel / CC2.0 By-ND2.0

Who’s afraid of the police? The question, though brutal, is however inevitable.

Yet how can we not ask it while the Marois government swaps an independent commission of inquiry on police behaviour for a special commission of examination on the events of the spring of 2012?

It’s timid and most likely useless.

In fact, this commission cannot examine the “process of police ethics review” already managed by the police forces themselves. The topic is however quite central to the thread of events during the “Maple Spring”.

The Minister of Public Safety, Stéphane Bergeron, even took the time to specify that he “remains persuaded that the vast majority of police officers in Quebec acted with the required professionalism given the circumstances”. But who ever said that a “majority” of police officers was required for power to be abused? The police follow their superiors’ orders. What were these orders and to what ends were they given? That’s where the real object of an independent inquiry lies.

The Marois government’s commission will also be behind closed doors. Congratulations on that transparency /sic/. Nor will it benefit from the least binding power. As for its report, it will have to be submitted in any which way as early as next December. That’s including the summer period, which is known to not be encouraging of this kind of habitually complex exercise. Finally, the budget will be $400 000 – peanuts as far as commissions go.

As former student leader Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois noted, the commission’s three-part mandate will look more like a “doctoral thesis” than a veritable inquiry:

to identify factors that have contributed to the deterioration of the social climate and to evaluate the impact of the events of the spring of 2012 on the population;
to clear the way for assessments based on verifiable facts;
to formulate recommendations for the Minister of Public Safety.

The commission could also choose to examine, or not:

the techniques used by the police forces;
the methods used by agitators during protesters;
the impacts, namely economic, of the events;
their impact on the population’s feeling of safety;
the impact of the use of social media on contestation activities;
the manners and assessments of other Western countries having dealt with large social crises.

If the government wishes so much today to know what “caused” the student strike and why it lasted so long, it merits asking where these elected péquistes were last year when they were in the opposition.

If they still don’t understand the causes, we could always send them a complete literature review, including numerous journalistic and academic analyses, that have been flooding Quebec for months now.

But if it’s an essentially political exercise, the government could have been satisfied with simply reissuing its own statements from last year denouncing the Charest government’s strategies. And while they’re at it, publish them in a digest.

The events of the Maple Spring deserve an independent investigation into police actions. Period. The rest belongs to the field of political and sociological inquiry.

As if the last spring’s events weren’t already enough, it becomes even more necessary to conduct an independent inquiry due to the actions of Montreal’s police who have relied upon the infamous municipal bylaw P-6 through recent weeks to abort protests from their very beginnings even though they are peaceful. These attacks on the citizens’ fundamental freedom of peaceful assembly would not have risen any eyebrows amongst members of the Marois government. Not even those of the former student leader, Léo Bureau-Blouin.

By virtue of this very same P-6, the police were pushing the envelope to the point of even breaking up a “citizen assembly to sensitize drivers to the safety of children who attend Saint-Pierre-Claver school, located at the intersection of two of the Plateau-Mont-Royal’s main arteries”. We can’t tell anymore whether to laugh or cry.

And in spite of everything, the premier, amongst others, considers P-6 completely “reasonable”.

***

Meanwhile in Ontario…

Meanwhile, let’s remember that in Ontario, a devastating independent report submitted to the government in 2012, picked apart and denounced the police repression observed during the G20 Summit of 2010 in Toronto with clinical precision. It also offered a full set of recommendations seeking to avoid the reoccurence of such abuses of power.

So what? Here in Quebec, we cannot proceed to making as independent an examination into police actions during last year’s student strike? For god’s sake…

***

A triumvirate in a rough spot

On the subject of its triumvirate of commissioners – former PQ minister Serge Ménard, former judge Bernard Grenier and former president of the CSN, Claudette Charbonneau -, we might wonder what pushed them into such a rough spot.

Minister Bergeron swears that they were selected “for their expertise, their vast experience, their credibility and their objectivity”. I get the experience part, but we’ll have to review their objectivity.

In 2001, when he was Minister of Public Safety, Serge Ménard praised the highly criticized work of the police during the protests of the Summit of the Americas held in Quebec City. Ms Charbonneau was the head of a group of trade unions that supported the student movement. As for Bernard Grenier, it would be surprising if a former judge would be particularly sympathetic to the student strike or critical of the work of the police.

In any case, whether the commissioners are objective or not, it’s the very mandate of the commission itself that doesn’t stand up. The worm of the commission’s impertinence is in the apple of its mandate.

***

A basic lack of political judgment and of courage

And so, once again, this government lacks basic political judgment, and courage, even.

Along the way, it even succeeds in alienating itself from pretty much everyone who, by and large, were either critical of or favourable to the police’s strategies all throughout this unprecedented strike of many months.

Be it from the student organizations, the opposition parties, the human rights defenders, the Ligue des droits et libertés who has denounced the “hijacking of the request for a public inquiry” – even the Fraternité des policiers de Montréal has lowered their weapons -, the disappointment is widespread.

Minister Bergeron, however, is persuaded that this consensual stance has stuck a “balanced equation”. Congratulations on the spin, but you fail with the statement.

It’s likely that this announcement quite likely fall short of what the minister himself would have wished. In this government, ministerial solidarity passes for a duty more than an onus these days.

The final yet involuntary irony of this whole story is that the announcement of the commission falls on the same day that the infamous Anarchopanda noted that one year ago, the 8th of May 2012, he “removed his human costume for the very first time” in order to join striking students.

Welcome to the theatre of the absurd of this quite timid commission which, at the end of the day, will examine everything but what counts the most…

***

Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.

*Translating the printemps érable is a volunteer collective attempting to balance the English media’s extremely poor coverage of the student conflict in Québec by translating media that has been published in French into English. These are amateur translations; we have done our best to translate these pieces fairly and coherently, but the final texts may still leave something to be desired. If you find any important errors in any of these texts, we would be very grateful if you would share them with us at translatingtheprintempsderable@gmail.com. Please read and distribute these texts in the spirit in which they were intended; that of solidarity and the sharing of information.

Police intervene to subdue a demonstration of parents (Le Devoir)

Thu, 02 May 2013 12:52:00 -0400

Lisa-Marie Gervais May 2, 2013

Original French Text: http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/education/377186/la-police-intervient-pour-mater-une-manifestation-de-parents

Photo : Annik MH De Carufel Le Devoir

The Saint-Pierre-Claver school is located in the Plateau-Mont-Royal at the intersection of two major streets.

A citizen assembly aiming to sensitize drivers to the security of the children attending the Saint-Pierre-Claver school, located at the intersection of two major arteries in the Plateau-Mont-Royal, ended unexpectedly Thursday morning when the police intervened by virtue of municipal bylaw P-6. The assembly, that was attended by several elected officials, ended abruptly at around 8am, coinciding with the beginning of classes.

According to Marianne Giguère, a mother who is very involved in matters of security in the vicinity of the school, around six police officers in cars and on bicycles announced to the 80-odd parents and children who were crossing from one corner of the street to the other, all while respecting the street lights, that the demonstration was illegal by virtue of P-6. The intervention was even more surprising to the parents because the community agent assigned to the school had been advised about the awareness action and had already been onsite since 7:30am.

“People had begun to cross without impeding traffic, because we wanted it to be a positive and safe demonstration, and the police arrived in their cars, then another two by bicycle. We were told that our demonstration was illegal because we hadn’t provided an itinerary”, says Mrs. Giguère. “We dispersed and it turned out all right in one way, because school was starting and there was already a movement of children who were going inside”.

Discernment?

Mrs. Giguère underlines ironically the “discernment” the police officers promised to demonstrate, especially by stating that they would not intervene nor demand an itinerary in cases of celebratory demonstrations following hockey games, for example. “That discernment wasn’t present this morning”, she remarked.

Located at the intersection of De Lorimier and Saint-Joseph boulevard, which has a high stream of traffic, the Saint-Pierre-Claver school is in a dangerous zone, according to the Director of Public Health. Since the autumn, parents have mobilized and have made a case at several borough council meetings for better signage and a reduced speed limit. “We wanted to sensitize drivers and for it to be clear that they were driving by a school”, explains Mrs. Giguère. “Some folks weren’t too happy, but the majority honked at us supportively.”

Three weeks ago, a young girl from the school was hit by a car while attempting to pick up a ball that had bounced into the street. She came away from the accident with a broken arm.

Le Devoir

***

Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.

*Translating the printemps érable is a volunteer collective attempting to balance the English media’s extremely poor coverage of the student conflict in Québec by translating media that has been published in French into English. These are amateur translations; we have done our best to translate these pieces fairly and coherently, but the final texts may still leave something to be desired. If you find any important errors in any of these texts, we would be very grateful if you would share them with us at translatingtheprintempsderable@gmail.com. Please read and distribute these texts in the spirit in which they were intended; that of solidarity and the sharing of information.

Autopsy of a Springtime (La Presse)

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:44:51 -0400

Rima Elkouri April 29, 2013

Original French Text: http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/rima-elkouri/201304/28/01-4645477-autopsie-dun-printemps.php

What is left of the student spring? Beyond the feeling of victory among those who opposed a tuition hike, the most important student strike in the history of Quebec has left consequences that we would be wrong to forget. It gave way to a wave of arrests like we had never before seen, and some worrying drifts that we must examine at all costs.

A big clean-up of the spring of 2012 is necessary. A clean-up which must take the form of a public inquiry on the police interventions of last spring. If you still doubt the necessity of such an inquiry, read the text of my colleague Judith Lachapelle on the topic of the first analysis report on this question which will be made public today.

Police brutality, excessive use of force, mass arrests, political profiling… There are dozens of troubling testimonies that makes one want to scream. Testimonies that show the urgency of re-establishing the bond of trust that was damaged during the student dispute.

The most troubling thing that could happen, is that this wave of repression, without precedent in Québec against a movement that has been generally pacifist, should provoke no more than a shrugging of shoulders. Freedom of expression? Whatever!…Freedom of association? Whatever!… Mass arrests? Whatever!… As though it was normal to criminalize social challenges when their message does not please us. The Charest government, which demonized the student movement under the pretense that the red square was synonymous with violence and intimidation, did everything to reinforce this idea. What many forget is that when the rights of one segment of the population are so flouted, the democratic backslide affects us all.

The lamentable handling of the conflict by the liberal government allowed the Parti québécois to take power, with the promise of doing things differently. During the strike, Pauline Marois, bearing a red square before putting it away, professed herself indignant towards Jean Charest’s attitude which, in her words, was fighting “against her youth”. She promised to take the side of justice and equality.

A year later, what is left of this commitment? The tuition hike was cancelled. This is not a detail of the story. But this does not erase the necessity of shedding light on the police abuses that rattled the confidence of part of the population since the spring of 2012. Do justice and equality not also include this essential exercise?

For the past year, numerous voices have demanded a public inquiry into the police interventions during the student strike. A petition signed by 11 000 people was deposited at the National Assembly. Amnesty International, the League of Rights and Freedoms, a collective of teachers and sixty or so other groups announced their concerns to the government.

And then? And then, almost nothing. Last fall, the freshly elected Minister of Public Security, Stéphane Bergeron, said that he did not exclude the possibility of holding a public inquiry. In mid-February, he again repeated that he did not exclude it, adding that he was to “examine the different options” in order to not bypass the ethics process in progress. Friday, in his cabinet, no one answered my call on this topic.

In short, it seems that we are always at the same point. The minister does not exclude it, but he does not include it either… And again? Isn’t it time to conclude?

***

Mistrust of police and justice has increased (La Presse)

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:55:34 -0400

Judith Lachapelle April 29, 2013

Original French Text: http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/dossiers/conflit-etudiant/201304/28/01-4645472-la-mefiance-envers-la-police-et-la-justice-aurait-augmente.php

Caption: The maple spring left deep wounds, according to the report entitled Repression, Discrimination and Student Strike

Besmirched freedom of expression, excessive use of force, police impunity, political profiling… The bond of trust between a segment of the population and law enforcement and police was broken over the Spring of 2012, according to a new analysis report obtained by La Presse.

The 48-page document entitled Repression, Discrimination and Student Strike was jointly drafted by the Ligue des droits et libertés, the Association des juristes progressistes and the Association pour use solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ). It will be made public on Monday during a press conference in Montréal.

The three organizations have collected 274 testimonies from individuals who claim to have been the object of either intimidation or police brutality, of detention or accusation, or who have suffered discrimination because they wore a red square, throughout the maple spring’s student uprising.

The authors are worried. “It is extremely dangerous for freedom of expression or for the right to peaceful assembly, that this oppressive tendency towards the criminalization [transl. note: in French, there is the term “judiciarisation” that has no English equivalent, that implies a social phenomenon of appealing to the judicial system to solve problems that could potentially be solved otherwise. If you know of a fitting English word, please email us!] of the social contestation be a permanent fixture here in Quebec.”

In fact, they observe, “the repression is so vast, the arrests are so numerous, the attitude of the police officers is so scornful and brutal that a segment of the population is now straight out afraid of going out in the street to protest in support of their opinions and their dissent.”

The situation is even more troubling, according to Lucie Lemonde, a Political Science professor at UQAM, due to the fact that a large proportion of the population does not realize the scale and impact of the authorities’ actions. “What I found most surprising was that people found what happened normal”, says the coordinator of the report’s editorial board. “What was being said was “Yes, it’s ok to arrest people heading to Île Sainte-Hélène because they are wearing the red square”. It was shocking that such massive arrests were made and that it didn’t bother anyone.”

The analysis is focused on the breach of trust towards authorities. Several witnesses expressed “resentment towards the police in general and their unprofessional attitude that shames the profession.” Witnesses bring up several occurrences when the police “ridiculed”, “despised”, “insulted”, “humiliated”, having not used overt physical violence towards them.

Various abuses of power during detention were reported, such as gathering personal information that is not obligatory to divulge as well as taking photos of the detainees, even in the case of a municipal bylaw or a highway security code offence. According to the law, taking photos is limited to Criminal code offences.

In fact, very few people (under 1 on 7) were accused of criminal offences. The majority of those arrested were done so by virtue of certain “vague” dispositions in bylaws, underlined the authors, leaving the police with great discretionary powers.

Thus many testimonies underline the police’s confusion at the time of arrest. One witness recounted that once, at the police station, “the inspector was still wondering what accusation he could bring against [the detainee]”. In that way, many received a ticket for having “crossed the street at a red light”, “loitered”, “spat”, “emitted an audible noise”, or for not having walked on the sidewalk.

Controlling protesters

Why this barrage of tickets? According to the authors, it suggests that “the primary goal was to control the identity and the movements of people and to prevent them from joining a protest.”

For some people, it worked: several witnesses say they remain afraid to this day to participate in a protest. “Yes, it left wounds, says Lucie Lemonde. But it also radicalized some people.”

The report wraps up with seven recommendations, including holding a public inquiry into the police’s work and into the infringement of freedom of expression. It also recommends that all accusations brought by virtue of municipal bylaws and of the highway security code be dropped (but not those by virtue of the Criminal Code). It asks also that a “civil, transparent, impartial and independent mechanism” be implemented to investigate police abuses.

***

Funny the @SPVM isn’t out in full force to greet us at...

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:16:11 -0400

Funny the @SPVM isn’t out in full force to greet us at their HQ #manifencours #ggi

Anti-austerity march heading east on Ontario. Beautiful sight!...

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:58:21 -0400

Anti-austerity march heading east on Ontario. Beautiful sight! #manifencours #ggi #saccage

April 23, 2013 Original French Video:...

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:27:00 -0400

April 23, 2013

Original French Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj-wdGO0fjY

Response by François Limoges, councilor of Saint-Édouard, during the debate at city council on Projet Montréal’s motion to repeal certain dispositions of Bylaw P-6, April 23rd, 2013.

François Limoges:

I’ll pick up where the leader of Projet Montréal, Richard Bergeron, left off. He said it earlier and actually, the police aren’t to blame. It’s us who gave them much too much power. And I would agree with that. We had given them that power because there was a social crisis at the time that was exacerbated by a free falling government that was using all possible means to divvy up the electorate between those who were for the streets and those who were against them. And a little political command went down at City Hall, which produced the modifications to P-6 we have now.

So we gave many, many powers to the police. So many that they cannot always use them, or else any time that more than 10 people were walking together on the street in the same direction, they would have to be arrested, or nearly, because they hadn’t given their itinerary. They have to prove their discerning judgment. And I’ve heard that a lot from those who defend P-6, that we must trust the police’s judgment. Mr President, police officers are not NHL referees, the only sport where refs decide whether or not to give a penalty. In every other sport, referees punish a fault as soon as it occurs. Our police officers are like that. They aren’t supposed to say that the red car is allowed to drive at 130 km/h, the blue one at 100 km/h and the grey one at 90 km/h. They apply the law. But now we’ve given them so much power that they can’t stop people because they would stop them all the time. So they are called upon to use to their judgment. And Mr President, I am not calling into question the individual or collective judgments of the police, but that’s not their role in society.

I will provide a worrisome example of the exercise of this judgment. I heard the spokesperson for the SPVM on the radio last week stating that in the case of improvised parades, in the case of a Canadien’s victory in the playoffs, there wouldn’t be an issue, they wouldn’t apply P-6. So now, what I understand of that and what worries me today, is that the police are left to decide what’s a proper assembly and what’s an improper assembly. Now it’s Montreal’s police who are left to decide who can protest and who cannot protest. I would like to remind you that historically, societies that have abdicated their role to decide to whom fundamental laws are to be applied, and to whom they are not, those who have left it up to their armed forces, their police or army, they’ve gone down slippery slippery slopes.

It’s often repeated that P-6 would be used to stop individuals who would be about to commit a misdemenour, who could want to be disrupters, or the hard core who would infiltrate the protests. Mr President, protests have been happening for 40 years in Quebec, the police have become really good at isolating those elements, and the Criminal Code gives them each and every weapon for that purpose. We do not need a bylaw that allows the police to declare a protest illegal as soon as the itinerary has not been provided or one person is wearing a mask.

In fact, P-6 does not give the police the right to stop people who are committing wrongdoings, but to arrest an entire on the basis of a presumption. But along those lines, I will cite a statement by Alain Bourdages, the chief inspector of the SPVM on Radio-Canada yesterday. He was saying, according to him, that the problem with the Criminal Code and the existing legislative tools, is that an offence has to be committed before making an accusation. So we’re at that point, Mr President, it’s quite interesting. The chief inspector is saying that there has to be an offence in order to make an arrest, and that’s problematic in his opinion. We’re not in Minority Report when prescient beings are able to determine that one individual or another is about to commit a crime and can be preventatively arrested. The presumption of innocence has been long fought for over the past 500 years, since 1679 with “habeas corpus”. And now today, we’re saying that there are preventable crimes, it’s admissible to think that according to me, I believe you are about to commit a crime and I will arrest you before it’s committed in order to protect you.

I don’t know if you’re aware of it but we earn a fairly decent salary here, though some of my colleagues believe that we are poor, but a 630$-something fine is equivalent to rent for the majority of people who are arrested for peacefully protesting. It’s enormous. And to give them out arbitrarily, and for the protest to be declared illegal even before I know that fact, due to the presence of a police kettle, and it’s declared illegal from the start because the organizer hasn’t provided an itinerary to the police. Am I the organizer if I join a protest? If there’s a masked individual somewhere in the back that I haven’t seen and there’s a police kettle because that, am I guilty by association? That’s the power we’ve now given to our police forces.

And in so doing, when I mentioned that we’ve given the police the power to interpret the law, we delegated judicial powers to the police force, which makes absolutely no sense. Democracy is founded on a separation of powers. The legislator writes the law, the judge interprets it, the police officer applies it. That’s the division of powers. And the media inform us. They are the fourth estate. And now we’re saying that we’ve delegated power, exactly how we’ve done with the boroughs, and it’s as though we’d delegated all matters of urban planning and permits to the bureaucrats and that we no longer voted on those matters here. Well, that’s what we’ve done. We’ve removed the powers of legal interpretation from the legal system and given them to the armed forces of the State, which itself has its purpose and role. But again, its role needs to be made clear. And when we ask that it replace a judge, its role is no longer clear.

I would like to remind you of why the right to protest is important. Because some people here seem to have forgotten and who think its the prerogative of a bunch of hooligans, of extremists, of radicals. Listen, some people in society have influence and who have acquired it by many means, be it through money, power, the media, influence, and they do not need to go protest. I truly doubt that people like Mr Péladeau or Desmarais would need to go out and protest in order to influence the political. I truly doubt that those who have a platform in the media, people like Mr Martineau or André Pratte from La Presse have the need to go protest. If they disagree with one of the government’s positions, they’ll write about it in a newspaper that is read by millions of people. They have power. We have a power too. Mr President, I am highly doubtful that Mr Mayor needs to join a protest if he wishes to be heard by a minister in Quebec City. I believe that he can pick up the phone and that the minister will call him back. And ourselves, we can vote on motions, we can vote on resolutions, we can vote on bylaws. That’s an enormous power. And it makes us lose sight perhaps of the fact that there are people in society, the great great great [sic] majority of people have no power of this kind. The only way they have to influence those who govern and those who make public decisions is through their voices, is through assembling, is through chanting slogans, and through being in the streets in great numbers. It’s the only power they have between two elections, Mr President. And now we’re saying that this power, we’re going to let the police decide to whom they will apply it or not, based on the fact that last year, there was a social crisis and a little populism in surveys and we knew that it was going to help us out electorally? I find that peculiar.

Let’s imagine a mom who goes to a protest, who sees an invitation to go protest in support of gun control – we know that the Conservatives have tried to get rid of the gun registry. This citizen is concerned about the fact that guns could be sold more freely in Canada and in Quebec. She sees an invitation to a protest. She’s a mom, she doesn’t have a history [transl. note: presuming he means a criminal history], so she goes. And I’m sorry, but do we know what the reality of a protest is? Do you really think that at the entrance, there’s a cordoned-off area, a kiosk, and that she’ll ask to meet the organizer of the protest to find out if he or she gave an itinerary to the police? There’s an assembly, and at some point it starts marching. 90% of the people in attendance have no idea of who, what, how organized the thing, and they do not know where they will end up. They know that they’re together for a cause.

Finally Mr President, what we’re leaving the police with is, as I was saying, the right to decide who can be allowed their fundamental rights and who will be denied them. And the trend I see in this is that more and more, we want to allow the rights to those who assemble for entertainment, that’s to day assemblies such as the St.Patrick’s Day parade, the Jazz Festival, where promoters have organized the event, where politicians, like at Gay Pride, elected official are invited. We go, we show off, we’re happy, we march at the front with our banners. Those aren’t protests. Those are assemblies. And I think that we’re in a society that is trying to say that marching as entertainment and as a photo opportunity is all good, but when citizens are real demands, it no longer is right. And it’s not up to us, to the police, or to us as legislators to say for what reason we have or do not have the right to march in the streets.

Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.

P-6 or how to get rid of mens rea (Voir)

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:07:00 -0400

Véronique Robert April 23, 2013

Original French Text: http://voir.ca/veronique-robert/2013/04/23/p-6-ou-comment-se-debarrasser-de-la-mens-rea/

There are several different systems of criminal liability.

Without wanting to give a class on criminal law 101, I will try to briefly explain them in order to demonstrate the uselessness of Bylaw P-6 on the prevention of disturbances of the peace, of public security and order, and on the use of the public domain. Its uselessness as well as its excessive nature.

So, there are different systems of criminal liability: 1) absolute liability, 2) strict liability, 3) mens rea.

In the first case, an individual is guilty no matter if he or she had intended to commit the offence. Such is the case with parking restrictions. It is not germane to contest such a ticket by explaining to the judge that you had a headache and urgently needed to run into the pharmacy. There is nearly no way to defend yourself against an accusation brought on under the system of absolute liability, except, obviously, by saying “that’s not true, I was not driving at 150 km/h” or “my brother was driving, not me”. You could also convince the judge that you did not have a choice but to pass by crossing the double line because the bus that was ahead of you had been stalled for a few hours.

But what we must remember about absolute liability offences, which are most often found in provincial criminal laws, in some federal criminal laws, and in municipal bylaws, is that the prosecution does not have to prove that the offender had malicious intent when he or she was committing the offence: moral fault need not be proven, but simply that the action was committed.

Since the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the courts decided that in no case could an absolute liability offence lead to a prison sentence. It’s simple: in order to end up in jail, there must be moral fault.

In the second case, that is in cases of offences of strict liability, the prosecution again does not have to prove malicious intent, but it does have to prove an objective moral fault. The accused can defend him or herself, hence proving his or her innocence, by claiming that he or she was not lacking diligence by committing the offence, or by demonstrating that he or she committed an error of fact.

In the last case, we are talking about criminal offences, which are offences that require that the prosecution prove the accused’s mens rea at the moment he or she committed the crime. The mens rea sytem is that of morally guilty intent, of the blamable mind. Malum in se or malum prohibutum, but malum nonetheless.

Provinces do not have the power to create criminal offences. These kinds of offences are mostly found in the Criminal Code.

It is the Supreme Court’s Sault-Ste-Marie judgement [1] that does the best job at explaining the distinction between the different systems of criminal liability and that mentions, incidentally, that offences against the public welfare that are those of strict and absolute liability, were created “as a means to get rid of the mens rea”.

And P-6 in all this…

That’s exactly what the City of Montreal did by adopting Bylaw P-6. It got rid of the mens rea.

It must be understood that nearly all the offences created by Bylaw P-6, except the exact question of trajectory, are already in the Criminal Code, albeit worded differently.

But when the Criminal Code is used in order to arrest and to accuse, criminal intent must be proven in order to arrive at a conviction, as previously mentioned.

Not with P-6, because it’s under absolute liability and sometimes strict [2], whereas it is used mostly to penalize in cases of apprehended violations of the peace.

The ban on all imaginable forms of violation of the peace are obviously already foreseen in the Criminal Code, and the police officers have the power to arrest those individuals who are truly violating the public peace. That’s under article 31, which has been often addressed [3]. But obviously, because we are talking about criminal matters, therefore matters of mens rea, an accusation for violating the peace requires the greatest burden of proof of malicious intent and not of no fault liability.

Numerous articles of the Bylaw address illegal assemblies or riots, which are considered crimes in the Criminal Code [4] [5]. What this bylaw offers is the possibility that actions could bring about conviction even without intent, without fault. That makes the job of prosecuting a lot easier and it also stuffs the city’s coffers given the exorbitant amounts of the prescribed fines. It also muzzles protesters, obviously.

The bylaw also creates a ban on just walking around in a public parade “with a blunt object that is not used according to its intended purpose”, followed by the precision that the blunt object is a hockey stick or a baseball bat. This article is almost laughable given its lack of precision and the obvious arbitrary nature of its eventual application. But let us remember that the Criminal Code already addresses numerous offences of this kind. One need only think of a misdemeanour or the possession of autotheft tools, which would prevent someone from using a stick in order to smash a window.

The ban on finding oneself in a public assembly with a covered face without a reasonable motive is also a criminal offence born of this Bylaw. It is not obvious what a reasonable motive consists of and what the courts’ interpretation will be if the Bylaw remains. But the purpose of my statement is to remind that the crime of “wearing a costume with criminal intent” already exists and it prevents individuals from wearing a mask in order to commit a crime. Remember also that the prosecution must also then prove criminal intent, which can be avoided with P-6 [6].

Bylaw P-6 is an anti-protest bylaw. It creates offences of absolute or strict liability which should remain offences of a criminial nature, that is to say, once again, offences for which the State should maintain its burden of proving the offender’s malicious intent.

By its will to curtail the right to freedom of expression, Bylaw P-6 goes too far. Not long before it was adopted, the Barreau du Québec was concerned about important questions pertaining to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly that it raises [7], but it also has remained basically unchanged between when the Barreau stated its position and when it was adopted.

The president of the Bar at the time, Me Louis Masson, foresaw that due to its excessive nature, the Bylaw would inevitably be the object of debate.

We’re here now.

The Association des juristes progressistes, the Lique des droites et libertés, the Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal, Amnistie internationale francophone Canada, are in the group of over 50 organizations demanding nothing less than the repeal of this Bylaw I’m tempted to call senseless. The declaration cosigned by these organizations can be read here.

The City Council of the Ville de Montréal must vote today on a motion demanding the repeal of the Bylaw.

Let’s cross our fingers.

____________________

[1] http://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/csc/doc/1978/1978canlii11/1978canlii11.pdf

[2]The majority of offences contained in Bylaw P-6 are of absolute liability. Article 3.2 seems to me to be of strict liability because it foresees a reasonable motive as a means of defence.

[3] http://voir.ca/veronique-robert/2012/06/28/%C2%ABau-nom-de-larticle-31-je-vous-arrete%C2%BB/

[4] http://voir.ca/veronique-robert/2012/03/17/liberte-de-sattrouper/

[5] The UN had stated its worry about the largess and potential stifling of fundamental rights of the crime of illegal assembly: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/7616e3478238be01c12570ae00397f5d/$FILE/G0641362.pdf

[6] The website for the Ligue des droits et libertés has a great text on P-6 and on masks entitled «Masque, permis et liberté d’expression à Montréal». http://liguedesdroits.ca/?categorie=droit-de-manfiester

[7] https://www.barreau.qc.ca/pdf/medias/positions/2012/20120516-masques.pdf

***

Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.

Taking on the SPVM's justification of P-6 (Association des juristes progressistes)

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:44:48 -0400

Association des juristes progressistes April 22, 2013

Original French Text: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=468620339875841&id=120609411343604

*Editorial note: TTPE took the liberty of naming this post and will take the liberty to encourage you to read between the lines. The implication of this statement appears to be that the SPVM wishes to maintain bylaw P-6 because it allows for an arrest to be made without proof of culpable intent.

According to Alain Bourdages, head inspector of the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), the problem with the criminal code is that “an offense must be committed in order for an accusation to be made.” However, “P-6 is a bylaw intended as preventative when it comes to a breach of the peace”, he explained. Radio-Canada, April 22.

Allow us to remind him of certain provisions of the Criminal Code allowing for preventative action:

31. (1) Every peace officer who witnesses a breach of the peace and every one who lawfully assists the peace officer is justified in arresting any person whom he finds committing the breach of the peace or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes is about to join in or renew the breach of the peace.

32. (1) Every peace officer is justified in using or in ordering the use of as much force as the peace officer believes, in good faith and on reasonable grounds,

(a) is necessary to suppress a riot; and

(b) is not excessive, having regard to the danger to be apprehended from the continuance of the riot.

63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

68. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who

(a) opposes, hinders or assaults, wilfully and with force, a person who begins to make or is about to begin to make or is making the proclamation referred to in section 67 so that it is not made;

(b) does not peaceably disperse and depart from a place where the proclamation referred to in section 67 is made within thirty minutes after it is made; or

(c) does not depart from a place within thirty minutes when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proclamation referred to in section 67 would have been made in that place if some person had not opposed, hindered or assaulted, wilfully and with force, a person who would have made it.

***

Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.

*Translating the printemps érable is a volunteer collective attempting to balance the English media’s extremely poor coverage of the student conflict in Québec by translating media that has been published in French into English. These are amateur translations; we have done our best to translate these pieces fairly and coherently, but the final texts may still leave something to be desired. If you find any important errors in any of these texts, we would be very grateful if you would share them with us at translatingtheprintempsderable@gmail.com. Please read and distribute these texts in the spirit in which they were intended; that of solidarity and the sharing of information.

Very important announcement (Association de juristes progressistes)

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:39:38 -0400

April 22, 2013

Original French Text: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Association-des-juristes-progressistes-AJP/120609411343604?fref=ts

It’s D Day for the first stage of our campaign. A vote should be taking place either tonight or tomorrow morning. City council begins at 2pm. It is now time for a big push to call your elected officials, starting with the following list. You can leave a message against P-6. We should be courteous if we want a chance at winning. And if we lose this inning, we still don’t give up. The campaign will continue.

Pierre Gagnier, 514 872-0430 (Ind), maire d’arrondissement, Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Marvin Rotrand 514 872-4863 (ind), conseiller de ville, Snowdon

Laurent Blanchard, 514 872-9899 (ind) conseiller de ville, Mercier–Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, président du comité exécutif

Ginette Marotte 514 765-7010 (ind) borough mayor, Verdun

Alain Tassé 514 765-7010 (ind), city councilor, Verdun

Annie Samson 514 872-8173 (ind) borough mayor, Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension

Frantz Benjamin 514 872-8173 (ind) city councilor, Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension

Helen Fotopoulos 514 872-4863 (UM) city councilo, Côte-des-Neiges–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce

Alain De Sousa 514 872-0297 (UM) borough mayor, Saint-Laurent

Lionel Perez 514 872-4863 (ind) borough mayor, Côte-des-Neiges–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce

***

Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.

Masked terrorists will be apprehended. #contrep6 (via...

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:27:00 -0400

Masked terrorists will be apprehended. #contrep6 (via @Anarchopanda)
Do not try to protect your private life. Pandas and rabbits are no exception.

Warning: No protest within this perimeter. #contrep6 (via...

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:06:00 -0400

Warning: No protest within this perimeter. #contrep6 (via @Anarchopanda)
Respect bylaw P-6. Keep this area exempt of freedom of expression.

Warning: Independent media will not be tolerated. #contrep6 (via...

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:01:00 -0400

Warning: Independent media will not be tolerated. #contrep6 (via @Anarchopanda)
Thank you for not filming police brutality. Help us preserve the image of the violent instigators.

"Elected officials are listening": New list of city councilors to contact in P-6 repeal (AJP)

Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:36:56 -0400

Association des juristes progressistes April 20, 2013

Original French Text: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=467629633308245&id=120609411343604

EXCELLENT NEWS: We have received information implying that VISION MONTREAL is favourable to the repeal of the provisions pertaining to the trajectory/location and masks. There are 65 officials who are voting on the city council. 24 are Projet Montreal and Vision Montreal. Madame Jocelyn Ann Campbell, and independent, has already lent her support to the repeal of these provision. Those who must be contacted are the independents/Union Montreal, who must be persuaded. Please remain polite and courteous. We are reminding you that elected officials are listening. Here’s a priority list with the phone numbers (the link to write is at the very end):

Pierre Gagnier, 514 872-0430 (Ind), borough mayor, Ahuntsic-Cartierville

Marvin Rotrand 514 872-4863 (ind), city councilor, Snowdon

Laurent Blanchard, 514 872-9899 (ind) city councilor, Mercier–Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, president of the executive committee

Ginette Marotte 514 765-7010 (ind) borough mayor, Verdun

Alain Tassé 514 765-7010 (ind), city councilor, Verdun

Annie Samson 514 872-8173 (ind) borough mayor, Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension

Frantz Benjamin 514 872-8173 (ind) city councilor, Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension

Helen Fotopoulos 514 872-4863 (UM)city councilor, Côte-des-Neiges–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce

Alain De Sousa 514 872-0297 (UM) borough mayor, Saint-Laurent

Lionel Perez 514 872-4863 (ind) borough mayor, Côte-des-Neiges–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce

If you would rather write instead of leaving a message, here’s the link:

http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=5798%2C85809573&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

[See here for a sample letter]

***

Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.

*Translating the printemps érable is a volunteer collective attempting to balance the English media’s extremely poor coverage of the student conflict in Québec by translating media that has been published in French into English. These are amateur translations; we have done our best to translate these pieces fairly and coherently, but the final texts may still leave something to be desired. If you find any important errors in any of these texts, we would be very grateful if you would share them with us at translatingtheprintempsderable@gmail.com. Please read and distribute these texts in the spirit in which they were intended; that of solidarity and the sharing of information.

Example of message to send to your city councilor + Info on the council (Association des juristes progressistes)

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:29:24 -0400

Association des juristes progressistes April 19, 2013

Original French Text: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=467346260003249&id=120609411343604 & https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=467347863336422&id=120609411343604

VERY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: The vote on Projet Montréal’s motion to repeal P-6 will take place Monday, possibly in the evening, or Tuesday morning at the latest.

This vote can lead to the repeal of P-6.

We are very close to the goal. But we will not succeed if you do not call (don’t be shy to do it several times, as long as you remain polite and courteous) or do not write to your elected representative.

Here’s a stock message:

Dear sir/madam,

As a resident of [your borough/riding], I am asking you to vote in favour of the repeal of P-6. This bylaw violates fundamental freedoms without justification. The police has other means to obstruct violence, such as the Criminal Code. Moreover, this rule was generally not applied throughout the spring and summer of 2012, a time when there were many protests across the island of Montreal. Associations of legal professionals, trade unions, student federations, community groups and environmental groups, along with human rights defense groups are all demanding its repeal. The Quebec Bar criticized it when it was adopted. Over 800 people have received fines without having committed any wrongdoing. It’s evident that this bylaw has no place in our city.

I appeal to you to listen to the residents of your borough, your city, and to vote in favour of the repeal.

Thank you,

SIGNATURE.

*****

IMPORTANT INFORMATION: The city council will be voting on this bylaw. The city council is the principle deciding body at the City of Montreal. It is made up of 65 elected officials and is divided up as follows:

The mayor of Montreal, who is also the mayor of the Ville-Marie borough;
18 borough mayors;
46 city councilors.

Write to these people. The borough councilors do not sit on the municipal council. [You can find a list here.]

*****

Media Notice – Press Conference: Over Thirty Organizations are calling for the repeal of P 6 (Canadian News Wire)

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400

April 18 2013

Original French Text: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1148533/avis-aux-medias-conference-de-presse-une-trentaine-d-organisations-demandent-l-abrogation-de-p-6

MONTREAL, April 18th 2013 /CNW Telbec/ - The media are invited to a press conference during which a signed declaration by over thirty organizations demanding the repeal of bylaw P 6 will be revealed. The signatories comprise groups of affiliated trade unions, human rights defence organizations, student associations and federations, as well as other groups in solidarity. Representatives of several of these organizations will be onsite to answer journalists’ questions.

Date : Friday April 19 2013
Hour: 12pm
Location: Comité Social Centre-Sud, 1710 rue Beaudry, room 2.7
In the presence of: Sibel Ataogul from the Association des juristes progressistes and representatives of groups that support the declaration

SOURCE : LIGUE DES DROITS ET LIBERTES

Information:
Lysiane Roch, Director of Communications Ligue des droits et libertés 
Cell : (514) 715-7727 
communication@liguedesdroits.ca

Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.

*Translating the printemps érable is a volunteer collective attempting to balance the English media’s extremely poor coverage of the student conflict in Québec by translating media that has been published in French into English. These are amateur translations; we have done our best to translate these pieces fairly and coherently, but the final texts may still leave something to be desired. If you find any important errors in any of these texts, we would be very grateful if you would share them with us at translatingtheprintempsderable@gmail.com. Please read and distribute these texts in the spirit in which they were intended; that of solidarity and the sharing of information.

P-6 and the Sound of Silence: An Open Letter

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:47:00 -0400

Photo from Nous Sommes Tous Art

Don’t take it personally. We all were swept away by a great, intoxicating wave of novel (for many) awareness of the devalorizing and repressive potential of our government’s actions a year ago. We paid reverent attention to political notions, the words of which were exchanged between neighbors, colleagues, friends, family and strangers, all while a great number of us likely thought to ourselves “hey, how did we ever not take the time to examine, dissect, learn, live like this?” With every systematic abuse of power comes the opportunity to join the side engaging against the abuse, to lend support. But momentum changes, our energy disperses, time goes by, and the urgency viscerally felt after holding this object together, this shared value that requires the hands and intentions of many to keep lifted dissipates.

Don’t take it personally. Yes, others were there doing the lifting too, and there they have remained since. It’s just how it goes. We can count on there always being those in whom the mobilizing conviction of engagement remains steadfast. We trade responsibilities. You let your flame of social justice burn for education, and maybe I, for the environment. We might also think that some have more at stake than others because they are more at ease in public forums – the street being one of the most public – and because it’s their cause that they are demonstrating for, perhaps not yours. But this is where it gets taken personally.

We take it personally when we draw lines between the cause of a so-called minority of students, revelers celebrating a Stanley Cup, an abidingly reasonable teacher in a panda suit, the First Nations, the police, the government, minority interest groups (the list goes on) and ourselves. We react against being asked to participate in what has indeed proven to be a dangerous alternative to the status quo. We hesitate, hold back, resist the responsibility we could be embracing that would implicate us in the cultivation of alternatives to the current abuses of rule: ones that remove more and more discretionary powers from citizens and allocate them to law enforcement. What we should be taking personally is this shift on the lever of power that renders everyone less visible and audible due to the discretionary (ie unpredictable, erratic) application of provenly biased power.

Don’t take it personally. We owe it to all struggles past and future to not have silence trump the efforts of all the good people who have been carrying the cause of freedom of assembly and of association. Take it outside of yourself, beyond the personal, and now, because the momentum is there. Here’s how:

Write a letter in support of collective responsibility and against discretionary and repressive law enforcement. Please refer to earlier instructions by the Association des Juristes Progressistes on which city councillors to contact and do so before Monday, when the vote at city council takes place. http://www.quebecprotest.com/post/47550577535/request-of-public-support-of-municipal-officials-to

Please join us on Monday at Montreal’s City Hall in support of the motion to repeal bylaw P-6: https://www.facebook.com/events/465596273510943/

And also, do consider helping those who have been penalized over the course of this bylaw’s enforcement by contributing to Pandaction Against P-6: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pandacti0n-contre-p-6

Please continue to share these links widely.

And we send our gratitude to those who have been devoting their precious time to this fundamental cause.

In solidarity,
Translating the printemps érable
& several students from l’École de français pour artistes et révolutionnaires ;)

Coalition Against P-6 (Association des juristes progressistes FB page)

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:29:00 -0400

Association des juristes progressistes April 15, 2013

Original French Text: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=465806536823888&id=120609411343604

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

Today, the AJP is launching the Coalition Against P-6. Several organizations and associations have joined the campaign initiated by the AJP to win the repeal of of bylaw P-6 which, in our opinion, has no place in Montreal or anywhere else in the country. A press conference will take place on ~~April 22 at 10am~~ Friday April 19th at 12pm at the Comité Social Centre Sud, 1710 Beaudry, room 2.7, to ask elected officials to repeal this bylaw which, like law 12, is clearly “liberticidal”.

The following organizations and associations have now joined the coalition [updated April 18th]:

Anarchopanda
Assemblée Populaire Autonome de Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (APA-HM)
Assemblée Populaire Autonome de Montréal (APAM)
Association canadienne des libertés civiles (ACLC)
Association des juristes progressistes (AJP)
Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ)
Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ)
Centre de recherche et d’information en consommation Port Cartier (CRIC Port Cartier)
Concertation des luttes contre l’exploitation sexuelle (CLES)
Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN)
Conseil central du Montréal métropolitaine CSN (CSN-CCMM)
Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ)
Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ)
Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec (FIQ)
Fédération nationale des enseignants et enseignantes du Québec (FNEEQ)
Front d’action populaire en réaménagement urbain (FRAPRU)
Jeunesse ouvrière catholique nationale du Québec (JOC nationale du Québec)
Juripop
Law Union of Ontario
Ligue des droits et libertés du Québec
L’R des centres de femmes
Mouvement Action Chômage de Montréal
Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (MASSE)
Regroupement des comités logement et associations de locataires du Québec (RCLALQ)
Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale (RMFVVC)
Réseau québécois des groupes écologistes (RQGE)
Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec (SFPQ)
99%Media
Têtes blanches carré rouge
Follow us this week for news of other associations and organizations that will join the coalition.

Lets reestablish the right to protest in Montreal. Now.

The Coalition Against P-6.