Audax- Suggestions for your homework.

Friday, October 10, 2008

August 9, 2008- Freddy Villanueva, 18, was shot dead by police during a late-night confrontation with police in a Montreal North parking lot. The death of Villanueva sparked a riot in the borough.
Dany Villanueva, 22, Freddy Villanueva’s brother, already had a serious criminal record. On the night of the killing, he was playing dice for money knowing that this is illegal. Freddy Villanueva was with him and he began to shout when the police followed the procedure required to immobilize Dany Villanueva.
On his blog, Richard Dupuis challenges the readers with the idea that Dany Villanueva is responsible for the death of his brother, Freddy. Read his blog for more details. (http://richard3.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/mort-de-freddy-villanueva-son-frere-dany-est-il-responsable/).

“Villanueva, burn in hell!”
While on a bus, I saw this image. The person who wrote down these words might know something no one else knows about this case as there is no place for forgiveness in his/her heart.
What made this person feel like this?
It is, obviously, fierce hatred against the riots following the death, hatred against the mentality that leads individuals to such behavior. It is hatred against what some call their constitutional right to question and condemn every single step made by the police.
It is hatred against gang life, gang members and insecurity that dominate Montreal-Nord. It is hatred against the habitual practice of victimizing the criminals and criminalizing the victims.
What happens if every single time a teen, especially non-white, is killed by the police? Should the community start rioting, looting and destroying private and public property?

People have always been superstitious about mentioning the name of a dead person. It was the fear that the dead might come back. Such a belief is traceable all over the world. By wishing for a soul to "rest in peace," people hoped that the spirit would stay “peacefully” within the dead body.
Today, "May his soul rest in peace" is used more as a sign of respect for the dead person rather than the maintenance of a superstition. Even so, cursing the dead remains a strong taboo in our contemporary world.
The fear of speaking ill about the dead can be traced back to Roman times. The Romans strongly believed that doing so the dead were to return as ghosts and haunt the living.
Reading “Villanueva, burn in hell!” was unexpected. I believe that the person who wrote this must find his/her own peace and let it go.
After all, hell might be already here.

February 10, 2008

As anyone can read on the "apartheidweek website", Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) is an international series of events held in cities and campuses across the globe. “It has become imperative for people around the world to isolate the Israeli apartheid regime, especially in the face of governments’ failure to ensure respect for human rights and to hold Israel accountable before international law and countless U.N. resolutions” said Ahmad Shokr, an organizer of IAW in New York City. Shokr adds that “by supporting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign the international community can bring an end to Israeli apartheid and work toward a future of justice, equality and peace.” When I ran into a shabby person in downtown Montreal holding a sign saying “Boycott Israeli Apartheid”, I took the required photos and then I asked about the rights of Christians in Islamic countries. The man, looking very much homeless, holding a pathetic sign, mumbled something like: “It’s your opinion”. As for “my opinion”, it is the brutal reality avoided by spineless mainstream media. It is a subject the bribed media is not willing to discuss. It is the scare-crow subject, “hate speech” type and the rest of PC bla-bla-bla.


Christians in Islamic countries
Christians from Palestine, Nigeria and Somalia to Indonesia, Iraq, Algeria, Jordan are under open attack from the Muslims. Respect for other religions is not what Islamic countries are prominent for. They are far from being a model of reverence and tolerance, the two values so much used when it comes to Muslims’ demand for special rights (and no responsibilities) in non-Muslim countries. Christians are usually persecuted for “preaching Christianity in a Muslim country”.

This is a tricky offence, since “preaching” means even a private religious discussion between a Christian and a Muslim. Very few western Christian preachers would street-preach, as allegedly some did, knowing the dangers and consequences of such a gesture in an Islamic country. Paradoxically, Muslims who move to western countries erect numberless mosques with tall minaretes and are granted all their demands. Even so, Muslims find place to blatantly criticize our society for not being “tolerant”, giving themselves as examples of “tolerance”.
In 2001, in Indonesia “Holy War Warriors” with help from the government went on a campaign to eradicate Christians from the town of Tentena. A group called Laskar Jihad (responsible for hard to describe atrocities) has burnt 600 homes and six churches during the November 26-29 attacks. Laskar Jihad’s leader, Ja’far Umar Thalib, wants to make Indonesia an Islamic state.

In neighboring Maluku province, at least 9,000 people have been killed since 1999.

The criminal group aims to exterminate Christians from the Moluccas and Sulawesi Island. Its mission is “to defend” Muslims against Christians. It is ridiculous, knowing that Christians (Protestant 5.7%, Roman Catholic 3%) in Indonesia are a tiny minority while 86.1% of the population is Muslim (according to CIA based on 2000 census).

In 2005, three Christian school girls in Central Sulawesi were beheaded by masked attackers of the religion of “peace”. Police in the region commented that one head was placed by the attackers in front of a new Christian church, and the other two placed outside the police station. Let’s take a look at only a few news about Christians living in Muslim countries in 2008.
Iraq-Iraqi Christians are leaving the country or moving to Kurdistan for safety reasons. About 1 mil. Christians live in Iraq, with 50 churches in Baghdad.
Jordan- foreign long-term Christians living in the kingdom are being expelled, showing the direction of the kingdom towards a radical Islam.
Palestine- Christians live in constant fear. Recently, gunmen have blown up the YMCA library in Gaza Strip. 8000 books were destroyed. Christians in West Bank and Gaza Strip have been reduced to less than 2%. Their exodus is continuous. Bethlehem, once preponderant Christian, is today Muslim.
Pakistan- after a Christian man had requested a raise, his family (wife and children) was beaten, tortured humiliated and physically abused by his Muslim employer and his stooges.

The list is lengthy and it is just the beginning of 2008.

As some pockets might be jam-packed with a few golden dinars, probably IAW is blind and deaf at such news. Looking at the international situation, with the minority Orthodox population expecting violence in Kosovo and with Turkey lifting the ban on head scarves , it is easy to deduce following religious disputes and shameful compromises made by the western world to accommodate those who would fire in the skies, celebrating the joy of our extinction.

July 4, 2007

Proclaiming our roots: Notre culture-notre langue

People like parades. They provide joy, amusement and colour to young and old alike. Some parades are more interesting than others. Some parades get worldwide recognition or on the contrary, remain of local fame. When attending a parade, it is expected to see the colour of the place and its culture. One does not go to China to see some Halloween outfits during their New Year festival, but to see their famous dragon dance. And, vice versa, Chinese tourists in the west are not ecstatic to see a dragon during our Santa Claus/Father Christmas parade. It makes sense.

The St. Jean Baptiste parade is one of the most loved in Quebec. It is connected with the roots of its people, with its history, language, feelings and hopes. This parade is not a simple parade, but an occasion to parade a sense of identity, of belonging to a culture. In the heart of the multiculturalism, Montreal gives the whole world the image of a cosmopolitan city, with no specific distinction. The 2006 St. Jean Baptiste parade made place for almost every possible culture, but lost the significance of the day. This year’s edition got its vengeance. It simply put the foot in the door without fearing proclaiming its roots and linguistic heritage. The marching characters, in the shape of giant dolls, gave the viewer a very strong sense of cultural identity: watching this parade, you sense the feeling of living in a European environment. Whether some like it or not, the truth proclaimed in the streets during the St.Jean Baptiste parade in Montreal is that those who had created this country are the French , the English and the Irish. They built it; they died working the land, discovering and making roads, farming and harvesting. They built schools and factories, they survived or died in the heart of the six months winter. Some of the new arrivals like to place themselves on the same historical ladder with the French and the English, saying that “We are all immigrants”. Well, yes, we are, only that there is a 400 years gap between.

Les Geants de la Fete nationale

Giant dolls are a European tradition and France has plenty of events where these characters take the leading role. On St. Jean Baptiste, June 24th, Le Journal de Montreal published a list of the most popular surnames in Quebec, and Montreal served a shocking reality: it is not Tremblay, but Nguyen. Well, people reading the article put on faces, sighed, raised their eyebrows and re-read the large print. The typed letters were there, black on white. Sick and tired of multicultural parades (see the Parade du Noel 2006 in Montreal, where among others, the Chinese came with their dragon) I was hoping and expecting that the 2007 St. Jean Baptiste parade in Montreal would be different. And it was. Probably as a result of the “accomodement raisonnable” issue, the organizers came with the idea of having the courage to show our roots. This year’s parade brought some of us back in time and gave others a history lesson: the roots of the French who came here, the English and the aboriginals who were already here. The parade projected a short glimpse of history, with the first arrivals, Champlain, Marguerite Bourgeoys and les Filles du Roi, the first peasants of this land. Marguerite Bourgeoys, one of the giant dolls, left Troyes in February 1653 and she arrived in Montreal nine months later, on the 16th of November. She is considered co-foundress of Montreal, with the nurse, Jeanne Mance, and the master designer, Monsieur de Maisonneuve. Five huge figures, each nearly six meters high, in the European tradition, marched in front of the public. Among those being recognized were Samuel de Champlain, the founder of Quebec City, and Ludger Duvernay, a journalist of the 1800s who founded the Association St. Jean Baptiste, now known as the Societe St. Jean Baptiste, in 1834. The Union des producteurs agricoles, Quebec’s farmers federation, sponsored a third figure, based on fictional character Marie Moisson, the nourishing mother; The fourth giant was a fictional woman, this one paying homage to the aboriginal people of Quebec. The surprise came when the most recognizable giant doll appeared: Rene Levesque, the founder of the Parti Quebecois political party. The dolls were made by the Au Pays des Geants company, with a 25 year old experience in this field. Jean Dorion (president of the Fete nationale in Montreal committee and president of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montreal organization) has promised a special parade. And he kept his word. Proclaiming our roots and bringing into public attention our culture and our language could be seen as brave in a present where any heritage pride shown by the majority, i. e. the host society, is labeled as “nationalism”, thus “anti-multiculturalism”, “anti-”, “anti-”.

It was refreshing to see such a parade where one can easily trace back our past. And one can easily recognize and enjoy the imagery of a common cultural heritage. It was refreshing to see something European when every event tends to overwhelmingly show the visible minorities’ cultural background, while ignoring our own.

September 26, 2007


Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. Canada is receptive and wants to satisfy diverse cultural sensitivities. The kirpan in schools, the turban replacing motorcycle helmets, and even the hijab in the army are only a few examples to prove Canada’s cultural responsiveness and tolerance. Like any other democratic country, the Canadian society values individual and collective freedoms and rights. As one fundament of such societies stays the declaration of equality between women and man. But this equality wasn’t here from the very beginning. This equality was achieved through long fight.

As part of the new world, Canada had to put the first bricks of future democratic institutions, shield for human rights and liberty. The path was long and bumpy. Women had no rights, following the historical situation of women in every society. The pioneers for women’s rights had a long way to go. Nellie McClung fought for women’s rights to vote, mothers’ allowances, public health nursing, free medical and dental care for children, liberalized birth control, divorce laws, and improved property rights for married women. She fought for women to be considered “persons” and have the right to be appointed to the Canadian Senate. In October 1929 the Judicial Committee ruled that Canadian women were, in fact, persons and could be appointed to the Senate. 1912 is the year when the first woman in the Canadian history was appointed as full professor at McGill University in Montreal. As for voting, Canadian women got this right in each province before 1940. Quebec was the one before the last (Northwest Territories) to recognize women’s right to express their political choice. This happened April, 1940. When it comes to Quebec, many things are different. Nothing was gained easily, nothing came fast. Women had to wait long years until their rights were accorded in this province. One of such discrepancy is the situation of married women. According to Quebec law, a woman can never use her married name in any official document and is to maintain her maiden name for the rest of her life. I judge that Quebec’s civil law denies women’s freedom of choice, and disregards cultural tradition and choice regarding marriage. If in the rest of Canada, women are given the choice of officially using their married name, Quebec is anchored in a phony law that denies freedom of choice in the name of “women’s freedom”. The origins of the law go back to the creation of the Quebec Charter of Rights, which clearly defined equality between men and women. And this equality was proclaimed by forcing women to stay “maidens”. It is interesting how a woman is forbidden from taking her husband’s surname after marriage, but a pardoned criminal has the right to change his/her name, in order to “protect” himself/herself. This outdated law must be abolished, since the “historical “reasons which determined its creation do not exist anymore. Women’s equality in our society doesn’t have to be proved anymore. It is a gained fight. The war is over. Not changing surnames is frequent for celebrities, but even so, many simply choose to add their married name next to their maiden one. The latest famous example is actress Demi Moore who has decided to change her surname and take her husband’s name: Kutcher. If keeping your maiden name is perfectly acceptable for Chinese, Korean, Iranian or Arab women, which are cultures where women usually do not change their name after marriage, as a European, I request to be given the choice of choosing my name and the right to use my married name in all official documents. Many Arab and Indonesian societies commonly do not have family names in the English sense of the term. French women do not legally change names when they marry. However, it is customary that they take their husband’s name as a “usage name”. This is not a legal obligation and not all women decide to do so. In Hungary both the bride and the bridegroom have to declare before the wedding which name they will use, a family sharing a common surname. In Brazil, until the recent reform of the Civil Law, women had to take their husbands’ surnames; not doing so was seen as evidence of concubinage. Also in Dutch tradition, marriage requires the female to drop her maiden name and take on the husband’s name. The current Dutch law gives people more freedom: upon marriage, both partners keep their own surname, but are given the choice to use their partner’s surname, or a combination of both. In Germany the name law is ruled by sexual equality since 1994: the woman can adopt her husband’s name or the man may adopt his wife’s surname. In Japan, marriage law requires that legally married couples share a surname. In Romania, when you marry, your name is automatically changed to that of your husband and all your documents are emitted with your acquired married name. But, a woman has the choice to request to keep her maiden name after marriage. As a social convention, in many cultures married women are called “Mrs. X” (their husband’s name) and unmarried women, or divorced (sometimes even after divorce some women choose to keep their “married”� name) are automatically called “Miss”, no matter their age. It is a change of status and a change of emotional character. It is a new position in the community and everybody knows that you are married because you have your husband’s name. Taking a married name might serve as daily and public markers of the marital union and the rights afforded thereto. Let’s not forget the emotional factor. Name change is a basic legal act that is recognized in practically all legal systems to allow an individual the opportunity to adopt a name other than the name given at birth, marriage, or adoption. In Quebec, any immigrant wishing to change his/her name is given this right. But married women are denied a fundamental freedom, that of choosing their surnames.This rule applies to all women domiciled in Quebec, even if they married outside Quebec or outside Canada, except women married before April 2, 1981 already using their husband’s last name to exercise their civil rights. (Source: Justice.gouv.qc.ca) Marriage is an institution which joins together people’s lives in emotional and economic ways. Even if in our modern times, there are many contemporary critiques of the institution of marriage, developed from a feminist viewpoint, suggesting that marriage can be particularly disadvantageous to women economically and socially, I believe that imposing any directions in this respect is infringement upon our human rights. I am not a Lucy Stone and there are many other women who are not. Though some feminists have asserted that taking a marital name detracts from the individual worth of the spouses, I request to have the choice of officially and legally using my husband’s surname. I do not believe that any of these feminists is being forced to anything against her will. Since they have the choice of not getting married, of not having a father for their child and the right of keeping their “maiden” surnames, their mission is accomplished. I consider that those women who, on the contrary, want to legalize a relationship by marriage, have a father for their child and use their husband’s surnames should be given equal understanding, respect, juridical and social support. Lesbians and gay couples have received the right to marry, to adopt children. Religious, sexual minorities turned the world upside down and the world decided to grant their more or less queer requirements. In this whirlpool of requests and approvals, married women in Quebec were completely ignored. In many cultures, if a woman lives with a man and doesn’t use his surname, it signifies that they are not married, thus it is a relation of concubinage. No matter how widely such relationships are socially accepted, some women are uncomfortable in presenting themselves in the above named type of relation. When you book a hotel room under different names, it is as if you are not a couple, but some people having an affair. This is humiliating. In many cultures, a couple who is married has the same surname. This is the social sign of a family, the sign of a couple legally married, who took joint responsibilities. Marriage is not a simple event. Marriage is a change of status; marriage is a new life, with a new name. Some women practice their new signature with emotion. The first document a woman signed with her husband’s name is regarded as a precious memory. Some women simply like to be called “Mrs. X”. A letter received on two different names is not addressed to a “family”. If some women do not wish to change their names and want to stay for the rest of their lives under their name of birth, it is their choice. But other women think that it is an honour to use their husband’s name. We must have the choice to choose our name after marriage. If the law is sensitive to human rights, than we must change its compulsory nature and enable women to make a choice. This means respect for human rights. I request the law to be changed and permit women to choose. I believe that the mentality according to which taking your husbands name is submission and you become his “propriety” belongs to the pioneering years of our fight for our freedoms and emancipation. We don’t have to wear trousers or smoke with ostentation in public anymore to prove that we are “free”. Sexual revolution and a tolerant society made everything possible: teenage mothers, fatherless children, fashion that shows nudity etc. What was long ago a gesture of rebellion against social taboos has become in our days as common as eating an apple. I believe that even feminists would agree that the Quebec law acts exactly against our freedoms, thus it must be abolished. I have contacted the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, but they do not consider that the case of a woman who wants to use her married name in all official documents is an issue of human rights. Since their answer was not satisfactory, I decided to send a letter to Prime Minister Jean Charest. The answer I have received from France Lessard, Director of Administration and Correspondance, is as follows: “Dear Mrs. Lussier, On behalf of the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean Charest, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 12, 2007. Your query falls under the mandate of Mr. Jacques P. Dupuis, ministre de la Justice, and will be passed on to him for consideration.”

It is time to move on and put an end to a dictatorial law and give us nothing else but Freedom of Choice.