3 Things I'm Thinking About

So, What Is This All About?

Well, it's been a very long time since I've written anything like this. 

And, to be totally honest with you, I'm not really sure where this is going, whether it's worth your or my time, and even if I really have all that much to say.

But, I do have some time on my hands, so I figure I'll give this a try.

Thinking ... And Writing ...

I've been spending much less time, no time really, on Twitter in recent weeks. 

Twitter, with all its faults, is a place where I: a) get exposure to a lot of stuff that is going on in the world; b) get links to things that are being written about what's going in the world; c) hear what a lot of other people think about what's going on in the world; and d) write down some of my own comments in response to everything I've noted in a, b, and c.

Like all of you, I continue to follow the events of our worlds. 

But, without going to Twitter, I'm neither paying as much attention as I normally would to the writing and comments of others nor am I adding any of my own thoughts to the public conversation.

This experimental return to this blog, at this particular moment in time, is my effort to resume my participation, albeit from a bit of a distance.

In what follows, then, I'll offer some thoughts I've been having in response to 3 things that are are currently marking the worlds in which we live.

If this works out well, I'll try to do this on a semi-regular basis, addressing newer events, and presenting my thoughts, that arise.

If you feel like engaging me in conversation on any of this, I'm sure you'll figure out how to find me, even during my current Twitter hiatus.

So, and with sincere apologies in advance, here goes...

Thing #1: Covid-19 and Quebec's "Policy" for Back to School

Back to school in Quebec.

Full Disclosure: I have a daughter who's recently just returned to grade 8 here in Montreal. My thoughts on this thing are based almost exclusively on this personal starting point.

When it comes to Quebec's policies for back to school, as applied to high schools in the public school system, my main conclusion is that the government's plan for the mitigation of risks associated with Covid-19 is really plan that ensures very little in the way risk mitigation.

Two weeks in, here are some highlights of what's been going on:

• 33 students are packed in a classroom.
• There are no plexiglass separations either between students or between teacher and students.
• There is no mask mandate within the classroom.
• There is no physical separation between students in the corridors.
• There is no real enforcement of designated entries/exits to and from the building.
• There is dense social and physical interaction between students on the school grounds and on nearby neighbourhood streets.
• School administrators are prohibited from "adding to" or "augmenting" measures [sic] that have been implemented by the provincial government.
• Young people are traveling back and forth between their home/community-based activities (sports, dance, regular old socializing) and their suddenly refreshed parent-free networks at school.
• My daughter reports that the number of students electing to wear masks in her class is on the decline.
• My daughter's friends are telling her about cases of Covid-19 that have been identified at other schools in the city.

As of this week, students are allowed to participate in out-of-class extracurricular activities at Quebec schools, seeing their interactions expand from from those occurring within one class bubble to include sports and other activities that will now be able to take place in two additional bubbles. 

With this change to Quebec's policy, the integrity of the single principal measure that was put in place to reduce possible pathways for virus spread in schools will have been significantly eroded.

In short, conditions that would mitigate the likelihood of spreading Covid-19 are simply not in place. 

I don't blame young teenagers for enthusiastically coupling their return to formal learning with the re-establishment of their valued social ties and routines.

I do blame our political leaders for not pouring more resources into the school system in order to give education professionals a real chance to establish and implement the temporary emergency measures that are needed to address the local manifestations of a global health crisis.

I also blame our political leaders for not being able to confront the parents in this province with tough, inconvenient, but needed messages and limits that must be put in place to have a higher chance of ensuring the health and safety of their children, their friends, their families, and members of their wider communities.

Thankfully, our political leaders did tells us citizens that, for the good of the community, we are obligated to wear masks if we enter public buildings or stores.

But, they do not have the smarts or guts to extend this sensible logic to the treatment of our children who are now assembling and interacting in large numbers for many hours every single day, in every single neighbourhood, in every single city and town in the province, in our public schools.

The math is not unknown. 

We are knowingly participating in a dynamic that we understand, whose social and health consequences we both fear and can predict.

We have knowledge and reservations about the future consequences of the actions we're taking today, but we act as though we are powerless to influence the outcomes. 

It is a government-led plan for the mitigation of risk that ensures that we're doing very little in the way of actual risk mitigation.

Thing #2: Trump and his Vaccine October Surprise

There are so many thoughts that I can express about the Idiotic President, and about the way we interact with him, but I am going to keep this limited to a relatively tight focus on the question of whether the US will release a Covid-19 vaccine this fall.

Donald Trump promises a Covid-19 vaccine by October.

The US president keeps promising that a Covid vaccine will arrive very soon, maybe even before a very "special date." 

In response to these claims, news outlets rush to medical commentators who can invariably be counted on to express doubt.

Under suspicion that science will be unduly influenced by politics, Big Pharma corporations, those tasked by the US government's Operation Warp Speed to develop the vaccine, issue a joint statement promising not to release anything to the wider public until or unless all formal research stages that ensure a product's safety and efficacy have been completed. 

Sitting at the heart of this issue and all the chatter is whether Donald Trump stands to reap electoral rewards were a Covid-19 vaccine to be developed and distributed under his watch.

Come on!

With polls showing that the majority of US voters view the Covid-19 pandemic, and the current administration's handling of it, as the top issue heading into November's election, and with the consequences of the pandemic expected to be felt by communities across the US for many months (possibly years) to come, is the arrival and distribution of a vaccine to targeted populations in the weeks and days prior to election day likely to move the needle on decisions that will be made by key voters this time around?

Put more directly, based on everything that you know about his presidency, and based especially on the fact that, to win in November, Trump desperately needs to capture the swing voters in the battleground states that are apparently open and willing to vote for Biden, is a vaccine arrival in October really likely to be a factor that will help him to secure to 4 more years in the White House?

I don't think so. Here's why.

For a voter who is favourable towards the Trump presidency, and who therefore most likely believes the president has handled the pandemic well, the arrival of a vaccine in October or early-November will only be icing on the cake. 

Thinking about this group of voters, the fact that many of them are likely to be unafraid of Covid at best and possibly aligned with the anti-vaxxer crowd at worst, the presence or absence of a vaccine is basically irrelevant as a push factor in favour of voting for Trump.

For Trump opponents, well, this thought doesn't even require elaboration.

To the extent that they do exist, perhaps there are questions to ask about those Trump supporters (Republicans or independents) who do admit to seeing some amount of pandemic mishandling by the president. 

Assuming, for example, that these voters continue to celebrate Trump's approach to the economy, law and order, and/or his adoption of a slew of causes and quasi policies that are meant to advance the case of White grievance, would the arrival of a vaccine before November push them to ignore his failure to promote a national mask mandate?

Will a vaccine breakthrough assuage their frustration over the fact that Trump has totally shut Anthony Fauci out? 

Will an October vaccine surprise be enough to lead these voters to simply laugh at the fact that the incumbent president both asked Americans to treat themselves with bleach and also claimed to have taken hydroxychloroquine?

It is certainly possible that for some of the swing voters that Biden and the Dems are counting on, the arrival of good news regarding a US-made Covid-19 vaccine in October may reinforce their already existing willingness to back a second Trump presidency.

In the face of everything that is going on in American society and culture today, however, and given the verifiable role that perceptions about other volatile issues (Hint: law and order in America's streets) will play in determining whether swing voters will take the plunge for Biden, it is just hard for me to believe that anything Trump does or claims to be doing regarding a vaccine between now and the election date will be the decisive factor determining in deciding the election. 

This thing just reeks to me of being a juicy media storyline to get people all riled up, but one with not that much in the way of real substance.

Thing #3: Athlete Protest, Black Lives Matter, and Systemic Racism

Milwaukee Bucks boycott a playoff game against the Orlando Magic.

At the beginning of the summer, NBA and WNBA players gave serious consideration to the idea of not returning to their leagues following the Covid-induced suspension of play and to join the protest actions that had formed following the police killing of George Floyd instead.

With a few notable exceptions, mostly in the WNBA, this plan didn't get off the ground. 

Instead, and seemingly encouraged by some of the NBA's biggest superstars, most of the players came to the conclusion that they could have more of an impact on the fight to address systemic racism in America by playing and by using the massive public exposure they'd get during this time to boost their advocacy for social change.

In the time since the MLS, NBA, WNBA, MLB, NHL, pro tennis, and now NFL, returned to play in wildly unusual competitive conditions, players and teams have kneeled during national anthems, stayed in locker rooms during national anthems, presented protest oriented messages on their uniforms, locked arms in solidarity with their opponents in the field of play, and even boycotted games and matches following the shooting of Jacob Blake. 

While there have been some awkward and more highly embarrassing moments along the way (hello, NHL!), it is now largely recognized that we're living in a time in which pro athletes are declaring and showing that they will not have their identities as active members and citizens of their communities eclipsed by their roles as sports stars and celebrities. 

In this high-intensity moment, and quite different from how things were not so long ago, nobody appears to have the power, or even any inclination, to try to stop pro athletes from acting forcefully on the basis of their social and political interests. 

Put simply, it is currently recognized that this is just no time for pro athletes to stick to sports.

Naomi Osaka returns to play after boycotting her Western & Southern Open match in protest against police brutality. 

These are extraordinary times. 

But, tapping into an earlier period in my life when I was trying to become a scholar of social movements, and most definitely with awareness that this is coming from the privileged safety of my own home, here are a couple of questions I've been asking myself: 

Is the widespread presence of protest language and activity in this unusual zone of Covid-era professional sports actually a good thing for the larger movement that is mobilized in support of Black lives?

Is the near universal support being offered to the athletes by pro sports leagues, team owners, corporate sponsors, commentators in the media, and by fans helping to target and eliminate systemic racism in North American society?

Despite the excitement and potential that I do feel and see right now, I'm also not yet fully optimistic that the answer to these questions is a clear yes. Let me explain why.

Let me begin by returning to the anecdote with which I started this section -- the plan, ultimately not collectively carried out, by athletes to refuse to return to play in their leagues and to engage in social justice advocacy instead.

I don't know about you, but this plan excited me. 

Yes, the sports fan inside me would have been a little bummed. But, in terms of focusing the public's attention on social issues, and in terms of seeking a mechanism to exact leverage on powerful societal actors actors in an effort to get them to pay attention to and to take action in support of a cause, holding out services from professional sports leagues while simultaneously pushing them to join you in challenging systemic racism against Black lives sounded to me like a dream movement scenario.

You might come back at me now and say that since all of this stuff is pretty much happening anyway, why should the players have held out?

While it's definitely true that leagues, commissioners, and team owners are mostly responding favourably to pro athlete protests, and that they're also taking some nice and surprising (hello, NASCAR!) steps to address movement concerns in their own communities, just how far will these initiatives go in tackling systemic racism against Black folks and other racialized minorities in North America?

The removal of Confederate flags is good. The elimination of racist team nicknames is long overdue. Creating more spaces for voting in cities is a great thing for democracy. Seeing pro athletes as complex human beings with opinions and concerns about their surrounding worlds is a giant win on its own.

But, despite the undeniable importance and significance of these outcomes, the relative ease and speed with which what has to be described as sanctioned athlete protest has been able to push the leaders of pro sports leagues to acquiesce on an array of issues, many of which had been under discussion for years, leaves me with a nagging question about the potentials of a more socially disruptive course of collective action tactics:

Just how much more could pro athletes help to achieve if they were to revisit that initial conversation, collectively withhold their labour, work directly with regular folks in calling attention to ongoing social grievances, and refuse to return to work until or unless team owners, league officials, sponsors, members of the media, and even fanbases were compelled to join them in pushing business and political elites at the local, state, and national levels to enact policy changes that are needed to more deeply overturn the racist status quo?

It is most certainly not the responsibility of pro athletes to lead today's movement in support of Black lives. It is, however, wildly intriguing to imagine the breadth and depth of the outcomes that could be achieved were they to do so. 

There's one more hesitation I have about the efficacy of today's athlete protest.

Players on the Atlanta Dream in protest.

While we're definitely seeing a very high degree of support for today's athlete activism within North America, from a social movement perspective, there's paradoxically also something a little problematic about what appears to be rock solid societal agreement regarding the appropriateness and necessity of this wave of protest. 

Despite the appearance of widespread consensus, we also know that no constituency of any kind is monolithic. And, from owners to fans to players, it's clear that not everyone is 100% on board with the predominant messages that are being expressed and with the actions that are being taken. 

Now, you might think I'm raising a concern about the actual degree of consensus within and surrounding today's pro active protest. 

No! 

In fact, I'm arguing the opposite point.

I'm saying that rather than consistently presenting a message of resounding unity regarding the protests and the social issues that they're meant to highlight, it might truly be better for today's racial justice movement if there were to be more direct and extended public elaboration on the matters, ideas, and movement goals about which the pro athletes, regular citizens, and societal elites sincerely and vehemently disagree.

Kelly Loeffler, Co-Owner of the Atlanta Dream.

Now, I'm not saying this because I hold a very fine people on both sides position on this.

No!

I say it because I believe that in order for there to be progress in the fight to support Black lives and to end systemic racism in North America, there has to be direct confrontation with and dismantling of the actual racist social conditions and cultures in which we live. And, because large segments of the population (including plenty of political, business, media, and sports industry elites) resist the very idea that White folks continue to perpetuate and benefit from actual racist social conditions and cultures around us, it's inevitable that there will have to be serious disagreement and discord between citizens in North America on the long journey of actually confronting and dismantling those conditions and cultures.

We celebrate and feel good about the recent polls that show increased support for Black Lives Matter and for the rights of athletes to protest in and around the field of play, but there will be a lot of social acrimony as more people take more actions to chip away at and eliminate White supremacy. 

We will most certainly NOT all agree as varying conditions of discrimination are highlighted by our work colleagues, friends, and casual acquaintances in their efforts to have their existence acknowledged.

We will most certainly NOT feel unified as our neighbours, politicians, and artists work on critiquing, sharpening, and refreshing our societal values and norms.

We will most certainly NOT arrive at a complete and harmonious consensus as we continue along through the challenging process of realizing that only one side in the so-called there are two sides to every argument equation can be adopted as the anti-racist side.

And, while it's easy to say that the bulk of the heavy conflict over will arise between conservatives and liberals in North America, dismantling today's manifestations of racism will animate significant disagreements and discomfort among those who most reflexively count themselves as supporters of the movement for racial justice as well. 

From media to politics to sports, there's no shortage of folks who'd undoubtedly describe themselves as pro-diversity but who've nevertheless found themselves forced to reckon with how their actions and ignorance of their own privilege brought them to do more to reinforce race-based inequalities than to turn them upside down. Their personal journeys to gaining higher levels of understanding and empathy attest to the fact that confronting and working to reduce and eliminate racism and inequalities in our communities and in our society as a whole is anything but tension and conflict free.

The protest actions in today's pro sports duly draw a lot of our attention and support. They are achieving some important cultural gains, and they are pushing the envelope in terms of the political and social identities by which athletes are being recognized.

It is, however, the safely consensual features of both their tactics and their anti-racism discourse that currently puts some unfortunate limits on their current potential to act as a movement for deeper social change.

COVID-19 You Suck!!

COVID-19 You Suck!! 
By Naomi Ashkenazy

Remember a time

Not long ago

We‘d hug and shake hands

With people we know

Sharing a laugh

Over coffee or tea

Carelessly kissing

How reckless were we

The theatre, a concert

Singing with a crowd

Cheering for a sports team

That made us feel proud

Going to school

Playing in the yard

Studying for finals

We thought life was hard

We went to weddings

The mall, or the gym

We were never afraid

Of rolling up the rim

When did toilet paper

Become something to hoard

And buying more purell

Then we’re able to afford

Working from home

Using FaceTime or zoom

Afraid of leaving

The safety of our room

Shopping for groceries

Is a thing of the past

We stare at our pantries

Wondering, will our food last?

Milk, eggs and veggies

We order online

As long as we’re nourished

We believe we’ll be fine

Nourishing each other

We must not forget

We all need support

Don’t lose hope

Not yet..

Just keep your distance

A meter  - or six!

Wave from a distance

And this world we will fix

The world that feels broken

Poisonous and cruel

Yet never so low

Have been the prices of fuel!

To lift up our spirits

And brighten our mood

We have to keep busy

So we don’t sit and brood

Virtual yoga

Meditate to keep sane

While our grey roots start showing

And weight we all gain

Wave at a neighbor

Just don’t pat their dog!

So many rules

My head’s in a fog

What can I handle

My newspaper, my mail?

This virus is sneaky

But will it prevail?

It’s trying to outsmart us

We worry all day

Is it lingering on surfaces

How long does it stay?

Lysol and javel

We wipe and we scrub

Singing the alphabet

While each finger we rub

Our skin is dissolving

And dry to the bone

Now don’t touch anything

Especially not your phone!

Except to text message

Or FaceTime a friend

Or check news updates

Of which there’s no end

Sore throat and fever

It’s become a catch-all

You can have different symptoms

Or nothing at all

We want to be tested

To put us at ease

But stay away from the hospital

Unless you can’t breathe

Can you help us Justin?

Arruda? Legault?

We turn to our leaders

Experts who must know!

Closing borders

Providing EI

Cancel all travels

No one should fly

Total lockdown

What is the deal?

Everyone stay safe

This is for real..

We can defeat this

Be smart! We know how!

And go hug your loved ones…

With emojis, for now 🤗 

Participating in Quebec's Public Sector Worker Strikes

Last fall, Quebec's public sector workers launched strike actions to pressure the provincial government to come to a fair settlement in their ongoing negotiations for new collective agreements. As it appeared that public sector workers and the Quebec government were inching closer to an agreement, I wrote about striking with my colleagues at Vanier College. I describe how the experience of being together with fellow workers on the picket line led to some surprising and positive dynamics of solidarity and hope. You can read the piece on the Contexts Blog here.

Strike Days for Quebec Public Sector Workers (Originally published December 7, 2015)

My colleagues at Vanier College and I are among the hundreds of thousands of public sector workers who have been striking to pressure the Quebec government to accede to our demands in negotiations over our new collective agreements.

Working in a province whose government raised eyebrows when it stepped up big time to help a major private corporation in financial trouble, that recently proposed to increase salaries of its elected officials, and coming out of a national election in which the winning Liberal Party and now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned on the principle that state spending, not more economic austerity, is needed to push Canadians through a difficult economic period, public sector workers in Quebec see themselves, and the services they offer to Quebecers, as more than worthy of social investment.

Weeks after demonstrating strong local willingness to take part in collective action, and after participating in three strike days over the last several weeks, we at Vanier were preparing for three consecutive days during which all public sector workers across the province would withhold their labour from their employers.

After the planned three-day strike was deferred to give provincial government negotiators time to reflect on our last counter-offer, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux recently announced that the Common Front, the network of all provincial public sector unions, would take part in a one day strike on December 9 if a deal with the government isn’t reached by that time. Some of the more militant unions in the network are locked in for three consecutive days of striking.

At the moment, and following a lengthy period of public and even government indifference to the negotiations, a lot is going on.

For the first time in his relatively young government, Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard is feeling heat to back down from his miserly approach to social spending. There’s been a recent rise of media chatter encouraging government negotiators to settle with the Common Front, as well as piecemeal tentative deals reached with specific unions. With hints that deals could be struck with all the province’s unions before the holidays, the situation is quite fluid.

We’re living in a time in which activism is both ubiquitous and off-putting. Whether it was the pots and pans tactics used by students during Quebec’s Maple Spring protests against cuts to education, the current wave of student protest over racism at U.S. universities, or even the power of hashtags to try to force change, those turning to non-institutional protest tactics are being met today with no small amount of public and media judgment and rhetorical retribution.

Yet, despite operating in a reality in which taking to the streets receives tepid support at best, representing an institutional context – Quebec’s Cegep system – whose utility is semi-regularly interrogated by vocal segments of the general public, and learning that a tentative non-monetary deal has been reached between the government and the college sector, I am enthusiastic about continuing to strike with my Vanier colleagues until acceptable deals are signed between the government and all public sector unions province-wide. There are many good sociological reasons why.

As our everyday schedules normally dictate that we typically fly past each other in the corridors, many of us spent our recent strike days with colleagues whose faces we’d seen hundreds of times, but whom we really did not know. For the first time in a long time, workers from different college sectors actually talked to each other on our strike days, and the stories we shared were neither limited to the substance of our demands nor to the fears we hold over threats to our jobs.

In the midst of our marching, and some singing and dancing, we swapped teaching philosophies, deconstructed Canada’s new prime minister, and we even strategized on how we could take part promoting an inclusive social democratic movement in Quebec. We shared reactions to the Paris attacks, considered how our community might be able to help Syrian refugees, and, of course, we marveled over the state of our revered local hockey team, the Montreal Canadiens.

Sure, strike days were organized to show the Vanier community what would be missing if we weren’t on the job. They’ve also been held to demonstrate to the provincial government and to our fellow Quebecers that we’re serious about opposing austerity and fighting for continued investment in the public sphere. Bridging the macro and the micro, strike days accomplished more than just that.

Countering the economic pessimism and perceived political limitations of our times, strike days gave passionate teachers and staff permission to imagine what it would be like to have significant public support for our community that’s trying its best to work for its students. Attuned to and inspired by global and national events occurring around us, they brought us to talk about different roles that we could play in building a Quebec and Canadian society that worked for all its citizens.

Don’t get me wrong. Strike days have made Vanier workers hungry for a collective agreement. But, by temporarily letting us believe in our capacities and in our social relevance, the interactive dynamics of strike days also animated a collective power that we don’t often get to sense during the routine.

Seeing the meaning of strike days to Quebec public sector workers in this way, and recognizing the social engagement potentials that they seductively unleash, it’s probably in the best interest of the Quebec government to settle with all of us as soon as it can.

When culture and media help citizens remember and celebrate their most cherished ways of life.

For this piece, my first published on the Huffington Post Canada, I write about a live recording of Jian Ghomeshi's CBC radio show, Q, in Montreal. The current affairs show was dedicated to celebrating Montreal and Quebec culture, but I argue the show's content served a deeper social function for Montrealers. It helped us to feel good about ourselves, and about social diversity, in the midst of an uncomfortable period in Quebec politics during which the PQ was promoting a policy that would ban the wearing of religious symbols in public (the so-called Charter of Quebec Values). You can read the original HuffPo version here. 

 

Thank Q! Culture in Defence of Montreal

Ever since the PQ officially unveiled its Charter of Quebec Values, Montreal residents have been in a bit of a slump.

In the not-too-distant past, whenever the media attempted to draw ire with reports of Hasidic Jews forcing gym goers to conceal their Lululemon workout gear from the public, or with headlines of Muslims demanding that pork be removed from sugar shacks, most of us simply shrugged and continued to go about our business.

And, as recently as last June, when the Quebec Soccer Federation received Pauline Marois' blessing to uphold a ban preventing turban-wearing youth from playing soccer, Montrealers swiftly denounced a move we viewed as hostile to our city's mantra of openness and fun.

Yet, when it comes to this Charter, and to the government's unwavering claim that its objectives are to protect the public practice of our society's commitment to the principles of equality and neutrality, things feel different.

Yes, we've signed an impressively constructed petition calling for inclusion. We've continued to publicly call out the PQ for solving a crisis that is entirely of its own making. And, we've commiserated with our friends and acquaintances at work and in our local cafés. Confronting a reality, however, in which even cities and politicians out West are doing cosmopolitan life better than we are, we're nursing wounds to our collective psyche, and we're shuffling in our efforts to get our mojos back.

It was in this sad context last Thursday night when about 1500 Montrealers gathered for an event that coincided with Pop Montreal. When the CBC's Jian Ghomeshi brought his crew to the Olympia Theatre for a live taping of his daily radio show, Q, the Toronto-based host, perhaps unwittingly, used culture to choreograph and direct a re-awakening of the city's confidence.

Of principal importance to the revival were the evening's guests. Not simply due to the content of their performances, or to the substance of the answers they gave to Ghomeshi's questions, but especially because of the symbolic role their presence served to an audience of Montrealers.

Ghomeshi welcomed two musical performers. Patrick Watson performed elegantly, but when he said that the Montreal music scene was known more for creative collaboration between bands than for competition, he highlighted a unity in diversity spirit that's been rendered verboten under the letter of the Charter. Members of Braids told Ghomeshi how they fuel the content of their craft with their life experiences, but by showcasing a band that had relocated from Calgary, Q recognized that Montreal's allure still radiated outward to young artists in search of opportunity.

The inclusion of author Louise Penny, whose new book debuted at number one on the New York Times bestseller list, was an obvious feel good story. But, when actor Antoine Bertrand's taunting of Ghomeshi for butchering the French pronunciation of his TV show's name segued into a disclosure of the nerves he felt about speaking English to the crowd, a deliciously local encounter was set in motion. A sheepish Ghomeshi offered a few words in his best French. Bertrand replied saying all that's needed is effort. Reasonable accommodation is anathema under the PQ, but when its awkward reality played out on the Olympia's stage, the audience ate it up precisely because they're comfortable performing it in their daily lives.

Finally, while Q's special Quebec media panel was ostensibly tasked with making sense of the Charter, comedian Sugar Sammy just may have been the one who offered the best edification on this score. Born and raised in Montreal, of Indian ethnicity, open about his irrational fealty to his traditional immigrant parents, and so fluent in English and French that his bilingual comedy show has sold 100,000 tickets to Quebecers on both sides of the two solitudes, Sugar Sammy is the living embodiment of the PQ's worst nightmare. "I grew up around different cultures," Sammy said. "And,  I've always said, 'if you open yourself up to everybody, I promise you you'll come out winning.'"

Sammy's preference to promote equality in Quebec by letting everybody be themselves is at odds with the Charter. But, judging from his overwhelming popularity province wide, time may very well be on the man's side.

This is all rather optimistic. Why, after all, do Montrealers need a Toronto show to highlight our culture? Why were no visible minorities included on the media panel to speak about the Charter's effects on their communities? Certainly, there were some in the audience who supported the Charter?

These are important questions.

But, in the midst of an uncomfortable autumn, when our politics are particularly foul, local culture makers reminded Montrealers just who we are. By watching them, we celebrated ourselves. And, at least for one night, it was good.