Memorial Ride

Last weekend I went to Montréal for the burial of my grandmother, who passed away in March. It was a remarkable day to celebrate life and family, and it was a great experience for me to reflect on my life. I've therefore decided to write a more personal post, one that explores the grieving process.

The past six months of my life has been marked with numerous transitions, graduating from my masters, moving to Québec, and starting a career in teaching. In the midst of all those changes my grandmother went from being autonomous and healthy to her life coming to an end. During this time I battled with confusion, anger, stress, and sadness; much like anyone who experiences the loss of a loved one and time freezes. Like all the other new elements of my life, this one was simultaneously thrust upon me and painfully slow.

While the funeral offered some closure to me, I wasn't emotionally ready to handle what seemed like one in a long train of transitions. I had felt like I was able to take the changes, but given the tumultuous nature of my life at the time, it was a challenge, and one that I couldn't do while surrounded by family.

Between March and June my life has changed dramatically, and in that I have become more resilient and more focused. Heading to Montréal this time was so different. Standing in the warm sun on Mount Royal's Notre-dame-des-neiges cemetery, I realised that my life was centred and that while we all grieved the loss of an important person in our lives, we were all happy and ready to move forward as a family, which is exactly what grandma would have wanted.

That was powerful enough, but a long afternoon ride, where I joined four family members, embodied the state of my life and my grandmother's death. We rode from the West Island, out to Laval, around the Lake of Two Mountains, to Vaudreuil-Dorion, and back to Montréal. I thought about my grandmother and how her life was centred around Montréal. We had all come back to mark her death at the burial, but riding through the region allowed us to get together and celebrate her life.

I'm comforted that my grandmother's life was centred around Montréal, and while I've never lived there, my life has always revolved around it to a large degree. I'm excited about making decisions in the coming month about where I'm going to be living next, and it may very well be Montréal. My grandma would be proud.

Conservatives and the Media Bias

There have been a lot of controversies recently in Canadian politics. While the Federal Government has dealt with the prospective failure of the XL Pipeline, the potential trade deal with the European Union, and the spending scandal in the Senate. While this has been in the news every night, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has managed to surpass the Conservatives in media coverage.

It is alleged that Ford was videotaped smoking cocaine in a suburban neighbourhood of the city. The American website Gawker claims that two of its reporters saw the video and that it is "clearly" Ford, and this was picked up by the Toronto Star. The only information that the public has to go on is a picture that was provided. Attempts to secure the video have proven unsuccessful, and right now apparently the video has disappeared. The people with him were apparently involved in criminal activities and were both killed outside a nightclub earlier this year, leading many to assume that the video has been seized by police as part of the evidence in a homicide case.

Naturally, this has taken off as not only one of the top national news stories, it also briefly enjoyed exposure worldwide, much to the chagrin of Torontonians. Ford, for his part, denied the allegations about a week after they surfaced. During that period he managed to lose three members of his staff. The media storm intensified with nightly attention on The Tonight Show, The Colbert Report, and The Daily Show.

All the while, Ford's loyal supporters, who love his "don't give a fuck" attitude, have remained at his side. While he has been vilified for his inarticulateness, his malice, and his outspoken opinions, he has significant appeal for failing to waiver in the face of strong opposition. Ford's image, in fact, is based on him being rough and tumble, and smoking cocaine with criminals has not surprised many, including his supporters. Ford has had a long history of substance abuse problems, most famously getting a DUI in the United States about a decade ago.

It certainly begs the question. What's the relevance of a scandal like this? So far as I can tell, there are two significant angles. Firstly, there is no evidence against Ford. Secondly, many seem to still feel that Ford is still fit to run the city. It's worth remembering that he was fired in 2012 and managed to win his job back.

Nonetheless, Ford has hit back against the media. It's not the first time that he has attacked the press. Far from it: Ford has always claimed to be fighting against a media bias against conservatives. According to Ford, who has taken the same line as Republicans like Mitt Romney, that the "lamestream media" is run by liberals. Ford appears every Sunday on a talk radio programme where he voices his opinions directly, without the filter of any media companies.

While my first reaction is to say that of course the media is not biased against conservatives, as media often serves the dominant class, I'd argue that mass media is not necessarily partial to a party. Instead, I prefer to think of the bias as one against an ideology of public spending on programmes that resdistribute. These are usually packaged as "pro-business" which is coincidentally how conservatives tend to brand themselves.

Sadly, despite the fact that large companies in Canada such as Bell, Québecor, and Shaw control the vast majority of national media, many Canadians believe that the media is either "unbiased" or that it represents a more "liberal" agenda. This disregards the fact that, for the most part, Canadian media tend to oppose the social welfare state and take positions to uphold the status quo on important issues like women's rights, immigration, environmental protection, or employment security.

Credit and Economic Expansion

Recently there's been a wave of attention around a motto: "do you #smallenfreuden?". This craze was later revealed to be the work of Visa, supporting their cashback rewards. The basic premise is that for every dollar you spend, you get some portion (normally less than 1 per cent) back, paid to you as a dividend at the end of the year.

You can watch a commercial for it here. There are numerous versions but the idea is the same. Don't just use your credit card for large purchases, use it even to buy a doughnut or a magazine. Credit card ownership now is very high, often with people holding two or more cards in their name. With markets saturated, Visa is looking for a new way to increase its bottom line. The next logical step is getting people to use plastic for a higher proportion of their purchases.

This comes in the wake of a significant credit bubble. I've already written about the credit crisis before. Rates of consumer debt are ridiculously high in North America, and for the first time Canadians are spending more money than they make. The average family spends $1.50 for every dollar they bring in. It's not a zero-sum game, like everyone has to be breaking even all the time, but the desired balance from a sustainability standpoint is that you can't always be spending more than you make. It just doesn't last.

Credit cards have been on the defensive over the past few years. Television shows have exposed the outrageous debt loads that average middle-income North Americans have amassed. While credit companies have at most only be partially blamed, there has been more attention paid now to the fact that credit cards are at least an enabler.

Companies like Visa are fighting back, however. And it certainly makes decent sense from their perspective. The psychological imperative is pretty compelling for the average consumer. You can make 1 per cent cash back over the year, which for some people may amount to saving 100 dollars. It's no different than loyalty programmes like Air Miles, Petro Points, or any other such systems. You are rewarded for spending money in a certain way and there's a small prize in it for your sustained attention. These programmes are popular because people want to get perks. As I'm writing this I'm very aware of the fact that I have cashback on my MasterCard.

Studies show that when we feel like we're working toward a reward we tend to make poor decisions. People will spend more thinking they'll get more points, but the logical is rather nonsensical. Spend ten dollars more to get ten cents back. Often people get prizes they wouldn't otherwise want, thoguh with cash that's never a problem. Nevertheless it works, and Visa is upping the ante by suggesting that you put virtually all your purchases on your credit card.

It may be worthwhile to say that I think there's lots of merit to buying with a credit card. It allows you to review your purchases and to keep records. It's convenient and you never need to carry lots of cash. However, the downside is that you're spending money that, in many cases, you don't have. More importantly, if you don't come up with that money you can face penalties of up to 28 per cent per year compounded monthly. In case you are curious about what your card can charge you, check out the details on the back of your statement; it's mandated by law that they explain how long it'll take to pay off your balance with minimum payments.

Credit cards are tools. Inherently neither good nor bad. But knowing how to use them is simply not a skill that many people have. Many of my friends and students don't know about the basic components of debt, financing, or interest. I was myself shocked to find out that when I paid my MasterCard bill I was short about 10 per cent of the total and they are legally allowed to charge me interest on the entire value of my balance carried. Unbelievable. I know the information is readily available you go online to find it, but that's often insufficient help for people.

While the effects for individuals are rather clear, the effects for the economy at large are shrouded. The historical context is very interesting: 1929 and 2007 are remarkably similar events. Cultures that were built on credit eventually must collapse. Massive economic growth in the 1920s was rather similar to the 2000s, financed on credit and overproduction. Year-over-year the economy expanded, largely because people bought stuff with money they didn't have, meaning that the economy was growing based on debt. Another way to look at that is that the economy grew based on future contraction, and looking at the 1930s and now it's rather evident that this was in fact the case. Both 1929 and 2007 were shocks were credit bubbles burst and suddenly the debt structures, like pyramid schemes, were unveiled. The speculation in the stock market during the 1920s led to extreme overvaluation and eventually collapse. Sub-prime mortgage lending in the 2000s brought the global economy to a standstill more recently.

Fundamentally, whether we like it or not, we are bound by the realities of economics. We can not borrow against the future in the long run. The current federal stimulus package (for which the millions of dollars of advertising has been allocated) is an example of this "spend our way out of trouble" philosophy. Creating growth without equality can function in the short term, as it has since the introduction of neoliberalism in the 1980s, but once the growth is gone, the inequality is exposed with real consequences. I sincerely believe that creating a more even economic climate will be the only real sustainable way forward.

Why Economics Counts

I have been staying on top of the most recent news with respect to the collapse of the factory in Bangladesh, and I've been thinking a lot about globalisation lately because I'm reading a terrible book about it called "The World Is Flat". So far over five hundred people have been killed in the disaster is South Asia. This is truly a watershed moment in the history of labour. People are talking about this sad story and throwing blame around all over the place. I think it's great that a discussion is taking place, but I'm concerned that people are participating without understanding a lot of the basics about economics and just how important they are to world issues.

This post will be straightforward. I will outline the basic driving factors that create a situation where exploitation is so widespread. I will then describe the tools that are used by various actors to meet their economic targets. Lastly, I will take a case study that highlights the factors, the tools, and finally the effects of the so-called "race to the bottom".

The race to the bottom is all about two driving factors: higher profits and lower cost. This drive to make the most money is an economic imperative because virtually all companies are owned by shareholders. By virtue of taking on financial risk through stocks, shareholders expect greater and greater rewards. This economic imperative results in disaster frequently, especially since in some jurisdictions it is illegal for management at a company to make decisions that will cost shareholders. Often these decisions would include cutting pollution or ending exploitative practices. The economic imperatives are important, but the cultural one is just as significant. The idea that we drive for more and more profit for the sake of it is highly problematic, especially when paydays come at a great expense for the planet and for billions of people around the globe.

There are numerous tools that have assisted in the ability of corporations to make outrageous profits. I'll mention each and try to tie them together.

Free trade has left a significant mark on economies. By reducing the barriers (tariffs or bans) that either protect entire economies or sectors within them, it has allowed the comparatively strong to push its way around. Much like vulnerable individuals need to be protected from abuse, vulnerable communities, organisations, and economies also need that protection.

Outsourcing is a direct result of free trade. Taking down barriers has allowed companies the latitude to relocate exceptionally easily in search of greater and greater profits. Free trade allows capital to move freely, but not individuals. Investments (like capital through stocks) and assets (like factories) can cross national boundaries, but labour is infrequently given the same freedom. Companies have moved their centres of production to locales where labour is ridiculously inexpensive, notably Bangladesh, Mexico, and Indonesia.

Deregulation amplifies the affects of free trade and outsourcing. Companies that relocate to poor nations benefit not only from the cheap cost of labour; they also reap the reward of minimal or non-existent laws regarding unionisation, workplace safety, and working hours, among other critical problems.

Corporatism is the last large piece of this puzzle. This ideology of creating larger more powerful businesses is highly problematic in and of itself. However, the erosion of the state as a broker of fairness only exacerbates the problem. Corporations are not and never have been democracies. It's virtually impossible to imagine them becoming democratic. Money talks, and in fact it shouts. Only the stakeholders in the company have a real say (directly or indirectly) in the affairs of the organisation. This is why alternative models like worker co-operatives are so important.

The effects of all these policies is simple at first glance. The common criticism is that it depresses wages. As much as I agree with this as a basic macroeconomic complaint, I'd like to note that it's much deeper. These policies, taken as a whole, are responsible for the nearly wholesale dismantling of private sector unions, the erosion of workers rights, the lengthening of the work week, the loss in benefits, and other "privileges" or "entitlements" that the western labour movement spent decades building. These of course do not compare to the disastrous working conditions in the developing world, but they are similar in shape.

Let's use the case in Bangladesh as a measuring stick. On 24 April a factory collapsed in the city of Savar that has up until this point killed more than five hundred people. While the causes of the collapse my likely never be disclosed, the reality is that free trade, outsourcing, deregulation, and corporatism lead directly to these types of situations where profits are pursued over safety. In the time since the collapse, Loblaws has taken significant heat for its hand in manufacturing there, though they are merely one of dozens of companies with contracts at the plant.

While the controversy rages on, Loblaws turned a messy public relations situation into a golden opportunity to differentiate itself from its competitors. Immediately following the disaster Loblaws was singled out as a retailer that purchased goods from the factory. Cries for boycotts emerged nearly instantaneously. The Pope spoke out against the abuse of cheap labour in the developing world. The case that Loblaws has effectively made thus far is rather simple: they don't know what's going on in the factories, but they perform audits to make sure that minimum safety requirements are met. The chances that Loblaws did in fact know what was going on are remarkably low. The chains of command these day are long and complicated. It is highly unlikely that anyone from Loblaws ever even read an audit about it as it was likely contracted and subcontracted.

Corporate Social Responsibility entails that businesses be accountable to the communities invested in the company, not just their shareholders. It's a corporate buzzword that, in reality, holds little water. The idea is wonderful, but it effectively leads to co-optation, where businesses pay copious lip service to a cause but in effect do virtually nothing. It's important to remember that the point of Corporate Social Responsibility is merely to protect the public image of the brand in order to make more money. Loblaws has done this by pledging a small sum of money to those immediately affected and talking up the notion that regulations will change.

One of my students asked me last week if slavery still exists. I told her it is an open question, something hotly debated by academics, journalists, and businesspeople alike. It is evident that it still exists, though the degree to which it does is unquantifiable. I come down on the side that slavery is widespread, but that its new form makes it look much less exploitative and a lot more like offering hope and social mobility. It's a shame that it takes a tragedy of this calibre to force even small action.

Terrorism and Citizenship

I had been spending a lot of time over the past two weeks talking to my students about terrorism. In the wake of the Boston Bombings there has been ample discussion about violence, ideology, and religion. Where they all intersect is interesting because it reveals the extent to which our society has some very strong opinions about who can and should citizens. This post will explore the implications of terrorism and citizenship.

I'll start by explaining that there has been a draft of a post about terrorism and citizenship sitting here for some time. I was going to write about the press concerning the terrorist attack in Bulgaria last summer which killed five Israeli tourists. Canadian citizens have been linked to bombings, and this has prompted some potential changes at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. This conversation, however, has been entirely overshadowed by the events that occurred in the United States. That conversation has, in turn, been cast aside by the arrests of two non-citizens who are accused of planning an attack on VIA passenger train.

The attack in Boston was a horrific event. I certainly do not endorse or condone the use of such violence against innocent civilians, but I do believe that it shouldn't be immediately condemned as incomprehensible and cowardly.

The reasons for such actions are complicated, but they are quite understandable. The two men behind the attacks, the Tsarnaev brothers, were from Chechnya, a region that has long been struggling to gain independence from Russia. The conflict is largely unknown in the West. The United States has kept relative neutrality, angering both the Chechen nationalists and the Russians who have been attacked in absolutely astonishing terror attacks. It is patently unclear why the Tsarnaev brothers, permanent residents of the United States, chose to strike in Boston, but the underpinnings are rather easy to imagine.

The second element regards the notion of cowardice. While I won't state that the assailants were valourous, I will state that our notions of cowardice are misguided. It is the average North American who is truly a coward, removed from the world of conflict and oppression. Systems of political, social, and economic hierarchy have produced an unbelievable amount of suffering around the world for westerners it is out of sight and thus out of mind.

I've written about citizenship before, and it's no secret that while I hold great disdain for Stephen Harper, the Conservative for whom I have the greatest frustration is Jason Kenny. His work at Citizenship and Immigration Canada has given him a significant profile. He's frequently in the media talking about foreign workers, the condemnation of international marriages, and of course Islam and terror.

The xenophobic attitudes of many in Canada aren't arbitrary; they are based on a perceived world where all the violence in the modern world is centred around conflict between religions. We live in a world where nationalist and political conflicts are supposedly over. The cause of violent conflict, we are often reminded, is religion. This is manifested in asymmetrical wars like Afghanistan and through acts of incredible terror such as the London bombings.

Citizenship is an often misunderstood concept. It's an abstract idea that someone can belong, in a legal sense, to a community at the state level. Unlike nationalism where inclusion and exclusion can be a significantly contentious and grey matter, citizenship is more matter of fact. Being a "Canadian" in a social sense can involve feeling a connection to the land, the people, the culture, or the institutions. However, citizenship is a legal-political concept that is supposedly black and white. Someone is a citizen of only one or two states and thus is bound by their laws and simultaneously protected as one. Discussions like "if only we had deported them sooner" are quite sad to see.

However, making changes to rules around citizenship that allow people to suddenly lose it defeats the purpose of having citizenship in the first place. It is designed as a special protection that cannot be arbitrarily revoked. The terrorist attack in Bulgaria exposed the xenophobic and Islamophobic attitudes of the Canadian government. It is frankly no surprise given that Jason Kenny has spoken out about other items connected to various others: Muslims, Arabs, and immigrants. The idea is relatively simple, everyone who comes to Canada has to assimilate. Even if they do this well, they will continue to be inferior to "normal" Canadians and will continue to attract the suspicion of the government as well as individual members of society.

This is symptomatic of the way in which racial profiling has destroyed lives, most famously with Maher Arrar. What's worse is that our ideas of crime in Canada are becoming more strict, with punishments doled out in place of working to understand and rehabilitate those who have "offended". The Boston Bombings are no exception. When newly elected Liberal leader Justin Trudeau mentioned that we should try to understand the root causes of such an act, Harper replied by stating that we should "condemn it categorically, and to the extent you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible. And that's what this government would do if ever faced with such actions".

Ultimately, I'm not convinced that an act of terror should result the loss of one's citizenship. That's a really outrageous penalty considering there will be numerous others that these people will face. These people could become stateless, they can be charged by any manner or organisations or states, and they could be handed over to be tortured. This is simply unacceptable.

Remembering Thatcher

As many of you know, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who died on 8 April, had her funeral last week in London. Up until the recent tragedy at the Boston Marathon, Thatcher's death was the lead article. The word that was thrown around continuously was the idea that Thatcher was "divisive" and that her death was surrounded by controversy about her legacy. Numerous groups and invididuals attacked the former Prime Minister for her economic and social reforms, while other tended to revere her for saving Britain.

If you have been consuming all this media and are confused about what to think, you are not alone. I'm struggling with what I feel is Thatcher's legacy. Certain parts of it are simply matters of fact. She cut taxes for the country's elite. She opposed European integration. She didn't relax immigration policies. She stood firm in the struggles in Ireland. What these facts mean requires some careful consideration. Any one of those particular items can be viewed positively or negatively because they are value judgments. And this is my point right here: the idea of encapsulating someone's legacy as good or bad is generally rather difficult in the best of circumstances, though it's certainly preposterous in Thatcher's case. She's complicated, much like each of her individual attributes or her individual policies. I, therefore, am reacting to the fact that media outlets are obsessed with having the last word about her legacy as positive or negative. She was quite a lot of both.

I am not alone in viewing much of Thatcherism as a terrible thing, but I'm also quick to point out that Thatcher certainly had numerous positive impacts: she was nominally pro-choice, supported limited equality rights for queer people, she was the first female leader of a developed country, and recognised that climate change was happening. I'm also careful to note that her policies were reactions to calls from people in various parts of society for change. The most forgotten element in the discussions about Thatcher is the question of to what degree was Britain stagnant or collapsing in the 1970s. There's no right answer, of course, but the more this is explored, the more complicated evaluating Thatcher becomes.

Despite the fact that I have some respect for standing up Thatcher, I'm very much critical of her impact on modern politics. It's not impossible to evaluate her as being simultaneously a devastating force while likewise also fostering desirable growth. There are several angles I'd like to briefly explore.

The first item is that conservative figures are protected by conservative media. The death of Thatcher, like the death of Reagan, has been surrounded by repeated demands for not speaking ill of the dead. While this is a compelling emotional argument, it was nowhere to been seen when Hugo Chavez passed away about a month ago. The conservative bias in media is rather obvious, but events like this certainly make that bias rather glaring. Few newspapers in North America, save at least the Toronto Star, have really published much detailing the darker chapters of Thatcherism.

Another lens I'm keen to discuss is the idea of Thatcher as a female politician is held up as an icon or role model. The best representation of this is the film The Iron Lady. It's seemingly unfeminist to say that Thatcher was a bad Prime Minister (according to more mainstream discourses) because she was the first example of a woman directing foreign and domestic policy as head of government. From my perspective, the idea that she "saved" England has a lot to do with her being perceived as a man. Much in the way that Churchill stared down Hitler, Thatcher had enemies and took them on in an open fashion. She vilified unions in coal mining and what she broadly termed terrorism. Taking defiant positions here, almost in a military style, made her a valuable leader. It also made her popular and gave her the critical support to introduce her reply. In response to labour's demands for fair wages and safe working conditions, she formulated crushing reforms that deregulated the economy further and produced catastrophic results for the lower class. In response to terrorism, she vehemently opposed the notion of violence as a tool of liberation and she supported the Apartheid movement in South Africa. Her maleness comes across best, perhaps, in the fact that she used the 1982 Falklands War as a base for building popular support, drumming up nationalism and militarism. She acted as chief of the navy, the true Iron Lady, using force and coercion to put "rebels" in their place.

Lastly, an important perspective is the notion that "strong" leaders are okay when in a "democratic" context, though not elsewhere. In our society it's quite common to say that leaders like Stalin and Mao were terrible autocrats who, through control of the state, changed policies and wrought havoc on their society. These enemies are easily defined to Westerners because the leaders were never democratically chosen and thus should not have had any legitimacy. However, this becomes much murkier when we talk about other leaders who have, at least at one point, been elected. Chavez, for example, was elected, and so was Hitler. While these examples may be extreme, it is valuable to point out that democracy and authoritarianism are not, in the slightest, mutually exclusive.

I'll close by mentioning the controversy over people wanting to dance on Thatcher's grave. This has caused a sensation in Britain and elsewhere, with many commenting about the morality of such a thing. Most of the comments tended to come from young people who were neither alive in the 1970s nor have any sophisticated knowledge of British economic and social historical narratives. Consider the following: what will happen when Harper passes away? My inkling is that Harper has been as divisive in Canadian politics as Thatcher was for Britain, and perhaps this can lend a helpful vantage point.

My New City

Last September I moved to Québec from Ottawa. For a wide variety of personal and professional reasons, I made a leap into the unknown and resettled. I want to share my experience thus far. My impetus for writing this post is essentially to provide my perspective on two key things: what it's like to relocate to a new city on my own and what it's like to live in Québec City as an anglophone.

In 2011 I wrote a blog about Ottawa, mostly encouraging people to get out and enjoy their surroundings. It's been something I've thought about a lot recently since coming to Québec - so much so, in fact, that it got me thinking about writing this post. I've been putting it off for some time, and I figure now is a good time to finally start talking about it.

I have the vantage point of having been in Québec now for seven months. I wanted to live in Québec City for virtually all my life, and I realised that I had to take advantage of any opportunity to do it while I was in my twenties. The first time I ever visited was when I lived in Saguenay in 2008, during the 400th anniversary and summer festival. I fell in love with the city and knew virtually instantaneously that I'd have to move there. I went back again in 2011 and 2012, eventually researching apartments and finding a place to call home.

It seemed to line up nicely that I had recently been certified to teach in Québec, got hired by the local school board, and would hopefully have no trouble getting teaching experience that I could then build a career from. Nothing has really gone according to plan with Québec, and I think that's what has made it very exciting. I have yet to teach in Québec City, but I have been teaching nearby.

Québec and Ottawa are similar, and this is part of why I love it here. There are a lot of green spaces and public squares for locals and tourists alike. The city always ranks high on the list of most livable places. It's large enough to have everything you need, yet small enough to get away from. I also really enjoy the fact that it's very much amenable to an outdoor lifestyle. Not only are there hundreds of kilometres of bike paths, it's a city that is easy to walk. Just outside the city are several national parks, including Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier. There's also an attitude of embracing the outdoors year-round. Despite the fact that I've only lived there so far in Fall, Winter, and Spring, there have been so many outdoor events it's hard to keep track. In the fall there was a cross-country ski race in the upper village. There was an outdoor Christmas market throughout most of December. Carnival takes place for two weeks in February. Crashed Ice was an excellent weekend in March.

Québec is unique. Living there is incredible and I feel as though I live somewhere very special. Architecturally, culturally, and historically, Québec City in unlike any other place in North America. It has a European feel in every sense of the world. Narrow streets in front of buildings that are several centuries old. Small cars parked on steep hills. People are outside everyone, whether riding bicycles, reading under a tree, or checking out the cafés. It's vibrant and exciting.

On the more socio-politcal level, being an anglophone and a Québécois simultaneously is interesting. I'm very thankful that I have an interesting social group in the city, made up of anglophones, francophones, and allophones alike. Before moving to Québec, I knew that language was a significant tension virtually everywhere in the province, made more salient with the recent election of a sovereigntist PQ Government. Just prior to my move, an assassination attempt on the new premier occurred. Violence has seldom been a part of Québec's separatist movement, but the tensions that push that violence forward are never far from the surface.

I'm fortunate to be living here where there's a lot of turmoil around language. The PQ has really failed to take significant policy positions on anything, with the exception of sovereignty. As such, language politics are always in the news. I listen to the news in French and English here and try to talk to as many francophones and anglophones as I can about current events. Currently the STM is debating whether or not to offer services bilingually. There is also a lot of discussion about a proposed bill that will limit the rights of communities with sizable English populations. There are numerous other items all occurring at the provincial level and at the municipal level where anglophones live in greater number. 

Despite the fact that there is a lot of bad blood between French and English, the discourse is not static. My experience with ethnic and linguistic tension has come from being places (like Montréal or Sherbrooke) where there are large anglophone populations. However, living in Québec is similar to my experience living in Saguenay several years ago. The not-so-shocking truth is that Québécois who have limited exposure to anglophones don't dislike them outright: francophones are frustrated by English people refusing to speak French. As an anglophone in Québec, I've come to note that Québécois tend to really appreciate it when people make real efforts to not only speak their language but to similarly understand their culture. I've had a universally positive experience with francophones since moving to the province, and they know I'm English because they can hear my accent (which they all agree is "Franco-Ontarien").

I'm honestly quite excited to see what happens in the coming months as there are a lot of items on the table. I'll be staying in the province for the foreseeable future, though it's unclear if I'll be moving somewhere where there are more anglophones. I hope that this post makes you consider visiting my city. We'd love to have you!