Window on Westmount Web
Back to Back to Menu Best to use your Browser's 'BACK' key
January 11, 1996
Last Friday was my fiftieth birthday. It says on my birth certificate that I was born at Lockington Hall in Leicestershire - a stone's throw from the River Trent. Now, I definitely was not to the manner born: it seems that, during the war, Lockington Hall was converted to a temporary hospital. And, although our home was in London, my father was working for the Air Ministry in connection with the derequisioning of properties after the war. That's how I got to be born near the River Trent.
I was born on my mother's birthday. Her side of the family - the Percivals - are a bit of an eccentric bunch. My uncle Will was an inventor at EMI who worked well into his eighties. My cousin Ian, a physicist, supposedly invented a thing that magnified the feel of a surface. Another cousin, a professor of languages, is big on "cut spelling". I get letters from him like: "finaly we'v sucumd to th mecnization of Crismas greetngs". Uncle Edward, a writer, quit the British Communist Party, calling it too revisionist. My mother decided we would emigrate to Canada as she was convinced there would be less of a chance of nuclear war here. My dad just wanted a better job.
Up until 1979, each year saw more immigrants to Canada from Britain than from any other country, with the exception of 1958-1961 when the Brits were eclipsed by the Italians, and, in 1971-1972, by the Yanks. Europe itself was Canada's biggest source of immigration until 1979. Ever since, Asian immigration has been double the rate of European. The US has seen similar trends: in the 1981-1990 decade, four times as many people came from Asia than from Europe.
People still come for the same reasons: they don't like it where they are. Wars help: North America looked like the land of opportunity to displaced persons in war-scarred Europe. Likewise, Viet Nam gave us boat people.
But we still think somehow that all the world still wants to come to Canada. Well, most Europeans certainly don't. We don't have the architecture, the culture, the weather. But we also don't have the class system. Still, some Westmounters I know have decided to go the other way: they are emigrating to England or France.
North America is no longer the place for Europeans to get a leg up in life: they can do that back home just as well. The cost of living here is cheaper, but that's if you think the essentials of life include a lot of land around your bungalow, or that multiple cars buy transcendental happiness. Using other yardsticks, the quality of life in Europe could have more to offer. Mind you, you'd better be rich to live in London, for example.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that post-war Canada was the place of choice for people from all over the world. If we wish to remain attractive, we'd better sort out who we are constitutionally and get on with the job of improving our economic condition. And a Happy New Year to you, too. Back to Menu
January 18, 1996
Should Westmount do what many MUC cities do and issue a newsletter? Every new Westmount Council grapples with this question in it's own way. And, so, over the years, Westmounters have been treated to city-printed bulletins that flourish for a while, and then disappear as quickly as they sprang up, only to rise again a decade later in some other guise. The contents, name and writers change: the idea is as old as Westmount's hills. Most other places, such as Outremont, Pointe Claire, and Pierrefonds, seem to have more stick-to-it-iveness: they put out quarterly newsletters with regularity, without Westmount's fits and starts.
In the mid-80s, when I was a member of Gallery's Council, after much hemming and hawing, we announced with a flourish (in THE EXAMINER) that THE EXAMINER would be our way of communicating with citizens! In the 90-91 Cutler years, we actually put out a quarterly bulletin.
As many of you know, I've sent out mayor's letters on specific issues as they crop up over the last four years, such as the impending police station closure, the library project (three letters), a new parking policy, information on recycling, and so forth. Plus taxpayers get a yearly letter from me with my take on the city's budget. John Lehnert wrote a bulletin in the Light and Power bill. We also send out semi-annually a thick brochure on Recreation and Cultural activities. Will a newsletter add anything to this information stream? I'm not totally convinced. But I'm open.
And then there's THE EXAMINER. THE EXAMINER gives this community a tremendous informational advantage over other places such as the West Island, where many cities have to share THE CHRONICLE. This may be why some West Island cities put out their own newsletters.
Now THE EXAMINER has a new publisher. I hope the current editor stays, as he is starting to understand Westmount. And I have found him to be a fair, thoughtful, and decent sort. He is the third editor since 1992. With many changes in THE EXAMINER staff since the departure of the Sanctons and Sweeney, this paper has struggled to maintain past standards. It's not for want of trying: the problem is often one of not having local background. That and money for staff. People who work for local papers are poorly paid and have zero job security. And producing a good paper or producing a good profit are often mutually-exclusive activities.
But a city-published newsletter, aside from the cost (around $40,000 a year), can become a self-serving puff piece that a sophisticated readership will soon transfer unread into the blue box. (A shared fate of THE EXAMINER if it doesn't succeed in putting out a quality newspaper. And that's assumes it's delivered: I rarely get it delivered to my house.)
So if the city did publish a newsletter, we would have to ensure it was truly readable, and not just a trumpeter of the good deeds of Council and city staff. And should it be monthly? Or quarterly? What do you think?
January 25, 1996
A few dozen women were successful in garnering some pretty good media coverage for their "breastfeed-in" staged in the shopping concourse of Westmount Square. They got the issue of public nursing into the public eye. They told La Presse they were disappointed I could not be there to show my support. Had I been available (and I wasn't), I would have gone to show I have no problem with such a natural act. I envisioned the rather discreet breastfeeding featured in photos accompanying the coverage in The Gazette and Le Devoir.
But the large photo that La Presse ran was far more revealing: it showed two women who had four babies nursing at each, quite bare, breast. Just what was needed to complete the picture would have been your chief magistrate standing near, my gaze cast demurely downward, examining the fissures in the travertine floor. Or, more likely, I would have thrown caution and my natural modesty to the winds and watched the smiling madonnas with children at their bounteous breasts. La Presse would have loved that picture. Front page material.
The demonstration was organized to show solidarity with Ann Martin, who, in 1994, had been told by a Westmount Square security guard to cover up while breastfeeding. Purportedly, some shoppers in the food mart were offended by such an act.
Why would anyone be offended? Was it the sight of a breast or the suckling of a breast? The forces for the delactation of Westmount Square - were they driven by a concern for tastefulness (a motive shared no doubt by the infants), or did they find it bordered on the erogenous? Or were they just misogynous?
But if they found that offensive, they should see the window displays at a shop on Sherbrooke that occasionally go over the top. It's not the nudity in the displays that bothers me, it's the underlying message of violence (usually to females) that I find repugnant. The owner says he's making an artistic statement. That may be, but he uses the medium of violent images.
Our powers to deal with such brutal displays are not clear - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (oh, how I wish we had a Charter of Responsibilities and Obligations!) could render a by-law ultra vires, which happened when Montreal wanted to ban bar signs displaying nude females. Freedom of expression, y'see. We do have the power to regulate the display of "erotic images". Ten years ago, Council had a field day defining "erotic". I don't think it includes breastfeeding, somehow.
So I'll stick with my definition of what is publicly offensive: displays of violence. And what could be less violent than the tableau of a mother nursing her child? But it's not necessary to do it almost topless; and, if you do, don't be surprised if it bothers a couple of people. But not me. I'll be busy studying the floor tiles.
Menu
page
