# Black Watch not allowed to follow traditional regimental parade



## mcchartman (5 May 2006)

I don't know if anyone of you is an avid reader of http://www.bourque.org/ like myself, but someone sent Pierre Bourque an e-mail regarding the re-routing of the annual regimental parade of the Black Watch down Sherbrooke St. See for yourself:

http://www.voy.com/178771/7761.html



> From: sales@williamscully.ca
> Subject: Black Watch Royal Highland Regiment of Canada not allowed to follow traditional parade route this Sunday
> Date: May 5, 2006 10:27:07 AM EDT
> To: pierre@bourque.com
> ...



Now I must admit that I was not aware of this annual march but seeing how it is to be held on Sunday May 7th, I decided to post this without having researched the subject beforehand. Could anyone provide details on this annual parade? Regardless, it seems pretty outrageous to me.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 May 2006)

What is outrageous about a military unit being asked to follow the law?  Mr. Scully doesn't mention why the law was passed. Our annual Freedom of the City march has been rerouted many times, due of course to legitimate concerns such as construction - or when the front arch of our own armouries was condemned as unsafe before our renovations.

Before flying off the handle, I'd be interested in knowing why that street is off limits.


----------



## paracowboy (5 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Before flying off the handle, I'd be interested in knowing why that street is off limits.


indeed. Perhaps it is so, because of potential dangers that could injure those on Parade?

If not, if it just some sort bureaucratic whim, THEN we can rise up in righteous indignation, and smite the unbelievers, hip and thigh, in the best tradition of the Black Watch themselves.


----------



## parkie (5 May 2006)

mcchartman said:
			
		

> past franchise crap and strip bars etc.


Oh.sure! The dam highlanders get the strip bars.And they take me past the library. :boring:


----------



## davidk (6 May 2006)

As a citizen of Montreal and a member of the Black Watch, I too find this outrageous and unprecedented. The parade in question is the annual Church parade, which will be followed in this particular instance by a change of RSM. For anyone familiar with the streets of Montreal, the original route would leave the armoury and go up de Bleury for one block, then turn left on Sherbrooke, marching the approx 1.5km to the Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul. De Maisonneuve is parallel with Sherbrooke and just a block or two south, so technically speaking it wouldn't make much of a difference. However, Sherbrooke _is_ a nicer and friendlier street, where many more people could see the parade. De Maisonneuve these days is usually filled with cranes and street repairs. The only reason I can think of for Sherbrooke being off-limits would be that it's a far busier street, but even that doesn't hold water, because on both Canada Day and St. Jean-Baptiste day (Quebec's equivalent) they have parades running through the heart of downtown on Ste-Catherine.

Bureaucratic garbage is what this is. A parade route that has been used for such a long time by such a distinguished unit (though not the most senior regiment in Canada, that goes to CGG...we're the senior HIGHLAND regiment) is not something to be tinkered with so lightly.

Anyway here's hoping that it goes well on Sunday, and three cheers for the new RSM.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 May 2006)

(Pedanticism on)
The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) is not Canada's senior infantry regiment.  That honour belongs to The Royal Canadian Regiment (by virtue of being Regular Force).  The order of precedence is regular then reserve.  In each the most senior are Guards (I believe) and then "the rest" in order of date of founding.  So, when the regular force regiments were The RCR, PPCLI, R22eR, The Canadian Guards, The Black Watch and The QOR, I believe that the order of precedence was thus:
The Canadian Guards
RHR
QOR
RCR
PPCLI
R22eR


(Pedanticism off)
Having said all that, I hope that someone, somewhere will allow the RHR to follow a more suitable parade route


----------



## Old Sweat (6 May 2006)

Von Garvin,

The order of prededence in the CA(R) was Canadian Guards, RCR, PPCLI, R22R, QOR and RHC. The last was the authorized abbreviation for the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment of Canada). 

My source is the 1965 Canadian Army Officers' List, the last edition published, a copy of which I was fortunately able to acquire.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 May 2006)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Von Garvin,
> 
> The order of prededence in the CA(R) was Canadian Guards, RCR, PPCLI, R22R, QOR and RHC. The last was the authorized abbreviation for the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment of Canada).
> 
> My source is the 1965 Canadian Army Officers' List, the last edition published, a copy of which I was fortunately able to acquire.


Hey there
re: RHR/RHC: My bad.  Sorry bout that to any Black Watch out there
Just checked the old CFAO, and you are indeed correct: guards first, and then by unit date.  For reg force units, the date is when they became regular force, so Guards, RCR, PPCLI, R22eR, QOR then RHC.  Thanks for the info!

Garvin out


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (6 May 2006)

I'm trying hard to get outraged about this, but nothing is happening.


----------



## mcchartman (6 May 2006)

I don't know - it might just be me who overstates the importance of traditions in the forces, but I've always had the impression that the military profession was the most attached to traditions, and in turn was most influenced by them.

When talks were made in the 60's which ultimately led to the three services to be unified under the banner of the Canadian Forces in 1968, didn't the Navy protest against the introduction of a common rank structure (among other things) - and didn't the Navy ultimately get its way in keeping its own separate structure? What may seem as a triviality to some civilians (and I am one myself) can hold some very high importance in the minds of servicemen. Few civilians will care whether a Navy's Sub-Lieutenant is called a Sub-Lieutenant or a Lieutenant as he would be using the Army's rank system. Ultimately, I believe that altering traditions can have a very negative impact on the morale and willingness to serve of some servicemen. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should stop progressing altogether and be forever cast in a stalemate, but simply that there is no need for altering traditions when there is no good reason to do so.

In this particular case, the author of the e-mail says that a by-law was passed by the city of Montreal. I have not researched this information, but I wouldn't think that a by-law would be passed if the reason for denying access to Sherbrooke St. was simply the fact that it is "unsafe" as it was suggested by Michael. Then again, I do not know the exact reason for this by-law so anything I'd say would be nothing but speculation - and God knows you guys don't like speculation. The point is however, that I believe this to be a good example of a needless alteration of a seemingly well-rooted tradition. Hence my outrage.


----------



## paracowboy (6 May 2006)

so, someone who is outraged enough should probably write to the city of Montreal and find out why the by-law was passed, and if there can be an accomadation made for the Black Watch.

Until we have hard evidence, there will be very little done here to mobilize the troops, I'm afraid.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2006)

Don't municipalities have to give prior notice in writing (minimum 30 days, IIRC) before a by-law gets changed? Guess no one was paying attention, if that's the case.


----------



## davidk (6 May 2006)

I have with me in hand a copy of today's Montreal Gazette, which states, 

*"The city of Montreal forced the change for tomorrow's march of the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada because it considers Sherbrooke unsafe, as it is the designated downtown route for the transport of biomedical, chemical and other hazardous materials."*

As an aside, the other east-west corridor for hazardous materials, Gouin Blvd, is pretty far north and would force a major re-route of traffic.

Question answered.

The new parade route will go down de Bleury to de Maisonneuve, march until Bishop St., turn north and march until Sherbrooke and the Church. The way back will be down Mackay (ironically the name of our current CO) and onto Ste-Catherine for the march back to the armoury.

It'd be nice to fix bayonnets and march the old route anyway, but it's also printed that the RHC's adjutant agreed to the change as is the norm for federal bodies not getting involved in municipal affairs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2006)

So this whole 'tempest in a teapot' thread could have been avoided with an initial investigation for the facts.

Knowledge is Power.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 May 2006)

Now I've got this big bubbling pot of righteous indignation, and nobody to fling it at......


----------



## geo (6 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Don't municipalities have to give prior notice in writing (minimum 30 days, IIRC) before a by-law gets changed? Guess no one was paying attention, if that's the case.


The laws were changed many years ago. The BW were given a number of exemptions over the years - but they were running on borrowed time. 

Before the BW gets their shorts tied up in a knot, most other Reserve units in Montreal have had to deal with the same problem at many times in the past...... 

get over it and live with it.

You get to parade down the middle of Ste Catherine street, the city's commercial core.... AND A STREET UPON WHICH MOST OTHER PARADES HAVE BEEN MOVED OFF OF. (In favor of Dorchester / René Levesque Blvd). The City is recognising the BWs significance...... just not the way some in the BW want it..... too bad, so sad, sniff.,...........


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (6 May 2006)

Wait!  I just felt some outrage!  Oh, wait, it's just heartburn.  Sorry.


----------



## davidk (6 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> You get to parade down the middle of Ste Catherine street, the city's commercial core.... AND A STREET UPON WHICH MOST OTHER PARADES HAVE BEEN MOVED OFF OF. (In favor of Dorchester / René Levesque Blvd). The City is recognising the BWs significance...... just not the way some in the BW want it..... too bad, so sad, sniff.,...........



I know, it could be a lot worse, and I'm happy that at least we get to march along Ste-Catherine. Still, the vets won't be happy...

I wonder how many of them have rusty Lee-Enfields up in their attic and a grudge against Mayor Tremblay? >


----------



## mcchartman (6 May 2006)

I'm real sorry about starting a "tempest in a teapot" - but I *did* specify that due to the limited time until Sunday's march, I did not research the subject in any way before posting about it. That has to count for something... no? Well how about that, coupled with the fact that I'm not from Montreal and the fact that I didn't write the e-mail in the first place but simply reproduced it then? Certainly *that* has to count for something... Still doesn't?  :-[
Won't happen again - no sir.  :-X


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2006)

mcchartman said:
			
		

> I'm real sorry about starting a "tempest in a teapot" - but I *did* specify that due to the limited time until Sunday's march, I did not research the subject in any way before posting about it. That has to count for something... no? Well how about that, coupled with the fact that I'm not from Montreal and the fact that I didn't write the e-mail in the first place but simply reproduced it then? Certainly *that* has to count for something... Still doesn't?  :-[
> Won't happen again - no sir.  :-X



Holy Cow!!!

What a wonderful example of sarcastic, but self righteous, indignation!!! Gotta put that one in a frame. Thanks


----------



## Black Watch (7 May 2006)

who will be the next rsm??? Quesnel?


----------



## davidk (7 May 2006)

Black Watch said:
			
		

> who will be the next rsm??? Quesnel?



The new RSM is CWO Barron. For a guy whose profile says he's in the Black Watch, you're a bit out of the loop.


----------



## Black Watch (7 May 2006)

Pte D. Krystal said:
			
		

> The new RSM is CWO Barron. For a guy whose profile says he's in the Black Watch, you're a bit out of the loop.


former BW...now driver for 51st Bn services...yeah, I should update my profile


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 May 2006)

Pte D. Krystal said:
			
		

> I know, it could be a lot worse, and I'm happy that at least we get to march along Ste-Catherine. Still, the vets won't be happy...
> 
> I wonder how many of them have rusty Lee-Enfields up in their attic and a grudge against Mayor Tremblay? >



I wasn't aware veterans were allowed to take their weapons home with them.

I wasn't aware that if anyone wanted a Lee Enfield badly enough, he would let it get rusty.

I wasn't aware that military veterans had some special right to assassinate public figures over something as insignificant as a parade route.

I wasn't....


----------



## dardt (7 May 2006)

According to the local Montreal CTV news the Black Watch took the traditional route anyway.

It also states the bylaw was put in place to avoid large gatherings of people along Sherbrooke St, mainly due to the large amount of hazardous materials carried along this route.


----------



## FastEddy (8 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware veterans were allowed to take their weapons home with them.
> 
> I wasn't aware that if anyone wanted a Lee Enfield badly enough, he would let it get rusty.
> 
> ...




I wasn't aware that you were appointed Political Correctness and Literary Conscience of this Forum.

I think that most of us knew where "Pte. D Krystal" was coming from or what he meant. Maybe he might have expressed it in another way. 

However, his Post did not deserve a Clever but snide reply.

Sadly, certain members of Self Appointed Aloofness, seem not to miss a opportunity to take a clever but non the less a cheap shot.


----------



## FastEddy (8 May 2006)

In case you haven't heard, The Regiment marched along Sherbrooke anyway on the express orders of the Colonel.

It seems the "LADIES FROM HELL" who weren't afraid of  the Cold Steel, Bullets or Canons of the Hun, weren't afraid of Mayor Tremblay. (who by the way, I'm not permitted to express my sentiments on this Forum)

God Bless and Good Luck to all those who or have Marched to the Swirl of the Pipes and Drums.

Cheers.


----------



## geo (8 May 2006)

Fast eddy..... 
not sure what you're getting at with the "not being able to express your sentiment"???

The city passed a bylaw which was 100% their right to do.
The city gave the BW 3 or 4 years to adjust to the new law (law was passed in 02)
The city does not allow any other parade on Sherbrooke street - INCLUDING the St Jean Baptiste day parade - which to some quebecers is like "the holy grail".... 

Given that, in spite of the City's "request" that the Unit comply with municipal laws (at long last) the unit did follow it's heart instead of it's head.... the unit will undoubtedly have to face the consequences.


----------



## mcchartman (8 May 2006)

The Montreal Gazette has also released an article concerning the Blackwatch's decision to take Sherbrooke nonetheless - and the policemen turning a blind eye:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=d43fddba-14d0-460f-8565-8bd4ee56272b&p=1

I won't comment on the events. It seems opinions on this board are highly divided regarding the subject and I doubt a junior member like myself could influence anyone of you with my ranting (without mentioning the fear of being flamed by a moderator heh).


----------



## FastEddy (8 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Fast eddy.....
> not sure what you're getting at with the "not being able to express your sentiment"???
> 
> The city passed a bylaw which was 100% their right to do.
> ...




Regarding my Sentiments for our City Hall, its utter contempt, and the language I would use to describe it, is not permitted on this site.

It is also such a comfort to know that one of the Cities Oldest and Beautiful Thou roughfares is being used as you describe, which in my opinion, if it is such a threat to a parade and those who might attend it, then its a threat to everyday traffic. Maybe you haven't noticed, its as busy as St. Catherine St.. Usually traffic is stopped for a hour or so during an event. Its just one of a long list of Self Serving Blunders out of City Hall.

May I apologize at this moment to this Thread for veering off the Topic.


----------



## scoutfinch (8 May 2006)

Being relatively uninformed on the BW parade, I have one comment to make about the fact that the unit paraded along the route they chose rather than the route they were to parade on:

The deliberate and flagrant flouting of law by the military should not be tolerated by the military nor civilians.  What separates us from banana republics is that the military is subject to the law and a servant of civil society.  It is shocking to me that a military unit should treat the law as an inconvenience to their whim.

/rant off.


----------



## FastEddy (8 May 2006)

mcchartman said:
			
		

> The Montreal Gazette has also released an article concerning the Blackwatch's decision to take Sherbrooke nonetheless - and the policemen turning a blind eye:
> 
> http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=d43fddba-14d0-460f-8565-8bd4ee56272b&p=1
> 
> I won't comment on the events. It seems opinions on this board are highly divided regarding the subject and I doubt a junior member like myself could influence anyone of you with my ranting (without mentioning the fear of being flamed by a moderator heh).




I think you've already made a comment, thanks for the Gazette Article.

Don't worry about the Moderators, they are quite fair in their assessments.

Just a passing thought, fill out your profile, whether it be a Cadet, Concerned/Interested Civilian or Student, it nice to know a little about the person your taking to. Remember, if you write like a fool you'll probally will be treated like a fool .

Cheers.


----------



## FastEddy (8 May 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Being relatively uninformed on the BW parade, I have one comment to make about the fact that the unit paraded along the route they chose rather than the route they were to parade on:
> 
> The deliberate and flagrant flouting of law by the military should not be tolerated by the military nor civilians.  What separates us from banana republics is that the military is subject to the law and a servant of civil society.  It is shocking to me that a military unit should treat the law as an inconvenience to their whim.
> 
> /rant off.




Its obvious you're going to go far in this Mans Army.

I hope you remember your convictions the next time you drive through a 30 km School Zone.


----------



## scoutfinch (8 May 2006)

In fact I do.... although there is a substantial difference from someone failing to obey a posted speed sign and a military unit choosing to ignore the law.

By the way,  Fast Eddy, your slags on my career prospects are unnecessary and fall on deaf ears. 

From the looks of your profile, you are in law enforcement, non?  Let me guess -- you think the law should not apply to certain professions... yours in particular.


----------



## Eowyn (8 May 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Being relatively uninformed on the BW parade, I have one comment to make about the fact that the unit paraded along the route they chose rather than the route they were to parade on:
> 
> The deliberate and flagrant flouting of law by the military should not be tolerated by the military nor civilians.  What separates us from banana republics is that the military is subject to the law and a servant of civil society.  It is shocking to me that a military unit should treat the law as an inconvenience to their whim.
> 
> /rant off.


I agree with you ScoutFinch. +1


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 May 2006)

Dead on, scoutfinch.  And why I posted my comments a page or two ago also; the military is not above the law, nor should it be.  Nor should it even give the appearance of being so; I truly believe idiotic comments about veterans starting an insurrection or assassinating people serve no real purpose and can in fact do us harm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 May 2006)

mcchartman said:
			
		

> I won't comment on the events. It seems opinions on this board are highly divided regarding the subject and I doubt a junior member like myself could influence anyone of you with my ranting (without mentioning the fear of being flamed by a moderator heh).



mcchartman,

Don't worry. It's mostly all in good fun. You'll be more than made aware, should you cross the magic line  ;D 

For the rest,

Be careful where you go and how you go, or it'll be locked.


----------



## Franko (8 May 2006)

mcchartman said:
			
		

> I won't comment on the events. It seems opinions on this board are highly divided regarding the subject and I doubt a junior member like myself could influence anyone of you with my ranting (without mentioning the fear of being flamed by a moderator heh).



Comment all you want....we readily encourage it.    

Give 'er!

Regards


----------



## FastEddy (9 May 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> In fact I do.... although there is a substantial difference from someone failing to obey a posted speed sign and a military unit choosing to ignore the law.
> 
> By the way,  Fast Eddy, your slags on my career prospects are unnecessary and fall on deaf ears.
> 
> From the looks of your profile, you are in law enforcement, non?  Let me guess -- you think the law should not apply to certain professions... yours in particular.




My compliments to you then Sir, you are one of the exceptions to the rule. With regard to the severity of Offences, somehow I think that a Child being hit by a Speeding Motorist in a 30 Km School Zone to a Military Unit Marching to a Church Parade, with a Police Escort in defiance of a City Ordnance is not even in the same league.

As far as slagging your Career, its strange you should find it derogatory rather than complimentary.

As far as the Law and Punishments being equally applied to certain Professions, like the Wealthy,Famous and the Powerfull and if it does in your area, let me know and I'll move there right away.


----------



## FastEddy (9 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Dead on, scoutfinch.  And why I posted my comments a page or two ago also; the military is not above the law, nor should it be.  Nor should it even give the appearance of being so; I truly believe idiotic comments about veterans starting an insurrection or assassinating people serve no real purpose and can in fact do us harm.




Now "D. Krystal" posting is idiotic, it seems you are the only one and continuing to attaching, Veterans starting a Insurrection and Assassinating people to his post.

I clearly expressed that he might have worded his support and feelings slightly different, but we knew what he meant and where he was coming from.

My objection was that he was ridiculed un-necessarily (by you) and you've just done it again.

However I applaud you for your Righteous and Lawbiding stance in this matter. I'm sure it is well received at the Black Watch RHR Armoury.


----------



## scoutfinch (9 May 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> My compliments to you then Sir, you are one of the exceptions to the rule. With regard to the severity of Offences, somehow I think that a Child being hit by a Speeding Motorist in a 30 Km School Zone to a Military Unit Marching to a Church Parade, with a Police Escort in defiance of a City Ordnance is not even in the same league.
> 
> As far as slagging your Career, its strange you should find it derogatory rather than complimentary.
> 
> As far as the Law and Punishments being equally applied to certain Professions, like the Wealthy,Famous and the Powerfull and if it does in your area, let me know and I'll move there right away.



First of all, it's ma'am and not sir.

I believe in the Rule of Law.  Moreover, I believe in the fundamental tenet of the rule of law that no one is above the law.  No one.  

Nor do I  believe that comparing apples and oranges is productive in any discussion regarding ethics and principles so I will ignore your ridiculous comparisons other than to note that it has gone from speeding in a reduced speed zone to possible negligent homicide when it suited your purpose. 

On a principled basis, no military unit has the right to do what it wants.  It does what it is told.  It is not up to the military to make policy.  The CDS advises the various levels of government on policy options and subsequently implements policy as per the government's requirements.  The military is a tool of the government.

No, I do not believe the wealthy, famous or powerful should be exempt from equal application of the law.  Nor should the military or police.  _Especially_ not the military or the police.  

I can find no reasonable excuse for this event.  Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why such a demonstration of lack of discipline is okay... but please note in advance that most people won't accept "the BW didn't like what they city said" as a sufficient reason... largely because it is irrelevant whether they liked it or not.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 May 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Now "D. Krystal" posting is idiotic, it seems you are the only one and continuing to attaching, Veterans starting a Insurrection and Assassinating people to his post.
> 
> I clearly expressed that he might have worded his support and feelings slightly different, but we knew what he meant and where he was coming from.
> 
> My objection was that he was ridiculed un-necessarily (by you) and you've just done it again.



A rose by any other name is just as sweet; by that token, a pile of festering garbage called a "thoughtful post" still smells just as bad.



> However I applaud you for your Righteous and Lawbiding stance in this matter. I'm sure it is well received at the Black Watch RHR Armoury.



Well you should. On the other hand, what the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada thinks of me I find as irrelevant as your opinion on this matter. *shrugs* If the Black Watch wishes to get pissy about being held to the law, that's their problem I guess. Montreal City Council should make an exception for them if they really want to, but if it is honestly a safety issue then you have the attendant liability issues as well. I rather doubt the RSM will be handing out waiver forms on parade.


----------



## davidk (9 May 2006)

From today's Montreal Gazette...

City Hall Bristles Over Black Watch Parade

JEFF HEINRICH, The Gazette
Published: Tuesday, May 09, 2006
   The city of Montreal is upset that soldiers of Canada's oldest Highland regiment broke the terms of a permit Sunday and marched on Sherbrooke St. W. , a route reserved for the transport of hazardous materials.
   The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada should not have disobeyed orders of the civil authority to keep its annual parade off Sherbrooke, an official said yesterday.
   "We're extremely concerned, because the Black Watch is the army," said Jacques-Alain Lavallee, spokesperson for the downtown Ville Marie borough, which issued the permit.
   "What sort of society is it when the army doesn't comply with the rules? They're soldiers defying authority."
   Not at all, retorted Lt.-Col. (retired) Bruce Bolton, the Black Watch's former commanding officer.
   "We were never defiant," said Bolton, who was at the march. "We went with the police, it was all discussed. They said: 'We have no problem with you going along Sherbrooke St.' If they had said no, we would have gone the other route. We cannot and will not portray ourselves as going against the law."
   The borough is checking with the police force to see why, at the last minute, it allowed the parade on Sherbrooke. Under a 2002 agreement struck between the city and the Quebec Public Security Department in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., Sherbrooke was named Montreal's sole downtown east-west corridor for the transport of dangerous goods.
   By banning parades on Sherbrooke, the authorities aim has been to put marchers and pedestrians out of harm's way in case of an accident in which toxic substances are spilled, and also to prevent congestion of emergency vehicles by crowds. Despite risk to residents, the downtown route was chosen partly because it's close to the city's major hospitals, which regularly transport potentially dangerous biomedical substances between sites.
   Supporters of the Black Watch say the no-Sherbrooke rule shouldn't apply to their parade, because it does not attract a large public, does not involve many marchers - at most, 200 - and only lasts a short time. And they argue Sherbrooke has been the parade's route for the past 74 years, and shouldn't be changed now for any reason.
This year, though, it was supposed to. According to the permit, the parade route Sunday - from the Black Watch armoury on Bleury St. to the regimental Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, 12 blocks away on Sherbrooke - was to have led along de Maisonneuve Blvd. and back along Ste. Catherine St. W. Instead, at the last minute, the Black Watch reservists, veterans, church officials and supporters took Sherbrooke the whole way, the same route the parade has been taking since it was first held in 1932.
   A Gazette report yesterday indicated a police officer in charge of the escort allowed the march to head on Sherbrooke after organizers asked him to.
Bolton, who was not on hand for the discussion, said he understands that the police simply took the easiest option: Sherbrooke, the clearest, least convoluted route.
"I get the impression that (they said) 'The official route is that (one on the permit), but look, there's nothing happening on Sherbrooke St., so go use it,' " Bolton said."From their point of view, it was easier, as well. I mean, it would have been a zoo to go the other direction."
   But the city wants answers.
   "There seems to have been a door opened by one policeman, and we're trying to check that before we take any action," Lavallee said.
   One thing the city can't do is fine the regiment for using Sherbrooke. The city's regulations haven't been updated since 2002 to specifically designate Sherbrooke as a dangerous-goods corridor, even though Quebec considers it so.
   "It's not a bylaw; it's a policy, and there are no provisions in the policy for fines," Lavallee said.
   Asked who gave the order to ignore the permit, a spokesperson for the Montreal police said yesterday afternoon he'd check, but did not get back.
jheinrich@thegazette.canwest.com
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2006

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=1e271d10-2d7c-4821-9272-724d5ef158e5&p=1

I think this article makes it pretty clear just what happened and why. The RHC technically broke no laws in doing what it did. I'm not going to comment on whether what happened was right or not, but if anything else develops I'll be sure to clue everyone in.


----------



## FastEddy (9 May 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> First of all, it's ma'am and not sir.
> 
> I believe in the Rule of Law.  Moreover, I believe in the fundamental tenet of the rule of law that no one is above the law.  No one.
> 
> ...




On the suggestion of friend, and in the light of new evidence, I now regard this tirade useless but humorous.

Have a nice day Ma'am.


----------



## big bad john (11 May 2006)

I might not like the law that has been changed.  There are venues for amending the law.  But the military, especially the military is not above the law.  I have seen too many countries where this is not the case.  Tradition does not come at the expense of breaking any law no matter how inane or unfair it might seem on the surface.  A soldiers duty is to uphold the right and justice of his country.  That means the laws he doesn't like also.  My 2 cent rant.  But it seems in this case a bylaw wasn't broken.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=1e271d10-2d7c-4821-9272-724d5ef158e5&k=65087&source=somnia

City hall bristles over Black Watch parade
  
JEFF HEINRICH 
The Gazette 


Tuesday, May 09, 2006


The city of Montreal is upset that soldiers of Canada's oldest Highland regiment broke the terms of a permit Sunday and marched on Sherbrooke St. W. , a route reserved for the transport of hazardous materials.

The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada should not have disobeyed

orders of the civil authority to keep its annual parade off Sherbrooke, an official said yesterday.

"We're extremely concerned, because the Black Watch is the army," said Jacques-Alain Lavallee, spokesperson for the downtown Ville Marie borough, which issued the permit.

"What sort of society is it when the army doesn't comply with the rules? They're soldiers defying authority."

Not at all, retorted Lt.-Col. (retired) Bruce Bolton, the Black Watch's former commanding officer.

"We were never defiant," said Bolton, who was at the march.

"We went with the police, it was all discussed. They said: 'We have no problem with you going along Sherbrooke St.' If they had said no, we would have gone the other route. We cannot and will not portray ourselves as going against the law."

The borough is checking with the police force to see why, at the last minute, it allowed the parade on Sherbrooke.

Under a 2002 agreement struck between the city and the Quebec Public Security Department in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., Sherbrooke was named Montreal's sole downtown east-west corridor for the transport of dangerous goods.

By banning parades on Sherbrooke, the authorities aim has been to put marchers and pedestrians out of harm's way in case of an accident in which toxic substances are spilled, and also to prevent congestion of emergency vehicles by crowds.

Despite risk to residents, the downtown route was chosen partly because it's close to the city's major hospitals, which regularly transport potentially dangerous biomedical substances between sites.

Supporters of the Black Watch say the no-Sherbrooke rule shouldn't apply to their parade, because it does not attract a large public, does not involve many marchers - at most, 200 - and only lasts a short time.

And they argue Sherbrooke has been the parade's route for the past 74 years, and shouldn't be changed now for any reason.

This year, though, it was supposed to. According to the permit, the parade route Sunday - from the Black Watch armoury on Bleury St. to the regimental Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, 12 blocks away on Sherbrooke - was to have led along de Maisonneuve Blvd. and back along Ste. Catherine St. W.

Instead, at the last minute, the Black Watch reservists, veterans, church officials and supporters took Sherbrooke the whole way, the same route the parade has been taking since it was first held in 1932.

A Gazette report yesterday indicated a police officer in charge of the escort allowed the march to head on Sherbrooke after organizers asked him to.

Bolton, who was not on hand for the discussion, said he understands that the police simply took the easiest option: Sherbrooke, the clearest, least convoluted route.

"I get the impression that (they said) 'The official route is that (one on the permit), but look, there's nothing happening on Sherbrooke St., so go use it,' " Bolton said.

"From their point of view, it was easier, as well. I mean, it would have been a zoo to go the other direction."

But the city wants answers.

"There seems to have been a door opened by one policeman, and we're trying to check that before we take any action," Lavallee said.

One thing the city can't do is fine the regiment for using Sherbrooke. The city's regulations haven't been updated since 2002 to specifically designate Sherbrooke as a dangerous-goods corridor, even though Quebec considers it so.

"It's not a bylaw; it's a policy, and there are no provisions in the policy for fines," Lavallee said.

Asked who gave the order to ignore the permit, a spokesperson for the Montreal police said yesterday afternoon he'd check, but did not get back.

jheinrich@thegazette.canwest.com

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2006


----------



## McG (11 May 2006)

Recognizing the supremacy of the civil authority is a military tradition so old that it pre-dates any regiment of the Canadian Army.  We inherrited it from the British, and the importance of this tradition is so great that even the US kept it around after the gaining its independance (while it was going to great lengths to distance itself from the British).

Which tradition is most important.  This one or that of a parade route?


----------



## Lost_Warrior (11 May 2006)

> The city passed a bylaw which was 100% their right to do.
> The city gave the BW 3 or 4 years to adjust to the new law (law was passed in 02)



Where did you get your info from?  There currently is no by-law.  It was never passed in 02.  The fact of the matter is, the bi-laws were last updated back in 2002, and the last time they were, they did NOT include sherbrooke as a HazMat transport route.  The city has since then made it a policy, but it was never an actual law.  This is why the city cannot fine the regiment.  They didn't break any laws.

And the fact is, the police did not simply "turn a blind eye"    They saw the Sherbrooke route that day as being empty and clear of any major traffic, so the Black Watch CO asked the police officer in charge, and he gave the green light.   The cop knew that if they went the route the city wanted them to go, it would have been chaos with traffic, and would have caused a lot more danger to drivers and pedestrians than the original route.

In the end, no laws were broken, and the decision was made in good judgement.   Call it what you want.


----------



## JackD (12 May 2006)

Lost_warrior - Thank-you for clearing this up - one hopes that no political flack makes trouble for the sensible officials who made the decision...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 May 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> The cop knew that if they went the route the city wanted them to go, it would have been chaos with traffic, and would have caused a lot more danger to drivers and pedestrians than the original route.



I'm calling BS on the "danger" part. Police are there to direct traffic and ensure parades are safe, no? If the police are trying to say it would have been "dangerous" to take another route, the only explanation for that would be they weren't doing their job properly.  A parade is not a hazardous undertaking no matter which street one uses - if the police are doing their jobs.


----------



## geo (12 May 2006)

Lost warrior,
I stand corrected on the "by-law" thing.....it's a directive....


> Under a 2002 agreement struck between the city and the Quebec Public Security Department in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., Sherbrooke was named Montreal's sole downtown east-west corridor for the transport of dangerous goods.
> By banning parades on Sherbrooke, the authorities aim has been to put marchers and pedestrians out of harm's way in case of an accident in which toxic substances are spilled, and also to prevent congestion of emergency vehicles by crowds. Despite risk to residents, the downtown route was chosen partly because it's close to the city's major hospitals, which regularly transport potentially dangerous biomedical substances between sites.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lost_Warrior (12 May 2006)

> I'm calling BS on the "danger" part. Police are there to direct traffic and ensure parades are safe, no? If the police are trying to say it would have been "dangerous" to take another route,



Call BS all you want.  The City's planned route was down St Catherine Street.   Have you been down there recently?   The whole street is torn up with construction.  Had the parade taken the last lane open to traffic, there would have been chaos.     You wern't there, so you don't know.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (12 May 2006)

> Regardless of what the police official allowed/permitted, the city had clearly told the BW that they were not to use a certain route & had given them a number of years to get their act together.



Fair enough, but the planned route by the city was under heavy traffic and construction recently (St Catherine) and to essentially cut off the cities core street without much prior notice to motorists or pedestrians (Its not like the Santa Clause Parade where everyone knows weeks before hand that St Catherine will be closed, and it gives them the time to plan their routes differently), there would have been utter chaos.    

I have been downtown on nights where police have small areas of the street blocked and its chaos....I can only imagine a parade moving through.

The police made the right choice, and it did not hurt anyone.   It was more conveniant for city go'ers and pedestrians/motorists.

End of story.  Anyone else who wants to beat a dead horse may continue doing so.  It doesn't make your argument right.  If you don't live in Montreal, or wern't there, you really cant fully grasp the situation.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 May 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but the planned route by the city was under heavy traffic and construction recently (St Catherine) and to essentially cut off the cities core street without much prior notice to motorists or pedestrians (Its not like the Santa Clause Parade where everyone knows weeks before hand that St Catherine will be closed, and it gives them the time to plan their routes differently), there would have been utter chaos.
> 
> I have been downtown on nights where police have small areas of the street blocked and its chaos....I can only imagine a parade moving through.
> 
> ...



I don't need to live in Montreal to know the difference between convenience and public safety. So which was it?


----------



## Lost_Warrior (12 May 2006)

> I don't need to live in Montreal to know the difference between convenience and public safety. So which was it?



A little from column A, a little from column B.

People driving downtown drive like maniacs.   The street itself has 2 of its 3 lanes closed off for constructions, which leaves a tight passage for much of it because of the equipment parked on the sides.

If a parade pops up in the middle of no where, where these people plan on driving down, it will cause a huge build up of traffic, and a lot of stupid people.  I have seen people drive like mad regardless of pedestrians in the street.

There wasn't enough police on the scene to conduct the amount of traffic control that would have been accumulated by the parade....so there would have been a lot of @ssholes on the road taking advantage of that.

So like I said.   A little from column A, and a little from column B

The proper judgment was made by the police based on experience.   Unless you have had more experience with traffic on the streets of Montreal, you can’t really argue.   Perhaps you can source where you call BS on?   Do you have any first hand (or second hand) experience with traffic conduction on Montreal streets with the amount of Police man power that the parade had on hand?

Until you do, please respectfully bow out of this debate.


----------



## McG (12 May 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> You wern't there, so you don't know.


I suspect you were not a party to the conversation in which the police escort and the regiment chose the alternate route either.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (12 May 2006)

> I suspect you were not a party to the conversation in which the police escort and the regiment chose the alternate route either.



You suspect correct, so unless we get new info where the CO threatened the cop, we can't dismiss what happened, and the facts.  

But I was in fact there.  The Sherbrooke route was clear.   The route the city anted them to go was congested with massive lines of traffic and idiot drivers.

Had the parade gone there, I am more than certain (as well as the police, who pareol and manage those streets) that some @sshole would have tried something, or the population would have "revolted".....and it would have caused a scene.

I commend them on their thinking and decisions, and anyone who actually "KNOWS" the city of Montreal, would too.


PS: This isn't Alberta where the people throw flowers into the street at the sight of soldiers.   This is Quebec (Montreal) where they throw eggs and rocks.  (and that story will best be reserved for another time)


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 May 2006)

If someone actually has some new facts (about the specific incident, not Montreal traffic theory) to add to the thread, please contact a Moderator.


----------

