The bylaw

The legislation, introduced last year, would prohibit the construction of houses of worship on Bernard and Laurier, ostensibly banning religious construction throughout the entire borough, as a similar ban already applies to residential streets in Outremont and on Van Horne.

However, the bylaw remains controversial, because while the ban applies to all religious denominations, the referendum results have left Outremont’s Hasidic community feeling targeted: currently comprising 25 per cent of the borough’s population, Outremont’s Hasidic community is the borough’s largest growing religious group and expected to be Outremont’s largest demographic by 2030.

As Laurier did not receive the minimum number of signatures in its public registry to enforce a referendum, Bernard remained the last possible area where a place of worship could be built.

Outremont only has four synagogues with a combined capacity of four hundred: the ban would effectively force Hasidic Jews to travel outside of the borough by foot in order to attend Synagogue, as Jewish religious law prohibits any form of mechanical travel on the Sabbath, including, but not limited to, driving a car, taking the bus, or riding the subway.

Though borough councilors claim that the ban was designed to protect Bernard’s commercial viability, Outremont councilor Mindy Pollak, the only councilor to vote against the ban, says that this logic does not stand up under scrutiny.

In a September interview with The Daily, Pollak spoke about the example of Parc, where “the Plateau approved a few new synagogues, [and] there’s businesses that are booming now, new stores have opened up.”

The campaign

Arno Pedram, a U2 student at McGill and a volunteer for the ‘No’ vote against the ban, campaigned prior to the referendum in an effort to raise support for overturning the bylaw.

He feels that the ‘Yes’ campaign “had spread […] a lot of misinformation about what was happening” by focusing on the commercial aspects of the bylaw, rather than the religious implications. He accredits the success of the ‘Yes’ campaign to “huge amounts of donations,” and early mobilization.

Pedram told The Daily that the ‘No’ campaign only got off the ground a week prior to the referendum, saying “the lateness […] is due in part to the fact that the Hasidic community did not want to seem aggressive.”

Legal action

“[The ‘Yes’ campaign] had spread […] a lot of misinformation about what was happening.”

Julius Grey, a Montreal lawyer who opposes the bylaw, believes there are sufficient grounds to pursue legal action, telling CTV that “the majority vote is of no importance as long as there is a violation of the Charter, so what one would have to show is that there is a practical impediment to them worshipping.”

While similar bans exist in other boroughs throughout the city, Outremont does not have “Projets particuliers de construction, de modification ou d’occupation d’un immeuble” laws in place, which would allow the borough to issue building permits on a case-by-case basis, even if a general bylaw prevents the construction of places of worships. As a result, members of the Hasidic community are left with little alternative but to go to court.

“The majority vote is of no importance as long as there is a violation of the Charter, so what one would have to show is that there is a practical impediment to them worshipping.”

However, despite the threat of forthcoming legal action, Hasidic community leader, Abraham Ekstein, seeks compromise that will leave all parties satisfied, telling The Daily: “We hope to build bridges with the community around us to […] find a way to live together.”

The post Outremont upholds bylaw appeared first on The McGill Daily.

If the by-law were to be implemented, the construction of new places of worship would be banned throughout the entire borough, as a ban on new development already applies to residential streets and Avenue Van Horne, another high-traffic commercial avenue.

Officially, the by-law does not discriminate based on religion, but it would theoretically restrict the construction of any religious edifice in the neighborhood, regardless of religious affiliation. However, in practice the law would disproportionately affect Outremont’s sizeable Hasidic Jewish population, which comprises about a quarter of Outremont’s 25,000 residents: there are only four synagogues in the borough, servicing a combined capacity of approximately 400 Hasidic Jews.

On December 7, 2015, at an Outremont borough meeting, councillor Jacqueline Gremaud defended the council’s vote. “Only small sections of the street are being regulated,” she said in French. “On [Avenue] Bernard, we are talking about 200 or 300 meters.”

She explained that their intentions are to keep commercial streets free for everyone to use. “What we hope to accomplish,” Gremaud said, “is to assure that undeveloped parcels of land on commercial avenues [in Outremont] be reserved for businesses, coffee shops, restaurants and cultural spaces – open to everyone and anyone regardless of their religion.”

Objections to the by-law

Mindy Pollak, the only borough councillor out of the five to vote against the proposed by-law and a Hasidic Jewish woman, objected to Gremaud’s intentions in a phone interview with The Daily. She pointed out how the drafting of the by-law failed to take into account the public’s reservations.

“Only small sections of the street are being regulated. On [Avenue] Bernard, we are talking about 200 or 300 meters.”

“The bylaw project has been badly mismanaged,” she stated. “The borough refused to sit down with people that should have been consulted, people that would have been affected by the bylaw […] during the first public consultation, over 70 per cent of the people who came out were against the by-law project, and [the Outremont council] ignored that.”

Pollak believes that synagogues would actually enhance the economic vitality of surrounding areas. “The best proof that I can give you [is this]: on Avenue Parc, between Avenue Bernard and Avenue Van Horne, the Plateau approved a few new synagogues, [and] there’s businesses that are booming now, new stores have opened up,” Pollak said.

Pollak also pointed out that unlike a number of other boroughs in Montreal, Outremont doesn’t have “Projets particuliers de construction, de modification ou d’occupation d’un immeuble” (PPCMOI) procedures in place, a derogation tool that would allow requests for building permits to be examined on a case-by-case basis, even if zoning laws would normally prohibit the development of certain buildings. This means that if the by-law passes, there would be no way for a new synagogue to be built quickly to service the growing Hasidic community’s needs, except for repealing the law itself.

“The borough refused to sit down with people that should have been consulted, people that would have been affected by the bylaw […]”

Legality of the by-law

Montreal lawyer Julius Grey, who sent a letter to the borough last December threatening legal action if the by-law was adopted, believes that the by-law is not only inconvenient, but also unconstitutional.

“The [Hasidic] community is one of the fastest growing communities [in Outremont]. They often have ten or 15 children per family, and demographic studies show that they might become the majority in Outremont by 2025, 2030,” said Grey in an interview with The Daily.

“[The Hasidim] have an absolute prohibition on taking a vehicle or any other mechanical form of transport on a Saturday, or Shabbat [Jewish high holiday], he continued. “In those circumstances, […] because there are [few places] where you can still build a synagogue [in Outremont], it means […] a 30 to 45 minute walk away from their synagogue, and given the fact that they’re families with small children, given the fact that […] Montreal winters are not made for traipsing around with ten children, given the need to expand, the result is that Outremont is attacking a real and pressing need.”

“In those circumstances, […] because there are [few places] where you can still build a synagogue [in Outremont], it means […] a 30 to 45 minute walk away from their synagogue.”

“Municipalities have the power to legislate, including to restrict where places of worship are to be found,” continued Grey. But, he said they “must provide a reasonably easy, convenient place [of worship, and] cannot legislate in such a way to virtually ban communities.”

If the forthcoming referendum rules in favour of upholding the law, Grey is still prepared to take legal action against the borough.

Upcoming developments

The date of the upcoming Avenue Bernard referendum is expected to be announced before or during the next council meeting on October 3. Members of the Hasidic community say they will not be the only ones voting to reject the by-law, as many non-Hasidic neighbours have also taken issue with the ruling.

“[Municipalities] must provide a reasonably easy, convenient place [of worship, and] cannot legislate in such a way to virtually ban communities.”

The Daily reached out to three other Outremont councilors who supported the by-law, but they did not respond in time for publication.

The post Outremont referendum creates tension appeared first on The McGill Daily.