Montreal Synagogue Battle Turns Bitter

The young Hasidic mother sat on her porch Tuesday afternoon waiting for the school bus to drop off her son. Her smiling three-year-old daughter sucked on a purple freezie. “When I walk in the street,” the woman said, “I feel a hatred in the air.”

 

Montreal synagogue battle turns bitter
Graeme Hamilton • National Post

MONTREAL – The young Hasidic mother sat on her porch Tuesday afternoon waiting for the school bus to drop off her son. Her smiling three-year-old daughter sucked on a purple freezie. “When I walk in the street,” the woman said, “I feel a hatred in the air.”

Next door, her elderly neighbour sat wearing an identical pink hair covering. “We feel very bad,” she said in accented English. “Like 60 years ago.” Asked to elaborate, she said she was born in Germany and rolled up her sleeve to reveal a number tattooed into her left forearm. She is a survivor of Auschwitz.

It is unfathomable that such sentiments could be felt in Montreal in 2011, but even harder to believe is the source of the women’s disquiet: a proposed zoning change to allow a minor expansion of their 60-year-old synagogue, located just down the street.

What should have been a routine building improvement has degenerated into a divisive battle between the Hasidim and some non-Jewish residents who believe the ultra-orthodox Jews bend the rules and disturb the peace. On Sunday, a referendum to determine whether the proposed expansion – adding about 400 square feet to the back of the dilapidated Gate David synagogue – could go ahead was defeated by a vote of 243 to 212. For the roughly 200 congregants who all live within walking distance, the result was a cruel slap.

Pierre Lacerte, the blogger who spearheaded the campaign against the expansion, couldn’t be happier. Mr. Lacerte lives on the same block as the synagogue and for the past six years he has devoted much of his time to documenting what he considers the excesses of the Hasidim in the neighbourhoods of Outremont and Mile End.

His blog is filled with sarcastic comments about Hasidic leaders and any non-Jews whom he deems too cozy with the Hasidim. After borough officials approved the synagogue’s renovation plans, he was instrumental in gathering the signatures required to put the matter to a vote. On Sunday, he spent 12 hours encouraging people to vote against the project.

He does not dispute that Gate David needs renovations. “It’s a slum,” he said. But he says under no circumstances should the synagogue be allowed to expand into its back yard. The plan was to extend the building 10 feet back so a ground floor washroom and a cloakroom could be added. Currently elderly congregants have to go to the basement to use the toilet, and in the winter, every time the front door opens freezing air blows into the main prayer room. The synagogue’s immediate neighbours had no objections.

Mr. Lacerte, 56, walks the neighbourhood with a camera on his belt ready to document perceived Hasidic abuses for his blog. He said his interest is ensuring municipal regulations are respected, but the only violations he features involve the Hasidim. He rejects accusations of anti-Semitism but acknowledges it is possible his campaign attracts racists. The white supremacist web site Stormfront features links to some of his writings about the synagogue expansion.

“I know that there are racists everywhere, there are some who are against Jews, some who are against blacks,” Mr. Lacerte said. “Maybe even among those who encourage me. I cannot speak for the integrity or morality of everybody.”

For Mayer Feig, a 37-year-old member of the Gate David congregation, Mr. Lacerte’s protestations no longer hold water. The referendum result, he said, was not based on the merits of the proposed expansion. “The leaders that were bringing out the No vote were dishonest, they lied and from people they approached, I heard it went into extreme hate against the community,” he said.

“What was the motivation for this? Clearly it wasn’t based on the plan. Because the plan was 100% within the law. The city said it themselves.”

This is not the first time tensions have arisen between the Hasidim and their neighbours. In 2001, the Hasidim won a court case against Outremont, which had banned them from erecting an eruv, a symbolic string boundary that allows orthodox Jews to perform tasks that would otherwise be off limits on the Sabbath. Last March, Quebec Court rejected a prominent Hasidic leader’s attempt to have Mr. Lacerte placed under a Criminal Code order to keep the peace. The judge rules that Mr. Lacerte was “a peculiar personality” and “no picnic” but was not threatening anyone’s safety.

Now, in the aftermath of the referendum result, Mr. Feig has trouble imagining how relations will improve. In an uncommon gesture of outreach, the synagogue held an open house two weeks before the vote, but it was not enough to win the day. “The community feels it as a direct attack,” Mr. Feig said. “It’s a sad day for the relations.”

Leila Marshy, a non-Jewish neighbour who campaigned in favour of the zoning change, finds it depressing that residents did not seize the opportunity to build bridges with the Hasidim. “There’s been a lot of resentment toward the Hasidic community, and it came to a frothing boil in this election,” she said.

She and Mr. Feig have been talking about organizing a neighbourhood barbeque or block party to bring people together.

Julius Grey, a Montreal lawyer who has represented the Hasidic community in the eruv case, said the insular ways of the ultra-orthodox Jews do not help their cause but they have also been swept up in the current of secularism sweeping Quebec.

“There is mistrust on both sides,” Mr. Grey said. “There is always a problem when one group of people forms a cohesive community inside a larger community, and really you can’t join it.”

But he interprets the No vote as an “excessively secular” reaction. “The society is secular, but that doesn’t mean that some if its members cannot be religious,” he said. “The community should get another [project] and sell it to the majority, and the majority should ask itself, ‘Why are we reacting so vehemently?

[Hat Tip: Seymour.]

Comments

[WoolSilkCotton]

The frumma can start by saying hello when a nonJewish neighbor walks by. The frumma can't even get themselves to do that.

[mikey]

They're both right.

They're both wrong.

[seymour]

Julius Grey, a Montreal lawyer who has represented the Hasidic community in the eruv case, said the insular ways of the ultra-orthodox Jews do not help their cause but they

this is a very important point

the frum do not get involved in anything unless it effects them they do not care about anybody or anything else
so why should other scare about them

[effie]

One of the comments pointed out that a denial of a variance to add a restroom is not the same as Auschwitz.

[WoolSilkCotton]

It was indeed a cheap shot to play the Auschwitz card, in the second paragraph.

[effie]

Well, it is certainly going to piss people off.

[Robert Wisler]

This problem is repeated over-and-over again. We saw it in Postville, we see it in Spring Valley. The Jews, both hareidi and non-hareidi had better wake up, otherwise, anti-semitic outbreaks similar to Russia, Ukraine, and numerous other locales will break out here in North America. People (and I'm not saying "gentiles" here, the Jews are responsible for behaving in a neigborly manner toward their neighbors) are no better in "enlightened" America than they were in Europe and Russia.

[Visting the sick]

"She and Mr. Feig have been talking about organizing a neighbourhood barbeque or block party to bring people together."

Will men and women be able to sit together, let alone gentiles and Jews?

[John the Baptist]

These comments are fucking insane ...this was about some pissant tiny addition, not building a freaking wedding hall in the middle of the neighborhood ... Hope you enjoy it when some nut job on your block stops you from adding ten feet to your house.

[Garnel Ironheart]

The Chasidim may not be the most pleasant people to live amongst but this Quebecois is clearly looking for trouble.
Does he go to heavily Muslim neighbourhoods and document what they do? Does he raise zoning objections when Hindus might want to expand their temple?
We're talking about a small addition to make some new washrooms and he has a problem with that.
No, he has a problem with Jews and he's picked a visible, unliked portion of the Jewish community to vent his hatred on.

[effie]

Not everyone thinks that they must bow to the hassids. This guy lives in the neighborhood and documents how the hassids have trashed it by routinely violating city ordinances. He's trying to maintain the quality of life in the area. More power to him.

[george]

Well, perspective is still important. This guy, as seems to be reported (see also http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/14/outremont%e2%80%99s-unholy-mess/#more-119411 ) has chosen to target Jews only. Meaning that we either believe the non-Jews have no violations at all and only Jews violate, or else this guy has an agenda, and, by the nature of an agenda blows everything totally out of proportion.

A quick search turned up the following, where the headline, for reasons not clear, totally ignores the first half of its own article:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=f41ae21e-9311-4d24-94c9-2b48b50da82e&k=31021

The point is that the first half of the article is apparently something the reporter personally witnessed while the second half is hearsay based on the statement of this one guy Pierre Lacerte.

[effie]

I see no evidence that he targets Jews only. He does target violations in his own neighborhood only.

The article was a report of this hearing and the article is also hearsay. It appears Lacerte has documented in detail the violations complete with photographs and endorsed by approx. 160 other residents of this neighborhood and submitted it to this commission.

[Gevezener Chusid]

I recently came upon the following poem by a celebrated Montreal poet of the late 19th Century, Emile Nelligan (1879-1941):

Ils étaient là, les Juifs, les tueurs de prophètes,
Quand le sanglant Messie expirait sur la croix ;
Ils étaient là, railleurs et bourreaux à la fois ;
Et Sion à son crime entremêlait des fêtes.
Or, voici que soudain, sous le vent des tempêtes,
(Se déchira le voile arraché des parois
Les Maudits prirent fuite : on eût dit que le poids
De leur forfait divin s'écroulait sur leurs têtes.
Depuis, de par la terre, en hordes de damnés,
Comme des chiens errants, ils s'en vont, condamnés
Au remords éternel de leur race flétrie,
Trouvant partout, le long de leur âpre chemin,
Le mépris pour pitié, les ghettos pour patrie,
Pour l'aumône l'affront lorsqu'ils tendront la main.

They were there, the Jews, the murderers of prophets
While the bloody Messiah was dying on the cross
They were there, simultaneously scoffers and executioners
And Zion interwove its crime with its festivals.
As all of a sudden, under the stormy wind
Was torn the veil ripped from the inner walls
The accursed ones took flight. One would have said that the weight
of their divine infamy was being smashed over their heads.
Ever since, all over the earth, in hordes of the damned,
Like wandering dogs, they slink off,
condemned
to the eternal guilt of their shriveled race,
Finding everywhere along their bitter route,
contempt instead of mercy, ghettos for a homeland,
Insult instead of alms when they will stretch out their hand.

[george]

effie

Despite my poor French skills, I suppose by taking a random sampling at what is allegedly this guy's blog (http://accommodementsoutremont.blogspot.com/) and seeing the pictures and names (almost all contain a Jewish-looking person or Jewish-sounding name) it seems pretty obvious what percentage is about Jews and what percentage is about non-Jews.

I do not know what you mean "the article is also hearsay". The Sikhs, what they wore, what they said (and the language they used), and what they asked for is not hearsay. The article mentions next to nothing about anything the Sikhs said about other people. It is apparently all about what the reporter witnessed. However, the piece about Pierre Lacerte is largely about his accusations against Jews.

[Jakes]

From what I've read it certainly sounds like the Chassidim have, in the past, violated a number of zoning laws which probably doesn't endear them to the community at large. I also agree with Seymour that if they don't care about anyone else, why should anyone else care about them.

But, whenever I hear about skirmishes between the two groups I remember that Quebec has a history of anti-Semitism that persists to this day and I wonder how much is genuine irritation with the community as opposed to anti-Semitism. Mr. Lacerte's blog, for those of you who read French, is quite disturbing.

(That being said, the Auschwitz reference was out of line).

[effie]

I do not know what you mean "the article is also hearsay".

Obviously. The entire article is hearsay. What the reporter says he witnessed in the article is hearsay. You are offering the reporter's statements as the truth of the matter asserted which makes it hearsay.

it seems pretty obvious what percentage is about Jews and what percentage is about non-Jews.

Well, of course. The claim is that many chassidim refuse to conform to simple cultural rules and laws that make life more livable for all. People are sick of it.

And the guy makes excellent arguments on his blog. If you can refute them besides whining that he is picking on Jews, please do.

Interestingly enough, he says that only 16% of the Yes votes on the expansion came from the Hassidic community. I don't know if that is true or not. If anyone can either verify or dispute, it would also be interesting to know.

[David]

What should have been a routine building improvement has degenerated into a divisive battle between the Hasidim and some non-Jewish residents who believe the ultra-orthodox Jews bend the rules and disturb the peace.

Surely not....

[David]

A Google translation of Pierre Lacerte's blog can be seen at this link:

http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://accommodementsoutremont.blogspot.com/&ei=HrEDTsCmOtHQrQfa66SCDg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpierre%2Blacerte%2Bblog%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D767%26prmd%3Divnso

[David]

The above link didn't seem to paste correctly. Just Google for "pierre lacerte blog" and it will be the first link. Press "translate this page".

[David]

The Pierre Lacerte blog is like a non-Jewish French version of Failed Messiah!

[george]

effie

First, most of what the reporter writes about the Sikhs is not hearsay - he (allegedly) witnessed most of it. The reporter witnessed nothing about the Jews (except maybe the rebuttal).

Second, the claim had been made by certain sources that Pierre Lacerte was just interested in correcting violations per se, not in targetting Jews. I was pointing out that it is self-evident he was targetting Jews.

And that statement "many chassidim refuse to conform to simple cultural rules and laws that make life more livable for all" can easily be applied the other way around.

David

Regarding to your assertion that "is like a non-Jewish French version of Failed Messiah", I wonder how many posts are permitted by Pierre Lacerte that disagree with his views.

[effie]

george: First, the entire news article is hearsay. Get over it. Second, no, it is not self evident that he is targeting Jews. He is targeting violators. Third, your last paragraph makes no sense. They are living in Montreal where there are laws, regulations, and rules. It appears that the chassids have a long history of breaking them and then have the nerve to claim antisemitism when others object.

[george]

effie

Maybe a definition (from wikipedia) is in order: "information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct"

The reporter had first had knowledge that the Sihks spoke in English etc. That is not hearsay, it is the reporter's own first hand knowledge. The reporter had no stated first hand knowledge about the Jews (with the possible exception of the rebuttal). I will let the readers whether or not my observation is accurate.

If Pierre Lacerte was targeting "violators" impartially, then it is self-evident there would have to be a majority of non-Jewish violators in his blog (which there is not). Further, and this is the issue with the permit, there is no violation involved in requesting a permit. It follows that his opposition to the permit is not based on any "violation", it is based on his not wanting Jews. And a claim that he does not want a permit issued to Jews because Jews violate is not only a circular argument, it anti-Semitic because he implicitly is saying that they violate more than the non-Jews. And that last insinuation, even if only by implication, is anti-Semitic.

[effie]

No, it is not in order. The news report is hearsay. What the Sihks said is hearsay. Hearsay is any out of court statement offered for the proof of the matter asserted which is what you are doing. Stop misusing the word hearsay.

Your second paragraph lacks all logic. No, it is not self evident that the majority of violators must be non-Jews. The target is violators in the community - not Jews. The fact that most of the violations are by Jews is not unusual in that we constantly read about building code violations and trash dumping by chassids in numerous communities - not just Montreal.

His objection is to them being granted a permit. The law allowed a referendum on the issue and they lost.

Maybe, the hassids in the community should clean up their act (it'll never happen) and they and you stop with the false antisemitism charges.

[george]

effie

You are playing with "legal" definitions? In other words, you are playing semantics? This is not a "court case", this is journalism and requires the appropriate definition for the context.

The majority (3/4th) of the residents are non-Jews (as per some news items).

The rest of your post has simply confirmed what I stated previously. If his complaint is violations, then he should have no objection to granting a legal permit. That he does object to granting a legal permit, and by your own post you agree that the reason he objects must be because he blames Jews for being worse than non-Jews, then that speaks for itself and I will let the readers decide for themselves what that means.

[effie]

No, george, you are. You are the one who brought up hearsay, not me. You thought it would bolster your lame argument. It didn't.

Your post confirms your false belief that the hassids are above the law. Enough signatures were collected to force a referendum and the majority vote was no. Get over it.

[effie]

As I have no idea how you are using words I will close with the following and let the readers make their own decision.

1. "hearsay" is explained very well in wikipedia and clearly the section on the Sikhs was first-hand observation by the reporter while in contrast, the reporter had no first hand knowledge about Jews

2. I made no "argument" using the word "hearsay". I made a complaint: the headline totally ignored the firsr hand observations about the Sikhs and focused totally on the hearsay about the Jews

3. I have no idea what "above the law" you are talking about. The Jews made a perfectly legal request for a perfectly legal permit and (as stated in other reports) the city passed it (apparently unanimously) so a certain person did considerable amount of irrelevant muck-raking to reverse the decision. Just because a referendum may be legal, does preclude it from being anti-Semitic. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

[georeg]

That should read: "does NOT preclude it from being anti-Semitic."

[george]

Try again. The above two posts are mine. "effie" ended up in the wrong box.

[R]

the bloke who has an agenda against a synagogue extended into it's own backyard hasn't a leg to stand on. What is his problem? would he prefer if they opened a brand new synagogue a few streets away?