Quebec government defends use of 'Go Habs Go!' after language watchdog's objection
Article content
In a statement Friday, Quebec's French-language minister said the slogan is part of 'our DNA, our identity,' and has been used for decades to support the Montreal Canadiens NHL hockey team.
Article content
'It's a unifying expression, rooted in our history, and part of our cultural and historical specificity,' Jean-Francois Roberge said on the X platform. 'It's a Quebecisme and we're proud of it!'
Article content
Roberge's statement was meant to quell the uproar in Quebec over the Montreal transit agency's decision to remove the expression 'Go! Canadiens Go!' from electronic signs on city buses and replace it with 'Allez! Canadiens Allez!' to show support for the hockey team's NHL playoff run.
Article content
The change was made because Quebec's French-language watchdog received a complaint last year about buses displaying the words 'Go! CF Mtl Go!' — a reference to Montreal's professional soccer club. In response, the Societe de transport de Montreal (STM) decided to remove the word 'go' from all of its messaging.
Article content
Go Habs Go! : une expression qui fait partie de notre ADN, notre identité!
Il est important pour moi de prendre la parole pour remettre les pendules à l'heure concernant l'utilisation de cette expression bien chère à tous les partisans du Canadien de Montréal, ainsi qu'à tous… https://t.co/Q53GuLdOEg
— Jean-F. Roberge (@jfrobergeQc) April 25, 2025
Article content
The decision made headlines on Thursday after it was first reported by the Montreal Gazette. On Friday, the transit agency said it might switch back to using 'go' once it receives 'official confirmation' that it won't be penalized.
Article content
Article content
He said he's had 'several exchanges' with the language office about the matter, and any future complaints about the phrase 'Go Habs Go!' will be dismissed. 'It's clear to us that this time-honoured expression must never be called into question,' Roberge said.
Dominique Malack, president of the language office, published a lengthy statement Friday that defended the slogan while upholding the transit agency's decision not to use it. 'Under no circumstances has the office objected to the use of the expression 'Go Habs Go,' which is rooted in our history and is part of our Quebec identity,' she wrote.
Article content
Article content
Malack stressed that the language office didn't launch the intervention with the transit agency on its own, but was responding to a complaint from a citizen. She went on to say that while the word 'go' is found in French dictionaries and is commonly used in everyday language, it is an anglicism. Quebec's French language charter requires public bodies to use proper French, she said.
Article content
Article content
'A government agency, such as the STM, may only use French in its signage, with some exceptions, such as for health and safety reasons,' Malack said. 'The charter is clear about the government's obligations regarding the exemplary use of French, and the office is mandated to ensure its implementation.'
Article content
Still, the transit agency now seems likely to reverse course. Eric Alan Caldwell, chair of its board of directors, said in a statement that he's pleased with Roberge's position and the STM will seek official authorization to use the word 'go.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada News.Net
an hour ago
- Canada News.Net
The recognition of Palestine: Western unity is collapsing
The recent declarations by US allies are not merely symbolic and represent the first steps toward a new international reality The ongoing armed conflict in Gaza, along with the intensification of Israeli military operations against Palestinians - including in the West Bank - has provoked growing concern and condemnation from the international community. The deepening humanitarian catastrophe, marked by destroyed infrastructure, acute shortages of food, water, and medical aid, has pushed millions to the brink of survival. The increasing scale of destruction, the mass displacement of civilians, and violations of fundamental norms of international humanitarian law are increasingly being interpreted as elements of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. Numerous international organizations, human rights groups, and independent observers have expressed alarm over the disproportionate use of force and the systematic pressure exerted on the civilian population. In the face of inaction by leading international institutions - which continue to call for an immediate ceasefire and unfettered humanitarian access - criticism of double standards has intensified, and public trust in the global community's ability to stop the violence and uphold the rights of conflict victims is rapidly eroding. Even among Israel's Western allies, discontent with the actions of the Israeli authorities is becoming more pronounced. Large-scale military operations resulting in widespread destruction and civilian casualties have triggered sharp reactions not only from international organizations but also within Western societies themselves. Regular mass protests in major cities across Europe and North America are increasing pressure on political leaders, compelling them to reassess their stance and respond to the demands of their citizens. Under the influence of mounting public pressure, some countries have already taken concrete diplomatic steps. On May 28, 2024, Norway, Spain, and Ireland formally recognized Palestine as an independent state - an act that resonated widely and set a precedent for other nations in the region. At this juncture, calls are growing louder for similar steps to be taken by two key European powers: France and the United Kingdom. Both countries are facing escalating domestic and international pressure, which may hasten the process of Palestinian recognition and shift the balance on the diplomatic front of the Middle East conflict. French President Emmanuel Macron has already announced his intention to formally recognize the State of Palestine on behalf of France during his address to the United Nations General Assembly this September. He made the announcement via X, emphasizing that the decision reflects France's unwavering commitment to justice and the pursuit of a lasting peace in the Middle East. The French leader underscored the urgent need for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Gaza and the swift delivery of humanitarian aid to the affected civilian population. To further demonstrate the seriousness of his intentions, he also released a letter addressed to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, reaffirming France's support for the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. If France follows through with this step, it will become the largest and most influential member state of the European Union to recognize Palestine as an independent state. According to the Associated Press, the State of Palestine has already been recognized by more than 140 UN member countries, including major powers such as Russia, China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Sweden, and Poland. Macron's announcement marks a potential turning point in European diplomacy and may serve as a catalyst for similar moves by other major states. Indeed, calls for the recognition of Palestine have also gained momentum in London. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that his country is prepared to recognize the State of Palestine during the upcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025, should Israel fail to take concrete and meaningful steps to end the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip. This statement came amid mounting international pressure and growing criticism of the IDF's actions. Starmer emphasized that the decision to recognize Palestinian statehood would be a response to the Israeli government's inaction, should it fail to demonstrate a clear political will to de-escalate the conflict. In particular, the Prime Minister called on Israel to implement an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire and to revive efforts toward a sustainable peace process based on the principle of "two states for two peoples." He noted that only a return to a credible prospect of two sovereign states coexisting peacefully could bring an end to the ongoing violence and suffering of the civilian population. Among the additional conditions set forth by the British side are: the provision of humanitarian access to Gaza under UN auspices and a halt to Israeli annexation efforts in the West Bank. According to Starmer, adherence to these conditions would signal Israel's readiness for a political resolution, while disregarding them would indicate that the international community must act independently in the interest of peace and justice. At the same time, the British prime minister also criticized Hamas, stressing that recognition of a Palestinian state does not imply overlooking the role the group has played in escalating the conflict. Starmer demanded the immediate release of all remaining hostages, the laying down of arms, and an official renunciation by Hamas of any claim to governance in the Gaza Strip. He underlined that the United Kingdom does not recognize any legitimate role for Hamas in the future political structure of Palestinian governance. Following the announcements from France and the United Kingdom, several other countries have also declared their intention to formally recognize the State of Palestine, further strengthening international support for the two-state solution as the foundation for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Ottawa will recognize Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly. According to him, Canada has long supported a resolution based on the peaceful coexistence of two states - Israeli and Palestinian - within a framework of security and mutual recognition. Carney stressed that the actions of the Israeli government, which have led to a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, are met with deep condemnation by Canadian authorities. He also noted that Mahmoud Abbas has provided assurances that elections will be held in the Palestinian territories in 2026, in which the Hamas movement will not participate. Furthermore, Abbas has pledged that the future Palestinian state will not be militarized - a key condition for ensuring stability and fostering trust from the international community. Malta has also joined the move to recognize Palestine. On the evening of July 30, Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela confirmed that his government intends to make a formal statement at the upcoming UN General Assembly session. He emphasized that this step is part of Malta's broader diplomatic strategy, aimed at achieving lasting peace in the Middle East. Abela had initially announced similar plans back in May, stating his intention to recognize Palestine at the UN conference in June, although the event was later postponed. Israel's response to these international initiatives has been sharply negative. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the decisions of Canada and other countries, calling them "a reward for Hamas" and "a blow to efforts to establish a ceasefire." Nonetheless, the growing list of nations willing to recognize Palestinian statehood points to a significant shift in global diplomacy and to the increasing isolation of Israel's position amid the ongoing conflict. What makes the current situation around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict particularly unique is that the decisions by France, the UK, and Canada to recognize the State of Palestine are not occurring in a vacuum - they are unfolding against the backdrop of profound shifts in global politics, most notably the deepening rift within the so-called "collective West." The return of Donald Trump to the White House has heightened tensions between Washington and its traditional European allies, directly impacting the foreign policy priorities of those countries. Thus, the actions taken by Paris, London, and Ottawa should be seen not only as a response to mounting domestic pressure and public discontent over the situation in Gaza, but also as part of a broader struggle to shape an independent and sovereign position on the international stage. It is increasingly clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long ceased to be merely a regional issue - it has historically served as a stage for wider geopolitical rivalry, and the current developments only reaffirm this reality. Since its inception, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been accompanied by global competition among great powers. Today, amid the collapse of the old world order and the emergence of new centers of power, it once again stands as a symbol of global division. Judging by recent statements, the national governments of Europe are now attempting to articulate an independent stance on the Palestinian question, signaling a clear distancing from the Trump administration's policies. Despite occasional disagreements with the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the US under Trump remains a staunch ally of Israel. In his trademark style, Trump has already expressed skepticism regarding the statements made by European leaders. In particular, he claimed that Emmanuel Macron's initiative to recognize Palestine "changes nothing" and "means nothing." Moreover, he sharply criticized Canada, warning of potential complications in trade relations with Ottawa should it proceed with the recognition of Palestinian statehood. "It will make it much harder for us to reach a trade deal with them," Trump wrote on his social network, Truth Social. As for the UK, Trump has distanced himself from any prior agreements with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, stating that "the issue of recognizing Palestine" had never been discussed between them. The US Department of State also weighed in. Spokesperson Tammy Bruce declared that the UK's recognition of Palestine is "a slap in the face to the victims of October 7" and "a reward for Hamas." According to her, such a move "gives one side false hope" and undermines diplomatic efforts to achieve a lasting peace, ultimately playing into the hands of radical forces. Thus, the emerging bloc of countries willing to recognize Palestine stands in stark contrast to Washington's position, underscoring the growing fragmentation within the Western world. The initiatives by London, Paris, and Ottawa are not only political responses to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza but also expressions of a desire to assert a new, more independent role for their nations amid tectonic shifts in international relations. The evolving international dynamic surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict signals a significant transformation in the global approach to this long-standing and tragic confrontation. An increasing number of countries - no longer limited to Palestine's traditional allies among BRICS members or the Islamic world, but now including key Western powers - are adopting more principled and active positions on the recognition of Palestinian statehood and the long-discussed "two states for two peoples" formula. France, the UK, Canada, and previously Spain, Ireland, and Norway, through their public statements and diplomatic actions, are clearly signaling that they are no longer willing to remain passive observers of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. Their stance increasingly clashes with Washington's, particularly in light of Trump's return to the White House. Despite occasional tactical differences with Benjamin Netanyahu's government, Trump continues to offer Israel unwavering support. This has not only contributed to Israel's growing international isolation but also reflects mounting frustration among the global majority toward the actions of the Israeli state and its principal ally. The intensification of diplomatic engagement from the Global South - especially from BRICS countries such as Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and Russia - is contributing to a new architecture of international pressure. These nations have consistently advocated for a just resolution to the conflict and have emphasized the need to uphold the Palestinian people's rights to self-determination and statehood. The Muslim world, particularly Arab states, has also played a pivotal role in this coalition. Despite varying relationships with Israel, these countries are increasingly speaking with one voice in defense of Palestinians, especially in response to the devastation in Gaza and the mounting civilian death toll. As a result, an unprecedented situation is taking shape: a growing consensus among countries representing the global majority is coming into direct conflict with the positions of Israel and the US, which are increasingly seen as stubbornly unilateral and outdated. This is not merely a diplomatic disagreement or a matter of regional instability - it is a fault line in the emerging world order, where the Palestinian issue is becoming a symbol of the broader struggle between a rising multipolar world and the waning era of Western hegemony. The danger of the current moment lies in the possibility that the Middle East may once again become the epicenter of global confrontation. At a time when international institutions are losing their effectiveness and the norms of international law are increasingly being ignored, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict risks escalating into a flashpoint between the US and Israel on one side, and the rest of the world on the other. This presents a threat not merely of regional escalation, but of the emergence of a new front in a broader global conflict. Israel, which now finds itself in the position of an isolated power steadfastly resisting an emerging global consensus, risks becoming a symbol of defiance against the very notion of a just international order. Support from the US - whose geopolitical hegemony is increasingly being questioned - may prove insufficient in a world where the majority of humanity, represented in the UN and other international forums, is demanding justice, respect for human rights, and the recognition of the Palestinian people. This is why the recent diplomatic moves and declarations by Western nations recognizing Palestine are not merely symbolic or moral gestures. They represent the first steps toward a new international reality - one in which the future of the Middle East conflict will be determined not by behind-the-scenes deals, but by the balance of power in a global struggle to redefine the meaning of international justice.
Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Matt Turner joins Revolution on loan from Lyon as he looks to get back to national team form
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) — Matt Turner is returning to his MLS roots as he looks to get back into position to compete for the starting job as U.S. national team's goalkeeper. Turner will join the New England Revolution on loan from French Ligue 1 club Lyon through June 2026, the Revolution announced Friday. The deal includes an option to purchase the contract of Turner, who will be a designated player on the Revolution's roster for the remainder of the 2025 season. He'll be eligible for targeted allocation money in 2026.
Toronto Sun
2 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
SNOBELEN: What happened to peace, order and good government?
MPs have convened in Ottawa for a weeks-long spring session of the House of Commons Photo by Chris Wattie / Reuters I'll confess that a couple of decades ago, my younger eyes found Canada kind of dull. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Americans had the inspirational notion of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The French had the gallant Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. By comparison, the Canadian governing mantra of Peace, Order and Good Government felt a little beige. Peace, Order and Good Government is the sort of organizing principle you might expect of a country that had a prime minister named Lester. Think pocket protectors and slide rulers. But the world has devolved and words like equality and liberty have lost a little shine through disabuse, while the prospect of good government, once table stakes in the business of governing, now seems aspirational. Heck, the simple act of separating what is real from what someone deems to be true is a daunting challenge. In a more innocent time, people assumed that governments spoke with responsibility and authority, tempering their words to align with reality. But the days of governments being tethered to fact are long gone, fatally severed by the ludicrous truths of COVID. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Five years on from the pandemic, the 'science-based' decisions of government during the COVID lockdowns seem just as random as the opposing 'truths' of social media experts. Fear trumped common sense. Being able to take the government at its word should be a given. It's not. People should also be able to count on governments to reliably provide basic services in a reasonable time frame. Sadly, that is not the case. Need some proof? Take a ride on Toronto's Eglinton Crosstown LRT. This multi-billion-dollar rapid transit project was scheduled to open in 2020 after a decade of tangled traffic during construction. Except it didn't. Hopelessly behind schedule and way over budget, the yet-to-open Eglinton LRT is the antithesis of good government. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Need more proof? Drive the non-existent road to the heart of Canada's mineral wealth, the Ring of Fire. The Ring of Fire has held the promise of being, as then-Treasury Board president Tony Clement noted over a decade ago, the oil sands of Ontario. It's a big deal. More than two decades after consultations to open the region for mining began, and through a succession of governments making bold announcements, the Ring of Fire remains a dim promise locked in endless cycles of delay. We can't, it seems, get a mining project off the planning table. A couple of years ago, every level of government was fixated on solving one vexing problem — the lack of housing. The problem was so acute that governments took immediate action with bold promises and urgent legislation. Build baby, build. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The result of all that bluster is a reduction in the number of houses being built. That sure isn't good government. If good government seems a stretch, the idea of peace and order is also under siege. We seem unable or unwilling to constrain protests that clearly stretch into civil disobedience, quell sectarian violence, protect minorities and control our borders. These are cornerstones of a civil society. And so, peace, order and good government now have reached aspirational status. We need governments that are serious about what they say and capable of executing on their promises. In other words, we need thoughtful, competent governance. A few decades on, my now-older eyes focus less on ideology and more on competence. After all, life, liberty and happiness don't mean much without peace, order and good government. Canada Toronto Blue Jays Celebrity Toronto & GTA Columnists
