Aviation art piece depicts a Fairchild AC-119K Stinger gunship from the 18th Special Operations Squadron providing air interdiction over the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Laos - 1970
Ces interdictions, partout, à chaque coin de rue, chaque recoin de vie ! Elles te sautent aux yeux, te piquent la rétine. Partout ces foutus panneaux, dressés tels des guerriers en pleine parade, hurlant le « non », le « pas par ici », le « t'approche pas » ! Et puis cette barricade imaginaire, ce mur invisible qu'ils dressent, te repoussant, te tenant à distance, toi et ta curiosité déplacée. « Propriété Privée », qu'ils clament haut et fort, avec une arrogance presque palpable. Pas une, mais deux fois, comme un écho, comme une insistance, pour que tu comprennes bien, que tu saches à quoi t'en tenir. Et voilà, tout est dit, tout est verrouillé, et l'on se trouve là, tous.tes, prisonnier.e.s de ce labyrinthe de défenses et du « c’est interdit » ! La liberté de l'errance, elle, va se terrer dans l'ombre de ces signaux d'autorité. On nous tire par la manche vers un ordre préétabli, tentant de nous sculpter en citoyen.ne.s obéissant.e.s et dociles, nous incitant à rester bien sagement sur les rails, là où l'on nous veut, là où l'on nous espère. Et dans cet espace confiné, qui tangue entre le confort de l’ordre pour certain.e.s et le malaise de l’enfermement pour d'autres, l'homme navigue, oscille, se débat parfois. Oui, parfois, se faufiler hors des sentiers battus se révèle être plus qu'une tentation, c'est une nécessité, une brèche où l'air semble un peu moins vicié, où le ciel, en dépit de tout, semble encore capable de s'étirer indéfiniment. Ainsi, le refus de ces « non » omniprésents devient un acte de résistance, une petite révolte nécessaire, une manière de rappeler que l'humain, dans sa précieuse et impétueuse volonté de vivre, se rit bien des barrières, qu'elles soient de métal, de bois ou d'airain. Et de là, dans cet infime sursaut d'insubordination, peut-être y trouve-t-on, l'espace d'un instant, l'ébauche d'un souffle de liberté.
does the chantry excommunicate people? especially if the HOF asked for the boon of freedom of the circle of magi i think alistair and/or anora should easily be excommunicated by now
"After beverage rooms opened in Ontario in 1934, the Board followed up with the further regulatory conditions concerning dancing and "ladies nights." The "ladies and escorts" sections "typically took up half of the beverage-room area, had their own entrances and washroooms, and were heavily patronized from the beginning."
Even so, the very presence of women within drinking establishments in combination with unmarried men prompted a moral outcry against the potential impropriety inspired by this mixed drinking within the male beverage rooms. In response in 1937 the LCBO drafted beverage regulations requiring licensed establishments to have "two separate and distinct beverage rooms one for men only, and the other solely for women, except where attended by bona fide escorts.” (Globe and Mail, 1937)
This regulation also applied to female servers, who contested their restriction from serving liquor within the "men only" beverage room. In repeated communications the Board stressed its strong opposition against women servers, denying women the right to work within these establishments even if they owned them or were wives of the owners. In 1944 the Board partially yielded on the matter, explaining to authority holders that they could "make use of females as waitresses in the Ladies' and Escorts' beverage room ONLY" (LCBO 1944). LCBO policy required that "authority holders desiring this privilege" within the Ladies and Escorts room to have female servers working "must make application to the Board as well as submit a medical certificate covering the proposed employee and indicating that she is free from disease" (ibid.). Having these women in male beverage rooms apparently "raised fears about prostitution, immorality and venereal disease" within anti-beverage room discourses (Marquis 2004:316; Globe 1934b; Ontario Provincial Council of Women 1944). Male servers, in contrast, were not held to this medical standard. The transfer of principle, then, was based not on exclusion, but instead on inclusionary segmentation of the space in which alcohol circulated. It continued in Ontario until the responsibility of controlling these establishments was shifted away from the LCBO and the opening of mixed "Cocktail Lounges" targeted a more temperate middle-class clientele in 1947 (Marquis 2004: 317).
Women could, of course, drink within their homes. Yet in the Board's early years even there some female drinkers who were the subject of gossip and public criticism, On the LCBO's opening day in 1927 the Globe reported on women purchasers as if they were spectacles for public consumption. Articles were critical of women who "wheeled baby carriages" when making their purchases, or of women who were assertive of their right to drink openly and questioning their ability to both drink and be effective mothers (Globe 1927h). Moreover, discourses surrounding alcoholism and motherhood in the late 1930s expressed fears over a scientifically underdeveloped and fear-based understanding of what would later become known as fetal alcohol syndrome. At a WCTU convention in 1937 a speaker expressed “science claims that alcoholic mothers give to the world either a prostitute or a delinquent, when she does not give an epileptic, an idiot or a lunatic.”
During the Board's early years many women also avoided taking out a permit of their own for fear of being stigmatized - a tendency that again increased the degree to which female gender performances concerning alcohol were mediated by male figures within their lives. When it came to Board policy, the identity of women's husbands or fathers was integrated into the purchase process: the occupations and sometimes names of these men were included on female permits, acting as the lenses through which cases of misspending and overindulgence were viewed.
Unlike men's clubs and legions, which had no trouble obtaining licenses and served as a means by which men could resist Board control over their drinking spaces, women's clubs were denied this privilege…this "issue blew up first in 1935 when the Germaine Club, which had always had a mixed membership, was ordered to stop serving beer to women." The Board held firm to its decision. It disallowed not only women in uniform from drinking but also the gender-exclusive woman's auxiliary equivalents of male clubs."
- Gary Genosko and Scott Thompson, Punched Drunk: Alcohol, Surveillance and the LCBO 1927–1975. Winnipeg and Halifax: Fernwood Press, 2009. p. 152-153