Every year, on the eve of the F1 Grand Prix in Montreal, critics emerge. First, we are concerned about the safety of women. On the one hand, groups are concerned about the well-being of underage girls who could fall prey to human trafficking and sexual exploitation, and are calling for increased police vigilance at event sites. On the other hand, representatives of sex workers (adults and vaccinated) criticize a police approach that targets them, can degenerate into violence against them and leads clients to offer them more discreet meeting places, further increasing the risks to their personal safety. It is difficult to see how this question, which divides feminist circles, can be settled anytime soon.
The issue of women’s safety at the Grand Prix is broader, however. Last year, the Conseil des Montréalaises published a notice that focuses in particular on the working condition of women during the event. It shows that both hostesses and other waitresses and many employers consider that “sexual harassment […] is part of the job “. In summary, many women accept, even normalize the degrading comments and gestures received for a week, on the pretext that the pay will be exceptionally good. However, when the behavior of the clients exceeds the limit they have set themselves, neither the managers, nor the police, for that matter, intervene to enforce labor standards. With the work culture that has been created around the Grand Prix, reporting abuse is extremely difficult.
But criticism of the Grand Prix still goes beyond the sole feminist question. Since the environmentalist movement occupies more and more space in the collective consciousness, the big meeting of F1 is also denounced for its pollution, as well as its contribution to the cult of the car. Dominique Lebeau, a former member of the Cowboys Fringants, launched a petition on Monday opposing the holding of the Grand Prix, supported by some twenty organizations committed to the fight against climate change. At the same time, scientists are also taking the floor to express their skepticism at the promises of a carbon neutral event by 2030.
Even if the big companies involved make a whole hubbub about their “green” marketing, the fact remains that the Grand Prix aims to burn gasoline so that cars turn in circles as quickly as possible. I doubt that even people who seek to limit or compensate for the damage to the environment are themselves convinced that “green” F1 can exist… at the end of the day.
However, there are still many people who, while paying lip service to the impact of the Grand Prix on women’s safety and the environment, continue to believe in the event by focusing on its economic benefits. The Société du parc Jean-Drapeau, Tourisme Montréal and the Grand Prix du Canada published a study in March estimating the impact of the event on GDP at $63.2 million. Except that one can doubt, say, the impartiality of the actors involved in the study, and ask questions about its methodological value.
Experts interviewed by the Montreal Journal notably denounced that the $170 million that the governments of Quebec and Canada, the City of Montreal and Tourisme Montreal have invested in the event since 2017 are not included in the calculations. We also deplore that the figures used avoid drawing attention to a potential deficit of the Grand Prix for taxpayers.
If the F1 weekend is ultimately not such a good deal for women, the environment, or the economy, why are so many people still advocating for it then? Out of habit, most certainly. And out of nostalgia. For the memory of Gilles Villeneuve. Out of loyalty to the old idea that major international sporting events “put Montreal on the map”. Out of attachment to 20th century masculinity expressed through pin-ups, beautiful cars and money.
This attachment is certainly strong since it pushes many to defend F1 with absurd arguments. This week, I’ve seen several racing enthusiasts list the technological innovations in everyday cars that first emerged in the context of performance research for F1. Certainly. We could also, in the same way, defend the Second World War and the arms race, since it was in a martial context that information technology first developed. We can clearly see that when we come to such a discourse, it means that we would be ready to defend just about anything. Reason is certainly no longer the guide of spoken words.
The truth, however, is simple. The City of Montreal is guided by a political formation whose explicit ambition is to make the metropolis “more just, green and inclusive”. If the Grand Prix didn’t already exist, it would be surreal to hear Valérie Plante suggest bringing such an event to Montreal, and try to explain the compatibility of the Grand Prix with her vision of the city. In addition to all that has been said, it must indeed be remembered that F1 attracts a minority of Montrealers and even Quebecers, in addition to limiting access to Parc Jean-Drapeau during part of our too short summers.
If elected officials at all levels defend F1, it is mainly out of habit. Old habits that continue as climate change, questioning the cult of the car, feminist movements, and criticisms of the accessibility of urban spaces take more and more place in our lives. So it’s only a matter of time before the Grand Prix defense appears to most people for what it is: a backward-looking fad.