"After a long and tedious process, one in which the press and the public will lose interest, Charest is likely to be vindicated by the Bastarache Commission" No Dogs and Anglophones - May 31, 2010Not only was I right about the outcome, but I was right about the public getting bored with the issue. The only people really interested in the story are the separatists who reacted the same way they act every time a Supreme Court decision goes the other way. - By shooting the messenger!
If anything did surprise me, it was just how hard Judge Bastarache came down on him. I thought the judge would be a bit more circumspect.
For those who are interested in a pretty comprehensive account of the rise and fall of Marc Bellemare, read my past posts.
The Curious Case Of Marc Bellemare April 13, 2010
Can Bastarache Inquiry Save Jean Charest? May 31, 2010
Marc Bellemare Going Down in Flames September 15, 2010
It's Official... Marc Bellemare is Off His Rocker! December 09, 2010
It's become par for the course for separatists to denigrate any legal decision that doesn't suit their agenda. Whenever the Supreme Court rules in Quebec's favour, (like upholding the basic tenets of Bill 101,) separatists are happy to cash the cheque. Whenever the decision goes against their interests, it becomes a case of the judges screwing Quebec to promote an Anglophone agenda.
The violins are then broken out and the mournful tune of oppression and humiliation is struck up once again to tug at the heartstrings of those eager to embrace the concept of victimization.
The done-me-wrong refrain, like a classic oldie, never seems to get old.
To separatists, losing in the Supreme Court or coming out on the wrong end of a judicial inquiry is sometimes better than winning. Considering that their primary goal is not to win concessions that will keep Quebec happily in Canada, but rather to create winning conditions for a separation referendum, engendering feelings of humiliation and betrayal is key to the process.
And so we are witness to a repeat performance.
Judge Bastarache is painted as a sellout, a dishonest and vengeful federalist, bent on screwing the legitimate aspirations of Quebec.
It's a disgusting and shameful attack, one in which the reputation of an honest jurist is impinged just because it suits the separatist agenda.
The Parti Quebecois whines that Charest has weakened the integrity of the judicial system with tainted judicial appointments and damaged the respect the public holds for it's impartiality. But in attacking Judge Bastarache as biased and characterizing the inquiry as a sham, the separatists have inflicted another measure of damage to the public's already shaken perception of the honesty of our judiciary.
There's little doubt that notwithstanding Bellemare's humiliating comeuppance, many legitimate questions were brought up at the inquiry concerning the process of judge selection. While being cleared of direct manipulation, who can deny that there wasn't indirect interference at the least, by the Liberal party?
And so the PQ and the Liberals have both contributed to casting a pall over our judicial system, something that cannot be good for anyone.
The separatists are now claiming that had a sitting judge been selected to head the inquiry, the results would be different.
Well, they are going to get their wish in 'part deux' of the Bellemare circus when the defamation suit opens later this year before a regular court and a regular sitting judge.
As I predicted six months ago, Bellemare is going to get creamed and my views are only reinforced by the evidence (or lack thereof) Bellemare presented at the inquiry. He didn't make his case there and in regular court he will do even worse, as the onus is on the alleged defamer to prove the allegations true.
I don't know what excuse Pauline Marois will find when Bellemare is found liable for defamation, I sincerely hope she will not tell us that the judge is a dishonest federalist, but she is surely going to say that the decision is unfair or flawed. The PQ and the separatists are too heavily invested in Marc Bellemare to go down any other route.
And so, I predict that the separatists will get out the violins and play that familiar tune of humiliation, injustice and repression. ...sigh.
If Mr. Bellemare came out of the inquiry a loser, Mr. Charest certainly wasn't a winner.
It reminds me of Apollo Creed's victory over Rocky Balboa in the inimitable sports movie of my generation, ROCKY. Although Rocky lost the bloody, no holds barred fight, as an underdog who faced an uphill battle, he left the ring vindicated. As for the champion Apollo, the crowd was largely unimpressed believing him to have used the 'home field' advantage as champion to exact a contentious split decision.
And so Premier Charest, like Apollo, raises his arms to the crowd in feigned celebration, trying to convince us that he really won, while the truth remains that it is a hollow and Pyrrhic victory.
But Mr. Bellemare never understood the very real-life lesson of ROCKY, a truism that all fight fans accept as a given.
If you are going to beat the champion in the ring, you're going to have to knock him out.
And while Bellemare fought a decent fight, there was no coup de grace and so, the writing was on the wall, he couldn't win.
So don't blame Bastarache.
The violins are then broken out and the mournful tune of oppression and humiliation is struck up once again to tug at the heartstrings of those eager to embrace the concept of victimization.
The done-me-wrong refrain, like a classic oldie, never seems to get old.
To separatists, losing in the Supreme Court or coming out on the wrong end of a judicial inquiry is sometimes better than winning. Considering that their primary goal is not to win concessions that will keep Quebec happily in Canada, but rather to create winning conditions for a separation referendum, engendering feelings of humiliation and betrayal is key to the process.
And so we are witness to a repeat performance.
Judge Bastarache is painted as a sellout, a dishonest and vengeful federalist, bent on screwing the legitimate aspirations of Quebec.
It's a disgusting and shameful attack, one in which the reputation of an honest jurist is impinged just because it suits the separatist agenda.
The Parti Quebecois whines that Charest has weakened the integrity of the judicial system with tainted judicial appointments and damaged the respect the public holds for it's impartiality. But in attacking Judge Bastarache as biased and characterizing the inquiry as a sham, the separatists have inflicted another measure of damage to the public's already shaken perception of the honesty of our judiciary.
There's little doubt that notwithstanding Bellemare's humiliating comeuppance, many legitimate questions were brought up at the inquiry concerning the process of judge selection. While being cleared of direct manipulation, who can deny that there wasn't indirect interference at the least, by the Liberal party?
And so the PQ and the Liberals have both contributed to casting a pall over our judicial system, something that cannot be good for anyone.
The separatists are now claiming that had a sitting judge been selected to head the inquiry, the results would be different.
Well, they are going to get their wish in 'part deux' of the Bellemare circus when the defamation suit opens later this year before a regular court and a regular sitting judge.
As I predicted six months ago, Bellemare is going to get creamed and my views are only reinforced by the evidence (or lack thereof) Bellemare presented at the inquiry. He didn't make his case there and in regular court he will do even worse, as the onus is on the alleged defamer to prove the allegations true.
I don't know what excuse Pauline Marois will find when Bellemare is found liable for defamation, I sincerely hope she will not tell us that the judge is a dishonest federalist, but she is surely going to say that the decision is unfair or flawed. The PQ and the separatists are too heavily invested in Marc Bellemare to go down any other route.
And so, I predict that the separatists will get out the violins and play that familiar tune of humiliation, injustice and repression. ...sigh.
If Mr. Bellemare came out of the inquiry a loser, Mr. Charest certainly wasn't a winner.
It reminds me of Apollo Creed's victory over Rocky Balboa in the inimitable sports movie of my generation, ROCKY. Although Rocky lost the bloody, no holds barred fight, as an underdog who faced an uphill battle, he left the ring vindicated. As for the champion Apollo, the crowd was largely unimpressed believing him to have used the 'home field' advantage as champion to exact a contentious split decision.
And so Premier Charest, like Apollo, raises his arms to the crowd in feigned celebration, trying to convince us that he really won, while the truth remains that it is a hollow and Pyrrhic victory.
But Mr. Bellemare never understood the very real-life lesson of ROCKY, a truism that all fight fans accept as a given.
If you are going to beat the champion in the ring, you're going to have to knock him out.
And while Bellemare fought a decent fight, there was no coup de grace and so, the writing was on the wall, he couldn't win.
So don't blame Bastarache.
