Canada's Highest Court Not So Supreme

Imagine a criminal standing before a judge, immediately after having been convicted for stealing and asking the judge to stay the sentence.

"Your Honour, I know that I've been convicted of stealing but I'd like to appeal to a higher court and in the meantime, I'd ask you to hold off on the sentence."

"Why should I do that, you've been found guilty of stealing?" answered the judge. "On what point would you be appealing the conviction, anyway?"

"Your Honour, I have a very good excuse. I've been stealing these last five years because I have to provide for my family, they are very needy. If you punish me, my whole family will suffer and believe me it's a big family. I only steal from a couple of people and so on balance the greater good is achieved by letting me continue. It's an extenuating circumstance that I believe should be considered by a higher court."

"Hmmm..." answered the Judge. "I don't think you have a prayer of winning, but your logic of the greater good is at least grounds for an appeal and I feel for your family. I shall therefore grant your request!"

"Thank you, your Honour. errr..... I have just one more request. Does this ruling mean that I can continue stealing until my case is decided in the appeals court?"

"Hmmmm." answered the judge after some consideration. "I guess so, I wouldn't want your family to suffer."

And so the thief continues to steal for another two years until his appeal is heard in the Supreme Court of Canada.

His lawyer pleads his case and the government lawyers do the same. The judges listen carefully, retire and take the matter under advisement.

The thief asks his lawyer if he can continue stealing while his case is being studied by the judges.

"Of course. they didn't say you couldn't!"

Nine long months later the court releases it's judgment. It's not that shocking, the first judge accurately predicted the outcome.

The thief's conviction is upheld unanimously. The court rules that stealing is not permitted, even for good reasons.

The judgment orders the thief to stop stealing and directs him to find an honest way to support his family.
But the judges remain sympathetic to the plight of the family and in a ruling worthy of Solomon, tells the thief that the judgment will be delayed for a year so that he can figure out what to do.

"Does this mean I can steal for another year?" asks the thief to his lawyer?

"You bet," answers the lawyer, "and don't worry about a thing. In a year we'll figure out another con and hopefully it will take take another seven years to go through the system!"

Sound unbelievable?

It shouldn't;

In 2002 the separatist Parti Quebecois government decided to close what they viewed as a loophole, a practice whereby some immigrants and Francophones gained admission to English schools (which they were not permitted to attend under the infamous law, Bill 101) by attending a private English school for a short time.

You see, these private schools are not covered by the language law and anyone with money can attend. Once the student spends some time in the school, he or she could transfer to a public school claiming a right under Canada's Charter of Rights.

That right, Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that if you've had some primary school education in either English or French you can demand to continue instruction in that language.

" Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary language instruction in the same language."

So by sending a child to an English primary school, even for a short time, a family gains the right to a public education in English for all it's children.

The Quebec government was furious at the work-around and drew up Bill 104 in response. The law, which banned the 'bridging practice,' blatantly ignored the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Every single constitutional lawyer in the province understood that what the Quebec government did was illegal but the separatist government didn't care. If the law was challenged it would suit them as well. It would be a French versus English battle and even if they lost in court (which they knew they would,) they would likely win in the street.

Let's compare the true story of Bill 104 with my fanciful story about the thief.

In 2002, the Quebec government wrote an illegal law, whose effect was to steal an English education from students legally entitled to one.

After five years of stealing, the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down the law based on the Section 23 of the Charter.

The Quebec government asked for and received a delay from the court for the implementation of the ruling, so that they could appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Another two years went by and the government continued to implement the illegal law and continued to rob students the opportunity to go to English schools.

Finally the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of the students, but again delayed the imposition of the decision for another year. Another year in which the Quebec government could enforce an illegal law.

Eight years after the illegal law was enacted it remains in force today, even after having been declared illegal by the highest court in Quebec and the Supreme Court of Canada. Students continue to be denied their legal rights under the Charter.

This isn't Wonderland, it is CANADA, which may be the only western democratic country in the world, where winning a case in the Supreme Court doesn't necessarily guarantee that you may enjoy the fruits of the victory.

Shame!!!......

Amateur French Langauge "Inspectors" Gone Wild

Bill 101, the Quebec law related to advertising among other things, is quite clear. French must be predominant in all public advertisements, including billboards, bus shelters, stores, public buildings, and within bus and metro cars and stations. The law is pretty comprehensive and even covers advertisements painted on vehicles. There are some exceptions, but the implementation of the law has had the effect of making almost all public advertising unilingually French, even though English is allowed in an inferior proportion. Most companies have completely abandoned any effort to serve English customers in their own language, even in areas where Anglophones make up over 70% of their customers.

The law makes for some pretty ridiculous situations. When the CTV television affiliate in Montreal advertises an English television show on a billboard, it must do so in French.
A theatre company advertising a play presented in English, must post in French.

The OQLF, the organization that is charged with applying the law in relation to the protection of the French language, has a somewhat strange policy. It only undertakes an investigation of an alleged offense when someone complains and so, it is dependent on the public to police any violations of the law.

The policy of asking citizens to squeal on each other is generally unpopular in Western society, but stooling suits the mentality of French language militants to a tee, they actually relish the opportunity to rat out the hated Anglos.
The OQLF makes it easy to complain, providing a simple form that can be downloaded online, complete with the promise of confidentiality, which is probably unnecessary considering that most voluntary language inspectors are proud to have their name connected with a complaint.

And so, a dedicated cabal of self-deputized private French language inspectors patrol the streets and highways, public transport, public spaces, web sites, stores and buildings in search of language law transgressions.
Every advertisement is scrutinized, every product instruction booklet studied for spelling errors and faulty use of French, every sign in every store whether on the street and or in a shopping mall is dissected ad nauseam.

Ask any chain store head office about the many complaints they receive each week over the smallest of errors.

If you think I'm overstating the truth I'd like to share two articles published this week.

The first one, submitted by Marc-Antoine Daneau was printed in vigile.net, where you can read the original French post.

Concordia - Rhodesian Arrogance

"I'd like to draw your attention to the recent advertisements placed by Concordia University in Montreal's Atwater Metro station.

What's remarkable about these ads is that they are entirely in English, and they show the greatest contempt for Quebeckers and especially Bill 101, which governs the display language in Quebec.
Concordia University cannot plead ignorance in this matter, nor the Société de transport de Montreal which has approved the ads. They deliberately ignore the will of the people surrounding commercial signs and are contributing to Anglicization and Canadianization in Quebec.

I ask all those who receive this email to do whatever is in their power to remove Concordia University's absurd English advertisements."

How about that headline!
Equating Concordia University with racist Rhodesia of the 1960's because they put up a English advertisement, it's a but much.

What's most interesting about this rant, aside from it's entertainment value, is the fact that Mr. Danneau doesn't really know what he's talking about. In fact, it is he who is ignorant of the law and not the University.

This post made the rounds of nationalists web sites, stirring up all sorts of outrage. Over at Le Quebecois, another ultra radical nationalist web-site, the story was re-printed with a comment attached that congratulated the writer on his article, but proceeded to correct him over a minor French error in the poster's text! (I told you so!)

Righteous indignation over Concordia's advertisements was the order of the day until someone pointed out that the ads were perfectly legal.

Yup, it seems educational institutions are exempt from the language law.
Hmmm...

Not to be discouraged, a new theme was launched, one that demanded that the law be changed. Okaaay!

This next item, originally posted in La Presse, also appeared in vigel.net.

Entitled "An English Advertisement Shocks Citizens," it complains about a bus shelter ad placed by the music retailer HMV. The complainer took issue with the English, as you can see in the picture to the right.
In response to the complaint, a spokeswoman for the company defended the ad by claiming that it represented a global advertising campaign and that the ad appears the same way in every country including France.

"The t-shirt on the poster is sold worldwide with the same English inscription," says Ms. Shankland. "In terms of the overlay 'Fashion Against AIDS', it is the trademark of the collection. It did not have to be translated. "

Grrr......

I guess this is what happens when ultra militant volunteers, untrained and uninformed as to the provisions of law, are set loose.
English bookstores are constantly assailed by French language militants for posting English signs, even though they too are covered by an exemption.

Over the years, my company has been the beneficiary of many complaints about products we sold that contravened the language law in one sense or another, even though almost all were produced by third parties.
The letters and emails complaining about the treatment of French almost always started out along the same lines.

"I'm shocked at the disrespect displayed by your company..blah...blah."

"Your company is insulting Francophones...blah...blah."

"I am humiliated that your company..blah...blah.."

"It's outrageous that your company...blah...blah.."

When we advised the complainers that we would pass on their comments to the manufacturer and make sure that corrective action was undertaken in the future, it didn't seem to satisfy the them, some demanding that the products be pulled from shelves, sometimes because of a spelling mistake.
Finally, we stopped writing back.

The law respecting signage has already frightened the advertising agencies that control the bulk of public advertising in Quebec into eliminating English from public signs completely and so the voluntary French language inspectors are left to complain about nonsense.

The occasional handwritten "Help Wanted" or "Barmaid Wanted" sign in a local bar is what they are left to bitch about.

It's petty and it's sad and it is the Quebec reality.

NHL Francophone Conspiracy Theory

At the beginning of the week, a book written by Bob Sirois, entitled Le Québec mis en échec (Quebec Body-checked) was released, based on the dubious premise that Quebec francophone hockey players face discrimination in the NHL.

It's a theme that plays well among certain Francophone nationalists who embrace any theory that has Anglophones plotting against them. Those who believe these theories are not necessarily restricted to fringe elements. Montreal's leading Francophone sportswriter Réjean Tremblay ascribes to this idea and writes about it often. Here's a related post about it that I wrote a while back.
According to Mr. Sirois;

"Francophone Quebeckers are wrongly disparaged as too small, too lax on defence and not suited to the robust "Canadian" style of play.
Myths, prejudices, stereotypes and favouritism make up an integral part of every draft session in the National Hockey League."

Not all Quebeckers buy the theory and in the 'Comments' sections under the Internet news stories related the book, readers rejected the idea by a wide margin.
My favourite comment is this one;

"C'est du pleurnichage. (It's cry babying.)
PS:Je ne suis pas un anglais." (PS. I'm not English)

The use of selective statistics is an art form that Quebec nationalists have perfected better than anyone. They advance all sorts of statistics to support all manner of dubious theories.

Today language extremists promote selected statistics to 'prove' that Montreal is being anglicized and will eventually become as English as Toronto. This despite the fact that the number of Anglophones living in Montreal has remained neutral for the last three decades.

I recently read a blog piece where the writer used statistics to advance the theory that Quebec deserved more seats in Parliament than their actual population would dictate because a statistically higher percentage of Quebeckers vote. On and on.... Arggh....

Mr. Sirois provides plenty of just such faulty and selective statistics, charts, numbers, facts and figures to back up his claim that Anglophone teams in the NHL are racist and would rather have a poor team, than hire Francophones.

The idea is so absurd, one must wonder what kind of twisted mind could believe such a foolish notion. Persecution complex?

Here's a portion of a rebuttal article written in the star.com entitled NHL bias claim draws a backlash;

"The IIHF produced numbers of its own, showing the percentage of Quebec-born players in the NHL is almost identical to the overall number of participants in the province, while Ontarians are under-represented. The IIHF also points out how easily numbers can be manipulated, arguing Washington Capitals star Ovechkin's 14.8 per cent shooting percentage ranks him 100th in the NHL – and behind three Leafs."

The controversy over the lack of francophone players has engulfed the Montreal Canadiens with writers like Réjean Tremblay boldly accusing Bob Gainey of deliberately purging the team of Francophones.

I can imagine the scenario.
Bob Gainey sitting in his office with his two Quebec based scouts Michel Boucher and Denis Morel telling him excitedly about an incredible prospect from Lac-St.Jean.

• Morel: "We need to draft him boss, he's incredible!"
• Gainey: " Mmmm. No thanks boys, I think we'll pass."
• Morel "Whaaat!! Why???"
• Gainey: " We don't need no stinkin' Francophones on our team!!"
• Morel: "But that isn't fair and it makes no sense!!!"
• Gainey " We don't need a good team, we need an English team"
• Morel: "I don't understand.."
• Gainey " It's up to Anglos like me to preserve the English domination of the world. You wouldn't understand. It's about more than just hockey!!"

The "Savard" Doctrine
Mr. Sirois and many other francophone writers (including Réjean Tremblay) and commentators have advanced the 'Savard Doctrine,' the practice perfected by the ex-General Manager of the Habs, Serge Savard, that holds that when given a choice between two players of equal talent, the team should select the Francophone.

It seems to make sense, the team becomes a more attractive product for fans and yet preserves it's competitiveness. Perfect! Everybody is happy!

But wait a minute!
Let's consider the implications. If the Montreal Canadiens are encouraged to follow the 'Savard doctrine', should other teams do the same?
Should American teams hire Americans before Canadians, Europeans or Francophones? Should Canadian teams give priority to Anglophone players over Francophones, Americans and Europeans?

If all the teams practice what Mr. Sirois suggests, it doesn't auger well for Francophone players, considering 29 out of 30 teams are base in Anglophone cities. Hmmmmm.

So it comes down to this;
Mr. Sirois complains that Anglophone teams unfairly show favouritism towards Anglophones, but encourages the Montreal Canadiens to show favouritism towards Francophones.

When Francophones show favouritism towards Francophones, it's not discrimination.
When Anglophones show favouritism towards Anglophones, it is discrimination.

It all makes perfect sense... if you live in Quebec..

Who Shafted Benoit Labonté?

Montreal's mayoral race turned into a real farce with last week's revelation that Benoit Labonté, Louise Harel's right-hand man had in large part financed his run for his party leadership run with under the table money taken from members of the construction industry. The money is alleged to have been provided by the notorious Tony Accurso and at least 10 other players in the industry, who are accused of colluding on tenders in relation to City of Montreal's construction contracts. It has been speculated that because of this alleged collusion, city construction projects cost upwards of 35% more than necessary.

It's always disappointing when politicians who have staked their reputation on honesty turn out to be exactly what they accuse their enemies of being, à la Elliot Spitzer. When they do get caught, the fall from grace is never pretty and for Benoit Labonté, it means that his professional life is destroyed. In politics, perception is as important as reality and on both counts Labonté is damaged goods. He is going down the same path that Frank Zampino travelled a few short months ago, the road to obscurity.

To say that Mr. Labonté was surprised by the revelations is an understatement, he was in fact, completely blindsided by the accusations and actually tried to brazen it out for a few days, until he realized the case against him was unassailable.
It must have been quite a shock for him to realize that he had been betrayed and that there was a Judas among his closest of confidants.

The only question that remains is, who shafted Benoit Labonte?

I don't have any good contacts in Vision Montreal or among his staff. Labonté and I, are not on the same wavelength and run in different circles and so I can only speculate.

There is however, overwhelming evidence that he was betrayed by one of his closest advisers.

First of all, you can dismiss any notion that this story was the result of good investigative reporting, the information uncovered is just too good and too detailed. Labonté was served up.

"Deep Gorge," as I shall call the informant, had intimate knowledge of the secret meetings that Labonté held with Tony Accurso in the Old Montreal restaurants. Either he attended the meetings or set up the meetings, or was made privy to the meetings and that made him someone very close to Labonté.

Deep Gorge knew about the contents of the 'brown envelopes,' and had intimate knowledge of the dollar figures involved, so he either handled the envelopes, was apprised of their contents or actually handled or spent the money.

The most telling clue comes from the fact that the reporters had records of Mr Labonté's telephone calls, which indeed revealed that he had talked to Mr. Accurso on at least two occasions.

Mr. Labonté was served up like a Christmas turkey with all the trimmings, no wonder reporters didn't back down when Labonté started making denials.

Deep Gorge knew just about every detail of Labonté's relationship with Accurso and the other construction industry players.
He knew first hand about the under the table payments.
He knew how many payments were received and who made them and the exact dollar amount of each. He also knew that Labonté spoke to Accurso by telephone and was able to photocopy cellular bills or had a password to get access to the online records.
Because of the range of information, the informant couldn't be a low level secretary or campaign worker. It can't be the police because although they could tap phone calls and bug rooms, they couldn't have the detailed information about the contents of the brown paper bags. Obviously it had to be someone big and there aren't that many players in Labonté's entourage.

I'm not going to speculate, but to me, it's likely that Deep Gorge was among his closest advisors.

Will we ever find out who he or she is?

"cui bono?" Latin for "who benefits?"

We should watch the members of Labonte's former entourage to see where they land. Other than a confession, it's just speculation and it may be a long time before we find out the truth.

Remember "Deep Throat."

Revisiting Hérouxville

Hérouxville is the small rural village in central Quebec that garnered world-wide attention when it published a 'Code of Life', a document directed at immigrants and meant to teach then how to integrate.

The town has become became the poster boy of Quebec racism and has been the subject of scornful derision by liberal, urban Quebeckers, who have lampooned the town mercilessly.
Here are two examples, videos to which I've added subtitles, followed by the translated version of the 'Code of Life'
ENJOY!

This cartoon features a tradition Quebec folkloric song style and parodies André Drouin, the Hérouxville city councillor who spearheaded the campaign and helped promote the 'Code of Ethics'

Hérouxville "Code of Life"

• People vote with their face uncovered.
• A woman may divorce her husband.
• A divorced woman can have custody of her children.
• A divorced woman is entitled to an equal division of accumulated property.
• All students must take compulsory art courses.
• All students must take compulsory music courses.
• A woman may play a musical instrument.
• All students must take compulsory science courses.
• A girl cannot be married before reaching the age of 16.
• A girl cannot be forced to marry a man.
• A girl may not suffer any genital mutilation.
• A woman disobeying her husband cannot be killed.
• Females may not suffer abuse for failing to maintain a religion.
• Women may wear trousers.
• No public building may offer rooms for religious rituals or prayers
• A taxi driver may not refuse to carry a passenger accompanied by a dog.
• A taxi driver may not refuse to carry a passenger who is transporting alcohol.
• Where the law requires the wearing of a safety hat, there will be no exceptions.
• When the practice of a sport requires protective clothing, there will be no exceptions
  
• The food served to prisoners does not have to meet any religious criteria.
• The food served in schools does not have to meet any religious criteria.
• The food served in our hospitals does not have to meet any religious criteria.
• Men and women swim together in public.
• Women do not swim fully dressed in public places.
• At school, a girl may sit next to a boy.
• Girls and boys are to travel in the same school bus.
• Towards the end of the year, people may wish others Merry Christmas.
• Towards the end of the year, people can put up Christmas trees.
• At work or elsewhere, a woman can read a letter written by a man.
• At work or elsewhere, a man can read a letter written by a woman.
• A doctor or nurse may care for men.
• A doctor or nurse may care for women.
• At the hospital a nurse may be alone in a room of a man.
• At the hospital a woman patient speaks directly to her doctor.
• At the hospital, the sick can receive a blood transfusion.
• In the hospital patients wear the required clothing.
  
• In the hospital, staff wear the required clothing.
• An employer may require its employees to dress in a uniform.
  
• Schools may require that their students wear uniforms.
• Men accompany their wives to prenatal classes.
• At any time, a woman may offer aid to a man.
• On every occasion, a man may rescue a woman.
• A woman may teach male persons.
• At the swimming pool, a woman can lifeguard male persons.
• A policewoman may scold a man.
• A woman can show her hair without fear of being raped.
• A police officer may scold a woman.
• An employee may work after sunset.
• A worker may be required to work on Sunday.
• A female ambulance attendant may transport and treat a man.
• Employees receive all the same legal holidays.
• Employees respect the same work schedule.
• Children are not allowed to fast during the school periods.
• All schoolchildren must respect school hours.
• Girls are required to attend school.
  
• Workers must eat to accomplish their tasks.
• The same schedule of school exams is respected by all.
• The same schedule of sports in schools is respected by all.
• Men and women may participate in sporting events together.
  
• The schedule of events for amateur sports is respected by all.
• In our schools, children do not carry weapons or fake weapons.
• At work, employees do not carry weapons or fake weapons.
• A woman must take school exams unaccompanied.
• A woman can correct tests of a man.
• A woman can teach a man.
• Men and women can practice sports together.
  
• The food we consume does no have to be approved by various religions.
• In-store displays don't have to be approved by various religions.
  
• Our identity documents shall include our photo.
• Men talk to women receptionists.
• In our hospitals, men and women may share the same room.
• It is unlawful to smoke in public places.
• Contracts of divided property must be respected by all.
• Municipalities are not required to set aside any area to meet religions requests.
  
• Any person may be approached by a sniffer dog.
• No book can teach a man to beat his wife.
• No book can recommend hanging homosexuals in public.
• It is forbidden to physically attack people who do not think the same way.
  
• Nobody may burn a dead body in public.
• When a person dies, an autopsy may be requested.
• Hospital beds are not oriented to the prayers.
• Alcohol and gelatin based products are used in our hospitals.
• Alcoholic beverages are sold on campus.
• The state sells for profit, alcoholic beverages.
• Schoolchildren may read the book "The Three Little Pigs"
• People are free to believe or not believe in God.
• Everyone must obey municipal regulations.
• It is forbidden to disinter a corpse for a religious celebration.
  
• When conversing people must look each other in the eyes.
  
• In public people show their face openly.
• When greeting, women shake hands with men.
• People of different skin colours attend the same school.
• Working men and women rub shoulders.
  
• While waiting in line, men and women each wait their turn.
• When using public transport a woman sits where she wants.
  
• Polygamy is illegal and is punished.
• Universities, schools and hospitals may not provide places for prayer.
• Factories and other places of work may not provide places for prayer.
• Every employee must pay his union dues.