Stephen Harper Set to Deliver Another Painful Dose of Payback to Quebec

If Quebeckers thought that by sending separatist Bloc Quebecois members to Ottawa they would send a message to English Canada, they were right.

The message has finally been received loud and clear, albeit after many years.

No matter how accommodating, no matter how much money Ottawa ships to Quebec, no matter how many political concessions are made, Quebeckers will continue to thumb their noses at federalist parties.

It's a lesson that took both the Liberals and the Conservatives many years to comprehend, but the penny has finally dropped, at least on the Conservative side. Mr. Harper and the Conservative party have written off Quebec politically.

If ever there was a case of overplaying one's hand, this is it.

Ironically, Quebeckers remain blithely unaware that their flirtatious game is over.

While they continue to pull on the same old strings, Mr. Harper and the Conservatives have gone off in another direction.

In many ways Quebec's rejection of the Federal political parties in favour of the Bloc has set Mr. Harper free. No longer does he, nor his party harbour any illusions that indulging Quebec can translate into seats and so, he has been liberated to return to his natural base, a constituency that is decidedly anti-Quebec.

I recently wrote a post about Mr. Harper's plan to add seats in Parliament a move aimed to correct an imbalance and reflect the changing demographics of the Canadian reality. The seats to be added are all located outside of Quebec.

Should the proposed legislation go through, Quebec's proportion of seats in the Canadian Parliament will be reduced and the likelihood of forming a majority government without Quebec support, enhanced.

This proposal was met with expected fury in Quebec, but the threats of reprisals by Quebec voters rang hollow, there's not much to lose for the Conservatives in Quebec. Had Mr. Harper owned twenty or thirty seats in the province, he'd never have entertained such a move.

It is ironic that While the Bloc claims to defend Quebec's interest in Ottawa, it's presence has the opposite effect and serves to rob Quebec of any influence. Bloc members sit idly in opposition, twiddling their thumbs and hurling insults at the government.

Most Quebeckers would be shocked to see how little effect the Bloc really has in Ottawa. The high attrition rate of Bloc members is a testament to how they themselves view their effectiveness. The reality is that they are pointedly ignored by the other members of Parliaments. Some western MPs even pull out their translation ear piece when Bloc members rise in the house.

The announcement by the Tories that they will be seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court as to whether the formation of a national agency to regulate financial markets under Ottawa's auspices is legal, is but another signal that they no longer care what Quebec thinks.

If the court sides with the government, something likely to happen according to constitutional lawyers, it would spell another humiliating defeat for Quebec.

Quebec finance Minister Raymond Bachand was apoplectic in a speech delivered at an event organized by the AMF, Quebec's regulatory agency.

"The federal government has no right to legislate in this area that is under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec!"

Without any strong voices in cabinet and without the weight of Parliamentary seats, Quebec is powerless to stop the assault on what the province perceives as an invasion on provincial rights.

How will the Quebec public react to this real loss of influence?

By voting for the Bloc Quebecois, of course. It is after all, Quebec.

Lawyer For Earl Jones Leads Reporters Around by the Nose

That reporters accept on face value, statements that are patently false or manipulative from people that they are interviewing is one of my pet peeves.

Last week Jeffrey Boro, Earl Jones' lawyer, made a statement that begged a combative response by an inquiring press.
He told reporters that Earl Jones was destitute, broke and living off his old age pension, unable to find work.

Pleeese!!!!!!!

Mr. Boro would have to go down to a farm if he wanted to fling more bullshit than that!

Not one reporter asked him, that in light of Mr Jones disastrous financial situation, how Mr. Boro's legal bills were being paid?

Of course, had he been asked, Mr. Boro would have declined to answer, claiming client/attorney privilege, but at least he'd be put on notice that his story that Mr. Jones is destitute, is purely fictional.

If Mr. Boro is working for free, than I apologize, but somehow I don't think so.

If Mr. Jones' family, or a mysterious benefactor, is paying his bills (not) wouldn't that same generous entity make sure that poor Earl was also taken care of?

The dirty little secret of most criminal lawyers is that their fees are usually paid out of the proceeds of crime, in many instances from the exact crime that their client is being tried for.

Getting paid in dirty money is a necessary part of the game and everybody in the legal game knows that it is true.
Whenever you see a defendant claiming poverty, look to his lawyer. If he's using a $400 an hour attorney, it isn't hard to come to another conclusion. Even Vincent Lacroix was smart enough to get a legal aid lawyer to keep up appearances.

At any rate, Earl Jones is wasting his money. He is going to get the max if he goes to trial, (which he is not) even if he hired Alan Dershowitz as defence council. Crown prosecutors are going to knock a year, possibly two off of the sentence in consideration of a guilty plea. Any legal aid lawyer could do the deal.
Mr. Jones should save his the money spent on expensive lawyers.

By the way, if Mr. Boro is so concerned about Mr. Jones not being able to find employment, perhaps he could offer him a job in his law firm's accounting department, where he can put his experience to good use!

Will the Real Louise Harel Please Stand Up.

Here's what Louise Harel is telling us today.

For those of you who don't have a clear recollection of who she really is , this is what Louise Harel was selling for 35 years.

This is what she really believes in;

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.