Bill 103- For French Language Militants and Premier Charest, Manna From Heaven!

For French language militants, the Liberal government's presentation of Bill 103 in the National Assembly was the best news that they've had in months and given the immediate reaction, an unexpected gift that they couldn't have hoped for in their wildest dreams.
And so Christmas comes early, the proposed law promising months and months of language controversy, the mother's milk of the sovereignty/language movement.

Mario Beaulieu, president of the Société St-Jean-Baptiste has already waded in, ominously warning Quebeckers, à la croquemitaine, that nothing less than the future of the French language is at stake. Already dozens and dozens of scathing articles are populating the sovereignist web sites as well as the mainstream press. I caught  Mongrain  this morning where Brent Tyler was given quite a rough ride.

For those of you from out of the province, let me bring you up to date;
The Quebec government finally came up with it's response to the ruling by the Supreme Court that Quebec's Bill 104 was illegal.
That law closed a 'loophole' whereby children, ineligible to attend English school by virtue of the infamous Bill 101, could circumvent the measure by attending an unsubsidized English private school for as little as one year. They then could transfer over to the publicly run English system, claiming a 'history' of English education, one of the pathways into public English education.

Bill 104 made that practice illegal, but the law was struck down by the Supreme Court, calling it overly restrictive.The Court did however, delay the judgment for a year, giving the Quebec government time to draft a more acceptable law.

The proposed law that does so, is Bill 103 (only in Quebec, can a Bill 103 replace a Bill 104) and in many respects is even more convoluted then its predecessor, harking back to the early days in the 1970's of language restrictions brought in by Premier Robert Bourassa , where five and six year-olds (mostly Italian) were tested for English proficiency by government inspectors.

I'll give the proposed law a thorough analysis next week, but my first reaction was to ask myself what in the world Premier Charest was thinking about in making such a controversial proposal.

He could have invoked the "Notwithstanding Clause (Canada's version of a "Get out of Jail Free Card") to override the Supreme Court ruling, something that would have engendered a week or two of controversy and then would be over and done with.

But seeing the reaction in Parliament and on the talk-show circuit, his presentation of Bill 103 may just be the most brilliant political manoeuvre that he has ever pulled off.

Listening to Pauline Marois' blistering attack on the proposed bill in the National Assembly and Mr. Charest's spirited defence, it occurs to me that the PQ has fallen for another political trick.

And so the construction industry and corruption debate is shelved. The PQ, who were holding all the aces in that debate, stupidly asked for and received from a willing Charest, a re-shuffle and re-deal of the issues before the public.
The issue of the defence of the French language is so powerfully attractive to the PQ, that the separatist Parliamentarians displayed a reaction akin to that of a drug addict being shown a vial of heroin.

The grin on Mr. Charest's face yesterday morning in the Assembly, as he defended his language position, should have been a signal to the PQ that they should back off and continue to press the fight on corruption, but Madame Marois and her party cannot resist.
Like I said..... heroin language controversy.

The language debate is one where the Liberals can not only hold their own, but can actually win, with over 60% of Quebeckers opting for free choice in education in a recent opinion poll.
If the public debate returns to language and sovereignty, the PQ will find themselves back where they were when they lost the last general election.

The public has indicated that they are over 80% in favour of a public inquiry into corruption. Why the PQ would choose to veer away from an issue where they were absolutely destroying the government is a testament to poor decision-making and inexperienced leadership.
That's the attraction of...heroin language controversy.

Madame Marois is squandering it all. Someone in her political coterie should have slapped her in the face, but the problem for the PQ, that as ideologues, they lack political judgment. Military commanders are trained to ignore a diversionary attack and are disciplined to keep their eye firmly on mission objectives.

With only five more days until the summer recess, you can be sure that Bill 103 will occupy the Assembly for the balance of the term, a dream come true for Charest. It will lead to a summer of language debate and by the Fall who knows where we shall be politically. For Mr. Charest, anywhere else is better than where he was just days ago.

I'll say it again, Marois had Premier Charest down and out and instead of finishing him off by continuing to hammer away at him with punches to his weak side, she opted to go after his strength.

And so Premier Charest has a sneer of confidence on his face for the first time in months. His guilty-dog demeanour is gone and an aggressive and confident Charest has reappeared in the Assembly.

I can only imagine the words going through his mind......

"Language? Sovereignty? ----Bring it on, bitch!"

Montreal is Modern Riot Capital of North America

No, this headline isn't about the riot last month, downtown after the Montreal Canadiens seventh game victory over the Pittsburgh Penguins. It was actually published 157 years ago in the THE NEW YORK TIMES on June 29, 1853 and described events in downtown Montreal where troops fired on a mob of rioters (killing five) who were protesting a speech by Alessandro Gavazzi.

Montreal's tradition of rioting goes back a long, long way. In fact just four years earlier in 1849, a Montreal mob burned down Canada's Parliament which was then located in what is now Place D'Youville.

If watching the  news reports about the looting of several downtown stores had you shaking your head and asking yourself what this world is coming to, you should know that this type of behaviour is nothing new. In fact looters can trace their roots all the way back to 1875 where a mob of workers demanding jobs or bread, started the fine tradition of taking what they want by force.

The "Bread Riot" of 1879 was the first reported instance of rioters stealing. They relieved a bread wagon of its contents and then attacked a beer wagon, chugging down its contents.

" a number were intoxicated ...many simply wanted to plunder..." NEW YORK TIMES-1879

Sound Familiar?

Although Montreal is the modern riot capital of North America it owns a long tradition of rioting, too numerous to mention.

Here is a rundown of some of the more interesting riots over the sixty odd years. The list is by no means comprehensive.

Not surprisingly, hockey more specifically has been the center of four of Montreal's major riots.
 
The Rocket Richard Riot(1955) 
One of the most famous riots in Canadian sports history occurred when the president of the league ill-advisedly showed up to a game played in the Montreal Forum, four days after suspending the Canadiens star Maurice Rocket Richard. Fans pelted him with debris and a riot spilled out into the street after someone threw a smoke bomb into the building.The crowd smashed windows, threw bricks and set fires. The riot lasted for seven hours. 

1969 Sir George Williams University Computer Riot
Over 400 students occupied the university's computer lab which was sparked by the university's alleged mishandling of a racism allegation against a professor. Black students occupied the university computer lab and destroyed computer equipment. Eventually riot police were called in to quell the uprising.

The Murray-Hill riot in 1969 was the culmination of 16 hours of unrest during a Montreal police strike. The riot was triggered by taxi drivers who had lost their exclusive right to pick up passengers at the airport. Quebec provincial police were brought in to replacing striking police which led to a confrontation with Montreal police. Rioters took advantage of the lack of policing and looted and pillaged the downtown core for sixteen hours in what has become known as Montreal's night of terror

Stanley Cup Riots (1986)  and (1993)
In 1986, 5,000 people stormed  through downtown Montreal after the team's victory over the  Calgary Flames. The police were ill-prepared to deal with the crowd and failed miserably to stem the destruction. Seven years later the police were better prepared to face the unruly crowd after the  Canadiens won another Cup. close to 1,000 police officers, battled the crowd but it wasn't  enough. Crowds invaded downtown and set fires, vandalized cars, and looted stores. The toll was heavy as many buses and police cars were destroyed. Over 200 were injured.
Hmmm.. can we really afford to win the Stanley Cup again?

The Boston Bruins Riot (2008) After defeating the Boston Bruins in a seventh game first round series, rioting erupted in the downtown core. People smashed store windows and looted ten stores.16 police cars were damaged, with at least five set on fire. Over one million dollars in damage was accrued.

The Montreal North riot  in the summer of 2008 remains the freshest and perhaps most disturbing case of civil disobedience in modern Montreal history. The riot was ostensibly caused by a Montreal police officer's shooting of a street gang member, resulting in one death, but it may have just been an excuse by disaffected youth to get it on with the police.

The Pittsburgh Penguin Riot (2010)

Montreal's latest riot occurred after the Canadiens unexpectedly eliminated a superior  Pittsburgh Penguin team. Fans had been watching the game which took place in Pittsburgh on the giant screens at the Bell Centre. After the game mayhem broke out and looting occurred along Ste. Catherine Street. Police largely handled the situation and for the first time video shot by the public was used to arrest looters.

Neeeext!!!!

La Fête Nationale - 20% of Quebeckers Don't Count

The organizing committee of Montreal's  Fête St. Jean celebration held a news conference to announce it's plans for the big show in Maisonneuve Park and proudly and merrily let it be known that in no uncertain terms, English artists will be excluded.

There'll be no repeat of last year's fiasco where English artists were invited, dis-invited and then reinstated to perform at a local Fête Nationale celebration in a Montreal district.

To wild applause, the Comité de la Fête nationale de Montréal through it's spokesman Guy A. Lepage, proudly announced that the celebration in Maisonneuve park will be a French only affair.

"We have a panoply of artists this year, which I think, is very representative of the Quebec we know..."  Guy A. Lepage

Maybe Mr. Lepage doesn't know Quebec as well as he thinks. He ignores the fact that 20% of the population of Quebec is English or ethnic. Most of them live Montreal, pushing the percentage even higher in the city where this "French" only show will be held.

Perhaps if he tries hard enough, Mr. Lepage can pretend that we don't exist, thus allowing him and his coterie of French language supremacists a one day fantasy where they can pretend that Quebec is a nation of White Catholic Francophones and where Anglos and Ethnics exist at the pleasure of the majority.

Mr Lepage is representative of the French language nationalists that have hijacked the annual Quebec 'national holiday' in an attempt to turn it into a jingoistic expression of separatist and French language chauvinism. Each year the government pays the Anglo-bashing St. Jean Baptiste Society to organize festivities across the entire province.
It seems that the government can sell, booze, electricity, organize hospitals and schools, but is incapable of organizing the annual event without calling on this unabashedly anti-English/ anti-Ethnic organization of language thugs.
It is unconscionable that a separatist organization be given the mandate to organize the province-wide celebration in the name of all Quebeckers and is being paid by a federalist government.

The sad part of it all, is that SSJB and the Guy A. Lepages of Quebec are not representative of mainstream Francophone society, who are much more tolerant and open to sharing the annual holiday with Quebeckers of all stripes.
Survey after survey will indicate that Quebeckers want all citizens to participate and that a smattering of English and ethnic music is not only fair, but desirable, making the celebration more inclusive.

Last year's organizers of a Montreal neighbourhood celebration in Rosemont, appropriately called "l'Autre St. Jean' (meaning- alternative) invited two English groups, Lake of Stew and Bloodshot Bill,  to perform amid controversy. They are repeating their principled stand this year, by announcing that their show will include at least one English group, 'United Steel Workers of Montreal'.

An organiser for "L'Autre Saint-Jean" Jules Hébert, defended the festival's position by asking the rhetorical question as to whether Anglos are Quebeckers as well.

Apparently not, according to the likes of  Louis Préfontaine, a member Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste and infamous anti-Anglo blogger who was apoplectic over the decision to allow an English artist to perform;

"It sickens me deeply. The traitors who organize this insulting shit needs to be taught a good lesson"

Other French language supremacists suggest a boycott of the event's sponsors. Link

Me, I stick to my position that I outlined last year- June 24th is a good time to be out of town......

Mother of All Accommodations War Brewing

Successive Quebec governments, both Liberal and PQ have been reluctant to impose the rule of law upon certain Jewish fundamentalist sects, lest they be tarred with the hackneyed label of antisemitism and so successive generations of Hasidic schools have been allowed to flout the education laws by teaching an ultra-orthodox Jewish religious syllabus to the exclusion of education ministry mandated courses.

Recently the government has been gently prodding the pirate schools to get in line by adding the mandatory courses, even if it means extending the school week into Sunday. Some schools have reluctantly agreed to implement these changes but whether they actually will is an open question.

Last week, one Hasidic school told the education ministry to take a hike.

In an article on the CBC news web site  entitled Jewish school refuses to expand curriculum, the Yeshiva Toras Moshe told the education department that they are at an impasse and will not comply with the education department's demand that they add more non-religious content, including the dreaded ECR, a course designed to expose children to other religions and ideas.

The Education department has indicated that it will seek an injunction in October to compel the school to knuckle under, but Alex Wertzberger, a spokesman for the Yeshiva said they will be ready to fight the order.

Most cults (like the Amish, or the polygamists in British Columbia) that disavow themselves from mainstream society, flee to the countryside where they set up compounds where they can go about their business far from the prying eyes of organized society. There is one such Hasidic cult set up in a compound in Boisbriand, just north of Montreal. This group is so radical that the Montreal Hasids are blasphemers by comparison.

But the Hasids of Montreal are different, carving out enclaves in urban neighbourhoods, such as the Outremont district of Montreal, where they regularly come into conflict with neighbours because of their propensity to ignore municipal bylaws.

While feigning piety and good intentions, Hasids are tough. When faced with legal action in response to their lawbreaking, they engage in expensive guerrilla legal tactics that are designed to sap the energy and weaken the resolve of opponents, until a satisfactory compromise is reached, one that always favours the Hasids.

This time the Hasids may be up against more than they bargained for. The debate in Quebec surrounding reasonable accommodations is running at fever pitch and like Naima, the Hasid's intransigence may be their undoing.

Past legal victories are likely bolstering the Hasid's perception that they will prevail, but this time they will have the attention of the entire province and the appetite for compromise is nonexistent.

If the issue goes to court,  the Hasids will face the wrath of a hostile media and a vengeful public, spoiling for a fight. Just ask Naima.

There will be no backing down, the public won't allow it and the government will have to play the hand through. The Hasids can engage the likes of Julies Grey or Alan Dershowitz, but it won't help.

No court will find in their favour.

Interesting the  Yeshiva Toras Moshe held a 27th anniverary dinner last year in which they put out a tribute pamphlet.
Leafing through the document, I found this chilling passage that repeated a story which occurred over a century ago in Russia, perhaps a portend of the school's future here in Quebec.

Creepy eh?

The question remains, one or two years down the road, what will the Hasids do when they lose? For the Hasids, complying is not an option.

They will either ignore the judgment, pretend that they are complying, but ignore the judgment all the same, or they can pick up their roots and move.

It's a tough call,  but I going to go with door number two.

Can Bastarache Inquiry Save Jean Charest?

It's likely that loose cannon, Marc Bellemare, did Premier Jean Charest a huge favour in accusing him and his government of exercising undue influence concerning the choice of provincial judges. Mr. Bellemare has publicly alleged that the Premier and other Liberal cabinet ministers put varying degrees of pressure on his office in regards to the appointment of three specific judges to the bench, during his short tenure as Minister of Justice.

The effect of the allegations shifted the political battleground away from the scandal embroiling the government concerning the charges that the construction industry has been making large donations, both legal and illegal, to the Liberal party and receiving benefits in return. The opposition and the press have been clamouring for a public inquiry, while the government has been stubbornly refusing. With the pressure building each week, the government's attempt to sweep the issue under the rug was faltering badly, that is, until the fresh allegations stole the headlines.

And so Mr. Bellemare has made a strategic error and thrown the Liberals a life preserver.
In accusing the government of influencing the appointment of judges, the much more dangerous and potentially disastrous construction scandal, while not forgotten, is pushed somewhat to the rear.

Even the dumbest boxer understands that once you have badly injured an opponent's left flank, it makes no sense to attack the stronger right side. Yet that is exactly what Mr. Bellemare has done with the Parti Quebecois foolishly following. While Mr. Bellemare made a forgivable rookie mistake, there's no excuse for Madame Marois. With so many scandals brewing, the leader of the opposition decided to attack on all fronts, instead of concentrating her fire on the richest target.

From Mr. Charest's reaction and renewed vigour, it's safe to say that he feels a lot more comfortable defending himself on these new allegations then that of the construction scandal.

When it comes to choosing judges, we'd like to believe that the choice is a cut and dried process, bereft of political interference, but it is anything but and always has been, regardless of the government.

Appointments to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada is the ultimate example of a politically partisan appointment. Choosing a candidate that shares the ruling government's ideology is de rigueur and nobody complains about the process.

And so it is normal that a Conservative government appoints a judge who shares a conservative point of view and a Liberal government chooses a liberal-minded candidate. When the Liberals were last in power, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, appointed ultra-leftie/feminist/human rights advocate, Rosalie Abella to the bench, over the snickers of court watchers who complained that she was under-qualified and had benefited from a close personal relationship between the Cotler and Abella families.

At least an appointment to the Supreme Court pays ideological dividends to the appointing government, as issues of national interest are decided upon. An appointment to a provincial lower court, has no such benefits. Cases are mostly mundane and those of import usually find themselves pushed up the ladder, eventually landing in the Supreme Court.
Once named, a judge is completely free of influence and is immune to pressure. A judge must recuse himself from any case where he is acquainted or had a relationship with the parties involved and so there's really not much political or personal capital to be earned in such an appointment.

Judge Andree Ruffo, perhaps Quebec's most famous Youth Court judge candidly admitted that because she was apolitical, she was passed over for selection by the PQ for a judgeship and didn't get appointed  until the Liberals came into power when she benefited from a personal contact in the Premier's office.

How did she repay her benefactor?
By humiliating the Minister of Health and Social Services by having two children driven to the office of the Minister because there was no place for them in the youth protection system. For an interesting piece about Judge Ruffo and the so-called independence of our judiciary, read an interesting article HERE.

The PQ should tread lightly in condemning the Liberals in relation to the naming of judges. In 1995 during the PQ government's term in office, the late wife of then cabinet minister Bernard Landry, Lorraine Laporte, was appointed to the bench with Landry telling anyone who would listen that he had no idea that she was being considered.

And so it is not strange that no one in the PQ is bringing up the fact that Marie-Claude Gilbert,  the wife of Sam Hamad, Minister of Employment, was appointed to the bench last year. The Liberal minister also claimed that he learned of the appointment the day it was announced.
Perhaps Mr. Hadad and Mr Landry share the same media consultant....

Norman MacMillan a cabinet minister in the Charest government is unapologetic and admits that he made a recommendation to Marc Bellemare to consider one of his constituents, the son of a campaign fund-raiser, in relation to a judgeship.
Mr. McMillan considers it part of his job and sees nothing wrong with the practice of making representations on behalf of constituents. His frank and unabashed admission, goes to the heart of Bellemare's claim of undue influence.

Most commentators are under the mistaken impression that the decision to appoint judges resides exclusively with the justice minister. This is not true. According to the law, the responsibility lies with the government. It make sense that the justice minister runs point, but nevertheless, it is completely legal for the Premier or other cabinet ministers to make their views known. 

The final decision was Bellemare's to make and unless he has concrete proof that money changed hands or that he was absolutely ordered to select a certain candidate, he is doomed to fail in his pursuit of Charest over the issue, unless that is, he comes up with a new bombshell or smoking gun.

Former Supreme Court Judge Michel Bastarache, who will be chairing the commission looking into the affair, has already made pronouncements that seem favourable to the position of the government. Speaking to Le Devoir,  he said;

 "There is "confusion" damaging the public discourse between "political appointment" and "partisan appointment....  Hopefully the commission will help to clarify these things."  

Mr. Bastarache has also said that he is also concerned about the kind of frenzy that has gripped the people in relation to politicians.   LE DEVOIR

As to the $700,000 defamation lawsuit launched by Mr. Charest against Mr. Bellemare, it is simply another tactic to slow down and retard the debate over the construction payola allegations and to keep the press talking about judgeships. As long as the lawsuit is alive, Mr. Bellemare will be entreated by his lawyer to make no more pronouncements against Mr. Charest. Judges take a dim view of such actions.

With a little effort from Mr. Charest's lawyers, the court action can drag on for years, certainly until after the next provincial election. If I was Mr. Charest, I would file the lawsuit in Sherbrooke, his hometown and constituency. The Court district there is just about the most backlogged jurisdiction in the province and it will be years before the case can possibly be heard!

Mr. Bellemare's motive for his unbridled assault on Mr. Charest remains a mystery and has been characterized in the press as credible because there seems to be no reason other than altruism for the attack.
Now that he's being sued, all his pronouncements will be immediately suspect and viewed as a partisan effort to cast aspersions that will help win his court case.
Well-played Mr. Charest!

Just a note about defamation suits. Actions for defamation that play out in court are rarely about reputation. Like the London press, settlements are quick when the defendant's actions are clearly defamatory.
That being said, cases bog down when the defendant holds to the bedrock principle of libel law, that truth is an absolute defence. If what one says is true, the person suing cannot win a the libel case, even if he's been defamed.

I am reminded of perhaps the most egregious miscarriage of justice in the case launched by the famous entertainer Liberace, who sued a London magazine in 1954 for implying that he was gay. The entertainer swore up and down at the trial that he wasn't a homosexual and hilariously won the case when the defendant couldn't prove otherwise. In 1982, Liberace was sued for palimony by his live-in boyfriend and he died two years later of AIDS.  Talk about nerve.

I think Mr. Charest has an excellent case and a good chance to win against Mr. Bellemare. Even if he loses or abandons the case in a couple of years, he will have already have won.

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, unless something unforeseen is revealed.

After having the Charest government on the ropes, all Mr Bellemare had to do was- nothing.
The press and the opposition had enough muck to advance the fight on the construction industry front and with the public screaming for blood, it would be a matter of time before the Premier's position became untenable.

Mr. Bellemare has already emptied his quiver of poisoned arrows and without a smoking gun, the public and the press will quickly lose interest. The cross accusations will become a case of 'he said, they said,' and with lawyers popping up every few moments to object and demand side-bars, the spectacle and TV drama will be low.

Mr. Bellemare and many on the PQ side have already come to this same conclusion and are now orchestrating a campaign to discredit the Inquiry, in general and Michel Bastarache, in person, a clear signal that even they anticipate coming out on the wrong end of the findings.

Because of Mr. Bellemare's gaffe, Mr. Charest has clawed his way back from the brink of political oblivion. He has picked himself up from the canvas after suffering a nine count and seems to be re-invigorated. 

It's still a very long shot as to whether Mr. Charest can save himself and his government, but he has been given a small window of opportunity.

It is obvious that a political rookie like Bellemare has a lot to learn from the old pro Charest.