Anglo Students Subject to Legal Terrorism

The latest sad saga of the legal assault on the Quebec's anglo community is the news that the Education department has appealed a lower court decision that allowed a group of students to attend English high school. LINK
While we mere mortals wait months or years to have our appeals heard, not so when questions of vital national importance, like the language of instruction for nine anglo children is in play. And so faster than you can say 'Jack Rabbit' the appeals court overturned the judgment and pinballed the children back to French schools.

The vim and vigour that the department displayed going after these children is in sharp contrast to the lethargic pace of change that it displays when introducing academic improvements in the school system that it oversees, so very badly.
Last week the education department finally admitted that it was prepared to reverse the disastrous decision it took a decade ago, to change student report cards from the traditional model that gave children easily understood marks based on what they had learned, to a touchy-feely system based on something they called 'competencies.'  This led to a decade of furious protests by parents who couldn't understand what the hell was going on with their children's academic progress. Although it was apparent from the beginning that the change was a no-go, stubborn administrators burned a generation of students before finally admitting its folly. Even when the decision was made, the department announced a one year delay to give everyone time to adjust. Imagine! One year to change a report card? Massive retraining of students, teachers and parents to understand the complexities of a grading system that my immigrant parents, straight off the boat, understood within minutes!  LINK

Elementary School Grades

E(excellent)-VG(very good)-G(good)-F(fair) -U(unsatisfactory) Red =FAIL 

High school Grades- 

30%- 40%- 54%- 55%- 60%- 80%    Green =PASS

Complicated eh?  Do you think that you need a year to figure it out?

It seems, that this 'one year delay' is a popular device in Quebec, used to soften the impact of and take the heat off those who screwed up, either legally or administratively.

Back to the students who were denied entry into English High school after completing grade school in English...
The students attended a school that has both an elementary school and a high school division, with the grade school being completely private, but the high school receiving government subsidies. This makes a certificate of eligibility necessary for those who want to move up to the high school and it is this certificate that the government is refusing to issue to the nine students, based on the defunct Bill 104, the law rejected by the Supreme Court, but given a stay of execution for a year.

The students attended a private English school for all their entire academic career, obeying the precepts of the rules in place. Now that the law has been declared illegal, the education department still demands that students remain subject to its provisions until it can come up with another law, one which will invariably be just as illegal.

If you are confused don't feel bad, the system is designed to wear parents out in an effort to have them capitulate and send their kids to French school regardless of the circumstances.

Among the true democracies of the western world, those where Supreme court decisions represent the final word, Canada stands alone in making a mockery of the democratic concept of government being subject to the legal limits and the rule of law.

The absurdity of it all, is that the anglos won their case in the Supreme court, but are denied the fruits of that victory.
Only in Canada, or tin pot, banana republics, can you win your case in the Supreme court and still lose.

The ability of our provinces to set aside an inconvenient Supreme Court ruling by using the infamous 'Notwithstanding Clause' has the primary effect of bringing ridicule and disrespect to our legal system. Secondly, and perhaps more dangerously, it cowers the Supreme Court into making compromise decisions in the hope that it will not be humiliated by the imposition of the Notwithstanding Clause.

In the case of Bill 104, the court knew that its decision would be unpopular in Quebec, so it gave the province a year's grace to enact a new law to replace the illegal one, giving rise to  the absurd situation  where a law after having been declared illegal, still has force. A true 'Judgment of Solomon.'
 
So for Anglos, winning or losing in the Supreme court, amounts to the same thing, regardless of the verdict, we always lose.
The unfairness of it all has the chilling effect of convincing anglos that there is no point in pursuing an expensive and debilitating legal fight in the face of a linguistic injustice, when the best that can be hoped for is a Pyrrhic victory.

Of course this suits Quebec nationalists perfectly well, whose goal is to eliminate any court's ability to overrule the Quebec National Assembly, thus making it beyond reproach and above the rule of law.

To this end, they mock and denigrate the Supreme Court of Canada as a foreign institution, bent on depriving Quebec of its legitimate right to enact any law that it sees fit, legal, illegal moral or immoral.

And so our students are tossed around like footballs, subject to one illegal law after another, with zero consideration to their academic well-being.

Children who speak English as well as any student in Toronto or Vancouver are being forced into inferior French schools where their educational path is sure to suffer, all in the name of satisfying French language militants who care little about the students themselves and consider them nothing more than cannon fodder in the crusade to force French upon everyone.

Reeking vengeance upon English twelve year olds is somehow seen as redress by language militants for the loss at the Plains of Abraham. Fist pumping and congratulatory back slapping is the order of the day, for this great triumph of French over English. Disgusting.....

The policy of creating one illegal law to replace another illegal law was first enunciated by Quebec separatist journalist Josée Legault, who described waging a guerrilla warfare campaign against the legal system, "...mener une «guérilla» juridique." LINK
Each time an illegal language law is struck down, it would immediately be replaced by another illegal law and each subsequent legal challenge would take years to wend its way through the courts. In the meantime the laws would remain on the books and in force, until the next round! 

Sound familiar?  Welcome to our nightmare!

What More to Expect at Bastarache Inquiry

Having heard the revelations of Marc Bellemare at the Bastarache Inquiry, the press reacted gleefully, revelling in the accusations that he made against the Liberal party and Premier Charest specifically, with dire predictions of a mortally wounded Premier. A quickie poll conducted by the Journal de Montreal indicated that 69% of Quebeckers believed his testimony.
This of course is to be expected, when one hears only one side of the story.

At first glance, there's no doubt that Bellemare's evidence, given so matter of factly, seems damning and credible. Calm, collected and assured, he detailed a litany of transgressions that fit neatly with the narrative that has been woven in the media of a corrupt and cynical government. His apparently flawless memory, including the most mundane of details, adds to the aura of honesty.

His evidence might very well be true and if the inquiry were to end today, there'd be no doubt that Charest's goose would be cooked.
But what is clear today, made be made muddy tomorrow, remember the O.J Simpson trial that started with an 'open and shut' case and ended with an acquittal?

It remains to be seen how good inquiry lawyers are in breaking down the credibility of Mr. Bellemare.
Since Bellemare admits that he has no evidence other than his recollections, the defence has a lot to work with.
Their job is two-fold. First they must try to discredit him, by getting other witnesses to tell a different story and by exposing factual errors in what he did say.
If for example he said he took a meeting with a certain witness on a certain date and the defence proves that witness was in Timbuktu at the time, his evidence will be tainted.

Secondly they must attack Bellemare's motives. Without offering some sort of alternate theory as to why Bellemare is "making up his story" there is no reason to disbelieve him.  There, lawyers also have a lot to work with.

A couple of years ago a classic example of how to destroy credible evidence was delivered by defence attorneys in a case where four Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of beating the crap out of an unarmed black male, Rodney King, all caught on tape. The video was pretty convincing, watch it here, it's only a minute long, and it's quite devastating.

 

It's hard to believe that after watching that, the officers beat the rap, I mean nothing looks more damming. How could a jury ever believe the officers acted in self- defence?

The opening of the trial went off much like last week's Bastarache Inquiry with evidence entered that appears credible and devastating.

It was then that defence attorneys went about destroying every foundation that the case stood upon.

Witness after witness was subjected to the most methodical and clinical cross examination that exposed any and all weaknesses in their testimony. The tape of the beating was shown over and over again until its shock value was reduced to zero and in the end the jury acquitted the officers, giving rise to the famous Los Angeles riots that broke out in reaction.

Read an interesting account of the whole affair and how lawyers won their trial for the officers involved. LINK 

Every word of Bellemare's testimony is being scrutinized to the nth degree. Lawyers will pick at any weakness or scab to discredit his story. Already a serious discrepancy has been uncovered by the press.

Apparently he got his time line mixed up and made a statement that couldn't be possibly be true because a related event that he referred to, hadn't happened yet. LINK 
Look for some fancy footwork by Bellemare in explaining his mistake to commission lawyers. 

As for myself, listening to Bellemare's testimony, I picked out one thing that just didn't ring true. Bellemare told the commission that during their last meeting Charest told him that;

"You know that you have a ministerial oath. Fava, Rondeau, the judges, the money, it doesn’t exist. You don’t have the right to talk about that.”

To me that line is just not credible. It's too neat and convenient. Charest has always been more circumspect. He'd never make that type of a self-incriminating statement to someone he viewed as an adversary. He would have reminded Bellemare about his oath and left it at that.

In rebuttal of Bellemare allegations, witness after witness will tell a different story, denying Bellemare's accusations, but more importantly, offering an alternate theory for his decision to go public with his accusations, six years after the fact. If they can, they will besmirch his reputation, but the alternate theory is the key to winning or losing.
Whenever a defendant is on trial for murder, it isn't enough for defence lawyers to cast doubt on whether their client is innocent or guilty, they need to provide an alternate theory that people can hang their hat onto.

Now Charest witnesses have a huge advantage in having already heard what Bellemare has to say and the fact that he has no evidence other than his memory, is going to prove problematic for him. Without emails, tapes or transcripts that back up his account, witnesses can conger up an alternative view of reality with relative impunity.

If you believe that people tell the truth in court you are sadly naive. I'm not saying that they will lie..... I'm just saying they can.

Every Charest witness is in full trial preparation and now that they've heard what Bellemare has had to say, they are fine tuning their narrative.

In mock witness boxes in their lawyer's offices they are 'testifying' in front of a team of friendly lawyers, getting their story down pat and practising reacting to opposition lawyers questions.

They are being coached, not only on their testimony, but body language and demeanour as well. They are being attacked, prodded and confronted to see how they will stand up in court. Others in the room will offer critiques and the testimony and answers to questions will be further 'modified' to better play in court.

I have no specific knowledge that this happening, but I've been there and I've gone through the drill, so I know what I'm talking about.

Charest and friends are not the clumsy oafs we saw at the Gomery Inquiry, they are used to the limelight and speaking under pressure. They think fast and react quickly and with the right coaching it will be hard to crack them. Guys like Franco Fava, the Liberal party fundraiser who Bellemare implicates are no pushovers, expect him to deliver an effective dose of pain when he testifies and don't expect him to be on the defensive for a minute.

One only has to think back to the superb performance conducted by Brian Mulroney at the Oliphant Inquiry to understand the effects of good coaching and superb acting skills.

By the way don't think for a moment that Bellemare hasn't gone through the same process.

Will the truth win out, whatever it is?

I doubt it.
In a case of 'He said- He said,' it isn't about who is telling the truth, its about who can better convince the public, a jury or a judge. Sometimes the better witness wins despite a weaker case.
It might be Bellemare or it might be Charest, it remains to be seen.

So far, from what I've seen, my theory that these type of enquiries are no longer useful at getting at the truth seems to bear out. Everybody is just too sophisticated.

The whole legal process has been forever tainted by the OJ Simpson trial where we learned what lawyers, jury selectors, consultants and assorted experts with unlimited resources can do with the truth.

Up to now Bellemare has enjoyed a free ride, but that is over.  He now faces a ferocious counter-attack. It won't be pretty, with all sorts of allegations to be levelled in his direction. I daresay public opinion will change over the next week or so and the speedy Bellemare  express will slow considerably. Whether that train can be stopped or reversed remains to be seen.
Stay tuned.

Read two other posts that I wrote on the subject;

The Curious Case of Marc Bellemare

Can Bastarache Inquiry Save Jean Charest?

How to Make the Monteal Canadiens More French (Humor)

Having written about George Le Gal's plan to make the Montreal Canadiens organization more French and having read some of the comments under my post- "Heaven help the Montreal Canadiens," I'm inspired to contribute these ideas to help the team become more like their fan base.

Thanks to commenter 'Doctor Dave' for offering a new name for the arena. No need for a public contest, his suggestion is perfect!
The 'Bell Centre' can be changed with little effort to "Centre Belle Province"

It would be a perfect fit. The Quebecois restaurant chain could pay for exclusive food rights and traditional "Quebecois' food items can help maintain Quebec culture. No more 'foreign' foods like 'pizza' or 'smoked meat.'

The five essential Quebec food groups would be maintained, including Hot Dogs, Fries, Poutine Sauce and Curd Cheese in addition to Pepsi, to wash it all down!

In addition;

• All referees, as well as minor officials will have to be Quebecois. Penalties assessed to francophone players to be 20% shorter to correct historical discrimination.

• All retired sweaters representing Anglophone players are to be un-retired and their pennants removed from the rafters. Rookies shall be assigned these freed up numbers on a first come first served basis. 

• English nicknames for Francophone players will no longer be tolerated, so no more "Rocket Richard," "Pocket Rocket Richard" "Newsy Lalonde" or "The Roadrunner" Some will be very easy to convert like "Boom Boom Geoffrion "which easily translates to "Boum Boum"

• Players who come from Europe will be required to francisize their name following the example of Alexi Kovalov who became 'Alex.' Markov could easily change his name to André (à la 'Dawson')

• Spanish Ole!-Ole!-Ole!-Ole! chant to be replaced by Pou-Tine! Pou-Tine! Pou-Tine! Pou-Tine! 

• Same for end of game singing of  "Sha Na Na, Sha Na Na, HEY! HEY! Good Night!" to be changed to "Bon Nuit!"

• Within two years all Puck Bunnies are to be 50% +1 Francophone.

• Same for TimBits players.

• In order to familiarize hockey wives to their role in Quebec society, Stripper Poles are to be installed at no charge in the basements of their homes. Wives can view special videos that can teach them how to talk like a Quebecoise. Like this.  The team could also prepare a neat little phrasebook for wives having to deal with those pesky Puck Bunnies. Entitled "Tabarnak duh plot Sal" it can prove invaluable when words don't come easily.

•  Fans would be encouraged to purchase the new 'official' snack of the Belle Province Centre, a Pepsi and a Mae West Ouest. An introductory low price of $14.95 14,95$ to be offered for a limited time only.

• The Quebec government would create its own video replay centre in Montreal, so as not to be dependent on those biased Toronto replay decisions. 

• Key on-ice positions, like goalie, to be reserved for francophones and player ice time to be strictly regulated by language

• No way around it, the familiar red uniforms will have to be changed to blue. Perhaps a trade can be engineered with the Toronto Maple Leafs to switch colours.

• Two of the three 'STARS" of the game to be reserved for francophones.

 and if all else fails.............

Any suggestions?

BTW- Check out How the Habs can improve their on-ice product!

Quebec Muslims Back the Wrong Horse

The last couple of weeks saw a flurry of stories in the Quebec and national media about the 20th anniversary of Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc Quebecois' arrival in Parliament. The stories were pretty predictable with sovereignists for and federalists against.

One thing that went unnoticed and unreported in the anglophone press, was the Quebec Muslim's community's letters of support of Gilles Duceppe printed in both the Le Devoir and LA Presse.

Gilles Duceppe, Spirit of Openness -Le Devoir (French)  

We, Quebeckers of Arab origin and Muslim confession, on this day of Ramadan, congratulate with great pleasure and honour the leader of the Bloc Quebecois....  

A man of integrity and national aspiration, Duceppe vigorously defends the interests of Quebec in the Canadian Parliament and calls for authorities to safeguard the cultural and francophone character of Quebec society..... 

We support the political interventions of Mr. Duceppe in support of a Quebec's culture, its language and its model of coexistence.....

For us, Gilles Duceppe is an example of a politician committed to defending the principles of equality, social justice and the fight against intolerance, discrimination and social exclusion.

Dr Mohamad Sawan, O.Q., président du comité exécutif, Centre islamique libanais.
Dr Bachar El Solh, président, Fédération des Canadiens musulma ns, qui regroupe les associations suivantes: Association musulmane de Montréal-Nord (AMMN); Centre culturel islamique Ach-Choura (CCI Ach-Choura); Centre islamique BADR; Centre islamique Sainte-Rose (Centre Kawtar Laval); Mosquée Montréal (MM); Regroupement des Algériens du Canada (RAC); Regroupement des Marocains au Canada (RMC). Bassam Hussein, vice-président, Association El-Hidaya.
Samer Majzoub, président, Forum canadien musulman (FMC-CMF), qui représente les organismes suivants: Association communautaire AlHijrah (ACA); Association musulmane du Canada (MAC-Québec); Centre culturel musulman de Brossard (CCMB); Centre culturel musulman de Montréal (CCMM); Comité de la femme musulmane canadienne (CFMC-CMWC); Congrès islamique canadien (CIC- Québec); Mosquée Al-Rawdah; Regard Alternative Media (APM-RAM); Scout musulman canadien.
Ehab Lotayef, vice-président, Parole arabe.
Mohamed Sherif Kamel, Comité de coordination de CJPP, collectif Échec à la guerre.
Mohamed Habib Marzouqi, président, Centre culturel Abou-Baker.
Mohamed Zrig, secrétaire général, Association des droits de la personne au Maghreb.

Gilles Duceppe, 20 year of fighting intolerence -La Presse (French)  

On this day of Ramadan, we congratulate, with great pleasure and honour the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Gilles Duceppe, on the 20th anniversary of his election as MP in the House of Commons. 

A man of integrity and national aspiration, Duceppe vigorously defends the interests of Quebec in the Canadian Parliament and calls for authorities to safeguard the cultural and francophone character of Quebec society..... 


We support the political interventions of Mr. Duceppe in support of a Quebec's culture, its language and its model of coexistence.....


For us, Gilles Duceppe is an example of a politician committed to defending the principles of equality, social justice and the fight against intolerance, discrimination and social exclusion.

* Les signataires de la lettre:Mohamad Sawan, président du comité exécutif, Centre islamique libanais; Bachar El Solh, président, Fédération des Canadiens musulmans; Bassam Hussein, vice-président, Association El-Hidaya; Samer Majzoub, président, Forum canadien musulman (FMC-CMF) et Ehab Lotayef, vice-Président, Parole arabe.

While most of the signatories represent Muslim Arabs of French extraction, some are associated with Canadian National organizations which poses the question as to whether these letters of support represent national policy.
I think not. One of the national organizations mentioned as a signatory doesn't even have a French web site! Link 
It seems that the Quebec wing is running amok. (like the NDP Quebec wing, many moons ago)

At any rate, Canadian Muslims have always been generally bad at public relations, their representative organizations and lobby groups doing little to promote the image of modern Muslims integrated into Canadian society. The general perception of Canadians from coast to coast is that Muslims are outsiders, unwilling to integrate in Canadian society, whether it is true or not.
It's surprising that Muslims with all their image problems haven't created an anti-defamation league as the Jews and the Italians did in relation to their own particular image problems. Heavens knows the Muslims can use such an advocacy group!

It seems that Muslims in the USA are no smarter and suffer the same poor image and do  public relations as poorly as their cousins in Canada. The latest bugaboo is the building of a large mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. Nobody denies their constitutional right to do so, but you'd think they'd have better sense. It seems like a provocation that the community could do without. Sometimes, self-inflicted wounds are the worst.

The rationale behind the support for Gilles Duceppe by these Muslim organizations is his position in favour of 'open secularism' in Quebec, which basically allows for the burqa and such. This policy is directly at odds with the Parti Quebecois' position and Richard Martineau in Journal de Montreal blasts Duceppe for taking a public position at odds with that of the PQ, something the two parties agreed not to do.

But backing Duceppe is a no/win gambit for Muslims.
Unless Mr. Duceppe becomes head of the PQ (which is a possibility) he may talk a good a game, but ultimately can deliver nothing.

Backing the wrong horse will not endear Muslims to Canadian federalists, the only group that can truly offer them serious and meaningful support.

If they think sovereignists are in their corner, they are sorely mistaken. No political constituency is less sympathetic to their cause. A few kind words from Duceppe won't change the fact that Quebec nationalists want to do away with religion in public.
Gilles Duceppe is in the position to promises all things to all people, he will never be in power. Supporting Duceppe is like supporting the Tooth Fairy, an illusion. Better to remember that it's your parents who put money under your pillow.

Muslims should pray to Allah that the federalists stay in power.

Flirting with Gilles Duceppe is a recipe for disaster.

Bloq Quebcois - Bizzarely Successful?

Last Friday I was watching the sports news on TSN and saw the Philadelphia Phillies third baseman drop a rather routine mini pop fly in the infield. Embarrassed, he scooped up the ball and fired it to first base, where the batter was put out because he wasn't hustling up the line. To make matters worse, there was a runner going from first to second who was tagged out as well, in the confusion.
Sometimes, more often than we believe, screwups lead to good fortune. We've all experienced it, an unplanned serendipitous turn of events that works out quite neatly.

For twenty years now the Bloc Quebecois has represented the bulk of Quebec Parliamentary seats with the self-proclaimed goal of "defending Quebec's Interests in Ottawa"

On that level, they have been described by federalist commentators, in article after article, as being wildly unsuccessful and it's hard to argue against this conclusion.

The Bloc has had negligible impact on legislation and as of yet hasn't had the guts or the inclination to bring down the government. As for getting Quebec 'goodies' or retarding legislation that goes against Quebec's better interests, they can best be described as an 'O-FOR', to borrow another baseball term (0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc.)

It is on that level that federalists have viewed the Bloc as a failure, a political party that has done nothing for Quebec, while robbing that province of meaningful representation in Ottawa.

But perhaps that failure has actually served the Bloc's best interest, advancing the cause of sovereignty and like George Costanza on Seinfeld, sometimes it's better to do the opposite. Explanation

While the Bloc solemnly avers to attempt to do good for Quebec, their best fortune lies in doing badly for Quebec.

If the Bloc was able to bring Quebec greater power and influence, if it were able to garner a bigger slice of the federal pie and if it was able to remediate language and cultural concerns, the basic raison d'etre for its existence, Quebec sovereignty, would be seriously jeopardized.

For twenty years, the Bloc has been pissing in the soup of national politics, screwing up our Parliament, much to the consternation of the rest of Canada. Canadians, who twenty years ago, were tolerant of the idea of a united Canada with a strong Quebec and francophone element have had their patience sorely tested by Bloc shenanigans.
Many Canadians have given up on Quebec, based on the incessant whining of the resident 'enfant terrible' of the Canadian political scene.
Let's face it, to Canadians outside Quebec, the Bloc is detestable!

Yet poisoning the relationship between Canada and Quebec is just about the only thing that the Bloc could accomplish in Ottawa, that would further the cause of sovereignty. To this  end they have been wildly successful, whether or not they set out to do so expressly. (Which I highly doubt.)

And so doing the opposite, hindering, instead of defending Quebec's interest in Ottawa has actually worked out for them.

As long as Quebec feels prosperous and secure and appreciated in a united Canada, sovereignty will not happen. Making Quebec even more secure and more prosperous in a united Canada is the exact opposite of what the Bloc needs to do politically in order to accomplish their goal of independence.

And there's no denying that the Bloc Quebecois have been doing particularly badly for Quebec these last twenty years, so its hard to deny that their tenure in Ottawa has not been successful in a perverse sort of way.

Just ask George Costanza.

The Bloc may have accomplished what it needed to do, that is, to prepare Canadians to accept an independent Quebec, but  unfortunately for the Bloc, the province itself has turned away from the independence option because of changing circumstances.

Since the last referendum, Quebec has added a half million new immigrants, the bulk of whom will vote against the prospect of a new country, making it much, much harder to achieve a YES result.

Economic conditions also play a role, with most Quebeckers well aware that their economic well-being is now tied to Canada's purse strings. The illusion of a soft referendum question, one that muddles the question of what real sovereignty means, is no longer realistic, with Quebeckers now well aware what a YES victory entails.

So the Bloc has done well, it has accomplished what it wanted to do.  But if sovereignty isn't even on the table in Quebec, what is the final impact on their presence in Ottawa?

It's one thing to throw salt on a meal prepared by your 'enemy' in anticipation of another meal back home, but what if it's not there? What are you going to eat?

And so, the more 'successful' the Bloc is- the worse for Quebec!