Fun At The Oliphant Enquiry

Everyone seems to be having a great time at the Oliphant enquiry, everyone except Brian Mulroney, who is a sweating bullets as he spins his implausible defense.

This morning Justice Oliphant regaled the audience with a most interesting adventure (argh..) of missing his flight from Winnipeg and his relief that the replacement flight was not an Airbus.
Ha! Ha! Tres drole.

One of Brian Mulroney's lawyer's then wasted time when he took to the lecturn to gleefully announce the birth of the Commission's first baby. Grinning like a Cheshire cat, he detailed the facts of the birth of a baby girl to one of the staffers. If I was Mulroney, I'd of fired him on the spot for having such a good time on my dime(actually, the Privy Council's dime.)

Fun Fun Fun.

You'd be having fun too if you'd be billing out by the hour or collecting a fat per diem as are all the principle players in this pitiful exercise in futility. Judge Oliphant gets to fly cross-country, whenever he wants, all on the government's dime. Everybody gets top dollar and everyone wants to milk this charade for as long as they can.

How much money have Commission lawyers spent cranking out the many volumes of binders filled with photocopied agenda notes and day planner pages? A lot.
While the volume of material is impressive, it's too bad they uncovered nothing new and certainly no smoking gun. Not much value for the money.

Try as he could, the holes poked in Mulroney's improbable story haven't been wide enough to shake the former Prime Minister.

"That's my story and I'm sticking to it!"

Commission lead counsel Wolson has failed to pierce Mulroney's armour because he brought nothing new to the table.
It's painfully obvious that the Commission won't have an 'Aha!" moment and Mulroney will leave with his tarnished reputation intact.

The public has already made up their mind on his guilt or innocence and the Commission provided nothing new but an expensive re-hash of events. Since it's obvious that no charges will result, it's time to pack it in.
Let the feeding trough be closed. Send out the clowns.

That we actually entertain the ridiculous defense spun by Mulroney is a testament to our naivete. Go....

Quebec Photo Radar Starts Today- Another Cash Grab

Notwithstanding Quebec Transport Minister Julie Boulet's promise that photo radar will not be used as a cash grab, don't hold your breath.
According to her announcement, photo radar will only be used as a deterrent for specific 'problem' areas with the public well-informed as to the where and when.
It seems like a reasonable enough explanation and one hard to detract, but do you honestly believe that the government is going to buy all this expensive equipment and not use it to make money? If saving lives is the rationale, then the money would be better spent by hiring more doctors and nurses.

Mindful of the uproar that the introduction of photo radar caused in Ontario a decade ago (the project had to be withdrawn), sugar-coating photo-radar's introduction is a good idea. For the first couple of months, only warnings will be issued. Once we get used to it, photo-radar will rapidly propagate and become an important revenue stream. Within a year or two they'll be placing cameras on the most lucrative spots with an eye to getting the biggest cash return.

Can I buy a franchise?

Why do I not believe that photo-radar isn't a cash grab?
Well, here in Montreal we just went through the same story in regard to radar traps. The city claimed that speeds had to be brought down because of the elevated danger to pedestrians and so a special police traffic detail was created and 130 officers added to widely expand the use of radar traps.

So how did police implement the plan? Did they go to dangerous intersections that had a history of accidents? Did they set up in front of schools, hospitals or where pedestrian traffic is particularly heavy?
Nope, they set up operations in places where they could give out the most tickets in the shortest amount of time. Pedestrian safety is not a criterion in selecting where traps are placed and in fact most of these spots are not dangerous in the least.
It's true.
I asked the cop who was writing me up, why he set up on such lonely stretch of road that wasn't dangerous at all and he wasn't shy to tell me that the goal of the police is to give out as many tickets as possible. Period. He called it deterrence.

Some of these speed traps are on deserted roads, devoid of pedestrians, such as in the Cavendish underpass in St. Laurent where police use the bridge as a sight barrier and nail people as they come up the hill.
The Autoroute 40 service road (at Place Vertu) doesn't see 10 pedestrians a day walking on it's sidewalk, yet the police set up on it on an ongoing basis strictly because of it's profitability.

The stupidest radar trap of all is on Decarie Boulevard service road near Jean Talon, which I've already written about. This one is of particular interest because the police actually represent a public danger as they run out into traffic, across three lanes to nab drivers who haven't slowed down fast enough when coming off the Decarie Expressway. All three lanes of traffic come screeching to a halt as the police officer leads the offender across the traffic to the curb. All this in the interest of traffic safety!
It's clear that Montreal Police radar traps have everything to do with revenue production and nothing to do with safety, so why will photo-radar be different?

Now let's get back to the stated rationale behind photo radar, the desire to get road speeds down. Every day we are reminded that speed kills, but it's actually not true.

The notion that going ten or twenty clicks over the speed limit is inherently dangerous is patently untrue. Please note that I differentiate between speeding and dangerous driving (where drivers go forty, fifty and more over the speed limit), which does represent a danger to everyone.

But, believe or not, speeding as the primary cause of road accidents, is towards the very bottom of the list.
In Germany the Autobahn has no speed limit, yet it records less accidents and fatalities per capita, than our provincial Autoroute system.

Statistics can be made to prove almost anything, and officials make the case, that excess speed is a large factor in car crashes. They remind us that in 30% of crashes, drivers are speeding.

It's like saying that in 50% of accidents the driver is listening to the radio and ergo radios should be removed from cars.
The fact is, that 30% of drivers are always speeding, so that it's quite likely that when accidents happen, 30% of the drivers were speeding.

Here is a list of the principle reasons for car accidents.

Unknown 18.7%
Failure to yield 18.1%
Loss of control 14.0%
Tailgating 12.6%
Driving too fast for road conditions 12.6%
Improper turn 7.9%
Disregarding signage or lights 6.0%
Improper lane change 5.6%
Improper passing 2.3%
Speeding 1.9%
Driving the in the wrong direction 0.2%
Driving too slowly 0.1%
Total 100.0%

As you can see speeding is towards the end of the list and represents less than 2% of the primary reason for car accidents. I bet you didn't know that!
People who speed are generally skilled drivers and represent less of a risk than your average grandpa driving below the limit.
In fact tired or distracted drivers represent a risk that is ten times more dangerous than speeders. Perhaps the government should force every driver to have a cup of coffee before getting behind the wheel, it'll save more lives than ticketing speeders!

Over the last thirty years, the number of people killed on the road has been cut in half. In Montreal, there was a thirty percent drop in traffic deaths between 2006 and 2007, so why the big hullabaloo.

Even if we believe the police that all this effort will save lives, the question is-how many?
In Montreal 24 pedestrians died in traffic accidents last year. Over half of them, according to police were breaking the law and themselves responsible for the accident. Every year, despite precautions there are couple of deaths related to snow clearing operations which have nothing to do with speeding.
That leaves about six or seven deaths in Montreal, to account for. How many were related to speeding?
Perhaps one, maybe two, maybe none.
Consider that number when you listen to politicians telling you that there is speeding crisis that photo-radar needs to address.

HUMBUG!!!

Veil Controversy Rocks Quebec

Last week, La Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ) voted to support the right of women to choose whether to wear religious 'signs' in the public service.
"No obligation, no ban," was how it was described.

The fact that FFQ has been accused by opponents of having been infiltrated by radical Islamists (although there is no evidence) underlines the fact that emotions are running high on this issue.

For once it's not a French/English thing, but it still remains an "Us versus Them" type of debate, something all too common in Quebec.

The resolution started a firestorm of controversy that has re-ignited the "Reasonable Accommodation" debate, pitting the radical women's rights group, which supports all manner of freedom of choice, against a the majority of Quebeckers who are mostly opposed to the idea of religious dress in the public service.
Some radicals believe that a veil of any sort is a symbol of male oppression and should not be tolerated in any form in public. There are also those who believe that the state should present a secular and neutral face to society.

Lost in the argument is the fact that the Federation never made any specific references to any sort of veils, but this seems to be the bone of contention between the two camps and is the subject of fierce media discussions.

Most of us agree that the state has, not only the right, but the obligation to limit or ban religious customs that are in opposition to society's basic principles and tenets. Customs such as animal sacrifice, polygamy or the unequal treatment of women are rightly disallowed. But whether these interdiction should extend to dress and specifically whether public employees should be allowed to wear religious regalia while serving the public on the governments behalf, is an open question.

Sadly, it seems that the debate is taking on an 'all or nothing' tenor, as extreme positions on both sides of the issue are being advocated without consideration to the 'reasonable' part in the 'Reasonable Accommodation' principle.

Since most of this polarized debate is based on the veil, let's look at the issue from a middle or 'reasonable' perspective.

Below is the headscarf (Hijab), worn by some Muslims. It is the most common of all 'veil' type of coverings. Those who wear them don't seem much different from anyone else in mainstream society. From cashiers to students, to lawyers and dentists, the majority of these women are modern and seem to be fully engaged in society. While some say it is a symbol of enslavement, I can't really see it.


It's not any different from what some Sikh's, Jews or Christians wear and I don't see anything more offensive than what is pictured below. It seems that these symbols are personal and I've never been proselytized by any of these people. In fact I tend to trust these people a bit more than the average person, but that's just me.


But that's not the case here the 'niqab, or burhka, veils that cover part the face.


Women who wear these veils are sending a very direct message to those around them, a message that is decidedly negative.
I've heard many explanations for why the veil is worn and I can't say that any of those reasons are justifiable in an open society as ours.
Some describe it as a benign modesty shield, but it is really a device, imposed by men to hide women's faces from other men and to publicly brand the women as a possession.
Masks in our society have always denoted a negative image. Much of how we interact with people is based on expression and body language and theses types of veils infringe on the public's right to interact in a normal and acceptable fashion.

Cowboys robbing stagecoaches, Bank robbers, Terrorists. From childhood our image of the mask is something evil and rightfully so, it is an attempt at deception.
Some western countries such as Holland, France Germany and Turkey have already placed limits on veils in public and we should consider limiting face-covering devices, regardless of religion.

As for a scarf, turban, hat or a skullcap, we should accept them for the inoffensive symbols that they are and allow people to wear them even when working in the public sector.

Comedy Festival Chief Irks Nationalists

Gilbert Rozon, president of the world's most important comedy festival, Montreal's 'Just For Laughs' (Juste Pour Rire) is not one to follow the crowd.
Starting with nothing, he has created a comedy brand that is showcased in 150 countries and which runs parallel comedy festivals in Toronto, Chicago and France.

Not one to keep his tongue in his pocket, he shocked nationalists, speaking before 'l'Association des économistes du Québec', when he said that's it's time to play up Montreal's multilingual nature.

"The multilingual character of Montreal should be promoted.... Let's not hide the fact that half the population is bilingual....It's 2009, time to stop talking about what happened in 1760."

Ce caractère multilingue de Montréal, il faut le mettre en valeur. ....Faut pas cacher derrière le rideau le fait que la moitié de la population est bilingue..... on est en 2009. Faut arrêter de parler de ce qui s'est passé en 1760! »

Them's fighting and treasonous words to nationalists.
While many Quebeckers enjoy being bilingual and love the concept of speaking another language, there's few francophones willing to say it out loud.

Perhaps the lofty position and success he has earned has afforded Mr. Rozon the luxury to say exactly what he feels without regard to the critics.

Always in search of an issue, nationalists have already taken the bait and are hammering out long treatises in response. Now that the controversy over President Sarkozy humiliating put-down of Quebec nationalists has played itself out, the words of Mr. Rozon arrive at a precipitous time for the polemics of the pro-French/sovereignty movement.

Gilles Grondin, a Montreal city councillor wrote in Point de vue, Le Soleil, 12 mai 2009 that notwithstanding Montreal being bilingual and multicultural, it is part of the greater Quebec society and should therefore present a French only face to the world.

Lucky that Mr. Rozon has a thick skin, he'll need it. Nationalists don't take kindly to "vendus" (sellouts).
He is officially on the shit list.

Habs Fans Responsible For Crappy Team

When Guy Carbonneau was first let go by the Canadiens, the overwhelming sentiment in the city was that it was a move that had to be made, even if it was unfortunate.

Two months later and after a disastrously short playoff run, fans and reporters are having second thoughts and now have shifted the focus of their rage to Bob Gainey with shouts of "Off with his head!' reverberating throughout the city.

But why Carbo was fired has more to do with the fans than anything that happened on the ice or in the dressing room.

Ridiculous fan expectations and the rabid media frenzy have made it nearly impossible to field a competitive team. The second-guessing is so exaggerated that the selection of the coach's necktie is up for review.

It's not unfair to say that fans and reporters actually believe that they could run the team better than management and take every opportunity to deconstruct, second guess, and denigrate every decision taken.
Fans who can't balance their own chequebook are convinced that they could better manage the salary cap than Bob Gainey.

The Habs players themselves, are subject to unprecedented scrutiny that includes outrageous invasions of privacy that make Hollywood paparazzi look like wedding photographers.
Players who are in a slump or otherwise under-perform are pilloried in the press and on radio talk shows which discuss the team 24 hours a day.

It's hard not to notice that players traded by the Canadiens always seem to do better wearing another uniform.

The booing of the team's players in the Bell Centre has become altogether too common.
Do fans actually believe their cruel treatment of Carey Price will somehow make him a better player or more motivated?
While fans say that they love their team, as much as they love their own family, would they ever consider booing their hockey-playing daughter or son because of a poor on-ice performance?
When Price ultimately becomes a free agent, do fans think that the memory of the humiliating treatment he was subjected to will add to the allure of re-signing with the Habs?

The situation is so bad, that for players, (including francophones) Montreal has become the Chernobyl of the NHL.
Could you imagine Guy Lafleur telling Sam Pollack that he'd rather play in Nashville!

The added kicker of the French language problem has also contributed to a toxic situation. Don't underestimate it.
It's rumoured that 75% of player agents discourage their charges from considering playing in our city. Cruelly, because of the Canadien's deep pockets, agents have entered into bad faith negotiations with Montreal management in order to jack up offers from other teams, à la Marion Hossa.

How long will it be before fans realize that the only big fish we're likely to land in Montreal is at Waldman's, off of St. Laurent Boulevard.

It's ironic that with all the media attention, nobody in the Quebec press is willing to tell the truth about the popularity of Montreal as a player destination.
The only exception is TSN commentator, Pierre McGuire, who is the only reporter with the guts to go public and say what everyone in the league won't.

Today the Montreal media is vociferously demanding the choice of a francophone coach to replace Bob Gainey and the team has already caved. The problem is, that most of the successful francophone NHL coaches have already worked for the Canadiens, all fired after the briefest of stints and all victims of fan and media abuse. The field of eligible francophone coaches is decidedly thin and being forced to choose from such a limited pool cannot be considered a bonus.

Guy Carboneau was not wrong when he openly questioned the wisdom of firing the Habs coaches every two years. When asked if he'd consider a return to Montreal as coach, Jacques Lemaire almost fell over himself laughing.

This year, the team captain, Saku Koivu has been the subject of a vicious smear campaign because of his inability to speak French, with calls for mandatory French lessons for players made by language zealots.
Do you think that Saku will be recommending the team to other Finns, or advising them to seek alternate green pastures? This abuse, for a player who was instrumental in creating an eponymous cancer clinic in the Montreal General Hospital, does not go unnoticed.

The latest fan and media campaign says that more francophone players are needed to shore up the team because, as the argument goes, only 'they' possess the heart to play in a French city. Argh!

Statistics are trotted out to show that past Canadiens teams who won the Stanley had large contingents of Francophones, but lost in the argument is the fact that Francophone players are few and far between in the NHL, with their numbers reduced to under 8% from over 20%, twenty-five years ago.

Things look decidedly grim for Les Glorieux, who are unfortunately destined to be glorious no more...