If hypocrisy were an olympic event...

I can just picture it now, a cheering crowd full of adoring fans, the national anthem playing, and our illustrious Prime Minister, the great Stephen Harper steps up onto the podium to accept the gold medal in the hypocrisy olympics as other world leaders bashfully accept the silver and bronze. Who says Canada can't compete on an international level with the neo-cons at the helm?

Ladies and gentlemen, the coup de grace in Harper's medal winning performance has finally come. You guessed it, the man who rode to power with a mandate to clean up government and improve accountability has to answer for the fact that his MPs have been using public funds to promote their own party! That's right, Harper and his boys finally went so far that even Harper himself had to admit that they had crossed the line, by distributing public funds with large cheques emblazoned with their party's logo and the names of their MPs. Keep in mind that these are the people who think it's fine to use public funds to send mail outs bashing their political rivals (Sylvio Berlusconi eat your heart out!), and even they had to admit they had gone too far this time .

Believe it or not, I haven't even gotten to the best part yet! Not only are the Conservatives using public funds as their own private publicity fund, they're actually using these funds to take credit for the fact that they are making stimulus spending they never intended or wanted to spend! That's right folks, remember a few months ago when Harper only agreed to start spending to stimulate the economy after the opposition parties put a metaphorical gun to his head and threatened to blow his brains back to the opposition benches if he didn't do something about the economy? Well now it would appear that our glorious PM has been reborn as a socialist, because now he can't wait to tell you how much he's doing to get the money out that he never wanted to spend to fight the recession he refused to admit existed.

I love Canadian Politics.

An Open Letter to Pierre Lemieux MP for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Part II)

At the risk of making a habit out of this, I could not resist the chance to reply to my local Conservative MP, for some comments he made in the September 11th, 2009 edition of our local English language newspaper, Tribune-Expresse. Apparently Mr. Lemieux feels that our newly selected candidate, Ms Julie Bourgeois owes him an apology for refusing to prop up his government. I'm not sure if they'll publish this or not, but at least it made me feel good. Enjoy:

Dear Mr. Lemieux,

I have just finished reading your comments in the September 11th, 2009 issue of Express. As a Liberal, I found your suggestion that an election would serve only our party's interests to be rather interesting. Was it perhaps an unconscious acknowledgement of the fact that your party stands a good chance of regaining its status as her majesty's loyal opposition? I also wonder if you would care to tell your constituents whose interests your party was looking out for in 2008, when you and Prime Minister Harper were wiping your boots with your own fixed election date law?

At the very least, if the opposition parties force an election this fall, it will be through a vote in Parliament, with the support of MPs, whose combined support from the last election amounts to more than 60% of all votes cast, rather than a unilateral decision by a prime minister, whose party had significantly less than 40% of all votes cast in the 2006 election.

I am pleased to read that you spent so much time visiting homes throughout the riding this summer, and that you have now realized how much Canadians want our government to tackle the economic crisis. My only question is... what economic crisis? It seems to me that just last year, during the election campaign, Prime Minister Harper (who would never mislead Canadians) told us all that things were going well, and would not even acknowledge that we were on the verge of a recession! Could it be that the PM had it wrong?

With respect sir, I very much doubt that your government ever had any intention of helping Canadians through these rough times. Your post-election economic update to Parliament stated as much. It was not until the opposition parties threatened to form a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support and remove your party from power, that you caved to their demands, and started taking minimal action on the economy. Simply put, what little economic stimulus that has been provided since the last elections was thanks to the opposition parties.

I do not think anybody wants an election, but as your consituents told you when you visited their homes this summer, we all want a government that will take action to protect the economy. Since your minority government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the very verge of being cast back into opposition before it would lift a finger, I seriously doubt that yours is the party that should be entrusted to provide such aid. If Canadians want a government that will look out for them in tough economic times, they will have to go back to the polls and vote for one.

Sincerely

Brian Fisher

Conflicting Standards of Proof

Like a lot people from Eastern Ontario, I have been following the influence peddling trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brian pretty closely, and I cannot say that the not guilty verdict came as any surprize to me. From the evidence I had read about, I just wasn't convinced that the charges had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I really enjoyed reading Mayor O'Brien's defense lawyer's interpretation of the verdict, which he called "as strong a vindication of a defendant as you'll ever see in a criminal trial". The defense lawyer is of course absolutely correct, but only because criminal trials do not usually declare the accused to be innocent, they are either "guilty" or "not guilty". As confusing as this might seem, "not guilty" just means that the accused has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because a judge has some reasonable doubt in his mind about his guilt, does not mean he or she the person to be innocent.

In civil cases, people are determined to be liable or not based on the "preponderence of evidence", which basically translates to "more likely than not". Remember how O.J. managed to escape criminal conviction for the murder of his ex wife and a man named Ron Goldman, but then wound up losing a wrongful death lawsuit to Goldman's family? Well that's one of the reasons for that happening.

But getting back to the case of Mayor O'Brien, I am interested to see how Mayor O'Brien does in that other forum, where the burden of proof is not so strict... I'm talking about of the Supreme Court of Public Opinion. I expect that for some, a not guilty verdict will be enough, and a miscarriage of justice for others. Some I expect will be angry at O'Brien for not putting the city first and resigning so that he can focus on the trial (can't say that I agree with them, but everyone has the right to their opinion). Only time will tell which group outnumbers the other.

Another shooting? How is this possible?

Wasn't the gun registry supposed to prevent shootings? If an octogenarian can somehow manage to blast away at one of his caregivers, how are we protected from organized crime and disorganized psychopaths?

It's time we did away with the ineffective and wasteful long gun registry.

An Open Letter to Mr. Pierre Lemieux, MP for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell

The following is a letter I sent to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, and two local newspapers after I received yet another piece of Conservative propaganda from my Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Pierre Lemieux. I do not know yet if they will be published or not, but if nothing else at least it is out there on the world wide web.

Mr Lemieux,

I have recently received a copy of your “ten percenter”, in which you took it upon yourself to inform me and presumably, 10% of our riding about how long Michael Ignatieff has spent living abroad. You also declared that Mr. Ignatieff would surely return to the US if he is not elected… an interesting conclusion considering that he still stuck around after losing the Liberal leadership race in 2006.

Even though I find your party's constant use of attack ads to be a sad attempt to divert attention from your own inability to handle the economic crisis, that is your choice to make and I have no quarrel with it. Just the same, I must ask that you refrain from using my tax dollars to do so.

As a duly elected MP, you certainly have a right, if not a duty to keep me informed of what's going on in Ottawa; however, these ads are obviously partisan propaganda and have no informative value whatsoever. I want to know about what your government is doing to get E.I. checks issued to the thousands of Canadians that have lost their jobs due to the economic crisis, I want to know what you're doing to stimulate job creation, and what kind of strategy are you developing to help preserve the environment. That kind of information would be most useful.

If you want to spend your own money or your party's money to try and convince me that people such as Michael Ignatieff, Wayne Gretzky, Céline Dion and thousands of other Canadians are less Canadian than you and I because they spent time living abroad, then please be my guest.

Sincerely

Brian Fisher

Afficher son fierté – A Sign of Pride

*** Une version française suit l’anglais. ***

I don’t usually blog in both languages at the same time, but after my last posting, I wanted to straighten up a few things about where I stand on the sign law issue. Since I am also writing about the need to protect official language minorities from assimilation, it just seemed appropriate to speak to both of our country’s official language communities.

I’ve been meaning to follow up on my earlier post about the Ontario Township of Russell’s newly adopted by-law, requiring all new signs posted by businesses to be bilingual (business names need not be translated). The by-law (which is actually, an amendment to another much older by-law) reads as follows:

BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NO . 29-1977.
Whereas Council of the Corporation of the Township of Russell did enact By-law No. 29-1977 to regulate and prohibit signs and other advertising devices;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Russell now deems it advisable to amend By-law No. 29-1977; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCAL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHP OF RUSSELL ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1. That Section 4(2) of By-law No. 29-1977 is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection:

Section 2 .1 - Message or content of any new exterior commercial signs

The message or content of any new exterior commercial signs shall be bilingual. The lettering of an exterior commercial sign (dimension and style) must be identical in French and in English . However, the name of a business can be unilingual for an exterior commercial sign.

(I’d like to thank Russell’s mayor, Mr. Ken Hill, for sending me a copy of this by-law)

I’ve never made any secret about the fact that I am very much against Section 58 of Québec’s Charter of the French Language (AKA Bill 101), which requires that all public signs and postings be in French and only allows for bilingual versions where the French text is “markedly predominant”. In fairness, I must acknowledge that in Entreprises W.F.H. Ltée c. Québec (Procureure Générale du) the Québec Court of Appeal has long since ruled that Québec’s sign law does not violate the Charter, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. While I have the utmost respect for the courts, I must say that I am disappointed in their decision.

Even though my first language is most definitely English, my Canada includes our French communities. I also have no problem with most of Bill 101, as I see no reason why the provinces should not have the right to take reasonable measures to preserve their unique cultural characteristics... subject to the requirement that they respect the rights of minorities. I do draw the line at belittling another language (official or otherwise). Whether it is the legislator’s intention or not, the implied message of forcing someone to print their mother tongue in smaller font is pretty clear.

The French language could be just as easily protected by requiring signs to printed in both official languages at approximately the same size (French and English versions of the same message are rarely the same size). That is exactly what they are doing in Russell.

Moreover, when Québec’s sign laws were adopted, signs that were already bilingual, but whose messages were printed in the same size were immediately outlawed. Russell’s by-law only applies to new signs.
I was hoping to take the time to perform a more in-depth legal analysis of Russell’s bilingual sign by-law, and its chances of surviving the impending Charter challenge, but frankly, I am just getting my legal practice off the ground and I haven’t had the time. Just the same, if Québec’s sign laws are good enough for the courts, my initial impression is that the much more restrained Russell by-law should have even less trouble passing the test.

As I mentioned earlier, the Russell by-law is facing a Charter challenge, so with any luck we might just have some more interesting new caselaw on this subject. We are also due for municipal elections in Ontario next year, and I would expect that the bilingual by-law issue will be front and centre in the Township of Russell. I am personally hoping that the next Township council will decide to keep the by-law, but that is for the people to decide.

As for the other levels of government, Russell is located in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (my riding), which is currently represented provincially by Liberal MPP Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde and federally by Conservative MP Mr. Pierre Lemieux. While Mr. Lalonde has expressed support for the by-law, Mr. Lemieux has attacked it, which is just one the positions he and his party have taken that have put him at odds with our riding’s francophone community. It may not be enough to take him down, but Mr. Lemieux can certainly expect to suffer politically for the position he has taken.

The Russell sign by-law will definitely be an ongoing story worth following in the months and possibly years to come. I look forward to seeing how it all plays out.

*** Version française ***

C’est rare que j’affiche des messages bilingues, mais vue que mon dernier message aurait peut être causé de la confusion par rapport à ma position sur les lois d’affichage. Vu que j’ai également l’intention d’écrire sur le besoin de protéger des communautés de langues officielles minoritaires contre l’assimilation, je l’ai jugé bon de m’adresser aux deux communautés de langues officielles de notre pays.

J’aimerais également faire suite à mon dernier message concernant le règlement municipal sur du Canton de Russell, Ontario, exigeant que toutes nouvelles affichages commerciaux soient bilingues. Le règlement (qui est en réalité un amendement d’un autre règlement) est reproduit ci-dessous :

REGLEMENT QUI MODIFIE LE REGLEMENT NO. 29-1977.

ATTENDU que le règlement no. 29-1977 adopté par le conseil de la Corporation du canton de Russell réglemente ou interdit l'usage des enseignes et autres affiches publicitaires;

ET ATTENDU que le conseil de la Corporation du canton de Russell considère qu'il est opportun de modifier le règlement no. 29-1977 par ce qui suit: QU'IL SOIT RESOLU QUE LE CONSEIL DE LA CORPORATION DU CANTON DE RUSSELL DONNE FORCE DE LOI A CE QUI SUIT

1. Que l'article 4(2) du règlement no. 29-1977 soit modifie par adjonction du paragraphe suivant:

ARTICLE 2.1 - La désignation ou le contenu des nouvelles enseignes commerciales extérieures

La désignation ou le contenu des nouvelles enseignes commerciales extérieures devra être bilingue. Le lettrage d'une enseigne commerciale extérieure (taille et style) devra être le même en anglais et en français. Toutefois, la raison sociale pourra être unilingue pour une enseigne commerciale extérieure.

(J’aimerais remercier M Ken Hill, Maire de Russell, pour m’avoir envoyé une copie du règlement)

Je n’ai jamais pu garder la langue dans mes poches, en ce qui concerne ma haine pour l’article 58 de la Charte de la langue française (la loi 101) du Québec, ce qui a pour effet d’interdire l’affichage en Anglais sauf lorsqu’elle est accompagnée d’une version française « nettement prédominant ». Certainement, il faut reconnaître que lors de l’affaire Entreprises W.F.H. Ltée c. Québec (Procureure Générale du), la Cour d’Appel du Québec a conclu que la disposition concernant l’affichage ne s’agit pas d’une violation de la Charte. J’en ai en masse du respect pour les tribunaux, mais j’avoue d’être déçu de leur décision.

Il n’y a aucune question que ma langue primaire c’est l’Anglais, mais mon Canada inclus les communautés francophones. À la même fois, je n’ai pas de problème avec la plupart des dispositions de la loi 101 car je ne voit aucune raison pourquoi les provinces ne devraient pas avoir le droit de protéger leurs identités culturelles distinctes… sujet au devoir de respecter les droits des communautés minoritaires. Il est donc inacceptable pour moi la notion d’abaisser une autre langue (officielle ou non). Que ce soit l’intention du législateur ou non, lorsqu’on oblige quelqu’un d’écrire dans sa langue maternelle en lettres plus petits, le message est clair.

Le gouvernement du Québec pourrait très facilement protéger la langue française en obligeant aux entreprises d’afficher des messages bilingues avec les deux langues d’environ le même grandeur (les versions françaises et anglaises du même message sont rarement de la même longueur), c’est exactement ça qu’ils font à Russell.

Je note également que lorsque le Québec a adopté son loi sur l’affichage, les affiches bilingues déjà en place se sont devenues immédiatement illégales. Le règlement à Russell n’affecte que les nouveaux affichages commerciaux.

J’aurais aimé pouvoir performer une analyse juridique plus approfondie sur le règlement municipal sur l’affichage bilingue de Russell, mais franchement, mes obligations professionnels le me laissent pas beaucoup de temps libre. Quand même, mon impression initiale c’est que si l’art 58 de la loi 101 ne constitue pas une infraction de la Charte, j’en doute fortement que le règlement municipal de Russell, moins sévère ne devrait pas avoir beaucoup de misère à passer.

Comme j’avais déjà mentionné, le règlement municipal de Russell est déjà le sujet d’une action pour infraction de la Charte, ce qui a une bonne chance de générer beaucoup de jurisprudence intéressante. Nous allons également avoir des élections municipales en Ontario dans environ un an, et on peut s’attendre à ce que la question du règlement sur l’affichage soit une question majeure à Russell. J’espère le prochaine conseil gardera le règlement sur l’affichage.

En ce qui concerne les autres paliers du gouvernement, Russell est situé dans la circonscription de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (auquel j’habite). Nous sommes représentés au provincial parle député libéral M. Jean-Marc Lalonde, et au fédéral par le député conservateur M. Pierre Lemieux. Monsieur Lalonde s’est prononcé en faveur du règlement tandis que M. Lemieux s’est prononcé contre, ce n’est pas la première fois que ce dernier et son partie aient adopté une politique incompatible aux intérêts de la communauté francophone dans ce comté. Ce n’est peut être pas suffisant pour le faire perdre son siège, mais il risque fortement de souffrir politiquement pour son choix.

La question du règlement sur l’affichage à Russell sera surement une histoire intéressante à surveiller dans les mois, ou même les années à suivre. J’ai hâte d’entendre parler des nouveaux développements.

Gang de "redneck"

La décision d'annuler la recréation du bataille des Plaines d'Abraham était pour le Québécois anglophones un autre exemple de preuve qu'il existe au Québec un mouvement d'oppression qui leur vise. Heureusement, il semble qu'au moins pour l'instant, le fédéral n'est pas prêt à devenir participant actif.

Lors des célébrations de la fête du St. Jean Batiste... oops, je veut dire la Fête National du Québec (il paraît que pour la plupart des souverainistes ce ne sont que les "Québécois de souche" qui ont le droit de fêter cette occasion), le chef du bloc ait traité Michael Ignatieff et Stephen Harper de "rednecks" en raison du fait que ces derniers refusent d'appuyer un projet de loi blociste qui aura pour effet d'obliger les institutions sous la juridiction fédérale situés au Québec de se soumettre à la Charte de la langue française (la loi 101) du Québec. Le projet de loi propose de soumettre non-seulement les organismes gouvernementaux, mais également les sociétés par action privés qui ont été incorporés sous le régime fédéral.

Je note que la loi 101 n'est pas complètement mauvaise. Elle comprend plusieurs dispositions positives, dont le droit de travailler en français, le droit de communiquer avec toute institution du gouvernement provincial en français, etc. Cependant, elle contient aussi l'art 58, le célèbre disposition sur l'affichage public, et l'art 73, qui a pour but de restreindre le droit à l'accès à l'éducation primaire et secondaire en anglais.

Le terme "redneck" est souvent employé pour la description d'une personne ignorante, et généralement en manque de sophistication. Pour moi c'est don très intéressant qu'un chef séparatiste, qui a pour but de créer un état homogène traitera de reaciste deux individus qui refusent de céder à ses demandes d'adhérer à une loi aussi injuste et discriminatoire que la loi 101.

J'applaudi le premier ministre et le chef de l'opposition officiel, pour avoir eu le courage de tenir tête à Duceppe. Il paraît que ça sera impossible d'interdire à l'Assemblée Nationale de continuer ses efforts discriminatrices, mais au moins le gouvernement fédéral est prêt à tracer une ligne dans le sable en refusant d'y participer.