Boys ‘n’ girls, Johnny’s foe once upon a time is now his mentor. He has learned well about stupid politician tricks. Bill 78 is right out of the Stevie Harper rule book. 1) Rile up populist anger by purposely pretending to want to negotiate, offer something really stupid and then throw his hands up and say, “see?” 2) come out with a bill in sheer panic that is too ambiguous, stupid and yes, draconian that was clearly not thought throw thoroughly. Kinda like that “no mask” bill that some idiotic Harpercon is trying to push (yes, even Harper apologist, Kelly McParland has moments of lucidity), along with Mayor Johnny Tremblay’s–just for added redundance. I’ll Get To those Mask laws later and their flaws.
First, Let Mr. Kelly McParland explain that stupid politician trick the Harpercons use to react to populist outrage:
The federal Conservatives have developed a disturbingly reflexive tic. They awake in the morning, read something in news that annoys them, and race off to pass a quick law banning or punishing it.
They discover Clifford Olson is receiving pension plan payments, so they ban it. They’re upset that a Chinese grocer is arrested after chasing off a persistent thief, so they change the law. Intent on helping police track down crooks, they introduce a law empowering police to spy on almost anyone for anything.
You get the idea. Premier Johnny-Boy’s brainchild, Bill 78 is exactly that kind of law quick in banning or punishing something in sheer panic.
Boys ‘n’ girls, when the Bar Association has problems with this crock of a bill, you know this won’t end well. One of the problems with this bill, is that it is too ambiguous. Let’s hear from the Quebec Bar Association:
“This bill, if adopted, is a breach to the fundamental, constitutional rights of the citizens,” the bar association president, bâtonnier Louis Masson, said in a statement.
“The scale of its restraints on fundamental freedoms isn’t justified by the objectives aimed by the government.”
For instance, as Bill 78 is written now, any group of 10 people or more is construed as a bunch of rabble rousing demonstrators and if any given group of 10 or more folks, must file a plan with the cops. Let’s look at a few sections, shall we?
Section 16, which says that police has to be informed eights hours ahead of the time, duration and route of any demonstration by 10 or more people or more. (Friday morning the government appeared ready to increase that number to 25.)
Define Demonstration. As it’s written, it implies that any group of 10 or more people meeting at a public place is considered to be a demonstration, as mentioned above. Gee, does this mean that when my department at work decides to have lunch at a near by restaurant is considered rabble rousing? We’re rioters? Also, does this mean that when I call the restaurant of our choice to reserve a table for us, do I have to inform the SPVM cops too?? How about a family reunion at some park for the summer annual pic-nic? What about when many churches hold the annual ‘Way of the Cross”, marching around the neighbourhood, reenacting Jesus’ trip through the 14 stations? See where we’re going here, boys ‘n’ girls?
Have no fear, our premier has a handbook!
Section 17, which says that organizers, or even a student association taking part in the march without being its organizer, must make sure that the event complies with the parameters handed to police.
Say what? Often demonstrators on marches choose to go elsewhere? What are the others supposed to do, billy-club them to file in line and follow? What happens to people who drop out and decide they simply want to go home? If there is a group dropping out of the march, headed in the same direction, like say, a metro station, what will happen? After all, especially if there are more than 10 of ‘em headed to the metro, that can be construed as a riot gone wrong.
Here’s what the Bar had to say about that:
“The government is making it harder for people to organize spontaneous demonstrations. It is a limit on freedom of speech,” Mr. Masson said.
Demonstrations are more often than not, impromptu acts, often in reaction to something that happened. An example would be the anti-police march that took place right after we heard that the SPVM turned St-Denis Street into the OK Corral during morning rush hour, shooting and killing homeless man, Mario Hamel and commuter headed to work, Patrick Limoges. Remember how Patrick Limoges’s co-workers from the hospital he worked at all got together that day for an impromptu memorial. I guess that would be a now be a no-no, too, according to Bill 78. Also, double whammy, they were well over 10 people.
Section 13 and 14 say that no one can “directly or indirectly contribute” to delaying classes or denying access to them.
I guess this means the professor can’t call in sick and cancel classes, that is, how Bill 78 is written. And especially, no group of employees can even go on strike, now! That’s probably intentional. There is, after all, a war on unionized labour.
Section 15 says student associations must employ “appropriate means” to induce their members to not directly or indirectly disrupt classes.
What? Define “appropriate means” Offer them a pony if they behave like good little boys ‘n’ girls? Or somehow blackmail them? Beat the crap outta them? What?
Section 25 threatens fines of up to $125,000 to groups that contravene the bill.
Holy crap! Got that, boys ‘n’ girls? Make sure you inform the SPVM if you have a gathering of more than 10 people, make sure your professors and other staff are healthy or not having any labour disputes, and above all, remember you are now your brother/sister’s keeper and make sure they behave, or you’ll all get fined.
Hell, even penal law specialist, Fannie Lafontaine from Universite de Laval doesn’t quite understand this:
“The students are told to take `appropriate means’ and we don’t know what this implies, to `induce’ members to comply, so there’s an obligation to get results . . . this doesn’t work in law. You can’t have offences that are written so vaguely they’re impossible to respect,” she said.
Sound familiar? It should. These sound an awful lot like them Dumb on Crime bills the Harpercons come out with.
The good Professor, again:
“In times of crisis, all governments tend to restrain fundamental rights and history shows that excessive restrictions don’t help restore order,” Prof. Lafontaine said.
No, it won’t. In fact, Premier Johnny-Boy is probably further fuelling the fire here. But, perhaps that is his goal to further stoke populist anger, in the hopes that this will distract the masses from the pending Charbonneau Commission’s inquiry into Construction scandals and all the arrests happening under Operation Marteau. However, he’ll have to fight for that dishonour with Francois Legault, who appears to be resurrecting the ghost of Maurice Duplessis. Let the games begin!
I really can’t blame former Education minion, Line Beauchamp for stepping down. I wouldn’t want anymore of this neither.
As for that anti-mask private members bill from the Harpercon, Blake Richards, where anyone wearing a mask could get up to 10 years in one of ol’ Vic & Stevie’s megaprisons. Well, Kelly McParland does echo my questions on this one, for openers, what is the defintion of a mask according to this bill?
On top of all that is the crime itself: how do you define a mask? Is someone masked if they turn up at a protest in a toque, sunglasses and a scarf? Would demonstrators be required by law to arrive bare-faced and bare-headed at a demonstration in Ottawa in January — where it can get a bit cold in the winter — for fear of being tossed in jail for a decade if the protest gets out of hand? Does a mask that covers only the eyes qualify under the law, and, if so, how does that differ from sunglasses and a hoodie?
What about all those people who wear those paper masks issued by hospitals and clinics so as not to contract or pass on a virus, cold or flu?
Oh yes, not to be left out, our Mayor Jerry, in a total lack of originality, mimicks Harpercon Blake Richards.
Do cops have to expose their faces when they’re lurking at a demonstration? Probably not.
What will it take for all to wake up? These bills are no longer exclusively about students. What about those working class folks who strike and go on the picket line? Are you willing to lose those rights just to “put those little brats in their places”? Ok, how about other causes anyone would want to protest against? It penalizes all, not just students. Since the Toronto G20, it has become further evident that the ultimate goal is to criminalize anyone who may disagree with the government. That, boys ‘n’ girls, is not a democracy. That is a dictatorship–a Banana Republic.
Where are those Free Speech Warriors when you need ‘em?
![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
If there is a ray of light here, perhaps it comes from the Quebec Bar Association. It sounds like they’ll take the Charest government to court on this one.
What’s really sick is that the shit-heads writing this legislation belong to blatantly criminal organizations that don’t have barest respect for our laws or our law-making process or democracy in general. But they want to pen us up in draconian legislation to protect themselves from us?
harper, mackay, bill blair, … probably Johhny Charest, … they’re the ones who need to be locked-up. The Quebec surete no doubt has some violent criminal psychopaths on the pay-roll who should be in prison instead of busting students’ heads.
ck Reply:
May 19th, 2012 at 1:03 PM
Oh Thwap, with all the arrests Operation Hammer has been making lately with that whole Construction scandal, Johnny-boy’s minions will probably be naild soon enough. Perhaps even Johnny-Boy hisself.
Canada is a complete cesspool of corruption, since Harper’s so called majority. Over half of Canadians did not want Harper as P.M. Since the robo-calls, 2/3 and counting, more Canadians want Harper gone. Since the election fraud, there are probably more Canadians than ever, who despise Harper.
Harper is said to be a, Neo-Nazi Reformer of his, Northern Foundation Party, from 1989. They said, the skinheads organized that party.
Fascism suppresses opposition and criticism. Fascists control every thing possible. Fascists treat their people, very harshly. Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, all have the same typo personalities…likewise does Harper. Herr Harper even has, the ranting, raving Ministers as well. Harper and his so called Conservatives with their childish name calling, is beyond belief. Hissy fits, tantrums, hate, spite and malice, deceit, lies and cheating to win, is what Harper served us.
I have lost count of the law suits coming up against Harper. The courts ruled Etioboke Center election, null and void. Harper will of course have to appeal. There is Helena Geurgis law suit against Harper. The police cleared Helena and her husband, of any wrong doings. There is the Veterans suit. ICC’s Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, is serving Harper a summons for, war crimes and crimes against humanity. I seem to remember, some of the F.N. may do the same, as in crimes against humanity, for Harper’s gross negligence.
Harper has mismanaged our tax dollars. They are a free for all, for Harper and his ministers abuse. He started out with a $13 billion dollar surplus. Harper gives billions of our tax dollars, to the wealthiest corporations in the world. He also gives them huge tax reductions. Harper steals from us, to give to them.
“Where are those Free Speech Warriors when you need ‘em?”
Hang on, I’m sure Ezra Levant will bring his BFF Ann Coulter up and straighten up Jeannie with the curly hair!