“Québec will (almost) reach its target for reducing its carbon emissions for the year 2020. This will happen even if it seemed absolutely impossible on January 1st, 2020. Some see this as a beneficial effect of the current health crisis. I especially see it as a warning.
The most radicals, who demanded swift and binding measures to speed up the hitting of targets, must realize the enormity of the sacrifices they were talking about without knowing it. To meet our targets in a short period of time, we had to stop living. This is the “miracle” of the past two months.
No more traffic because half the people are no longer working. We no longer go out, neither to movie theatres, nor to restaurants, nor to visit friends. People no longer take the highway to visit their parents, as it is prohibited.
Travel has stalled. The vast majority of aircraft remain grounded. Thousands of travel plans are cancelled. The tourism industry is dying.
A flat economy
The majority of businesses and shops have either been closed or slowed down. We are in the worst recession in a century. It means factories that will remain closed. Unemployed people in the tens of thousands will mean fewer car trips each morning.
Unemployment, impoverishment, lackluster living, depression, this is the sample of what it took to live the great success in terms of climate change. We will always be told that this was not the goal and that things would have been done differently if ruling ecologists had imposed these measures rather than a pandemic.
The events of the past few weeks, however, give us an idea of the magnitude. To get the current reduction, carnage had to be done in just about every aspect of life.
Really aware?
As the topic of climate change is very fashionable, many voters said they made it their top priority in last October’s election. I remember hearing constituents say they wanted “governments” to do more for the environment.
Were they really aware of the order of magnitude of the sacrifices that those who advocated rushing headlong into achieving the goals spoke about without delay? Were they ready for such renunciations? I am not sure, really not sure.
I always believed that action on climate change should be gradual, taking into account the economy. I always believed that people would not want to stop living. Science and technology will have to be given time to develop options for fossil fuels. In the case of automobile, electric cars are slowly but surely making their way.
I would like to point out that the hardcore fighters against climate change will now have to be careful before quoting “the Science” from the top of a pedestal. The coronavirus reminded us that science evolves, observes, revises its theses when faced with a new and complex phenomenon”.
Below, you can find 4 images of the open letter sent from the President of the USA to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus The Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO).
What Mr. Trump is pointing to is how the WHO seems to have been captured by China (as a major interest group). He has a point and the behaviour of China, with the cover of the WHO at the beginning of the pandemic, is simply an unacceptable behaviour. Mind you, this latter behaviour would have been also questionable, even if had been engaged in by Canada, Lebanon, or any other country of the world. So, imagine if it is once again by China (i.e., like in 2003 with the SARS crisis, as Mr. Trump referred to on page 3 of his letter).
Now, look at the reaction of our federal Minister of International Development, Ms. Karina Gould. She said “it is not the World Health Organization’s place to question China, arguing that the organization tasked with global public health is a product of its member states, who in turn should be pushing for transparency“:
Of course, she makes sense, if we are looking at the consistency with Canada’s attitude toward China, that’s for sure. Same as Mr. Trudeau, Ms. Hajdu, Dr. Tam, etc. The attitude remains the same: No backbone. Too much economic (+ ideological?) dependence on one single country can kill creativity, prosperity, and even sovereignty… at least intellectually, to begin with.
But it may be economically as well (e.g., mining sector), and not just in the health sector:
China seems to be using the same strategy with us as with those African countries, from which some of the WHO elite come from (e.g., Dr. Ghebreyesus).
Perhaps Canada is afraid of receiving the same treatment as Australia, namely an economic punishment by China for having also denounced its behaviour (with France, Germany, the European Union, and many smaller countries)?
Perhaps Canada (or rather Mr. Trudeau personally) is aspiring for a high (or the highest?) position within the UN (or its WHO office, who knows? Or that may be also Dr. Tam’s own ambitions)?
Perhaps it is just a political-economic choice of alignment because of interests to Canada that we are missing, as citizens?
Perhaps Mr. Trudeau can see things more clearly than all of is, as our PM? Maybe he has a vision for Canada after all, hoping it is not just about it moving backward.
Bambi’s and her spouse’s friend Len died :(. To honour him, she would like to share the following: (1) Two beautiful pictures taken by him in 2011 in Sackville and (2) a message they posted for him and his family (Mark/Odette) on his obituary site that, for some technical reason, does not seem to be working. In case the website is broken, here is their message again:
A wonderful picture taken by Mr. Leonard Standring in 2011 in Sackville, NB
Another great picture taken by Mr. Leonard Standring in 2011 in Sackville, NB
Dearest Len, what an honour to have met you… Thank you
for whom you are and for the wonderful moments of friendship.
What a GREAT man with a sharp sense of humour, much intelligence,
talent, a big heart, and such a beautiful smile… Not surprising that you made
many friends wherever you lived.
Just to make you smile from wherever you/your spirit may be, whilst praying for you now, I (Bambi is saying this) smiled to your memory, even spontaneously thinking/telling you the following: “I do not mind if England will win all its future soccer games against Germany, for the rest of my life, as long as it makes you happy in heaven”… I know, I will likely regret what I said tomorrow morning, but at least the thought crossed my mind (and I did mean it, Len ?).
More seriously, you will be missed by many who love
you, just like us. Rest in peace now… and may your memory be eternal.
Mark, we are happy to know that you were by your dad’s
side when he died peacefully… May you and Odette find peace in your hearts, day
after day, remembering that you have honoured him all his life, until his last
breath. Bless you both for that.
The bottom line of all these articles is to criticize,
another time, the province of Québec for its secular law… Instead of accepting:
(1) Bill 21, which is a law now; (2) that there are different historico-cultural
approaches to conceiving secularism; and (3) that Québec spent 10 years
debating reasonable accommodations to reach this consensus. Yes, Québec chose massively
to vote its current government, which succeeded in passing the law on
secularism (which is even more moderate than the secularism approach of France).
As a reminder, the bill states that no public servant in a position of authority can wear a religious symbol (e.g., the President and Vice-Presidents of the National Assembly, administrative justices of the peace, special clerks, clerks, deputy clerks, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, clerks and deputy clerks respecting municipal courts, and bankruptcy registrars, , the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, and persons who exercise the function of lawyer, notary or criminal and penal prosecuting attorney and who are under the authority of a government department, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, the National Assembly, principals, vice principals and teachers of educational institutions under the jurisdiction of a school board, etc..). In addition, for security reasons, Bill 21 also applies to “persons who present themselves to receive a service from a staff member of a public body must have their face uncovered where doing so.”
Bambi has posted
extensively on Bill 21 (please see below if you are interested).
Of note, the Toronto Star article cited above
reports comments by Dr. Jeffrey Reitz, director of the ethnic, immigration and
pluralism studies program at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global
Affairs and Public Policy. According to Dr. Reitz, “The comparison between
Quebec’s secularism law and the COVID-19 mask directives is clear… But people
have largely avoided connecting the two issues because while medical masks and
religious face coverings may be similar in practice, they symbolize different
things.”
As per this article, Dr. Reitz added that COVID-19
masks make citizens feel secure… “they’re being protected from possible
disease… there are very strong stereotypes that people have of Muslim women
wearing traditional clothing…”. The latter sentence is completed by the author
of the article, Ms. Jillian Kestler-D’Amours
(a woman!) with the following words “such as face coverings”.
Mr. Reitz is cited saying the following as well: “That
mainstream perception is actually based on no facts at all, but just on these
fears and stereotypes”.
To score her point further, Ms. Kestler D’Amours also
interviewed a woman who used to wear a burqa (removing it to find a job, it
seems).
Bambi does not know if she should laugh or cry at
the absurdity of this piece of so-called article and the comments of the interviewees.
Note that the picture chosen to illustrate the topic is a woman wearing a burqa! Yes, a burqa like the one shown herein:
The picture taken from the Toronto Star article
The burqa is an extreme version of a head cover. In MANY Muslim countries, this outfit is imposed on women and even on teenage girls (when they reach puberty) and sometimes on even much younger kids, as we can observe around us in Canada.
Some women (18+) wearing the burqa could have escaped their
countries of birth to come to a more secular society like Québec.
Tragically but luckily not too many of these women may be killed, in the name of “honour killing”, if they deviate from rigorously conservative social traditions.
Luckily, a recent article has been published in
reaction to the above papers, namely by Mr. Mathieu-Bock (Journal de Montréal)
who knows both the French and French-Canadian cultures well:
In the title of his article, Mr. Bock-Côté reminded us
that “a mask is not a niqab”.
To all those so-called progressive journalists (academicians and even politicians, wearing a headscarf in their kind messages of Ramadan wishes, as you can see below), Bambi would like to say the following:
Extremists, namely Islamists who are not the vast majority of Muslims luckily, use our Canadian kindness/tolerance (i.e., multicultural approach) to push their radical agenda further. This may be facilitated by the fact that their religion, and surely its interpretation, does not differentiate between the private and public spheres.
So, surely without wanting to, these intellectuals (or social justice warriors or so-called progressive advocates, etc.) may be, in the short and especially long term, serving Islamists, rather than women whom they think they are advocating for.
If you do not believe Bambi about such risk, look to what
happened in the Iranian revolution between those well-meaning intellectuals
(likely on the left side too, like our society). Well, the Islamists pushed
them aside and took over. Look at a recent example of how Iran is treating a
female researcher, with double citizenship from Iran and France. She has been thrown
in jail for 5 years ☹:
To conclude this post, our Canadian “feminists” seem
to forget, once again, that there is no single type of woman (or man, by the
way). Period. Same for Muslim women who are diverse as well. Their implicit alliance
with Islamists can backfire one day on some of these women… and who knows,
perhaps even on all of us in several years from now, especially if there is no public
debate on reasonable accommodations like in Québec.
Last but nor least, one earlier post by Bambi on our federal banks that are promoting head scarfs in young girls now… in the name of diversity. Mind you, since this post, Bambi has seen the same picture (taken in Moncton, NB) at another CIBC branch in Amherst, NS (of course before the closure of borders between NB and NS!):
First, here is a cartoon to begin this post dedicated to Québec with some humour.
A cartoon by Mr. Yannick Lemay (Journal de Québec). We can read the following: “40 years later, did we make the right choice?”. We can see Mr. René Lésveque and Mr. Pierre Elliot Trudeau in heaven flying over Québec and saying: NON (red sign held by Trudeau) and YES (blue sign held by Lévesque). The opposite of the results of the two referendums (all depending on the question, obviously).
Second, here is a thoughtful article by Mr. Mario Dumont pubished in the Journal de Montréal and entitled «Le cycle des échecs» [this means «The cycle of failures»]. Below, you can find an English translation of his text:
“In
initiating the referendum process over forty years ago, René Lévesque had no
idea of the cascade of events that would follow. A series of failures in Québec in its
desire to assert itself. NO in Québec, NO in Canada, setbacks, disappointments.
First on May 20, 1980, Québeckers said no to the PQ government, which asked for a mandate to negotiate “sovereignty-association”. Lévesque found himself weakened in front of Ottawa.
There was still hope: to convince Québeckers, Pierre E. Trudeau had made a commitment to reform the Canadian Constitution to meet Québec’s expectations. In 1982, Trudeau did reform Canada, but Québec’s interests were no longer on the agenda. Another failure: Québec did not even sign the new repatriated Constitution. It has been imposed on us.
Meech
The arrival of Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives rekindles hope. To correct the 1982 affront, he negotiated with the provincial premiers the Meech Lake Accord. Robert Bourassa sees this as an important step for Québec and vigorously defends the Accord.
Except that after the signature, it takes a vote of each of the parliaments of the provinces to ratify the text. The Agreement is torpedoed. Another failure: this promising agreement is buried.
A setback that will raise nationalist momentum in Québec. Bélanger-Campeau Commission on the Future of Québec, Allaire report which makes the PLQ almost sovereigntist. A lot of noise for nothing. It all ends in fishtail with the lame Charlottetown deal. It was submitted to a referendum in 1992. Answer: NO.
Jacques Parizeau took power in 1994 with a clear commitment: a referendum in his first year in office. He kept his word and formed a coalition, which I took part in. By a few percentage points, the majority said no. Another failure.
The aftermath of this referendum will not be happy times for the nationalists in Québec. The federal government has been taking a series of initiatives to put Québec back in its place. In particular, the unilateral law supposedly “on referendum clarity”.
Then came this long liberal reign [Mr. Dumont means the provincial liberals]. Fifteen years. Some might say years without failure. Indeed, when we ask nothing, we avoid the risk of being told NO. I especially interpret the fact that I can no longer ask for anything as the sad result of years of missing all our opportunities.
Glimmer in these years, there was nevertheless the recognition that Québec forms a nation which was initiated by the Harper government.
Legault’ success
This is François Legault’s great coup. In the first year of his mandate, he had his secularism law passed. After more than ten years of hesitation and studies on the topic. A strong gesture in terms of identity.
A solid majority supported it and the National Assembly voted for it. The opposite of failure. The end of the cycle. From a nationalism point of view, this is huge”.
End of Mr. Dumont’s text.
Third and finally, every story and every piece of history has more than one perspective…
Sometimes, people change their perspectives with time.
Regardless of the perspective on Québec’s aspiration to assert itself and ensure its sustainable (cultural, economic, political…) prosperity, Bambi would like to offer this beautiful and meaningful song, by Mr. Gilles Vigneault, to La Belle Province. It is in Québec where her beautiful Canadian adventure began, thirty years ago. It is in Québec where she left a large piece of her heart. Yes, she remains grateful, respectful, and… loyal in love.
The Lebanese Interior Minister, Mr. Mohamed Fahmy, expressed his ideas on why Lebanon is back to the lockdown and fear of the spread of the coronavirus.
According to him, in addition to people’ irresponsible behaviour, “eroding the Lebanese society is a Zionist goal that ‘corona’ is achieving”.
The question is the following: Is this politician (whom Bambi does not know) silly… or does he think that citizens are stupid?
Why don’t politicians, especially in the Middle East, resort to logic ONLY?
This sentence does not make any sense whatsoever, even if Israel is not the friendliest neighbour on earth, even if Hezbollah and Israel have issues, AND even if Hezbollah’s weapons are Lebanon’s most serious issue since the end of civil war… in addition to corruption!
A recent clever New Wark Times article, entitled
“experts warn Sackville town councils new code of conduct could shut down
dissent” interviewed our own Dr. Geoff Martin, Dr. O’ Byrne from UNB, and
M. Murray, the NB Ombudsman about the new so-called “code of conduct”. They provided
informative insights:
Today, in reflecting about Mr. Wark’s article, a few thoughts
crossed her mind:
First, how odd that an administrative creation of a
province, the municipalities, cannot benefit from a clean-up by this “creator”.
In other jurisdictions, we have seen municipalities being amalgamated with other
sister municipalities. If we have created them, we can also dismantle them.
Well, at least, Québeckers do municipal cleaning up
from time to time.
Of course, by no means, Bambi is saying that we have the
same issues here in NB or to the same extent.
However, who can deny that we have serious issues in
our sweet little Sackville? Indeed, the culture of its governance seems to look
like a mini-authoritarian entity than a healthy democracy.
Is this some older feudal region of Lebanon or is this
Canada in 2020?
Second, and in trying to make sense of all this, Bambi
chatted with her spouse, Louis (a lawyer in another jurisdiction of Canada)
about Mr. Wark’s article.
The first words that came out of his mouth were: “The
First Amendment… The Americans understood it all in the 1790s”.
“What is that about?”,
Bambi asked.
“Why don’t you google it first”, Louis
replied?
Bambi did so (she sometimes listens to her spouse ?) and came across the following text:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
A picture taken from Wikipedia showing the handwritten copy of the proposed Bill of Rights (USA, 1789). This text was later ratified as the First Amendment.
Bambi returned to Louis for more insights.
This is what he said: “The Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms does apply to municipalities and should be relevant to this type of
situation”.
“However, this is meaningless. In reality,
it is BS”, said Louis in all honesty.
“What they were nailing me for was testifying
before the Assessment and Planning Appeal Board. I will even note that no one
challenged the veracity of the testimony. These are the kinds of anti-democratic
methods so popular in this town and province apparently. These are all just
excuses to shut down dissenters.
In a real democracy, the courts would be a
brake on this kind of excess via an application of the likes of the Charter,
but around here, many judges are no more than politicians by another name. In
fact, it’s shocking how many are retired politicians.
Phinney, whether you like him or not, was
elected by the people of this town. But what I’d like to know if, if ‘they’
just decide not to let him in to the Council chamber any more or otherwise interfere
with him, who is going to stop them? That’s a question that everyone should be
asking themselves. Because around here, the answer is far from obvious.”
Sadly, Louis is right, all this is truly meaningless…
if we recall the legal saga between him and the Town of Sackville that went all
the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
So, what should we do as a society? Shut up and not express
any dissent. In other terms, resign to that unfair reality? Pretend that life
is good and hide in our intellectual or moral bubble.
As Louis commented on this blog earlier (see the link
above):
“At the very least, this should be a reminder that we should all vote for Phinney at the upcoming election, if the minions allow us to. He’s the only player in there we can all be sure isn’t in on any of the games.“
In addition to Louis’ comments, Bambi will allow herself to cite at the end of this post the own words of Sackville prominent citizens, as published in the New Wark Times: Ms. Sharon Hicks, Mr. Shawn Meshau (the citizen in him, not the Councillor), and earlier comments to a related article by Ms. Azi, Mr. Joel B, Mr. Norman Cole, Mr. Percy Best, and Mr. Harold (in the earlier post reported above, we an read Ms. Sharon Higgs’ wise words).
To conclude this post now, Bambi would like to thank Mr. Wark again for his rigorous journalism and for giving voices to citizens and experts.
In addition, MANY thanks to Mr. Percy Best and Ms. Sharon Hicks for having been our eyes, ears, and mouth in all town council meetings over the last four years.
Ms. Sharon Higgs:
“As Professor Geoff Martin points out, while there are some good points
about Sackville’s new Code of Conduct for Members of Council, the ultimate
effect is to basically shut down any ‘real’ open discussion between our elected
representatives who sit on Council.
Professor Martin alluded to the fact that Councillors are elected by
citizens, and they need to maintain autonomy – in other words they need to be
able to speak up on behalf of the constituents who put their trust in them.
He also points out that Councillors are not “town staff’, yet this Code
of Conduct would seem to place than at that level, or actually below that
level, as he points out that it places them under the “supervision of the
council majority and the staff”.
My understanding of how the dynamics of a municipal governing body
functions has always been that the Mayor and Council are there to ‘direct’
staff to work on projects for the betterment of the Town, and that part of the
Mayor’s role is to only relay the wishes of Council to the staff, via the Town
Manager (called the chief Administrative Officer [CAO] here in Sackville).
For those of us who follow local Town Council meetings and activities on
a regular basis, what we see has become the total opposite, especially over the
past four years under our current Mayor. How did this model become so
completely turned around?
The experts consulted for this article have made the point that the
wording and intent of this new Code of Conduct sets up an ‘invitation’ for an
ongoing litany of petty complaints, which would end up with councillors
basically ‘fighting amongst themselves’.
It could be seen as a convenient ‘tool’ with which to ‘divide and
conquer’ Councillors, with the resulting in-fighting distracting their focus
and attention away from more important issues, allowing free reign by the mayor
and town management.
Who would that benefit? Certainly not the Councillors. And certainly not
the residents of Sackville.”
Mr. Norman Cole:
“I think this comment is well thought out and maybe the other councillors might want to [revist] their thoughts as to why they were elected and what their mission should really be. There seems to not be enough Accountability as to the way decisions are made on some really important issues. You are all elected and expected to have the whole town’s best interest as top priority.“
Mr. Shawn Meshau:
“**The following comment I am making is not the views of council.
These are my personal views only.**
I want to thank Mr. Wark for playing a very important role in our
community of bringing information to the forefront so we can garner
perspectives around many important issues our community is subject to.
It was reassuring to see that some of the concerns raised in the article
by these experts were in line with what I raised during council’s opportunity
to deliberate the code of conduct as presented.
I believe a code of conduct is important to ensure councillors and the
Mayor conduct themselves professionally and respectfully.
It was my hope that the code implemented by council would be a work in
progress and amended as required based on what we learned from its existence.
If it creates barriers for a councillor to be able to uphold the Local
Governance Act which indicates a councillor must consider the welfare and
interests of the entire community, the opportunity does exist to amend the
code.
Where the code is mandated by the Local Governance Act, I believe
municipalities should be provided guidance from the Department of Local
Government in producing an effective code in the spirit of good governance.
In fact not all municipalities have the ability to afford legal advice in
formulating a code of conduct, so why wouldn’t this department not strive to
ensure each municipality utilizes a standard means to govern its elected
officials’ conduct.
We must not forget our purpose as elected officials or let policy
determine who we are as an individual councillor.
Bureaucracy/policy, although required to deliver services, can be cold and calculating and we forget that it takes the empathy of council and administrators to ensure it is developed in a manner that best represents democracy.“
“Thank you Shawn Mesheau”
And from earlier posts…
Ms. Azi:
“In my experience, Mr. Phiney is a very
reliable, honest, and responsible councilor. This kind of action by some other
councilors/mayor makes me have even more respect for him.”
Mr. Joel B:
Bruce Phinney is one of the best councillors Sackville
has ever had and something doesn’t sit well with me here .
Percy Best:
“If Councillor Phinney said something at a meeting, and that portion of
the meeting has never been revealed to the public, then how the heck can he be
subjected to a bylaw infraction that says that any councillor cannot reveal to
the public something that was told in confidence. It does make one wonder WHO
actually owes WHO an apology here.
If the Mayor reveals to the citizens of Sackvile, the 37 seconds of audio
that the Town is hiding, then they possibly have a beef with Councillor Phinney
not abiding by this bylaw, but that willnot be the case until we all
hear the audio.”
Mr. Harold:
“It is rather confusing — perhaps
intentional — to refer to “elected officials” as “public servants”. It implies
that they serve at the pleasure of the Town, not the will of the electorate. I
wonder why all the other councillors accepted this? Do they think they are Town
employees?”
In the video below, you can see a group of musicians at a Lebanese hospital, singing to thank the nurses and the latter taking the time to dance.
You can also see a mobile clinic of the Lebanese American University in action, testing citizens in a neighborhood of Beirut.
Finally, this post ends with a moving picture published by the l’Orient Le Jour yesterday, a few hours before the stricter four-day lockdown. It shows two friends hugging each other in the middle of a soccer game (as described by the newspaper in question). Obviously, these boys were too happy to see each other, after a LONG confinement, that they forgot about social distancing… whilst wearing their masks.
These kids’ happiness did not last long, as everyone is back to the lockdown now. Soccer will have to wait…
Isn’t this a bit too much? At one point, we need to start being reasonable, even in a pandemic and even if Mr. Trudeau told us that the clean-up of all the CERB fraud concerns will take place later, “after the fact”:
This is even more worrisome, given that Canada does not have a budget.
Mind you, even Santa has a budget, especially in poorer households or countries.
Mr. Trudeau, without wanting to for sure, you may be perhaps starting to fall into the trap of “Lebanonizing” Canada in the process of assisting us.
As a reminder, Lebanon spent beyond its means for years (in addition to corruption or fraud here and there, for sure)… See what happened in the article further below, as a result.
