|
Montreal, March 20, 2004 / No 140 |
|
|
by
Pierre Lemieux
On June 17, 1999, in Shawville, Quebec (about 70 kilometres north of Ottawa), Lynn Wilson was harassed by a woman inspector from the Quebec Office de la langue française (OLF, the government bureau in charge of "protecting" the French language in the province), relatively to her shop’s English-only signs. The confrontation ended with several townspeople following the language cop around. Ms. Wilson was charged with refusing to provide information to the language cop, and has just been acquitted. |
The defendant’s lawyer, Mr. Brent Tyler, was later interviewed and publicly
told the Quebec government that they should now “call off the dogs.” The
precious OLF bureaucrats found this “offensive,” and have complained to
the Quebec bar. Mr. Tyler claims that he did not really mean that the OLF
bureaucrats are dogs. All this is very funny. Or is it?
Mad dogs, running dogs
Section 433-5 of the French penal code defines a criminal offence called
“outrage à agent,” which means “contempt towards an agent
of the state,” and which applies to insulting a cop or a bureaucrat. However,
it does not generally include public insults, so Mr. Tyler would be safe
in France. After all, I myself edited in Paris a book by Lysander Spooner,
who called the state “a secret band of robbers and murderers,” which of
course they are as soon as we remove their collars.
Here, the state has not yet criminalized insults to its agents, probably
because our statocrats have not thought about it, or perhaps because their
subjects are so nice and naïve, anyway. That’s part of New Age philosophy:
a prerequisite for social status, wrote American author Robert Wright,
includes “not saying hateful things about whole national, ethnic, or religious
groups, or even about other people.”
My own opinion, if the Quebec government is kind enough to let me express
it, is that “dogs” is a pretty polite way to describe OLF bureaucrats,
notwithstanding what animal rights activists might object. I would suggest,
instead, “running dogs,” or “mad dogs.” “Praetorians” is also good. After
all, we are at war to protect our traditional liberties, or what’s left
of them.
Even if they are often nice, girl-next-door types of people, bureaucrats
must realize that they are morally responsible for their collaboration
in destroying our traditional liberties. If they don’t understand, we are
completely justified to “denormalize” them (as the feds want to do to smokers
and their suppliers). In fact, it is a social responsibility, if there
is such a thing.
Whole packs of state dogs There are two very naïve ideas running around, which the whole history of mankind contradicts. One is that people can have their rights protected if they are not willing to fight for them – and I mean to fight, like against mad dogs. The other naïve idea is that an individual can hope to have his rights respected by other people even if he is not willing to help them protect theirs.
Whole packs of state dogs are chasing us, and the OLF breed may not be
the most rabid ones. (Moreover, the OLF seems to hire nice female dogs.)
Over the past few decades, the federal dogs have been more vicious.
This being said, I understand why my English-speaking readers would feel
that speaking their own language on their own property is an important
right. After a century of mounting state power, each one has his own dogs
to fight. I am willing to defend the Anglos' rights, but I expect them
to defend my right to smoke, drink, baiser, and have guns – in other
words, to defend my coureurs des bois lifestyle. Our English-speaking
fellow citizens have not been very helpful on this front, but I realize
that putting all Anglos in the same bag is as intellectually sinful as
amalgamating all French Canadians under the Québécois tyranny.
The Shawville story, where townspeople followed the female bureaucrat in
the streets, reminds me of the historical events reported by economist
Mancur Olson: “In Venice, after a doge who attempted to make himself autocrat
was beheaded for his offense, subsequent doges were followed in official
processions by a sword-bearing symbolic executioner as a reminder of the
punishment intended for any leader who attempted to assume dictatorial
power.” Thanks to the Shawville resisters for helping keep the statocrats
humble and fearful.
Hippolyte Taine, the 19th-century conservative philosopher, compared the
state to a guard dog “that must remain chained up in its kennel.” It is
urgent to chain up the dog.
|
<< index of this issue |
|