On November 23, a federal judge refused to allow a trial. The aim would have been to determine whether the use of the October 1970 War Measures Act was constitutional or not. The first applicant is Gaétan Dostie, who was jailed for two weeks at the time. The second is the organization Justice for October prisoners, of which I am the president, without counting the IRAI, an independentist research group chaired by Daniel Turp, who intervened in the cause.
For magistrate Sylvain Lussier, appointed to the Superior Court by Justin Trudeau, to authorize such a trial would be to misuse the resources of justice. Several problems arise with his decision.
First, Justin Trudeau has said publicly that he does not want to apologize to Quebecers for the October Crisis. All this of course while he constantly apologizes to every possible and imaginable group. Parenthesis, at the rate it is going, the next to be entitled to its apologies will be the St. Lawrence belugas! End of the parenthesis.
If ever the 1970 version of the War Measures Act were retroactively declared unconstitutional, following a trial authorized by Judge Lussier, Justin Trudeau would surely feel obligated to apologize. The federal magistrate could therefore put a cross on any possibility of advancement to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. His recent decision, on the other hand, keeps all doors open for him.
In addition, Mr. Lussier is a member of Lord Reading, an anti-law 101 and anti-law 21 lobby, information that I discovered after the decision was rendered. However, for the past two years, I have been denouncing this partisan organization to which he belongs in all forums. The judge is not without knowing it. He should have disclosed his affiliation and offered to recuse himself, which we would have accepted.
In his judgment, the federal magistrate does not say a word about our central argument, namely that he is the guardian of the constitution. His duty is to say whether or not the supreme law has been violated by Pierre Trudeau. At the very least, he had to explain to us why he thinks this argument is invalid.
Speaking of Trudeau Sr., it is interesting to note that the constitutional law of 1982, which he stuck in our throats, is being used here once again against Quebec. Basically her son’s prosecutors tell us time has passed, water has flowed under the bridges and therefore this whole matter is not about justice. As if the psychological and post-traumatic shock suffered by Mr. Dostie and the other prisoners were an unimportant detail, a footnote in a history book.
We have argued for our part that Canadian courts, on issues affecting first nations, have dealt with issues much older than the October crisis. In the case of the violation of the constitutional rights of the Métis of Manitoba, this went back to a law dating from 1871. But here we are, we were told that the first nations had collective rights under the constitution of 82. Quebec, him , is a province like any other. Its inhabitants do not form a nation by supreme law.
It is clear to us that the Amerindians and the Métis constitute distinct peoples, the same thing for Quebeckers. By implicitly denying our national existence in his interpretation of the supreme law, the judge is practicing double standards. That is why we will appeal the case.