West Nipissing’s Code of Censorship
Elected officials should NEVER forgo their right to freedom of speech.
At last week’s city council meeting, the public was made aware that our elected leaders are actually not allowed to have an opinion. They in fact don’t have basic freedom of speech. We also found out that councillors do in fact hold positions of power, supporting Anne Tessier’s claim from March that got her kicked off as chair of the Au Chateau Board.
Politicians Cannot Oppose Decisions?
In a completely bizarre and dystopian interpretation of West Nipissing Council’s Code of Conduct, the democratic system and Canada’s Charter of Rights, the hired Integrity Commissioner sounded like a member of the Communist Party of China.
The Integrity Commissioner who is a lawyer was delivering his decision regarding a recent complaint against Councillor Fern Pellerin. The anonymous complaint was with respect to Mr. Pellerin signing a community petition that wanted Anne Tessier re-appointed to the board of Au Chateau Long-Term Care.
Paul Cassan ruled that because Pellerin supported a petition that was challenging a decision made by council, he was guilty of violating the code.
“Whether or not you agreed with that decision or not, “as a member of council, once that decision is made you have an obligation to support and put forward that position.” - WN’s Integrity Commissioner, Paul Cassan.
He went on to explain that in his view “certain rights that members of the public would have with respect to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion are in fact given up by members of council when they assume the role as a councillor.”
*The entire council meeting of July 11th, can be watched here.
This interpretation is so outlandish because it assumes that politicians can never question any decisions that has ever been made by that body. What if a councillor questions a decision that the council made last year? What about a decision that was made 4 years ago? 10 years ago?
This past week a councillor presented a petition that wants to reopen a municipal office in Verner (which was closed a few years ago and decided upon by the council). Should any councillor advocating for this new service be penalized?
What about Verner’s brown water problem? Council’s approved 2023 budget did not make this issue a priority. So what if a councillor rightfully deems this issue a crisis and voices his opinion that this problems should be dealt with? Wouldn’t he be violating the code by speaking against a decision by council (to not prioritize this issue)?
Under this interpretation, do we assume that elected parliamentarians forgo their right to criticize legislation once the Parliament as a whole has voted on something?
Once Trudeau passes a controversial new law, is Pierre Poilievre forbidden from criticizing or questioning it? If their roles ever change, does Trudeau then forgo his right to oppose the government as well?
Of course not! Because that is why they are elected. To either make decisions or hold the ones who made decisions accountable. That is how our democracy works. If citizens don’t appreciate Pellerin (or any other councillor) questioning council decisions, they can let him know with their voice and/or vote. But in Western democracies, politicians have to question each other. All the time. That is how it works. If you want an example of government where elected officials cannot question the decisions of the assembly, look at China or Russia.
Elected Officials Hold a “Position of Power”
In an ironic twist, when justifying the forgoing of the right to criticize, Cassan stated that “councilors are voted into a position of power and frankly that involves sacrifice.”
The petition that Pellerin signed was opposing a decision by council to penalize Tessier for simply stating that she had a “position of power” over unelected administrators.
The Integrity Commissioner may have inadvertently (or purposely) ruled that Councillor Tessier was in fact not guilty of any wrongdoing and Mayor Thorne-Rochon was unreasonable to strip her of her board chair position.
It’s important to note that to this date, Tessier has not been found guilty of any offenses by the Integrity Commissioner.
Serious Penalties Coming
Because this was Pellerin’s first offence, the commissioner did not recommend any discipline against him. But he made clear that his interpretation will be applied going forward. In a stern warning he said that “If councillors continue to subvert the code, my recommendation will be for a much more serious penalty.” Like what? Could this unelected commissioner ultimately remove a politician who was voted in democratically?
I don’t know what else to say on this other than: WAKE UP WEST NIPISSING COUNCILLORS! This interpretation is absolutely inappropriate and sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. I urge them to ignore any such rulings like this ridiculous one against their fellow elected official. And I urge them to pass an updated code of conduct. One that would pass the tests of the Canadian Charter of Rights. One that actually respects how the democratic process is supposed to work.
I urge all of Canada to WAKE UP! Because we are seeing these types of “codes of conduct” pop up everywhere. It seems everyday that our core western democratic values are eroding.
In Oshawa, an elected School Board trustee was prevented from attending meetings and penalized because she questioned gender ideology in schools. A debate she should absolutely be involved in (seeing as parents elected her to represent them on school issues…) Linda Stone was removed from a meeting after three other trustees accused her of violating a “code of conduct”.
In Eastern Ontario, an elected School Board Trustee has been banned from even attending the meetings he was elected to attend for 6 months now. Why? Because he wore Jeans at a meeting…
What’s next? We cannot allow arbitrary codes of conduct to supersede our voices and our votes. We, the citizens decide what our leaders can debate. Not the media. Not their fellow politicians. Not their leaders. We do. Period.
Mr. Cassan must believe that West Nipissing exists in Marxist bubble! His decision is laughable! Federal Ministers make decisions all the time which are debated by opposing parties! That is how any petition is presented in Parliament! If you want to have a petition read in Parliament you have to convince a member of Parliament to sponsor it! All levels of government allow for debate and also written petitions which members do support. Mr. Cassan's word is not final. He is not a judge. The allegations surrounding 'code of conduct violations' are a vehicle for shutting down debate and usually stem from the least well informed. It is a method for removing anyone who opposes the 'group think'. Questioning gender ideology {SOGI sexual orientation and gender identity} is reasonable and logical. SOGI and the resultant puberty blockers dished out at treatment centers.....along with the centers themselves, have been determined to be hazards to children's health. (link below.) There is no rainbow at the end of the self mutilation road and we must stop the sexualization of children. We all know this. Moreover, we all know that the human brain does not finish developing until we are about 25 years old and that puberty blockers absolutely interfere with normal brain development. But, when we speak against what appears to be agreed upon public narrative a fire storm follows. The 'how dare you' petulant voices become 'you have no right to speak' law makers.
The only remedy is for the those who still respect justice to speak up and never stop.
For now Trudeau's notorious bills C-11 and C-18 give local level leftists the illusion that they have the power to shut down anyone who does not follow the 'accepted narrative'. No matter what the issue is, from magic wands, to nit picking a signature on a petition, leftists are relentless in persecuting any ripple of dissent.
What happened to Ann Tessier was an extreme over reaction. And it serves a good example of how petty and limited people have become. Ann Tessier's comment on the social media was innocent and innocuous. She was conversing with others at the time. In her response she began with the word 'Yes'.....then went on to say that she wished she had a magic wand so that she could show her 'magic powers'.
She apologized for her comment and her apology was refused. Full stop. Take that in....visualize it.
Ann made a silly innocent comment. That is all is was....and nothing more. She apologized and her apology was refused. Some how someone thought their dignity had been assaulted. If you are in a public position and your are very alert to any vibration that even seems like a criticism you are likely to over react. And that is the issue here. Overreaction. Instead of brushing it off and simply ignoring it this innocent comment became the basis for re-electing another Chair to the Board. Perhaps a more e malleable Chair who did not have definite ideas around vaccine mandates?
Amazingly part of the accusation against Ann Tessier rested upon her use of the word 'yes'. That is how she began her brief comment. It was considered that the 'yes' was an affirmation of all the comments that had gone before. Really? I say 'yes' all the time when people talk to me. It does not mean that I agree, but, only that I am listening.
Most of this would normally be laughed off as a tempest in a tea pot. But it isn't. People have become hostile, militant, arrogant, dangerously manipulative, and proud. All the traits that blind one to reason.
link to failure of gender dysphoria https://www.thefp.com/p/when-gender-ideology-corrupts-medicine-tavistock?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_id=134876318&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
It is disgusting how council can dictate how a person cannot have an opinion different from the majority.Mr.Pellerin had every right to sign that petition.It was what he believed in and I respect him for what he did.