Mr. Amir Khadir’s Press Conference, MNA for Mercier
Wednesday 6 June 2012, 9:46 am
Bernard-Lalonde Room (1.131), Hotel du Parlement
Original French video: http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/video-audio/AudioVideo-42353.html?support=video
Original French transcript: http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/actualites-salle-presse/conferences-points-presse/ConferencePointPresse-9235.html
Mr. Khadir: Hello, everyone, good morning. Thank you for coming. First, I must say I rather regret that there was so much noise created around my arrest. I remember that we were 65 people, last night, including a retired couple, retired workers who had accompanied their daughter, and another lady who accompanied her 17-year-old girl who was in high school. I remind you that in Quebec, in recent months, there have been over 500 arrests. So, what is regrettable is that in fact all these arrests, in Quebec, as in most cities in Quebec where it has happened, over 2000 events, in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases, these mass arrests are quite abusive and spring from similar circumstances, that is to say, we arrest people through kettling, because they protest, for exercising their democratic rights.
Last night I left the National Assembly around 8:30pm towards home, by bicycle. I heard the sounds of pots, so I stopped by, to express my solidarity, as one does, in fact, Francoise and me and hundreds if not thousands of members of Quebec Solidaire across Quebec. So I went in solidarity, walking with them in the streets of Quebec and, unfortunately … an event that was really, frankly, quite joyful. There was a beautiful summer night atmosphere which meant that even tourists were waving at us. It added a little spice to this Tuesday night in the streets of Old Quebec, and there was not much traffic, as you can guess, on Côte de la Montagne. Unfortunately, we were kettled, despite the insistence of several protesters and myself to let us to go, to let us disperse, it was not possible. So in …
Ms. Richer (Jocelyne): You knew it was illegal?
Mr. Khadir: Pardon?
Ms. Richer (Jocelyne): You knew it was illegal?
Mr. Khadir: I will come back to that. What I would like to remind people of, something I find deplorable … I’ve heard people who think being arrested can be something pleasant, that the demonstrators (or myself) who are arrested take pleasure in doing so. There is nothing pleasant in it, there is no fun for anyone, getting arrested, being handcuffed, submitting to a situation that in fact is quite humiliating.
I remind you that we would like that , in our society, there is no double standard measures, that instead of people being arrested, that we handcuff people for an offense under the Highway Safety Code, since this is what it is as I was told … the police told me that it was under section 500.1 of the Highway Safety Code, not under Law No. 78, by the way. We stop and we handcuff people for that, while there are ministers who meet the mafia to raise money for their party, there are other ministers who use a firm that seeks permits frauding the National Assembly, those people are still at large. It took two years to summon and eventually accuse Tony Accurso, and he came out of the courthouse without handcuffs. It is quite unfortunate that we are undergoing such a situation of injustice.
And I do not throw the blame on the police. I saw on the bus, overly courteous police, who showed lots of consideration for those arrested. I saw police clearly uncomfortable with what had happened. But I still regret that there are orders, there are people at the top of the police who let themselves be manipulated by a government that everyone recognizes as a corrupt and illegitimate. Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): Mr. Khadir, if I may … Mr. Khadir …
Mr. Khadir: I’m sorry, I will answer only one question. Yes?
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): Well, it was the same …
Ms. Biron (Martine): Well, it’s the same …
Mr. Khadir: Yes. Okay …
Ms. Biron (Martine): … demonstration, did you know, it was illegal?
Mr. Khadir: That preoccupies you, doesn’t it…
Ms. Biron (Martine): Of course.
Mr. Khadir: … if it was illegal? It concerns you. I understand …
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): … well, we want to know …
Mr. Khadir: I understand. I understand that it concerns you. But what concerns the people of Quebec today is the injustice of Law No. 78 which, in addition, is not enforced and unenforceable. I remind you that, yes, the demonstration was illegal. Under what, you think? Under Law No. 78. But we have not been arrested under Law No. 78. How do you explain this contradiction? I have no answer.
Ms. Biron (Martine): Will you contest the charge, Mr Khadir, at this moment?
Mr. Khadir: Yes, of course. Of course. Besides, I have received several calls this morning from people who called me, including a doctor from Montreal, to offer money, $ 1 000, I believe, in support of the fund to support all those people who were arrested.
Ms. Biron (Martine): It is it for that reason that you will contest it? Because you feel it was issued under Law No. 78 and you did not …
Mr. Khadir: Well, we, we simply challenge these unfair fines, $ 494 for walking on the street and, I imagine, blocking traffic. Because there, look, we do not speak of the law No. 78, here we are talking about a section of the Highway Safety Code. Plus we are imposing on 17 year old youth, retired people, workers, a $ 494 fine.
Mr. Khadir: And during that time … And during that time, companies, consulting engineering firms continue to fund the coffers of the Liberal Party of Quebec.
Duboyce Mr. (Tim): How much is your ticket?
Mr. Khadir: I have not received it yet, but I was told it would be $ 494.
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): Mr. Khadir, people were not arrested because they were exercising their democratic right, as you say, to protest.
Mr. Khadir: I think they were.
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): They were arrested because they broke the law No. 78, at first, because they have not given their itinerary. Does Mr. Khadir, as a member …
Mr. Khadir: I do not think, because, look, I would have received a $ 5 000 fine, I think.
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): … as an MNA, Mr. Khadir, who has passed laws … Last week, Ms. Maltais decided to withdraw from an event, because she learned it was illegal. As a member of the National Assembly, you are voting laws. Should you have not, you too, left the demonstration knowing that it was illegal? And if not, why?
Mr. Khadir: I am sorry for Ms. Maltais. They were still protesters from his neighborhood, his constituents. I regret that Mr. Maltais or members of the PQ do not have the courage to support their people, to accompany the Quebecers who are fed up of the Liberal Party. I believe that the law is unjust… that was imposed so the 99% swallow the priviledges of the 1% , right, because that is what it is, it’s time to recognize that.
There is a government - Ms. Biron, give me two seconds - there is a government that is corrupt, a government that is under the influence of elite business and wants absolutely to protect the interests of bankers, for whom it abolished … for whom it abolished the 1% capital tax for financial firms, which would still be satisfactory. I do not understand why we do not emphasize that in the media. 1% was the tax on business capital is 800 million dollars, that’s free university. The government prefers to protect the interests of banks, smack the heads of its people, and when thats not enough, enact unjust laws, that no one accepts, that international observers say are clearly abusive. So, I think, for a people, for a member, the honourable thing is to stand-up, not to accept injustice and to accept the consequences.
Mr. Salvet (Jean-Marc): Mr. Khadir, do you think it is a gesture of civil disobedience that you have practiced yesterday?
Mr. Khadir: Indeed, since May 18, since Friday when it was enacted, hundreds of thousands of Quebecers, notably May 22, remember, hundreds of thousands of Quebecers were in defiance, performed a massive civil disobedience, effectively.
Mr. Salvet (Jean-Marc): … you yesterday?
Mr. Khadir: I think so. Me, Francoise David, even Mr. Drainville, when he participated in a demonstration of pots, it is now several people, scientists, teachers, parents, … Similarly, one could say, lawyers, of course, who provided their itinerary, but clearly called into question the legitimacy of the law No. 78.
I think, collectively, we have to recognize that, we can no longer bury our heads in the sand, hundreds of thousands of Quebecers, for three weeks, practice peaceful mass civil disobedience. This is what this is. When I read the text of Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, the thing that led to the charge of contempt of court, this is the kind of act of civil disobedience that we are talking about. Today banging a pan and walking the streets of Montreal, under Law No. 78, is a mistake, and hundreds of thousands of Quebecers from Lachute to St. Lambert, Victoriaville, here, in Quebec …
Ms. Biron (Martine): This is not walking down the street with a pan that is at fault. It’s not giving the itinerary. Because there are some people who have walked with pots, in the street, who were not bothered by the police, were even accompanied by them. The question is: You have defied the law and you knew …
Mr. Khadir: I like all citizens, I acoompany my people. Our people have chosen …
Ms. Biron (Martine): It’s not all the people that march.
Mr. Khadir: Yes, but it’s a good portion anyway. I think there is much of the population …
Ms. Biron (Martine): You encourage that citizens defy the law?
Mr. Khadir: I do what Martin Luther King would have done, what Gandhi would have done …
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): Mr. Khadir, do not overdo it, there. Don’t compare yourself not to Martin Luther King, Mr. Khadir.
Mr. Khadir: Well, yes, absolutely. What Marcel Pepin did … No, but I do not compare, but these are our models. No, no, I do not compare at all, but this is my model, that is to say that across Quebec, for a matter of tuition, a government imposes such restrictions on fundamental freedoms, is also serious. It is …
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): Are you looking to be arrested, Mr. Khadir?
Mr. Khadir: Do you want … Do you want us to talk … Do you want us …
Mr. Boivin (Mathieu): Are you trying to revive a movement that may be running out of steam? Have you knowingly, purposely been arrested in order to create a media event, to revive a movement that may be faltering?
Mr. Khadir: Frankly, It can … that’s a hypothesis I had not thought of. Honestly, no. No.
Ms. Dufresne (Julie): Mr. Khadir, do you want to set an example? Does …
Mr. Khadir: Not at all, because if that were the case, I would have done it much earlier.
Mr. Caron (Régys): But what are you doing to f the moral authority of the institution that you are part of, Mr. Khadir?
Mr. Khadir: What case are we, collectively, making when we admit that a corrupt government can enact a law as unjust and we do not resist. I am proud of my people, I am proud of Quebecers.
Ms. Richer (Jocelyne): But you are a member of this parliament.
Mr. Khadir: I’m proud of Quebecers and I am a proud to be a member of parliament and still be able to exercise my freedom and independence of mind.
Ms. Richer (Jocelyne): … your place in parliament.
Mr. Khadir: We need, in our democratic societies that are in deficit, where there is a minority who rules with over-indulgence, everyone, including me, we, collectively, we have a responsibility. It has been a small handful, 1%, taking control of all democratic institutions. And then there are people who say: Enough. Because the casseroles, it’s not just the student movement now, it is the revolt of 99% of these people who say: Enough, we’re tired of a handful of privileged people who want to impose their laws.
And that, we think it is a collective responsibility. It’s time for everyone, the media, parliamentarians … I also called the PQ, I called Agnès Maltais, Ms. Marois to have a little more courage. It is time to be able to stand beside our people, against unjust laws.
Robitaille (Antoine): Do you think it will hurt Quebec on the international level, that, one member was arrested like that?
Mr. Khadir: What hurts Quebec, is the situation of the rotting Charest government, the situation. What hurts Quebec, his reputation was, in fact, the image of a banana republic was left around the world when they are offered up the Far North for crumbs. That night in Quebec, a government that is steeped in corruption, which took two years before launching an investigation into corruption in the industry. That’s what harms the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Journet (Paul): Mr. Khadir, you refuse to obey a law because you think it is unfair. From the moment we have this reasoning then, where does it stop? Is this not a slippery slope? Is there, will we begin to disobey all laws that we judge …
Mr. Khadir: No. There are practices of civil disobedience that are well understood. When a massive civil disobedience is practiced by people in a peaceful, nonviolent manner, when it targets something very specific, such as Law No. 78, an exceedingly unjust law. It’s the virtue of all democratic experiences from the last three centuries, beginning with the time when U.S. lawmakers were fighting against slavery. It is a means of legitimate struggle, which was legal and at the disposal of the people. There …
Robitaille (Antoine): Are you not in fact magnifying a bit, your cause by … citing examples like this?
Mr. Khadir: No, no. This is … Well, I’ll give you another: A premier of an Australian province asked his own people to disobey the laws of his own province because a branch of the Labor Party did not allow him, in the sixties seventies, to change anti-gay laws in his province. Then, weary, he asked people simply to disobey the law. So when …
Ms. Biron (Martine): Will you do it again, sir … Will you do it again?
Mr. Khadir: You do not let me finish, I apologize …
Robitaille (Antoine): Is there any other laws that you would disobey?
Mr. Khadir: You do not let me finish. Because these are exceedingly important examples. I do not understand that you speed so fast over these examples. I’m talking about a prime minister who called his own people to disobey the laws of a province he governs. There, I’m not talking about Martin Luther King …
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): … because the law does not prevent you to protest, Mr. Khadir.
Mr. Khadir: … then I do not speak … I do not speak …
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): You are comparing apples and oranges. This is huge, what you are doing.
Mr. Khadir: Wait a minute. Well, no. It is an anti-gay law, it is an anti-gay law … I understand … Well, I …
Ms. Biron (Martine): Well, the courts have addressed the issue of gay rights …
Mr. Khadir: Yes. Ms. Biron …
Ms. Biron (Martine): In this case, in the case of Law No. 78, it is challenged by the courts.
Mr. Khadir: That’s your opinion, I understand. But …
Ms. Biron (Martine): No, it’s not a matter of opinion. It is contested by the rights …
Mr. Khadir: But there is more than the law. When a law is immoral, when a law is unjust, there is a law of conscience to which we must obey and which is common practice for three centuries, in democracies and that guarantees you and me, our rights for which people have fought each other over.
Mr. Journet (Paul): Are you going to do it again?
Mr. Khadir: I find it unfortunate that you do not put it a little effort to uncover these examples and make good comparisons. I offer you one.
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): You have to compare apples to apples, Mr. Khadir.
Mr. Khadir: Well no, but look, anti-gay laws …
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): No, no, but … Do you have the right to demonstrate? Yes, you have the right to protest, give your order, you know. Then you compare it with Martin Luther King, the race struggle …
Mr. Khadir: That’s because it’s not me who decides on the orientation …
Mr. Plouffe (Robert): … with the struggle of homosexuals. Mr. Khadir, are also somewhat proportional to your … with your claims there.
Mr. Khadir: Okay. Mr. Plouffe that is your opinion. I think it is very comparable.
Ms. Biron (Martine): The question is: Will you do it again? Will you do it again?
Mr. Khadir: I will participate in all peaceful demonstrations, but …
Ms. Biron (Martine): Illegal or Legal?
Mr. Khadir: Well, look, it’s not me who decides on the itinerary of the protests. I encourage the protesters, because it does not disturb anything, to give their itineraries when possible. But I think it is unfair for the government to arrest dozens and dozens of people just because they do not give their route, just because the government must have the upper hand on the student movement. It is wasting millions of dollars. It wastes a political opportunity to lead to something more positive. And most of all it allows a corrupt government … we are letting a corrupt government get away with it.
Mme Plante (Caroline): Mr. Khadir, you are an MNA, you work at the National Assembly. Don’t you think that it’s even more important that an MNA respect the law?
M. Khadir: No. No. The clear answer to you…
Mme Plante (Caroline): Why?
M. Khadir: No, because when a law is unjust, when a law is clearly, outrageously unlawful by the fact that it puts… it violates our fundamental rights to associate, to express our opinion - because, under the Law 78, even expressing your opinion could be unlawful - so, when a law is so unjust, it’s morally just to defy it.
Mme Plante (Caroline): Are you encouraging people to defy the law, to break the law?
M. Khadir: We don’t encourage people. People, hundreds of thousands of people, since three weeks, are defying the law in all the streets of Québec.
Mme Plante (Caroline): But you’re a politician, you’re an MNA…
M. Khadir: Of course. I’m an MNA. I respect my people’s will. I don’t respect an unjust law. I want to accompany my people. I am a popular MNA. I’m not at the service of institutions. I’m, first, at the service of my people. If, to serve my people, we have to change institutions and laws, that’s what I’m going to work for. That’s the true nature of democracy. The nature of democracy is not to protect the privileges, it’s not to protect the law for the law; it’s to protect the law to protect people.
Mme Montgomery (Angelica): Police has been doing these kinds of practices before Bill 78; they did it at least three times before this bill was even introduced. So do you have a problem against the Traffic Code?
M. Khadir: No, no, no. The police, when it did it, it did it in an unlawful manner. Because it happened to me in 2003, we went to court and I won, so what was done by the police was illegal. Actually, what was done by the police yesterday was illegal too.
M. Duboyce (Tim): What is your endgame when you choose to take part in a demonstration that authorities are going to consider illegal? What is the goal that you have?
M. Khadir: The name of my party is Québec solidaire. We work in solidarity and in close connection with people, with social movements, with civil right movements, with civil society. My loyalty is not to institutions, to the status quo, to the actual powers in place; my loyalty is to my people. So, if, for protecting people’s rights, I have to defy the law or change the law… Actually, everybody, in every country, democratic countries, before changing very bad laws, they had to defy it first. So it’s the true nature of democracy, to bring changes, sometimes by even defying laws. Don’t put that in question. We have to do our history, we have to go back to see the American Revolution, we have to go to see… back the fight for civil rights in the United States, we have to go back to see the struggles we made in Québec for union rights, OK? Today, these are rights that protect our people, but, in those times, people… 4 million people defied these laws, even Tommy Douglas defied laws.
Mme Montgomery (Angelica): And others, a lot of Anglophones in Québec that have defied Bill 101 because they find the sign law unjust. I guess you support them.
M. Khadir: You know, I might not agree on that point, but I support the idea that when people find a law really unjust and can have popular support - because civil disobedience is only legitimate when it’s massive and practiced by large portions of population - if they have a good fundamental right issue, it’s their right. Even if Québec solidaire was in power, I recognize the right of the opposition, of people, when they judge that we have abused of our power, to defy it.
Mme Plante (Caroline): Essentially, what you are telling Quebeckers today is: When you find a law unjust or immoral, go out and break it.
M. Khadir: Is that what I said to you?
Mme Plante (Caroline): Well, that’s what I understand that you are saying.
M. Khadir: Well, I’m sorry because you insist by saying that it could be to any law. No, there are criteria. You cannot defy a law just because of your own personal interest; it’s only when you do something for the common good, for the common well-being. That’s when, for example, you defend fundamental rights for people. If a person wants to defy law just to not pay its due to tax, OK? Not pay its tax on revenues, that’s completely immoral, and nobody can support that. If somebody wants to defy that, just to go faster than the traffic because, you know, he has a big car and wants to… No! that’s unjust. If somebody defies the law on lobbyism, like engineering firms do it everyday, and even the Commissioner cannot do anything, that’s very morally unjust. So…
Mme Plante (Caroline): But, it’s very subjective. Why…
M. Khadir: You want to…
Mme Plante (Caroline): …it could be… No, but… no, but…
M. Khadir: You ask me a question, «What…»
Mme Plante (Caroline): It could be very subjective.
Mme Montgomery (Angelica): What about abortion?
M. Khadir: I’m sorry, no, it’s not subjective at all. There are criteria. I can send you the criteria, there are very definite criteria. And the… you know, the main point in that criterion, is that it’s morally just to defy laws, to do civil disobedience if it’s non violent and if it is to protect common good. Common good. To have contracts, unlawful contracts or contracts without bid for the Government for your own business interest, to defy law for that, that’s immoral. OK?
M. Robitaille (Antoine): Admit that you are on a slippery slope, anyway, right?
M. Khadir: Not at all. Civil disobedience is a very important tool in the hands of people since three centuries at least to improve democracy.
Robitaille (Antoine): Are those who are for abortion, for example, could … Maya Ah, excuse me.
Ms. Johnson (Maya): Mr. Khadir …
Mr. Khadir: Those who are for abortion … They commit crimes. Those who are against abortion are committing criminal acts, they use violence against doctors, even killing them. This is not the same thing.
Mr. Boivin (Simon): If they feel it is for the common good?
Journalist: Yes. If they feel it is for the common good?
Mr. Khadir: Well, they can defy the laws, I suppose, but that, I do not would participate in that. Look, this is not a choice you make by virtue of opinion. It recognizes the legitimacy of an approach that would be to discuss human rights or basic rights for a population. When this happens, I see no moral objectionion to it.
I find it completely immoral, by constrast, to tolerate a government that breaks its laws constantly like the Mafia did by financing the Liberals, such as engineering consulting firms do in financing the Liberal Party, as the ministers do when violating the rules of the National Assembly. That is immoral.
Journalist: Maybe one last … Ah, c’mon, Maya, excuse me.
Mme Johnson (Maya): OK. Quite frankly, Mr. Khadir, some people would, at best, find your comparison to what Martin Luther King would have done a stretch, at worst, just downright insulting. How can you justify that kind of a comment in this context?
M. Khadir: Martin Luther King or Mohandes Ghandi are figures of respect from which - comment on dit ça, nous… - inspire us. When we reflect about an issue in society, we name them because we want to see what would they do in these circumstances. That’s why I named them. I don’t say the situation is comparable. You don’t need even them; just think about Quebec, forty years ago: prominent union figures defied the law, went into prison. Defied the law. They disobeyed a law. They went into prison because they thought the rights of workers, the minimum wage that they requested was more important than an unjust law that wanted just to bring them back to work, that they had the right to go on strike.
So, sometimes, important… And we have examples just all around us. In New Zealand… not in New Zealand, in Australia, the Prime Minister in the seventies even asked his own people to defy his own law, because he wasn’t able to convince his own party to change antigay laws. So he asked his people: «Don’t obey to my own law». And it’s not very, you know… it’s not like the civil rights movement, it’s not, you know, very - how do you say it - it was just concerning a minority in his country, OK? It was the right of just a minority, but he found it sufficiently important, because it was a conscience issue that he thought he had to defy his own law.
So I think it’s very acceptable that people in the streets defy the law and don’t accept to obey to Bill 78, because they think the government doesn’t have the right to deprive them from their fundamental rights of expression, of freedom of speech.
Mme Johnson (Maya): Have we lost sight…
M. Khadir: Is that more clear? Is that more clear?
Mme Johnson (Maya): I listen what you are saying, but have we lost sight…
M. Khadir: Because, you know, I understand that you want to make me say that what happens here in Quebec is the same thing as… that what I have said, that what happens here is the same thing as in South Africa or in the United States. No, it’s not the same, but, by our own standards, by the expectations of the 21st century, in a democratic society like ours, which is not the backward, you know, society of the United States in the sixties, which was considering Blacks as, you know, second-class citizens; we are in 21st century in Quebec. We should have more… higher democratic expectations. By these expectations, Law 78 is very bad, is very unacceptable, as unacceptable as the segregation of Blacks was in the sixties in the United States. You understand me? So, everything is relative, but we have to inspire from inspiring figures. So, I think it’s right for now, for you, for me to clarify our situation by taking example with Martin Luther King, with Gandhi, with Nelson Mandela, with Marcel Pepin.
The Moderator: A final, right? Paul Journet.
Mr. Journet (Paul): Well, I have one last question. Under the criteria that you gave us, Mr. Khadir, you say we have … civil disobedience, it must be for the common good, not for individual interests, an action without violence. I will submit a case, that perhaps here - correct me if I’m wrong - illustrates the difficulties of framing the issue, for example, signs in English … unilingual anglophone. The English community might say, in Montreal, it defends freedom of expression, living in their own language, and disobeys Loi 101. Are we, therefore, not opening a door … Are we not taking a slippery slope with this kind of criteria here?
Mr. Khadir: I understand that is fear of slippery slopes, but I think we already slipping on many other slopes that are very, very serious and for which there was no answer. I think …
Robitaille (Antoine): Why add one?
Mr. Khadir: But, no … that’s because this one is really just invented, eh? People are not in the street, there, there is not … The drama we saw in Quebec, the student movement, eh? The dramatic situation in Quebec is that the students say: We want you to recognize our right of association, our right to strike, our democratic rights, then the government, through a special law, wants to remove it all. That is a fundamental right.
In terms of what you’re saying is instead of commercial right and power, they want a say. It does not prevent, in Quebec, a person from speaking, this is not a fundamental right, to my knowledge, in democratic societies, it is a commercial law. This is about the interest of business, eh? This is, I do not know, “big business” who wants to keep its name, Pier 1 Imports or Home Depot, right? That, I think it’s a … This is the slippery slope, I would say, of our comparisons, it is not the slippery slope of reality. The reality is that there are fundamental rights and there are rights and there are commercial rights which are very, very, very secondary.
Robitaille (Antoine): The Supreme Court determined, with the arrest of Ford, it was a fundamental right, commercial signs in English. That’s why she has reconsidered parts of Bill 101.
Mr. Khadir: Yes. Although there was mixed opinions on it. But, I return to the issue, when, in a society, generally, you see the same unanimity, against abusive power, in respect to language and sign laws, then I will agree with you. We did not see that. By contrast, Law No. 78, we have agreement- lawyers, international experts, people from civil society, historians, intellectuals - that that the statute makes no sense. So this is not the same thing. We understand that this is not the same thing.
Robitaille (Antoine): Do you expect the courts will consider that … unfair?
Mr. Khadir: I’m not talking about polls, I mean a very strong opinion. Polls, they are not reliable, that, one, eh? The surveys will use a very violent event, as the event that happened on the evening of the law, then there, in the middle of that, you ask people: Do you want order or do you want chaos? You know. Well then, please, let’s take a pass on the polls.
By contrast, when people think and then write down their ideas on paper, then submit them, you see a consensus emerge in society to the effect that the law No. 78 is unreasonable and hinders fundamental freedoms.
Robitaille (Antoine): So, the courts will agree with you, in your opinion?
Mr. Khadir: I think so.
Robitaille (Antoine): Because there … is a motion, next Wednesday?
Mr. Khadir: I think so. I think … My intuition is: yes, I hope. Obviously I can not judge instead of the courts.
A voice: That’s an interesting debate.
Translated from the original French by Translating the printemps érable.
*Translating the printemps érable is a volunteer collective attempting to balance the English media’s extremely poor coverage of the student conflict in Québec by translating media that has been published in French into English. These are amateur translations; we have done our best to translate these pieces fairly and coherently, but the final texts may still leave something to be desired. If you find any important errors in any of these texts, we would be very grateful if you would share them with us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please read and distribute these texts in the spirit in which they were intended; that of solidarity and the sharing of information.