Protecting the Canadian flag, a veteran's mission

A veteran wants the federal government to legislate so that individuals who insult the Canadian flag are punished, as is the case in France.

I have often seen flags upside down, soiled, with writing on them or dragged on the ground and that is a lack of respect.laments retired infantry captain Jocelyn Démétré. It's like someone spits in my face when I see that.

For Mr. Démétré, the Canadian flag is the only symbol that [peut] rally everyone from east to west, regardless of cultural or political differences.

This is why during the convoy of truckers in Ottawa, Jocelyn Démétré says that he went to meet the protesters to make them aware of the importance of not mishandle the unifoliate. He claims that he told them: you can be against the decisions made at the top, but don't take the flag hostage.

When he learned that demonstrators in support of the Palestinians burned the Canadian flag in Vancouver this fall, it was like a stab for him.

After this straw that broke the camel's backhe decided to launch a petition in the House of Commons to challenge the government. Jocelyn Démétré wants parliamentarians to table a bill to protect the maple leaf against any action of destruction or desecration.

In 2004, a Conservative MP tabled a bill to this effect, but his study was never completed.

Protection at the expense of freedom of expression?

Jocelyn Démétré believes that protecting the flag is as important as the right to demonstrate.

The two must go hand in handaccording to him.

The veteran adds that when he was a commander in the army, he often told his troops: it is by having several visions, several ways of thinking that we arrive with the best. But for him, it had to be done with respecthe adds.

Thus, he does not believe that by sanctioning contempt of the maple leaf, we come restrict freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is not a blank check [et] it must have its limits.

Recognizing the importance of freedom of expression, Conservative MP Pierre Paul-Hus, who served for 22 years in the infantry, is adamant: the integrity of the flag must be protected in all its formshe says in an interview.

Mr. Paul-Hus emphasizes that freedom of expression already has limits.

You cannot smash or break buildings without incurring punishment.he said by way of comparison.

We can have freedom of expression, but at the same time, we can also say that our flag is sacred.

Open in full screen mode

Without wanting to take a position, the liberal MP Sophie Chatel, who sponsors Jocelyn Démétré's petition, judges that there is a balance to be struck with the right to freedom of expression which is nevertheless enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and which is important to respect.

Open in full screen mode

A legal question

The cause may be noble […] but prohibit the desecration or burning of the flag […] it is restricting freedom of expression head-onpoints out the co-holder of the France-Québec Research Chair on contemporary issues of freedom of expression, Pierre Rainville.

Freedom of expression is precisely intended to protect speech with which we profoundly disagree, speech which offends our values, which calls us into questionadds the professor of rights and freedoms at Laval University, Louis-Philippe Lampron.

He points out that there are two clearly established limits to freedom of expression in Canadian law: hate propaganda and defamation. The law professor believes that the government would have great difficulty justifying in court that protecting the flag does not limit freedom of expression.

Even France has made reservations about the protection of its flag, specifies Mr. Rainville. The ban only occurs in conditions likely to disturb public order, so it really takes serious harm to be apprehended.

Open in full screen mode

The interpretative guidelines in France stipulate that if we desecrate the flag, if we burn it to express an idea, to express a philosophical current or even as a gesture of artistic creation, this type of behavior does not fall under the prohibition, because there would be a disproportionate attack on freedom of expressionarticulates Pierre Rainville.

Where it becomes worrying for me is if the State begins to use the sensitivity of others and the importance of certain institutions to penalize crimes of opinion which should have their place in space. public, because criticism […] contributes to the vitality of democratic discourse.

With the polarization of ideas in the public space, Louis-Philippe Lampron believes that challenges to the principles at the heart of democratic societies will continue to multiply.