Some members of Hampstead's city council have chosen to ignore, or else do not understand, an elementary fact of democratic life: That it is possible to dispute someone's political choices without doubting his or her professional capacities.
Lawyer Julius Grey is, we believe, certainly misguided in backing Vision Montreal candidate Louise Harel in this fall's Montreal municipal election. But the attempt to have him dismissed as Hampstead's lawyer in a court case, because of this, was far more sorely misguided, and more evidently so.
Grey had been hired to plead Hampstead's case in a matter involving a dog run installed three years ago in a Hampstead park. Some residents have complained of excessive noise from the facility, and the city has been taken to court.
Then Grey signed on with the Harel campaign as a high-profile adviser on ethical matters. Subsequent to that a motion was passed at this month's council meeting requiring that Grey's mandate be terminated for that reason - and not, please note, because of any reservations about his competence to handle the dog-run complaint.
Hampstead mayor William Steinberg is to be congratulated for invoking his veto power to quash that motion. He correctly pointed out that when it comes to political choices, Grey has the right to believe what he wants, and that his choice in this case has absolutely no bearing on his capacity to handle the mundane case for which he was engaged. The mayor has, we believe, gone a little over the top in equating this nasty little bit of town-pump politicking to McCarthy-era Commie witchhunting; if anything Steinberg was harder on his own councillors than Harel, who put all this down to an outbreak of hysteria.
It is ironic that this should happen to Grey, who has built a stellar reputation as a champion of civil rights and freedom of expression. The councillor who raised the motion criticized not only Grey's choice of mayoral contender, but also the fact that he spoke out about it. A fine message to Hampstead residents: if you're not onside with the city hall majority, shut up!
Hampstead councillors have every right to be anti-Harel for her leading role in forcing the municipal mergers, or her separatist persuasion. But are they suggesting here that only those with "correct" political opinions should get contracts from the city? That's called patronage, and it tends to be a gateway to deeper corruption in governance.