Ex-serviceman risks eviction by flying Canadian flag on balcony

[MedTechStudent]

According to an article from the Ottawa Sun Mr Murray got what he wanted. Flag poles front and back of the building!

Congrats to him.

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2008/07/15/6158976-sun.html

Well there ya go, thats something they all can live with.

Good on him.

 

[tankie]

I am Canadian born and raised, British Tank Soldier by trade, i have the Maple Leaf stitched to every shirt collar and every helmet.  When asked if i can remove it i state my case...sir i am Canadian, not American and i don't want the locals mixing the two up! They nod their heads in a wise way and walk off.  My Canadian flag flys true, strong and free in my MQ in Andover Hampshire and god forbid the person that asks me to take it down.  Hats off to any serviceman  serving or ex, fighting for their country and wants to show patriotism.

Dieu et mon Droit

 

[The Bread Guy]

<bureaucratic defence tangent>

Some pencilneck little prick has NOTHING BETTER TO DO than sit there in his office - and threaten a former service member with eviction, for flying the Canadian flag??

I don't mean to sound crude or violent or immature.....but damn I wish we had some form of population control out there!!

I understand the frustration, but before we attack any specific "pencilneck little prick" (P-NLP), let's also understand that these individuals have rules they have to follow (by law) from their governing body (usually consisting of appointed or elected folks).  Part of their job is to follow the rules, but part of their job is ALSO to try to make the situation fit the pigeonhole created by said rules.  One person's P-NLP for enforcing the rules one disagrees with is another person's hero for enforcing the rules they DO agree with....

</bureaucratic defence tangent>

That said, since the problem appears to be solved, and with politicians always getting e-mails/petitions/documentation castigating them for decisions, if you want to thank the governing body:
http://www.uclg.ca/en/government/council.asp

I can't find contact info on the council members, so I'm guessing you could send information care of the municipal clerk's office:

Clerk
Lorraine Crotty
25 Central Avenue West, Suite 100
Brockville, ON K6V 4N6

Bus: 613-342-3840 ext. 2307
Fax: 613-342-2101

Couldn't find an e-mail, but if you go right to the bottom of this page
http://www.uclg.ca/en/contact_us/
you'll find a link under the Clerk's listing that allows you to send web-based e-mail.

 

[xena]

Just a thought here...

In defence of the "P-NLP", have you ever been in a position where you were expected to enforce a stupid rule that you knew was stupid?  I have.  What did I do?  I obeyed orders, did what I was told, and when the powers-that-be discovered that we were doing stupid things, it got stopped PDQ.

What if...  a beaurucrat had a set of directives handed to him by a committee (and remember, an elephant is a stallion built by a committee!) and he knows that some of this stuff, while sounding good on paper, in an office, is just plain stupid in the real world.  But, he would put his job in jeapardy if he doesn't "enforce" these rules.

Well, he could "enforce" these rules, all the while hoping that people get the hints he's dropping about taking this to the media and letting the public outcry force the committee to revise their rules to something more in line with common sense.

What I'm saying is that this is more likely the result of just the "nature-of-the-beast" of how committees work, and there could (possibly) be an underling beaurucrat secretly cheering this guy on.  Possibly.  Maybe then, we can give folks, even beaurucrats, the benefit of the doubt...

 

[The Bread Guy]

In defence of the "P-NLP", have you ever been in a position where you were expected to enforce a stupid rule that you knew was stupid?  I have.  What did I do?  I obeyed orders, did what I was told, and when the powers-that-be discovered that we were doing stupid things, it got stopped PDQ.....

To follow up on this, note who's doing the talking about the solution here - emphasis mine:

A message from Mark Murray to Canadian soldiers around the world: "We won the battle."

The 53-year-old ex-corporal is claiming victory in his flag war with the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, whose community housing agency ordered him to remove his Canadian flag from his Cardinal balcony.

"I think what we've done here is boosted morale for troops overseas," Murray said.

Community housing will erect a flagpole with a Canadian flag behind Murray's apartment building and fly another Canadian flag out front.

Edwardsburgh/Cardinal Twp. Mayor Larry Dishaw confirmed the plan.

"It's a compromise that should satisfy everybody," Dishaw said .....

 

[geo]

One of two things can and will happen....
1.  Enforce the rule... if the rule is silly then Hue and Cry will commence - people will complain and the rule gets changed

2. Short circuit the rule ... if the rule is silly and the enforcer sees it as such - he bends the rule or choses to ignore it... some of the time or all of the time while he is on duty - suddenly you have all sorts of people who have had the rule either applied or not applied or partialy applied..... THEN TRY TO SORT EVERYTHING OUT.

Best thing to do is to enforce the rule and let the chips fall where they might

 

[armyvern]

Touchy issue:

On the one side, this man has every right to fly the Canadian flag.  And his military service and detection causes a bit of a sting when people read about his situation.

On the other hand, its the rules of the Housing Complex.  Thats just how it is there, and if they make an exception for this man then they are going to have to make more in the future for other people.  And then where will it end?  What makes some people deserving of the right to fly the Canadian Flag, and others not?

As much as I think the rule itself about not flying flags in kind of ridiculous, it is the rule so I think he should obey it. 

Just a real shame he's put into that position. 

So the bottom line as it seams to me, is that the only way he will be allowed to fly the flag, is if the housing organization abolishes the rules on flying them and allows everyone to raise flags.

1) Mr Murray's former service has SFA to do with my own personal thoughts on the matter and I'd think that many other posters who posted their support here - think the same way; I can't believe that a housing development has the balls to tell ANYONE that they can not fly the National Flag of this nation if it is being done IAW the proper protocols governing it's flying;

2) Regarding the rules: see my post here ... How to re-inforce stereotypes and keep a lot of good people down.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yesterday when I read this on the CBC site I did take the time to google these housing authority folks and made it a point to politely email my objections and views to the lady quoted in the CBC story.  Perhaps others did too as they seem to have realized the err of their ways and have made a sensible accommodation.  Bloody fools should not have let it go to this extreme.  SO THERE!! housing people

 

[Run away gun]

And to thing, if he were to burn the same flag that he flies today, there would probably be no fanfare at all.

Odd world we live in.

 

[Blackadder1916]

As it seems that the housing authority (or the community/politicians that is its sole shareholder) blinked, the issue is moot.  However a couple of points do come to mind in this discussion of following the rules versus making exceptions to the rules.  It is unlikely that the rules of the housing authority (and probably also referred to in this gentleman's tenancy agreement) specifically excluded the flying of flags.  It probably was worded somewhat like this extract from a condo corporation's rules and regulations.

F.      BALCONIES/PATIOS

1.  No awnings or shades shall be erected over and outside of the windows or balconies/patios without the prior written consent of the Board nor shall any garments, rugs, or other articles be hung or placed on the window sills, railings, and other external parts of the unit.

2.  Nothing may be thrown, poured, washed or shaken from the balcony / patio or windows. Cigarettes and matches are particularly dangerous and must not be flipped over the railing. Any damage caused by one owner to another owner's apartment becomes the financial liability of the owner causing such damage.

3.  The cooking and broiling of foods is not permitted on balconies.

4.  Balconies/patios are for seasonal furniture only. They must not be used for storage purposes.

5.  No mops, brooms, dusters, rugs or bedding shall be shaken or beaten from any window, door or those parts of the common elements over which the owner has exclusive use (balcony/patio)

With some minor changes, usually about cooking/grilling either being allowed or not, that section is very similar to most rules that I had to abide by when I lived in rental accommodation.  It is also remarkably similar to rules for the PMQs when I lived in them in Germany.  A similar situation occurred there when complaints were made about an occupant who had a flag (not the Cdn flag, but did not have an offensive connotation ) hanging from his balcony railing.  The situation was exacerbated by the general unkempt appearance of his balcony.  When he was told to take it down, he objected and used the defense that the flag demonstrated his pride in what it stood for and made reference to flying the Canadian Flag in its place.  He was informed that it did not matter what the flag was, it could not be hung from the railing.  As the senior rank in that PMQ block, it fell to me to ensure his compliance.

Though I would not wish to place Mr. Murray or any of his neighbours in a stereotype, the strict adherence to the rules may be more necessary in a subsidized housing complex than elsewhere.  Unfortunately, all too often the appearance of low income housing units diminishes when certain tenants do as they please.  Though judging from the picture of this particular complex (can be found on the housing authority's site), the housing authority and its tenants have maintained good standards, perhaps sticking to the rules had something to do with it.

There are no legal rules for the flying of flags in Canada, however the usual protocol (for government buildings) regarding the display from a balcony or building is to have the flag on a staff either horizontally or at an angle with the canton of the flag projected outwards.  Though it is not clear on the manner that Mr. Murray displayed his flag, it appears from the stories that he hung it from the railing.

 

[Old Sweat]

The local television news at 1800 yesterday showed that he had mounted a bracket on the end of the wall separating his little patio from his neighbor's. The flag itself was on a pole projected at about 800 mils from the bracket. None of the other tenants had any complaints about the flag; in fact everyone interviewed supported his stand.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[fire_guy686]

According to an article from the Ottawa Sun Mr Murray got what he wanted. Flag poles front and back of the building!

Congrats to him.

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2008/07/15/6158976-sun.html

Glad to see the community housing agency agreed to this. Good job Mark for sticking to your guns and not letting up on this. 

 

[larry Strong]

Glad to see a Mayor and an MLA stand up for the flag also. Kudo's to them.

 

[1feral1]

friends,

I love it when there is a happy ending.

Truly happy days,


OWDU

 

[a_majoor]

The entire problem with this situation is (and this is why every single one of us can pick out these areas as soon as we drive into them):

Nothing at all like rules telling a whole group of people they are mandated to be he same, remain the same, never grow. Awesome way to enforce the "you will always be what you are now and will never amount to much more - never attempt to do so, and never attempt to express yourself because who will you be kidding?" - Conform to our grey, bleak vision of you. Pretty freakin' sad actually.

Do we or do we not trust our citizens? Do we still believe, as Adams once said, that in America we believe that each man is the best judge of his own interest? We certainly do not act as if we believe it. Worse, we treat many of our citizens -- "minorities" -- as an underclass, unable to know their own interests, unable to better themselves through their own efforts, and forever condemned to exist on the benefits of "entitlements." We don't make them tug the forelock in deference to the bureaucrats, but if you visit the offices of public largesse you will find something very like that...

If we do not believe that each man is the best judge of his own interests, then who shall have the power to tell each of us what we want and need? The technical term for those people is "rulers".

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view476.html#Road

Jerry Pournelle

 

[retiredgrunt45]

Bureaucrats "nil" Mr. Murray +1. Wait a go old chap!!

Big fat foot in mouth looks good on them for a change! Wankers!

 

[karl28]

        Glad to here that this had a happy ending .

 

[JSR OP]

         Glad to here that this had a happy ending .

So much for the happy ending...
He's being threatened again with eviction.

Here is the story in the Brockville Recorder and times.

http://www.recorder.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1233355

Vet who fought to display flag told he could face eviction

By Nick Gardiner, Staff Writer

A man at the centre of a dispute with the United Counties over flying a Canadian flag at his community housing property has been warned to change his behaviour within a week or face eviction.
Mark Murray went from being joyful last Friday when community housing installed a new flagpole to a sense of bewilderment Thursday when officials presented him with a warning letter citing incidents last month investigated by police.
The raising of a flagpole at the Helen Street housing complex satisfied a compromise reached between community housing officials and Murray after the armed forces veteran refused to remove a Canadian flag from his property as ordered last June.
"The flagpole went up Friday and they put the flag on it Saturday ... and I took mine down and put in the closet," Murray told The Recorder and Times during a phone interview.
But Thursday's letter of warning left him wondering if community housing is looking for excuses to finger him for eviction.
"I really don't know whether it is or not. But some of my friends and neighbours think so."
That's certainly the impression left with Linda McCoy, vice-president of the Cardinal legion, who feels Murray is being unfairly targeted.
"It just seems to me to be too convenient that they put the flagpole up and the flag up late last week and now this week he's served with an eviction notice," McCoy said.
"It's like they let the dust settle over the flag issue and now they're coming after him. It's just too, too coincidental."
A spokesman from community housing wouldn't comment on any specific client case in a phone message left with a reporter Friday morning.
But Debra Gill, manager of program planning, said in voicemail messages any correspondence to tenants "explains the process and possible solutions and the remedies."
Moreover, the office does an investigation as part of the process and often refers the matter to mediation before taking further action.
"That's all I feel comfortable with stating at this time," she said, adding concerned residents are welcomed to call her directly.
Murray acknowledged his involvement in a dispute with a neighbour in August, which brought police to the complex as indicated in the letter from community housing.
But he said he had nothing to do with incidents in September that brought police to the complex as cited by the housing officials in the letter.
One incident occurred Sept. 26 when he was away from home celebrating his brother's birthday, he said.
Another on the previous day didn't involve him and he didn't speak with police, he insisted.
"I asked them, 'Did you do any investigation at all?' and they said they spoke to the police."
At no time did housing officials contact him to discuss mediation over the incidents listed in the letter, he said.
Meanwhile, Murray said he asked Grenville OPP to examine their reports but was refused and directed instead to file a freedom of information request.
He said police were called to the apartment building because of disputes between other neighbours that didn't involve him. The counties should check the facts, he said.
"I'll do what I have to do to make them aware it isn't me and if they did some research they'd find out it was for someone else."
Murray said he is particularly concerned over an allegation in the letter accusing him of looking in a window from his balcony.
He said his ground-floor unit doesn't have a balcony while a separating wall between units prevents him from seeing into any windows when he's on his patio.
"I was pretty upset when I read it. To me that kind of insinuates I'm a peeping Tom.
"People can say I looked in a window and housing picks it up and puts it in their letter with no witnesses whatsoever and they believe it."
Murray said he has contacted a lawyer who will send housing a letter asking to see the evidence that led to the warning.

 

[Jimmy67]

Incredible...

Funny thing is that my mother just went through this crap with the company that owns the apartment building she lives in. She was told to take down her flag "because it could be construed as a signal that drugs are sold from the apartment"! : If you want to be a jackass, you could claim that about anything from the colour of your patio furniture, to the arrangement of your flowerboxes on your balcony.

I will be having a little chat with her building super when I visit for Thanksgiving, I think...

At the rate we are going, we are going to end up like the gong shows here:

http://hoanewsnetwork.com/media/node