mijopo
in
canpolitik
Canada - Constitutional Superpower
An article in yesterday's NYT identifies Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as being now more influential in the world than the US constitution, "a source of inspiration for many countries around the world". Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg (US Supreme Court justice) recently recommended it over the US constitution for anyone writing a constitution in
( Read more... )
Bah. What a load. If our so-called "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" were worth a damn, Quebec's language laws would have been struck down in the 1980s.
The Charter gives far too much power to unelected, unaccountable judges, who feel perfectly entitled to misinterpret it to fit their own political agendas.
What does "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" mean? Not what it sounds like, evidently. The Supreme Court has already decided that they have the right to ignore what actual democracies do. For example, the vast majority of democracies place limits on the voting rights of convicted criminals during their sentences; but the Supreme Court struck down similar restrictions in Canada.
Reply
And those silly Brits, deciding that slaveowning is unacceptable when they know perfectly well that every other country has slavery! Honestly, what's next? Women voting? Indoor plumbing? The Viennese Waltz? Where does judicial tyranny end?!
The Charter gives far too much power to unelected, unaccountable judges, who feel perfectly entitled to misinterpret it to fit their own political agendas.
The Canadian judiciary (which plays a key part in nominating and selecting Supreme Court justices and those of all Superior and most lower courts) has received international recognition for its unbiasedness and evenhandedness in making such recommendations.
Beyond that, it is liteally the job of unelected, unaccountable judges to override the ( ... )
Reply
And those silly Brits, deciding that slaveowning is unacceptable when they know perfectly well that every other country has slavery! Honestly, what's next? Women voting? Indoor plumbing? The Viennese Waltz? Where does judicial tyranny end?!
Wow. What a stunning non sequitur - you make no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to say?
The Canadian judiciary (which plays a key part in nominating and selecting Supreme Court justices and those of all Superior and most lower courts) has received international recognition for its unbiasedness and evenhandedness in making such recommendations.
Really? From whom? I'd consider the source before assuming that such praise is deserved.
Say what you like: the fact remains that our Supreme Court continues to tolerate Quebec's language laws. That isn't a sign of even-handedness; it's a sign that they're perfectly willing to ignore human rights for political reasons.
If the entire Supreme Court starts issuing batshit insane decisions, the administrative branch would probably refuse to enforce ( ... )
Reply
That the conduct of "the vast majority of democracies" holds no bearing over what any given democracy ought to do, and that if the yardstick for whether or not something is ethical or moral or legally-permissible is whether or not other countries have decided it ought to be, you've basically shut down all social change.
Say what you like: the fact remains that our Supreme Court continues to tolerate Quebec's language laws. That isn't a sign of even-handedness; it's a sign that they're perfectly willing to ignore human rights for political reasons.
I don't approve of Quebec's language laws, but I really don't like this use of human-rights language. OH MY GOD, WE HAVE TO PUT FRENCH ON THE SIGN ABOVE ENGLISH, WE ARE SO OPPRESSED! WEEP FOR US! WEEP!
Moreover, the separation of powers means that each group exercises only those powers which it exercises under the Constitution. The Supreme Court is entitled to interpret and administer the law ( ... )
Reply
What about the right to send your kids to an English school? That hinders anglos and allos in the ability to better themselves, or open up education and job opportunities? Or that the Supreme Court ruled that the sign laws of Quebec infringe on the freedom of expression of anglophone or allophone Quebecois?
Bill 101 is literally one of the worse laws on the books in this country and to so summarily dismiss it as if minor human rights infractions arent worthy of notice is absurd and goes against some of the core things I have seen you argue in favour of dozens of times in this community.
Reply
There is no such right, at least not on the taxpayer's dime. Children have the right to be educated, but they do not necessarily have the right to be educated in the precise manner and fashion (and language) in which the parents wish them to be educated. That's what private schools and homeschooling are for.
More importantly, Quebec does have English-speaking public schools. They have limited access to these schools to certain groups, but these groups are fairly inclusive. (To my understanding, anyone who is the child of someone who attended English-speaking schools, or who has previously attended English-speaking schools in another jurisdiction, is permitted to attend Quebec's English-speaking schools.) Moreover, there is a growing English-immersion program, in which several courses (including core, non-language courses) are taken in English within a school which is officially French-speaking. Some of these programs start as early as the first grade.
That hinders anglos ( ... )
Reply
Only those who attended English schools in another jurisdiction within Canada. If you moved to Montreal from Plattsburgh, sorry, but your kids are gonna have to parlez-vous.
It's ludicrous to deny access to schools and teachers that are already funded and already exist to English-speakers in the province, even if that's only the case for a small sliver of English-speakers.
Do those English-speakers not pay taxes that support those schools?
More importantly, though, anglophones can get around the few existing hurdles by learning French, while under the culture which was in place at the time the law was introduced and passed, a francophone who learned English was still a francophone who had learned English rather than someone truly counted as a member of both communities.Have you ever lived in Quebec ( ... )
Reply
Reply
It isn't even a question of protecting English within Quebec. It's a question of NOT ACTIVELY SUPPRESSING IT.
I don't mind that French speakers get extra support in Whitehorse or wherever. I just wish that we English speakers here in Quebec didn't get our lives made artificially more difficult by xenophobic ethnic nationalists who claim it's justified because during the 19th century the British used to eat their babies.
Reply
Stop and think about that for a second: The French Language Services Directorate. Can you imagine the Quebec government announcing the creation of, say, a Direction des services en anglais?
Stop and think about that for a second: is there any part of the Government of Quebec which is inaccessible to anglophones? Is there any component or organization which, due to language barriers, anglophones cannot access, at all? It may be the case that not every employee of every government agency speaks English, but in these situations it's just a matter of moving to the next counter at the licensing office, not whole-scale exclusion from use of a government service ( ... )
Reply
Maybe in Montreal it's not that hard to be served by the Quebec government in English, but maybe in certain other parts of the province, it is. Maybe if you live in Matapedia, though, you're fucked because the Town Clerk only speaks one language and it isn't yours.
I'm not one of these people getting crude with you. If you want to have a conversation, we can have a conversation. And if you have experiences in these matters that you wanna talk about, I'm willing to listen and learn. But only if that's a two-way street. Right now, it feels like you're in Toronto (or wherever) telling people who have lived these experiences in Quebec how it really is.
is there any part of the Government of ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
On the other hand, there isn't an "Office of the English Language" that actively cracks down on French use outside Quebec, either.
Which is not to say that French doesn't deserve extra support outside Quebec - you're perfectly correct, it's a lot harder to get French service in BC than English service in downtown Montreal. Still, that doesn't excuse Bill 101: two wrongs don't make a right.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
See, I just feel like these experiences are a product of immigration and multicultural policies that have been adopted across the country. Someone from Toronto or Vancouver might tell you the same story - Bill 101 did not in itself give you the experience of attending diverse schools.
Reply
However, I still don't agree that the language laws "protect" French. I realize that's the justification often used for them - "protection" is the justification that extremists often use for suppressing rights - but it doesn't hold water.
Reply
Leave a comment