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... )
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 them;
"Probably"?
"Probably" is not reassuring. How exactly do you get rid of a Supreme Court judge?
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, but not to ignore or rewrite items it doesn't like. They're bound by the law as much as anyone else is.
They're also as fallible as anyone else, much though they may like to pretend that they aren't.
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, but not to ignore or rewrite items it doesn't like.
Yes it is. This practice is called "common law" and is the underlying principle of--wait for it, wait for it, wait for it--most of the world's largest democracies. Funny how that works.
"Probably"?
"Probably" is not reassuring.
Suppose that, tomorrow, the Supreme Court were to issue a decision to the effect that "all persons over the age of 65 ought to be rounded up and shot in order to free up healthcare resources for persons of working age".
Do you really think that the RCMP and military would just roll over and do as they're told?
Courts issue outrageous decisions at their own peril. If they go over the line, even if they cannot be impeached or removed from office, the orders are simply ignored.
How exactly do you get rid of a Supreme Court judge?
Justices are appointed by and serve at her majesty's pleasure. If they fail to pleasure her majesty, they can, presumably, be dismissed, although to my knowledge this has never happened.
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 and allos in the ability to better themselves, or open up education and job opportunities?
The reason this law was passed was because, as Quebec's educational and job opportunities were organized, there was essentially a two-tier system: anglophones had access to much better employment opportunities than francophones, and francophones (particularly unilingual francophones) were systematically excluded from "bettering themselves" (as you put it) because the real social and commercial control was concentrated within a core community of plutocratic (and largely unilingual) anglophones.
The point of the exercise is that Quebec is, and always has been, a majority-francophone province. That someone should be discriminated against in employment because they speak the language of the majority is patently ludicrous, and since social forces were unable to rectify this problem, legislative action was necessary.
It may be the case that anglophones now face a degree of discrimination. However, I put it to you that this discrimination is significantly less severe than that historically experienced by francophones, and that anglophones have, despite this change, retained a number of rights and privileges which had historically been denied to francophones. 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.
Limits on freedom of expression are problematic, but when the expression under discussion is things like the contents of shop signage and the naming of corporations, I'm not too concerned. It has also been my (admittedly skewed) experience that, when anglophones complain about freedom of speech, they are generally complaining about being made uncomfortable or inconvenienced, rather than actually being substantially excluded from participation or involvement in society and public affairs, as francophones were before the law was passed.
It may be the case that, 35 years later, the law has become unnecessary and perhaps even oppressive--but, at the time it was pssed, it was both necessary and has been effective in bringing francophones to their rightful (equal) place in Quebec society.
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, or are you just spitballing here? Honest question.
What gets me is seeing how anglos are treated in Quebec (I was one for 10 years) versus how francophones are treated across the rest of the country. I live in Yukon now. I realize it's a special case because territories are governed differently from provinces, but, man, there is an entire government department here dedicated to helping the territorial government serve French-speakers in the territory (of which there are slightly more than 1,000).
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?
And because of the Charter, we have a judge who has ordered the government to build a new French high school for a handful of students.
It just doesn't make any sense to me that the French language should be better protected in Whitehorse than the English language should be in, say, Sherbrooke.
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.
In the Yukon, low population density and low overall population dictate quite the opposite: it is actually very common for people to be unable to access government services because of language issues, and without some sort of intervention, within minority-language communities it becomes necessary to hire a translator in order to conduct comparatively mundane activities. (Need a marriage license? If you're Francophone and the town clerk only does English, you're kind of fucked.)
Having a central office to handle these situations is both an economical response to a real problem and a de-facto constitutional requirement.
And because of the Charter, we have a judge who has ordered the government to build a new French high school for a handful of students.
And it sounds like the judge is personally-involved in the case, and it sounds like we should be waiting for an appeal rather than launching straight into POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAAAAAAAAAAD.
It just doesn't make any sense to me that the French language should be better protected in Whitehorse than the English language should be in, say, Sherbrooke.
I'm not sure you've demonstrated that it is.
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 Quebec which is inaccessible to anglophones? Is there any component or organization which, due to language barriers, anglophones cannot access, at all?
Not exactly what you're asking about, but I'd say this is relevant: "In other words, 5.3% of the Quebec civil service is made up of people other than French Canadian, while ethnic minorities, anglophones and Aboriginal peoples make up more than 20% of the Quebec population."
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
Reply
Would it be okay to scale back the rights of, iuno, let's say entitled white, gay Torontonians? I mean, their lives cant be THAT BAD. They're never really far from a Starbucks, sauna, or dance club, so I imagine removing their right to marry shouldn't be such a big deal? I mean, it would be problematic, but it wouldnt be more than a slight inconvenience in the big picture, don't you think? Those gays could still participate substantially in society, but just with a few rights snipped off the side that really, when you think about it, they can get around these hurdles by just dating a woman.
Reply
Leave a comment