The Notwithstanding Clause (Section 33) explicitly applies to Sections 2 & 7-15 of the Charter. 2 is freedom of religion, expression, and association, 7-13 are various legal rights, like unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, right to counsel and due process, etc, and 14 & 15 are anti-discrimination by race/gender/religion/etc. This law blatantly violates Section 2, but Section 2 is explicitly within the scope of Section 33.
The rights to which Section 33 does not pertain are democratic and mobility rights. There’s no taking away of voting rights or preventing people from moving to/from your province, notwithstanding the notwithstanding clause. Minority language educational rights are also outside the scope of Section 33.
@Hari_Seldon , are you referring to the Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44; or the Quebec Bill of Rights, better known as the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c C-12 (formerly RSQ, c C-12)?
It may be true Quebec is counting on its unilateral changes to be carefully worded so be possibly legal. This is uncertain at best. The fact remains that the federal government should not, in my opinion, stay silent on this issue. The recommended changes seem political and designed to intimidate with little social benefit. And the privacy implications greatly undermine Quebec’s own Rights legislation. Some argue these “paper tigers” are unenforceable and so irrelevant. No doubt there will be peace in our time. It’s only the Sudetenland.
Any anecdotes on the treatment of French-speaking, but maybe not Canadian enough, minorities? Like immigrants from the French mainland, or places like Martinique?
An ad from the Quebec government is on the last page of the Globe. It denies health care for English speakers is affected, but mentions no other languages. It states that the office québécois cannot participate in searches and seizures. That education will not be affected. Wasn’t there a $100m college expansion mixed by the government after funding had been approved? What was that about?
Does Quebec have a point when it wants to protect the language? Yes. But do the measures invoked do that? I have often said no effort is made in other Canadian provinces to teach “Québécois” French. And I have on several occasions heard educated people in Quebec belittle slang and common usage of their own language. Language is very important to the French who see it as a matter of cultural survival given their location.
So, is there any evidence that French is not prospering in Quebec? That it is becoming less popular, even, defined in real terms and not use of slang? If not, the constitution identifies two official languages across the country to keep the peace, as it were, as it has for decades.
The thing is that even if the French language is weakening, it’s not the fault of the Anglo population; French in Quebec is already buttressed by things such as Bill 101 and the situation in which all the power resided in the Anglo population has been long since reversed.
When franglais is being used by a mixed language group of people, nobody has held a gun to anyone’s head to force them to switch from French to English mid-sentence in the conversation. Additionally, especially among the younger Montrealers, Francophones recognize that they need English to get by in the wider world. What the sovereignists are doing is effectively trying to close off opportunities to young Quebecers.
I lived in Montreal during the 1996 referendum and voted in that. Montrealais today are supposedly less sovereignist than them. The mixture of languages is what makes the city unique, although I learned French and sought out francophone neighbourhoods. Anglos are an easy political target, and outside of Montreal some people certainly feel differently.
However, is French weakening? The fact ambitious French people want to learn English is not, to me, proof of this. It’s a big world. If less people are able to speak French, that is stronger evidence. Is even this true? Not sure it is. If it is, doubt this is the best solution. You can pull people further than you can push them.
I think I went off-track in my first response to your question. I don’t believe that it is weakening and I do believe that Montrealers are simply continuing to be cosmopolitan and inclusive. I also think that the serious sovereigntists have their own agendas and are, sadly, successfully duping a good chunk of the non-Montreal population.
I honestly think that the whole thing is really sad; I actually really enjoy practicing my French (not that it’s that good (and that probably makes me seem tres charmant )) and I think that the franglais thing is incredibly cool. But to see a population so totally threatened by this and/or so desperate for power (eg a premier who wants to be Lord of his little Fiefdom Prime Minister of a new country) that they’re willing to lie about a non-existent threat, express righteous indignation about petty, stupid things like “bonjour-hi” and pasta-gate in order to chip away at, and ultimately torpedo, a model of inclusion and diversity is ridiculous.
[quote=“velomont, post:48, topic:965272”]
The thing is that even if the French language is weakening… among the younger Montrealers, Francophones recognize that they need English to get by in the wider world. What the sovereignists are doing is effectively trying to close off opportunities to young Quebecers.
[/quote]I’ve put elipses into the quote to highlight the point:
This is exactly how languages shift. Nobody forces anybody, but the pull of power (esp. economic power) and prestige persuades people to spend more time in English and less in French, until the French is gone. Is it in danger of vanishing? Not right now. But the factors that would make it vanish are absolutely in place.
As I said above, I don’t think ridiculous and discriminatory laws are the solution, but these same young francophones that “need English to get by in the wider world” will grow so comfortable in English that they might not raise their kids to speak French, or send them to French schools, especially if (as is statistically likely) their spouses do not speak French, and the language of the home shifts to English.
Robust protections to keep important domains francophone are necessary. But I don’t think that’s really the intention of these laws; they seem more designed to push homogeneity.
Most of them are well aware of the huge economic costs Quebec incurs because of their idiotic language policies, but they don’t care. There’s no point in trying to appeal to reason because their motivations are 100% emotional. It’s like an argument I had with a fracophone idealist who kept going on and on about what a “beautiful” language French was. It must really pain these idealists to hear French and English being so casually mixed together. They probably regard it as some kind of sacrilege.
This is one thing that I disagree with. As I was discussing with my neighbours last week about this, if I was told that English is going to disappear one day etc etc, then who cares? Any language as we currently know it, unless buttressed by some set of laws or Academie or whatever, will evolve.
Homogeneity and racism, as well as the pursuit of power by a small group of politicians who are using a subset of the French speaking population.
Absolutely agree. And when they are forced to care, I think I know who they’ll blame.
I see the franglais thing a lot these days, even versions in which there are no anglo participants in a conversation and they’ll just drop an “it is what it is” or “what can you do” into the middle of a French-spoken conversation.
Okay, necessary if you think that preserving the language is necessary. I tend to think this is important, but reasonable minds may disagree. And I don’t think anyone thinks Quebecois is in as much danger as, say, the languages threatened BY French in Quebec: https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/du/2008-du2547/019562ar.pdf .
Quote from the article: “There are nine Aboriginal languages still used in Quebec: Montagnais, Naskapi, Inuktitut, Cree, Algonquin, Atikamekw, Mohawk, Abenaki, and Micmac (Dorais, 1996). The extent to which these languages are actually spoken and used as the main means of communication varies greatly. According to the 2001 Canadian census, the languages most often reported in Quebec as Aboriginal mother tongues are Cree (11,810 people), Inuktitut (8,620 people) and Montagnais-Naskapi (8,180 people). Overall, results from the 2001 census showed there were a total of 79,400 people who reported an Aboriginal ethnic origin in Quebec, with 38,530 reporting some knowledge of an Aboriginal language.”
That would actually be an interesting discussion on its own and I do get it and I understand what wolfpup was mentioning:
And I’ve also heard over and over about what a “rich” (not “beautiful” though) language English is. I have an English degree (but I think it might have expired a long time ago ) and a minor in history so I get the perspectives.
Something like 70% of the words in your sentence (or any average English sentence) were borrowed from some other language sometime in the past 1500 years, typically in second-language-learner, blended-language, code-switching-within-sentences household situations like the Franglish one mentioned in this thread.
(It’s almost as true for French, too — indeed, the very word “French/Français” reminds us of the many Germanic roots of this basically Romance language).
)) and I think that the franglais thing is incredibly cool. But to see a population so totally threatened by this and/or so desperate for power (eg a premier who wants to be