Xref: utzoo can.politics:2069 can.francais:121
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!alberta!auvax!charlesv
From: charlesv@auvax.UUCP (Charles van Duren)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.francais
Subject: Re: Nationhood
Summary: I don't see the difference
Message-ID: <826@auvax.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jan 89 16:01:44 GMT
References: <560@cavell.UUCP> <726@myrias.UUCP> <727@myrias.UUCP> <4399@hcr.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: Athabasca U., Alberta, Canada
Lines: 45

In article <4399@hcr.UUCP>, jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
> In article <823@auvax.UUCP> charlesv@auvax.UUCP writes:
> >............................................................Unfortunately,
> >in many parts of Canada, tolerance of the linguistic rights of French
> >minorities is as great as that demonstrated by the Quebec National Assembly for
> >those of Quebec's English-speaking minority. This is generally manifested in
> >funding for education, etc.
> >.
> >.
> >.................................. Bourassa's catering to narrow political
> >interests in Quebec is reprehensible. So, however, is the attitude in Alberta
> >for instance, that a large cultural group such as the Ukranians gets no special
> >rights, so why should a tiny (30,000) group like the French?
> 
> This is hardly a fair comparison. Allowing bilingual signs is a
> passive act.  The government does not have to lift a finger or spend
> a penny in order for this right to be "permitted". And, even more
> importantly, we are talking about what virtually any other
> democratic nation would call a *fundamental* right.
> 
Fundamental rights are not only so by virtue of being defined in law. I was
talking about attitudes to minority fundamental rights. What's the difference
between the torching of the Alliance Quebec headquarters and the death threats
against Athabasca-Lac La Biche MLA Leo Piquette for asserting his right to
speak in French in the Alberta Legislature (on a matter of French-language
education in Alberta)? Laws providing for minority language rights mean very
little if those who assert those rights get fire-bombed or threatened with
death. Adequate funding for facilities for minority language groups does not
follow directly from laws guaranteeing those rights. A necessary factor is
the public acceptance of those rights. The exercising of a *fundamental*
right is very different from having such a right guaranteed.

The point is that laws by themselves guarantee very little. What is the use
of allowing bilingual signs if they provoke vandalism and arson? If you
guarantee the right, but cannot guarantee that it may be exercised freely
or safely, what have you guaranteed? Bill 101 could not guarantee the
existence of French culture in Quebec, regardless of some Quebecois sentiment.
Neither can the Supreme Court decision guarantee that minority language
rights can be exercised. That is the issue.

Charles van Duren					/* Home of the largest, cleanest kraft
TIP Project, Athabasca University   /* mill in the world (proposed) that will
Athabasca, Alberta				    /* absolutely NOT pollute! (Don Getty)

> J.B. Robinson