Xref: utzoo can.politics:2094 can.francais:127
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!onfcanim!dave
From: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.francais
Subject: Re: Bourassa and Bill 101
Keywords: Quebec, constitution
Message-ID: <17099@onfcanim.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 89 17:16:59 GMT
References: <88Dec21.113818est.9269@ois.db.toronto.edu> <2541@looking.UUCP> <836@mannix.iros1.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Distribution: can
Organization: National Film Board / Office national du film, Montreal
Lines: 32

The thing that really bothers me about Bourassa's decision is that
it is based on "maintaining social peace" rather than any sort of
principle.  As was pointed out by the head of Alliance Quebec after
their offices were set on fire, if government decides policy on the
basis of maintaining social peace, then whoever has the biggest brick
is who sets policy.  This seems like a *very* bad precedent, likely
to lead to more violence (not just on language issues) as it becomes
clear that that is what gets results.

Ideally, I'd like to see a new sign law that acknowledge the Supreme
Court judgement, and maintained the right to additional languages on
signs as long as French is predominant.

On the other hand, I think that Quebec, as a whole, can decide to
trade away some of its guaranteed rights in order to gain something
else if it so chooses.  If there had been a well-worded referendum
on the topic, or even a single-issue election, preceded by debate
that allowed people to discuss the longer-term effect of a reduction
in rights, then we would have an indication of how the majority of
Quebec felt.  If the concensus was that bilingual signs were, in the
balance, undesirable, then I think the government would be justified in
changing the law as it has.

But rather than discuss the matter and try to obtain such a concensus,
the government has stuck its head in the sand until the old law was
actually struck down, then was forced to act so rapidly to replace it
that no real discussions with the public could take place.

So, although I don't like the current law, I can accept that you don't
always get what you want in a democracy (if this issue had been decided
democratically).  But I am really worried about the way this issue was
actually decided.