Xref: utzoo can.politics:2099 can.francais:130
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: <17162@onfcanim.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jan 89 06:16:11 GMT
References: <88Dec21.113818est.9269@ois.db.toronto.edu> <2541@looking.UUCP> <836@mannix.iros1.UUCP> <17099@onfcanim.UUCP> <762@myrias.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Distribution: can
Organization: National Film Board / Office national du film, Montreal
Lines: 74

In article <762@myrias.UUCP> dre@myrias.UUCP (Duane Eitzen) writes:
>/**********
>PLEASE NOTE THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH. IT IS FOR
>RHETORICAL PURPOSES ONLY
>*********/
>On the other hand, I think that *CANADA*, 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
>*CANADA* felt.  If the concensus was that *FRENCH* signs were, in the
>balance, undesirable, then I think the government would be justified in
>changing the law as it has.
>
>/* back to what I believe */
>
>Your general principle doesn't sound so good when the majority party
>and the minority party change languages, does it?

No, that's exactly the same principle applied in the same way - I see
the two paragraphs as being the same.

>I think the problem
>is that you confuse rights and privileges. A privilege is something
>you are given or allowed, typically by the appropriate authority.
>A right is something which can not (morally) be taken without consent,
>no matter what the majority says, no matter what you think is right.

I do understand the difference.  But, ultimately, which things fall into
which category are determined by the opinion of a body of people - I don't
see that any rights are "absolute", except in the sense that absolutely
everyone agrees to them.  The rights that are included in the Canadian
constitution are those that Canadians think are rights (borrowing, of
course, from the opinions of other nations as well).

Quebec is an odd case because it is not an independent country, yet wishes
to behave as one when legislating.

>Is the ability to post signs in your language on the outside of your
>shop a right? You may argue that it isn't. The Canadian constitution,
>the UN declaration of human rights and me say it is.

Let's be a bit more precise.

I don't believe that the constitution or the UN declaration say anything
directly about posting signs.  They do say that freedom of speech is
a right, but it is only the Supreme Court of Canada which has declared that
the language of signs is a freedom of speech issue.  Many people in
Quebec do not agree, and may also feel that the Supreme Court ought not
to have jurisdiction.

Now, for the record, I think that no language should be forbidden on
outside signs.  I even agree that this *should* be covered by
the freedom of speech guarantees.  But just because I believe it does
not make it true.  If there are a majority of other people who do not
think it ought to be a right, my opinion is not enough to make it true.

Perhaps this is an interesting question:  If Quebec was a completely
independent country, would it have the right to determine for itself
whether the language of signs was protected by freedom of speech?

If not, why not?  Can a country not determine for itself what rights
its citizens shall have?

If so, why is it that what it is right and "moral" for a country to
determine these things, but it is not right or moral for a province to
do so?

Does the "distinct society" clause in the constitution allow
Quebec to go its own way, different from the rest of Canada, when
creating laws?  If not, what does it mean?  What should it mean?

	Dave Martindale