dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (01/08/89)
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.
dre@myrias.UUCP (Duane Eitzen) (01/14/89)
In article <17099@onfcanim.UUCP> dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) writes: >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. /********** 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? 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. 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. That doesn't make me correct. But it would explain why I find a position such as yours repugnant. dre.
lamy@ai.utoronto.ca (Jean-Francois Lamy) (01/14/89)
Laws have been enacted that limit individual rights and judgments have upheld some of them and overturned others. I used to think that that was one of the very reasons we had a Supreme Court. In the case of Bill 101 I've heard the view that the intention of the legislator was to protect individual rights of the anglophone minority in Que'bec in areas like education but that commercial signs and publicity were not considered linked to individual rights. Whatever argument was used, the Supreme Court did not buy it, but left the door open to restrictions (predominance of French would have been acceptable, it seems). Absolutes seldom are. Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@ai.utoronto.ca, uunet!ai.utoronto.ca!lamy AI Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (01/14/89)
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
death@watcsc.uucp (Trevor Green) (01/15/89)
In article <17162@onfcanim.UUCP> dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) writes: > >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? Did Germany 1933-45 have the right to determine for itself whether the lives, businesses, religion, etc. of Jews and Gypsies was protected by anything? 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? There is one fundamental right: the right of all human beings to lead human lives as they so choose. This is IMHO the only way in which the world and all its citizens can be truly free. Noone nor any group, whether or not in the majority in the resident nation, can decide to remove any part of this individual determination, whether such action is as harsh as Stalin's Purges or as mellow as Bill 178. ...we now interrupt my pontifications and return you to your normally scheduled flamefest... -- Trev "I know! We can make machine language Scrabble! You'd only need two kinds of tiles." -- anonymous, overheard
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/15/89)
Perhaps now in Quebec it's legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded moviehall, but illegal to shout <<feu.>> This is just my satirical way of saying how astounded I am that people always bring up the "fire in a moviehall" line whenever freedom of expression is mentioned. The complex answer to this silly analogy is that shouting "fire" is an extremely special kind of speach, in that it is isomorphic to a physical act (setting an alarm.) It's simpler to wonder about the kind of train of thought that equates a sign saying "Books for sale" outside a bookstore to making a false fire alarm. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473