I heard portions of the decision on the radio and reading some more of it here. I can't help feel that the decision was based more on politics than the law.
How does the fact that English speaking schools would be swamped by applications have anything to do with Bill 101's legaiity under the charter?
One of the supposed reasons we have appointed judges is so that politics does not enter into their decisions. A lot of what I heard today was rationaliztion of the status quo, not legal opinion.
Only Gay rights matter. Parental rights dont.
Posted at 2005-03-31 20:49:21 [PermaLink]"Only Gay rights matter. Parental rights dont."
Stunningly relevant. Any other personal axe to grind while we're not onthe subject?
"...to allow French speaking parents to send their kids to English language school would swamp the English language school system in Quebec."
MikeP had a point, Axe. The swamping of the schools is NOT a concern of the holy court.
Moreover, Bill 101 is pure bigotry writ into law - One would hope that the Nation's high court would strike it down, given that bigotry isn't a right of the individual nor a power granted to government under your Constitution.
Axeman you can't see the contradiction in various court rulings?? How do courts decide that its discriminatory to keep gays from marrying, but its not discriminatory for parents not to have the right to educate their kids in the language they choose, providing that language training is available??
Why the discrimination against parents?? Where is the so called "equality under the law" libertarians are always squawking about??
I don't disagree that the courts are full of contradiction, and that this is a good example of one. And god knows that 101 is well and truly bigoted. My point was only that all kinds of examples can be made of this, and your line came across to me as sour grapes about gay issues, rather than a beef about the language issue. If I was wrong, I retract.
I see a delicious irony in this, though. The fact that a bigoted law is now being to prevent improvement (hmm .. bad choice of words?) for those it was originally written to empower. Unfortunate for the parents, of course, and the kids.
Axe perhaps I should have said " Minority rights matter, majority rights dont. Gays just happened to be the only example I could think of at the time.
Posted at 2005-04-01 00:18:55 [PermaLink]Axe - that is a sad prognosis. Hey, I agree! I'll add that the best and brightest will eventually leave the province in the long-term best interest of their kids.
Posted at 2005-04-01 00:21:27 [PermaLink]Brent Tyler was also president of Alliance Quebec for a while. He's used to frustration. It's his middle name.
Anyway, this is just another example in the continuing saga of Quebec's limiting rights to its citizens due to paranoia and defensiveness. Don't expect that to change anytime soon. I've lived here my whole life and haven't seen any encouraging evidence.
Bill 101 discriminates against anglos....period!
And as for Brent Tyler? I admire him a great deal; he's taken the time and made the effort to become fluent in french. Unfortunately, far too many unilingual anglos admire him for his linguistic battles, rather than for the example his attitude towards french has set.
He's a fighter ( "boxer" actually), a very kick-ass kinda guy.....fluent in French. He's no dinosaure!
i was born in Ontario, but have lived in Québec for 25 years now. As an anglo quebecer what I find most painful and most embarassing are OTHER anglo quebecers, my age, having lived here ALL their lives, who are at pains to even line up two words of french.
Picture the following situation: You're a bilingual anglo conversing in french with a group of about 9 frenchmen. A "uni" arrives, your own age, cosies up to ya, and expects you to play Lord Raffles cuz he's incapable of anything beyond a tortured *bonjour*
Anglo Québec, or at least part if it, has most unwisely chosen to follow the tenors of discord. They are to be avoided!
The links ot this thread clearly demonstrate that bill 101 discirminates anainst francos by putting them at a lingustic disadvantage. They are condemned to oral "unitude". They've cooked their cultural ragoût, now let them eat it!
Why should I friggin' care? I speak both languages fluently! And in a city that "parlies", he who parlies best gets the brass ring!!!
Bilingual Montréal anglos now earn the highest salaries!
Un gros MERCI Réné!
John P - While you accuratly portray part of the problem with the scene of the "uni", that goes both ways. As it happens, I speak two lange, henglish da bes', but I've often observed bilingual French people who refuse to speak / aid /assist anyone who speaks only English. Including tourists who pur $$$ into the provincial coffers. Two way street. And you're right, the winners are those who take the trouble to learn both languages.
Of course, we have the same problem in BC, where Vancouverites won't speak to damn Easterners
on a somewhat related note. Ireland has outlawed bilingual road signs. All road signs will be Gaelic only.
See
[External Link]
for details.
Axeman, I hear ya! There's most certainly a portion of franco Québecers who've got a severe allergy to anything remotely anglo. Too bad for them!
Before bill 101 was even passed some franco pundits claimed that in the long run the legislation would only end up limiting francophones. They were rudely dismissed!
Some of their worst fears ahve come to pass.
If "widdle" Jean-Pierre can only say "frommage" and not "cheese", is that really my probleme?
Big "John Matthew" (palubiski) can say both!
But I remain open-minded, and not at all selfish!
I'm willing to teach little Jean-Pierre (and little Marie Claire, too!) how to say "cheese".
My going rate is $50 an hour, per student, non-taxable......under-the-table.
THAT, dear readers, is "MY TAKE" on bill 101.....