Canada to firmly re-assess its status as a British colony

[Malthus]

No.  It's a commercial conversation.

Where are you getting this distinction from?

[ulmont]

The disappearance of French would seem to be a public consequence.

Anything can be made a "public consequence" by making it symbolic of cultural erosion.

Chosing to eat at McDonalds = "disappearance of our national culture" = "public consequence". Therefore, the government has an interest in interfering with one's choice to eat at McDonalds.

Playing videogames = "erosion of our health national pastimes" = "public coinsequence". Therefore, the government has an interest in interfering with one's choice to play videogames.

The problem with this reasoning, of course, is that there is nothing it *cannot* apply to, there is nothing that is not potentially of "public consequence" to somebody.

Are you seriously saying that a politician should not be allowed to say "Eat Healthy!" or "Play outside!"?
http://www.theroot.com/views/michelle-obama-s-healthy-food-campaign
http://www.fitness.gov/about_history.htm

So far, the actual details of what is proposed aren't clear. Nonetheless, even assuming it is nothing more than exhortation, the reasonable response is the same: "mind yer own business". Same as if some politico wanted to "publicly exhort" people to refrain from using the internet because it makes you stupid or erodes your culture.

*shrug*  Your response seems a bit more than proportionate, which would be to ignore the call.

[Malthus]

My first reaction to that - in what possible way is it Legault's business, or any politico's business, what *I* (or anyone) choose to speak in a Chinese restaurant, or any other private interaction I or any other person choose to have?

Surely "butt out and mind yer own business" is the only rational response to such an importunity?

Tell me Malthus, if I believed the Elders of Sion to be an historical, truthful document, what could you tell me to convince me that I was wrong?   

You still believe there's a language police taking measurements of signs and jailing people for not speaking French.  What is it I can say to you to convince you that you are wrong and see this whole issue with the distorted eyes of the anti-French movement of the old British Empire?
Frankly, I'm at loss.  It's like you're trying on purpose to distort the facts.  It's like you truly want to believe that Quebec is a Nazi State that will jail English speakers on sight.

So tell me, why should I bother answering this?  Would you answer me if I tought Jews existed only to control the world through secret manipulation?

What does your offensive screed have to do with my reaction that a politico "exhorting" people to speak in one language rather than another in their private conversations is absurd, and the only rational reaction to it is to tell him to mind his own business? 

I swear, you are losing all sense of proportion. Exactly what "facts" have I distorted in my quote? Please identify even one. Nor am I comparing Quebec to a Nazi state. 

[Barrister]

No.  It's a commercial conversation.

Where are you getting this distinction from?

Irwin Toy v Quebec for starters.

Commercial speech is treated differently from other kinds of speech.

[Malthus]

Are you seriously saying that a politician should not be allowed to say "Eat Healthy!" or "Play outside!"?
http://www.theroot.com/views/michelle-obama-s-healthy-food-campaign
http://www.fitness.gov/about_history.htm

No, what I'm saying is that not *all* private activity is "of public consequence". Are you saying everything private is of public consequence?

*shrug*  Your response seems a bit more than proportionate, which would be to ignore the call.

What, I'm not allowed to point out in conversation I think a politician has made an absurd and intrusive call? Note I'm not exactly manning the barracades over this. Though I am being told by Viper that my stance is the equivalent of calling Quebec a Nazi state, so readers can judge for themselves who is making a "disproportionate response". 

[Barrister]

No, what I'm saying is that not *all* private activity is "of public consequence". Are you saying everything private is of public consequence?

Well there is a lot of private activity that is "of public consequence".

However just because something is "of public consequence" does not mean that any infringement of rights is automatically warranted.  Surely you're familiar with the Oakes test?

[Berkut]

There's quite a large gap between crazy canuck's description of the proposal and viper's.  In viper's quote, there was no attempt at control, but pure exhortation of desired behavior.

Legault said:

a) That the law stipulates customers have the right to be served in French. Many places now hire unilingual anglophone employees because they know they can get away with it. This leads many customers who know English to switch to English in the interest of expediency rather than complain to have the law enforced.

b) And therefore he stated that it would be nice if francophones didn't switch automatically to English in such circumstances.

Nothing at all wrong with that then.

[ulmont]

No, what I'm saying is that not *all* private activity is "of public consequence". Are you saying everything private is of public consequence?

While I'm certain that there is private activity that could not reasonably be the subject of a politician's exhortations, I fail to see anything wrong with calls for healthier eating, playing outside, less time on the Internet, dinners with the family, motherhood, America, and apple pie...or speaking French in Quebec.

[Malthus]

No.  It's a commercial conversation.

Where are you getting this distinction from?

Irwin Toy v Quebec for starters.

Commercial speech is treated differently from other kinds of speech.

No, it isn't. You are simply wrong on this point.

When faced with an alleged violation of the guarantee of freedom of expression, the first step in the analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff's activity falls within the sphere of conduct protected by the guarantee.  Activity which (1) does not convey or attempt to convey a meaning, and thus has no content of expression or (2) which conveys a meaning but through a violent form of expression, is not within the protected sphere of conduct.  If the activity falls within the protected sphere of conduct, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the purpose or effect of the government action in issue was to restrict freedom of expression.  If the government has aimed to control attempts to convey a meaning either by directly restricting the content of expression or by restricting a form of expression tied to content, its purpose trenches upon the guarantee.  Where, on the other hand, it aims only to control the physical consequences of particular conduct, its purpose does not trench upon the guarantee.  In determining whether the government's purpose aims simply at harmful physical consequences, the question becomes: does the mischief consist in the meaning of the activity or the purported influence that meaning has on the behaviour of others, or does it consist, rather, only in the direct physical result of the activity.  If the government's purpose was not to restrict free expression, the plaintiff can still claim that the effect of the government's action was to restrict her expression.  To make this claim, the  plaintiff must at least identify the meaning being conveyed and how it relates to the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing.



   In the instant case, the plaintiff's activity is not excluded from the sphere of conduct protected by freedom of expression.  The government's purpose in enacting ss. 248 and 249 of the Consumer Protection Act and in promulgating ss. 87 to 91 of the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act was to prohibit particular content of expression in the name of protecting children.  These provisions therefore constitute limitations to s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter and s. 3 of the Quebec Charter.  They fall to be justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Irwin+Toy+v+Quebec+&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii87/1989canlii87.html

[Malthus]

No, what I'm saying is that not *all* private activity is "of public consequence". Are you saying everything private is of public consequence?

Well there is a lot of private activity that is "of public consequence".

However just because something is "of public consequence" does not mean that any infringement of rights is automatically warranted.  Surely you're familiar with the Oakes test?

Huh? Where did I say that any infringement of rights is automatically warranted? 

[Malthus]

No, what I'm saying is that not *all* private activity is "of public consequence". Are you saying everything private is of public consequence?

While I'm certain that there is private activity that could not reasonably be the subject of a politician's exhortations, I fail to see anything wrong with calls for healthier eating, playing outside, less time on the Internet, dinners with the family, motherhood, America, and apple pie...or speaking French in Quebec.

And my reactions to politicians exhortations as to what I or others choose to do in private ... is for him/her to mind his/her own business - where something that is value-neutral is treated as offensive for purposes of exhortation. "You all should stop looking so gay, to preserve our manly national image".

[Barrister]

Read the case more closely Malthus.  I never said that commercial speech was given no protection.  Rather, I said that it was given somewhat less deference.  In Irwin Toy the court found that the company's 2(b) rights were violated, but that the violation was justified under the Oakes test.

[viper37]

I swear, you are losing all sense of proportion. Exactly what "facts" have I distorted in my quote? Please identify even one. Nor am I comparing Quebec to a Nazi state. 

all your post Malthus, all of it, when it comes to Quebec.
You have some kind of allergy to people affirming their identity, when it comes to Quebec.

Nobody is forcing you to speak one language or another, yet, this what you assume.
You conveniently ignore all the facts, imagine the worst possible spin because you like to think Quebec is evil and trampling the rights of these poor Anglo-Quebecers.

Legault simply said that French speaking Québécois should use French first, not English, nor even try to switch to English when in a commercial space.  If English merchants start losing customers, they'll react and hire bilingual staff or lose business to those who do.  If we don't do anything and expect the government to solve all our problems, that simply won't work.
That's all that was said.

But here you came, and said it was your God Given right to speak the language of your choice to anyone you meet in a store, as if that was under threat.
It's always, always the same with you and Quebec.

For fuck sake, the next time you visit Quebec, get to a city down south instead of staying in Temiscamingue!  You might get a different portrait than what your media portrays (Jane Wong and Barbara Kay, among others  ).

[viper37]

And my reactions to politicians exhortations as to what I or others choose to do in private ... is for him/her to mind his/her own business - where something that is value-neutral is treated as offensive for purposes of exhortation. "You all should stop looking so gay, to preserve our manly national image".

it's not private.  It's public space, commercial space.  You can't pee in a shopping center's mall, even you like it.  You can't shit in small streets. Fuck, there is an even worst thing in this Canada of ours, threatening our individual rights, trampling us under the feets of this Big Evil Gov't: We can't walk naked in the streets.  Awful.  Is there no end to what we can't do with our lives?  Next thing, you'll tell me cities are restricting commercial advertising!  Shocking!

[viper37]

And my reactions to politicians exhortations as to what I or others choose to do in private ... is for him/her to mind his/her own business - where something that is value-neutral is treated as offensive for purposes of exhortation. "You all should stop looking so gay, to preserve our manly national image".

that's a bullshit comparison, you know it, and it's symptomatic of what I was describing earlier.