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

[Barrister]

A law originating in 1731 from the British Parliament precedes all other Canadian laws, including the 1982 Constitution.  Weird, for an independant country.

I can't imagine the outcry in Canada if a Quebec court was to refuse documents submitted in english and ask a mandatory french translation.  No doubt, accusation of racism and intolerance would surface...

You are deeply confused somewhere along the line.

First of all - when new colonies were started in North America it made sense not to start the laws from scratch.  So what happened is each colony incorporated all existing British laws as of the date of formation.  So, because I know Western history better than that of Quebec, when Alberta was formed we incorporated all existing British laws that were in effect in 1905.

But that doesn't mean that those British laws superceded our own laws.  Alberta, Quebec, or wherever has the full right to then amend or abolish any of those old British laws within their own territory.  And they certainly don't supercede the Constitution.

There is one exception, which is what you might be talking about.  The Constitution itself says that 'all existing aboriginal rights' are preserved.  So if there is an aboriginal right that comes from an old British law then that would continue in effect.  But that's not because the old British laws precede our own, but rather because such rights are explicitly preserved in the constitution.

And those rights can be changed without reference to Great Britain - but it would require a constitutional amendment.

Well, why is it that British Columbia can invoke a 1731 law from the United Kingdom to justify it's refusal in listening to complaints ofr franco-British Columbians about their education?  They're hoping the costs of the translation procedures will prove to much for the association so it won't have means to successfully oppose the governement.  Because of a British law.

You are right that the parliament of British Columbia could change the law if it wanted to.  But we have a case here where the provincial government is accused of denying rights to the franco minority, and it is invoking that stupid law as part of its defense.

Given the court's ruling, I'd be surprised if this were to go further.

What we have is the classic case of a province denying rights to its francophone minority and getting away with it.  Somedays, I understand the blue necks of my province wanting a "french-only" province, I swear.   

So you are conceding that a British law from 1731 does not, in fact, supercede all Canadian laws including the Constitution. 

[Jacob]

Well, why is it that British Columbia can invoke a 1731 law from the United Kingdom to justify it's refusal in listening to complaints ofr franco-British Columbians about their education?  They're hoping the costs of the translation procedures will prove to much for the association so it won't have means to successfully oppose the governement.  Because of a British law.

You are right that the parliament of British Columbia could change the law if it wanted to.  But we have a case here where the provincial government is accused of denying rights to the franco minority, and it is invoking that stupid law as part of its defense.

Given the court's ruling, I'd be surprised if this were to go further.

What we have is the classic case of a province denying rights to its francophone minority and getting away with it.  Somedays, I understand the blue necks of my province wanting a "french-only" province, I swear.   

So if I understand correctly:

- The CSF are suing the the Provincial gov't for greater autonomy and better funding, based on an argument about constitutional rights.
- BC courts require a bunch of relevant French documents to be provided in English by the CSF.
- The CSF is likely unable to bear the translation costs and is thus likely to abandon the suit.

Is that correct?

If so, I agree with you, your blue-neck friends, and the Quebec press that that's pretty shitty.

I'm not sure what the solution is - if there's a way to raise the funds for the translation somewhere; or if a political solution can be found (probably unlikely, unless the BC Francophone community manages to organize and ally politically) - but I'm not sure how much bearing it should have on Anglo-French policies in Quebec or Ontario or other provinces or vice-versa?

I guess you'd like anti-French Anglophones back East to acknowledge it's a shitty thing that's happening with this?

[Jacob]

Similarly, I don't agree with the lady in the blog you linked who called Quebec all kinds of terrible things. I do think that some of Quebec's language policies go a bit over board at times, but her characterization and conclusions are extremely polemical and rather offensive.

[Neil]

If they want to speak French, they should move somewhere French, like France.

[Jacob]

Viper37, it seems your argument is with Neil.

Personally, I'd advise against it as it is unlikely to be particularly satisfying.

[viper37]

So you are conceding that a British law from 1731 does not, in fact, supercede all Canadian laws including the Constitution. 

Well, actually it does.  In a way.  You'd need the British Columbia government to ratify a new law, wich they won't do, so the Supreme Court refers to the old law, and by some weird interpretation of the 1982 Constitution, they say it does not violate the rights of the minority.

I'd just like to see a case like this with Anglo-Québécois, for the fun of it

[viper37]

So if I understand correctly:

- The CSF are suing the the Provincial gov't for greater autonomy and better funding, based on an argument about constitutional rights.
- BC courts require a bunch of relevant French documents to be provided in English by the CSF.
- The CSF is likely unable to bear the translation costs and is thus likely to abandon the suit.

Is that correct?

Almost

The Government of British Columbia made the argument that all documents should be submitted to the court in English, wich the Supreme court upheld.

I'm not sure what the solution is - if there's a way to raise the funds for the translation somewhere; or if a political solution can be found (probably unlikely, unless the BC Francophone community manages to organize and ally politically) - but I'm not sure how much bearing it should have on Anglo-French policies in Quebec or Ontario or other provinces or vice-versa?

The judgments says that no provinces have to provide bilingual trials, except where the law explicitely states so: New Brunswick and Quebec.  Not sure about Ontario, I'd have to search.

What it means in the long run, is that any province (except the aforementionned) could likely deny a trial in french, or a translator service to a french-canadian.

I guess you'd like anti-French Anglophones back East to acknowledge it's a shitty thing that's happening with this?

Of course I'd like to.  I won't hold my breath, 'cause it won't happen.

[viper37]

Viper37, it seems your argument is with Neil.

Personally, I'd advise against it as it is unlikely to be particularly satisfying.

Well, I think Neil's position is the majority one in Canada.  But you don't build a country out of love for one another, so that's not a very good reason to seperate either.

[Agelastus]

The judgments says that no provinces have to provide bilingual trials, except where the law explicitely states so: New Brunswick and Quebec.  Not sure about Ontario, I'd have to search.

What it means in the long run, is that any province (except the aforementionned) could likely deny a trial in french, or a translator service to a french-canadian.

You do understand the difference between civil and criminal proceedings, don't you?

The judgement (which, despite not being Canadian, I became curious enough about to actually read) makes itself crystal clear that it only applies to civil cases, that the law in question had been overridden by subsequent laws (Federal laws, I presume) for criminal cases. Saying that, in the long run, any province could deny any person the right to a trial in French is simply hyperbole.

It also states that even if the 1731 Act was found to be inapplicable Rule 22.3 of British Columbia's civil rules would have applied with exactly the same effect. So it's not just an "old British Law" involved here but also BC's modern rules.

And finally, even the minority opinion, the dissent, isn't particular favourable to the CSF's case; assuming I am reading it correctly the minority would simply have referred the case back to BC's Supreme Court for reconsideration with revised Guidelines. This could simply have resulted in BC's court reaffirming it's original decision.

Given the costs of translation services and the small proportion of natural French speakers in British Columbia compared to even other minorities (2% compared to 10% for the Chinese languages, for example) I, as a total outsider, see nothing wrong with the judgement.

Not that my perspective matters at all, of course. Only the perspective of people in Canada matters.

[Grallon]

Similarly, I don't agree with the lady in the blog you linked who called Quebec all kinds of terrible things. I do think that some of Quebec's language policies go a bit over board at times, but her characterization and conclusions are extremely polemical and rather offensive.

And yet she expressed a position that's quite prevalent in certain circles.  Go no further than our dear Malthus here - who I note is conspicuously absent from this current exchange.  He has voiced similar opinions in the past - in fact he used the same rethoric about tribalism, racism, etc - albeit without the vitriol that cunt put in her own piece.  The position is part of the Canadian mythos - and like with any mythos - it requires a moral repellent to validate itself.  It so happen that Quebec serves that purpose for many Canadians.  I guess it's ok since Canada is used pretty much in the same way by many Quebecers.




G.

[Malthus]

Similarly, I don't agree with the lady in the blog you linked who called Quebec all kinds of terrible things. I do think that some of Quebec's language policies go a bit over board at times, but her characterization and conclusions are extremely polemical and rather offensive.

And yet she expressed a position that's quite prevalent in certain circles.  Go no further than our dear Malthus here - who I note is conspicuously absent from this current exchange.  He has voiced similar opinions in the past - in fact he used the same rethoric about tribalism, racism, etc - albeit without the vitriol that cunt put in her own piece.  The position is part of the Canadian mythos - and like with any mythos - it requires a moral repellent to validate itself.  It so happen that Quebec serves that purpose for many Canadians.  I guess it's ok since Canada is used pretty much in the same way by many Quebecers.




G.

This is, of course, pure bullshit. If not, it ought to be easy to find a post in which I go on about the alleged "racism" of Quebec.

I have not commented on this discussion because I am not all that interested in some obscure BC decision on the costs of translation.

Grallon, you are looking into a mirror and seeing your own reflection, not seeing the "other" as it truly is - both in respect of English Canada as a whole, and of me in particular.

This appears to be characteristic of certain types of extremists - they assume everyone else is equal-but-opposite in extremity. In point of fact, English Canada as a whole does not require Quebec as a "moral repellent" to validate itself. English Canada as a whole has other concerns.

[Neil]

Quebec is racist!

[Neil]

Does English Canada has a whole have any concerns right now?  I mean, the provinces are devoted to sticking it to the feds, but there isn't really a lot of common interest going on.

[Valmy]

Does English Canada has a whole have any concerns right now?  I mean, the provinces are devoted to sticking it to the feds, but there isn't really a lot of common interest going on.

The project of not being the United States is a powerful unfying force.

[HVC]

Similarly, I don't agree with the lady in the blog you linked who called Quebec all kinds of terrible things. I do think that some of Quebec's language policies go a bit over board at times, but her characterization and conclusions are extremely polemical and rather offensive.

And yet she expressed a position that's quite prevalent in certain circles.  Go no further than our dear Malthus here - who I note is conspicuously absent from this current exchange.  He has voiced similar opinions in the past - in fact he used the same rethoric about tribalism, racism, etc - albeit without the vitriol that cunt put in her own piece.  The position is part of the Canadian mythos - and like with any mythos - it requires a moral repellent to validate itself.  It so happen that Quebec serves that purpose for many Canadians.  I guess it's ok since Canada is used pretty much in the same way by many Quebecers.




G.

This is, of course, pure bullshit. If not, it ought to be easy to find a post in which I go on about the alleged "racism" of Quebec.

I have not commented on this discussion because I am not all that interested in some obscure BC decision on the costs of translation.

Grallon, you are looking into a mirror and seeing your own reflection, not seeing the "other" as it truly is - both in respect of English Canada as a whole, and of me in particular.

This appears to be characteristic of certain types of extremists - they assume everyone else is equal-but-opposite in extremity. In point of fact, English Canada as a whole does not require Quebec as a "moral repellent" to validate itself. English Canada as a whole has other concerns.

That's exactly what a racist denying their racism would say