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

[Malthus]

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.

Yes, legislation that put limits on commercial advertising were found justified under section 1 - but there is no such thing as "commercial speech" that is treated by the court as different from "private speech" (which was, as you may recall, your cointention), and somehow less worthy of protection. Indeed, as the quote states: "... the plaintiff's activity is not excluded from the sphere of conduct protected by freedom of expression".

All this means is that the government was found to have a reasonable pressing objective to limit freedom of expression - to protect children. Not that the expression itself isn't the same as other sorts of expression (they say the opposite!).

Much less does this case demonstrate that speech between a waiter and a customer would be "commercial speech" and thus somehow treated differently than "private speech".

[Malthus]

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  ).

Just as I thought - you can't identify any one single fact I'm "distorting". Just more made-up stuff and abuse.

[viper37]

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.

So, politicians should never express desired behavior of their population... Interesting.
So we can remove the "Royal" from the army description, then?  And you tell our politicians to mind their own business?  Oups, no you didn't... that wasn't important, then.

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.

Wich is kinda normal.  Government pays for health care.  There's an incentive about people doing sports.
If, in our culture, fat people were worshipped, there could be an incentive for the government to try and change our minds (wich has happenned in such cultures).  Would that be evil?

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.

We used to have the ads when I was a kid, ads about doing sports, wich was good for your health.  It came from the Federal Government.
You're slightly older than me, but you must certainly remember that?  There were also these ads about being careful when playing, because unlike the robot we couldn't re-attach our arm if we lost it.

I shudder to think of this... you must have had a terrible childhood.  You must have felt trapped by Evil policitians telling you what to do.  How awful that must have been for you.

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. 

If internet was a problem, and there were people asking the government to legislate on the use of internet, via a quota of internet hours per day, I think it might be good for the politicos to remind everyone that moderation is better in everything, that parents should promote sports for their kids, and that we ourselves hold the solution to this perceived problem.

I wouldn't see anything wrong with that.  But apparently, you do.  What's the expression again?  "A chip on your shoulder", I believe.  Be careful, it's gonna crush you.

[viper37]

Just as I thought - you can't identify any one single fact I'm "distorting". Just more made-up stuff and abuse.

of for fuck sake, you're the one panicking at the tought of Francos speaking french instead of english in a Sears.  Don't lecture me, please. 

[Malthus]

Just as I thought - you can't identify any one single fact I'm "distorting". Just more made-up stuff and abuse.

of for fuck sake, you're the one panicking at the tought of Francos speaking french instead of english in a Sears.  Don't lecture me, please. 

Huh, amusing because it's the exact *opposite* of what this is about - namely, your politician panicking because Francos are speaking ENGLISH instead of French in a Sears! 

And as for "lecture" - you made the assertion, you back it up. Or not.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Bit of a backtrack there BB.  You said commercial speech is treated differently.  That is simply not so.  Both "commericial" and other speech is protected under the Charter.  It is just that in the circumstances of Irwin Toy the the Charter breach was justified because of the particular type of advertising in question - it was of import to the majority that the advertising in question could be directed to the parents of the children and so the Court thought the breach was minimal.

The Court never said commercial speech was less important as a rule of law.

But all that is beside the point.  You are engaging in semantics to defend the State intervening in private matters.  Oex defends this on the basis of employers hiring anglophone only employees in Montreal - where a large English speaking population is located.  I have read the platform statements of the new party and they dont sound nearly so benign as all that.  They want to prevent Francophones from attending Anglophone educational institutions.  They want to prevent any immigrant from attending an Anglophone educational institution.  They want to reduce immigration to the province.

In short they want to make French the universal language of Quebec by State decree.  It is in short Grallon's wet dream.

edit: on the topic of protection of commercial communications you might want to reflect on the fact that the Ford case struck down the initial Language Laws in Quebec.....  Those were restrictions on commercial communications.

[Berkut]

Just as I thought - you can't identify any one single fact I'm "distorting". Just more made-up stuff and abuse.

of for fuck sake, you're the one panicking at the tought of Francos speaking french instead of english in a Sears.  Don't lecture me, please. 

Uhhh, that is not the case at all. He is commenting on a politician apparently panicking that people might speak English instead of French. I am pretty sure (and Malthus can correct me if I am wrong) Malthus really could not care less if people speak French...well, anywhere.

The issue is not people speaking French. It is people speaking English. I bet Malthus would not even care if two French people spoke French to one another in the nicest restaurant in downtown Toronto.

[viper37]

there's no panick from Legault.  Only from the National Post, again.

Legault is simply expressing the 4th part of his proposed political program for his eventual party.  Maybe he'll merge with the ADQ or go back to the PQ with the proposals, we don't know yet.  That was simply a part of his proposals on culture. 

Again, as with the other proposals, nothing really dramatic here, not much change from what is currently done and not working.

[crazy canuck]

there's no panick from Legault.  Only from the National Post, again.

Legault is simply expressing the 4th part of his proposed political program for his eventual party.  Maybe he'll merge with the ADQ or go back to the PQ with the proposals, we don't know yet.  That was simply a part of his proposals on culture. 

Again, as with the other proposals, nothing really dramatic here, not much change from what is currently done and not working.

The story was from the Globe. Restricting the ability of French speakers to attend anglophone institutions and reducing immigration to prevent dilution of the French language are not dramatic steps in your view?  They sound a lot like the racist rantings of a certain past PQ leader.

[Barrister]

Indeed I read that Parizeau was literally lurking around some of these meetings.

The ideas to reduce immigration are just plain foolish.  Immigration is one of the best ways to keep Quebec's culture and economy alive.

[Valmy]

Nationalist parties = douchebags.

[Valmy]

Immigration is one of the best ways to keep Quebec's culture and economy alive.

Hey even if they want to only take French speakers plenty of Africans and Haitians out there wanting a home...a really cold home...

[Jacob]

apparently, lots of francophone staff will use English even when speaking to francophone clients, only to swtich back to French when talking to one another.  Seems to be a Montreal problem.

Well, my sister is an anglophone and she has a part-time retail job in Montreal - and she speaks French to her customers.

Just to provide an anecdote in the opposite direction.

[Valmy]

My father just got back from Quebec City.  He said it was pretty monolingually French...fortunately he speaks French and that seemed to please the Quebecois so much they heaped praise upon him.

[Zoupa]

there's no panick from Legault.  Only from the National Post, again.

Legault is simply expressing the 4th part of his proposed political program for his eventual party.  Maybe he'll merge with the ADQ or go back to the PQ with the proposals, we don't know yet.  That was simply a part of his proposals on culture. 

Again, as with the other proposals, nothing really dramatic here, not much change from what is currently done and not working.

The story was from the Globe. Restricting the ability of French speakers to attend anglophone institutions and reducing immigration to prevent dilution of the French language are not dramatic steps in your view?  They sound a lot like the racist rantings of a certain past PQ leader.

He wants to double the budget of the Immigration ministry, and reduce the amount of immigrants arriving for 2 years while the ones here can learn french more easily. Right now only 51% of non-francophone immigrants are functional francophones. That's dismal.

The one about restricting the ability of francos to attend unilingual anglo schools is of course a lie on your part, or on the part of the Globe.

Anyone can attend any school in Qc, providing you have the money. Public schools are 99% francophone. We also have anglophone public schools to serve the historical anglophone community.