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

[Grey Fox]

By that token - what rights of theirs would be violated if the majority in Canada decided to make all education compulsory in English? Not a problem, right? What fundamental right is being violated? That would not be an example of the tyranny of the majority ... ?

it's been done before.  Only when French was no longer a menace to English supremacy were French schools reinstated, with independant school board and sufficient financing.

Was French ever a menace to "English Supremacy"?  I'm not sure your Anglo cousins think like that.

After the conquest.

[Malthus]

So now I am confused - are you taking this position yourself or is this just an attempt to point out an apparent hypocrisy on the part of your opponents?

Both.

It seems to me you have the same problem in reverse - you can't simultaneously argue that language is just a tool for communication and at the same time contend that a democratically passed statute providing for free education in a particular language is manifestation of tyranny of the majority.

Not at all, since this is not a dilemma for me. I'm not arguing that "language is just a tool for communication". I believe that those from Quebec have a legitimate point about language rights - as language shapes culture and thought, and as language is, for some, as important a marker of identity as (say) religion.

As an outsider to this dispute, I just start from the basic principle that absent some conflict with fundamental right, democratically elected legislature should be free to enact laws for whatever they deem to be the public good.  I don't see how a law mandating that publicly funded education be provided in a particular language violates any fundamental right, and moreover, it seems reasonably connected with legitimate educational purposes.   Given the constitutional structure of Canada, however, that general line of reasoning wouldn't hold for a nationwide system of schools teaching only English.  And while you could respond that the Canadian constitution just represents a political bargain subject to revision, the response would be that such a revision would call into question the basis of the union itself.

I do not understand how you are defining what is or is not a "fundamental right". Are you comming from a legalistic position that this is whatever happens to be defined in the nation's constitution as such, various codes defining rights, or some philosophic notion of universal human rights outside of existing codes?

I'd base mine on a combination of all these sources, but I place more emphasis on the latter two.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_rights#Brief_History

[Malthus]

To summarize the sources: linguistic rights are a recognized category of right, albeit not as strongly present as (say) the right to one's religion. It is however of a similar nature, part of the right of the individual or community of individuals to determine their own identity.

[Valmy]

To summarize the sources: linguistic rights are a recognized category of right, albeit not as strongly present as (say) the right to one's religion. It is however of a similar nature, part of the right of the individual or community of individuals to determine their own identity.

And is violated by every single public education system in the world.  In fact it mocks and insults the very idea of human rights: a right is supposed to protect you from government coercion not entitle you to public money and public services.

Sounds like nationalist bullshit to me.

[Malthus]

To summarize the sources: linguistic rights are a recognized category of right, albeit not as strongly present as (say) the right to one's religion. It is however of a similar nature, part of the right of the individual or community of individuals to determine their own identity.

And is violated by every single public education system in the world.  In fact it mocks and insults the very idea of human rights: a right is supposed to protect you from government coercion not entitle you to public money and public services.

Sounds like nationalist bullshit to me.

Nationalist? 

Also, the distinction between positive and negative rights isn't so cut an dried as all that. Why can't the US government spend tax money on building a single big Christian church?

Governments spending money to support and encourage one group to the exclusion of another can easily be a violation of rights - something your American founding fathers very obviously knew (though I suppose you could, if you wanted to, argue that they were "mocking and insulting the very idea of rights" by the Establishment Clause).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

To bring the analogy closer, look at the treatment of education under the Establishment Clause. Payment for one religious school = bad, payment of vouchers for kids to go to any school they like = good.

[The Minsky Moment]

To summarize the sources: linguistic rights are a recognized category of right, albeit not as strongly present as (say) the right to one's religion. It is however of a similar nature, part of the right of the individual or community of individuals to determine their own identity.

Then you still have to articulate how the Quebec law violates those rights.  Public school instruction has to be conducted in *some* language.  Under what theory does the state have an obligation to provide free public education in multiple languages?  And on this theory, what would trigger that obligation?

Seems to me as long as Quebec permits parents to send pupils to public schools instructing in a different language, no rights are infringed.

Are you comming from a legalistic position that this is whatever happens to be defined in the nation's constitution as such, various codes defining rights, or some philosophic notion of universal human rights outside of existing codes?

I thought my position was clear - that the relevant provisions of the Canadian constitution reflect a fundamental political bargain that cannot be undone without undoing the basis of the union.  That is not merely a legalistic position.

[Razgovory]

After the conquest.

William the Bastard did do a lot to crush Anglo-saxon traditions.

[Malthus]

To summarize the sources: linguistic rights are a recognized category of right, albeit not as strongly present as (say) the right to one's religion. It is however of a similar nature, part of the right of the individual or community of individuals to determine their own identity.

Then you still have to articulate how the Quebec law violates those rights.  Public school instruction has to be conducted in *some* language.  Under what theory does the state have an obligation to provide free public education in multiple languages?  And on this theory, what would trigger that obligation?

Seems to me as long as Quebec permits parents to send pupils to public schools instructing in a different language, no rights are infringed.

It's a simple analogy to other such rights. Where a significant minority group exists (and pratically speaking there are only two non-Native American groups in Quebec - French and English), and granting (for the purpose of the argument) that a "fundamental right" to speak one's own language exists, then the government should be even-handed and not impose the majority language on the education of those of its citizens who do not wish such an imposition, and allow them to freely decide which of the two groups they wish to belong to, by allowing them access to the education of their choice.

It isn't as if the facilities do not exist already, and are not already part of the existing school system within Quebec. The existing legislation simply forbids access to it by immigrants. And it is not as if this exact same system doesn't already exist outside of Quebec, where parents may in point of fact choose which school system, English or French, to belong to. 

[Malthus]

I thought my position was clear - that the relevant provisions of the Canadian constitution reflect a fundamental political bargain that cannot be undone without undoing the basis of the union.  That is not merely a legalistic position.

That is something quite irrelevant and tangental to the debate, as it would be true whether or not there was any violation of rights here.

I'm asking how you define what is or is not a "fundamental right". That's a perfectly reasonable question, as you have stated you don't believe language rights are fundamental.

[viper37]

Was French ever a menace to "English Supremacy"?  I'm not sure your Anglo cousins think like that.

You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's a simple analogy to other such rights. Where a significant minority group exists (and pratically speaking there are only two non-Native American groups in Quebec - French and English), and granting (for the purpose of the argument) that a "fundamental right" to speak one's own language exists, then the government should be even-handed and not impose the majority language on the education of those of its citizens who do not wish such an imposition, and allow them to freely decide which of the two groups they wish to belong to, by allowing them access to the education of their choice.

I don't see how that logically follows.  It seems to me perfectly legitimate for a state as a matter of official policy to favor one language over another in terms of the educational institutions it funds.  For example, in the United States, I don't think Spanish speaking people, despite being a very significant minority, thereby acquire a fundamental right to have the state provide them with a free education in Spanish.  Nor does France violate fundamental rights by having all state-funded education provided in French, rather than offering opportunities for instruction in German, Italian or Breton.

It isn't as if the facilities do not exist already, and are not already part of the existing school system within Quebec. The existing legislation simply forbids access to it by immigrants. .   

As a practical matter, however, if more persons wanted to use such facilities, more would have to be built.

That's a perfectly reasonable question, as you have stated you don't believe language rights are fundamental.

The right to have a free public education provided by the state in the language of one's choice is not a fundamental right, no.

[Valmy]

You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.

Hey you can get a French education in the US if you want to pay for it.

[viper37]

The existing legislation simply forbids access to it by immigrants.

some immigrants.  Not all of them.

And that's beside the point.  Even if Quebec was to forbid public english education to everyone, it wouldn't be a violation of human rights.
English speakers are part of the majority and can not be assimilated, even in Quebec.
If Quebec was independant, you might have a point.
But as long as the province is part of Canada, it's impossible for English Canadians to be fully assimilated in Quebec.  Proof: First english speaking immigrants arrived in 1763.  There are still unilingual anglophones in Quebec.

The most dire problem for the english community is not "assimilation", but rather that their youngsters prefer to move to Ontario rather than stay in Montreal.  Better jobs, better wages, less taxes.

[Viking]

After the conquest.

William the Bastard did do a lot to crush Anglo-saxon traditions.

Well, he wiped out the Saxon Aristocracy. He didn't do much to change the customs of the people. Traditional germanic traditions, wiped out in germany and scandinavia by Franks and powerful local Kings, survived in England long enough to be adopted by the Norman nobility through Magna Carta and eventually into Parliament itself.

[Valmy]

Traditional germanic traditions, wiped out in germany and scandinavia by Franks and powerful local Kings

I guess I have to disagree.  Anglo-Saxon culture was so devalued that nobody even bothered to write down their traditions until the 19th century and by that time they had disappeared.  To the extent local legal traditions were embraced and maintained by the new English upper classes well that is what they always did on the continent.  That is what Joseph II and the French Revolution and so forth were trying to reform.

Why would Germanic Kings care enough about the common people to wipe out their customs?  But anyway the Normans get a bad rap.  The only thing they did to make themselves historical villains was that they won.