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

[viper37]

What did I say about Canada's reaction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html

The secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

I'm guessing British-Columbia is a threat to canadian multi-culturalism and bi-lingual status?  Or is it that bilinguism in Canada is English only?

[crazy canuck]

I'm guessing British-Columbia is a threat to canadian multi-culturalism and bi-lingual status?  Or is it that bilinguism in Canada is English only?

Its too early in the morning for you to be drunk

[Jacob]

What did I say about Canada's reaction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html

I don't think the polemical screed you linked to represents Canada's reaction.

The secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Ridiculous.

I'm guessing British-Columbia is a threat to canadian multi-culturalism and bi-lingual status?  Or is it that bilinguism in Canada is English only?

Uh... what?

[Maximus]

The secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Ridiculous.

Agreed, it's more similar to the tribalism that flourishes in eastern Europe.

[Valmy]

Heh.  Euros still follow Roman Laws, the US still follows Common Law, and Louisiana still follows the Napoleonic Civil Code.

Granted Louisiana is not an independent country so I guess that holds up.

This is not  true, other than the independent country bit.  Louisiana:
(1) Based its code on the same Spanish sources the Napoleonic code was based on (the Napoleonic code was not enacted until after the Louisiana Purchase);
(2) As a US possession, started with a criminal code based on the common law rather than the civil law, and codified as the Crimes Act of 1805;
(3) Has enacted almost all of the Uniform Commercial Code;
(4) And has been heavily influenced by the law of the rest of the United States to the point that many common law concepts are just given a funny name in Louisiana.

Thanks for destroying something I loped about Louisiana

Yes I know the Civil Code was not enacted until after the Louisiana Purchase which is part of the reason why I thought it was so awesome they adopted it anyway

[Valmy]

Louisiana follows its own civil code, wich happens to be the one made by Napoleon.  We had the same in Quebec for long, until we modernized it.  And I'm pretty sure the Louisiana civil code has been modified over the years, and no one can use a law voted in France in 1812 to justfify something.  And if any Louisiana law were to forbid something like, say, free speech, I'm pretty sure the Federal Constitution would supercede it, no?

Or are you telling me that Louisiana would be free to... say, ban all handguns from New Orleans?

No, due to the fact that Louisiana is not an independent country.  But are you saying Canada is not free to change or cancel any laws from 1731 they might not like?

[Razgovory]

What did I say about Canada's reaction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html

I don't think the polemical screed you linked to represents Canada's reaction.

The secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Ridiculous.

I'm guessing British-Columbia is a threat to canadian multi-culturalism and bi-lingual status?  Or is it that bilinguism in Canada is English only?

Uh... what?

Seems to describe grallon fairly well.

[Jacob]

Seems to describe grallon fairly well.

Definitely, but grallon doesn't represent Quebec.

[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.

[Grallon]

What did I say about Canada's reaction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html

The secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

You really should stop paying attention to whatever is written or said in the ROC about us - it's mostly the usual kneejerking reaction against anyone who doesn't believe in their state religion *shrug*.



G.

[Jacob]

You really should stop paying attention to whatever is written or said in the ROC about us - it's mostly the usual kneejerking reaction against anyone who doesn't believe in their state religion *shrug*.

I don't know if that's true in general, but that particular piece Viper linked was pretty terrible.

[viper37]

What did I say about Canada's reaction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/quebec-canada_b_3646036.html

I don't think the polemical screed you linked to represents Canada's reaction.

The secular fundamentalism as practiced in the province of Quebec is destructive to the bi-lingual, multi-ethnic fabric of Canada. Quebec's narrative of uni-lingualism, uni-culturalism and uni-ethnic absolutism is a throwback to tribalism that flourishes in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Ridiculous.

I'm guessing British-Columbia is a threat to canadian multi-culturalism and bi-lingual status?  Or is it that bilinguism in Canada is English only?

Uh... what?

The author of the piece above, something we see, oh, I'd say once a month at least in major newspapers, more often in blog comments is saying that Quebec unilingualism culture is a threat to Canada.  I'm guessing British Columbia dragging its feet and insisting all documentation in court to be presented in english must also be a threat.  Or otherwise "bilinguism" is only for Quebec, not the rest of Canada.

[viper37]

No, due to the fact that Louisiana is not an independent country.  But are you saying Canada is not free to change or cancel any laws from 1731 they might not like?

British Columbia has not, and shows no intention of doing it.  Canada already has a law on official bilinguism, but it seems it's only used to force Quebec to agree to anglophones demands.  French-Canadian asking for services in their own language, or even worst, control of their education budget are called whiners.

[viper37]

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.   

[Jacob]

British Columbia has not, and shows no intention of doing it.  Canada already has a law on official bilinguism, but it seems it's only used to force Quebec to agree to anglophones demands.  French-Canadian asking for services in their own language, or even worst, control of their education budget are called whiners.

I see.

I definitely concede that there's a certain amount of hypocrisy going on from certain anglophones when it comes to the various language debates. No doubt about it. And I'm sure there are demagogues who spout offensive bullshit as well, which must be annoying if you pay attention to it.

Whether the particular examples you bring up are terrible or not, I don't know to be honest. I'm perfectly fine with Quebec being primarily French and taking steps to promote that, but it does seem to into petty territory once in a while. I'm also content with the bilingual nature of all Federal services and so on.

I'm not certain that comparing language policies in Quebec to those in British Columbia, though, except as a matter of rhetoric. It makes much more sense, to me at least, to deal with the

In 2001, 2% of BC's population had French as their mother tongue (placing it after English (60%), "other Chinese" (5%), Cantonese (5%), Punjabi (5%) and German (3%)).

Does it really make sense to apply the same French or English language policies in BC as it does in Quebec (where 13% are Anglophones), New Brunswick (64% Anglo, 32% Franco), or Ontario (4% Francophone)? Personally, I think it makes sense to set language policy based on provincial realities rather than try to get a uniform mirror across all provinces.

Also personally, I wouldn't call Francophone British Columbians "whiners" for pushing for the kind of services and infrastructure they need; in part because I'm not aware of any great controversies.

Checking out the French School Board (CSF) site - http://www.csf.bc.ca/english/history_csf.php - is it related to the CSF the legal action against the Province to make it "recognized its constitutional rights and to give the appropriate means to meet its obligations"? If it is, then I certainly won't call BC Francophones "whiners" for launching this action, and in fact I hope they succeed.