[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

I am flabbergasted that Malthus can't see the double standards at play here both from our BS constitution & from the Anglophones Toronto media.

I am flabbergasted that, despite my citing the document and actually quoting from it, none of you can actually articulate how the "BS constitution" creates a "double standard". 

As viper quoted, Section 133 of the British North American act of 1867

That's a bait and switch.

We were talking solely about minority language educational rights - the actual specific issue of complaint here.

Unless, of course, you folks concede on that and wish to debate something else? 

[Grey Fox]

No. We're talking about the double standard created by the constitution.

Your quoted minority language protection education parts is from when?

I remember Rule 17. Your province tried this already, I think it will again.

[Malthus]

No. We're talking about the double standard created by the constitution.

That leaves unanswered the actual question at issue, in favor of a wide ranging discussion of the history of the Constitution.

How about we stick to the point.

Viper said as follows, in response to a news article about the Ontario government ending, among other things, the Office of the French Commissioner:

We'll do the same here   No wait, we can't, the Constitution we didn't sign won't allow it.

My question is a simple one, and I direct it to you: do you agree Viper's statement is correct, or not?

It's a yes or no question. 

I'll ask another. The specific complaint is the elimination of the Ontario Commissioner of French. Does there currently exist a Quebec Commissioner of English?

[Malthus]

No. We're talking about the double standard created by the constitution.

Your quoted minority language protection education parts is from when?

I remember Rule 17. Your province tried this already, I think it will again.

It's from the Canadian Charter of Rights. s. 23.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

The Charter is the highest law of the land (though a province can override it using the "notwithstanding" clause - but not in respect of s. 23):

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

[Grey Fox]

So, After the elimination of rule 17. Good, maybe this time it will be less racist for the Ontario PCs.

[Grey Fox]

Viper said as follows, in response to a news article about the Ontario government ending, among other things, the Office of the French Commissioner:

We'll do the same here   No wait, we can't, the Constitution we didn't sign won't allow it.

My question is a simple one, and I direct it to you: do you agree Viper's statement is correct, or not?
It's a yes or no question. 

Yes

I'll ask another. The specific complaint is the elimination of the Ontario Commissioner of French. Does there currently exist a Quebec Commissioner of English?

No, there is no Quebec commissioner for anything, afaik. There's is the oaths one but I don't think it's the same thing.

[Malthus]

So, After the elimination of rule 17. Good, maybe this time it will be less racist for the Ontario PCs.

... which is why it appears so odd to see the lot of you slagging the Constitution. 

[Malthus]

Viper said as follows, in response to a news article about the Ontario government ending, among other things, the Office of the French Commissioner:

We'll do the same here   No wait, we can't, the Constitution we didn't sign won't allow it.

My question is a simple one, and I direct it to you: do you agree Viper's statement is correct, or not?
It's a yes or no question. 

Yes

I'll ask another. The specific complaint is the elimination of the Ontario Commissioner of French. Does there currently exist a Quebec Commissioner of English?

No, there is no Quebec commissioner for anything, afaik. There's is the oaths one but I don't think it's the same thing.

Wait.

So you claim Viper is correct in saying that the Constitution will prevent Quebec from eliminating a position that you also say doesn't actually exist?   

How, exactly, will that happen?

[Grey Fox]

Tu fais de l'esprit de bottine! Viper always talks in allegory. I understand his argument  to be that we can't reduce services to the anglophone minority like other Canadian provinces can to their francophone minority.

[Malthus]

Tu fais de l'esprit de bottine! Viper always talks in allegory.

So his statement is true, but not in the sense of actually being factually correct. 

I understand his argument  to be that we can't reduce services to the anglophone minority like other Canadian provinces can to their francophone minority.

So here we go again: I've cited the Constitution (numerous times now). I've reproduced the exact language of the minority educational rights section.  You have read it.

What, exactly, in that document would stop Quebec from reducing services to its language minority -- but not stop Ontario from doing the exact same thing?

Or is another one of those allegorical truths that aren't factually correct?

[Oexmelin]

It seems to me pretty straightforward that, in a Province where institutional access to services in one's language is weak, where higher education in one's language is limited, and where, historically, such access has been susceptible to numerous cuts and threats, cutting the position of Language commissioner - that has been created precisely because of these historical reasons - has a lot more impact than not having one, in a province where historically, institutional access to services in English has been strong and under very little threat.   

[garbon]

It seems to me pretty straightforward that, in a Province where institutional access to services in one's language is weak, where higher education in one's language is limited, and where, historically, such access has been susceptible to numerous cuts and threats, cutting the position of Language commissioner - that has been created precisely because of these historical reasons - has a lot more impact than not having one, in a province where historically, institutional access to services in English has been strong and under very little threat.   

Sure, it'd be straightforward if one were to say that.

[Malthus]

It seems to me pretty straightforward that, in a Province where institutional access to services in one's language is weak, where higher education in one's language is limited, and where, historically, such access has been susceptible to numerous cuts and threats, cutting the position of Language commissioner - that has been created precisely because of these historical reasons - has a lot more impact than not having one, in a province where historically, institutional access to services in English has been strong and under very little threat.

... and I would agree. 

[Oexmelin]

@garbon

Apparently, Malthus thinks it's no big deal to abolish the language commissioner, and to scrap for the umpteenth times the plans of a French language University in Toronto. Vip and GF point out it's a big deal - by pointing at the imbalance in the resources devoted to linguistic minorities in Quebec (where the condition of the well attended-to English minority is under microscopic scrutiny in the English language press) and Ontario (where the English language press suddenly doesn't seem to care about the perennially spotty coverage of French services). 

To focus on the absence of an office named "Language commissioner" in Quebec, or on the language of the Constitution seems, to me, to miss the point.

[Oexmelin]

... and I would agree. 

I must have misunderstood your sentiment, then, when you dismissed the abolition of the commissioner as of little consequence. If I did, apologies.