AngryFrenchGuy

Bill 104: The Supremes Got It Right

with 364 comments

Bill 104 quebec langauge law

The Bill 104 case was not about language. It was about fraud. The plaintiff’s represented by Brent Tyler were not contesting the articles of the Charter of the French Langage that say they couldn’t send their children to publicly funded English-language schools in Québec. They went to court to protect a right to cheat.

The Court has already examined the articles of Bill 101 that say only a child who has himself, or who’s parents have, received the majority of their schooling in English somewhere in Canada can go to public English schools in Québec. They ruled them to be just fine.

This case was not about that at all. This case was about parents who had found a loophole in the law by which they could buy their children a spot in a public school by sending one child to an unsubsidised private school for one year and then claim that their six year old child had received « the majority of his schooling in an English school in Canada. »

This case has nothing whatsoever with these parents’ right to choose the language of education of their children. They have that right. They exercised it when they paid for the private school.

This case was about my obligation to pay for the English-language education of the children of people too stupid and disoriented to find the English-speaking part of North America or too cheap to send them to summer camp at the Y.

Christ, doesn’t Tim Horton’s have a program or something?

The justices ruled that Bill 104, the law passed to close the loophole, was unconstitutional (not that Québec has ever signed that constitution) and contrary to a Charter of Rights and Freedoms purposely designed to open up such loopholes in Québec’s language law. Aware of all this, and of the political mess their ruling would probably cause, the justices suspended the application of their judgement for one year while the Québec City government lawyers find another way to patch the loophole.

The justices decided that an unconstitutional law should stay on the books for one whole year. In other words, they said the intent of the law was the right one, but that it was badly formulated, and gave Québec a year to fix it.  I’d say that’s quite a statement on the moral legitimacy of Brent Tyler and his gang’s cause.

Now, of course, it’s on. Pauline Marois is going to claim that the Charter of the French language is peril and that only independence can save the French language. The Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste will say something terribly old fashioned about the Québec Nation and Patrick Bourgeois will make veiled hints at violence.

The Liberals are going to act very upset, lest they get labeld as week on language.  Spaceman Marc Garneau might even take a crack at the posturing.

And, of course, Anglo Righters are going to claim the court gave every parent the moral right to find a way to send their kids to public English schools and you can expect a steady stream of angry and factually incorrect letters in all major English language dailies.

They’re all wrong.

Only the Supremes got it right.

Written by angryfrenchguy

October 22, 2009 at 7:48 pm

364 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “As clear as an unmuddied lake.”

    Assuming you have a passport…Take it out and give it a close look. does it say “Canada” or “Quebec”

    So, which is it..or do you have delusions that Quebec is in fact a country and not a province.

    Tell me!

    ABP

    November 15, 2009 at 11:30 pm

  2. it already enjoys “nationhood” status within the bosum of Canada.

    It doesn’t of course, which is why it should become independent so it can fashion its own laws and martial its own resources.

    And this of course is what goes to the core of your hypocrisy and ABP’s. You claim your want Québec to be independent so as to take “responsibility for itself”, but you support spurious hypocritical bids by Canada’s colonial court to cut Québec down precisely when it does take responsibility for itself. You show who the real Britishers and Canadians and Rhodesians are. If you really wanted a *really* independent Québec, the last thing you asses would be doing is supplicating to Canada’s courts and laws. Your support for Canada’s colonial oversight shows what a fraud you (pl) are. Bilingualism wasn’t a Québec program, it was a Canadian one targeting Québec’s francisation. The Canadian Charter wasn’t a Québec initiative, it was a colonial initiative aimed at Québec. You’re just bigoted assholes who like mocking Québec from abroad. I want its freedom which is why I want your courts and taxmen to fuck off.

    James

    November 15, 2009 at 11:36 pm

  3. “If you have a problem with Québec and our language law which is supported by a super-majority of the population, here is your solution:”

    On not again..the paranoia is oozing our of your brain via your mouth again :)

    101 ou le 401. Ha ha… why don’t you contact the people in Berlin to see if you can get a deal on a slightly used wall. ;)

    ABP

    November 15, 2009 at 11:41 pm

  4. why don’t you contact the people in Berlin to see if you can get a deal on a slightly used wall. ;)

    But there is no wall, that’s why you and yours are free to fuck off now. Pas de problème.

    But speaking of Gulags, when are you going to stop warehousing natives on reservations and treating them like chattel and exterminating their languages?

    James

    November 15, 2009 at 11:45 pm

  5. “But there is no wall, that’s why you and yours are free to fuck off now. Pas de problème”

    I don’t have to leave my country James, my passport indicates I am a Canadian. Why would I have to leave Quebec, assuming I even lived there. Seems you have the ‘B’ word engraved on your tete.

    “But speaking of Gulags, when are you going to stop warehousing natives on reservations and treating them like chattel and exterminating their languages?”

    Oh, you mean like OKA and the one on the south side of the Pont Mercier with all the cigarette shacks.

    ABP

    November 15, 2009 at 11:58 pm

  6. Oh, you mean like OKA and the one on the south side of the Pont Mercier with all the cigarette shacks.

    But their land was stolen by Canada and Canada refused to give it back even when Québec and the Mohawk asked it to. Read John Ciacca’s memoir. And the reserves in Québec are federal reserves where your racist Indian Act law applies. These are *your* laws. This is *your* theft. Not Pierre Bourgault’s. Not Jacques Parizeau’s.

    In 1995, the year of the referendum, the Assembly of First Nations asked your racist failed hypocrite colonial state to annul the Indian Act. You refused? Why?

    Why do you refuse “choice in education” to natives? Why can’t Inuit and other natives pursue senior-level education in their own languages? Why are you less worried about that than about a bunch of four-flushers who, en toute connaissance de cause, settle in a French-language jurisdiction with the intention of being educated in English at Québec taxpayer expense and hire Brent Tyler to pursue their “cause?

    James

    November 16, 2009 at 12:08 am

  7. “But there is no wall, that’s why you and yours are free to fuck off now. Pas de problème.”

    You know what they say about profanity James.

    On the wall, perhaps Guissepe, Antonio and the others might help in the construction if the price was right. :)

    ABP

    November 16, 2009 at 12:15 am

  8. On the wall, perhaps Guissepe, Antonio and the others might help in the construction if the price was right. :)

    oh, another incredibly witty “Québec as banana republic” reference. Perhaps we should talk with Walkerton and Kaschechewan about how better to assure our water supply, and with Port Hope about how nuclear is the green future, and with Dalton McSpendy about how to efile patient records.

    James

    November 16, 2009 at 12:18 am

  9. “oh, another incredibly witty “Québec as banana republic” reference”

    I didn’t call Quebec a Banana Republic. That is your reference. Could you tell us something to explain your statement about Quebec being a banana republic?

    ABP

    November 16, 2009 at 12:51 am

  10. I didn’t call Quebec a Banana Republic. That is your reference. Could you tell us something to explain your statement about Quebec being a banana republic?

    who do you think you’re kidding sport? Your reference had all the subtlety of a ball peen hammer.

    Perhaps Montréal needs lessons on civic governance from Toronto. Like a bunch of councillors voting to arrogate public funds to themselves so they can sue their constituents if they get uppity. How’s that for a mafia state? Or charging Torontonians twice as much to register their vehicles as all other Ontarians while leaving their sidewalks and roads unploughed all winter? The City that Grifts!

    James

    November 16, 2009 at 12:58 am

  11. James writes:

    If you really wanted a *really* independent Québec, the last thing you asses would be doing is supplicating to Canada’s courts and laws.

    Gosh, James, I don’t know which court challenges you are referring to but to the best of my knowledge virtually all Supreme Court of Canada decisions on Bill 101 — including last month’s Bill 104 decision — upheld lower court decisions. All of these lower courts were Quebec courts!

    So as far as I’m concerned, I’d be quite content to stick with Quebec’s courts and not have to go to Canada’s Supreme Court!

    Indeed, at least one Quebec Court of Appeals decision was more anti-Bill 101 than what the Supreme Court of Canada decided. I am referring to the Alan Singer case (Quebec v. Devine) which, if memory serves me correctly, had 2 of the 5 judges saying that Alan Singer should prevail fully (all Supreme Court judges only allowed Singer a partial victory). Singer wanted the right to post unilingual English signs.

    Thank you for joining me in supporting all those Quebec court decisions that went against Bill 101 (ie, virtually all of them!).

    Tony Kondaks

    November 16, 2009 at 1:17 am

  12. Gosh, James, I don’t know which court challenges you are referring to but to the best of my knowledge virtually all Supreme Court of Canada decisions on Bill 101 — including last month’s Bill 104 decision — upheld lower court decisions. All of these lower courts were Quebec courts!

    …with federally appointed judges ruling in reference to the Canadian constitution. Your argument is like pretending that native reserves in Québec aren’t federal reserves, or that federally-owned and run airports and bridges in Québec are “Québec” bridges. You’re a total fraud.

    James

    November 16, 2009 at 1:37 am

  13. “settle in a French-language jurisdiction”

    Seems to me, that Canada has two official languages and Quebec hasn’t so far separated. Why not just let the people make the choice, James? Why is there a need for laws which restrict the choice. If the french language is a vibrant as you indicate it would appear to me that people would see the value and embrace the language and culture without restrictive laws forcing the issue. Drop the laws and there would be no need four court challenges. People could make free choices as should be the case in a democratic country with two official languages.

    Or perhaps, you yourself feel that the french language will not stand on its own cultural value.

    As I have said in past posts. There are no sign laws or restrictive language laws in any province other than Quebec.

    ABP

    November 16, 2009 at 10:24 am

  14. “to fund and encourage integration into a language other than that of the national majority”

    “Encouraging” is good, but why limit other choices?

    Coercion is not incentive. It’s coercion.

    Then you ask why non-Francophones unanimously reject pequiste candidates in elections…

    Maybe they’re tired of bullying?

    Just a thought.

    Anonymous

    November 16, 2009 at 10:30 am

  15. Just a thought.

    really?

    James

    November 16, 2009 at 1:24 pm

  16. There are no sign laws or restrictive language laws in any province other than Quebec.

    Not true. Russell, ON now has a law which mandates that all commercial signage MUST be bilingual. Of course, the blokes hate this and they hired Brent Tyler to challenge it. This whole challenge is spearheaded by one of Canada’s biggest racists and #1 Muslim-hater par excellence – Galganov.

    Marc

    November 16, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  17. Clarence-Rockland in Ontario also has one and Dieppe, New Brunswick outside Moncton will have one soon as well.

    Acajack

    November 16, 2009 at 4:24 pm

  18. So does Nunavut, through the new Inuit Language Protection Act.

    Acajack

    November 16, 2009 at 4:28 pm

  19. also, as I’ve pointed out, Canada does not accord to aboriginals “freedom of choice” in language of education. Many have no access at all to education in their language, many have access only through the primary grades. So it’s a false claim, that Canada is the land of “choice” in language of education. The vast majority of mother tongue languages represented in Canada are not available as principal languages of instruction in public education. There is no “choice” at all in that regard.

    Nor is there in Kondaks’ failed debtor bankrupt bankster-run hedge-fund-gone-bad adoptive state. There is no choice whatsoever in that regard. And yet we don’t see him on the barricades over that.

    James

    November 16, 2009 at 4:32 pm

  20. “Not true. Russell, ON now has a law which mandates that all commercial signage MUST be bilingual”

    Still under challenge by Galganov and the french guy with the muffler shop. Another erosion of individual rights by the well-wishers (do gooders) of society who don’t contribute much but do get in the way of honest people trying to make a living.

    ABP

    November 16, 2009 at 8:31 pm

  21. “Clarence-Rockland in Ontario also has one and Dieppe, New Brunswick outside Moncton will have one soon as well.”

    More of the same.

    ABP

    November 16, 2009 at 8:32 pm

  22. a tous,

    Can someone advise the OOLF of this. Rapport vite que vous ne voulez pas une equipe du Québec de parler la langue terrible comme anglaise quand ils gagnent

    http://www.vigile.net/J-ai-honte,23505

    Pretty damned good team but I guess they need a lesson in la francais. Heh :)

    ABP

    November 16, 2009 at 8:58 pm

  23. “Nor is there in Kondaks’ failed debtor bankrupt bankster-run hedge-fund-gone-bad adoptive state.”

    Not nice to talk about your largest trading neighbor this way…but of course, I always consider the source.

    ABP

    November 16, 2009 at 9:08 pm

  24. oh, you mean it shows as little decorum as you and Kondaks and mongolophone when you’re belittling Québec and the lowly French Canadians?

    Oh I forgot. We mustn’t talk about the Herrenvolk like that. Even if it’s all *true.* Which is more than one can say for your drivel.

    James

    November 16, 2009 at 9:31 pm

  25. Pretty damned good team but I guess they need a lesson in la francais. Heh :)

    Yes, Laval is a damn good team. And yes, the letter writer’s criticism is perfecty valid. No valid reason to be cheering a French team of a French university in English.

    Not nice to talk about your largest trading neighbor this way…but of course, I always consider the source.

    It might not be nice but it’s the truth.

    Marc

    November 16, 2009 at 9:53 pm

  26. “when you’re belittling Québec and the lowly French Canadians?”

    And when was I supposed to have belittled the lowly french canadians that you refer to. Seems to me I have always said that Quebec is an awesome province!!

    Je pense un mal idee pour moi, surtout, comme ma douce femme est une canadiene francais, apres tous.

    Tout le monde ayant leur problemes, n’est pas?

    ABP

    November 16, 2009 at 9:57 pm

  27. james,

    either you’re young or willfully blind. the steps taken in canada may be “too slow” or “not enough” for an activist/idealogue such as yourself – but at some point you are bpound to realize that measures in canada break the paradigm elsewhere on the planet… ergo a small improvement is better than none.

    it’s all incremental or alternatively it’s revolution ou le pire “status qou”. easy (for me) to choose.

    you have indicated (bitterly – if i read your commentary as it is intended) your unhappiness with the progress already achieved in canada. it does not touch on the work that remains for future generations.

    here’s some food for thought (eat@freedomhouse) – if the laws and decisions produced at the federal level are so flawed – what gives you confidence that those laws made in response at the provincial level are any better?

    we cannot go back in time – but would it not have been more reasonable for lawmakers to keep their noses out of the day-to-day business of citizens in the first place?

    my questions to the lawmakers is “who died and made you king?”

    johnnyonline

    November 16, 2009 at 9:58 pm

  28. marc!

    valid and biased! big surprise from vigil.

    english is as much a part of quebec culture as parizeau’s 3-piece suits.

    it’s not like it’s a bad thing. it’s just who we are.

    congrats to the winners.

    johnnyonline

    November 16, 2009 at 10:05 pm

  29. “Yes, Laval is a damn good team.”

    Tu as raison avec les equipe du Laval..Je souhaite le SK chiens mais il sera les dinos du Calgary cette fois. Bonne chance a tous avec ce match. Un bon match pour sure..

    ABP

    November 16, 2009 at 10:14 pm

  30. I’ve always found the lack of French in Dieppe to be interesting. I suspect they recognise where their customers are coming from. But while I don’t like the idea of trying to manufacture a French-Experience, I think the City of Dieppe is using a great deal of common sense and understanding with this law.

    While French would be required on signs there is no limit on the size, content, etc… in any other language. This also only covers outdoor signage so places like the Champlain Place mall won’t be affected. And if and when this law gets passed it won’t affect signs currently standing. “J-C Theriault’s Pool and Spa” can remain just that until such time he decides to have a new sign made. So aside from lawn plaquards and changeable outdoor signs, there won’t be much immediate difference. In other words…there won’t be any mad scramble of people trying to comply with the law because they will already be in compliance.

    I’d say they’ve done this right. Of course this hasn’t stop the outrage and prattlings about French being shoved down our throats, but people will get upset about just about anything.

    A bit off topic, but I think Moncton can provide a reasonable comparison to what many people here on this board have been trying to say. Moncton is about 65% Anglophone and 35% Francophone. The minority Francophones wouldn’t expect service in French EVERYWHERE they go in the city. But imagine the outrage if Moncton’s Anglophones woke up tomorrow morning and found even 20% of their favourite shops, bars and restaurants could not or would not serve them in English. Or if an Anglophone needed emergency transport to the Georges-Dumont Hospital and the patient and his family could only get shoddy help in English. There’d be cries of bloody murder.

    Now I’m not a Francophone Montrealer so I really don’t know if the issues are really that wide spread or if they’re just isolated incidents. But I’ve no reason to doubt AFG’s experiences at least when it come to health services.

    John

    November 17, 2009 at 10:38 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: