Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OneBlueDotBama

(1,487 posts)
28. it's unconstitutional
Thu Feb 27, 2014, 02:53 PM
Feb 2014

Quebec uses the not withstanding clause, under the Canadian Charter of rights & Freedoms to push their systemic racism. No outside signs in English and inside signs, French has to be above English and twice the size.

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or "la clause dérogatoire" in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter. As such, it is a controversial provision.[1]

Quebec[edit]

After the Charter came into force in 1982, Quebec inserted a notwithstanding clause into all its laws; this stopped in 1987, when the Quebec Liberals, having ousted the Parti Québécois, determined the practice should not be continued. However, the most notable use of the notwithstanding clause came in the Quebec language law known as Bill 101 after sections of those laws were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ford v. Quebec (A.G.). On December 21, 1988, the National Assembly of Quebec, under Robert Bourassa's Liberal government, employed the "notwithstanding clause" to override freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 2b) as well as the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and equality rights of the Quebec Charter, in their Bill 178. This allowed Quebec to continue the restriction against the posting of certain commercial signs in languages other than French. In 1993, after the law was criticized by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Bourassa government had the provincial parliament rewrite the law to conform to the Charter, and the notwithstanding clause was removed.

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

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The unmitigated Gaul! Orrex Feb 2014 #1
Yeah, and gall too!!! Must admit I have never been to France. nt left on green only Feb 2014 #31
LOL cyberswede Feb 2014 #33
I have little issue with Quebec using their language and promoting the use off. MMcGuire Feb 2014 #2
Would you be okay with Arizona or California telling a shop that sells productos mexicanos Common Sense Party Feb 2014 #3
There is a difference because Canada has different laws jberryhill Feb 2014 #4
Arizona made English the state's official language in 2006. former9thward Feb 2014 #8
No jberryhill Feb 2014 #14
I know Canada has no First Amendment. former9thward Feb 2014 #17
Canada is Officially a Bilingual Country and business must respect both languages wocaonimabi Feb 2014 #5
Is that law for the whole country? Or just for Quebec? Common Sense Party Feb 2014 #6
Quebec is not a bilingual province... SidDithers Feb 2014 #12
Right, but I was asking for clarification from the previous poster who said Common Sense Party Feb 2014 #16
Basically correct... SidDithers Feb 2014 #25
States do. former9thward Feb 2014 #10
They are French speakers in Quebec MMcGuire Feb 2014 #7
I know, and they are Spanish speakers in many parts of our country. Common Sense Party Feb 2014 #9
"I didn't realize they had such a strict law about not using your own language." MMcGuire Feb 2014 #27
That's not a very good analogy laundry_queen Feb 2014 #36
it's unconstitutional OneBlueDotBama Feb 2014 #28
Could very well be. MMcGuire Feb 2014 #30
I'm thinking that if I had shops in Quebec, MineralMan Feb 2014 #11
We have a subsidiary in Quebec... tridim Feb 2014 #15
Really? I'm sure there is a plethora of translation firms MineralMan Feb 2014 #18
Google translation is not good enough to satisfy the law. tridim Feb 2014 #21
I was not suggesting Google translation. MineralMan Feb 2014 #23
Thanks MM. nt tridim Feb 2014 #29
Canadian Language Police! csziggy Feb 2014 #13
You read my mind! This is what I thought of as soon as I saw the thread's subject line. smokey nj Feb 2014 #32
Welcome to Canada! Bienvenue au CANADA! MineralMan Feb 2014 #19
Misleading. It is to be published in BOTH languages. Pretty standard in Quebec Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #20
Is it that way in the rest of the country? Common Sense Party Feb 2014 #22
I don't think so, but I've worked for U.S. companies that Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #24
I'd think that makes sense, since you don't know where a shipment Common Sense Party Feb 2014 #34
Some labels must be bilingual by law laundry_queen Feb 2014 #35
Est-ce qu'elle ne parlait pas français? MineralMan Feb 2014 #26
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Quebec store owner ordere...»Reply #28