From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Freedom of Expression / language law oppressive?
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:46:13 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <WARKENT.92Apr15111819@ltisun9.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>Once upon a time, I wrote:
>kw>Can someone please provide a clear, precise definition of "freedom
>kw>of expression"?  In following the discussions in can.politics,
>kw>it seems that it has something to do with putting up signs.  But
>kw>can someone then explain why we seem to accept the many other limits
>kw>to "freedom of expression" that pervade Canadian society?
>
>In article <1992Apr10.160848.4567@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) wrote:
>rc> If you accept the basic liberal (small l) principles of the Rights of Man,
>rc> then you must accept the idea of freedom of expression being fundamental.
>rc> If not, then why do you bother to debate at all?
>
>Robin, you still refuse to answer my question: what is "freedom of
>expression"?


Sorry, I missed the question.
I guess freedom of expression in its simplest concept is the right to
say what you want how you want whenever you want to (except in a loud
voice in church.)


>rc> If deprivation of language rights is hurtful, then the Quebec langauge law
>rc> should be removed.
>
>As I have tried to make abundantly clear in previous posts, I agree that
>the banning of English on signs should be repealed.  (By the way, the
>language law is not just about banning English on signs.  Do you mean
>to include all the other facets as well?)

I parts I object to are the banning of any languages on private signs,
and that means english, portuguese, italian, greek, french, whatever.
It does not mean that I object to english/french or french only where
numbers warrant in Quebec on government signs/documents, etc.
I also object to immigrants being forced to school their children in
french only.
Those are the parts that bug me (I don't know the complete law, but 
I think that MIGHT be all.)
If these things were removed, what would be left?


>But be careful, my reasons for opposing this ban are based on pragmatic
>reasons.  The rule "if enacting law X is hurtful, then X should be
>removed" cannot be made a general principle of any workable society,
>and your insistance that regulating signs is a grievous contravention
>of the rights of Man strikes me as silly.


I don't think it is silly. I recognize that to some people,  Law 101
is intended to protect the french language from extinction. I sympathize
with the protection of languages. I object to the suppression of languages
to accomplish that.. As I said before, to save a culture, 
one must CREATE with it,
not destroy with it.
There are good arguments to suggest that if Quebec had not been in Canada,
and enjoyed the protection of Canadian law (for french), the french
language would have gone the way it did in Louisiana.
At the same time, there are parts of the US Constitution that I support.
I have argued that at this time bilingualism makes sense in Canada; the only
other choice being NO official language (like the US.) If this was the case,
would french go the way of Louisiana? I don't know.

Frank.