Talk:Office québécois de la langue française

message: I removed the following because it is not encyclopedic, but rather is distorted rhetoric only:
"despite the fact that in that province they have access to education in their own language from kindergarten to university, have access to all of the Quebec government's services in English and have access to their business and cultural media in exactly the same way as in the rest of the continent, unlike any other linguistic minority in Quebec or any of the other nine provinces and the 50 states of the USA."
Note: the so-called rights are not granted by Quebec, they are the rights of all Canadians living in the Province of Quebec and each of these rights contains many variations according to circumstances. Angelique 23:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case it would be a good idea to specify why English Canadians feel they are discriminated against. Tremblay 00:35, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: The fundamental rights of all Quebecers are defined in the 1975 Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the linguistic rights of all Quebecers are defined in the 1977 Charter of the French Language. These Charters not only comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they even comply with the 1982 Constitution, repatriated without the approval of the National Assembly of Quebec. Whatever you feel Angelique, you will not be able to go around these facts. -- Mathieugp 17:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: The following paragraph poses a number of problems:
Quebec's language policy is often viewed as a product of xenophobic tendency of rural quebecers and is also accused of having discriminatory intent. In 1993 the United Nations Human Rights Committee agreed that Quebec's language policy is discriminatory. The language policy is also unconstitutional under the Canadian constitution, which mandates an individual's right to choose which language to use.
First, it presents a POV without citing any source, making it look as though such an opinion was generalized in population X. Second, it is prejudicial against rural Quebecers who are depicted as being favorable to discrimination against what we can only presume the author considers a minority group. The last two sentences are not based on facts. Here is a more accurate account of the events, taken in the Canadian Encyclopedia:
In April 1993 the Committee made public an opinion that Bill 178 violated Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which a state, beyond the sphere of its own public action, may not restrict the freedom of expression in a language of one's choice. In response to other parts of McIntyre's complaint, the Committee did not consider that linguistic minorities' right to use their own language between themselves (Article 27 of the Covenant) was challenged since "English-speaking citizens of Canada cannot be considered a linguistic minority." Moreover, in the Committee's opinion, the right to equality (Article 26) was not jeopardized as restrictions about commercial signs applied equally to all Québec's residents.
[...]
Read the full article here: Bill 86 - The Canadian Encyclopedia
Reading the actual opinion of the UN Committee, we find this:
11.1 On the merits, three major issues are before the Committee:
(a) whether Sec.58 of the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 178, Sec.1, violates any right that the authors might have by virtue of article 27;
(b) whether Sec.58 of the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 178, Sec.1, violates the authors' right to freedom of expression; and
(c) whether the same provision is compatible with the authors' right to equality before the law.
11.2 As to article 27, the Committee observes that this provision refers to minorities in States; this refers, as do all references to the "State" or to "States" in the provisions of the Covenant, to ratifying States. Further, article 50 of the Covenant provides that its provisions extend to all parts of Federal States without any limitations or exceptions. Accordingly, the minorities referred to in article 27 are minorities withinsuch a State, and not minorities within any province. A group may constitute a majority in a province but still be a minority in a State and thus be entitled to the benefits of article 27. English speaking citizens of Canada cannot be considered a linguistic minority. The authors therefore have no claim under article 27 of the Covenant.
11.3 Under article 19 of the Covenant, everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right may be subjected to restrictions, conditions for which are set out in article 19, paragraph 3. The Government of Quebec has asserted that commercial activity such as outdoor advertising does not fall within the ambit of article 19. The Committee does not share this opinion. Article 19, paragraph 2, must be interpreted as encompassing every form of subjective ideas and opinions capable of transmission to others, which are compatible with article 20 of the Covenant, of news and information, of commercial expression and advertising, of works of art, etc.; it should not be confined to means of political, cultural or artistic expression. In the Committee's opinion, the commercial element in an expression taking the form of outdoor advertising cannot have the effect of removing this expression from the scope of protected freedom. The Committee does not agree either that any of the above forms of expression can be subjected to varying degrees of limitation, with the result that some forms of expression may suffer broader restrictions than others.
11.4 Any restriction of the freedom of expression must cumulatively meet the following conditions: it must be provided for by law, it must address one of the aims enumerated in paragraph 3(a) and (b) of article 19, and must be necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose. While the restrictions on outdoor advertising are indeed provided for by law, the issue to be addressed is whether they are necessary for the respect of the rights of others. The rights of others could only be the rights of the francophone minority within Canada under article 27. This is the right to use their own language, which is not jeopardized by the freedom of others to advertise in other than the French language.
Nor does the Committee have reason to believe that public order would be jeopardized by commercial advertising outdoors in a language other than French. The Committee notes that the State party does not seek to defend Bill 178 on these grounds. Any constraints under paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of article 19 would in any event have to be shown to be necessary. The Committee believes that it is not necessary, in order to protect the vulnerable position in Canada of the francophone group, to prohibit commercial advertising in English. This protection may be achieved in other ways that do not preclude the freedom of expression, in a language of their choice, of those engaged in such fields as trade. For example, the law could have required that advertising be in both French and English. A State may choose one or more official languages, but it may not exclude, outside the spheres of public life, the freedom to express oneself in a language of one's choice. The Committee accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of article 19, paragraph 2.
11.5 The authors have claimed a violation of their right, under article 26, to equality before the law; the Government of Quebec has contended that Sections 1 and 6 of Bill 178 are general measures applicable to all those engaged in trade, regardless of their language. The Committee notes that Sections 1 and 6 of Bill 178 operate to prohibit the use of commercial advertising outdoors in other than the French language. This prohibition applies to French speakers as well as English speakers, so that a French speaking person wishing to advertise in English, in order to reach those of his or her clientele who are English speaking, may not do so. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the authors have not been discriminated against on the ground of their language, and concludes that there has been no violation of article 26 of the Covenant.
12. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 19, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.
13. The Committee calls upon the State party to remedy the violation of article 19 of the Covenant by an appropriate amendment to the law.
14. The Committee would wish to receive information, within six months, on any relevant measures taken by the State party in connection with the Committee's Views. 
[...]
Read the full opinion here: Human Rights Committee - 1989 Gordon McIntyre Complaint and Opinion of the Committee
This opinion was not unanimous, here are the dissenting/concurring opinions:
A. Individual opinion by Mr. Waleed Sadi (dissenting)
I respectfully dissent from the Committee's decision and submit that it would have been appropriate to review the Committee's earlier decision on admissibility, on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. My reasons are the following:
I am persuaded by the State party's contention that it would be open to the authors, under the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, to apply for a declaratory judgment holding Bill 178 and the "notwithstanding" clause in Section 10 thereof to be invalid. Article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol requires the authors of communications to exhaust available domestic remedies; the Committee should not have proceeded with the examination of the merits of the cases in view of the availability of the domestic remedy in question.
In my opinion, the authors have not been able to refute the State party's contention that a declaratory judgment would not only be an available but also an effective remedy. The Canadian judicial system should have the opportunity to pronounce upon the constitutionality of Bill 178 and its controversial "notwithstanding" clause before the Committee proceeds with a finding on the merits of the communications. The Committee's decision to adopt Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and to find a violation of article 19 of the Covenant has no precedent and is not, in my opinion, in accordance with the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Protocol. I thus register my disagreement with the Committee's opinion that recourse to the Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, would be futile and therefore not required for purposes of the Optional Protocol.
W. Sadi
[Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version.]
B. Individual opinion by Mr. Birame Ndiaye (dissenting)
In accordance with article 27 of the Covenant, in those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language. Through this provision, the Covenant categorically recognizes ("persons ... shall not be denied"), for every individual belonging to these three categories of minority, certain rights, namely, the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion and to use their own language.
These rights are recognized in respect of individuals for their own sake, but also and above all for the survival of the minority as an entity. Indeed, the existence of minorities such as those defined in article 27 cannot be imagined after the disappearance of the single element which constitutes them, namely, their ethnic character, religion or, lastly, language. The rationale of article 27 is the preservation of the three minorities referred to, and not the protection of the rights enunciated therein, merely for the sake of protection.
In the cases submitted to the Committee [Ballantyne/Davidson (359/1989) and McIntyre (385/1989)], Quebec considered that "historical developments since 1763 amply bear out the need for French-speakers to seek protection of their language and culture". Thus, the goal pursued by the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 178, is the very same as that aimed at by article 27 of the Covenant, to which effect must be given, if necessary by restricting freedom of expression on the basis of article 19, paragraph 3. Under this provision "The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a)For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b)For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals".
The limitations embodied in article 19, paragraph 3(a) and (b), are applicable to the situation of the French-speaking minority in Canada. And as this country has maintained, albeit with too narrow a conception of freedom of expression, "the Charter of the French Language, as amended ...., may provide Quebec with a means of preserving its specific linguistic character and give French-speakers a feeling of linguistic security". This is reasonable and is geared to ends compatible with the Covenant, namely, article 27.
Unfortunately, the Human Rights Committee has not endorsed the State party's view and has not agreed to integrate the requirements of implementation of article 27 in its decision. For the Committee, there is no linguistic problem in Canada or, if it does exist, it is not so important as to merit the treatment which the authorities of that country have chosen to extend to it. I can only disassociate myself from its conclusions.
B. Ndiaye
[Done in English, French and Spanish, the French text being the original version.]
C. Individual opinion by Mr. Kurt Herndl (dissenting/concurring)
I agree with the Committee's Views that the facts of the McIntyre case disclose a violation of article 19 of the Covenant. As to the communication of Mr. Ballantyne and Ms. Davidson, I believe that a question remains whether they are indeed "victims" within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol.
With respect to the Committee's rationale in paragraph 11.2 of its Views, the communications in my opinion do not raise issues under article 27 of the Covenant. The question as to whether the authors can or cannot be considered as belonging to a "minority" in the sense of article 27 would seem to be moot in as much as the rights that the authors invoke are not "minority rights" as such, but rather rights pertaining to the principle of freedom of expression, as protected by article 19 of the Covenant, which obviously must be taken to include commercial advertising. On this account, as the Committee rightly states in paragraphs 11.3 and 11.4 of its Views, there has been violation of a
provision of the Covenant, i.e. article 19.''
K. Herndl
[Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version.]
D. Individual opinion by Mr. Bertil Wennergren (concurring)
I concur with the Committee's findings in paragraph 11.2 of the Views that the authors have no claim under article 27 of the Covenant, but I do so because a prohibition to use any other language than French for commercial outdoor advertising in Quebec does not infringe on any of the rights protected under article 27. It is, under the circumstances, of no relevance, whether English speaking persons in Quebec are entitled to the protection of article 27 or not. I feel, however, that I should add that in my opinion, the issue of what constitutes a minority in a State must be decided on a case by case basis, due regard being given to the particular circumstances of each case.
B. Wennergren
[Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version.]
E. Individual opinion by Mrs. Elizabeth Evatt, cosigned by Messrs. Nisuke Ando, Marco Tulio Bruni Celli and Vojin Dimitrijevic (concurring and elaborating)
It may be correct to conclude that the authors are not members of a linguistic minority whose right to use their own language in community with the other members of their group have been violated by the Quebec laws in question. This conclusion can be supported by reference to the general application of those laws - they apply to all languages other than French - and to their specific purpose - which attracts the protection of article 19.
My difficulty with the decision is that it interprets the term "minorities" in article 27 solely on the basis of the number of members of the group in question in the State party. The reasoning is that because English speaking Canadians are not a numerical minority in Canada they cannot be a minority for the purposes of article 27.
I do not agree, however, that persons are necessarily excluded from the protection of article 27 where their group is an ethnic, linguistic or cultural minority in an autonomous province of a State, but is not clearly a numerical minority in the State itself, taken as a whole entity. The criteria for determining what is a minority in a State ( in the sense of article 27) has not yet been considered by the Committee, and does not need to be foreclosed by a decision in the present matter, which can in any event be determined on other grounds. The history of the protection of minorities in international law shows that the question of definition has been difficult and controversial and that many different criteria have been proposed. For example, it has been argued that factors other than strictly numerical ones need to be taken into account. Alternatively, article 50, which envisages the application of the Covenant to "parts of federal States" could affect the interpretation of article 27.
To take a narrow view of the meaning of minorities in article 27 could have the result that a State party would have no obligation under the Covenant to ensure that a minority in an autonomous province had the protection of article 27 where it was not clear that the group in question was a minority in the State considered as a whole entity. These questions do not need to be finally resolved in the present matter and are better deferred until the proper context arises. 
Consequently, I will remove the paragraph as it is a POV and worst is not based on fact but a prejudicial opinon held against the so called "rural Quebecers". Also, any information of this nature truly belongs to article Legal dispute over Quebec's language policy. -- Mathieugp 14:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and false information 

message: Has been changing every Quebec university page and now this to English equivalents. Should the OQLF send the hounds after him? What about his interpretation of the naming convention, is it justified? This issue seems to have been brought up before but never thoroughly discussed. I think it's time to do something about it...
--132.206.150.33 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it back, as discussed at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Names of Canadian unilingual Francophone universities in English Wikipedia article titles.  Please ensure I've reverted the changes correctly.  (Looks right to me.)  --Stéphane Charette 04:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User: Lionel GM... 

message: I heard some anglophones question the use of the office and the loi 101 but even today go around Montreal westward boroughs and you'll have a hard time being served in the provincial only official language : French.  Try it for yourself at the train central station, it's extremely insulting !  --DynV 09:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing problem ! 

message: Under Bill 101, can employees be fined for speaking to each other in English?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddsschneider (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The Charter of the French language is not concerned with language in any private situation. A company cannot be fined for answering the phone or greeting customers in English. That is a misunderstanding of the law. Every person in Quebec can chose to enforce their right as consumer to be informed and served in French, the official language of Quebec. In a situation where a customer feels his right is being stepped on, he may file a complaint to the OQLF. If the complaint is valid, the OQLF can send someone to inform the owner of the commerce that there has been a complaint. The statistics of the OQLF  indicate clearly that in the majority of the cases are resolved without ever requiring fines. When there are fines, it is not because a poor English speaker's right are being violated, it is because a commerce (or else) deliberately chose not to comply and continue to violate the linguistic human rights of Quebec consumers. Logically, the only thing required from any commerce owned by non-Francophones in Quebec is the hiring of bilingual employees to serve clients. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employees' rights 

message: I question the reference stating that the OLFQ has the authority to close down a business for non-conformity with the Charter of the French Language . 
Sec. 177 of the Charter states, "Where the Office is of the opinion that this Charter or a regulation thereunder has been contravened, it shall give the alleged offender formal notice to comply therewith within the time indicated. If the alleged offender fails to comply, the Office shall refer the matter to the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions so that he may, where required, institute appropriate penal proceedings. In the case of a contravention of section 78.1, 78.2, 78.3 or 176, the Office shall refer the matter directly to the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, without giving prior formal notice."
Sec. 205, 205.1 and 208 refer to fines and other penalties that may be imposed by a court, which include ordering the removal or destruction of any poster, sign, advertisement, billboard, or illuminated sign determined to be non-compliant. 
So, if the OLFQ "Language Police" doesn't get co-operation from an offending business, they can refer the matter to prosecutors for a decision on charges, but cannot order the business to close. Further, while a court's order to remove a non-compliant sign may result in a temporary decline in business until a new sign can be erected, there doesn't appear to be a provision which specifically authorizes a court, let alone the OLFQ, to order a business to shut down. Admitedly however, the fine system authorized by this law would make it very difficult for a business to remain open for very long.
  
Canuck55 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers of the OLFQ 

message: Seems like this incident which garnered international attention could be mentioned here. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It made it onto Anthony Bourdain's CNN TV show  as well, months after first appearing in the Italian newspapers. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Pastagate

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Office québécois de la langue française. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20031023132329/http://www.canlii.org:80/qc/sta/ to http://www.canlii.org/qc/sta/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see that a POV tag was added to the "Negative perception" section by  back in January 2017, but there's nothing on this talk page to indicate what exactly she thinks is wrong with it. The incidents listed all seem to be properly cited, and are probably the only reason most foreigners (like me) have heard of the OQLF. There ought to be some mention within the article of the controversies surrounding this agency, and this section seems to do that job well enough. How might it be improved? Chuntuk (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that the section relies excessively on primary sources, namely news websites, and substitutes an overview of criticism of the language policy with a series of anecdotes. Since there aren't any scholarly secondary sources cited, it's difficult to tell whether these incidents are representative and provide due weight to the aspects of the conflict that they highlight. Please see English-only_movement#Criticism for an example of a controversial language policy topic that was covered using scholarly secondary sources. Another reason this section is a problem re POV, is that not only is this the longest section in the article, there is no section covering the Francophone grievances that presumably caused the office to be established, or events which led Francophones to believe that their linguistic rights were not being respected. By omission, the article instead makes it seem that the office just enforces draconian pro-French policies for no real reason. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the situation in Quebec and do not have the time at present for the kind of in depth research needed to improve this article. Kind regards, Catrìona (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Office québécois de la langue française. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528173404/http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/office/rapports/rap20062007/rapport_annuel_20062007.pdf to http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/office/rapports/rap20062007/rapport_annuel_20062007.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've reverted this change to the lede for a few reasons. Firstly to address the edit summary, a redirect target is not a consensus for material in the lede of an article. Secondly, "language police" is an informal and derogatory phrasing that needs proper contextualization if included, which already occurs in the Controversy section. - Aoidh (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've again reverted this change as the reason for it being reverted remains the same. That Language police includes a link to this article is not a consensus in any way for what the lede of this article should contain. That's not what a consensus is nor is it how the lede of the article is determined. - Aoidh (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert all you want. A consensus was already reached. Stick to your own country's politics. 2604:3D09:6688:3E00:8C19:7F37:5DF7:F377 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no consensus reached to change the lede of this article to add this derogatory term. If there has been a consensus reached, please link it, but the fact that Language police includes a link to this article is not a consensus regarding this article in any way, let alone the lede sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language police in the lede