Documents on the Controversy Surrounding the Language
of Commercial Signs in Quebec (Bill 178) December 1988
With
Justice to all Editorial, Montreal Gazette, December 16,
1988, p. B-2 There
is a quality of true grandeur in yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on Quebec's
sign law. The
judgment is a model of clarity, logic, fairness and sensitivity. It transcends
the noisy partisan clamor that has surrounded this subject for so long, and sets
standards which Quebec should be proud to meet: the promotion of French, and affirmation
of the right of non-francophones to express themselves publicly. Indeed,
the standards that the Supreme Court enunciates are first and foremost those of
Quebec: in the immediate term, it is by virtue of Quebec's own charter of rights
that the court has struck down the requirement for unilingual French public signs.
That requirement, says the court, infringes the Quebec charter's guarantee of
freedom of expression. It also constitutes discrimination on the basis of language,
which the Quebec charter forbids. The
constitutional charter of rights also protects freedom of expression, of course.
But the signs clause of Bill 101 is exempted from the constitutional charter until
Feb. 1 next year by a "notwithstanding clause adopted by the Parti Québécois
government. Under
either charter, the court's ruling reflects not only the letter of the law, but
the finest spirit of this country's needs and aspirations. It affirms both Quebec's
right and duty to protect the French language and the simultaneous duty to respect
the rights of non-francophone citizens. Expressing
identity Every
Quebecer - every Canadian - should reflect on the court's words about freedom
of expression and language: "Language is so intimately related to the form
and content of expression that there cannot be true freedom of expression . .
. if one is prohibited from using the language of one's choice. Language . . .
is . . . the means by which the individual expresses his or her personal identity
and sense of individuality." That
is true for francophones and anglophones alike. And the court says freedom must
apply not only to individual but also to commercial expression, which "plays
a significant role in enabling individuals to make informed economic choices,
an important aspect of individual Self-fulfilment and personal autonomy." Then,
however, in a long, sensitive and important passage, the court strongly upholds
Quebec's right to legislate to protect and promote the French language. The
fundamental aim of the province's language policy, the court says, is "serious
and legitimate." Justified measures include steps to protect the visage
linguistique, Quebecs linguistic face. They can include "requiring
the predominant display of the French language, even its marked predominance." That
is one of the reasons why, in its second language judgment yesterday, the court
rejected stationer Allan Singer's contention that he should be free to post commercial
signs in English only. But
acceptable measures to aid French do not include a ban on other languages. The
court says flatly that such a ban is not needed to defend the French language,
and it is utterly out of proportion to that goal, an unjustifiable discrimination
and infringement of rights. The court's final reasoning is clear and impeccable: "The
predominant language (of Quebec) is French. This reality should be communicated
to all citizens and non-citizens alike, irrespective of their mother tongue. Voices
of Intolerance "But
exclusivity for the French language ... does not reflect the reality of Quebec
society." So
now the judges have done their work, and it is the turn of the politicians. Already
yesterday, some voices were urging Premier Bourassa to move now to legislate to
preserve unilingual French signs. But that is the way of extremism and intolerance. Even
the Parti Quebecois, which created the French Language Charter, shied away from
having it over-ride Quebec's charter of rights. How could a Liberal government,
elected on a specific pledge to permit bilingual signs, break its word and move
instead to curtail fundamental rights? Indeed,
in the light of the Supreme Court's exhaustive and compelling judgment, how could
any self-respecting government even consider the kind of half-measures that Premier
Bourassa has talked about in the past - permitting bilingual signs only inside
stores, or only in certain districts? Yesterday
the premier implied that it will be difficult to solve the signs problem. He may
feel it is politically difficult, but morally it is clear and simple. The
Supreme Court has just confirmed, forcefully and explicitly, the justice of what
his own party's formal policy promises, what moderate persons in both language
communities have long sought: to require the use of French on all signs but permit
the use of other languages as well. That
is the course of fairness. It is the course prescribed by the most important laws
we have. It is the right policy, the policy the premier should adopt. ©
1999 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College |