Albisteak
Different paradoxes in the protection of minority languages: the foe within or without?
In the last decade we have frequently turned our eyes towards the political and academic aspects of Canada. For many, Canada should be taken as an example in several areas. One of these is the strategy developed in that North American country for accepting and protecting "difference" in society.
We have seen several relevant occurrences related to this subject in recent months, events which I will take as a basis, and pretext, for reflection. Given their paradoxical content, I believe that they are particularly attractive and should point our thoughts towards the numerous problems lying ahead of us.
In Quebec the only official language is French, although the English-speaking minority living in the province can use the language if it meets certain conditions. In education, this means that girls and boys attending public schools and schools receiving public subsidies have no option but to study in French. At these schools, the only boys and girls who can study in English are those whose parents have studied most of their Canadian education in English, and those having taken their earlier studies in that language. Those wishing to study English and who are not in this situation must do so at private schools receiving no public subsidies.
Many are those who have therefore sought to find a legal loophole in the attempt to obtain English education for their sons or daughters, but without having to pay the costs of private education. As a result, we now have the so-called "bridging schools" (« écoles passarelles »): parents take their children to a private school offering education in English, but only enrol them for pre-school. They then take their children to a public school or to a school receiving public subsidies and demand their right to be educated in English given that, until then, all of the education received by the child in Canada had been in that language.
Endeavouring to bring an end to this practice, the Quebec Parliament, the Assemblée Nationale, modified the Charte de la langue française (Charter of the French Language), with the notorious Bill 101. According to the new legal framework, in the case of wishing to exercise the right to be educated in English, the years studied in English at private schools not receiving public subsidies will no longer be taken into account.
Several parents fought this bill in the courts, considering it to be against the Constitution and to violate their rights.
On 22 October of last year, the Supreme Court issued its judgement in the case of Nguyen v. Quebec, recognising that the parents were correct in their claim that the new legal framework violates their rights and that the two parts of one of the articles of Bill 101 are unconstitutional.
The judgement issued by the Supreme Court caused tremendous political commotion. Criticism from the political sphere poured in, with politicians of all colours stating that they were in favour of protecting Quebec's particular French-speaking identity, independently of whether they were French or English-speakers, or of whether they came from Quebec or elsewhere.
We mustn't forget that the French Language Act is one of the most relevant to have chipped out this Quebecois particularity, the most important symbol of the peaceful revolution dating from the 60s of last century. Thus, those wishing to maintain -and strengthen- the province's particular French-speaking identity are extraordinarily sensitive to all things related to the Act. And no-one wants to adopt a stance against it.
In the middle of all this, on 28 October, and not even a week after the judgement had been published, an influential and significant debate took place in the Lower House of the Canadian Federal Parliament. The NDP, the New Democratic Party, presented a motion for dealing with the situation created by the judgement. This motion reads: that, in the opinion of the House, recognition that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada means, in particular, that Quebec has the right to ensure that immigrants to Quebec must learn French first and foremost. Following intense debate, the motion was unanimously approved. All Members of Parliament throughout Canada voted in favour of the motion.
Contrary to belief, it wasn't the Quebecois sovereignists who championed the motion, but the English-speaking Members of Parliament elected in the province and it is these same people who played the leading part in discussions favouring the motion. What happened?
Except in a very few exceptions, it is extremely complicated to find, among the English-speaking population, critics of the monolingual policy favouring French, provided that they are guaranteed the right to use their language, as is currently the case. The English-speaking population realises that learning French is enriching; and they don't see the problem in obliging the immigrant population to learn French first and foremost.
Those against the policy favouring the introduction of French come from the immigrant ranks, but they're not alone. Increasingly large numbers of French-speakers don't like being obliged to take their education in French alone. They'd like to study not only in French, but in English too, because they consider that the need to defend French denies them the opportunity to obtain proper command of English.
Chantal Hébert, journalist and cutting French-speaking -and Francophile- panelist, clearly expounded the obstacles lying ahead in this area. In an article (Language law to face foe from within) in the opinion column of the newspaper The Star of Toronto, she gives a very good explanation of what is happening now, and, it would seem to an increasing extent, in Quebec: those taking the strongest stance against the policy pinpointing the unique and obligatory use of French as the most appropriate means of protecting the language don't come from outside the Francophone community, but from inside it. In Hébert's opinion, the conflict is more likely to increasingly pit Francophones against one another. Above all if, as the sovereignists would like to see, the obligation of studying secondary education in French spreads, given that the said educational stage constitutes the channel used by numerous English-speakers to gain proper command of the English language.
Those in favour of policies protecting the minority language have generally shown themselves willing when it comes to standing up to outside enemies. Now they have to come up with an appropriate response to the needs raised by people from within the same community who don't want feel as though they are living in a closed reserve. Quebec's Francophone community must face the challenge thrown out by the English language. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the only challenge existing in this area is that of English. They'll have to remain steadfast if they're to succeed. But those of us who face more complex situations will have to do so to an even greater extent. The languages around are powerful, meaning that we mustn't ignore them if we don't want our language to end in failure. But, even so, that doesn't make us exempt from the challenge of English, even if it doesn't have the same nuances here as it does in Quebec.
Alberto Basaguren
Professor of Constitutional Law in the UPV
