The judicial activism of Quebec Anglophones still making waves 30 years after the adoption of the Charter of the French language. This time, it is the lawyer Brent Tyler, a former president of Alliance Quebec, which has succeeded in invalidating the Act 104 by the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Bill 104 amends for the failure to Bill 101 which made possible the attendance of an English public school brothers and sisters of children who have attended a private English school for one year only. In other words, Bill 104 put a stop to this questionable practice which was to buy a blank check for the whole family. The State of Quebec has responded by raising the issue in appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He could not help but stand in defense of Bill 104 to protect the principle of equality before the law. Unfortunately, we can guess which way the Supreme Court look into this matter. This is not the first such challenge. The Supreme Court has consistently set limits to the application of Bill 101 since its adoption. The cause now represents only the latest episode in a long series of legal challenges. No longer able to apply its policy of integrating newcomers, Quebec is therefore gradually impose the choice of Canadian multiculturalism. Why? Canada's Constitution, its Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives parents choice in language teaching, something inconsistent with the law 101 (education, however, under provincial jurisdiction). Or Bill 101 remains since 1977, the heart of the project of living together of people of Quebec.
Any government that is sovereign or not, if he claims defend Quebec's interests, should feel legitimized to refer to the protection of our language laws as grounds for refusing to comply and to recognize the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada. Quebec can deny the existence of obligations to the 1982 constitution, unilaterally repatriated by English Canada to redefine the political structures of the country without Quebec's consent.
That presents it as an act of sovereignty for some, a supposed plan for autonomy for the other matter, what really is freedom in action that we could win.
Quebec does he not have its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in the National Assembly, to which judges could refer Quebec? For Quebecers, this law has at least one democratic legitimacy, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada included in the coup of Pierre Elliot Trudeau 82.
Time is short, we must react before the return to power of the federal Liberals. We know how their party represents a threat to the autonomy of Quebec. We just discussed the question of unilateral repatriation of the Constitution under their reign in the 80s but when they returned to power under Jean Chretien in Ottawa in the 90s, had scarcely changed their methods. The non-compliance during the Quebec referendum of 1995, sponsorship, fiscal imbalance, the Clarity Act, the National Assembly to put in trust, to intimidate and threaten the people of partition, armed response or non-recognition of its democratic choice, no effort was spared to bully the right to self-determination of our nation. No hijacking of democracy seemed too unfair. Democracy in Canada has gone mad. If you go back a little, we remember the events of October 1970. Trudeau decides to declare the Act War Measures to suspend civil liberties under the pretext of a so-called insurgency army to intimidate the Quebec secessionist movement nascent but already strong. That Canadians retain that image of Trudeau's great defender of the rights and freedoms suggests an emerging Canadian nationalism, based on the Constitution of 82, promoting anti-democratic excesses. It
can be said without much error that liberal activists are Canadian nationalists and consider Quebec nationalism as a threat to their country. They actually become the counterweight to liberal democratic values of Canada constantly seeking to justify that in the case of Quebec, the end is the means, we can trust the laws of Quebec.
Mathieu
