Revolutionary Moderation

Chrétien "prefers autocracy"?



Well, yeah, probably. But the example used by Claire Hoy to illustrate that is specious.

Chrétien says minority "rights" are not subject to majority rule. "That's why there are constitutions. That's why there are charters of rights. It's to protect minorities. And if every time there is a problem with a minority, we ask the majority to decide, then we are no longer protecting the minority. That's where the problem of a referendum [on same sex marriage] troubles me."



He added that francophone minorities might not have won their rights had they depended upon a majority vote. "We had to fight, we francophones, to preserve our language. And if it had always been a decision of the majority of the population, perhaps there would no longer be French in Canada."



Neat. But a complete canard.



The fact of French-language rights was never in dispute in the Charter [emphasis mine]. The nine English-speaking premiers who, along with Pierre Trudeau -- but without Rene L�vesque -- never once questioned the right of the French language to exist equally in the constitution with the English language. For Chr�tien to use that as an example of the "dangers" of majority rule is an insult not only to those former premiers who endorsed a dual language constitution, but to English-speaking Canadians as a whole.

Wait a minute. Who's offering up the canards, here? Do you think for a moment that the Prime Minister was claiming that French language rights in Canada were at risk in 1981? That's absurd. I believe what he was arguing was that French language rights in Canada have been abused when subjected to majority opinion throughout the history of Canada. Those of you from elsewhere, or who are new to the country (I hope, not those of you who grew up here, but who am I kidding?) might want to have a glance at the history surrounding the Manitoba School question. Long story short, the Manitoba government decided to discontinue French-language Catholic education in 1890 (among other measures) to Anglicize the French population of Manitoba. See if any of this sounds familiar in the context of the gay marriage argument now:

1889, June: The Equal Rights Association - "Equality to all. Privileges to none" - was established in Toronto. Its prime targets were the bilingual schools of Ontario and the Catholic Separate School � privileges � of the same province. It fueled a context in which anti-Quebec, anti-French and anti-Catholic feelings ran high.



...



1889, August 12: In a sermon given by Rev. George Bryce and delivered at Knox Presbyterian Church, as reported by the Manitoba Free Press, the cleric stated: "When men deliberately state as they have done that they aim at building up a French Canadian nationality, what is that but a blow to our hopes as one Canadian people?"



...



1891-1897: Period of intense activity by the Protestant Protective Association (PPA). This anti-Catholic secretive organization was of American origin and recruited as many as 100,000 members in its various chapters throughout Canada. The PPA attacked Catholics and French Canadians for failing to assimilate with the majority, and thus frustrating the dream of a homogeneous country. According to historian James T. Watt, they sought to create a nation "based on a common language and cultural background and a general pride in the so-called Anglo-Saxon race".

This work is all copyright Claude B�langer, by the way, but I'm hoping these few entries will fall under "fair use".



My point is this: the Prime Minister is right. Not every minority right will get majority approval. Not every rule that we accept in Canada has to. That's not the function of a liberal democracy. Our Charter of Rights is a document created by our governments on our behalf, not because those Premiers at the time fully understood every implication of every section, but because they felt that a certain collection of rules were the bare minimum that no government should be able to easily overturn, no matter the implications of those rules. People might object to prisoners having their right to vote acknowledged, but the implications of not doing so are dangerous to democracy, as a Floridian can tell you. So for Hoy to suggest that it is somehow anti-democratic for the Supreme Court to interpret the Charter of Rights, or for Jean Chr�tien to not want every decision of the Court to be subject to review by referendum, that there is what'cha call... what's that word now? Oh, yeah. A canard. And I suspect Claire Hoy knows it.