Toronto.- Approval in Quebec of a controversial law that further restricts the use of English in the Canadian province threatens to provoke a new linguistic conflict destined to reach the The United Nations.

The rule, called “Bill 96“, consists of more than 200 clauses for the purpose, according to provincial governmentto reinforce the use of French, the only official language of Quebecin all aspects of daily life, from the education system to justice, including municipal services and civil status.

The proposal provoked a strong reaction among minorities Quebecespecially the English-speaking population, and activists who feel that their rights are being violated by the Quebec government.

demonstrations

In May, hundreds of people protested for days in Montreal against the law, a situation that evokes the other great linguistic conflict in Quebec, the one that began in 1977 when the Charter of the French languageor Law 101.

On this standard, the Supreme Court of Canada determined in 1988 that certain sections were unconstitutional because they forced commercial signs on the streets of Quebec they had to be exclusively in French.

Canada’s highest court has said the requirement violates freedom of speech protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the country’s Constitution.

They ignore the decision

But the Quebec government ignored the ruling by using a constitutional clause, the so-called derogatory clause, which allows provinces to ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Use of the repeal clause terminated all legal remedies in Canada. But in 1993, a group of Quebecers turned to several human rights lawyers, including Julius Grey, and denounced Quebec before the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The committee of the UN said the clauses violated the plaintiffs’ freedom of expression and that Quebec was forced to change the law.

Constitutional right

Grey, a 73-year-old university professor specializing in constitutional law, is now one of the leading voices against Law 96 and, in an interview with Efe, said he was ready to go to court again. the UN so that Quebec withdraw the new legislative text.

The lawyer denounced that, as at the end of the last century, the government of Quebec Premier François Legault once again used the repeal clause so that Canadian courts could not rule on the illegality of the law. 96 for violation of minority rights. .

We live in a democratic country and part of it has been abandoned. So the only way to fight will be on the international stage. I don’t know if we’ll win because you have to remember that in the 80s and 90s, freedom of expression was much more important… Now it’s not like that anymore. So it’s not certain that we’re going to win but it’s the only way to fight.”

Gray Explained

Gray considers that law 96 is even worse than the clauses repealed by the UN at the end of the 20th century because if these only concerned commercial signs, the new regulations are more general.

Widespread use

Among other measures, the new law imposes the generalization of the use of French in companies with at least 25 employees and in sectors regulated by the federal authorities, such as banking and telecommunications.

In addition, it further restricts the use of English in secondary schools and among English-speaking students at the technical colleges that exist in the province.

It also obliges refugees to learn French in six months. After this period, newcomers will only have access to services in French.

Amend the constitution

And although the law is limited to Quebec, its approval presupposes the modification of the canadian constitutionwhich was never approved by the province, with the addition of two new articles.

The article 90Q.1 establishes that “Quebecers form a nation” and the 90Q.2 that “French will be the only official language of Quebec. It is also the common language of the Quebec nation”.

The Government and Parliament The Canadians said that Quebec is legally entitled to include these two articles in the Canadian Constitution. But many constitutional experts predict that the country’s Supreme Court will have to intervene to establish its legality.