|
CHAPTER 2
Segregation by descent
Canada must end because it tolerates,
accepts, and encourages segregation of rights. Quebec’s Bill 101 segregates its
residents into two separate and distinct civil rights groups through a
discrimination procedure based upon descent. This violates the basic tenet of
free and democratic societies that all are equal before and under the law.[9]
How does Quebec segregate rights?
The language of education provisions of Bill 101 divide Quebecers into two
separate and distinct civil rights categories:
1) those that can choose to send their children to either French-language or
English-language publicly-funded schools; and
2) those that can only send their children to French-language publicly-funded
schools.
The discrimination procedure used to determine placement in either of these two
civil rights categories is based upon:
1) who one’s parents are; and
2) what the parents’ classification is (i.e., eligibility certificate).
This classification is handed down, generation after generation.
This regime of discrimination based upon descent violates the basic tenet of a
free and democratic society that all are equal under the law. As the Editorial
Board of the Montreal Gazette observed:
…equal treatment under the law is at the
heart of what it is to be a Canadian.[10]
Indeed, the language of Bill 101 used in the
discrimination process described above is identical in principle to the one used
under the now defunct apartheid system of South Africa. It is, in places,
virtually word for word.
Are you comparing the plight of the Blacks of South Africa with those of the
minority Anglophones of Quebec?
Certainly not. First of all, it is the Francophones and Allophones of Quebec who
are restricted in their rights, not the Anglophones, who have the freedom to
choose either French or English language schools. Secondly, the degree of rights
abuse was much greater under apartheid.
But the process of discrimination is virtually the same.
That’s unbelievable. I’d have to see it for myself before I’d believe it.
Here is the applicable text from section 73 of Bill 101:
73. The following children, at the
request of one of their parents, may receive instruction in English:
1) a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and received
elementary instruction in English in Canada, provided that that instruction
constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received
in Canada;
2) a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and who has
received or is receiving elementary or secondary instruction in English in
Canada, and the brothers and sisters of that child, provided that that
instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary or secondary
instruction received by the child in Canada;
3) a child whose father and mother are not Canadian citizens, but
whose father or mother received elementary instruction in English in Québec,
provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary
instruction he or she received in Québec;
4) a child who, in his last year in school in Québec before 26 August 1977,
was receiving instruction in English in a public kindergarten class or in an
elementary or secondary school, and the brothers and sisters of that child;
5) a child whose father or mother was residing in Québec on 26 August
1977 and had received elementary instruction in English outside Québec,
provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary
instruction he or she received outside Québec. (emphasis added)
How is that similar to the South African
apartheid laws?
Compare the wording above from section 73 of Bill 101 to the following from the
South African statutes:
TO READ MORE... |