Photo: Spencer Platt, Agence France-Presse
The motion for a unanimous national Assembly, asking the traders to abandon the “hello-hi” has not finished making waves.
Beyond the political impacts, the adoption of the motion on the “hello-hi” could have legal implications, concerned the lawyer, Michael N. Bergman, in a position that one of his peers described as” alarmist “.
More than five weeks after its adoption, on 30 November, the motion for a unanimous national Assembly, asking the traders to abandon the “hello-hi” has not finished making waves.
In an interview with Le Devoir, Michael N. Bergman is income Tuesday on a letter he has sent to the Montreal Gazette, in which he states that “the exclusion of the word” hi ” could be interpreted legally as being a reflection of the fears and insecurities of the majority language “.
The lawyer — who bears the causes of the English-speaking community for decades — believes that the motion of the national Assembly could very well serve as “social proof” and be used in new battles language.
“If there are other disputes about the Charter French and the language of commerce, it will be necessary to submit statistics, expert opinions, analyses, but also a social proof, to explain what is the social context in Quebec, he advanced. You can expose this kind of motion and resolution. “
Elected officials minimize
Before the uproar caused by the adoption of the motion in the circles in English-speaking quebecers, various elected liberals are busy, before Christmas, to lessen the impact of it.
“It is important to remember that this motion has no legal value,” said the mna for D’arcy-McGee, David Birnbaum.
His colleague Geoffrey Kelley has called this story ” storm in a glass of water “, while Kathleen Weil was concerned about the lack of understanding of this motion by the members of the English-speaking community. “They thought we had legislated to ban the English. It was extreme, ” said the minister.
It is true : the “bonjour-hi” is not illegal, agreed, mr. Bergman. But the adoption of a?motion unanimous flesh this kind could be used as an argument testifying to the “fragility continues,” the French before the courts, he wrote in the Montreal Gazette.
On 20 December, the Quebec Court of appeal has certified to this weakness by confirming two decisions of the lower courts on the need for bill 101 in the display.
“My colleague is alarmist,” responded David Robitaille, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Ottawa.
“[The motion] does not affect the legal status and fundamental rights of English-speakers. “
Before the courts, the motion would be “at most” a factor contextual analysis, in his opinion. “It doesn’t make faith a worrying situation for the French on the plan of the statistics,” he explained, emphasizing the preponderance of empirical evidence — facts, statistics, reports — in Court.
“[The ex-canadian prime minister Stephen] Harper had he not recognized in a motion that Quebec was a nation within a united Canada] ? It has had no impact legal “, he illustrated.
The minister responsible for the Protection and Promotion of the French language, Marie Montpetit, declined the interview request of the Duty.