www.WhyCanadaMustEnd.com

 


How to Achieve Quebec Independence
 

Home About the book About the author Table of contents Footnotes
Book Cover Contribute Read the book Contact  

 

CHAPTER 5

Let’s take the very worst of Bill 101 and entrench it in the Constitution

 

Canada must end because the most sacred part of our constitution -- the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- was based upon and inspired by the segregation provisions of Bill 101.



Tell me about our constitution and segregation.

The very essence of Canadian law is our constitution, the fundamental law of the land. And that document clearly and unambiguously makes inequality and segregation of rights the definition of what being a Canadian is. Section 23 of the so-called Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlines the "right" to which official language a person can be educated in Canada. In addition to discriminating against anyone who is not a citizen, the right to public education in one or the other official language is available only to those whose parent(s) are in possession of a certificate that is handed down from one generation to the next, just like a peerage title in the class-conscious England of old.

Section 23 reads:

23.(1) Citizens of Canada
(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,
have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds. (my emphasis)

Where in the world would the framers of our precious constitution -- the highest and most fundamental law of our land -- get such a horrible idea?

The section 23 discrimination provisions were inspired by and based upon the language of education provisions of Bill 101. As discussed in the earlier chapter entitled “Segregation by descent“, Bill 101 segregates all Quebecers into two separate and distinct civil rights categories: those that can freely choose to send their children to either French or English publicly-funded schools and those that can only send their children to French publicly-funded schools.

“Inspired by and based upon” Bill 101. According to you

According to no less an authority than the Supreme Court of Canada. In its historic Protestant School Board ruling of 1984, the court said:

It is therefore not surprising that Bill 101 was very much in the minds of the framers of the Constitution when they enacted s. 23 of the Charter, which guarantees "minority language educational rights". This is confirmed when the wording of this section is compared with that of ss. 72 and 73 of Bill 101, and with other provincial statutes on the language of instruction.

…and…

By incorporating into the structure of s. 23 of the Charter the unique set of criteria in s. 73 of Bill 101, the framers of the Constitution identified the type of regime they wished to correct and on which they would base the remedy prescribed.[55]

Who is responsible for this disaster?

As the Supreme Court indicated above, it was the “framers of the Constitution.“ None other than the Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien, then Justice Minister under Pierre Trudeau during the era of patriating the constitution, appears to hold the most responsibility. Here’s what he said on the matter when he appeared before a parliamentary committee back in 1981:

 

TO READ MORE...