Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

It is the Québec Court of Appeal that made the recent ruling, confirming the previous ruling by the Superior Court. Both courts get their judges nominated by Ottawa.

Oh yes you're right. Thanks for correcting me. Both federal courts in spite of their names.

[Acajack]

As I said the court said it didn't have to make a determination on that due to the legal and legitimate use of the NWC.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I know.. what I meant was, in the event that the NWC had not been invoked, would this have been struck down or not?

If yes, the ruling would say something like "this law violates section 15 but because section 33 has been invoked this is moot". The court will always say what would happen if the NWC had not been invoked, because use of the NWC expires after 5 years.

Or did they say the ruling doesn't violate section 15 at all, and therefore the use of the NWC wasn't actually necessary?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Very Anglo-Saxon. In France the decisions of the higher courts usually contain on one side of a sheet of paper, oftentimes half a page. The beauty of terseness, vs the prolixity of Anglo-Saxon courts.

Even with a judgement written in French!

[Acajack]

Québec Minister of Justice on TV this evening has started referring to the Notwithstanding Clause as the Sovereignty Clause. Apparently François Legault is doing the same.

Sounds like political marketing to me as the CAQ are surely feeling the pressure from PSPP and the PQ on the nationalist front.

"La méthode CAQ is working... see?"

[Acajack]

Or maybe the Parliamentary Sovereignty Clause.

Mais c'est un détail...

Originally Posted by Acajack

Québec Minister of Justice on TV this evening has started referring to the Notwithstanding Clause as the Sovereignty Clause. Apparently François Legault is doing the same.

Sounds like political marketing to me as the CAQ are surely feeling the pressure from PSPP and the PQ on the nationalist front.

"La méthode CAQ is working... see?"

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even with a judgement written in French!

Well, this is one example where Québec is definitely more "Anglo" than French. Which is not surprising considering the last French judges left in 1760, and Québec was then only exposed to the loquacious and verbose English judicial system. Anglo-Saxon court rulings with their hundreds of pages often make me think the judges almost need to justify their salary or something. French judges in the higher courts have no such qualms: 2 or 3 lines to sum up the case, 2 or 3 lines to say which legal principle(s) apply in the case, and then the ruling in 1 sentence.

For example, this is a ruling from the Cour de Cassation, the highest civil court in France (the rulings from the higher courts in France are still called "arrêts" as in the ancient kingdom of France, and not "jugements" which is a word only used for the rulings of lower courts; I don't know if you guys in Québec also use "arrêts" for the higher courts... I guess not because this is not a French word that the English borrowed for their judicial system, unlike "sentence" and "jugement" which they both borrowed):

Vu l'article 1147 du code civil ;

Attendu que la perte de chance présente un caractère direct et certain chaque fois qu'est constatée la disparition d'une éventualité favorable ;

Attendu que, pour rejeter les demandes de Mme X..., imputant la récidive de ses troubles de l'occlusion à M. Y..., chirurgien-dentiste, qui lui avait fait subir un traitement d'orthodontie entre 1990 et 1992, l'arrêt attaqué retient, au vu du rapport d'expertise judiciaire, que l'absence de contention après le retrait des bagues constituait un manque de précaution fautif, mais que cette faute n'était pas en lien direct avec la récidive de la pathologie, dès lors que la récidive aurait pu se produire, avec une probabilité non négligeable, même s'il y avait eu contention ;

Qu'en statuant ainsi, quand le caractère fautif de l'absence de contention après traitement impliquait nécessairement que la convention aurait pu, si elle avait été mise en place, avoir une influence favorable sur l'évolution de la pathologie, la cour d'appel n'a pas tiré les conséquences légales de ses propres constatations au regard du texte susvisé ;

PAR CES MOTIFS et sans qu'il y ait lieu de statuer sur la seconde branche :

CASSE ET ANNULE, dans toutes ses dispositions, l'arrêt rendu le 17 novembre 2010, entre les parties, par la cour d'appel de Riom ; remet, en conséquence, la cause et les parties dans l'état où elles se trouvaient avant ledit arrêt et, pour être fait droit, les renvoie devant la cour d'appel de Limoges ;

Condamne M. Y... aux dépens

Cryptic, I know. That's always the "fun" of law students (which I was) trying to 'decipher' what our highest courts said and how they reached their decisions.

On the plus side, you don't have to read hundreds of pages!

[Acajack]

Arrêt is for appeals courts and the Supreme Court of Canada (ultimate appeals court).

For lower courts it is jugement or décision I think.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Québec Minister of Justice on TV this evening has started referring to the Notwithstanding Clause as the Sovereignty Clause. Apparently François Legault is doing the same.

Sounds like political marketing to me as the CAQ are surely feeling the pressure from PSPP and the PQ on the nationalist front.

"La méthode CAQ is working... see?"

Originally Posted by Acajack

Or maybe the Parliamentary Sovereignty Clause.

Mais c'est un détail...

Parliamentary Sovereignty Clause is a great solitudes-bridging line here. Parliamentary sovereignty in Anglo-Saxon law refers to the philosophy that when push comes to shove, the legislative branch should ultimately always be supreme over the judicial and elective branches because the legislative branch is ultimately the only one directly answerable to the people. The UK still runs this way. A big part of why the notwithstanding clause was specifically written into the 1982 constitution in Canada was to protect the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and prevent the judicial branch from having the final say in all matters.

And of course, sovereignty, in the Quebec context, means.. well we all know what that means!

Quebec's actions on this front are actually very much in keeping with Anglo-Saxon legal practice and tradition - by asserting the supremacy of their elected legislature over the judges and the constitution.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Parliamentary Sovereignty Clause is a great solitudes-bridging line here. Parliamentary sovereignty in Anglo-Saxon law refers to the philosophy that when push comes to shove, the legislative branch should ultimately always be supreme over the judicial and elective branches because the legislative branch is ultimately the only one directly answerable to the people. The UK still runs this way. A big part of why the notwithstanding clause was specifically written into the 1982 constitution in Canada was to protect the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and prevent the judicial branch from having the final say in all matters.

And of course, sovereignty, in the Quebec context, means.. well we all know what that means!

Quebec's actions on this front are actually very much in keeping with Anglo-Saxon legal practice and tradition - by asserting the supremacy of their elected legislature over the judges and the constitution.

I’d say it’s way more universal and basic than that.

The Irish preferring putting local power in the hands of representatives elected by the Irish, over judges named by London, isn’t an Anglo-Saxon thing, just basic logic;

The Scottish preferring putting local power in the hands of representatives elected by the Scots, over judges named by London, isn’t an Anglo-Saxon thing, just basic logic;

The Catalans preferring putting local power in the hands of representatives elected by the Catalans, over judges named by Madrid, isn’t an Anglo-Saxon thing, just basic logic;

The Taiwanese preferring putting local power in the hands of representatives elected by the people of Taiwan, over judges named by Beijing, isn’t an Anglo-Saxon thing, just basic logic;

etc.

If the entire judicial branch was picked by the Quebec government AND we still disliked to see it wielding too much power over us, THEN that would be somewhat Anglo-Saxon culturally.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Quebec's actions on this front are actually very much in keeping with Anglo-Saxon legal practice and tradition - by asserting the supremacy of their elected legislature over the judges and the constitution.

Again, that’s mostly happenstance.

It’s not “we want to assert the supremacy of the elected over the appointed”, it’s “we want to assert the supremacy of the picked-by-Quebec over the picked-by-Ottawa”.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Québec Minister of Justice on TV this evening has started referring to the Notwithstanding Clause as the Sovereignty Clause. Apparently François Legault is doing the same.

Sounds like political marketing to me as the CAQ are surely feeling the pressure from PSPP and the PQ on the nationalist front.

"La méthode CAQ is working... see?"

That is a good way of naming the clause for political purposes. I wouldn't be surprised if AB Premier Danielle Smith starts using it as well.

[Acajack]

It's a brilliant political move by Legault and Jolin-Barrette for sure, but the NWC is still highly stigmatized in the ROC. We will see if people like Smith and Moe can change that.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Parliamentary Sovereignty Clause is a great solitudes-bridging line here. Parliamentary sovereignty in Anglo-Saxon law refers to the philosophy that when push comes to shove, the legislative branch should ultimately always be supreme over the judicial and elective branches because the legislative branch is ultimately the only one directly answerable to the people. The UK still runs this way. A big part of why the notwithstanding clause was specifically written into the 1982 constitution in Canada was to protect the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and prevent the judicial branch from having the final say in all matters.

And of course, sovereignty, in the Quebec context, means.. well we all know what that means!

Quebec's actions on this front are actually very much in keeping with Anglo-Saxon legal practice and tradition - by asserting the supremacy of their elected legislature over the judges and the constitution.

[lio45]

Interestingly, and correctly, the Court finds that an elected representative can sit at the Assembly even with a paper bag over his head at all times, because Section 3 of the Charter, which is one of the sections that are NOT NWC-able away, specifies that ANY Canadian citizen, even one with a paper bag over his head 24/7/365, enjoys the inalienable right to run for office and potentially be elected.

That part was the only bit of Law 21 that was actually clearly not compliant with the Constitution. I’m surprised they actually tried putting it in there; it was obvious the courts were going to strike it down. Amateurs!

[MolsonExport]

An Anglo-Quebecker who spoke Quebecois French very, very well, has just died.
• Video Link

[Acajack]

It would be hard to find a better example than Brian Mulroney of an Anglo-Quebecer that everyone here considered just as Québécois as anyone else.

[Acajack]

Worth 10 pages in the Journal de Montréal anyway:

https://twitter.com/nspector4/status...244634/photo/1

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Quebec's actions on this front are actually very much in keeping with Anglo-Saxon legal practice and tradition - by asserting the supremacy of their elected legislature over the judges and the constitution.

It's not really Anglo-Saxon. In France the Parliament was also the supreme authority above judges. That's why de Gaulle gave the Constitutional Council little powers (and called it "Council" precisely, and not "Court", to mark its low status). It's only recently that the Constitutional Council has gained more powers and asserted itself more, and this is still not well accepted (see for instance the harsh criticism of its censure of the immigration law last December).

On the other hand, in the top dog of the Anglo-Saxon world, i.e. the USA, the Supreme Court has long been above Congress, famously censuring several key measures of Roosevelt's New Deal (which is why he criticized "judicial activism", called "gouvernement des juges" in French). "Gouvernement des juges" was long opposed in France, and now I think we've moved too far towards "gouvernement des juges" with the recent decisions of the Constitution Council and of the State Council (supreme administrative court), which the center-right and far-right harshly criticize (especially because these two courts oppose all legislation trying to control immigration and deport illegal immigrants).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

It's not really Anglo-Saxon. In France the Parliament was also the supreme authority above judges. That's why de Gaulle gave the Constitutional Council little powers (and called it "Council" precisely, and not "Court", to mark its low status). It's only recently that the Constitutional Council has gained more powers and asserted itself more, and this is still not well accepted (see for instance the harsh criticism of its censure of the immigration law last December).

On the other hand, in the top dog of the Anglo-Saxon world, i.e. the USA, the Supreme Court has long been above Congress, famously censuring several key measures of Roosevelt's New Deal (which is why he criticized "judicial activism", called "gouvernement des juges" in French). "Gouvernement des juges" was long opposed in France, and now I think we've moved too far towards "gouvernement des juges" with the recent decisions of the Constitution Council and of the State Council (supreme administrative court), which the center-right and far-right harshly criticize (especially because these two courts oppose all legislation trying to control immigration and deport illegal immigrants).

Le gouvernement des juges when alluded to in Quebec is usually a pejorative thing, accompanied by snickers and sneers.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

An Anglo-Quebecker who spoke Quebecois French very, very well, has just died.
• Video Link

Impeccable "r"s.

[Acajack]

Whereas he is reasonably close but not quite.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/vid...monde-en-parle