The Rights Revolution [Paperback]

Ignatieff writes:

"(Quebec) entered the federation on the strict understanding that its distinguishing features would receive special protection in the new federal government of Canada."

Quite true.

However, what seems to always be overlooked when the special constitutional arrangements made for Quebec are brought up is that, equally importantly, there were special arrangements for its minority population. Part of the "deal" that is Confederation is that if the newly created provincial legislature of Quebec was to ever violate the rights and freedoms of individuals or the minority community of Quebec that the central government(i.e., federal government in Ottawa) would step in and protect the minority by virtue of its veto power.

This veto power is found in numerous constitutional provisions: disallowance, reservation, the remedial educational powers of sections 93(3) and (4) of the BNA Act, the declarative power, all modes of taxation. In addition, other provisions of the BNA Act were included to protect minority electoral ridings -- both provicially and federally -- from encroachment by the majority.

The simple truth is that these powers were never, ever used by the central government to protect the minority non-francophone population of Quebec when human rights-violating and minority rights-violating legislation -- starting with Bill 22 and then continuing with Bill 101 and other legislation through the years -- was passed by the Quebec National Assembly.

Nor were these powers ever used to protect francophone minorities in other provinces.

So, yes,by all means let us celebrate the special status accorded Quebec within the Canadian constitutional arrangement which Mr. Ignatieff is so proud of. But in the same breath let us not also forget the promise that is part and parcel of that special arrangement, one that has been broken time and time again by the federal government.

2) Mr. Ignatieffwrites:

"Quebec's Charter of Rights--and its language laws--balance the rights of the majority, with equal rights for linguistic and other minorities."

They do no such thing.

Firstly, the "balance" between the "rights" of the majority -- as expressed through its National Assembly in Quebec City -- and the "equal rights for linguistic and other minorities" was the one struck in the "deal" of Confederation mentioned in point #1...not through a Charter of Rights that contains a "notwithstanding" clause (yes, Quebec's charter has one, too!).

There is no harm in having charters of rights; indeed, the more the merrier. But they have to work! And neither the Quebec nor the Canadian charters do.

3)Mr. Ignatieff writes:

"To recognize Quebec--and Aboriginal peoples--as nations within the fabric of Canada is not to make some new concession. It is simply to acknowledge a fact."

I am always amused when aboriginal people are invoked in comparison with Quebecers or as a justification for recognizing Quebec as a "nation within...Canada".

Firstly, Mr. Ignatieff's statement above is factually at odds with what he and the members of his party and the rest of Parliament recognized in that infamous resolution that they passed. The resolution recognized the "people" of Quebec as forming a nation within Canada, not the entity of the province of Quebec as forming a nation with Canada, as he writes as quoted above.

Here is the wording of the resolution:

"That this House recognizes that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."

A provincial entity and a people within that entity are two separate and different considerations.

What Mr. Ignatieff again fails to acknowledge is the existence of another "people" in Quebec: Canadian people.

Specifically, I refer to what can arguably be referred to as the most loyal Canadian people in Quebec: the anglophone and ethnic peoples who, first and foremost, recognize themselves as Canadians, not Quebecers...a people who, on two occasions, "saved" Canada by voting "no" in independence referendums by tallies of 99% (that's the conclusion of demographic experts, not myself). Without this loyal vote of the non-francophones, the "yes" side would have won in both 1980 and 1995.

Note that the reward that the non-francophones received for their loyalty to Canada was to be spat upon by Canada.

More importantly, the invocation of aboriginal peoples in this equation must necessarily bring up the special constitutional and legal arrangements for aboriginals, such as Canada's Indian Act.

The Indian Act is a race law. And, again, this is not me making this observation but the Supreme Court of Canada and a bevy of legal and academic scolars. Two separate and distinct sets of human rights are created by virtue of the Indian Act and inequality results from this race law.

But the coupling with Quebec is appropriate because the hate law/race law Bill 101 does the same thing: divide Quebecers into two separate and distinct civil rights categories.

This is created as a result of Bill 101's language of education provisions, working in conjunction with the horrible section 23 of Canada's so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If you want to know why these two laws are anathema to freedom and equality, please refer to the following:

[...]

...and...

[...]

In conclusion: Mr. Ignatieff's wide-eyed love of an allegedly harmonious and tolerant Canada is one that ignores and snubs its nose at those values most cherished in free and democratic societies: equality; protection from the tyranny of the majority; freedom of speech, to name but a few. It is time for leadership in Canada to stop spewing the same pap that we are continually fed...propaganda that blindly ignores Quebec's blatant violation of human rights (aided, abetted, and enabled by the Parliament of Canada) because it is so eager to maintain Quebec within Canada.

Canada is a wonderful concept. But there are other concepts that are more important and more wonderful...and should take priority over Canadian unity. One of those concepts is individual rights.

It is high time that individual rights take precedence over Canadian unity rather than the other way around.

› Go to Amazon.com to see the review  1.0 out of 5 stars