Ballantyne v Canada

Last updated

Ballantyne, Davidson, McIntyre v. Canada (Communications Nos. 359/1989 and 385/1989) was a case on Quebec's language law submitted in 1989 and decided by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in 1993.

Contents

Facts

Three English-speaking Quebecers: John Ballantyne, Elizabeth Davidson, and Gordon McIntyre, who owned businesses in Sutton, Quebec and Huntingdon, Quebec, challenged sections 1, 6 and 10 of Bill No. 178 (amendments to the Charter of the French Language) enacted by the government of Quebec in 1988. They alleged to be victims of violations of articles 2, 19 (freedom of expression), 26 (ban of discrimination) and 27 (minority rights) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the Federal Government of Canada and by the Province of Quebec, because they were forbidden to use English in advertising or in the name of their firms. [1]

Human Rights Committee views

Article 19: a violation was found, since a "state may choose one or more official languages, but it may not exclude, outside the spheres of public life, the freedom to express oneself in a language of one's choice". [2]

Article 26: no violation found since "this prohibition applies to French speakers as well as English speakers, so that a French speaking person wishing to advertise in English, in order to reach those of his or her clientele who are English speaking, may not do so", no discrimination was found. [3]

Article 27: HRC considered that English-speaking people in Quebec are not entitled to minority rights, since "English speaking citizens of Canada cannot be considered a linguistic minority". [4]

Separate opinions of HRC members

Waleed Sadi filed a dissent, considering that domestic remedies were not exhausted by authors before appealing to Human Rights Committee. [5]

Birame Ndiaye filed a dissent, too, referring to Article 27 as protecting French linguistic minority in Canada and considering the limitations to freedom of expression justifiable by protecting Article 27 rights. [6]

Kurt Herndl filed a partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion, considering that rights in question had concerned only Article 19, not Article 27. He also questioned status of victims of Ballantyne and Davidson. [7]

Bertil Wennergren filed a concurrence, considering that "prohibition to use any other language than French for commercial outdoor advertising in Quebec does not infringe on any of the rights protected under article 27". [8]

Elizabeth Evatt, Nisuke Ando, Marco Tulio Bruni Celli, and Vojin Dimitrijević filed a concurrence stating that the term "minority" should not be interpreted "solely on the basis of the number of members of the group in question in the State party". [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</span> Treaty adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1965

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty that commits nations to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. It was adopted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976 after its thirty-fifth ratification or accession. As of June 2022, the Covenant has 173 parties and six more signatories without ratification, most notably the People's Republic of China and Cuba; North Korea is the only state that has tried to withdraw.

<i>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</i> 1982 Canadian constitutional legislation

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all governments in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was proclaimed in force by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, as part of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Charter of the French Language, also known in English as Bill 101, Law 101, or Quebec French Preference Law, is a law in the province of Quebec in Canada defining French, the language of the majority of the population, as the official language of the provincial government. It is the central legislative piece in Quebec's language policy, and one of the three statutory documents Quebec society bases its cohesion upon, along with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code of Quebec. The Charter also protects the Indigenous languages of Quebec.

The legal dispute over Quebec's language policy began soon after the enactment of Bill 101, establishing the Charter of the French Language, by the Parliament of Quebec in 1977.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Official bilingualism in Canada</span> Policy that the English and French languages have equal status and usage in Canadian government

The official languages of Canada are English and French, which "have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada," according to Canada's constitution. "Official bilingualism" is the term used in Canada to collectively describe the policies, constitutional provisions, and laws that ensure legal equality of English and French in the Parliament and courts of Canada, protect the linguistic rights of English- and French-speaking minorities in different provinces, and ensure a level of government services in both languages across Canada.

Anti-Quebec sentiment is a form of prejudice which is expressed toward the government, culture, and/or the francophone people of Quebec. This prejudice must be distinguished from legitimate criticism of Quebec society or the Government of Quebec, though the question of what qualifies as legitimate criticism and mere prejudice is itself controversial. Some critics argue that allegations of Quebec bashing are sometimes used to deflect legitimate criticism of Quebec society, government, or public policies.

Stefan Nystrom was a long-time resident of Australia who was deported to Sweden in 2006. He won a landmark decision at the United Nations in 2011, establishing that non-citizens may also have the right to enter a country.

Linguistic rights are the human and civil rights concerning the individual and collective right to choose the language or languages for communication in a private or public atmosphere. Other parameters for analyzing linguistic rights include the degree of territoriality, amount of positivity, orientation in terms of assimilation or maintenance, and overtness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Latvia</span>

Human rights in Latvia are generally respected by the government, according to the US Department of State and Freedom House. Latvia is ranked above-average among the world's sovereign states in democracy, press freedom, privacy and human development. The country has a relatively large ethnic Russian community, which has basic rights guaranteed under the constitution and international human rights laws ratified by the Latvian government.

<i>Toonen v. Australia</i> Court case

Toonen v. Australia was a landmark human rights complaint brought before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) by Tasmanian resident Nicholas Toonen in 1994. The case resulted in the repeal of Australia's last sodomy laws when the Committee held that sexual orientation was included in the antidiscrimination provisions as a protected status under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Human rights in Estonia are acknowledgedas being generally respected by the government. Nevertheless, there are concerns in some areas, such as detention conditions, excessive police use of force, and child abuse. Estonia has been classified as a flawed democracy, with moderate privacy and human development in Europe. Individuals are guaranteed on paper the basic rights under the constitution, legislative acts, and treaties relating to human rights ratified by the Estonian government. Estonia was ranked 4th in the world by press freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Latvian Human Rights Committee</span>

Latvian Human Rights Committee is a non-governmental human rights organization in Latvia. It is a member of international human rights and anti-racism NGOs FIDH, AEDH. Co-chairpersons of LHRC are Vladimir Buzayev and Natalia Yolkina. According to the authors of the study "Ethnopolitics in Latvia", former CBSS Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ole Espersen "had visited LHRC various times and had used mostly the data of that organisation in his views on Latvia".

Waldman v. Canada was a case decided by the UN Human Rights Committee in 1999.

J.G.A. Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia (2000) was a case decided by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The language policies of Canada's province and territories vary between the provinces and territories of Canada. Although the federal government operates as an officially bilingual institution, providing services in English and French, several provincial governments have also instituted or legislated their own language policies.

Expression of racism in Latvia include racist discourse by politicians and in the media, as well as racially motivated attacks. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance notes some progress made in 2002–2007, mentioning also that a number of its earlier recommendations are not implemented or are only partially implemented. The UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance highlight three generally vulnerable groups and communities: ethnic Russians who immigrated to Latvia under USSR, the Roma community and recent non-European migrants. Besides, he notes a dissonance between "opinion expressed by most State institutions who view racism and discrimination as rare and isolated cases, and the views of civil society, who expressed serious concern regarding the structural nature of these problems".

Raihman v. Latvia was a case decided by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2010.

The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance is a document which attempts to "clarify how international human rights law applies in the current digital environment". Communications surveillance conflicts with a number of international human rights, mainly that of privacy. As a result, communications surveillance may only occur when prescribed by law necessary to achieve legitimate aim, and proportionate to the aim used.

Marital rape generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse between married spouses. In Singapore, there used to be a partial immunity for marital rape first introduced during British colonial rule because it was deemed not a criminal offence except when the wife is below 13 years of age or when any of the specific circumstances provided under section 375(4) of the Singapore Penal Code are satisfied. Since 1 January 2020, the law was repealed and its immunity lifted under the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, criminalising marital rape.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Committee Against Torture</span> UN body of human rights experts

The Committee Against Torture (CAT) is a treaty body of human rights experts that monitors implementation of the United Nations Convention against Torture by state parties. The committee is one of eight UN-linked human rights treaty bodies. All state parties are obliged under the convention to submit regular reports to the CAT on how rights are being implemented. Upon ratifying the convention, states must submit a report within one year, after which they are obliged to report every four years. The committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the state party in the form of "concluding observations." Under certain circumstances, the CAT may consider complaints or communications from individuals claiming that their rights under the convention have been violated.

References