Charte canadienne et droits linguistiques : frontières allégoriques et autres assertions consensuelles

The author points out that the boundary between politics and intellectual activism is generally fluid. He notes that the whole universe of political-constitutional thought, while banging the doctrinal drum, is often merely a political construct rather than grounded in fact. Through constant repetition, he maintains that the Québécois national-identity narrative (defeat and victimization) has established itself firmly in the public’s imagination. Through the years, it has attained the status of an outright myth in Quebec. Utilized in the political arena, he notes that this myth holds tremendous sway. The author's dissertation focuses on the different myths which have been created since 1982 around the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by writers of a particular branch of Quebec doctrine: that the Charter significantly reduces Quebec’s ability to protect the French fact; that it constitutes a frontal attack on Quebec’s language policies; that it favours, or could be used to favour, the interests of the English-speaking minority in Quebec over Francophone minorities outside Quebec; and that the Supreme Court, principally consisting of Anglophones from outside Quebec, has undermined Quebec’s Charter of the French Language (Bill 101) and has applied, or could apply, linguistic principles in a uniform manner across the country, thus undermining Quebec’s unique character. In fact, the author argues, the adoption of methodological nationalism as the new political and doctrinal orthodoxy makes it particularly difficult to reconcile the existence of a national identity narrative with the enshrined myths. The author seeks to question the value of the different established myths, and if applicable, to revaluate the scope of the Canadian Charter with regard to language rights. He demonstrates that many of the accepted theories by Quebec scholars and doctrinal writers fail, at least partially, a fact-based analytical test. The author argues that these espoused theories purposely ignore judicial decisions and other empirical facts which do not adhere to the suggested orthodoxy.

PhD dissertation

Université de Montréal

Montréal

2016

xi-481p.

fr