values and culture of the majority. 9
In responding to these criticisms, there are two ways for a liberal state to go: to reassert neutrality by ceasing to observe rituals and holidays specific to the dominant group, or to recast neutrality as the encouragement of all groups (that is, to become multicultural). Most modern liberal states have taken the second option. In the multicultural response, the state subsidizes the cultural activities of a wide number of groups and designates days of the public calendar to the celebration of the heritage of as many groups as it can. Multiculturalism is intended not to subvert neutrality, but to reassert it in a way that entrenches minority rights to culture against the risks of majoritarian tyranny. But this multiculturalist policy does not amount to an endorsement of group rights. It simply seeks to protect and enhance the capacity of as many individuals as possible to secure public recognition of their different cultures. 10
The Quebec government, on the other hand, does not purport to be neutral. It argues that its policy of favouring French is not an exercise of majority tyranny, because this particular majority happens to be a minority within the Canadian state, and an even more embattled linguistic minority within the North American continent. Accordingly, the usual strictures against majority domination do not apply. This particular majority is entitled to use state power to favour its own group, the argument goes, provided of course that itdoes not actively deny the rights of English-speakers. 11
In assessing the Quebec case for privileging French, there are two tests of the legitimacy of group rights. First, are they absolutely essential to the survival of the group as such? And second, are these privileges accorded in such a way that they do not violate the rights of individuals, either inside or outside the group? It may be hard for English Canadians to admit this, but Quebec’s language legislation passes both tests. First, given the fact that minority languages are like rare birds — easily rendered extinct — it’s hard to deny the contention that the collective protection of a language employed by 7 million people is essential in a continent of 300 million mostly English-speakers. Such collective protection is important for Quebecers, obviously, but it’s important for English-speakers as well, since we also benefit from a country in which linguistic diversity is cherished. Second, the francophone majority
has
respected the rights of minorities in Quebec. Native English-speakers can educate their children in their language at public expense; they can also receive services in their own language. It is true that non-English-speaking immigrant minorities must learn the language of the majority, but this is a standard requirement for immigrants everywhere, and they are not prohibited from using their native language in public or from seeking English-language education at the post-secondary level once they have mastered French.
Group rights have to respect not only the individual rights of other groups — and Quebec language legislation does — but also the individual’s rights within the group.Securing this balance requires political compromise. French-speaking Quebecers do not have the right to send their children to publicly funded English-language schools. If they wish to do so, they must pay for the education themselves. Without this abridgement of the rights of francophones, and the right of immigrants who wish to educate their children in English, the very capacity of the majority to reproduce the French language would be jeopardized. Yet the sacrifice of individual rights must secure democratic ratification. And in this case it does. French- and English-speakers accept, with more or less good grace, the constraint on the expansion of English-language education. The balance between group and individual rights has secured a measure of political and social
In responding to these criticisms, there are two ways for a liberal state to go: to reassert neutrality by ceasing to observe rituals and holidays specific to the dominant group, or to recast neutrality as the encouragement of all groups (that is, to become multicultural). Most modern liberal states have taken the second option. In the multicultural response, the state subsidizes the cultural activities of a wide number of groups and designates days of the public calendar to the celebration of the heritage of as many groups as it can. Multiculturalism is intended not to subvert neutrality, but to reassert it in a way that entrenches minority rights to culture against the risks of majoritarian tyranny. But this multiculturalist policy does not amount to an endorsement of group rights. It simply seeks to protect and enhance the capacity of as many individuals as possible to secure public recognition of their different cultures. 10
The Quebec government, on the other hand, does not purport to be neutral. It argues that its policy of favouring French is not an exercise of majority tyranny, because this particular majority happens to be a minority within the Canadian state, and an even more embattled linguistic minority within the North American continent. Accordingly, the usual strictures against majority domination do not apply. This particular majority is entitled to use state power to favour its own group, the argument goes, provided of course that itdoes not actively deny the rights of English-speakers. 11
In assessing the Quebec case for privileging French, there are two tests of the legitimacy of group rights. First, are they absolutely essential to the survival of the group as such? And second, are these privileges accorded in such a way that they do not violate the rights of individuals, either inside or outside the group? It may be hard for English Canadians to admit this, but Quebec’s language legislation passes both tests. First, given the fact that minority languages are like rare birds — easily rendered extinct — it’s hard to deny the contention that the collective protection of a language employed by 7 million people is essential in a continent of 300 million mostly English-speakers. Such collective protection is important for Quebecers, obviously, but it’s important for English-speakers as well, since we also benefit from a country in which linguistic diversity is cherished. Second, the francophone majority
has
respected the rights of minorities in Quebec. Native English-speakers can educate their children in their language at public expense; they can also receive services in their own language. It is true that non-English-speaking immigrant minorities must learn the language of the majority, but this is a standard requirement for immigrants everywhere, and they are not prohibited from using their native language in public or from seeking English-language education at the post-secondary level once they have mastered French.
Group rights have to respect not only the individual rights of other groups — and Quebec language legislation does — but also the individual’s rights within the group.Securing this balance requires political compromise. French-speaking Quebecers do not have the right to send their children to publicly funded English-language schools. If they wish to do so, they must pay for the education themselves. Without this abridgement of the rights of francophones, and the right of immigrants who wish to educate their children in English, the very capacity of the majority to reproduce the French language would be jeopardized. Yet the sacrifice of individual rights must secure democratic ratification. And in this case it does. French- and English-speakers accept, with more or less good grace, the constraint on the expansion of English-language education. The balance between group and individual rights has secured a measure of political and social
Similar Books
