A recent story about the the controversial mayor of Huntington, Stéphane Gendron, inspired me to delve into the question of civil disobedience in regards to a law that many Anglophones believe discriminatory, the infamous Bill 101.
The Huntington mayor is certainly unafraid of tilting at windmills, he was forced to come off his position that Israel didn't deserve to exist after the television station which airs his new magazine program where he made the remarks, was inundated with complaints.
But that's not what I wish to address here today, rather, it is his controversial stand against Bill 101 and his promise that he will ignore the law and continue to maintain bilingualism in his tiny town, which historically was English, but no longer qualifies for bilingual status under the law.
The OQLF has confirmed that a complaint has been laid, but went to lengths to say that they are looking to settle things without resorting to court."I have no use for the insecure and culturally impoverished that are tightly-knit within the French language, who let their lives be governed by its potential disappearance from North America. By focusing on this linguistic insecurity, Quebec has been impoverished while Ontario, which said yes to immigration, ended up surpassing us."
("Je n'ai que faire des insécures et des pauvres culturels que sont les tricotés serrés de la langue française qui ne vivent qu'en fonction de l'heure de leur disparition en Amérique, a-t-il indiqué. À force de focuser sur l'insécurité linguistique, le Québec s'est appauvri et l'Ontario - qui a dit oui à l'immigration et à la diversité - a fini par nous doubler au passage.") LINK {Fr}
I imagine they would, but that may not be possible, as Mayor Gendron has committed to defying any ruling or ordinance issued by the OQLF in regards to removing bilingualism from the town.
Mr. Gendron has promised that if need be, the town will create a line item in the budget entitled "Human Rights and Dignity," to pay for any fines.
That doesn't augur well for the OQLF who are desperate to avoid publicity, especially internationally.
A plucky mayor of a little town, who fights the big bad language police, is a David and Goliath story that is sure to capture plenty of print space and air time.
That is something the OQLF is desperate to avoid.
As long as the debate rages in Quebec, everything is fine as far as they are concerned, but if this story leaks out of Quebec and is picked up by the American press, it will be a public relations nightmare for the province.
Let us just say Americans are not quite so nuanced and see language laws as discrimination, pure and simple.
I don't have to remind readers about the negative repercussions that still reverberate over Mordechai Richler's condemnation of Quebec in the New Yorker and on 60 minutes. Even though these interviews and stories appeared back in the nineties, they still haunt French language militants who reserve a special hate for the sardonic Richler, for humiliating them south of the border.
Over the course of any litigation, which of course will drag out for years, Mr Gendron will have plenty of opportunity and will be afforded plenty of face time on television to denounce the OQLF in the most colourful and unflattering of terms.
Now, over the life of this blog, a sentiment by French language militants has been oft repeated, that is the idea that even though we Anglos do not like Bill 101, we must 'respect' it, because ours is a society of laws.
Here's typical opinion;
"Nous ne faisons que faire respecter la loi. Dans notre pays les lois sont importantes et tous, sans exception, doivent s'y conformer,"
(In our country, laws are important and we must obey them all without exception)
Now before I continue, I AM NOT comparing Bill 101 to the Nurenberg laws, the various Apartheid laws of South Africa or race laws that discriminated against Blacks in the USA.
So please, no comments that I am making such a comparison.
Bill 101 is nothing like those laws and to intimate such, is to belittle the trials and struggles of those people subjected to their cruelty .
This post is merely a discussion over whether one should be obliged to obey an unjust law, and whether Bill 101 falls into this category.
Now before I continue, I AM NOT comparing Bill 101 to the Nurenberg laws, the various Apartheid laws of South Africa or race laws that discriminated against Blacks in the USA.
So please, no comments that I am making such a comparison.
Bill 101 is nothing like those laws and to intimate such, is to belittle the trials and struggles of those people subjected to their cruelty .
This post is merely a discussion over whether one should be obliged to obey an unjust law, and whether Bill 101 falls into this category.
That sounds like a good description of what the mayor of Huntington is suggesting he and his town are going to do..
Readers, if you aren't familiar with Martin Luther King's famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" I would recommend reading it. It is a masterpiece.
It's a bit long, so you might want to save it for the weekend. Prepare to be humbled and inspired.
READ IT HERE IN FRENCH
Would the shoe be on the other foot, I wonder if these French language militants would be so 'respectful' of a law that discriminated against their language.
What if Mr. Harper passed a federal law that forced every sign in Canada to be in English, with minority languages (including French) allowed, but on a diminished basis?
I don't even make the case that there is an equivalency to the above and Bill 101, the point is whether Francophones would feel justified in disobeying what they would clearly perceive as a discriminatory law?
How would it play out in Chicoutimi, Quebec City or Val D'Or?
Would these same militants who tell Anglos to respect Bill 101 because it is the law, advise Francophones to 'respect' this Harper law, or would they feel justified in disobeying.
It's easy to fall back on the old chestnut, that the law is the law, and that we all must obey it because it was passed by the majority.
But philosophers greater than I have built a consensus that such is not the case.
And so readers, the question as to whether Bill 101 is just or unjust, may be a matter of perspective.
And for those who believe it is unjust, the question remains as to whether it rises to the level of discrimination that morally justifies disobeying it.
Henry David Thoreau framed the question quite succinctly;
