LTE Eric Little of Ottawa Ontario Asks Is “No person or group is above the law.” February 11, 2013
Have you ever gone to a reliable source for information only to find it is not correct? While reviewing the Government of Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration website, a responsibility as shown below is incorrect, specifically, the first citizenship responsibility.
“In Canada, rights come with responsibilities. These include:
· Obeying the law — One of Canada’s founding principles is the rule of law. Individuals and governments are regulated by laws and not by arbitrary actions. No person or group is above the law.”
I wish to point out that the bold highlight is incorrect. In Galganov v. Township of Russell, section 2b freedom of expression, our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were infringed for the benefit of a “group”. Business owners in 4 Eastern Ontario townships (also see New Brunswick) are not allowed to display single language of choice signs, they MUST have English and French because un-elected Judges have said minority “group” rights are more important than the Charter of Rights. Astonishingly to me, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case in late 2012. I am not a Lawyer, only a taxpaying voter, but picking and choosing which Charter Rights some people are allowed to have, is not good for democracy and should only be changed in Parliament after discussions with all Canadians.
My question is, when will an unbiased review of the 43 year old Official Languages Act ( also insert Ontario French services Act) be conducted towards actual need based on measurable results, as well, reviewing the hundreds of millions of dollars ( from Heritage Canada alone) going to special (one) interest Francophone groups ( some of which is just going to salaries)? It, or any law will change when enough people ask for it from their elected bodies of course, but do they get enough information to make a sound choice? The Commissioner of Official Languages reports to Parliament, and if he provides information from his department’s recent (totally biased) survey, Parliament will not have the best information on the subject to make a fair assessment.
Can we do this for our future generations?
(Comments and opinions of Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and comments from readers are purely their own and don’t necessarily reflect those of the owners of this site, their staff, or sponsors.)