Language Policy and Ethnic Tensions in Quebec and Latvia

22 Pages·0.131 MB·

by  Schmid C., Zepa B., Snipe A.

06 Schmid (to/d) 14/10/04 8:48 am Page 231
Language Policy and Ethnic Tensions in Quebec and Latvia
Carol Schmid*, Brigita Zepa** and Arta Snipe***
ABSTRACT
This article traces the factors that led to the adoption of the Charter of the French
Language in Quebec in 1977 and the Latvian Language Law in 1999.Concerns for the
French language in Quebec in the 1960s and 1970s,the Latvian language in the Soviet
Union in the late 1980s,and in the Latvian state in the 1990s were ignited by some of the
same demographic and assimilative forces in the two societies. Demographic factors
included a decline in the birth rate,lower socioeconomic status,and a fear of minoritiza-
tion in their own respective territories. Schools in English in Quebec and schools in
Russian in Latvia attracted most immigrants.To counter these trends,language policies
were drafted restricting access to English and Russian languages in schools,on commer-
cial signs,in legislative bodies,and in municipal,public,and para-public administration.
Looking for a model to change these conditions, Latvia based a significant part of its
language law on the Quebec Charter of the French Language.Significant controversies
erupted in both societies with the passage of restrictive language legislation.While the laws
have helped to reverse the position of the French and Latvian languages,they have not
solved the delicate balance between linguistic communal rights and individual rights.
Introduction
ConcernfortheFrenchlanguageinQuebecinthe1960sand1970sandtheLatvian
language in the then Soviet Union in the late 1980s and in the new Latvian state
in the 1990s were ignited by some of the same demographic and assimilative
forces in the two societies. Both Quebec and Latvia had lost their independence
to larger powers. The birth rate and population declined abruptly in the two
subnations. Schools in English (in Quebec) and Russian (in Latvia) attracted
most immigrants. The elites were disproportionately drawn from outside the
majority ethnic groups.
* Professor of Sociology, Guilford Technical Community College, Jamestown, NC,
USA (email: [email protected]).
** Professor of Sociology, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia (email:
[email protected]).
*** LL.M. in EU and International Law, Riga Graduate School of Law, Riga, Latvia
(email: [email protected]).
Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications www.sagepublications.com
(London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi)
Vol 45(3–4): 231–252. DOI: 10.1177/0020715204049595
06 Schmid (to/d) 14/10/04 8:48 am Page 232
232 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY
To counter these trends, language policies were drafted, restricting
access to English and Russian languages in schools, respectively, on commercial
signs and in legislative bodies, and municipal, public and para-public adminis-
tration. Looking for a model to change these conditions, Latvia based a signifi-
cant part of its language law on the Quebec Charter of the French Language.
The reasons for this were twofold. First were the similarities in the language
situation. French in Quebec as well as Latvian in the former Soviet Union were
“regional majority languages ... languages of populations who, though a
majority in their historic territory (where they may nevertheless be experiencing
some form of assimilation) are minorities at the national level” (Maurais quoted
in Druviete 2002: 1).1 The second, more pragmatic reason was that there
were very few examples of linguistic legislation available behind the Iron
Curtain. The French text of Bill 22 and Bill 101, the Charter of the French
Language, were available in Latvia in 1988 and translated into Latvian. The goal
of language policy was similar in Quebec and Latvia. The major aim of the two
language policies was to prevent language shift and to change the hierarchy in
public life (Druviete 2002, 2003).
Quebecois and Latvians worry about being minorities in their own terri-
tories. Particularly since the 1960s, the French in Quebec have held antithetical
feelings of fear and confidence—the fear of being weakened or of slowly
disappearing as a distinct people and the confidence that it can perform as well
or better on its own. To these feelings is added the feeling of rejection. These
contradictory feelings have shaped language policy in Quebec (Dion 1992: 78).
Latvians also fear minoritization in their own country. Deportation has come to
constitute a central feature of Latvian identity. The feeling of being victims is
also a part of Latvian national identity (Broks, Tabuns and Tabuna 2001).
There are, however, major differences between the two societies,
including the proportion of the titular or regional group, citizenship status, and
the ways the language laws were implemented. Although we will discuss the
repercussion of these differences in molding language policy and ethnic
tensions, the major emphasis of this paper is on the similar factors leading to
the adoption of a language policy favoring the “regional territorial language,”
an analysis of the language laws, and the ways the language laws became vulner-
able to outside constitutional and political bodies.
The first section traces the factors that led to the adoptionof the Charter
of the French Language in Quebec in 1977 and the Latvian State Language Law
(LLL) in 1999. The second part of the article examines the similarities and
differences between the 1977 version of Bill 101 and the 1999 LLL. The third
section analyzes tensions related to the sign laws and access to English and
Russian language schools. Finally, we will evaluate the ability of the laws to
reverse the future of French in Quebec and the Latvian language in Latvia.
06 Schmid (to/d) 14/10/04 8:48 am Page 233
SCHMID ET AL.: LANGUAGE POLICY AND ETHNIC TENSIONS 233
Threatened Language Status in Quebec and Latvia
Conditions Leading to the Adoption of Bill 22 and Bill 101 in Quebec
The late 1960s saw an upsurge of Quebecois nationalism and an attempt to
maintain and extend the use of the French language as a symbol of the new
nationalism (McWhinney 1979). Several factors influenced the nationalistic
mood that led to the adoption of major language policies in Quebec. The first
factor was related to the decline in fertility among French Quebecois. The birth
rate declined abruptly during the Quiet Revolution (the name given to the
period from approximately 1960–1966 corresponding to significant far-reaching
changes in Quebec). It went from 4.2 children per 1000 married women in 1956
to 1961 to 2.3 children per 1000 married women for the period from 1966 to
1971. Quebec’s birthrate in the 1990s was the lowest of all the Canadian
provinces (Joy 1992). For the period from 1986 to 1991 the Quebec fertility rate
was only 1.5 (Chevrier 1997).
French seemed destined for marginal status outside Quebec and less
importance within Quebec. French assimilation outside Quebec is evident in the
forty-year period between 1931 and 1991. In 1931, 7.2 percent of the population
outside of Quebec had French as their mother tongue. This proportion dropped
to less than 5.0 percent in 1991. Because of significant changes in fertility rates
and immigration, Quebec’s proportion of the Canadian population dropped
from 27.7 percent in 1931 to 25.8 percent in 1986 to 24.1 in 2001 (Chevrier 2003).
A second major factor leading to language reform in Quebec was
related to the widespread assimilation of new immigrants to English. The fear
of disappearing as a distinct people was accentuated by the massive influx of
migrants, who tended to become assimilated to the economically favored
English-speaking group (Larriveé 2003). Among Quebecois there was a
growing fear of French as an endangered language both within North America
and within the province of Quebec (Esman 1985). Immigrants to the province
overwhelmingly adopted the English language and sent their children to English
rather than French schools. In the 1960s, over 85 percent of all immigrants in
Quebec opted for English language schools. In 1961, approximately 70 percent
of Italian-speaking children in the Montreal area sent their children to schools
in English. While 48 percent of immigrants in Quebec were drawn to English
schools in 1931, by 1961 the proportion had increased to almost 70 percent
(Gagnon 1997).
This demographic trend had particular significance for Montreal, the
largest city in Quebec. According to Levine:
By the 1960s, the Anglicization of the city’s school clientele seemed to portend
a Montreal in which the children of immigrants would become anglophones and
French-speakers would ultimately become a demographic minority ... In the
06 Schmid (to/d) 14/10/04 8:48 am Page 234
234 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY
eyes of Montreal’s rising francophone elite, the new middle class of teachers,
journalists and policy professionals who had displaced traditional church elites
as the leading force in French-Canadian society, francophone minorisation
would spell ultimate doom for a living French language and culture throughout
Quebec. (Levine 1990: 4)
These assimilative demographic trends, along with evidence that francophones
were excluded from much of the province’s economic structure, formed the
basis for the policy recommendations of the Quebec Commission of Inquiry on
the Position of the French Language (1972). A third factor encouraging a more
restrictive language policy was related to the significantly lower socioeconomic
position of French Quebecois in comparison to other ethnic groups. A study for
the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1967) in the mid-
1960s found that when the income of the fourteen main ethnic groups in Quebec
were compared, francophones’ income ranked twelfth, just before Italians
who werearelativelyrecentimmigrantgroupandAmerindians.Asmuchas40
percentofthediscrepancyintheincomebetweenpeopleofBritishdescent,when
compared to francophones could not be explained, and was assumed to be the
result of discrimination (Quebec Commission of Inquiry on the Position of the
FrenchLanguage1972).ThefrustrationofFrenchCanadiannationalistsatthe
inferiorpositionofFrench-speakingQuebecoisandtheirlanguageandculture
in the Quebec economy led to a wide-spread determination to use Quebec’s
provincialgovernmenttobuildamodern,French-speakingQuebec(Gill1980).
The fourth reason for legislating a more restrictive language policy was
related to the civil rights movement and the self-assertion of the French-
speaking population in Quebec in the 1960s and 1970s. When Pierre Vallières
wrote his revolutionary work about Quebec in the 1960s, he entitled it Nègres
blancs d’Amérique (1967). Many Quebecois felt discriminated against in
comparison with their English counterparts in Quebec and condemned the capi-
talist system in the 1960s and 1970s. Marcel Rioux, a respected professor at the
University of Montreal, when analyzing Quebec history suggested that French
Quebecois as a whole formed an “ethnic class” of proletarians that made it a
favorable place to establish a true socialist state (Warren 2003).
Conditions Leading to the Adoption of Latvian Language Laws
Some similar demographic, socioeconomic, and attitudinal factors propelled
Latvia, first as a dependency of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and later as
an independent country in the 1990s, toward restricting the use of Russian and
significantly altering language policy. These factors took place two decades after
the situation in Quebec and after almost a half century of rigid Soviet rule.
One of the important factors influencing the adoption of restrictive
language policy in Latvia was related to the Soviet demographic legacy. Until
06 Schmid (to/d) 14/10/04 8:48 am Page 235
SCHMID ET AL.: LANGUAGE POLICY AND ETHNIC TENSIONS 235
1991, when Latvia regained its statehood and control over its borders, it faced
a relentless migration from people from other Soviet republics, primarily ethnic
Russians. Dreifelds (1996: 143) observed that Latvia was “powerless to stop this
migration of aliens and faced a precarious demographic future when minoritiz-
ation of the indigenous group of the republic appeared to be imminent.” During
the first republic (1918–1939), Latvians constituted approximately 77 percent of
the total population. Before the final occupation of the country by the Red
Army in 1945, Latvians made up 83 percent of the population. By 1959, they
were only 62 percent of the population, 54 percent in 1979, and barely 52
percent of the population of Latvia immediately before independence in 1989
(Dreifelds 1996).
This situation was a source of extreme concern and strengthened the
resolve of nationalistic movements in the Soviet era to fight for independence.
A Latvian People’s Front publication that was printed in English in 1990, to
appeal to the outside world, bore the title “The Latvian Nation and the
Genocide of Immigration” (Dreifelds 1996: 144). Between 1945 and 1959, half
a million non-Latvians settled in Latvia. This was a quarter of the pre-war popu-
lation. Part of the appeal of the Baltic countries was their higher standard of
living compared to the rest of the Soviet Union and the fact that urban apart-
ments were often part of the work package (Skultans 1998).
A second factor fostering a strict language policy was related to asym-
metrical bilingualism. Language friction was exacerbated by the uneven
bilingualism that existed in Latvia under Soviet domination. According to the
1989 Soviet census, 68 percent of all Latvians claimed a command of Russian,
while only 22 percent of all Russians had knowledge of Latvian (Jubulis 2001).
The influx of monolingual Russian or Russian-speaking settlers created a situ-
ation where people expected to be able to work and receive services in Russian.
Russian-speaking officials in Latvia could work using Russian alone, while
Latvians were required to become bilingual, even in their own republic.
Settlers from other republics were also much more likely to assimilate
to Russian than Latvian. According to the 1989 census, only 18 percent of
Belorussians and 10 percent of Ukrainians were able to converse in Latvian.
The 1989 census records significantly more of those belonging to other (non-
Latvian, non-Russian) groups selecting Russian over Latvian (Etnosituacija
Latvija 1992). The Russian language was the dominant language for communi-
cation in state and regional administration, the economy, and in almost all other
sectors of the society. The Latvian and Russian languages functioned side by
side in education and the mass media. Latvian only had dominance in the sphere
of folk culture, while free use of Latvian was only possible in private life.
Socioeconomic inequality was a third factor exacerbating language
tensions. Latvians were underrepresented among most managerial and admin-
istrative jobs. Although they comprised 52 percent of the population in 1989,
only 36 percent of production managers, 46 percent of leaders of production
06 Schmid (to/d) 14/10/04 8:48 am Page 236
236 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY
units, and 47 percent of leaders of enterprises were Latvians (Dreifelds 1996).
Russians also held a disproportionate number of administrative jobs in the
Communist party and other public organizations (Etnosituacija Latvija 1992).
At the end of the 1980s, perestroika and glasnost were national move-
ments that emerged whose aim was national independence. Successful open
challenges to Moscow on a number of different issues, including commemor-
ation of previously forbidden national holidays, the national anthem, and other
symbols gave rise to increased confidence. Popular fronts that formed in the
three Baltic republics (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania) demanded autonomy and
finally sovereignty. The Latvian language was one of the most important
symbols of national independence.
A Shift toward more Restrictive Language Policy
Quebec and Bills 22 and 101
In Quebec the Quiet Revolution brought in its wake an increasingly critical
examination of the Canadian constitutional system and the extent to which it
acted as a barrier to the realization of French Canadian demands for national
determination. The ensuing changes in Quebec under Liberal leader Jean
Lesage (1960–1966) included provincial control of education and welfare insti-
tutions away from the church, increased industrialization, and the provincial
government as a primary engine of development, rather than the English-
speaking business class.
The Liberal government of Robert Bourassa (1970–1976 and
1986–1994) was the first to broaden the aims and scope of Quebec language
legislation. For the first time in its history, the National Assembly declared
French the official language of Quebec. The “Official Language Act” or Bill 22
was passed in 1974. Bill 22 made the French language the official language of
communication in Quebec and also attempted to make French the language of
business. With respect to instruction in the schools, Bill 22 allowed parents free
choice between sending their children to English or French schools, provided
their children had a sufficient knowledge of the language of instruction. Test
results would determine a student’s enrollment at an English or French school.
Using tests to determine whether children could attend English-speaking
schools encountered strong resistance in the anglophone and immigrant
communities (Chevrier 2003). Many Quebecois deemed Bill 22 inadequate.
In 1967, prominent political figure René Lévesque left the Liberal Party
to establish a new political movement dedicated to the sovereignty of Quebec.
In 1976, after almost a decade of grass roots organizing, his new Parti Québé-
cois (PQ) was catapulted into power. The PQ was committed to achieving a
sovereign state in a step-by-step strategy through what was termed “ballot box
revolution.” One of the first decisive steps of the Parti Québécois was to enact
the Charter of the French Language or Bill 101 in 1977.
06 Schmid (to/d) 14/10/04 8:48 am Page 237
SCHMID ET AL.: LANGUAGE POLICY AND ETHNIC TENSIONS 237
The National Assembly, with the Parti Québecois in power, attempted
to redress the situation of French in Quebec. Fears that francophones would be
less numerous in Canada as well as Quebec, and the propensity of immigrants
to integrate into the numerical minority group, were presented as important
reasons for passing the legislation.
The preamble to the Charter set out the principle of Bill 101. It stated
that the French language was the distinctive language of the French-speaking
majority and the way in which the Quebecois articulated their identity. The
National Assembly indicated its resolve “to make of French the language of
Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work,
instruction, communication, commerce and business” (Bill 101, Preamble,
1977). Like Bill 22 it proclaimed that French was the official language of
Quebec. It then enumerated a series of “fundamental rights,” such as the right
of workers to carry on their activities in French, and of consumers of goods and
services to be informed and served in French (Bill 101, Chapter II, 1977).
French was recognized as the language of the legislature, courts and
civic administration in Quebec (Bill 101, Chapters III and IV, 1977). French was
the only recognized language for signs and posters and commercial advertising
(Bill 101, Chapter IV, § 22, 1977). French was also the language of commerce
and business (Bill 101, Chapter VIII, 1977).
The Charter of the French Language abolished the eligibility criteria for
English schools prescribed by Bill 22. Only children whose father or mother
received his or her elementary education in Quebec or children whose father or
mother, on the date that the Charter came into force, had received instruction
in English elsewhere in Canada were able to educate their children in English
language schools. The Sibling clause also exempted younger brothers and sisters
from French schools. An appeals committee was set up to hear the appeals of
parents (Bill 101, Chapter VIII, 1977). All other children in Quebec were to be
educated in French schools with minor exceptions. Higher education was not
covered in Bill 101, so separate French and English universities and community
colleges continued to be funded by the Quebec government with freedom of
choice of language institutions.
The Charter also created four additional agencies responsible for its
implementation. The Office de la Langue Française, defined and conducted
Quebec policy on linguistics, research, and terminology, and administered the
process of francisizing business firms. The Commission de Toponymie was
concerned with the cataloging, rules of spelling, and assignment of place names.
The Commission de Surveillanceensured compliance with all aspects of the law.
It also conducted inquiries and investigations. Finally, the Conceil de la Langue
Française advised the government with regard to the situation of the French
language in Quebec and on questions relating to interpretation and application
of the Charter of the French language (Bill 101, Title II, Chapter II, Title III,
1977). Finally, offences and penalties are also listed (Bill 101, Title V, 1977).
06 Schmid (to/d) 14/10/04 8:48 am Page 238
238 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY
Latvian Language Laws
Many of the aspects of the 1989 and 1999 State Latvian Language Law mirrored
the language policies passed in Quebec. The main sectors of regulation were
language use in government and administrative bodies, language use in names
and signs, and language use in education. Protection of the Latvian language
during the glasnost era was one of the most prevalent and urgent themes to
emerge. Public concern over the issue prompted the SSR (Latvian Soviet Social-
ist) government to pass a Language Law in 1989 (Jubulis 2001).
The 1989 Latvian Language Law, similar to Bill 22, proclaimed Latvian
the official language. It allowed bilingualism in the administration of govern-
ment and education while, at the same time, calling for unilingualism in more
areas of Latvian society. One important goal was to develop Latvian language
skills among the Russian-speaking population. The 1989 law accepted the use
of Russian in the official sphere, although Latvian was proclaimed the State
language (Latvian Language Law, Article 1, 1989). Individuals were given a
choice to use either Latvian or Russian in communication with state bodies.
State officials were supposed to know both languages—Latvian and Russian
(Latvian Language Law, Article 4, 1989). Official government communication
and prepared documents could be in either Latvian or Russian.
In the sphere of education, the 1989 language law stated that secondary
education is guaranteed both in Russian and Latvian (Latvian Language Law,
Article 11, 1989). In addition, higher education could be obtained in both
languages, depending on the specialty studied (Latvian Language Law, Article
12, 1989). However, all graduates had to pass an exam of the Latvian language
before graduation (Latvian Language Law, Article 13, 1989).
Sign laws were also an important element of the 1989 language law. All
place-names and signs as well as names/titles of organizations were required to
be in the Latvian language. There was, however, a provision that they could be
translated in Russian or any other language (Latvian Language Law, Article
16–17, 1989). This provision also appeared in the Language Law of 1992, which
affirmed the 1989 law with minor revisions. One of the most controversial
articles required spelling (or orthography) of the person’s name. It stated that
Latvian names should be used according to Latvian language traditions and
rule, while foreign names could be used in Latvian taking into account the rules
and traditions of the name’s language of origin (Latvian Language Law, Article
18, 1989). This provision also appeared in the 1992 Language Law and was made
more sweeping in the 1999 LLL.
While affirming most of the provisions of the 1989 Language Law, the
1992 law carried forward to the independent state the first shift in lessening the
official status of Russian. The 1992 law stated that state institutions should
answer the applications in Latvian or use the language of the applicant—
English, German, or Russian (Latvian State Language Law, Article 9, 1992). A
06 Schmid (to/d) 14/10/04 8:48 am Page 239
SCHMID ET AL.: LANGUAGE POLICY AND ETHNIC TENSIONS 239
notable feature of the 1992 Latvian State Language Law was in the arena of
higher education. In state universities, after the second year of education, the
Latvian language was the exclusive language (Latvian State Language Law,
Article 10, 11, 1992).
The 1999 LLL, like its counterpart in Bill 101, moved further toward
Latvian unilingualism. There were fears that the 1992 language law failed to
provide strong enough incentives for Russian-speakers to learn Latvian, and
that Russian was still the language of inter-ethnic communication and the indus-
trial work force. There was also general acceptance of the Latvian language as
a cornerstone of Latvia’s integration policy (Jubilius 2001).
The preamble stated that the purpose of the 1999 law was the inte-
gration of national minorities into Latvian society, the preservation and
development of the Latvian language, and the right to use the Latvian language
in any sphere of life (Latvian State Language Law, Article 1, 1999). Like the
1989 and 1992 laws, it proclaimed Latvian the official language, and with the
exception of the protection of the Liv language (an almost extinct language on
the coast of Latvia), all other languages would be regarded as foreign languages
(Latvian State Language Law, Article 5, 1999).
The 1999 LLL enumerated regulations for the use and protection of
Latvian in state and municipal institutions; in courts and the judicial system;
other agencies, organizations, and companies; and in education and other
spheres (Latvian State Language Law, Articles 2, 6–13, 1999). It extended to
personal names on official documents and films and videos (Latvian State
Language Law, Articles 19 and Article 17, 1999). Similar to the Quebec
language law, a State Language Commission was established in order to control
and supervise language policy. More recently, its functions have been delegated
to the State Language Center. Like its Quebec counterpart, it has also been
accused of over-reaching and infringement in the private sphere.
The sign law extended to state institutions and companies in which the
state or municipality held the largest share of the capital. The law included
labels, signs, billboards, posters, and placards. Information provided by state
and municipal institutions and courts can only be in Latvian. Information on
billboards, “if it concerns legitimate public interests and is meant to inform the
public in place accessible to the public,” must be exclusively in Latvian or as
determined by the Cabinet Ministers (Latvian State Language Law, Article 21,
§4, 1999). If a foreign language is used on labels, signs, or goods, the “text in the
state language shall be in the foreground and (it) shall not be smaller in size or
less complete in content than the text of the foreign language” (Latvian State
Language Law, Article 21, §2, 7, 1999).
The right to receive an education is guaranteed only in the state
language (Latvian State Language Law, Article 14, 1999, Education Law,
Article 9, 1998). The laws regulating education prescribe the use of the Latvian
language. The 1998 Latvian Education Law provided that education can be
06 Schmid (to/d) 14/10/04 8:48 am Page 240
240 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY
acquired in another language in private education institutions. However, all
examinations in state educational institutions must be taken in the state
language including those for professional qualifications.
Limitations Imposed on Bill 101 and the Latvian State Language Lawof 1999
Language policy and individual human rights often collide with one another.
This was true in both Quebec and Latvia. Although Quebec was a semi-
autonomous province in Canada, ultimately language policy was subject to the
federal Canadian constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which took effect in 1982. Canada (including Quebec) is also subject
to other international bodies. As a signatory of UN treaties, Canada is commit-
ted to the International Bill of Rights (1948), the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (1976), and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights (1976) (Green 1999).
Latvia, after it gained independence in 1991, was also subject to a
variety of international bodies. EU accession and a return to Europe have
become driving forces in the country’s reform efforts. Latvia must meet specific
conditions and implement specific policies to comply with European Union
norms. The monitoring organizations include the European Union, the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe/Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE/OSCE), and the Council of Europe (CE).
Other organizations, such as the United Nations, the Council of the Baltic Sea
States, and NATO have also played significant roles (Muiznieks and Kehris
2003).
Both Quebec and Latvia have seen their language laws amended and
limited with respect to the minority, but previously dominant, language group.
This process occurred in different ways in the two societies. In Quebec, court
cases served to limit the extent of French dominance especially in the schools
and sign laws. In Latvia, the pressure to limit the language law came primarily
from external European bodies prior to the passage of the law. This is an
ongoing process that will increasingly come before Latvian courts and the
European Commission Human Rights court.
Quebec and Limitations on Bill 101
In 1982, Canada proceeded with a major reform of its Constitution and the
federal system. The reform gave Canada a new Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. It became Part 1 of the Constitutional Act. The Canadian Charter is
organized around certain categories of rights. These rights included freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. In
addition, it included linguistic rights and language of education rights. The
Canadian Charter conferred upon the Supreme Court of Canada the final