wikieditor
10,503
edits
A legal opinion on international law, language and the future of French-speaking Canada: Difference between revisions
A legal opinion on international law, language and the future of French-speaking Canada (view source)
Revision as of 21:11, 8 May 2007
, 8 May 2007→B. The Evolution Of Language as a Human Right
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
The protection of cultural rights which is a major commitment of international law includes necessarily the protection of linguistic rights. Activities over recent decades by [[Wikipedia:UNESCO|UNESCO]] and the [[Wikipedia:International Labour Organization|ILO]], the 1960 [http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/education.htm Convention Against Discrimination in Education]], the 1963 [[Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]], the declarations of International Cultural Cooperation (1966), [[The Guiding Principles on the Use of Satellite Broadcasting]] (1972) and Race and Racial Prejudice (1978) all reflect expanding awareness of the essential role of language in human rights. Non governmental efforts have significantly extended both understanding and commitment to action on linguistic rights. The [[Association for the Development of Cross Cultural Communication]] in 1987 issued a "Call for a Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights." It drafted a document, [[The Declaration of Recife]], where the conference which produced it was held at the law school fo the [[University of Pernambuco]], urging the United Nations to adopt and implement a new reformulated declaration of language rights to eliminate linguistic prejudice, discrimination, domination, injustice and oppression, among its ambitious goals. | The protection of cultural rights which is a major commitment of international law includes necessarily the protection of linguistic rights. Activities over recent decades by [[Wikipedia:UNESCO|UNESCO]] and the [[Wikipedia:International Labour Organization|ILO]], the 1960 [http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/education.htm Convention Against Discrimination in Education]], the 1963 [[Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]], the declarations of International Cultural Cooperation (1966), [[The Guiding Principles on the Use of Satellite Broadcasting]] (1972) and Race and Racial Prejudice (1978) all reflect expanding awareness of the essential role of language in human rights. Non governmental efforts have significantly extended both understanding and commitment to action on linguistic rights. The [[Association for the Development of Cross Cultural Communication]] in 1987 issued a "Call for a Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights." It drafted a document, [[The Declaration of Recife]], where the conference which produced it was held at the law school fo the [[University of Pernambuco]], urging the United Nations to adopt and implement a new reformulated declaration of language rights to eliminate linguistic prejudice, discrimination, domination, injustice and oppression, among its ambitious goals. | ||
Regional Human Rights Conventions have recognized at least negative linguistic rights, including the American Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention is the most advanced both in terms of the legal rights created and their enforcement in the European Court. In 1968 in the Belgian Linguistic Case, the Court unanimously denied claims of Francophone groups living in predominantly [[Wikipedia: | Regional Human Rights Conventions have recognized at least negative linguistic rights, including the American Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention is the most advanced both in terms of the legal rights created and their enforcement in the European Court. In 1968 in the Belgian Linguistic Case, the Court unanimously denied claims of Francophone groups living in predominantly [[Wikipedia:Flanders|Flemish]] areas complaining their children were offered only [[Wikipedia:Dutch language|Dutch language]] education at their local schools, but by a vote 8 to 7 found a discriminatory denial of access to existing French language schools in one of the six questions presented the Court. European Court of Human Rights, Sec. A, Vol. 6, ''Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium''. (Judgment of 23 July 1968). | ||
In 1989 the European Court held that a requirement that a foreign lecturer of painting at the [[College of Marketing and Design]] in [[Dublin]] where instruction was in English and only a minor fraction of the population was fluent in [[Wikipedia:Irish language|Irish]] could be required to pass a special examination in the Irish language as a qualification to teach. The Court noted the interest of successive Irish governments in promoting the use of Irish to express national identity and culture, the provision in the [[Irish Constitution]] making Irish the first official language with English the second official language and the special role lecturers perform in education and culture. ''Common Market Law Review 27 :129-139 (1990) Case 379/87'', ''Groener v. Minister of Education and the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee'', (Judgment of 28 November 1989). The emphasis the Court placed on the constitutional designation of an official language is a deference to State power concerning languages. | In 1989 the European Court held that a requirement that a foreign lecturer of painting at the [[College of Marketing and Design]] in [[Dublin]] where instruction was in English and only a minor fraction of the population was fluent in [[Wikipedia:Irish language|Irish]] could be required to pass a special examination in the Irish language as a qualification to teach. The Court noted the interest of successive Irish governments in promoting the use of Irish to express national identity and culture, the provision in the [[Irish Constitution]] making Irish the first official language with English the second official language and the special role lecturers perform in education and culture. ''Common Market Law Review 27 :129-139 (1990) Case 379/87'', ''Groener v. Minister of Education and the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee'', (Judgment of 28 November 1989). The emphasis the Court placed on the constitutional designation of an official language is a deference to State power concerning languages. | ||