L’application de l’article premier de la Charte aux droits linguistiques (Applying Section 1 of the Charter to Language Rights)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Tres peu de jugements canadiens ont aborde la question de la justification dans le cadre d’une societe libre et democratique d’une violation d’un droit linguistique. Or, ces droits comprennent, contrairement aux autres droits enonces par la Charte, non seulement des droits individuels, mais egalement des droits a dimension collective ou meme des droits collectifs. Pour cette raison, plusieurs questions demeurent quant a savoir dans quelle mesure le test de l’arret Oakes, developpe pour l’application de l’article premier de la Charte dans le contexte de la violation de droits individuels, est approprie pour determiner une limitation justifiable de droits a dimension collective comme des droits linguistiques. Dans le texte qui suit, l’auteur evalue les possibilites d’adapter ce test de Oakes a la nature particuliere des droits linguistiques. Il propose de chercher des pistes de solutions a l’aide d’une analyse comparee avec le droit autochtone canadien et le droit international relatif aux minorites, car les instruments juridiques relatifs a ces deux droits protegent des droits de meme nature, a savoir des droits collectifs ou a dimension collective. En identifiant les similitudes qui se retrouvent dans le libelle des instruments juridiques qui protegent ces deux types de droits et en evaluant la facon dont la jurisprudence a envisage la justification de la violation de ces droits, l’auteur tente de degager les elements cles de l’analyse qui devraient etre retenus dans le contexte de la justification de la violation des droits linguistiques. Cette analyse comparee permet en definitive de constater que la justification de la violation de droits collectifs ne peut pas etre envisage de la meme facon que pour des droits individuels et que, dans le cas ou un droit collectif implique une obligation positive de l’Etat (comme c’est le cas pour les droits linguistiques), l’analyse du test de proportionnalite doit se faire de maniere stricte afin de tenir compte de cette obligation positive.English Abstract: There have been very few Canadian judgments that have addressed the question of justification of the violation of a language right in a free and democratic society. Unlike the other rights guaranteed by the Charter, language rights include not only individual rights, but also rights that have a collective dimension or even collective rights. A number of questions therefore remain unanswered in terms of the extent to which the test that was put forward in Oakes for applying section 1 of the Charter to violations of individual rights is appropriate for determining whether a limit on rights with a collective dimension, like language rights, is justifiable. In this paper, the author assesses the options for adapting the Oakes test to the unique characteristics of language rights. He proposes to identify potential approaches through a comparative analysis of Canadian Aboriginal law and international law relating to minorities, since legal instruments concerning those two kinds of rights protect rights of the same nature: collective rights or rights with a collective dimension. By identifying similarities in the wording of legal instruments that protect those two types of rights and assessing how justification of those rights has been treated in the case law, the author attempts to discern the key elements of the analysis that should be applied to justification of the violation of language rights. Ultimately, this comparative analysis leads to the conclusion that justification of the violation of collective rights can- not be treated in the same way as justification of the violation of individual rights, and that where a collective right imposes a positive duty on the state (as is the case for language rights), the proportionality test must be strictly applied in order to give effect to that positive duty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".