Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:19:57.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Culture and the Problem of Double Standards: Mass and Elite Attitudes Toward Language Rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Paul M. Sniderman ,
Joseph F. Fletcher ,
Peter H. Russell  and
Philip E. Tetlock
Paul M. Sniderman
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Joseph F. Fletcher
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Peter H. Russell
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Philip E. Tetlock
Affiliation:
University of California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Language rights represent claims of entitlement not only on behalf of individuals, but also on behalf of linguistic communities. As such, they raise deep questions of identity and affinity for Canadians. This study, the first report of the Charter Project, investigates mass and elite attitudes toward language rights in Canada. Beginning with the problem of double standards—whether anglophones and francophones want to affirm certain rights for their own group but not for the other—this study finds that attitudes toward language rights are shaped by an interplay between core values to which citizens subscribe and their concern for the status of the groups, both linguistic and partisan, with which they identify.

Résumé

Les droits linguistiques représent des revendications de droits non seulement pour le compte des personnes, mais aussi pour celui des communautés linguistiques. À ce titre, elles soulèvent pour les Canadiens(nes) de profondes questions d'identité et d'affinité. La présente étude, qui est le premier rapport du Projet de la Charte, sonde les attitudes des masses et des élites envers les droits linguistiques au Canada. En commençant par le problème de double standard, à savoir si les anglophones et les francophones veulent ou non affirmer certains droits pour leur propre communauté, et non pour l'autre, la presente étude trouve que les attitudes envers les droits linguistiques sont façonnées par une interaction entre les valeurs essentielles auxquelles les citoyens(nes) souscrivent et leur préoccupation quant à la position à la fois linguistique et partisane de la communauté à laquelle ils (elles) s'identifient.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 259 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Russell, Peter H., “The Political Purposes of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Canadian Bar Review 61 (1983), 30–54.Google Scholar

2 Cairns, Alan C., “Political Science, Ethnicity and the Canadian Constitution,” paper presented at the conference on Federalism and the Question of Political Community, York University, 1988.Google Scholar See also Cairns, Alan C., “Citizens (Outsiders) and Governments (Insiders) in Constitution-Making: The Case of Meech Lake,” Canadian Public Policy 14 (1988), S121–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 See Monahan, Patrick, Politics and the Constitution: The Charter, Federalism and the Supreme Court (Toronto: Carswell, 1987)Google Scholar; and Magnet, Joseph Eliot, “The Supreme Court and the Charter of Rights,” in Beaudoin, Gérald-A. (ed.), The Supreme Court of Canada (Cowansville, Quebec: Yvon Blais, 1986), 211–19.Google Scholar

4 This distinction between strategic and normative reasoning is analytic; in any given individual, the two may be so interrelated as to be indistinguishable. In addition, both types of reasoning share an analytic footing; it should not be assumed that one or the other is a superior source of support for rights from the perspective of democratic theory. In what sense and under what conditions one may be superior is an independent question, separate from our empirical analysis.

5 For a partial and instructive exception, see Ornstein, Michael D. and Stevenson, H. Michael, “Elite and Public Opinion Before the Quebec Referendum: A Commentary on the State in Canada,” this Journal 14 (1981), 745–74.Google Scholar

6 Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

7 Shapiro, Martin, Who Guards the Guardians (Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 1988).Google Scholar

8 McClosky, Herbert and Zaller, John, The American Ethos: Public Attitudes Toward Capitalism and Democracy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 McClosky, Herbert and Brill, Alida, Dimensions of Tolerance: What Do Americans Think About Civil Liberties? (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983).Google Scholar

10 Bastarache, Michel, Braen, Andre, Didier, Emmanuel and Foucher, Pierre, Les Droits Hnguistiques au Canada (Montreal: Yvon Blais, 1986)Google Scholar; Macmillan, C. Michael, “The Character of Language Rights: Individual, Group or Collective Rights,” paper presented at the annual meeting of Canadian Political Science Association, Winnipeg, 1986Google Scholar; McDonald, Michael, “Collective Rights and Tyranny,” University of Ottawa Quarterly 56 (1986), 115–23Google Scholar; Lederman, W. R., “Securing Human Rights in a Renewed Confederation,” in Simeon, Richard (ed.), Must Canada Fail? (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1977), 281–90.Google Scholar

11 The Institute for Social Research at York University was responsible for drawing the two samples, conducting the interviews and, in collaboration with the Program for Computer-assisted Survey Methods at the University of California, establishing the first network production version of the Computer-assisted Survey Execution System (CASES). The senior staff of the Institute, particularly John Tibert, David Northrup, William Bruce and David Bates, played a central and creative role in the study and instrument design. For a detailed description of the sample design, see Institute for Social Research, “Attitudes Toward Civil Liberties and the Canadian Charter of Rights: Technical Documentation” (December 1987)Google Scholar; and Sniderman, Paul M., Fletcher, Joseph F., Russell, Peter H. and Tetlock, Philip E., “Authority, Conformity and Community: Values and Canadian Culture,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Windsor, 1988.Google Scholar

12 Ornstein, Michael D. and Stevenson, H. Michael, “Ideology and Public Policy in Canada,” British Journal of Political Science 14 (1984), 313–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ornstein, and Stevenson, , “Elite and Public Opinion Before the Quebec Referendum”; Ornstein, Michael D., Stevenson, H. Michael and Williams, A. Paul, “Region, Class and Political Culture in Canada,” this Journal 13 (1980), 397–437Google Scholar; Ornstein, Michael D., Stevenson, H. Michael and Williams, A. Paul, “Public Opinion and the Canadian Political Crisis,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 15 (1978), 158–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Churchill, Stacy and Smith, Anthony, “The Time Has Come,” Language and Society 19 (1987), 4–8Google Scholar; Johnston, Richard and Blais, André, “Meech Lake and Mass Politics: The ‘Distinct Society’ Clause,” Canadian Public Policy 14 (1988), s25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fletcher, Frederick J., “Public Attitudes and Alternative Futures,” in Simeon, Richard (ed.), Must Canada Fail? (McGill-Queen's University Press, 1977), 28–41.Google Scholar

13 See Tremblay, André, “The Language Rights,” in Tarnopolsky, Walter S. and Beaudoin, Gérald-A. (eds.), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Toronto: Carswell, 1982), 443–66Google Scholar; and Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd ed.; Toronto: Carswell, 1985)Google Scholar, chap. 36.

14 It should be noted that too few non-Quebec francophones and Quebec anglophones are included in a random national sample of Canadians to permit meaningful analyses using these groups.

15 It should be noted that the composition of the francophone decision-maker sample is disproportionately composed of political elites, and the latter is disportionately composed of Parti québécois legislators, a point we shall develop in the section below on politics and rights.

16 A. G. Quebec v. Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66.

17 McClosky, and Brill, , Dimensions of Tolerance. See also Nunn, Clyde Z., Crockett, Harry J. and Williams, J. Allen Jr., Tolerance for Nonconformity (San Francisco: Jossey-Boss, 1978).Google Scholar It is worth remarking that the results of Sullivan and his colleagues are part of this research consensus. Notwithstanding their focus on group-by-group variation, Sullivan et al. take care in developing their overall causal model to point out the operation and importance of a general commitment to tolerance. See Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James and Marcus, George E., Political Tolerance and American Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 202–07Google Scholar and Figure 8–6.

18 McClosky and Brill, Dimensions of Tolerance, Table A.4, Appendix C, pp. 481–88.

19 Ibid.; McClosky, and Zaller, , The American Ethos; and Sniderman, Paul M., Tetlock, Philip E., Glaser, James M., Green, Donald Phillip and Hout, Michael, “Principled Tolerance and the American Mass Public,” British Journal of Political Science 19 (1989), 25–45.Google Scholar

20 Details of the indices constructed are presented in the appendix to this article.

21 The measures employed here are based upon the relevant questions from the fraternity index supplemented by two items regarding women which read, “How important is it to guarantee equality between men and women in all aspects of life?” and “Do you think large companies should have quotas to ensure afixed percentage of women are hired, or should women get no special treatment?” Note that since these measures are based upon substantially different questions, it is inappropriate to compare tolerance levels across minority groups.

22 Blache, Pierre, “The Mobility Rights (Section 6): Commentary,” in Tarnopolsky, Walter S. and Beaudoin, Gérald-A. (eds.), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Toronto: Carswell, 1982), 239–55.Google Scholar

23 It should be pointed out that this version of the question was administered to one-quarter of the sample only, so sampling errors are commensurately larger.

24 Breton, Raymond, “The Production and Allocation of Symbolic Resources: An Analysis of the Linguistic and Ethnocultural Fields in Canada,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 21 (1984), 123–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Cairns, “Political Science, Ethnicity and the Canadian Constitution.”

26 For clarity, let us emphasize that the results reported are for anglophones asked about francophone rights because differences of opinion about language rights are concentrated among anglophones. See, for comparison, the discussion of non-British, non-French Quebeckers in Monnier, Daniel, La perception de la situation linguistique par les Québécois: Analyse des résultats d'un sondage effectué en octobre 1985 (Quebec: Éditeur officiel du Québec, 1986).Google Scholar

27 Gibbins, Roger, Regionalism: Territorial Politics in Canada and the United States (Toronto: Butterworths, 1982)Google Scholar; Stevenson, Ornstein and Williams, , “Region, Class and Political Culture in Canada;” Elkins, David and Simeon, Richard, Small Worlds: Provinces and Parties in Canadian Political Life (Toronto: Methuen, 1980)Google Scholar; and Churchill and Smith, “The Time Has Come.”

28 A parallel investigation into the effects of occupational status not reported here yielded similar results.

29 Respondents were asked whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the following statement: “To preserve the French culture and heritage in Canada, the use of English in advertising should be prohibited in certain parts of the country.” A “no opinion” category was also provided. See also Monnier, Daniel, La Langue d'affichage: Analyse d'un sondage CROP réalisé en juin 1986 (Montreal: Conseil de la langue françhise, 1986).Google Scholar