Bonjour-Hi stands to have legal repercussions

Motion isn’t a law, but it can be used in arguments about fragility of French language, Michael N. Bergman says.

In the five weeks since the National Assembly’s unanimous Nov. 30 adoption of the anti“Bonjour-Hi” motion, some observers have taken care to underline that, despite the vote, no law has been adopted, and so Bonjour-Hi is not in fact illegal. The only sanction for not adhering to the National Assembly’s prescription concerning public commercial etiquette will be, presumably, the Assembly’s disdain and whatever social impact there may be.

However, while it is true in the narrow sense that the motion is not a law, it is not without legal impact. It may, in my view, figure in a determinant fashion in future legal arguments before the courts concerning the status of the French language in Quebec, as evidence of its ongoing fragility.

Arguments related to language legislation and its necessity are undergirded by the presentation of evidence justifying the protection of one language at the expense and restriction of another. It is in this context that the anti“Bonjour-Hi” motion has legal meaning.

In language litigation over the past few decades, the constant refrain of the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, has been that French in Quebec requires protection even if this protection encroaches on the individual liberty of citizens to use the language of their choice. The only restraint on the enforcement of the Charter of the French Language is that its aims must be proportional and consistent with the limited constitutional protection of other languages, notably, English. This basic principle of jurisprudential interpretation of language laws means that every time some article of the Charter is disputed, evidence must be brought concerning the current status of the language in Quebec.

The exclusion of the word ‘Hi’ can be understood ... as a reflection of the majority’s linguistic fear and insecurity.

The evidence presented in court, whether by Liberal or Parti Québécois governments, invariably consists of demographic studies, census data and statistical analyses, usually dating back to the 1970s through 1990s, to prove that French in Quebec remains under siege, and is easily overwhelmed by English. The direct consequence of this, or so it is pleaded, is that Quebec’s English-speaking community, deliberately or not, is the thin edge of the wedge, and if not restrained by law, will sooner or later overwhelm French Quebec.

Within this legal framework, the anti“Bonjour-Hi” motion has legal relevance. It demonstrates, once again, the sense of a strong sociopolitical need to restrain even the most innocuous of greetings. The exclusion of the word “Hi” can be understood, in legal argument, as a reflection of the majority’s linguistic fear and insecurity.

Three weeks after the motion, in a Dec. 20 ruling relating to the language of commercial signs, a unanimous judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal sustained, as a matter of fact and law, that French remains threatened in Quebec. This case concerned the appeal of charges brought against several Quebec businesses whose signage or websites, in one way or another, were not predominantly or exclusively in French. The Quebec Court trial judge had heard arguments from the accused businesses asserting that French is no longer in need of special protection that entails restrictions on English. The accused, though, were found guilty. They appealed to the Superior Court and lost again. They appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal and lost again. The Court of Appeal ruled that it will take “solid, compelling and unequivocal” evidence to ever successfully demonstrate that French is no longer threatened.

Although the Court of Appeal did not have the anti-“Bonjour- Hi” motion before it, and would not have taken it into consideration, the court has upheld the view that English on commercial signs can threaten the “visage linguistique” of Quebec.

It is not much of a leap from that judgment to imagine the spoken word “Hi” being held one day in court to be a threat to the “son linguistique” of Quebec.