John Ballantyne et al v. Canada
31 March 1993
(Communication Nos. 359/1989, 385/1989)
Subject:
Article 19, 27, 26 - right to freedom of expression, restrictions to protect the rights and reputations of others; rights of persons belonging to minorities; discrimination on the ground of language:
English-speaking residents of Quebec argued that the language law of Quebec, which prohibited commercial shop signs in a language other than French, violated their right of freedom of expression (Article 19), violated their minority rights (Article 27) and discriminated against them on the grounds of language in violation of Article 26.
Conclusion:
Violation of Article 19 (2), no violation of Article 27 and 26:
The Human Rights Committee held, regarding Article 19, that any restriction of the freedom of expression must cumulatively meet the following conditions: it must be provided for by law, it must address one of the aims enumerated in paragraph 3 of Article 19, and must be necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose. While the restrictions on outdoor advertising are indeed provided for by law, the Human Rights Committee believes that it is not necessary, in order to protect the vulnerable position in Canada of the francophone group, to prohibit commercial advertising in English. This protection may be achieved in other ways that do not preclude the freedom of expression, in a language of their choice, of those engaged in such fields as trade. For example, the law could have required that advertising be in both French and English. A State may choose one or more official languages, but it may not exclude, outside the spheres of public life, the freedom to express oneself in a language of one's choice. The Committee accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of Article 19 (2). The Human Rights Committee held also that because English-speaking citizens represent the majority in Canada the authors could not claim the rights of linguistic minorities under Article 27. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 26, the Human Rights Committee found that the chosen comparator, the French speakers in Quebec, were not in a more advantageous situation than the English speakers. The restriction on the use of the English language applied to both groups, regardless of the language. Therefore the Human Rights Committee held that there was no violation of Article 26.
(Paragraphs 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 12)