Re: National Court in Estonia on Language Law amendments

From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 15:50:47 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: National Court in Estonia on Language Law amendments

From: MINELRES moderator  <[email protected]>

Original sender: Fernand De Varennes <[email protected]>

Re: National Court in Estonia on Language Law amendments


In a recent posting to MINELRES involving a recent decision of the
National Court of Estonia on amendments to the Language Law, it
was reported that:

> The National Court emphasised that usage and defence of the
> Estonian language is the goal of the Estonian Constitution and
> state power has to secure its enforcement. In other words, any
> steps ensuring the usage of Estonian language are approved
> constitutionally.

If this is what the Court has stated, part of these comments might
lead to practices in Estonia that would be contrary to fundamental
human rights.

In one decision, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has
indicated that while it is an appropriate goal to seek to defend and
encourage the use of an official language (such as French in Quebec),
the methods to achieve this goal must never be contrary to human
rights such as freedom of expression (and non-discrimination). This
was decided in Ballantyne v. Canada.

If the National Court of Estonia really did conclude that ANY STEPS
ENSURING THE USAGE OF THE ESTONIAN LANGUAGE IS VALID
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, that is wrong under international law.

As happened in Quebec, a law or practice which has the goal of
ensuring the usage of the Estonian language (or the goal of ensuring
the usage of the French language in Quebec) might restrict a person's
freedom of expression (in the case of the private use of a language).
Unless it is permitted as a recognised restriction under international
law, such a law or practice is against an international human right
guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which Estonia has signed and ratified. Depending on what
type of law or practice is involved, it could also be in violation of
other human rights.

Dr Fernand de Varennes
------------------------------

(Moderator adds: The case Ballantyne v. Canada mentioned above
is, in my view, ot outmost importance for evaluating language
legislation and policies. The entire text of the HR Committee view
on the case can be found at
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/8/oppro/vws359.htm, there is
also the link to it at the UN page of the MINELRES web site.
Boris)

--
==============================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern Europe

Submissions: [email protected]
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected]
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==============================================================