3 ms·

So it is probably a legal instead of a technical issue. What happens when two laws come into conflict with each other? United Nations Declaration on the Rights

So it is probably a legal instead of a technical issue. What happens when two laws come into conflict with each other? United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) vs the language rule

cdepatie 6y ago
Technically the UN declaration is not legally binding, so there is no legal conflict. Of course, that isn't meant to say that the declaration shouldn't be respected or that a government/nation might not face backlash for failing to respect it, but in a Canadian court I believe (IANAL) that the UN declaration would be effectively irrelevant. Edit: I made this comment before reading the article; it appears BC has actually passed legislation requiring them to implement UNDRIP (https://declaration.gov.bc.ca/ https://declaration.gov.bc.ca/), so the parent's question remains valid.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  The UN declaration is irrelevant. (For now; there's pending legislation at https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/about-apropos.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/about-apropos.html to require its implementation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Code_(British_Columbia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Code_(British_Col... is not.
- kelnos 6y ago
  > Technically the UN declaration is not legally binding, so there is no legal conflict. Not even that, but I assume there isn't a line in UNDRIP that specifically says "Indigenous people should be able to register their businesses using their alphabets". My assumption is that it's a more general resolution, and details about what constitutes promoting revitalizing indigenous languages is up to national/local governments. I think it would be good of the Canadian/BC governments to allow this sort of thing, but I doubt it would be a violation of the resolution, or even the spirit of it, to shelve that particular idea, in favor of others.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SllX 6y ago
Unless the former is enshrined in Canadian or British Columbian law, it’s irrelevant and therefore there isn’t a legal conflict.
AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
UN declarations not being laws, the law does.

cdepatie 6y ago

Technically the UN declaration is not legally binding, so there is no legal conflict. Of course, that isn't meant to say that the declaration shouldn't be respected or that a government/nation might not face backlash for failing to respect it, but in a Canadian court I believe (IANAL) that the UN declaration would be effectively irrelevant. Edit: I made this comment before reading the article; it appears BC has actually passed legislation requiring them to implement UNDRIP (https://declaration.gov.bc.ca/ https://declaration.gov.bc.ca/), so the parent's question remains valid.

ceejayoz 6y ago
The UN declaration is irrelevant. (For now; there's pending legislation at https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/about-apropos.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/about-apropos.html to require its implementation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Code_(British_Columbia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Code_(British_Col... is not.
kelnos 6y ago
> Technically the UN declaration is not legally binding, so there is no legal conflict. Not even that, but I assume there isn't a line in UNDRIP that specifically says "Indigenous people should be able to register their businesses using their alphabets". My assumption is that it's a more general resolution, and details about what constitutes promoting revitalizing indigenous languages is up to national/local governments. I think it would be good of the Canadian/BC governments to allow this sort of thing, but I doubt it would be a violation of the resolution, or even the spirit of it, to shelve that particular idea, in favor of others.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

SllX 6y ago

Unless the former is enshrined in Canadian or British Columbian law, it’s irrelevant and therefore there isn’t a legal conflict.

AlgorithmicTime 6y ago

UN declarations not being laws, the law does.