Official Languages and Bilingualism in the Courtroom: Hong Kong, Canada, the Republic of Ireland, and International Law

Abstract

Whilst Hong Kong is now part of China enjoying a high degree of autonomy, English continues to be the lingua franca of its education, commence, and legal process. The Chinese language (Cantonese) continues to be subjugated in Hong Kong's judicial and legal practice, even though it is constitutionally and by legislation recognised as an official language in the former British colony. In Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary, the defendant, facing trial which might, and ultimately did, lead to his imprisonment, sought that the judge presiding over his trial be able to directly understand Chinese with which he self-identified most intimately. Adopting a comparative approach by reference to and scrutinising Canadian, Irish, and international jurisprudence, this paper argues that an individual, on the basis of his or her language use rights and right to fair trial, is entitled to choose to use an official language with which he or she self-identifies most intimately in judicial proceedings affecting his or her rights and interests, and that fluency in the dominant official language and availability of interpretation during the relevant proceedings are immaterial and do not affect the individual's aforementioned rights. The author concludes that the unfortunate outcome and reasoning in Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary illustrated that the adverse effects of colonialism continue, in its altered neo-colonial ego, to be pervasive in post-colonial Hong Kong.

Acknowledgements

This study was prompted by the Author's preparations for a survey on certain Hong Kong court decisions: Phil C. W. Chan, ‘Important Decisions of Hong Kong Courts in 2002 (Part I): Language Rights, Foreign Offenders’ Sentencing, and Immigration and Refugee Laws', Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol.4 (2005), p.219. The Author wishes to express his gratitude to his good friend and colleague Aisling O'Sullivan, Doctoral Fellow at the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland, Galway, for assembling the materials on Ireland and reviewing an earlier draft of this paper. The Author also thanks Jill Cottrell, Richard Gardiner, Professor Paul Rishworth, and Paul Serfaty for their helpful comments on subsequent versions of this paper, which was presented at the Centre for International and Public Law at the Australian National University (22 November 2006). Responsibility for any error or omission remains with the Author alone.

Notes

1. 1985 1 SCR 721.

2. Ibid. per The Court, p.744.

3. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China as adopted by the Seventh National People's Congress at its Third Session on 4 April 1990, 29 ILM 1519 (1990), Art.5, in pursuance of the 1984 Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong, 23 ILM 1366 (1984).

4. Ibid. Art.8; see also Arts.18, 84, and 87.

5. Ibid. Art.9.

6. Official Languages Ordinance (Cap.5), s.3(1).

7. Ibid. s.3(2).

8. 2002 1 HKC 41.

9. Basic Law of Hong Kong, Arts.82 and 92; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art.14.

10. Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China states that ‘[t]he state may establish special administrative regions when necessary. The systems to be instituted in special administrative regions shall be prescribed by law enacted by the National People's Congress in the light of the specific conditions.’

11. Basic Law of Hong Kong, Preamble.

12. Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary (note 8) per Hartmann J., pp.47–8.

13. Basic Law of Hong Kong, Arts.82 and 92; see also Art.93.

14. Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary (note 8) per Hartmann J., pp.47–8.

15. Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922, 13 Geo. 5 (Session 2), c.1, s.1 and Sch.1.

16. Ibid. Sch.1, Art.4.

17. 1934 IR 469.

18. That is, the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921 as scheduled to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922, 12 Geo. 5, c.4, whereby the Irish Free State as a co-equal Dominion of the British Empire, modelled upon the Dominion of Canada founded under the British North America Act 1867, 30 Vic., c.3, was founded.

19. Ó Foghludha v. McClean (note 17) per Kennedy C.J., p.482.

20. Constitution of Ireland of 1937, Art.48.

21. Ibid. Art.8(1).

22. Ibid. Art.8(2).

23. 2001 2 IR 279.

24. Ibid. per Hardiman J., p.340.

25. Niamh Nic Shuibhne, ‘State Duty and the Irish Language’, Dublin University Law Journal, Vol.19 (1997), p.33 at p.48.

26. Basic Law of Hong Kong, Art.1.

27. 1998 2 SCR 217.

28. Ibid. per The Court, p.256.

29. Albie Sachs, Protecting Human Rights in a New South Africa (Cape Town: Oxford University Press 1990), p.189.

30. Adopted and proclaimed by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217A(III) of 10 December 1948.

31. Ibid. Art.1.

32. See http://www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/1998/02/2699_en.pdf, reproduced in International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, Vol.6 (1999) Special Issue: Linguistic Rights of National Minorities, p.359.

33. Ibid. Explanatory Note to the Oslo Recommendations Regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities, General Introduction.

34. (1986) 26 DLR (4th) 200.

35. Ibid. per Dickson C.J., p.225.

36. 1984 ILRM 373.

37. Ibid. per Costello J., p.381.

38. Nic Shuibhne (note 25) p.38.

39. Roderick A. Macdonald, ‘Legal Bilingualism’, McGill Law Journal, Vol.42 (1997), p.119 at p.139.

40. Ibid.

41. Vanessa Pupavac, ‘Language Rights in Conflict and the Denial of Language as Communication’, International Journal of Human Rights, Vol.10 (2006), p.61 at pp.65–6, quoting Robert Phillipson, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Mart Rannut, ‘Introduction’, in Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson (eds), Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter 1994), p.2.

42. Phil C. W. Chan, ‘Important Decisions of Hong Kong Courts in 2002 (Part I): Language Rights, Foreign Offenders’ Sentencing, and Immigration and Refugee Laws', Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol.4 (2005), p.219.

43. 1986 1 SCR 549.

44. 1987 1 SCR 1148.

45. Chan (note 42) p.222.

46. (1999) 173 DLR (4th) 193.

47. Ibid. per Bastarache J., p.215: ‘Language Rights must in all cases be interpreted purposively, in a manner consistent with the preservation and development of official language communities in Canada. To the extent that Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick stands for a restrictive interpretation of language rights, it is to be rejected.’

48. (1919) 58 SCR 414.

49. Ibid. per Brodeur J., p.423.

50. Case No.379/87, 28 November 1989.

51. Ibid. para.24 (emphasis added).

52. Oslo Recommendations (note 32) Recommendation 19.

53. Ibid. Explanatory Note to the Oslo Recommendations Regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities.

54. John Packer and Guillaume Siemienski, ‘The Language of Equity: The Origin and Development of the Oslo Recommendations Regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, Vol.6 (1999) Special Issue: Linguistic Rights of National Minorities, p.329.

55. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art.27.

56. Ibid. Art.2(1).

57. Thomas Buergenthal, ‘To Respect and to Ensure: State Obligations and Permissible Derogations’, in Louis Henkin (ed.), The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York: Columbia University Press 1981), pp.77–8.

58. Francesco Capotorti (as Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities), Study on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, Report to the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/384/Rev.1 (1979); also as Francesco Capotorti, Study on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (New York: United Nations 1991), para.568 (emphasis added).

59. John Packer, ‘On the Definition of Minorities’, in John Packer and Kristian Myntti (eds), The Protection of Ethnic and Linguistic Minorities in Europe (Turku/Åbo, Finland: Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University 1993), p.23.

60. United Nations Human Rights Committee, Views on Communications Nos.359/1989 and 385/1989, UN Doc. CCPR/C/47/D/359/1989 and 385/1989/Rev.1 (47th Session, 5 May 1993).

61. Ibid. paras.3.1–3.3, 4.1–4.7, 6.1–6.10, 9.1–9.10, and 11.1.

62. Ibid. para.11.5.

63. Nigel S. Rodley, ‘Conceptual Problems in the Protection of Minorities: International Legal Developments’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.17 (1995), p.48 at p.55.

64. Ibid.

65. Ballantyne, Davidson, McIntyre v. Canada (note 60) E. Individual Opinion of Elizabeth Evatt, co-signed by Nisuke Ando, Marco Tulio Bruni Celli, and Vojin Dimitrijevic (concurring and elaborating).

66. Philip Vuciri Ramaga, ‘Relativity of the Minority Concept’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.14 (1992), p.104 at p.119.

67. Margaret Thornton, ‘The Public/Private Dichotomy: Gendered and Discriminatory’, Journal of Law and Society, Vol.18 (1991), p.448 at p.457.

68. Ó Beoláin v. Fahy (note 23) per Hardiman J., p.350 (modified).

69. Joshua Castellino, ‘Affirmative Action for the Protection of Linguistic Rights: An Analysis of International Human Rights: Legal Standards in the Context of the Protection of the Irish Language’, Dublin University Law Journal, Vol.25 (2003), pp.1 at p.24.

70. Ibid.

71. Ballantyne, Davidson, McIntyre v. Canada (note 60) D. Individual Opinion of Bertil Wennergren (concurring).

72. Edward Veitch, ‘Language, Culture and Freedom of Expression in Canada’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.39 (1990), p.101 at p.110.

73. Denise G. Réaume, ‘The Demise of the Political Compromise Doctrine: Have Official Language Use Rights Been Revived?’, McGill Law Journal, Vol.47 (2002), p.593 at pp.617–8.

74. Dónall Ó Riagáin, ‘The Importance of Linguistic Rights for Speakers of Lesser Used Languages’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, Vol.6 (1999) Special Issue: Linguistic Rights of National Minorities, p.289.

75. James Fawcett, Minority Rights Group Report No. 41: The International Protection of Minorities (London: Minority Rights Group 1979), p.4.

76. Macdonald (note 39) p.138.

77. James T. McHugh, ‘Making Public Law, “Public”: An Analysis of the Québec Reference Case and its Significance for Comparative Constitutional Analysis’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.49 (2000), p.445 at p.445.

78. Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary (note 8) per Hartmann J., p.48.

79. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Part I, Constitution Act 1982, Statutes of Canada 1982, c.79; Canada Act 1982 (United Kingdom), c.11), ss.16–22. See also Official Languages Act 1988, RSC 1988, c.38.

80. House of Commons Debates, Vol.5, 3rd Session, 30th Parliament, 5087; affirmed in Beaulac (note 46) per Bastarache J., p.214.

81. Peter Jones, ‘Human Rights, Group Rights, and Peoples’ Rights', Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.21 (1999), p.80 at p.83.

82. Beaulac (note 46) per Bastarache J., p.221.

83. See, e.g., Michel Bastarache (ed.), Les droits linguistiques au Canada (Montreal: Editions Yvon Blais 1986); Michel Bastarache (ed.), Language Rights in Canada (Montreal: Editions Yvon Blais 1987).

84. Nic Shuibhne (note 25) p.46.

85. United Nations Human Rights Committee, Views on Communication No.760/1997, UN Doc. CCPR/C/69/D/760/1997 (69th Session, 6 September 2000).

86. Ibid. paras.10.6 and 10.9.

87. Ibid. Individual Opinion of Nisuke Ando (dissenting).

88. Ibid. Individual Opinion of P. N. Bhagwati, Lord Colville and Maxwell Yalden (dissenting), para.2.

89. PCIJ Series A/B Judgments, No.64 (1935), World Court Reports, Vol.III (1932–35), p.484.

90. Article 5, first paragraph, of the Albanian Declaration, as quoted in Minority Schools in Albania, ibid. p.485, provided that ‘Albanian nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities will enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as other Albanian nationals. In particular, they shall have an equal right to maintain, manage and control at their own expense or to establish in the future, charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their religion freely therein.’

91. Minority Schools in Albania, ibid. p.502.

92. Jelena Pejic, ‘Minority Rights in International Law’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.19 (1997), p.666 at pp.676–7.

93. Castellino (note 69) p.32.

94. Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by UN GA Res. 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965 and entered into force on 4 January 1969.

95. Ibid. Art.2(2).

96. Guillaume Siemienski, ‘Vienna Seminar on the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities 27–28 February 1998: Seminar Report’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, Vol.6 (1999) Special Issue: Linguistic Rights of National Minorities, p.351.

97. Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary (note 8) per Hartmann J., p.48.

98. Ibid.

99. Ibid.

100. Castellino (note 69) pp.39–40.

101. Section 8 of the Official Languages Act 2003 (No.32) elucidates an individual's language use rights in the administration of justice. In particular, sub-section (1) provides that ‘[a] person may use either of the official languages in, or in any pleading in or document issuing from, any court.’ Sub-section (2) then demands that ‘[e]very court has, in any proceedings before it, the duty to ensure that any person appearing in or giving evidence before it may be heard in the official language of his or her choice, and that in being so heard the person will not be placed at a disadvantage by not being heard in the other official language.’ An individual's language use rights are then accorded superiority over the State's choice of a particular official language in civil proceedings, by sub-section (4) which states that ‘[w]here the State or a public body is a party to civil proceedings before a court – (a) the State or the public body shall use in the proceedings, the official language chosen by the other party, and (b) if two or more persons (other than the State or a public body) are party to the proceedings and they fail to choose or agree on the official language to be used in the proceedings, the State or, as appropriate, the public body shall use in the proceedings such official language as appears to it to be reasonable, having regard to the circumstances.’ Lastly, one must not overlook that it is the State which carries the burden of ensuring compliance with an individual's language use rights, as sub-section (6) mandates: ‘In choosing to use a particular official language in any proceedings before a court, a person shall not be put by the court or a public body to any inconvenience or expense over and above that which would have been incurred had he or she chosen to use the other official language.’

102. Section 2 of the Official Languages Act 1988, RSC 1988, c.38, states that ‘[t]he purpose of this Act is to (a) ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions; (b) support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and generally advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society; and (c) set out the powers, duties and functions of federal institutions with respect to the official languages of Canada.’

103. Rodley (note 63) p.50.

104. Ramaga (note 66) p.115.

105. Erik H. Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis (New York and London: W.W. Norton 1968), p.59.

106. Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary (note 8) per Hartmann J., p.44.

107. Ó Beoláin v. Fahy (note 23) per Geoghegan J., p.359 (emphasis added).

108. Ibid. p.361 (emphasis added).

109. Richard Silver, ‘The Right to English Health and Social Services in Québec: A Legal and Political Analysis’, McGill Law Journal, Vol.45 (2000), p.681 at p.686.

110. United Nations Human Rights Committee, Views on Communication No.219/1986, UN Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/219/1986 (39th Session, 23 August 1990).

111. Ibid. paras.2.2–2.3. The Human Rights Committee noted, ibid. para.5.6, that France had entered into a reservation to Article 27 as the French Republic and its Constitution does not recognise the existence of minorities in its territory.

112. Ibid. para.7.3.

113. Ibid. para.10.2.

114. Ibid.

115. Ballantyne, Davidson, McIntyre v. Canada (note 60) paras.3.1–3.3, 4.1–4.7, 6.1–6.10, 9.1–9.10, and 11.1.

116. Ibid. para.11.2.

117. Ibid. B. Individual Opinion of Birame Ndiaye (dissenting).

118. 1985 6 WWR 594.

119. Ibid. per Sinclair J., p.629.

120. Macdonald (note 38) p.123.

121. Ibid. pp.133–4 (emphasis added).

122. Ibid. p.156.

123. (1990) TÉ 46.

124. Ibid. per O'Hanlon J.; as quoted in Ó Beoláin v. Fahy (note 23) per Hardiman J., p.342 (trans. O'Malley).

125. 1989 1 SCR 143.

126. Ibid. per McIntyre J., pp.174–5.

127. Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that ‘[e]very individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.’ When promulgating the Charter, Parliament considered language rights to be of such importance that specific provisions are stipulated therefor, in sections 16 to 23, inclusive.

128. Basic Law of Hong Kong, Art.25.

129. Article 22 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, modelled upon and giving effect to Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, states that ‘[a]ll persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status’ (emphasis added).

130. Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia (note 125) per McIntyre J., p.165.

131. Nic Shuibhne (note 25) p.46.

132. Réaume (note 73) p.613.

133. Fernand de Varennes, Language, Minorities and Human Rights (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1996), p.176.

134. United Nations Human Rights Committee, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights General Comment No.18: Non-discrimination (37th Session, 10 November 1989).

135. Ibid. para.10 (emphasis added).

136. Section 16(1) of the Official Languages Act 1988 states that ‘[e]very federal court, other than the Supreme Court of Canada, has the duty to ensure that (a) if English is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand English without the assistance of an interpreter; (b) if French is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand French without the assistance of an interpreter; and (c) if both English and French are the languages chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand both languages without the assistance of an interpreter.’

137. Réaume (note 73) p.597.

138. Beaulac (note 46) per Bastarache J., p.215.

139. Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary (note 8) per Hartmann J., p.48.

140. District Court Ordinance (Cap.336), s.79(5)(b).

141. Beaulac (note 46) per Bastarache J., p.222.

142. Ibid. p.224.

143. Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick (note 43) per Beetz J., p.577 (emphasis added).

144. 1988 SCR 234.

145. Ibid. per Dickson C.J., joined by Beetz, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, and La Forest JJ., p.238.

146. 1929 IR 526.

147. Ibid. per Kennedy C.J., p.531 (emphasis added).

148. de Varennes (note 133) pp.175–6.

149. R. v. Tran 1994 2 SCR 951, per Lamer C.J., p.1009.

150. Beaulac (note 46) per Bastarache J., p.226.

151. Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary (note 8) per Hartmann J., p.52.

152. Beaulac (note 46) per Bastarache J., p.215.

153. Re Cheng Kai Nam Gary (note 8) per Hartmann J., p.48.

154. Macdonald (note 39) p.151.

155. Ibid.

156. John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1980), p.272.

157. Réaume (note 73) p.618.

158. Ibid.

159. Macdonald (note 39) p.133.