WPCN  (ksd&2I# NXVdvVF6pSc #f8CSܬu;|K5Z%$swھ:H2R1^]R.i 7Bs5ў>ø|i oB9FD,X_# &~˴V%N5֤8Wć,SY( p[X%Lk~oߝ_Kw1)ao"ʔW^ 0nB 0Y 0_  0ih 0 0(h D+ AM  0 # UN % M ( N ^  w 4! 5 m7 \  `&Times New Roman' J. H. v. Canada, Communication No. 187/1985 (12 April 1985), U.N. Doc.c."Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   <:Default ParaXXX64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    < :Normal (Web) S =jS =jSӁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$  !..      XXXXXXXX  ($'dxd A<< c#|x($..      XHXXXXHXXXHHP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX<) .)U  !..      XXXXXXXX  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  J.H.v.Canada | CommunicationNo.187/1985 H 12April1985  d ADMISSIBILITY     Submittedby:J.H.(namedeleted)onIFebruary1985 x  Ѐ Allegedvictims:EnglishspeakingmembersoftheCanadianArmedForces D  Stateparty:Canada ` Declaredinadmissible:12April1985(twentyfourthsession) ,   DecisiononAdmissibility     1.Theauthorofthecommunicationdated1February1985isJ.H.,aCanadiannationaland @ retiredmemberoftheCanadianArmedForces,livinginOntario,Canada.Heallegesthat &v promotionpoliciesintheCanadianArmedForcesarediscriminatoryandconstitutea  \ violationbyCanadaofarticle2,paragraphI,oftheInternationalCovenantonCiviland B PoliticalRights. ( 2.1.ItisallegedthatAdministrativeOrder116(1972)oftheCanadianArmedForces,  whichprovidesforanincreasedpercentageofofficersandsoldiersofFrenchmothertongue,   hasresultedindiscriminationonthebasisoflanguage,tantamounttoaformofracial p!  discrimination,sinceEnglishandFrenchspeakingpersonsinCanadaareoftwodifferent V"! ethnicorigins.ItisallegedthatpersonsofFrenchmothertonguearepreferredforpromotion <#" withinallranksoftheArmedForces,tothecorrespondingdisadvantageofpersonsof "$r# Englishmothertongue. %X $ 2.2.Inlate1978,shortlybeforehisretirementinApril1979,theauthor,whoisofEnglish &$"& mothertongue,beganhis_endeavours_Ԁtopointoutwhatheconsideredtobethelinguisticand ' #' racialdiscriminationbeingpracticeinthepromotionpolicyoftheCanadianArmedForces. (#( HewroteletterstoseveraloppositionMembersofParliamentandtotwosuccessive )$) MinistersofNational_Defence_.InJune1980hefiledacomplaintwiththeCanadianHuman l*%* RightsCommission(astatutorybodycreatedbyfederallegislationtoadministerthe R+&+ CanadianHumanRightsAct). 8,',  -n(- 2.3.In1984anewadministrativeorderwaspromulgated(215of29June1984),under  which"mothertongue"wasnolongertobeusedtodeterminetheparticipationratioof  EnglishandFrenchspeakingmembersoftheCanadianArmedForces.Thereferenceto | "mothertongue"wasreplacedby"firstofficiallanguage".Theauthorsubmitsthatthe b changewasintendedtoanswerthecriticismoftheprevailingpromotionpolicy.Heasserts, H however,thatthechangewasonlycosmeticandthatthesamepromotionpolicycontinues . ~ tobeappliedtodayandthattheonlydifferenceisthemannerinwhichtheEnglishand  d Frenchlanguageandoriginaredefined.  J 2.4.Asaresultoftherewordedpromotionpolicy,theCanadianHumanRightsCommission    feltthattherewerenolongeranygroundsforpotentialethnicorracialdiscriminationand    informedtheauthorthatitwouldnotmakeadecisioninthecomplaintbroughtbyhim.J.   H.pointsoutinthisconnectionthatthereisnolegislationinCanadaprohibiting x  discriminationonthebasisoflanguage(neithertheCharterofRightsandFreedoms,partof ^  theCanadianConstitution,northeCanadianHumanRightsActincludeslinguistic D  discriminationasaprohibitedpractice).Hefurthersubmitsthattheconclusionofthe *z  CanadianHumanRightsCommissiontotheeffectthattherewasnodiscriminationisnot ` a"decision"onwhichanappealtothecourtscouldbemade.Hefinallymentionsthatfurther F correspondencewithMembersofParliamentandotherpersonsinpositions..ofauthority , haveproducednoresults.  2.5.Thereisnospecificindicationinthecommunicationthattheauthorhashimselfbeen  adverselyaffectedbythepolicywhichhecomplainsabout.Herequeststhathiscomplaint t beexaminedandthattheGovernmentofCanadabeadvised"thatitisactually Z discriminatingagainstEnglishspeakingCanadiansinimplementingitsincentive @ _programmes_ԀtoassistFrenchspeakingCanadians". &v 3.Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRights B Committeeshall,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsprovisionalrulesofprocedure,decide ( whetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.  4.1.TheCommitteenotesthatarticles1and2oftheOptionalProtocolrequirethatthe   authorofacommunicationmusthimselfclaim,inasubstantiatedmanner,thatheisorhas p!  beenavictimofaviolationbytheStatepartyconcernedofanyoftherightssetforthinthe V"! Covenant.ItisnotthetaskoftheHumanRightsCommittee,actingundertheOptional <#" Protocol,toreviewin_abstracto_Ԁnationallegislationorpracticesastotheircompliancewith "$r# obligationsimposedbytheCovenant. %X $ 4.2.Theauthorofthepresentcommunicationhasnotputforwardanyfactstoindicatethat &$"& hehashimselfbeenavictimofdiscriminationinviolationoftheprovisionsoftheCovenant. ' #' Anallegationtotheeffectthatpastorpresentpromotionpoliciesaregenerallytothe (#( detrimentofEnglishspeakingmembersoftheCanadianArmedForcesisnotsufficientin )$) thisrespect.TheCommittee,accordingly,concludesthattheauthorhasnotshownthathe l*%* hasaclaimunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol. R+&+ 5.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides: -n(- Thecommunicationisinadmissible.  :