Xref: utzoo can.francais:86 can.politics:1991
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!neat.ai.toronto.edu!derome
From: derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome)
Newsgroups: can.francais,can.politics
Subject: Re: Notwithstanding clause -- truly a sad day for Canada
Message-ID: <88Dec21.094859est.38036@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 88 14:48:55 GMT
References: <560@cavell.UUCP> <726@myrias.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Lines: 23

In article <726@myrias.UUCP> sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) writes:
>	1) Commercial signs must be in French, and
>	2) NO OTHER LANGUAGE MAY BE USED IN ADDITION TO FRENCH
>
>Point 1 is not unreasonable, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is within
>the rights of the Government of Quebec to have such a law.
>
>Point 2 violates both the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights, and by using
>the notwithstanding clause Bourassa is explicitly ignoring both of those
>charters.
>

Your point #2 is either false or ambigous or not perfectly clear.
Other language may be used, but inside the shop; imagine  big
bilingual signs just behind a very transparent window at the front door, 
would not that be close enough to bilingual signs? I am certain that
you will say ``No way'' and be outraged, but to me the distinction
is not large.

I do understand your complaints about the complaints concerning
the notwithdtanding clause.

Philippe Derome