Xref: utzoo can.francais:97 can.politics:2011
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!julian!uwovax!36_5130
From: 36_5130@uwovax.uwo.ca (Kinch)
Newsgroups: can.francais,can.politics
Subject: Re: Notwithstanding clause -- truly a sad day for Canada
Message-ID: <1151@uwovax.uwo.ca>
Date: 23 Dec 88 12:24:49 GMT
References: <560@cavell.UUCP> <726@myrias.UUCP> <88Dec21.094859est.38036@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Lines: 31
Organisation: University of Western Ontario, Canada


In article <88Dec21.094859est.38036@neat.ai.toronto.edu>, derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) writes:
> 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
> 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.

As I understand the bill/law this would NOT be acceptable. The signs
inside must not be visible to the outside! Otherwise you are correct,
in both assertions. It would be 'close enough to bilingual signs' and
most people would still be outraged!

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

My complaints are that having a clause that can override the charter
of rights makes the charter of rights completely useless. Either they
are rights or they are not, the notwithstanding allows them to be non-rights!


> 
> Philippe Derome


Dave Kinchlea