Downtown Montreal businesses get passing grade from language cops
navegaweb
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=05479ae6-52f1-4835-9f66-7217450ed286&k=14559
Société Saint-Jean Baptiste president, Jean Dorion, was quoted as
saying, "The results are presented like a triumph of French by the
minister but the fact is that only in seven cases out of 10 did the
posting of signs conform with the (provincial language) charter,"
"Despite the fact that the law is rather liberal, you have three cases
out of 10 where the law is not respected."
Jean Dorin was also quoted in The Suburban, a local Montreal English
weekly newspaper, as saying he was "struck by the flawless French in
the letter" when asked for comment on "Communiqué No 2", a document he
received earlier this month from the Camille-Laurin cell of the FLQ
threating random acts of violence between February 15th and March 15th
in Montreal's bilingual municipalities.
In a related story, Canadians concerned that Canada is "not white
enough" are urged to contact your Member of Parliament and voice
concern on the threat this lack of whiteness poses to society, and to
our cultural identity.
~ navegaweb ~
Thunderbird
> Linkhttp://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=05479ae6-52f...
So, what else is new? Same old inferiority complex.
Auto Botma
> Link
> http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=05479ae6-52f1-4835-9f66-7217450ed286&k=14559
>
> Société Saint-Jean Baptiste president, Jean Dorion, was quoted as
> saying, "The results are presented like a triumph of French by the
> minister but the fact is that only in seven cases out of 10 did the
> posting of signs conform with the (provincial language) charter,"
>
> "Despite the fact that the law is rather liberal, you have three cases
> out of 10 where the law is not respected."
Because it's an unconstitutional law made legal only through the use of the
notwithstanding clause and a SCC stacked with Frenchmen to make it work.
Michael James
immigration that Mandarin and Arabic become predominant languages in
Canada. Then what will the anglo Canadians do? Make a law?
Michael James
> On 31 Jan 2007 05:22:50 -0800, "navegaweb" <nave...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Link
>>http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=05479ae6-52f1-4835-9f66-7217450ed286&k=14559
>>
>>Société Saint-Jean Baptiste president, Jean Dorion, was quoted as
>>saying, "The results are presented like a triumph of French by the
>>minister but the fact is that only in seven cases out of 10 did the
>>posting of signs conform with the (provincial language) charter,"
>>
>>"Despite the fact that the law is rather liberal, you have three cases
>>out of 10 where the law is not respected."
>
>
>
> Speech and he calls it liberal? The guys a flaming idiot and worthy
> of the Goebbels Award.
>
>
>
As opposed to the people who used to force French people to speak English?
Adam Fields
Nobody gives a fuck what language the French speak. Bill 101 is unconstitutional.
Michael James
then challenge it in court.
Jean Naimard
Law 101 only acts upon the complaints from the public.
Yet more canadian disinformation about Québec.
--
Enlevez "-VosClaques" pour me répondre en privé. Merci.
Bagdad: ils ont pendu le mauvais gars.
- Parce que ça force à lire à l’envers.
- Pourquoi?
- Les gens qui répondent en haut du texte qu'ils citent.
- C'est quoi la pire chose sur Usenet?
Jean Naimard
> Because it's an unconstitutional law made legal only through the use
> of the notwithstanding clause and a SCC stacked with Frenchmen to make
> it work.
It is clearly constitutional.
What part of "language is a provincial responsibility" don’t you
understand???
And how about the notwithstanding clause that was inserted in the charter
at the insistence of western provinces so they could legally deny services
to their french population?
Yet more english hypocrisy at work, further bolstering the canadian double-
standard.
Jean Naimard
> Liberal? A language 'charter' that is total violation of Freedom Of
> Speech and he calls it liberal? The guys a flaming idiot and worthy
> of the Goebbels Award.
No human right has been ever violated by law 101. It only applies to
businesses who are **NOT** human.
In fact, commercial speech is far from being free.
Try to advertise used cars as new and see what happens!
Yet more english hypocrisy and disinformation at work!
Jean Naimard
> Nobody gives a fuck what language the French speak. Bill 101 is
> unconstitutional.
Which part of the constitution does it violates?
You don’t know what you are talking about, but again, this is the hallmark
of the french-hating ignoramuses that live in the western redneck
wastelands.
Michael James
> Le 31 Jan 2007, Adam Fields <a.fi...@sympatico.ca> a écrit :
>
>
>>Nobody gives a fuck what language the French speak. Bill 101 is
>>unconstitutional.
>
>
> Which part of the constitution does it violates?
>
>
>
> You don’t know what you are talking about, but again, this is the hallmark
> of the french-hating ignoramuses that live in the western redneck
> wastelands.
>
Well from a constitional point of view, the gov. of Quebec never signed
the constitution of 1982, so really the B.N.A. act is the only part that
is in effect in Quebec.
When and if the government of Quebec does ratify the constitution then
we shall see how Quebec laws are in accord with the Canadian constitution.
PaulRdgrs
> Nobody gives a fuck what language the French speak. Bill 101 is
> unconstitutional.
A constition unilaterally imposed by a ruling minority is illegitimate,
fraudulent and illegal.
So why not stick your colonial rag where the sun does not shine ?
--
Your Source for Music, Games and Much More !
The Largest Download Selection Online.
http://mp3onclick.bazaar-dot.com/
PaulRdgrs
>> http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=05479ae6-52f1-4835-9f66-7217450ed286&k=14559
>>
>> Société Saint-Jean Baptiste president, Jean Dorion, was quoted as
>> saying, "The results are presented like a triumph of French by the
>> minister but the fact is that only in seven cases out of 10 did the
>> posting of signs conform with the (provincial language) charter,"
>>
>> "Despite the fact that the law is rather liberal, you have three cases
>> out of 10 where the law is not respected."
>
>
> Speech and he calls it liberal? The guys a flaming idiot and worthy
> of the Goebbels Award.
Your Speak White KKK never bothered with a "Charter" to do violence to
all caught with a foreign accent... Of course, it is much more practical
for lesson givers to forget their own brutal history.
Adam Fields
Bill 101 was challenged and found unconstitutional. Quebec invoked the
notwithstanding clause and made bill 101 law.
No one can challenge the notwithstanding clause because it is part of the constitution.
It lets the French feel superior.
Adam Fields
> There is no such things as "language cops".
>
> Law 101 only acts upon the complaints from the public.
>
>
>
> Yet more canadian disinformation about Québec.
>
yourself, because everyone else knows about your gestapo.
Thunderbird
> Jean Naimard wrote:
> > There is no such things as "language cops".
BULLSHIT! See below, and this is just one of many cases. If a culture
is so fragile there's something wrong with it.
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, June 30, 2005
The price of an apostrophe in Quebec
$786: Language police fine store owner for punctuation in sign,
threaten to seize his vehicles if not paid
Dave Rogers
<snip snip>
Mr. Rice, a 64-year-old plumber and farm supplies dealer from Venosta,
80 kilometres north of
Gatinea, wouldn't be able to find out until a week later was that the
Office quebecois de la langue
francaise had received a complaint about the apostrophe on his store
sign -- the second in five years.
Mr. Rice's ticket said he had been charged under Law 101, the Charter
of the French Language. He
thought he had solved the problem five years ago when he covered the
words "Plumbing and Farm
Supplies" on his sign with a Canadian flag.
The sign's right there on the metal shed, about 70 metres from the
road. It's hard to see even though it's
been there 25 years. For the past five years the sign has read simply
"Bob's." Now, not even the
apostrophe is left. Mr. Rice climbed his ladder and stuck a five-
centimetre Canadian flag over the
offending punctuation mark, even though no one assured him that will
end his legal problems.
"Administrative error??"
Sheer spite and racism more likely.
This was the sort of childish stupidity which used to drive the late
Rene Levesque crazy.
Government response excessive. How can Quebec government justify
spending money and time on this pettiness?
BRENT TYLER
The Montréal Gazette Friday, August 01, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The July 16 Gazette editorial, Let Shawville be, got one thing right:
The way the provincial government applied the sign provisions of the
Quebec language law against Shawville resident Bill McCleary makes the
law look foolish.
In December 1998, the language police sent him a "constat
d'infraction" complaining about two signs in front of a gas station
operated by a company that rented a building belonging to McCleary and
his brother-in-law.
McCleary's French is iffy. He was never told in English, although he
asked, what specifically he did wrong. He was never told in English
how to plead not guilty. He and his brother-in-law were condemned in
absentia and fined. His brother-in-law paid a $920 fine after a visit
from a bailiff last year.
When the bailiff arrived at McCleary's house in June of this year,
seized $60,000 worth of his property and advertised its sale for July
21, he contacted Alliance Quebec. It offered its support.
Defiant? Darn right, he was defiant.
The government's actions were excessive, to say the least.
A check of the court record showed the only photos of signs in the
file concerned one that said "pleine service/ full serve" (you will
notice there are more letters in French than in English) and another
on a pump that said "winter gas" in English only.
Neither sign belonged to McCleary or his brother-in-law, the landlords
of the building. They didn't belong to the company that operated the
service station either. They belonged to Petro Canada.
Alliance Quebec does not advocate outright defiance of the language
law. It supports about 50 merchants fighting the charges against them
for improper signs or service in the courts.
But in McCleary's case, Alliance Quebec was ready to raise money
privately to buy back his property at the auction and return it to
him. The English-rights group has done so before in similar cases and
is prepared to do it again.
The Gazette endorses the sign law as it stands, with English allowed
but French predominant. The Quebec government argues such legislation
is required because French is threatened in this province. Alliance
Quebec disagrees.
Alliance Quebec, under all its leaders, has acknowledged the need to
promote French in Quebec, but not at the expense of basic human
rights. It does not feel the threat to French in Quebec justifies the
limitations to fundamental freedoms imposed by Bill 101.
All but two per cent of the provincial civil servants and most of the
politicians in Quebec are franco-Québécois. Similar proportions make
up the federal civil service in Quebec and the municipal civil service
in the former city of Montreal. French is a major language of business
and culture in this province. It is obligatory throughout Quebec and
an official language of Canada.
There is no justification for seizing tens of thousands of dollars
worth of private property from someone because of a few words in
another language on a commercial sign. That's true for Shawville,
Montreal or any other place in Quebec.
Unlike The Gazette, Alliance Quebec doesn't think any community should
have a special local language exemption. The law should apply the same
way for every citizen everywhere. If enforcement makes the government
look foolish, then the law should not be enforced.
But McCleary had his property seized and advertised for sale. That's
when something strange happened.
After his plight was discussed in the media from coast-to-coast less
than a week before the sale, a man on a motorcycle rode up to
McCleary's front yard and handed a document to McCleary's son.
"An administrative error" had suddenly been discovered. Proceedings
should have ended when his brother-in-law paid the fine. The sale
would not take place.
Talk about your coincidences.
Instead of a bailiff's sale on July 21, there was a big party in
Shawville in the local Lion's Club hall. About 400 people turned up.
One musician even wrote a song about the incident.
But several questions remain.
How many other innocent businesspeople have been charged in error
under Bill 101 and simply paid their fines to avoid further
harassment?
How can people be prosecuted under this law when they are not informed
of their rights and the specific charges against them in English,
which is, after all, one of this province's common languages?
How can the Quebec government justify wasting time and money on such
pettiness?
Observer 42
> On Jan 31, 3:28 pm, Adam Fields <a.fie...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Jean Naimard wrote:
>>
>>>There is no such things as "language cops".
>
>
> BULLSHIT! See below, and this is just one of many cases. If a culture
> is so fragile there's something wrong with it.
> The Ottawa Citizen
> Thursday, June 30, 2005
It is almost like cutting off a person's legs to stop his nose from
bleeding.
I personally think there is some overreacting in what is happening.
Maybe some paranoia, too.
Jean Naimard
> Well from a constitional point of view, the gov. of Quebec never
> signed the constitution of 1982, so really the B.N.A. act is the only
> part that is in effect in Quebec.
>
> When and if the government of Quebec does ratify the constitution then
> we shall see how Quebec laws are in accord with the Canadian
> constitution.
Nice skating here, you’re totally avoiding the question…
Jean Naimard
> So why not stick your colonial rag where the sun does not shine ?
You mean the empire where the sun never sets???
Jean Naimard
Oh, since you know so much, please enlighten us with your knowledge of
things that do not exist…
(I dare you — I know we can expect nothing from you).
PaulRdgrs
In the History of your sorry colonial Dominion there has been but one
language geatapo. It was that of the criminal Speak White loyalist
hooded KKK who burned churches, busted through schools to be burned and
terrorized all those said to have a foreign accent.
Now, Quebec has proven too concilient and much too tolerent to serve the
anglos colonial bastards their own medecine. Your domineering attitude
proves Quebec wrong in treating its anglos colonial with dignity.
PaulRdgrs
> Le 31 Jan 2007, PaulRdgrs <rdgr...@yahoo.ca> a écrit :
>
>> So why not stick your colonial rag where the sun does not shine ?
>
> You mean the empire where the sun never sets???
Of all the colonies locked under British colonial constitutional rags,
the State of Quebec is the last to claim its decolonization from the
Speak White colonial gestapo...
PaulRdgrs
> Jean Naimard wrote:
>
>> Le 31 Jan 2007, Adam Fields <a.fi...@sympatico.ca> a écrit :
>>
>>> Nobody gives a fuck what language the French speak. Bill 101 is
>>> unconstitutional.
>>
>> Which part of the constitution does it violates?
>>
>> You don’t know what you are talking about, but again, this is the
>> hallmark of the french-hating ignoramuses that live in the western
>> redneck wastelands.
>>
> Well from a constitional point of view, the gov. of Quebec never signed
> the constitution of 1982, so really the B.N.A. act is the only part that
> is in effect in Quebec.
What clause of your constitution did your Speak White KKK refered to as
language gestapo ?
Your constitutional rags, since that of 1840, are as legitimate in
colonized Quebec as were those springled all across the British Empire :
NUL AND VOID.
They are as such because as criminal against humanity as was that of
Apartheif South Africa against the colonized aboriginal majority.
Thunderbird
> Adam Fields a écrit :
>
How many different names do you post under? Doesn't really matter.
Same old, same old, shit!
Jean Naimard
>>As opposed to the people who used to force French people to speak
>>English?
>
>
> Never by legislation, only by bigotry; now they have both.
Never by legislation?
How about outlawing french in Manitoba?
Closing french school in Ontario?
You orangist rednecks have very short memories!!!
Michael James
> Michael James a écrit :
>
>> Jean Naimard wrote:
>>
>>> Le 31 Jan 2007, Adam Fields <a.fi...@sympatico.ca> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Nobody gives a fuck what language the French speak. Bill 101 is
>>>> unconstitutional.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which part of the constitution does it violates?
>>>
>>> You don’t know what you are talking about, but again, this is the
>>> hallmark of the french-hating ignoramuses that live in the western
>>> redneck wastelands.
>>>
>> Well from a constitional point of view, the gov. of Quebec never
>> signed the constitution of 1982, so really the B.N.A. act is the only
>> part that is in effect in Quebec.
>
>
> What clause of your constitution did your Speak White KKK refered to as
> language gestapo ?
Well just to answer that. The fact that your reply with "speak white" to
my post, shows that you are a blind racist. You do NOT know me or
otherwise you would not make such statements. Ca me dit que t'es un
petit con sans cerveau, qui dit n'importe quoi qui passe dans la tere..
un tete plein de haine et ignorance...get it ?
>
> Your constitutional rags, since that of 1840, are as legitimate in
> colonized Quebec as were those springled all across the British Empire :
> NUL AND VOID.
>
If you stop with your emotional rant, and do some research you would
find that all that went before 1982 is the only part of the Canadian
constitution that is ratified by the National Assembly.
And what is in the BNA act was put their by the original provinces.
Quebec made its contribution FREELY and that was passed into law.
Thunderbird
wrote:
Ah yes! The enlightened Quebec where, not so long ago, a woman lost
her identity after marriage and couldn't enter into any business
transaction without getting her husband to affirm in writing, "I
hereby authorise my wife".
re Orangemen, the authoritarian hold of the Church over families,
politics and even labour unions in Quebec doesn't even bear thinking
about.
BTW, it was the Lesage government and the determination of Claire
Kirkland-Casgrain who got the law passed which gave women the same
rights as their sisters in the rest of Canada. Her father, Dr.
Kirkland, was the man the west island town is named after and the
municipality which has drawn the ire of the latest Camille Laurin
'cell' (amoeba?) of the FLQ. For the uninformed, Laurin was sort of
the PQs version of Joseph Goebbels.
It took a long time but Quebec finally got dragged , kicking and
screaming into the 20th century. God knows when it will grasp the
realities of the 21st.
Jean Naimard
> Well just to answer that. The fact that your reply with "speak white" to
> my post, shows that you are a blind racist. You do NOT know me or
> otherwise you would not make such statements. Ca me dit que t'es un
> petit con sans cerveau, qui dit n'importe quoi qui passe dans la tere..
> un tete plein de haine et ignorance...get it ?
The hate is with the english, who have been trying their dammnedest to get
rid of the french in Canada for the last quarter millenium.
The vast majority of the french people have no idea how much the english
**HATE** the french.
Jean Naimard
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:40:55 +0000 (UTC), Jean Naimard
> <jean.n...@google-VosClaques.com> wrote:
>
>>Le 01 Feb 2007, E. Barry Bruyea <noe...@scam.com> a écrit :
>>
>>>>As opposed to the people who used to force French people to speak
>>>>English?
>>>
>>>
>>> Never by legislation, only by bigotry; now they have both.
>>
>>Never by legislation?
>>
>>How about outlawing french in Manitoba?
>>
>>Closing french school in Ontario?
>>
>>
>>You orangist rednecks have very short memories!!!
>
>
> We were discussing Canada, not the individual provinces, but given
> your turn in the debate, I guess Quebec deserves the same criticism as
> does Manitoba.
Manitoba had a majority of french people, but a handful of bigoted ignorant
english merchants did not like the idea of dealing with french métis (what
disgusting people: imagine, french breeding with indians!!!), so they
managed to turn Manitoba into an english-only province.
And for the most part of a century, *ALL* the laws it made were
unconstitutional because only ratified in english.
I dare you to disprove the above. (I won’t hold my breath).