HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Bilingualism at universities (was Re: Bla, bla)
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:20:12 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>  Could you provide your definition of 'bilingual', please, Francois.

Une universite qui se dit bilingue doit offrir tous ces programmes en
francais ET en anglais, pas un OU l'autre (surtout quand cette
universite pretend que ces programmes sont bilingues).

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:49:20 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

Alliance Quebec produces stickers with "F/E"
written on them, and gives them to shopkeepers,
suggesting that they post them to indicate that
they offer service in both French and English.
These signs are legal.

Re-Action Quebec, in the Eastern Townships,
has printed signs reading "Bienvenue/Welcome"
that have been posted by many shopkeepers
outside Montreal.  These signs are illegal.

I argue that the second are better than the first.

1) Clarity

The meaning of "F/E" is not obvious.  An unscientific
survey by the Gazette showed that the F/E symbol was
seldom understood.

In contrast, "Bienvenue/Welcome" is self-evident.

2) Warmth

Whereas "F/E", once understood, is cold and political,
"Bienvenue/Welcome" is warm and personal.  This
is more advantageous for shopkeepers, who want to
attract customers, and for rights activists, who
have something warm and cuddly to defend.

3) Effectiveness

Law 178 hides English Quebec from view in order to
make English Quebecers feel uncomfortable on their own
streets.  The purpose of the signs is to counteract
Law 178.

First, contravening it with the word "welcome"
invites the language police to make fools of themselves
by applying the law.  This is better than slipping
away from the law by using an acronym.

Second, what could be more directly defiant of a law
against comfort, than the word "Welcome!" emblazened in
large letters?


Clearly, the "Bienvenue/Welcome" signs are better than
the "F/E" signs.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen and de Gaulle (was Re: Monument to de Gaulle)
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:06:53 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <29JUL92.10249965.0077@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000) writes:
>This is one of the problems with monarchy.  People tend to confuse
>the institution and the person.  You mean to say "God rid us
>of the stupid monarchy," and I'd agree with you.  But many
>people will tend to see your words as a personal attack on the Queen,
>and get upset.

I think "Queen" refers to monarchy itself in this case. If he had
wanted to do an attack on the person itself, he would have used her
REAL name instead. 

BTW: What's her real name? Is Elisabeth just a "nom d'artiste" like
for the Pope?


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy)
Subject: Re: Monument to de Gaulle
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:53:04 GMT

sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:

>>>>>> On 23 Jul 92 19:38:04 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) said:
>  > X-Bytes: 677

>  > From article <1992Jul23.160526.1822@pandora.matrox.com>,
>  > by thood@corvus.matrox.com
>  >  Thomas Hood writes:-

>  > > Recently, a monument to Charles de Gaulle was unveiled in
>  > > Montreal with some fanfare.
>  > > 
>  > > ...
>  > >

>  >   I wonder how many people with a bad taste in their mouth (excuse
>  >   the metamorphosed metaphor) are looking for a city disposal site
>  >   for old cans of paint. :-)

>Well, if you are looking for a city disposal, there's a
>piece of land in Ottawa where they have already placed some
>junk: a two legged thing mounted on a horse.

>I know that this is the first place I'll go. It will
>probably be very soon, because I have a really bad taste in
>my mouth.

>--
>  ,                          ,                           ,
>Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
>sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
>sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078

Shouldn't the real question be if :
If Brian Mulroney went to Paris and shouted "Vive le Basque libre" during a
speech would the government of France allow a monument to be dedicated to his
memory?

Charles Jobagy		|	My Canada does not include police states
charles@cs.ualberta.ca
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: QC SECESSION
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:37:09 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Jul24.183230.6216@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <q9PDoB2w165w@aficom.ocunix.on.ca> franc@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (francoise webster) writes:
>>QUITE SIMPLY, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!
>
>Quebec has to write Canada a cheque for around $100 billion dollars
>(plus or minus a few billion depending on the formula) before it can
>separate...it will have to raise this money internationally in a
>new Quebec currency...this should be a sufficient deterent to
>separation.  Canada's (and Quebec's) huge debt basically make
>separation a fiscally dubious proposition...
>
>Even if the debt repayment were rescheduled over several years...
>it would represent a huge fiscal burden to Quebec and Canada.
>
>Until Canada and Quebec clean up their balance sheets, separation
>is basically suicidal for both sides.
>
>Gerald

Indeed.  Canada will have to give Quebec some billion (don't know how much)
in real estate, Crown companies, etc.  Counting how much it will cost
in both money and trouble and considering Quebec still wants to leave,
then you will see how profound is the ill, how bad Quebec is feeling.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome" etc.
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:30:26 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1477

From article <12355@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
 Francois Audet asks :-

> Is this true? A sign saying Bienvenue/Welcome is illegal? If it is, it
> is ridiculous (et honteux). Furhtermore, it is also stupid since it
> makes the language laws look bad (even the good parts of the law).


  Yes, it is true.

  "Bienvenue/Welcome" is an illegal sign in Quebec.

  As are:-

  "Bonjour/Good Day",  "Reculez!/Wrong Way!",  "Merci/Thank You"

  and:-

  "Attendez le feu vert clignotant/Wait for the flashing green light",

  or:-

  "Priorite de virage a clignotement du feu vert/Right of way when
   green light flashes"


  A unilingual anglophone doesn't know whether he's supposed to wait
  or go when he sees a flashing green light. Usually, I suppose, he
  just says to himself "the hell with it" and goes cautiously on a
  flashing green light anyway - and that's probably about as dangerous,
  driving in Quebec, as doing anything else ! :-)))))

  Actually, he might just wait until somebody honks him from behind !! :-)))


  Sorry, Francois, I just couldn't resist.

  The law is, as you said, ridiculous - from both our points of view!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Queen and de Gaulle (was Re: Monument to de Gaulle)
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:35:08 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <SBO.92Jul27175236@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
   Material deleted -- compares Charles de Gaulle's "Vive le
Quebec libre" speech of 1967 to the Queen's visit to Canada this year.

>Alors, si les paroles de De Gaulle etaient injustifiees,
>alors l'intervention de la reine l'etait tout autant.
>
>Look at it this way. I have absolutely no respect for her
>and have no intention of showing any respect for her,
>and I am still part of the commonwealth.
>
>God, ride us of the stupid Queen!!!
>(No offense intended Dave.)
>--
I don't like the system of monarchy on principle, so I'd like to
see the monarchy abolished in Canada.  I'm not sure exactly
what we should replace it with.

That said, I don't think a comparison between the speeches of
de Gaulle and the Queen is apt.  De Gaulle was here as a foreign
head of state.  His comments on the internal affairs of his hosts
were inappropriate, to say the least.  Furthermore, he was free to
say whatever he wanted, so he was responsible for his words.

The Queen cannot say whatever she wants.  For the most part, she
reads speeches written for her by government officials.  If she came
to Canada and read speeches written by the British government in
favor of either Canadian unity or Quebec independence, that too
would be unacceptable foreign interference in our internal affairs.
But her speeches in Canada are written by the _Canadian_ government.
They're just a reflection of that government's policies.

If the Levesque government had invited the Queen to read the Speech
from the Throne at the opening of the Quebec National Assembly,
they could have got her to make a speech in favor of Quebec
independence.

When you refer to the "Stupid Queen", are you referring to the
institution or the person?  If it's the former, I'll agree with
you.  If it's the latter, I'd ask what's your source of information
on her IQ.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Fautes de francais (was Re: Monument to de Gaulle)
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:33:37 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <BrwCs5.MxJ@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.210907.25640@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>>
>>  Mr. Bouchard should take note:-
>>
>>  less - with or without Mr. Bouchard's approval.
>>
>
>BOUCHER et BOUCHARD sont deux noms de famille differents.  Meme s'il y a
>plus possiblement plus de BOUCHARD que de BOUCHER, il n'y a pas de raison
>de les meler.  A moins de vivre resolument en anglais sans attacher
>d'importance a ces faits folkhloriques que sont les noms des francophones.
>
Si je te comprends bien, Denis, quand Steve fait une faute de francais,
c'est parce qu'il est un mechant colonisateur britannique qui
meprise le fait francais au Quebec.  Mais quand toi, tu fais une
faute d'anglais, c'est parce que Steve et moi et la reine et le
general Wolfe, on t'opprime.  Dans un Quebec independant, tu
pourras t'epanouir intellecutalement, et tu ne feras plus de
faute d'anglais.  C'est a peu pres ca, ta position?

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:05:07 GMT

In article <12355@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>Is this true? A sign saying Bienvenue/Welcome is illegal? If it is, it
>is ridiculous (et honteux). Furhtermore, it is also stupid since it
>makes the language laws look bad (even the good parts of the law).

Is the word "Welcome" part of the French language?  No, it isn't.

What did bill 178 say about signage?  It said that English was not
permitted on external signs.

Therefore, a sign containing the word "welcome" is illegal if it is on
the outside of a building.

Yes, it's pretty ridiculous.  And it makes the language laws look bad,
and makes those that make the laws look intolerant.

Unfortunately it is merely a symptom of the attitudes in place.  In
order to "protect" the French language, as people in Quebec seem to
want, the government must take draconian measures.

In short, IF there's going to be a language law, it WILL have
ridiculous effects like this.

-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<BrwHuF.ox@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:38:57 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BrwHuF.ox@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

   In article <12355@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
   >In article thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
   >-Re-Action Quebec, in the Eastern Townships,
   >-has printed signs reading "Bienvenue/Welcome"
   >-that have been posted by many shopkeepers
   >-outside Montreal.  These signs are illegal.
   >
   >Is this true? A sign saying Bienvenue/Welcome is illegal? If it is, it
   >                                                       Francois Audet
   >                                                           '
   >                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM

   Je suis passe dans le quartier chinois de Montreal hier.  Il y avait plein
   d'affiches bilingues chinois-francais, ceci au neon et tres propre
   (c'est-a-dire tres recent).  Donc, il y a d'un cote la loi, et de l'autre
   son application.  C'est comme la limite de vitesse : 100 km/h alors que
   tout le monde roule a 110 ou 115.  Il y a toujours une zone de tolerance.
   Dans le quartier chinois (et ailleurs), le cote culturel facilite un tel
   affichage culturel.  Mais, c'est quand un tel affichage est fait uniquement
   dans le but de denigrer les francophones qui veulent se donner un pays,
   dans le but d'etre arrogant, c'est inacceptable.  C'est jouer avec les
   sentiments tout en rejetant le nationalisme quebecois en disant qu'il
   est aussi base sur des sentiments.

J'avais entendu deux raisons pour laquelles on peut avoir des
affichages chinois-francais en Quebec.

	1) L'OLF a decide que les caracteres chinois sont des
	  "dessins", et donc legaux,

	2) Le quartier chinois est une quartier touristique, et donc
	   exclus de qq provisions d'affichage de la Chartre Francaise.
--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Monument to de Gaulle
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:04:22 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Charles Jobagy) writes:
>Shouldn't the real question be if :
]If Brian Mulroney went to Paris and shouted "Vive le Basque libre" during a
]speech would the government of France allow a monument to be dedicated to his
]memory?

No, but a municipality of the Pays Basque might do so.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland)
Subject: Re: The 51st State
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:45:49 GMT

jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
> 	Remember that even if the majority of Canadians *wanted* to
> join the USA , the USA would have to want us to join. 

This is a point that is often ignored.  During the last Quebec referendum,
some (significant) branch of the American government did a study to determine
which, if any, parts of Canada the U.S. should consider absorbing.  The
conclusion was that only B.C. was worth accepting into the fold.  Aside from
the extensive assets of B.C., I would guess that the study also considered
the merits of joining Alaska to the rest of the continental U.S..

A further point is that the Republicans, no matter what level of power they
have, will work to block any attempts to absorb significant portions of
Canada.  This is because such absorption would greatly increase the number 
of Democrats they have to contend with.

Ken Buckland
kenb@ee.ubc.ca
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:07:03 GMT
	    <1992Jul29.092653.18832@spxtech.qc.ca>
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) se pose la question:
>
>  I wonder if signs in Olde English Scripte would therefore be acceptable
>  in Montreal's West Island? :-)

A quoi je reponds :

	Le meilleur moyen de le savoir, c'est d'essayer.

	:-}}}


--
Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP
(514) 671-8820				   OU :	michele%catnix@cam.org

"L'orage brise les arbres et fait ployer l'herbe; mais faut-il dire
pour cela que l'herbe a trahi les arbres?" (A. Soljenitsine)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: Olympic Musing
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:40:40 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1509

From article <Bs217F.6Fy@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 Denis Beauregard protests:-

> As for Olympic spirit, I am very disappointed to see (again, sigh)
> the federal government using the event to promote politics.\
> The advertisement is showing all those Olympic athletes and says
> how great Canada is.  This is crap and abusing the olympic spirit.
> Without Canada, Quebec athletes would say they are representing
> Quebec, that's all.  Olympic spirit is supposedly related to the
> athlete and the individual (or participating team), not to countries
> or political bodies.
>

  Quebec isn't a country.

  Athletes from Quebec, Ontario, B.C., etcetera are all representing
  Canada.

  For my part, I wish them the best of luck and hope they are all proud
  to represent Canada - whatever province they come from.

  You are seing things through smoked glasses again, Denis.


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: Olympic Musing
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:51:02 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Jul27.221330.7439@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>
>  As I said, "smoked glasses"!
>
>  Anything promoting a good feeling for Canada is propoganda as far
>  as people like Denis are concerned.
>
>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||

Anything that would not have been used during Expo 67 (100th year of Canada)
and that would be today is propaganda.  In 1967, the war has not yet begin.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: God Save your Queen
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:46:47 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Thomas Hood) writes:
>If Quebecers hope to remain within the Commonwealth after
>separation, then it will be prudent for them to show
>respect for Her Majesty.

A statement like this puzzles me. How can anyone be so ignorant about
life outside your little british sphere? The Quebecois, the natives
and the non-british-descendent canadians all couldn't care less about
the Queen of England (and don't give me that Queen of Canada stuff: it
doesn't work). Furthermore, the "Queen" is for a lot of people the
"desuet" symbol of a PAST british imperialism over the a large part of
the world. Also, from what I can read on this newsgroup, a lot of
"british-canadian pure-wool :-)" have outgrown their need for a Queen.
For me, it remain a symbol past domination of one part of Canada over
the other.

And why show respect? I'd respect her more if she didn't pretend to be
the Queen of my country.

             "God Save the Queen, she ain't no human being!"
		(c) Johny Rotten (who is british)
				

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: jlarouch@sobeco.com (Jacques Larouche)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: French Questions
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:42:26 GMT
Organization: Sobeco Ernst & Young

In <BrnuID.1tr@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>Biologiquement, il n'y a aucune difference entre deux personnes
>d'ethnies (peu importe le sens exact) differentes.  Il y a une
>proportion differente selon le groupe sanguin, la taille ou d;autres
>caracteristiques, mais autrement, tous les morceaux y sont ;-)

Sauf peut-etre dans le cas ou un dermatologue doit traiter des patients de
race noire. Paraitrait que c'est pas pas toujours evident...