From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 13:21:57 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>But then, how do you explain the fact that Simpson's and Eaton's, two
>>companies with English names, had to change _their_ signs?
>
>How would I know? Furthermore, didn't you observe that their name also
>changed in ONTARIO? Do you think Law 101 applies in Ontario as well?
>So stop getting paranoiac and stop inventing your own little stories
>of pseudo-oppression. Maybee Eaton's wanted to get rid of it's
>"vieille grosse anglaise" image.   :-)
>
I did notice that Eaton's changed its name to Eaton.  They did this 
because (they said) they wanted to have a uniform name across the
country, and they couldn't use the old one in Quebec.  

>>Also, do you expect us to believe that the real estate company that
>>was the original topic of this discussion would be less knowledgeable
>>about the requirements of the law than you (who didn't even know that
>>putting a "Bienvenue/Welcome" sign in the window was illegal)?
>
>I didn't know it because I see bilingual and ENGLISH ONLY signs VERY
>often in Quebec. A Law doen't mean it's respected, so stop being
>totally paranoid about it.
>
I'm sure you do see bilingual signs in Quebec.  I've seen them myself
on the National.  Of course, that was during a story about a man in
Montreal who spends his free time running around the city taking
photos of these signs and reporting them to the authorities.  The
offending signs are then either removed, or the owner pays a fine
(a small fine, perhaps, but a fine nonetheless).  I also understand
that Federal buildings in Quebec are exempt from provincial laws,
and so they have bilingual signs, too.

But the point is, you said it was legal and I contradicted you.  You
can't win your argument by saying that, yes it is illegal, but lots
of people do it anyway.  Now if the government stopped proscecuting
these cases, that would be a valid point....

>Furthermore, some people on the net told me that they were not sure
>if the Bienvenue/Welcome sign was legal or not.
>
I didn't see any of them posting to the net (which is not to say 
that they didn't---I often see responses to articles that never
got here, or that show up days later).  The only thing close I
saw was Denis Beauregard mentioning the French/Chinese bilingual
signs (which I already knew about).

>>Face it, Franc,ois, you're not only not a legal expert, you are
>>woefully uninformed when it comes to the provisions of Que'bec's
>>language laws.  
>
>Sorry, but I have other things to care about than inventing reasons why
>"McEnna's Flower" and Eaton's changed name. I suspect that it was
>entirely for marketing reasons. Furthermore, from what you are saying,
>you seem to be misinformed also.

It seems unlikely to me that "McKenna's Flowers" was in court against
the Quebec government for "marketing reasons".  Eaton's versions of
events (as described above) sounds more plausible to me than what
you're saying here.  If I _am_ misinformed (and I'm willing to admit
that I may be), then someone other than you is going to have to tell
me.  There are people on the net whose judgement in this matter I
would trust more than my own (because they are closer to the
situation and have shown themselves to be reasonable people).  If
one of them tells me I'm mistaken, then I will apologize.  Until
then, I will agree to disagree, and you needn't waste any more time
inventing reasons for name changes.
>-- 
>                                                       Francois Audet
>                                                           '
...mark young
Xref: sparky can.politics:5488 can.general:3524