🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <609@watdragon.UUCP> chmorris@watdragon.UUCP (Corinne Morris)
passes on an article about two Breton fellows who apparently are in jail for
some sort of protest against France's anti-Breton linguistic policies.  But
the article doesn't give enough information about the situation for us to be
able to guess intelligently whether the men deserved jail or not.

Miss Morris writes:
>The following is extracted from a letter to the editor in the Welsh-American
>paper "Y Drych":
>	"The Celtic League would like to draw international attention to the
>case of several Bretons who have been sentenced or are to be tried for their
>part in the campaign of the cultural association Stourm ar Brezhoneg to win
>official status for the Breton language.
>	"Similar non-violent campaigns [...]

>	"We in the Celtic League appeal to your readers, as we believe that you
>are concerned about the future of the Breton language and that no language can
>survive nowadays unless it is given official status, to help in getting the
>sentences imposed on Herve Le Bihan and Yves Cadoret (using the forms of their
>names under which they were tried) quashed and the prosecutions against the
>other S. ar B. members stopped.
>	"You can do so - by writing in their behalf [...]

>	- the sentences imposed are based on an unjust state of affairs and 
>	  should be quashed.

>	I would welcome discussion if anyone thinks Stourm ar Brezhoneg is
>acting unreasonably.

The article doesn't tell us what the "non-violent campaign" consisted of or
what the men were charged with.  Yet we're asked to write letters opposing
the government's action?

What did they do?  Chop down traffic signs?  Block traffic?  Write letters?
Scream Breton obscenities?  Simply attend meetings?  We don't know and we
aren't told.  So how can we know whether the French government was acting
reasonably or not?  

I must say I'm inclined to think that the vagueness of the article on these
points strikes me as a bad sign.

        RANGERS 4   CELTIC 4
     Fraser (2),       Johnston,
     McCoist,         McClair,
     Fleck            Burns,
                      McCleod
 

In a tense, closely-fought battle, the greatest club match on earth finished
with honours even. Celtic opened the scoring against the run of play, when 
Johnston turned in a McCleod mis-hit. Some fine lead-up play from Paul McStay 
brought the second
Celtic goal, courtesy of McClair, and Celtic seemed to be coasting to an easy
win over their deadly rivals. But then tragedy struck as Willie McStay, who had
been booked for an earlier offence, scythed down gangling Rangers winger, Ted 
McMinn, who had looked dangerous in the earlier exchanges. Referee Davie Syme
had no option but to send off the Celtic right-back. Rangers capitalised 
immediately with a fine headed goal by Fraser from a McCoist cross. The score
remained at 1-2 till half-time.
      The start of the second half saw changes by both sides, Rangers bringing
on international star, Davie Cooper for the injured McMinn, while Celtic took
off young Owen Archdeacon in an attempt to rearrange their disheveled defence,
Peter Grant coming on at right back. This quickly paid off, as Tommy Burns ran 
on to a Mo Johnston through-ball to slip the ball past the advancing Nicky
Walker. Rangers fought back, however, and this eventually paid off, as Ally
McCoist scored a fine solo goal from the edge of the box. Rangers then equalised
with a Fleck shot being deflected into the net, and took the lead shortly 
afterwards when the Celtic defence struggled to clear a Cooper corner. McKinnon
headed goalwards and Cammy Fraser was on the goalline to nod in his second goal
of the afternoon. But the action still wasn't over, and Murdo McCleod, brought
on for the tiring Paul McStay, proved his worth with a thirty yard drive which
rocketed past the despairing Nicky Walker. 4-4 then, and the most exciting Old
Firm match for many a year was marked at the end by both teams getting a
standing ovation from both sets of supporters.  

In article <566@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes:
>The article doesn't tell us what the "non-violent campaign" consisted of or
>what the men were charged with.  Yet we're asked to write letters opposing
>the government's action?
The article, as I quoted, states that the men had "systematically daubed"
road signs with Frenchified place-names.  The term "daubed" means to obscure
with a tarry substance in this case (see the Winter edition of 'Carn').  This
is what they were convicted of, and what the campaign consisted of.  The
signs involved were highway signs indicating how to find various places and
thus the daubing does not constitute the serious danger to the public which
daubing other road signs would.