HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: can
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:58:10 GMT

rstory@eci386.uucp (Robert Story) writes:
>In article <skenny.712274436@femto.engr.mun.ca> skenny@femto.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny) writes:
>|dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>|
>|>In article <12388@audetf>, audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>|>|> And why show respect? I'd respect her more if she didn't pretend to be
>|>|> the Queen of my country.
>|
>|>Common courtesy.  Respect for human life.  Or maybe just enough intelligence
>|>to realize that she leads the Commonwealth and that if you insult her you
>|>insult the Commonwealth, and people generally don't associate with those
>|>who insult them.  I can understand wanting you're own country, but to go
>|>around insulting everyone that your economic life depends on is just plain
>|>stupid.
>|
>|Well my own personal opinion of the Queen/Monarchy is that it is a bunch
>|of BS. The only connection to me with Canada is a part of history and
>|that's where it should belong. This is not insulting the Commonwealth
>|nor the Monarchy nor Monarchists. On this note, when I saw clips of the
>|Canada Day celebrations where new Canadians swearing allegiance to the
>|Queen (in Winnipeg I believe), I nearly gagged... what a croc.
>
>Ever seen Americans, with hand over heart, pledging allegiance
>to their flag? Now THAT's a croc!  I'd rather swear allegiance
>to some ONE than some THING, thank you!

I disagree. The US flag embodies a set of ideals. The US may not always
live up to those ideals, but that is not the fault of the flag. On the
other hand, the monarch is merely a person and thus is subject to all the
imperfections/vices/failings/whatever normally associated with being a
person.  Given the choice between pledging allegiance to a set of ideals or
pledging allegiance to a fallible human being, I would choose the former.

The fact that the only reason that I would be pledging allegiance to a
particular monarch is because that person had the luck to be born to the
"correct" parents makes me even more adamant in my choice. If I must pledge
allegiance to a person, at the least have that person formally earn his/her
position rather than being born into it. I find it extremely odd that it
is illegal for a company to deny a job to a person based on that person's
genealogy, yet the important position of head of state is exclusively
determined by this dubious attribute.

BTW, is it true that the King or Queen of England is prohibited from
marrying a Roman Catholic? As a person who does not believe in
discrimination on the basis of religion (not to mention being an extremely
lapsed RC) I find such intolerance unacceptable for the head of state of
Canada (assuming this prohibition does in fact exist).
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:36:53 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Don Clayton) writes:
]Common courtesy.  Respect for human life.  Or maybe just enough intelligence
]to realize that she leads the Commonwealth and that if you insult her you
]insult the Commonwealth, and people generally don't associate with those
]who insult them.  I can understand wanting you're own country, but to go
]around insulting everyone that your economic life depends on is just plain
]stupid.

Wake up: she doesn't "lead the Commonwealth". She is purely decorative
(an expensive decoration). Furthermore, I'm sure that the people of
the Commonwealth who do show some sort of "affection" for her are of
british descent, AND are very traditional.

Second: If I choose to insult her (and I don't think I did), I'm not
insulting anyone but her.

Third: By pretending to be Sovereing of people who don't care about
her, she is insulting them.

]BTW, if you want to talk about the past you may recall that it was the Monarchy
]of England that gave the people of Quebec their freedom after they lost the
]war.  You have the language rights and the claim to self government because
]a former Queen gave them to you.  They could have expelled all of the French
]from their soil if they wanted to.  They showed some respect for you, can't you
]show some respect for them?

They tried to expell them in Acadia with considerable success but
failed when they realized that there were more french-canadians than
english-canadians in "British" North America, and that the
french-canadians could easily (in a case were force was used) look at
the americans for help.

PS: We had language rights and everything before the british came
along. The Monarch didn't "give" anything.

]Considering that you show almost no respect for anyone on Internet I'm not
]surprised that you would show no respect for the Queen.

I think there is a missing :-) here. I hope that you are not
serious...

How can you argue with someone who says that I should respect some
foreign monarch because the monarch suppositively could have had my
ancestors expelled from their country?
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Richard Holden & compulsory bi-elections
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:26:10 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
>
>Yes, they were elected but not for the Bloc-Quebecois.  If you had voted
>Conservative because you believed in Federalism wouldn't you be pissed off
>if your Conservative MP suddenly switched to the Bloc Quebecois?

Well, if you had voted for the conservatives because you tought that
they would better represent Quebec than the liberal, and that
suddently, their chief told its MPs to shut up and don't have an
opinion, you would also be upset. The MPs who "switched" decided that
their fidelity was for the people who voted for them, not a political
party.

(Note that this does not apply to Gilles Rocheleau, but he's a Liberal)
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Xref: sparky can.politics:5277 can.general:3352
From: baby@info.polymtl.ca (Philippe Grant)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.followup,can.general
Subject: Re: Bof?
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:47:37 GMT
	<Brnsqn.1Iq@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada

In article <Brnsqn.1Iq@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

   continue to shot, first camp will continue too; if they stop and
   the first camp prefer the peace (and Quebecois are peaceful, see the
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   proportion of Quebecois who voted against conscription), then the conflict
   will stop alone.  If both camps keep firing, the war will last.
   (end of comparison).  In the actual case, there is no war nor ennemies,
   just two groups with (somewhat) opposite targets.

   -- 
     \_\    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 !

Please don't make gratuitous generalizations.  The fact that Quebecois
voted in majority against conscription doesn't mean they were peaceful.
Does the FLQ ring a bell with you out there?  Maybe most Quebecois just
didn't want to put their butts on the line for "des etrangers".  Let's just
hope we're ever in need of military assistance some day (as unlikely as it
may seem).  Not standing up for what's right is as bad as doing something
really wrong, if not worse.  This is why the media is opposed to
infringements on freedom of expression.

Just my 0.02c CAN. (0.016 US) worth.
--
Philippe Grant                     |
Etudiant, Genie Informatique       | If it ain't broke,
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal    | DON'T FIX IT!!!
baby@info.polymtl.ca               | Including this signature!
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.followup
Subject: Re: Bill 178
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:14:57 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 92 22:14:40 +0500, fveillet@veietto.uucp (Francois Veillette) said:

  > Bill 178, the five years are almost over anyway.  You should
  > care about the next step.  If Quebec separates from Canada,
  > we (Quebec) will have all the power over the language and
  > I think that we will give the place they deserve to the Anglophones.
  > If we stay with Canada, Quebec will continue to be defensive
  > about the growing Anglophone community.

Richard Holden, ex-membre du equality party, faisait
recemment un commentaire dans ce sens.

--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy)
Subject: Re: PQ SEPERATION
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:13:09 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>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...

Why would Quebec want the Anglophone debt?

>Even if the debt repayment were rescheduled over several years...
>it would represent a huge fiscal burden to Quebec and Canada.

I suggest that after 20 years of forced bilingualism at the federal level
that Quebec is in a position to cut itself a real sweetheart deal if necessary. 

>Until Canada and Quebec clean up their balance sheets, separation
>is basically suicidal for both sides.

>Gerald

Seems to me that the Quebec Sovereignists are determined to either rule 
Canada or bleed the country white to pay for their Quebec. 

Charles Jobagy		|	My Canada does not include police states
charles@cs.ualberta.ca
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Biliguism
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:29:01 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>Why? Are you denying the french history of Quebec?
>
>The english community of Quebec exist because of the conquest of
>then-Canada by the British.

  Don't you see a contradition here?  The arrival of the French is
  "history" but the arrival of the English is not history?  You
  arbitrarity place the French on a superior footing.

>That obviously cannot be changed. What can
>be changed is the future, so that's why the law attempts to minimize
>the deterioration of the francophone Quebec to the benefit of the
>anglophone Quebec.

"Minimize the deterioration" is a euphemism for "enforce the supremacy".
Is the choice of words just a matter of taste?  No, because it is
the English community which is IN FACT being decimated, and French has
IN FACT never been more widely spoken in Quebec than it is today, thanks
to Law 101. Much of that law is recognized by English Quebecers to be
good, and those parts are accepted.  Not its ban on English signs.  Not
its strangling of the English school system.

>Why isn't it the same? To me, at least the law is clear, while
>claiming rights to schooling in the language of choice but failing to
>provide it is simply hypocritical.

Excuse me, but how is it possible for an English Quebecer to provide
schooling to a Francophone-hors-Quebec?  They would if they could,
because they understand the importance of the principle of minority
language rights.

>It keeping the eyes close not to see
>the injustice being done. Both achieves the same result, except that
>in Quebec, the anglo-quebecois are protected (unlike the
>franco-not-quebecois).

At this point, I should recognize that Quebec has indeed done some
things, voluntarily, to guarantee English-language services.  Bill 160 (?)
was passed; driver's licenses and income tax forms are provided in
English, and so on.  The anglophones should be grateful for this.
But "protected" they are not, cf: Law 178.

>No. I'm objecting to Quebec supporting a NEW english community. It is
>unthinkable to deny the existence of an english community in Montreal,
>even if its existence is associated with an invasion of a country.

I hope never to hear Francois accuse the English of arrogance.  I will
not say: "It is unthinkable to deny the existence of the francophone
majority, even if it is associated with politically-motivated
enslavement of women as baby factories."

>Can't blame the descendants of course. There is no reason whatsoever
>why Quebec should accept to support new arrivants to integrate an
>english community rather than a french one. No other country does
>anything like that (including the rest of Canada). Why would we? 

Obviously, since decency does not enter into your considerations,
the answer must be framed in terms of reward and punishment.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: quebec income tax
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:40:41 EST
Reply-To: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

DB>I'll give you this one.  Quebec did receive subsides from Federal in
DB>first years of Dominion.  But Federal take the money from Quebec individues.

The federal government takes money from Quebec individuals, and Ontario
individuals, and B.C. individuals, and individuals all over Canada.
Federal taxation has *nothing* to do with one's province of residence.

DB>THere would be a lot to say about the decreasing % of subsides from Ottawa
DB>to provinces which went along with a Ottawa taking province power.
DB>But, my time is limited...

DB>--
DB>  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
DB> /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
DB>J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665
DB>\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non
DB>---
DB> * PCB/UseNet Gateway from Sparkware #1

- Stephanie.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  This tagline stolen by Silly Little Mail Reader!
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: panisset@lightning (Jean-Francois Panisset)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:08:52 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines

In article <1992Jul29.172700.19146@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>I suggest you talk to someone from Croatia, or Palastine, or Mongolia, or...
>about the rights of the conqueror.  Very few countries are granted self governing
>rights by the conqueror.  This shows respect.  I see no reason why the receiving
>individuals can not at least do that in return.
>
>This is a major point that bugs a lot of non-Quebecers.  We try to accomodate
>by acknowledging your distinct society and you threaten seperation and show _NO_ 
>respect for our institutions.
>
>No wonder we have no constitutional deal!  With this type of attitude we will 
>never have one and might as well build the fences now.  I can only hope that
>the majority of Quebecers are not this assinine.

I hate to point this out, but (at least until this week) Quebec has not been
part of the constitutional wrangling which has been going on between the
9 other provinces and the federal government. Look at how long it took
to come to *any* form of agreement, and look at the sheer impossibility
of the agreement which they arrived to. You can't claim that this is
the fault of Quebec any longer, since said agreement completely ignores
Quebec in the first place. Although it may once have been true that
Quebec as the "troublemaker" in Canada, I believe you no longer need
us for that...

JF

-- 
Jean-Francois Panisset                    
INET: panisset@mcrcim.mcgill.ca            
      panisset@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
UUCP: ...!mcgill-vision!panisset
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:56:38 GMT
Organization: McGill University

A previous version of this posting got truncated somehow, so I'm
reposting it.

In article <12373@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) wr ites:
>
>Maybee you should tell your agents that it's legal to have companies
>with english names.
>
In Quebec it's not legal.  Charte de la langue francaise (Bill 101):

Article 63:  Les raisons sociales doivent etre en langue francaise.

Article 69:  Sous reserve de l'article 68, seule la raison sociale
en langue francaise peut etre utilisee au Quebec.

(Article 68 essentially says that both the French name and a translation
can be used on labels of products sold both inside and outside Quebec.)

Francois, you were surprised to learn that "Bienvenue/Welcome" signs
are illegal.  You don't know the law on corporate names.  You've
never taken the time to read the French Language Charter, have you?
And yet I'll bet you believe it's a great law.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Senate reform
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 05:37:03 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

fveillet@veietto.uucp (Francois Veillette) writes:

> I'd like to know what is the Big Deal about the Senate reform?
>
> Why is Alberta pushing so much for an equal Senate?

 Ca c'est facile.  On  veut une chambre qui aurait le pouvoir de limiter les
povoirs abusive des Chambre du Commons.  Souvenez-vous de TPS, NEP,
Libre-echange, etc..
>
> For me, the Senate should be abolish.
> If it sould stay and be elected, the senaters must be distributed
> by population ratio.  I'm mad at the idea that P.E.I. could have
> 1 elected senater for 100 000 people (8 senaters for 800 000 electors)
> and Quebec or Ontario 1 elected senater for 1 000 000 people!!!
>
>       confusingly yours,

 Quoi etes vous? NPD?  Voudriez-vous les abus du CC d'etre absolu?
Ici, nous prennons l'idee Australienne du Senat.  Alors, ca donne une voix
forte aux provinces, Senat EEE.


Dave Shariff Yadallee
yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All!
yankee: (n) a person with long, yankable hair
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:48:57 GMT

In article <12412@audetf>, audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
|> Third: By pretending to be Sovereing of people who don't care about
|> her, she is insulting them.

-You- don't care about her.  That is your opinion, and judging from her last trip
here, and the crowds that came to see her, you are in the minority.

|> ]BTW, if you want to talk about the past you may recall that it was the Monarchy
|> ]of England that gave the people of Quebec their freedom after they lost the
|> ]war.  You have the language rights and the claim to self government because
|> ]a former Queen gave them to you.  They could have expelled all of the French
|> ]from their soil if they wanted to.  They showed some respect for you, can't you
|> ]show some respect for them?
|> 
|> They tried to expell them in Acadia with considerable success but
|> failed when they realized that there were more french-canadians than
|> english-canadians in "British" North America, and that the
|> french-canadians could easily (in a case were force was used) look at
|> the americans for help.
|> 
|> PS: We had language rights and everything before the british came
|> along. The Monarch didn't "give" anything.

The French lost the war.  All of Quebec was signed to over to Britian, not
some of it, all of it.  France unconditionaly surrendered.  Yes, they tried
to expell them, which was a scummy thing to do, but they also afterwards,
granted self governing rights to Quebec.  You have the freedom to choose
because of the British Monarchy, and are not a subjegated people because
of it (Quebec culture would be dead by now if that was the case).  If you
don't like the idea, that is your problem.

|> ]Considering that you show almost no respect for anyone on Internet I'm not
|> ]surprised that you would show no respect for the Queen.
|> 
|> I think there is a missing :-) here. I hope that you are not
|> serious...
|> 
|> How can you argue with someone who says that I should respect some
|> foreign monarch because the monarch suppositively could have had my
|> ancestors expelled from their country?

She is not some foriegn monarch, she is the Queen of Canada.  That is what
she is now.  We can't pass laws without her signing (or the govenor general).
If you want to change that, fine, but that's not the way it is now.  Quebec is
part of Canada, RIGHT NOW.  Change it, fine, but respect it for what it is
now.  I respect your culture and your right to create your own country (though I 
think it's a bad idea), at least you can do is respect mine.  I am fully aware,
however, that you will not, as I have yet to see you show respect to anyone on
Internet.

BTW, my grandparents are from Germany.

Don
My brain, my thoughts, my words.
"Pick up the receiver, I'll make you a believer." - Depeche Mode
From: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: french questions
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:06:17 EST
Reply-To: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

CZ>In article <BrLnFE.D29#ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Be
CZ>gard) writes:
CZ>>In Quebec all hospitals are "white" (except a few Jewish hospitals in
CZ>>Montreal), so I hardly understand this one.
CZ>>>
CZ>   Denis, this is a truly frightening posting.  Are you seriously
CZ>suggesting that most Jews in Montreal are anything other than "white"?

Actually, Tom, there's a very large Sephardic community (Spanish/North
African Jews), and a small Falashan community (black Ethiopian Jews).
The hospitals are probably founded by Ashkenazim, though (Eastern
European/German Jews).  Welcome to a wonderfully diverse world!

- Stephanie.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  "Eat any good books lately?" - Q
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:36:27 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
]My favourite work-around was from the RE/MAX agent in the townships
]which registered the (gibberish) French company name of
]
]Re'al Est Ate
]
]which is now in large type on all its signs. Perfectly legal.

Maybee you should tell your agents that it's legal to have companies
with english names.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM