HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Challenge
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:07:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.194329.20446@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>The agreement does not say that individual rights are not a
>fundamental characterisic of Canada.  It just fails to say they
>are.
>

In constitution making, the omissions are as important as the
inclusions.  The Charter was included for months until the final
days at Charlottetown...and then it was taken out.  Compare the
Canada Clause which came out of the Toronto Peoples Conference
to the one that came out of Charlottetown...it went from being
inclusive, to being exclusive...and changes the entire context
of the Charter within the constitution from being a primary
to subsidiary feature of the document.

>No matter.  They are still guaranteed;  the Charter still applies,
>but differently.  It now takes into account rights of collectivities
>that some people care about.
>

The Charter still applies, but is much weakened...

>
>>Get used to hearing of Cascadia...leaving BC underrepresented in
>>the Commons is a terrible idea...this deal won't solve the 
>>Quebec "problem", and will create the BC "problem". 
>
>B.C. will not necessarily be more underrepresented than other
>English-speaking provinces, and I am not interested in yet
>another childish separation project.
>

You've been warned.  Let's hope you don't have to hear the "I told
you so's" in thirty years.

>
>>>New governments?  The current governments could hardly have governed
>>>aboriginal peoples more poorly, and self-government is worth a try.
>>
>>Been tried in South Africa...call the homelands policy and apartheid.
>
>Apartheid was imposed by whites.  Aboriginal self-government is
>demanded by natives.  The moral foundations are poles apart.

The philosophical basis is the same.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:10:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.024233.14841@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>
>  "Why the word 'class' and the careful manipulation of the argument away
>   from the joy of including dissatisfied elements of Canadian society (back)
>   into the fabric of the nation, to the highly inflammatory knee-jerk 
>   catchwords of a discreditted ideological struggle ... why, and 
>   particularly why now?"
>

With the crumbling of the Soviet Union, the world has returned to
History, to the conflict of the great ideas of the Enlightenment,
(individual liberty, tolerance, and democracy) 
vs. tribalism (and/or nationalism).

Marxism, suspended the great debate for a century or so, until both
the Western Enlightenment and tribalism prevailed over Marxism, and
now turn to do battle with each other again.  This is complicated of
course by the shrinking of the world, and the arrival of the global
village.  Separate development or peaceful coexistence and competition
via cold war of competition as occurred in the ideological war with
Marxism is no longer possible...this will be an ideological civil war.

It is not clear, at least to me, whether compromise or peaceful
coexistence is possible...

...ultimately it comes down to the simple fact that liberty,
tolerance, and democracy are not compatible with tribalism.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why I like the Charlottetown Accord
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:10:53 GMT

In article <BvMDE0.9Fo@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>: 
>: The federal government is not likely to raise taxes to provide the 
>: necessary funds for a equivalent level of training in poor provinces,
>: and their is no commitment to labour mobility or to portable of
>: qualifications or training.  If you live in a poor province you 
>: are being royally screwed by Charlottetown...
>
>The constitution under Charlottetown commits the federal government to
>equivalent training and economic oportunities for all provinces. This
>is justiciable.
>

Where in Section 28 or Section 5 of the Charlottetown Accord (or
anywhere for that matter) do you come up with that?

Gerald
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:30:14 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1001

From article <1992Sep28.213441.16557@ee.ubc.ca>, by jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison):
>
> ...
>
> The whole process looks exactly like Meech, only with TV cameras allowed,
> and some token consultation of the public.
> 

The "token consultation" included the Belanger-Campeau Committee, the Spicer
Commission, the Beaudoin-Edwards Commission, and numerous polls.

Much of it seemed to me, IMHO :-), to be staged. There was very tight
control over who was permitted to present what, when, to whom.

The testimonies, submissions, reports and analyses are now gathering dust
where the sun doesn't shine in the H. of C. :-)

An expensive sham, perhaps, but hardly a "token consultation", sir.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Where's the $ (?!)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:36:32 GMT

In article <13093@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>In article <BvCtGD.7G0@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>>
>>Charlottetown is really an Accord for all Canadians.
>
>This is an astounding statement. What benefits accrue to all Canadians
>from this agreement. This agreement is described even by its supporters as
>a maens of redressing the grievances of certain groups (Quebec, Aboriginals
>Westerners).
>
>Now there is major opposition to the agreement in Quebec , among Aboriginals
>and among Westerners. Now just what problems does this agreement solve?
>

That is the supreme irony...that the Charlottetown Accord exacerbates 
the grievances of all three groups.

The Charlottetown Accord is an unprincipled document, which is why it
solves nothing, and why it will lead to perpetual constitutional chaos.

>ps
>I'm from Ontario. I'm a Canadian. What do people like me get from this?
>

Migraines!


Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:40:08 GMT

Paul A.S. Ward (pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Oct1.231936.4726@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
: >
: >     C'mon Preston and Jacques, Judy and Rafe.  Sit down and
: >give it a try, and just see if you can all sign your names to
: >anything better.
: 
: So let's see Wilson and Rae negotiate economic union.  See, the examples
: on the yes side are just as stupid.

Vote YES and you will see this.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:31:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.222517.20571@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
	bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:

>A Lesson in Watching People Put their Feet in their Mouth...
>
>ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>: 
>: [...] You confuse political disagreement, and disagreement
>: over economic strategy with stupidity.  Just because you happen to disagree
>: with someone over how something should be done, does not make that person
>: an idiot.  
>
>But meanwhile...
>
>ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>:
>: No.  99% of YOUR postings are and always have been biased emotional rantings.
>: 
>: I have heard many intelligent things from both sides of the debate.  I
>: have heard nothing intelligent from you.
>
>:-)

Yet another post by Brian that proves Paul right on both counts.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Keywords: hype
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:12:22 GMT

donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>
>Two major banks have come out with heavy public announcements
>that we had better all vote yes or we will be shooting ourselves
>in terms of the financial state of the nation. [...]
>
>All we need to do is remember the non-consequence of the Death of Meech
>to know what *should* happen.  [...]

However, recall that during Meech it was only politicians, not banks,
who forecast doom and gloom if Meech failed. In fact, at the time
one or two banks released (or maybe leaked) reports that the Quebec
economy would be stable after separation.

Mathew Englander.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Boubou - Capitaine Bullsh*t
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:05:49 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

Y a-t-il quelqun qui a entendu Boubou hier?
Incroyable sa logique. Lorsque on lui demande ce qu'il pense des
declarations de Willehmny-Tremblay, il repond que ca va probalement
aider sa campagne car les gens auront le raisonement suivant:

	C'est mieux que la conversion de Willehmny -Tremblay soit
	fausse et que l'accord en realite soit bon, que l'inverse ou
	la conversation est vraie et l'accord n'est pas bon.

Extremement logique mon cher Boubou. En tant que politicien merdeux,
il n'a pas son pareil.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:17:11 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1532

From article <1992Sep27.065648.7108@ee.ubc.ca>, by jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison):
> In article <1992Sep25.134222.6483@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>From article <1992Sep23.031639.7022@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, by nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau):
>>>>>>"Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall
>>>>>> be given to their children."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hmm, what does "kind" mean?  Does it mean, in the language of one's
>>>>> choice?  Does it mean, through public funding?
>>>>
>>>>At the very least it means the right to choose from publicly funded
>>>>schools that are available!
>>> 
>>> Steve, I don't think you really answered my question.
> 
> Geez, why don't you two cut the crap! This education thread is out of hand,
> especially since there is an obvious solution:
> 
   [A voucher system proposal deleted]
>
> A voucher system would bypass this rights bickering, I think. It would 
> take some of the politics out of things, and return the issue to quality
> of education.
> 

This is not an obvious solution. It is a suggestion.

You are still advocating restrictions on choice of schooling which I find
totally unacceptable.

> <issue closed> ;-)

No! :-(     :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum
Keywords: hype
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:17:12 GMT
Distribution: can


Donald Teed writes:
>Two major banks have come out with heavy public announcements
>that we had better all vote yes or we will be shooting ourselves
>in terms of the financial state of the nation.

Mr Tweed goes on to state that, in fact, it just ain't so.
What would the boards of two major banks know that he does not?
Of course, as Mr Tweed will have us believe, investors will *line up*
to put their money in Canada after a "no" on October 26th. 
Investors *LOVE* countries that are on the brink of separation. 
Anyway, the Quebecois are just kidding and, like other Canadians, 
they would be happy to go through many more rounds of constitutional debate.
What else should a government be concerned about than inventing clauses?

> pin striped over weight men wagging their fingers

Argument ad hominem. Very impressive.

>Even if what they said were true, why
>would the blame fall on the voters and not Quebec ...

Canadians take heart!
If you lose your job, at least you can blame Quebec while on welfare.

>... Wonder what is in it for them?...

Ah yes, it's a conspiracy. Of course.


In a similar display of profound thought, 
Crawford Kilian writes:
>If the consequences of voting No are so horrendous, according to the bankers,
>party leaders, and other assorted Jeremiahs, then why on Earth have 
>responsible leaders put the country in a position to do itself such damage?

Good point. Obviously they wouldn't. History shows that partisan
leaders have never put their countries in perilous situations.


Marc Riese
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Lausanne
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The courts continue to take away our self-defense capability.
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:05:44 GMT
Distribution: can

wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
> Basically what I'm saying is that these
> devices *could* be made safer by making it so that it couldn't be used 
> against it's owner.

They are not outlawed because the could be used against the owner.
They are now considered offensive weapons and have been classed as
prohibited weapons.

> But when I flew my theory that the courts generally want to take away
> our ability to protect ourselves to a friend of mine, he said that
> "get some of that new pepper spray.  It's organic, etc, etc". 
> 
> Well, this morning on CBC radio, I heard a story that an undercover
> police woman went into an army surplus store (in TO I think), bought
> a pepper sprayer, and then charged the store with selling a prohibited
> weapon.  If the pepper sprayer was marketed/sold as a device to ward
> off bears and other animals, then, so the story goes, it would be
> legal to sell.

Basically Canadian politicians and a good number of citizens don't want
private citizens to own anything that could be used as an offensive
weapon.  The fact that these laws don't really affect criminals (read
the back of the Star for a while and see what 'Armed robbery with an
illegal handgun' nets the average criminal).  Of course politicals can
get gun permits and/or police protection so what do they care.

The new gun control act, for example,  makes it illegal to have a
loaded gun in your home.  That this also means gun owners are now
vulnerable to 'kick-in' raids (30 so far this year in metro) AND good
targets for them is their problem.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:04:35 GMT

In article <BvKrJE.1yH@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>Journalists are usually not selling YES.  They are repeating the Wilhelmy
>case.  They help us remember that Boubou is probably lying when he pretends
>he can't get more using the Wilhelmy text.

     Hein?  Tu penses que Boubou peut achever plus pour Quebec
parce que l'une de ses employees n'aime pas bien l'Accord, et
a etee aussi stupide a le dire sur telephone cellulaire?  Comment?

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<CLAMEN.92Sep30210957@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Oct1.015139.25793@unixg.ubc.ca> <BvG2rJ.zu@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:16:41 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BvG2rJ.zu@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:

   In article <1992Oct1.015139.25793@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
   >		[...]
   >	    (f) Canadians are commited to a respect for individ-
   >	    ual and collective human rights and freedoms of all
   >	    people;
   >		[...]

   I'm Canadian.  I'm not committed to collective rights.  In fact, I strongly
   oppose them.  Therefore that statement is false.  At least one Canadian (me)
   is not committed to collective rights.

By calling yourself a Canadian, you are claiming certain rights not
given to those human beings that are not Canadian.

--
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 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:57:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.213441.16557@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>In article <365@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>>If the consequences of voting No are so horrendous, according to the bankers,
>>party leaders, and other assorted Jeremiahs, then why on Earth have responsible
>>leaders put the country in a position to do itself such damage? Would they put
>>a loaded pistol in a kindergarten and tell the kids not to pull the trigger?
>
>This sums it up perfectly (at least the fear and threats)
>
>The Oct 26th deadlin was arbitrary, and could have been moved.
>
>The whole process looks exactly like Meech, only with TV cameras allowed,
>and some token consultation of the public.

	Very token, since we are being asked to vote on the agreement 
before it has been arrived at (Since we won't the legal text until after
Oct 26th). It seems unreasonable to me to agree to anything without checking
the fine print, and the manner in which the vote is being held without
the legal text being available makes me wonder whether there is something
deliberately being held back about the agreement.

							James Nicoll
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:39:28 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article  (Marc Riehm) writes:
>There's no doubt that ego played a role in Trudeau's desire to repatriate the
>constitution.  He wanted to do it, and he saw the end of his political career
>in the not-too-distant future.

If Trudeau's goal was only to "rapatriate" the Constitution, then why
didn't he just do so, WITHOUT changing it! No one would have opposed
to that.

Trudeau saw in the rapatriation process a way to disguise his goals:
to make Canada's Constitution more conform to his vision of a powerful
centralized federal government, and to make the provinces knee before
him. By making his modifications look as a rapatriation "Maitre chez
Nous concept", he appealed to uniformed part of the Quebec population,
and to the canadians that were tired of this link to the UK. His
so-called Charter of Rights was directed exclusively towards Quebec
and appealed to most anglo-canadians.

>So the man is human.  What a revelation!  What politician does _not_ want to
>leave his mark on the country?

The problem is that the man think he's God, and so does his supporters.

>I'll give him this much: he was trying to leave the country with a good, fair
>and equitable constitution.  In the meantime, Mulroney is trying to leave the
>country with a set of perverted amendments which pander to special interest
>groups...

I view it the other way around. Trudeau was trying to consolidate his
domination on the country. By doing so, he caused irreparable dammage
and generated a climate of tension between the provinces and between
the people of Canada. Mulroney tried to patch everything up, not very
skillfully I agree, but at least he tried.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:18:03 GMT

Murray Frank (frank@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: In article <gill.718052796@physics.ubc.ca> gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill) writes:
: {stuff removed}
: >
: >     Actually, what I would like to see from the No sides is not a simple
: >rejection (any fool can do that), but a concensus on what minor changes
: >would change their vote.  If they feel that the premiers are purely playing
: >politics rather than writing a `good' constitution, this seems to be the
: >approach they should take.
: >
: >     Fix it, don't burn it!
: 
: A number of the supporters of Yes have made this arguement. It is a
: particularly strange one. The Yes side defined the question. They
: decided on the either Yes or No framework. There was nothing to
: prevent them from having several proposed constitutions up for a vote
: at the same time. In the judgement of the political leaders of what is
: now the Yes side, having a range of choices was not desirable.
: Presumably they felt that it would be too divisive having say 20%
: support for each of five proposals. Such a judgement is easy to
: understand. However, to then complain that people oppose the only
: accord on the ballot, for a variety of reasons does not seem fair. 
: 

However, his point is still valid. I believe it is the right of anyone
who puts forward a question to know why you say NO. Since, presumably,
there is nothing wrong with the Charlottetown Accord that changing
would not fix (even if the changes left no word the same), having the
NO people say what they do not like would leave us with a workable
document.

Of course, the NO side will argue against this because they KNOW that
there are no two NO supporters who can agree on anything. If the NO
campaign had to put forward a document for Canadians to vote on, and
it or the Accord would be selected, I am 100% what the result would
be.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada