HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Fete Nationale du Quebec
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 15:05:08 GMT

In article <BttnwF.MKu@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.143009.1217@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>
>>St. Jean Batiste Day (I hope that spelling isn't TOO far off!) is in
>
>Official title is Quebec National Day (Fete Nationale du Quebec)
>
Sundry other corrections omitted...

>>  (c) They're not separatists.  Not all celebrators are necessarily
>>  separatists, but there is certainly a tendancy...  Why would someone
>>  that doesn't want Quebec to leave Canada "celebrate" a day whose
>>  primary purpose is to assert Quebec nationalism.
>
>This is irrelevant.

Irrelevant?!?  When the majority of the participants are there to
celebrate the fact that they want their nation to leave Canada, this
fact is irrelevant?!?

>>
>>  (d) They're the "ENEMY."  After all the dumping on that Denis and
>>  others have done on the anglo-quebecois, I certainly wouldn't want
>>  to come to HIS party, and the anglo-quebecois probably think the
>>  same.
>
>If the situation is French against English, they are enemies.  But,
>who created this situation ?  OK, I know, the French because they lost
>on Abraham Plains. 

The issue is the Nationalist holiday, not the Plains of Abraham.

>who created this situation ?

Rhetorical question:  Who set up the holiday?  On that holiday, which
"side" has dumped on the other?

In case it's hard to tell - it wasn't anglophones that created the
celebrations, and it's not anglophones that are celebrated.

>>
>>(Denis:)
>>>   A wide majority of Francos favor a similar structure.
>>
>>It is just SO typical here that you consider that the thoughts of the
>>Francos is the ONLY thing worth considering.
>
>Has the democracy other bases that the will of majority? 

That is ONE of the definitions of democracy.  It is a DANGEROUS
definition, in that it allows the justification of all sorts of evils.
The term is the "tyrrany of the majority."

If some action is desired the majority, and harms a minority, this
form of democracy SHOULD do that action, whether it's the issue of
increasing some tax that only the minority pays, or if it's an issue
of repression.  At various times, this has been used to injure people.

This definition of democracy should NOT be used as an argument for
injuring people.  "Well, most people like the idea of deporting
<insert-undesirable-racial-group>.  Let's kick them out."

It's an excuse that allows societies to claim that it is LEGAL for
them to injure people.

It CLAIMS to make such action morally acceptable, because democracy is
considered to be "a good thing."  

If you're claiming that the use of the "tyrrany of the majority" makes
repression in Quebec morally good, that's fine.  Don't expect anybody
to respect that moral stance.

-- 
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: Cultural/Religious Events (was: Fete Nationale du Quebec)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep3.083647.13958@spxtech.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:56:46 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep3.083647.13958@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

   From article <CLAMEN.92Sep2171925@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen):

   > For instance, it would be hard (some might say mutually-exclusive) to
   > be a good Christian and have a religious Easter and be a good Jew
   > and celebrate Passover (last year they were coincident, even!).

   Just an aside:-

   The Passover was an important event for both the Christian and Jewish
   faith. It is possible for a good Christian to join in the celebrations
   for Passover (Apart from the sombre remembrance of the Crucifixion; the
   Resurrection is certainly something Christians celebrate.)
   It may be a little harder for a Jew to celebrate Christ's death and
   resurrection. (No racist or anti-semitic sentiments intended.)

You are thinking about the celebration associated with the religious
events, while I was referring to the religious activities themselves.
Perhaps this wasn't such a good example, since secular holidays are
far less demanding than most religious ones.


--
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: gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan)
Subject: Re: Double majority
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:33:27 GMT

In article <Btn8CA.EHE@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>There is one funny point : each cultural project must receive a double
>majority by the senate and the francophones senators.  The funny point is
>that there is no exam to see if some is francophone.  In other words,
>a unilingual anglophone opposed to a bill in favor of Quebec or French
>speaking (or in favor of an anti-French bill) may declare himself as
>francophone and vote as francophone.  It is the method at this time
>the double majority will be counted.
>

Well the legal fine points haven't been released yet so it hard to say
exactly how the double majority rule will work.  However, I think the intend
of this section was that bills relating to language and culture must receive
a majority of the votes from *Quebec* senators.  Still, one has to wait until
the legal text is produced.

On a lighter note:  Is it just me or does anyone else think that the recent
snow in Alberta is anyway related to the senate deal?


>-- 
>  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
> /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
>J   __>  Vient de paraitre : Andre Jarret et ses Ancetres
>\_.-===  En vente par l'auteur                      Opinions ? Et pis non !

Gordon

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Double majority
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:07:32 GMT

In article <Btn8CA.EHE@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>According to federal employees (fonctionnaires federaux), Quebec won
>no addition power and just get the right to do a project similar to
>a federal project if she rejects a federal project.
>

Opting out with compensation is a powerful deterent for the federal
government from using the spending power in areas of provincial
jurisdiction...politicians do not like raising taxes only to give
the money to other politicians to spend and get the credit for.

The criterion for compensation is very weak...a province only has
to have a program compatible with national objectives...not national
standards.

This provision likely ensures that there will not be any major new
federal social programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction exception
in a real national emergency.

The effect of the wording of opting out with compensation is actually
more powerful than the wording itself...because of the normal
consequences of politics.  Federal politicians aren't going to
raise taxes only to give the revenue to provincial premiers.

>There is one funny point : each cultural project must receive a double
>majority by the senate and the francophones senators.  The funny point is
>that there is no exam to see if some is francophone.  In other words,
>a unilingual anglophone opposed to a bill in favor of Quebec or French
>speaking (or in favor of an anti-French bill) may declare himself as
>francophone and vote as francophone.  It is the method at this time
>the double majority will be counted.
>

Undoubtedly, we are going to have racial purity tests a la South Africa
to deal with the distinct society/double majority and aboriginal
self-government.  Certainly, francophone Senators are going to have
to pass language tests.  We are going to have to have chromosome 
testing to satisfy the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.


Quebec gets twice per capita federal cultural spending than the rest
of Canada...that's why it wasn't made exclusively a provincial power...
Quebec would be shooting itself in the foot.

Gerald
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A bilingual West
Date: 31 Aug 92 05:51:07 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

As an anglophone western Canadian who's put a daughter through French
immersion, I feel frustrated by Quebec's apparent lack of interest in the west.
Any book on American or Canadian history will show that Quebecers really opened
up most of this continent; they were there to greet the Yankee wagon trains,
they were there on Vancouver Island, and their culture was vigorous and
important all over the frontier.

No doubt the sheer numbers of English speakers made the francophone population
less significant politically and culturally, but now--after a generation of
immersion programs intended to create a reasonably bilingual generation in
western Canada--Quebec francophones seem from this perspective deeply
parochial, uninterested in reviving the French fact in the west. I think we are
all the poorer for it; Quebec's narcissism is positively American, and at some
point navel-gazing will cease to inspire the music, film and literature that
have thus far made Quebec culture so lively.

Yes, I know Quebec is a small island in the proverbial English sea...but
defensiveness ultimately gets one nowhere. Better to go on the offensive,
establish a presence, and become an accepted and essential part of the national
culture in the west. Wouldn't do us westerners any harm, either.
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:27:16 GMT
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes, concerning my pretention to
the throne of Canada:

>NO NO NO NO!  This whole thing started up because people objected to
>having a foreign-born Queen!  So you're disqualified!  (Mind you,
>people might not object as much to a Swiss-born Queen as they do to one
>from England.)

Well, well, well.  I am maybe born in a foreign nation, but I live
in Canada.  Anyways, I am too much of a bohemian to get accustomed
to protocol and wearing ugly little hats.

>Besides, I WAS FIRST!

Yes, but you could not be QUEEN.  Unless, as Pierre Rouleau said,
you are prepared to undergo major surgery... :-)

>On the other hand, your three lovely princesses do outnumber my two,
>but mine are lovelier.  :-)

Most fathers say that... :-)



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

"L'or est le socle du savoir, le trone de la sagesse; mais si vous
confondez le socle et le savoir, il tombe sur vous et vous ecrase."
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:26:39 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Aug28.143009.1217@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>St. Jean Batiste Day (I hope that spelling isn't TOO far off!) is in

Official title is Quebec National Day (Fete Nationale du Quebec)

>its origins a CATHOLIC holiday, and still remains with at least
>vestiges of this origin.  Those anglo-quebecois that Denis
>complains about AREN'T WELCOME at the celebration, because:
>
>  (a) They're not Roman Catholic.  Many of the francophones aren't
>  either - but those francophones aren't Protestant either.
>  Many of those anglo-quebecois ARE Protestant.

Official title is Quebec National Day.  This means it is no more limited
to catholic.  A few years ago, I remember a friend of mine who was a
protestant (he was born catholic and was French speaking) was working
as a voluntary for some event.  I think the religion is no more an excuse.

>
>  (b) They're not francophones.  It's a FRANCOPHONE holiday.  Anglos
>  are not welcome.

Before being adopted as Quebec National Day, it was the day of
French Canadians.  But, the law making it the national day is
not based on a language (while people feeling Quebecois will use
or learn French if not a mother language).
>
>  (c) They're not separatists.  Not all celebrators are necessarily
>  separatists, but there is certainly a tendancy...  Why would someone
>  that doesn't want Quebec to leave Canada "celebrate" a day whose
>  primary purpose is to assert Quebec nationalism.

This is irrelevant. 
>
>  (d) They're the "ENEMY."  After all the dumping on that Denis and
>  others have done on the anglo-quebecois, I certainly wouldn't want
>  to come to HIS party, and the anglo-quebecois probably think the
>  same.

If the situation is French against English, they are enemies.  But,
who created this situation ?  OK, I know, the French because they lost
on Abraham Plains. 
>
>(Denis:)
>>   A wide majority of Francos favor a similar structure.
>
>It is just SO typical here that you consider that the thoughts of the
>Francos is the ONLY thing worth considering.

Has the democracy other bases that the will of majority? 
>
>-- 
>Christopher Browne
>cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
>University of Ottawa
>Master of System Science Program


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland)
Subject: Re: The Hegemony Continues
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:49:28 GMT

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
> kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland) writes:
> >What use is elected and equal, if the Senate is *completely* ineffective?
> >The idea of the Triple-E Senate was to provide regional representation.
> >There is *no* effective regional representation in the proposed Senate 
> >deal.
> 
> You exaggerate somewhat.  The Senate will have a strong symbolic voice.

What possible use is a "symbolic voice"?  If that is all one requires, why
are Ontario and Quebec so obsessed with maintaining their *real* power?  
And why should the provinces other than Ontario and Quebec put up with a
"symbolic voice" after all the abuses they have endured?

Ken Buckland 
kenb@ee.ubc.ca
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Quebec and 1982 constitution (was Re: Denied ...)
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:59:11 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <BtLDK3.48t@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <BtK0wC.Kt8@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan) writes:
>>In article <BtJvLD.I18@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>>>
>>>We don't care.  Quebec is not yet part in the 1982 constitution.
>>>
>>This is actually wrong.  Quebec *IS* part of the 1982 constitution because
>>it is part of Canada.  If you don't except that logic then ask yourself this
>>how did Bourasa envoke the not-with-standing clause if Quebec isn't part of
>>the constitution.  This idea that Quebec never signed the constitution is
>>a facilacy started by Mulroney.  No province ever signed the constitution.
>>In fact, the only Canadian names that are on the constitution are all French
>>names from Quebec.
>>
>In 1982, there was some signed agreement without Quebec signature for
>constitution rapatriement.  I can't believe Mulroney invented this and
>no media tried to show it was false.  Tom Box could probably find some
>details on this.
>
On November 5, 1981, Trudeau and 9 of the premiers (all except
Levesque) issued a statement saying that they had agreed to patriation
of the constitution with an amending formula and a Charter of Rights.
This statement is a political agreement, not a legal document.
When people like Mulroney and Denis talk about Quebec not being a
part of the 1982 constitution, they're presumably referring to the
fact that Levesque didn't sign this statement.  It's not something
Mulroney invented out of thin air.  How much Levesque's failure to
sign the agreement reduces its legitimacy is a matter of opinion.

In December 1981, the Canadian Parliament adopted a resolution asking
the U.K. Parliament to amend the Canadian constitution.  In March
1982 the U.K. Parliament passed a law, the Canada Act, making the
requested amendments.  This Act was proclaimed by the Queen in Ottawa
on April 17, 1982.

The constitutional amendments of 1982 *do* apply in Quebec, just
as all the previous constituional acts voted by the British Parlia-
ment.

Unlike with Meech Lake, there was no requirement for provincial
legislatures to ratify the amendments of 1982.  Indeed, many
legislatures were not even in session between the time of the
first ministers' agreement and the adoption of the amendments
by the British Parliament.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:16:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.194008.1402@csi.uottawa.ca> mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier) writes:
>Why is asymmetrical federalism so unacceptable to the rest of Canada?
>Why is the devolution of powers to Quebec perceived as a "privilege"?

I have no idea. I think the provinces should agree on what a federal government
should do (how about international relations, defence, interprovincial trade,
standards on safety, measures etc). Then everything else should default to
provincial control. We don't *need* federal and provincial forestry branches
or tourism ministries. One level of government should step aside.

Of course, a federal govt. wouldn't have the same kind of grasping tentacles
spreading elcetion bribes, and interfering with local governments.
So then we could pare down the federal government down (PROPORTIONALLY!)

Do we really need TWO sets of buffoons in Canada? For me, the provincial
govts. in canada are enough to laugh at: Bob Ray, VanderHarcourt etc.
the federal circus is just too much of a good thing...



>
>Marc Frappier
>mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca
>
>-- 
>Marc Frappier				| e-mail: mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca
>Department of Computer Science          |
>University of Ottawa                    | phone : (613) 564-9232
>Ottawa, Canada, K1N 6N5                 | fax   : (613) 564-9486


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier)
Subject: asymmetrical federalism
Summary: What is so bad about asymmetrical federalism 
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 19:40:08 GMT

Why is asymmetrical federalism so unacceptable to the rest of Canada?
Why is the devolution of powers to Quebec perceived as a "privilege"?

Marc Frappier
mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca

-- 
Marc Frappier				| e-mail: mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca
Department of Computer Science          |
University of Ottawa                    | phone : (613) 564-9232
Ottawa, Canada, K1N 6N5                 | fax   : (613) 564-9486
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:54:35 GMT

In article <BtpHvr.3A1@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>Et pourtant, durant plusieurs annees, la ministre federale de la sante
>etait du Quebec alors que, le Quebec ayant son propre systeme, selon le
>texte precedent, elle n'aurait pas pu travailler!

Begin?  Bien competente, si je me souviens bien.  Toutefois, la sante
est un domaine provincial en Ontario aussi, et je crois dans toutes les
provinces; le role du federal consiste donc surtout a transferer les
fonds aux provinces et a veiller a ce qu'ils soient depenses dans les
regles.  C'est bien Monique Begin, par exemple, qui a menace de couper
les fonds aux provinces qui permettaient l'"extra billing", mettant
ainsi fin a cette pratique.

>En verite, il suffit que tout le monde s'entende pour ne pas nommer
>un ministre d'une region ou un ministere n'a pas d'autorite.  La complexite
>du traitement est en realite limitee au choix du ministre responsable.
>Apres tout, il est normal que le president de la commission du ble soit
>de l'ouest, que le ministre responsable de la culture soit bilingue
>et que le ministre s'occupant des pecheries ou de l'agriculture sache
>de quoi il parle.

En principe, oui - mais quand on voit un Marcel Masse passer de
ministere en ministere, et demontrer partout la meme (in)competence...
(Mais la, je doute que le Quebec soit non plus a l'epreuve de ce genre
de selection a base de politique, plutot que par competence.  N'est-ce
pas la ministre de l'environment qui, il y a quelques mois, s'opposait
a des mesures anti-pollution sous pretexte que cela allait faire
perdre des emplois?  Toujours cet argument - s'il y a le moindre emploi
en jeu, le reste peut bien aller au diable.  Au Quebec comme ailleurs -
la politique, c'est toujours la politique.)

Le Rhealiste - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Parlant pour moi-meme
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Double majority
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:46:47 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1339

From article <Btn8CA.EHE@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
> According to federal employees (fonctionnaires federaux), Quebec won
> no addition power and just get the right to do a project similar to
> a federal project if she rejects a federal project.
> 
> There is one funny point : each cultural project must receive a double
> majority by the senate and the francophones senators.  The funny point is
> that there is no exam to see if some is francophone.  In other words,
> a unilingual anglophone opposed to a bill in favor of Quebec or French
> speaking (or in favor of an anti-French bill) may declare himself as
> francophone and vote as francophone.  It is the method at this time
> the double majority will be counted.
> 

  Maybe they should see which senator's parents were educated in
  French in Canada. Any senator who didn't have a parent educated
  in French in Canada would be declared "ineligible to declare
  himself as francophone for the purposes of voting in the Senate" :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:6363 soc.culture.canada:6236