HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: root@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Operator)
Subject: UofNB NNTP summary
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 05:02:41 GMT

NNTP stats for csd.unb.ca  from Sep  4 02:02:46 to Sep  5 02:01:44.

                              +--------- stats ---------+ +-- ihave_stats ---+
Host                           offer accept reject   fail accept reject   fail
============================= ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ======
access.usask.ca                  187      0    187      0   1420      0      0
eclipse.sheridanc.on.ca            -      -      -      -   1159      0      0
morgan.ucs.mun.ca              14636  13179   1457      0   4922      0      0
news.sheridanc.on.ca            1225    278    947      0      -      -      -
owl.nstn.ns.ca                     -      -      -      -    306      0      0
torn.onet.on.ca                  858    782     76      0  16362      0      0
                              ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
TOTALS                         16906  14239   2667      0  24169      0      0

Newsgroups: can.canet.stats
From: news@torn.onet.on.ca (News)
Subject: torn news summary, Sep 12 1992
Original-Message-Id: <92Sep12.081522edt.57978@torn.onet.on.ca>
Original-To: news-reports
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:15:13 GMT

News log summary from Sep 11 07:11:16 to Sep 12 07:06:11

Sitename              Accept Reject Junked I-Have Sendme   Total    Sent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cs.utexas.edu          10023    682      .      .      .   10705     564
utcsri                  5318   2246      2      .      .    7566   11411
csd.unb.ca              1045      2    426      .      .    1473   15895
cunews                   507      1      .      .      .     508   15294
watserv2.uwaterloo.c     146      1      2      .      .     149   16939
newshost.uwo.ca           69      .      .      .      .      69   17002
utgpu                     55      .      .      .      .      55   17234
utzoo                     43      .      .      .      .      43   17030
torn                      36      3      .      .      .      39       .
skule.ecf                 20      .      .      .      .      20   11871
newshub.ccs.yorku.ca      19      .      .      .      .      19   17066
news.ccs.queensu.ca       12      .      .      .      .      12   17166
maccs                     12      .      .      .      .      12   16954
pulp.cs.laurentian.c       5      .      .      .      .       5    9384
spartan.ac.BrockU.CA       4      .      .      .      .       4   16962
newsserver.cs.uwinds       4      .      .      .      .       4   16417
blaze.trentu.ca            3      .      .      .      .       3   15542
torn.onet.on.ca            2      .      .      .      .       2       .
ryelect                    2      .      .      .      .       2   17058
utorvm                     .      .      .      .      .       .   17283
thunder                    .      .      .      .      .       .   13674
sis                        .      .      .      .      .       .   17085
sid.cquest.toronto.e       .      .      .      .      .       .      36
govonca                    .      .      .      .      .       .   14282
gonzo.cs.uoguelph.ca       .      .      .      .      .       .   17085
cdf.toronto.edu            .      .      .      .      .       .    4119
TALLY                      .      .      .      .      .       .   17289
             Totals:   17325   2935    430      .      .   20690  350642
Newsgroups: can.canet.stats
From: news@csri.toronto.edu (News user id)
Subject: utcsri nntp summary
Originator: root@yonge.csri.toronto.edu
Date: 12 Sep 92 04:02:07 GMT

NNTP log summary from Sep 11 00:02:09 to Sep 11 23:58:12

Article Reception        Offered      Took         Toss         Fail
Contacting Host           To Us    Total  Pct   Total  Pct   Total  Pct
130.185.5.5                 408      178  44%     230  56%       0   0%
psych                         4        4 100%       0   0%       0   0%
torn.onet.on              24098    14086  58%   10012  42%       0   0%
helios.physics               48       48 100%       0   0%       0   0%
cs.ubc                       16       14  88%       2  13%       0   0%
scapa.cs.ualberta           286       12   4%     274  96%       0   0%
gpu.utcs                    146      142  97%       4   3%       0   0%
utstat                      186        0   0%     186 100%       0   0%
rutgers                   28446     8984  32%   19462  68%       0   0%
bonnie                    19054      558   3%   18496  97%       0   0%
usenet.rpi                26732    24902  93%    1830   7%       0   0%
zoo                          44        8  18%      36  82%       0   0%
skule.ecf                 23510     6836  29%   16674  71%       0   0%
------------------------- -----    ----------   ----------   ----------
TOTALS                    122978    55772  45%   67206  55%       0   0%

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:20:23 GMT

In article <14893@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>Could I lure participants away from the usual nostalgia plus personal attacks
>on one another to spend some time actually discussing and evaluating the
>present constitutional deal on which we are to vote in less than two months?

guess I haven't followed can.politics long enough to have noticed the personal
attacks...
>
>With any luck at all, we ought to be able to get sub-discussions going on
>topics like native self-government, rep by pop, the actual function of the new
>Senate, and so on.
>
>I really don't know what to think of the deal yet; I worry about the vagueness
>of the native self-rule concept, the guaranteed 25% for Quebec, and the odd
>variations in rep by pop from province to province. But for all I know, those
>are non-issues and some really serious problem is lurking in the fine print.
>
>Comments?


The 25%. I wonder about it. It seems like a hollow win for Bourassa. Quebec
isn't likely to have less than 25% of the population, so what can he brag
about winning? In *principle* I think it's silly. It's totally against rep
by pop. Contrary to someone who said rep by pop was no big deal; it is!
it goes against the fact that we are all equal. The supreme court twits and
the vague charter have all said that "it's OK to give other groups an unfair
edge" even if that means my vote is diminished. True, rep by pop is a farce
in Canada, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

Native self rule: I don't know much about what was agred to, although 
self rule will be subject to the Charter, Federal, and possibly Provincial
laws. If it evolves with that framework, it can't be any worse than the
kind of government we have now.

The serious issues lurking (not in the fine print) are some of the economic
issues, social charter, constituitional protection for protectionism.
I've already raved about this recently, so I won't go into it again.
Needless to say I'm not pleased.



-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 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
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 18:58:21 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

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

> 
> Suppose we, the people of Canada, reject the deal (ideally all of
> Quebec, BC, and Alberta vote no)...Mulroney, Bourassa, and Getty all
> face elections within a year or so...which means the constitution 
> becomes a dead issue anyway, since there will be no time remaining
> in their mandates to do anything...they have to worry about being
> reelected...and we might be sufficiently 
> fortunate to be able to keep our current constitition instead of
> this monstrosity they are foisting on us...
> 
> If we defeat this thing...we might be able to get a defacto
> moratorium as the alternative to this Clarkian monster...and any
> Quebec vote on sovereignty would be inevitably delayed for two
> years until after the next Quebec election, and then only if the
> Liberals lose.
> 
> If we can defeat this thing, and defeat a lot of politicians in
> subsequent elections, we can make it a terrifying prospect for
> politicians to tinker with the constitution instead of doing the
> job they were elected to do which is govern wisely and worry
> about the economy.  
> 
> Gerald


You're off in Alice-in-Wonderland if you think we can cork the 
independent Quebec movement by rejecting the current accord. If we reject 
the accord, Quebec will say, "Aha! They really DON'T want us! 
Independence here we come!" And there won't be a thing Bou-Bou can do 
about it. Hell, if we vote no, he'll probably lead the movement to 
secession if he can get in front of the P.Q.

If we could have cut Mulroney "off at the pass" - i.e. before Meech, we 
might well have been able to ignore our constitutional problems for 
thirty or forty years. But we didn't. The genie of Quebec nationalism is 
out of the bottle, and you're dreaming if you think you can vote No and 
still put the cork back on.

I agree, BTW with most of the criticisms I have read here of the accord. 
I, too want to see a real EEE senate, and I want things in black and 
white - not vague promises for future negotiation (aboriginal 
self-government). 

I am, however, ready to hold my nose and vote yes. The accord is 
certainly NOT what I wanted, but on balance, is marginally better than 
what we had, and a LOT better than seeing Canada break up.



emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail
From: plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Les interets collectifs
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:37:42 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Universite de Montreal

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

>Je vais reflechir. Pas pour le Quebec independant, mais de comment reviser
>ma strategie.

Un petit conseil, si je puis me permettre.  N'ayez pas peur du 
Parti Quebecois (je ne parle pas pour eux; je suis tres peu militant).
Si jamais la loi 101 est amendee dans le sens du rapport Chambers,
c'est le Parti Quebecois que le fera (c'est le seul qui aurait la
credibilite; on ne pourra jamais accuser le Parti Quebecois d'etre
pro-anglais, tandis que le parti Liberal...).  Et croyez-moi, il 
n'y a rien de partisan dans ce que je viens de dire.  

Je sais que ca va vous paraitre bizarre, mais ce n'est pas si con que
ca ce qu'a fait Richard Holden (meme si a vos yeux il n'a plus de
credibilite).  Les anglophones doivent discuter et s'entendre avec
les nationalistes.  C'est inevitable, sinon nous n'aurons jamais
la paix sociale.

Mais je tiens a vous prevenir que nous ne reviendrons jamais au
bon vieux temps du libre-choix de la langue d'enseignement.  C'est
irrealiste de demander cela aux quebecois.

Frederic Plante
 
Xref: sparky can.politics:6770 soc.culture.canada:6554
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: na
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:13:31 GMT

Alan Williams (alanw@bnr.ca) wrote:
>In article <1RF2qB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>
>|> 2) French and English are the official languages of the country and deserve
>|>    protection righ accros the board.
>
>Instead of being official languages of the "country", French and English are
>official languages of the Parliament of Canada (and its associated institutions),
>and in the legislative institutions of New Brunswick.  There is a clause to
>"promote" the use of both languages.

Is this the clause that interestingly enough differs somewhat depending on
whether it is the English or the French version that one is reading? And
did Bourassa really say (as a PQer claimed on a news show) that Quebec
would accept *both* versions and let the courts decide? 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:05:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.062545.3375@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>compromises are for car dealers. Don't ask me to write the word 
>compromise next to words like justice, equality, indivual rights.

In real life, even justice, equality, and individual rights are
compromises.

You don't believe me?  Check the current debate on gun control.  Gun
control restricts the rights of those who would own guns.  But not
having any gun control restricts the rights of all of us to life and
security.  So what do we do?  We try to reach the best compromise
between these conflicting rights, and since people will never agree
100% on this, the best we can achieve is a compromise that will never
fully satisfy anyone.  You got a better solution?

Equality?  Are we equal?  Maybe I'm smarter than you are, or not as
smart.  Maybe I had more opportunities, or fewer.  Maybe next week I'll
win 6/49.  Where is absolute equality?

Justice?  Have you visited a courtroom?  Nothing but compromises,
bargains.  To have perfect justice would require perfect knowledge.  In
real life, police and judges try to make the best decisions they can,
based on available information.  Hmm, I'm sure this guy is guilty, but
I can't prove it.  Oh well, drop that case, and see if I can prosecute
that other guy (even though his crime is lesser).

We must strive for the best solution (the best compromise!)  But if
we wait for perfection, we're going to have a long wait; and in the
meantime, things will be falling apart around us.

Or maybe you do have the perfect solution - the one that will please
all Canadians more than the current (admittedly imperfect) deal.  If
so, please let us know!

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:12:57 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

>[...] many people in the West saw these Constitutional negotiations as a
>chance to wrench some power away from Central Canada. It is thus quite
>surprising and disappointing to see that not only is the proposed Senate a
>paper tiger, but also that the 25% floor all but guarantees that regardless
>of what happens in the future it is assured that Central Canada will
>continue to wield the power in this country. Liberal Senator Michael Kirby
>said as much, wrt entrenching power, on CTV's Question Period last Sunday.

The selfishness of all sides has been very damaging.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Senate/House of common
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:14:01 GMT

In article <SBO.92Sep8085100@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
>Here's a little question:
>
>In this country, in order to pass a law we have the
>following (roughly):
>        
>        1. Someone get's a brilliant idea !
>        2. It is proposed and debated in the house of common
>        3. It is voted on by the house of common
>        4. If it passes in the house of common it now
>           has to be approved by the senate
>
>
>Suppose now that we have a "true" EEE senate (50%+ against
>any law rejects that law for good)
>

(Note: the proposed Senate is not your true EEE Senate...it is
is merely equal...a joint sitting is not a very terrifying prospect
considering the massive addition of Commons seats to Central Canada.)

(Also, I would prefer an equitable Senate or abolition to an equal
one.)                    

When the Commons and the Senate disagree, the legislation isn't
necessarily defeated, it means that they must compromise or
haggle until they reach a compromise.  We can assume MP's, the
Cabinet, and the Senate will talk to each other.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:20:20 GMT

In article <oiBRqB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>Look, let's put it in perspective. Sure, the agreement is flawed in many 
>ways - not all the senators will be elected, they sure aren't going to be 
>effective, I don't agree with the 25% floor for Quebec, and nobody has 
>yet defined for me exactly what aboriginal self government means, etc.
>Be that as it may, there is no way at all that Quebec will agree to less 
>than the current proposal. 
>
>The choice isn't whether or not this is a good constitution that will 
>meet our requirements for the next one hundred years or more - it's 
>whether or not we'll have any COUNTRY at all in ten years from now. It's 
>true that separatist forces will continue to push for an independent 
>Quebec but if TROC rejects this accord we'll have no chance to keep 
>Quebec within Canada at all. 
>
>Lastly, we simply do not have the luxury of pissing around with the 
>consitutional arrangement for another ten years. Our jobs are 
>disappearing, the economy is going to hell in a handbasket, the education 
>system is falling to bits, etc. We simply MUST start paying attention to 
>some of the other problems out there. 
>
>If TROC accepts this accord, distasteful though it is to many of us, we 
>may have to go through this again - in forty or fifty years. If we reject 
>it, it won't matter whether it was perfect or not.
>

Suppose we, the people of Canada, reject the deal (ideally all of
Quebec, BC, and Alberta vote no)...Mulroney, Bourassa, and Getty all
face elections within a year or so...which means the constitution 
becomes a dead issue anyway, since there will be no time remaining
in their mandates to do anything...they have to worry about being
reelected...and we might be sufficiently 
fortunate to be able to keep our current constitition instead of
this monstrosity they are foisting on us...

If we defeat this thing...we might be able to get a defacto
moratorium as the alternative to this Clarkian monster...and any
Quebec vote on sovereignty would be inevitably delayed for two
years until after the next Quebec election, and then only if the
Liberals lose.

If we can defeat this thing, and defeat a lot of politicians in
subsequent elections, we can make it a terrifying prospect for
politicians to tinker with the constitution instead of doing the
job they were elected to do which is govern wisely and worry
about the economy.  

Gerald
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Senate/House of common
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:20:36 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1960

From article <1992Sep9.131401.18708@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, by golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy):
> In article <SBO.92Sep8085100@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>>
>>Here's a little question:
>>
>>In this country, in order to pass a law we have the
>>following (roughly):
>>        
>>        1. Someone get's a brilliant idea !
>>        2. It is proposed and debated in the house of common
>>        3. It is voted on by the house of common
>>        4. If it passes in the house of common it now
>>           has to be approved by the senate
>>
>>
>>Suppose now that we have a "true" EEE senate (50%+ against
>>any law rejects that law for good)
>>
> 
> [stuff deleted]
> 
> When the Commons and the Senate disagree, the legislation isn't
> necessarily defeated, it means that they must compromise or
> haggle until they reach a compromise.  We can assume MP's, the
> Cabinet, and the Senate will talk to each other.
> 

         5. After it becomes law, someone in Quebec complains
            that the Quebec Government is not respecting the law
            and goes to court.
         6. Win or lose it is appealed to the Quebec court of appeal.
         7. Win or lose it is appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
         8. The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the Quebec law
            contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
         9. Quebec nationalists take to the streets.
        10. Quebec government invokes the notwithstanding clause.
        11. Anglophones in Quebec cry "FOUL!".
        12. Who cares?

        13. Someone gets a brilliant idea...

:-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:24:59 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1353

From article <424@catnix.UUCP>, by michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond):
> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes :
>>
>> And returning to my previous post, I always thought it was the case
>> that there were some bilingual (French-German, German-Romanche)
>> cantons in Switzerland.  Perhaps Michelle can enlighten us.
> 
> I know of two French-German cantons (Valais and Fribourg), and I
> believe that the canton of Grisons is Romanche-German.  But
> I don't know anything about what it implies in terms of schooling
> rights and general political life.  But I will ask someone from
> my family who was born in Valais (who BTW does not know more then 3
> words in German!)
> 

Could you find out what language schooling is available in various
regions too?   (i.e. minority language, immersion programs, 2nd or
3rd language programs etc.)

Are there any restrictions? (e.g. German kids not allowed to attend
German schools, if available, in predominantly French regions unless
their parents were born there or educated in those shools etc.)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics