HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: getting enumerated
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 15:18:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.121000.22359@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> barry@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Barry G. Adams) writes:
>  How does one get enumerated for the referendum?
>  I am never at home when the enumerators call.
>
> Barry Adams, Sudbury, ON (barry@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca)
>

 If you are not home, they will leave a sheet in the door, and call
back at least once. Then they will leave a yellow sheet that
gives you the number you must call to be enumerated. You must
call that number before voting day.  

If you don't get any forms in your mailbox, call elections canada
and ask why. 

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Will Mulroney resign?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 02:31:14 GMT

In article <1bl4ojINNevq@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>I am all-but-certain that if there is a Yes vote in every province,
>Mulroney will resign. If there is a No vote in one or more provinces
>he is more likely to hang on as Progressive Conservative leader.
>

The referendum is irrelevant to getting rid of Mulroney....if he doesn't
leave we can vote him out next year anyway....Mulroney promising or not
promising to leave doesn't change the fact that the Charlottetown Accord
is a bad deal...

The place to deal with politicians is in elections...it is best to cast
your vote in the referendum based on an informed judgement on the
content, and not be distracted by other issues.  A YES vote on the 26th
means we have to live with the Charlottetown abomination forever.
Mulroney, if he doesn't resign, will have to face election next year.
Deal with him then.

>My reasoning is this: you can tell just by watching him over the
>last few months how tired he is of the job. I'm sure he'd love to
>say "Well, I've had two terms and accomplished what I set out to,
>so now I'll give somebody else a chance." This would be easy to do
>after a Yes vote, but if Charlottetown fails he couldn't resign
>because it would make him look like a quitter, getting out when
>the going's rough.
>

There is a federal election next year to deal with the issue of
Mulroney...Oct 26 is about Charlottetown and about making a decision
that we have to live with for decades.  It would be foolish to confuse
the two.  The future of politicians will unfold as it should, regardless
of the result of Oct. 26.

Gerald
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: AAA credit rating downgraded
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:31:03 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:

> For those who still don't believe the economic consequences of a NO vote,
> consider: the people who matter do. (Standard+Poor said that the major
> reason for the downgrading was uncertainty over the results of the
> referendum).

You're confusing two different factors in your comment: uncertainty over the
referendum, and a NO vote.  The two are not the same.  There's no certainty
over which result would produce more stability for Canada; I believe a NO
vote would bring more stability.  Besides, I think the downgrading of the
credit rating was due to other economic factors, and the referendum tie-in
was added by the YES supporters looking for more scare-tactic ammunition.

> Inasmuch as the people who make our monetary policy (chartered banks, etc)
> have said that the results of a NO vote will be rising interest rates and
> an unstable dollar, how can it be anything but this? I mean, these are the
> people who decide when to raise interest rates, when to buy and sell the
> dollar. If they say interest rates will rise, they are right by definition.

No, they are not the only ones who affect the interest rates.  I expect that
world economic powers (governments, major corporations) have more effect on
Canadian interest rates than Canadian banks do.

Those chartered banks may have ulterior motives for their public comments on
the referendum.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 14:21:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.173432.10376@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <BvI6IM.BH2@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>>The ONLY thing I would propose is IF the aboriginals so desire, they
>>may become ordinary citizens of Canada.  Other than that, well I guess
>>we will continue with the various treaties, etc.  I would not force
>>them to be citizens in the same sence that you and I are; but that or
>>the present system is all I would present.
>
>     OK, then I ask you once again (as in the very end of that
>article you claimed to read to the very end) what you are going
>to do about the resultant violent and non-violent protests.
>Appoint a "Minister of Law and Order" to handle the "problem of
>violence in the native Homelands"?


There are two possibilities. Either people (aboriginal or any other)
remain in Canada (or join Canada, depending on how you view it) and
are thus subject to Canadian law; or they secede and form a separate
state where they are subject to the laws of that new/separate state.

To operate two standards, based on "race", is apartheid.

So if there are violent protests within Canada, I assume Canadian laws
will apply. The issue, however, is what causes the protests.
Are they legitimate claims. If so, then resolve those issues, but
within the context of Canadian law...a law I would again hope would be based
on _citizenship_, not race, language or region.

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wcsv2k@alfred.carleton.ca (Bill St. Arnaud)
Subject: Referendum Results Newsgroup
Summary: Referendum Results
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:43:02 GMT

Has anybody looked into setting up a newsgroup like in the States to
report on referendum results on Oct 26?
This would be of assistance to our western friends becuase their
broadcasters can't reveal the results from Quebec until the wetern
polls close.

Bill St. Arnaud                         Internet: wcsv2k@ccs.carleton.ca
VISION 2000 INC.                        X.400: C=CA; A=TELECOM.CANADA;
203-294 Albert St.                             O=VISION2000; DDA:ID=V2K.EMS
Ottawa CANADA                           Voice: +1 613 567-2000  
K1P 6E6                                 Fax:   +1 613 567-4730

=============================================================================
VISION 2000 INC:  A Department of Communications and industry initiative to
foster and accelerate the development of personal communications in Canada.
=============================================================================

Xref: sparky can.politics:8471 talk.politics.misc:52103 soc.culture.canada:7514
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: the debate - before
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:43:01 GMT

The great fight is about to begin.  The gladiators have been
prepped, oiled, massaged and blown.  They are now being made
up for the camera.  Tension is very high.

In order to win, Bourassa only needs to confuse the issues.
We know he can.  That's about the only thing he can do.  And
he has a lot of experience at it.

In order to win, Parizeau must destroy Bourassa.  Will he?

Faites vos jeux!


--
 Alain
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: jjchew@math.toronto.edu (John J. Chew III)
Subject: Re: Will Mulroney resign?
Organization: The Poslfit Committee
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 20:03:02 GMT

In article <1bl4ojINNevq@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca 
  (Mathew B Englander) writes:

> I am all-but-certain that if there is a Yes vote in every province,
> Mulroney will resign. If there is a No vote in one or more provinces
> he is more likely to hang on as Progressive Conservative leader.

Hmm.  Before the French Maastricht referendum, I heard similar things
concerning (French President) Mitterand.  Actually, there the Non side
tried to attract voters by saying that Mitterand would be humiliated into
resigning, *and* the Oui side tried to attract voters by saying that he
would feel content to step down with a sense of accomplishment.

Speaking of threatening voters, I heard someone quoted on Morningside
today to the effect that a Blue Jays win in the World Series would be
just the thing that Toronto needs to energize its flagging economy.

I suppose the logical converse to this would be that a World Series
defeat would mean the end of the economy as we know it, and the collapse
of the dollar.  :-).

John


-- 
john j. chew, iii / department of mathematics / university of toronto
poslfit@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca / poslfit@utorgpu.bitnet / jjchew@math.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:29:55 GMT

In article <16124@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>Aboriginal self-government, in itself, makes this deal a no-go for me.

     Based on your earlier articles, this doesn't surprise me.

>I don't like the idea of *any* kind of government based on the genetics of a
>given group of people.

     Neither do I.  Neither do the Natives, apparently.  One has
only to look at Phil Fontaine, Neil Sterritt, or any number of
the Native chiefs of Quebec or the Atlantic provinces to confirm
that they have no *racial* barriers to who joins or does not
join their communities, or who holds power.

> If aboriginal self-government, then why not black,
>brown, or Slovako-Canadian self-government?

     Because the aboriginal peoples have never given up their
right to self-government, even over the 500 years that European
Canadians have denied (in various ways) the existence of that
right.  (The latest way being "we've been here so long that it's
ridiculous to talk about it.")

     In contrast, people who have immigrated here since then
have voluntarily given up their right to belong to any smaller
electoral community than the city, province, and country to
which they belong.

>The fact that aboriginals' ancestors were here before my ancestors is beside
>the point.

     I agree.  What is more to the point is the situation of the
aboriginal peoples in Canada today, which is intolerable.  You
seem to offer them only assimilation, which they have stated
many times they do not want.

> On that logic, Native Indians deserve more self-government than
>Inuit, who appear to have arrived later. The "First Nations" are all dead. No
>aboriginal has lived in Canada longer than 100 years, and most--the young
>people--have lived here for less time than I have...

     So if we go down and invade Nauru tomorrow, and manage to
deny the right of those people to govern themselves until one
generation has passed, then they no longer have that right?
How convenient.

>The deal offers the creation of so many Bantustans; like those of South
>Africa, the aboriginal principalities will offer sins unavailable at home
>(casinos, for example). They will, I gather, continue to depend on white
>taxpayers' support. Where they clash with their neighbors about land use (for
>example, putting industrial sites next to residential areas), they will only
>exacerbate racial tensions.

     This is just so much Kiplingesque "White Man's Burden"
claptrap.  We will all have to put up with changes in the
culture of certain parts of territory we have traditionally
considered "ours".  That's the price of justice.  Insinuating
that the resulting cultural arrangement will be inferior to a
"white" [sic] system is regressive chauvinism.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:07:57 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Don Bowman, in a needlessly patronizing response to Gerald Olchowy, suggests
that objection to the deal in the west is just so much whining because
"Quebec got more than we did"--so we're a bunch of kindergartners.

This westerner, pitching his baritone as low as possible, observes that a lot
of the resistance to the deal out here has nothing to do with who got a
bigger slice of the pie, but with the deal's entrenchment of inequality of
race and culture. Aboriginal self-government looks like apartheid as designed
by guilty white liberals; the 25% guarantee, plus requirements for
francophone senators that give them extra power; the abdication of
immigration control to the provinces, which implies restrictions on mobility
for such immigrants--these are all serious problems because they grant
special privileges to some Canadians and withhold them from others, on the
basis of who people are rather than what they have done.

Don mentions the end of World War II, negotiated in part by Nazis...the
point, of course, is that the Nazis were negotiating their own surrender. And
speaking of Nazis, they were fond of identifying various racial and ethnic
(and sexual) groups by little badges--yellow stars of David for Jews, pink
triangles for homosexuals, and so on. Under the deal now before us, such tags
will eventually come in very handy so we know who deserves what.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution
Date: 13 Oct 1992 22:06:18 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>Mathew:
>From a quick reading of your entry and the US constitutional amendments,
>I DID NOT see any reference to the colour of a citizen's skin, nor any
>mention of "blacks" etc. 

The fifteenth amendment provides that the right to vote shall not
be denied or abridged based on skin colour. The thirteenth and 
fourteenth amendments do not refer explicitly to skin colour; the
reference was implicit.

>This was my point. The amendments basically abolished slavery and
>restated the equality of all citizens.

It was not a *re*statement; this was the first time the constitution
recognized that all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the
laws.

I began this thread to respond to a poster who said that the U.S.
accomplished equal rights not by amending their constitution, but
by re-interpreting it.

I have demonstrated that in fact the U.S. did amend their constitution
in order to provide equal rights for blacks. Whether the specific
language was race-specific or not is beside the point; the important
thing to note is that a Constitutional amendment (in fact, three
Constitutional amendments) was (were) necessary.

> There was no need to specifiy
>that slavery was not longer permitted "against blacks".
>All citizens were to be protected, not just a particular skin colour.

But not all citizens *needed* protection; whites had never been held
as slaves in the U.S. Thus the 13th amendment had the effect of
protecting blacks, not whites.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: A Great Canadian Journalist
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:36:05 GMT

In <1992Oct16.131011.5760@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:


>Adios to Pamela Wallin, co-host of Canada AM and host of Question Period,
>one of Canada's best TV journalists, especially in the political spectrum.
>She's leaving Canada AM for other avenues (anyone heard where?).  Thanks
>for the professionalism and damn good work, Pamela!  I hope you continue
>in the same field - we need people like you.

Good grief. She's just going to CBC to co-host the new Prime Time
News...she didn't die!
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Charter of Rights (was Re: The Manning-Trudeau ...)
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:28:36 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <0(CZ94000) writes:
>It does somewhat more than this.  It requires the provinces to
>provide schooling in French "where numbers warrant."  Admittedly,
>this phrase has provided an excuse to some provinces and school
>boards to drag their feet on providing French schools, but Section
>23 does not apply only to existing schools.

"Where number warrants" is very vague, and means that you get
schooling in your language only if you have enough voices make believe
the governement that it will have more chances of being re-elected if
it provides adequate schooling. In practice, the "where number
warrants" clause never force any government to provide french
schooling. Secondly, the "where number warrants" situation is a
chicken & egg thing: how do you expect to have the required number of
francophone to justify french schooling, it french schooling doesn't
exist? You'd need intantaneous massive francophone immigration...

The "where number warrants" provision is merely an excuse to justify
the anglophone vision of a Canada where english education should be
provided everywhere, including Quebec, and french education should be
kept in Quebec.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Xref: sparky can.politics:8169 soc.culture.canada:7272
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:40:03 GMT
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!


rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes :

> Isn't Ms Coyne the Nfld aide to Clyde Wells that had Trudeau's baby?

How should I know? And why should I care, unless you intend
to say that having babies from Trudeau, or whoever else for
that matter, dangerously impairs one's credibility.

Credibility, on all sides, is an extremely scarce product in
our society. So let's not make things worse by such petty questions.
They are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand and certainly
don't contribute to heighten the level of the debate.


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

La Liberte n'est pas une marque de yogourt.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:11:27 GMT

In article <Bvv0wC.L53@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: This Accord is alleged to address the grievances of Quebec, the
>: West, and the aboriginals...how come the strongest opposition to the
>: Accord is now in Quebec, the West, and among aboriginals...and not
>: for antagonistic reasons...aboriginals are concerned about the
>: diminishment of their treaties, the West about underrepresentation and
>: a partly elected, ineffective Senate, and Quebec because of the
>: division of powers.
>
>The strongest opposition comes from the intolerant few. The strongest
>opposition from the West has nothing to do with the West, it is a whining
>"Quebec got more than we did". Anybody remember kindergarten?
>

The loss of representation by population by BC and Alberta has nothing
to do with Quebec, and represents a diminishment of the actual political
and democratic rights of citizens in the far West.

>: 
>: Which is why we need an elected constiuent assembly or constitutional
>: convention so we can elect people we trust specifically on
>: constitutional issues to prepare a series of options and amendments.
>
>So you would disregard the contents of the deal because you didn't like who
>made it, wouldn't you? I suppose you would have been against the treaty
>that ended WWII since one of the sides negotiating was Nazi?
>

That is not what I said...I recommend a different process so we can
get something other than Meech Lake...and something more than a single
option.  A constituent assembly not restricted to a single option, could
allow legitimate participation by Quebec nationalists, and one of the
options such an assembly could prepare would be the sovereigntist
option, which could then be debated and considered by legislatures and
the people in an informed unthreatening manner.

By the way...
the terms given to the Germans were unconditional surrender...there was
nothing to negotiate.

>Accept the deal for what it is, and look at the contents.
>

The contents are "a mess that deserve a big NO"!

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: community, compromise, and individual liberty
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 17:39:15 GMT

In article <WARKENT.92Oct7152000@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>We see it over and over in these arguments, this notion that everything
>boils down to "individual liberties".  We also see people brashly
>claiming that "compromise" is a dirty word.  What crap.
>
>People could not live together without compromising over something
>everyday.  We agree to do so because we derive immense benefits from
>living in a community.  We must also recognise that a healthy community
>has needs of its own and that we have an implicit contract to uphold
>these needs.  The question is where to draw the line between the needs
>of the community and the wants of the individual, and I agree that
>it is far from clear.  But please stop this "individual liberties are
>all" argument; it is tiresome and futile, and there are sounder arguments
>against giving extra priviledges to certain groups.


Be a little more specific Ken. Where would YOU draw the line.
Freedom of speech, association, religion, use of language...?

At what point are you willing to give up your liberties at the
bequest of the so-called leadership of some self-proclaimed community?

Are you willing to give up your right to educate your children in the
language of your choice, or to post signs on the front of your store
in your own language or to elect people for parliament no matter what
their gender, race or language?
What compromise on these issues are you willing to make? 

I'll be specific. I am sympathetic to the fears of the francophone
minority in this country (and majority in Quebec) for the survival 
of their culture. 
I am willing  to put tax money into promoting their cultures. I attend
their cultural presentations and I applaud their culture. I support the
ending of the tax on books that hurts Quebec writers, for example.
I will send my children to french-language schools. My wife and I will
attend french-language schools ourselves in the future to improve our
conversational skills.                  

I am NOT willing to deny someone else their rights (anglophones and allophones
in Quebec, for example) in order to "protect" the french-language
culture in Quebec.  Nor should I have to....
How does denying the rights of anglophones to put up signs (an example, tired
as it is) HELP francophones develop their culture. I think it does the exact
opposite: it shows the weakness of the Quebec francophone culture, 
not its strength.

Frank.

Xref: sparky can.politics:8342 talk.politics.misc:51395 soc.culture.canada:7428