HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:13:00 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Aboriginal self-government, in itself, makes this deal a no-go for me. I
don't like the idea of *any* kind of government based on the genetics of a
given group of people. If aboriginal self-government, then why not black,
brown, or Slovako-Canadian self-government?

The fact that aboriginals' ancestors were here before my ancestors is beside
the point. 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 (I immigrated in 1967 and
became a citizen in 1973). If some people can claim privileges on the
strength of descent, perhaps other people ought to be punished for the crimes
of *their* ancestors.

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.

Self-government may even create a kind of extra-territoriality, like China in
the bad old days, when a European couldn't be tried in a Chinese court. A
Native Indian who gets in trouble outside a reserve might be exempt from
prosecution in an ordinary Canadian court.

I hope I'm wrong in all this, and I look forward to hearing corrections of
this interpretation.
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:28:31 GMT

dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
> Jamie Andrews (jamie@cs.sfu.ca) wrote:
> :      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.
> 
> Hear hear! I think the NO forces should be forced by law to put forward their
> own proposals so that we have something to pick apart. I'm sure that if every
> NO group put forward a proposal, it would be defeated easily by more than 50%
> of the population.

So I can't vote NO unless I can come up with something that more the
50% of the people would vote yes to?  Or is this law only for 'lobbyists'?

Jamie and Don probably say things like "Can you do better?" to
art and literary critics.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Charter of Rights (was Re: The Manning-Trudeau ...)
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:45:01 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <13163@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>The only part of the Charter that actually meant something in real
>life was the anti Bill 101 part.

If this is true, why does the Supreme Court now spend much of its
time hearing Charter cases, most of which have nothing to do with
Section 23 (the "anti-Bill 101 part")?

>The intent was to force Quebec to
>open its EXISTING widespread english schooling system to all
>immigrants in Quebec.

If this were true, Steve Potter would cease to exist :-) .
The intent was to force Quebec to open its existing widespread
English school system to the children of parents educated in
English in other provinces of Canada, a very limited group of
people.

>In TROC, as I said quite a few times, this does
>not have too much importance since there is no widespread french
>schooling system. The Charter would not force the anglophone provinces
>to have a REAL widespresd french schooling system, it would only allow
>people to use the frech schooling system WHEN THEY EXIST in your area.
>
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.

The courts have also interpreted this section to mean that francophones
have the right to manage their own schools.  This has already led to
changes in the structures of school boards in Ontario.

It's clear that Section 23 was aimed at changing Bill 101, and as I've
said before, I think this was bad tactics, to say the least.  But I
think the effect of this section will be to benefit francophones hors
Quebec much more than anglo-Quebecers, most of whom, as you point
out, already have access to a good school system, and others of whom
(like Steve) are not covered by this section.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: NPD en Quebec (was: October 26th Referendum)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<13164@audetf>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:02:16 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <13164@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

				.
				.
				.

   NDP? I think they never got a seat in Quebec. I don't even remember
   the name of their leader.

Phil Edmonston -- Granby.

--
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
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Quebec restricts freedom of speech
Date: 15 Oct 92 07:12:40 EDT

In <1992Oct14.221317.12443@pandora.matrox.com>
thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
raises a couple of rabbits.  Let me shoot:

> In Quebec, the law governing referendums restricts the amount of money
> that can be spent by the Yes and No "sides" of the debate.  The
> allocation of each quota is controlled by a committee (one for the "yes"
> side chaired by Premier Bourassa, one for the "no" chaired by P.Q.
> leader Jacques Parizeau).
> The Royal Bank did not distribute its recent report on the costs
> of separation in Quebec because it decided it would be illegal under
> the law.

	|8-)
	Have you seen the quantity of advertising activity
	going on these days.  Every ministry and department
	at both levels of G. spend money extolling this or
	that Xanadian aspect of this beautiful county of ours.
	None of this falls under the YES/NO budget limitations.
	They are not advocating one vote above another.  They
	just say "look how great we are".  The most disgusting
	such campaign is one that hides behind a welcome program
	for new immigrants.  They ask you to fill in a form
	and mail it.  You will receive a gift of a $35 value
	from the store promoting this accross Quebec.  But
	on the form, there is a small red mapple leaf, with
	a YES inside.

> Josh Freed has spent a year making a film called Entre Solitudes
> about Anglo angst that was originally supposed to be broadcast
> on Radio Quebec a week from now.  It was delayed because Radio

	Josh Freed made a good point about feeling like
	he is stuck in between the two solitudes, belonging
	in neither.

> Quebec thought it might contravene the spending law  -- this
> despite the fact it has nothing to do with the referendum per se.

	Radio Quebec is creature of the lefty artsy fartsy
	union loving Quebec pseudo-intelligentsia (mostly
	teachers with high hopes).  Their behaviour is not
	to be expected to match rational patterns.

> When the Equality Party objected to the law on the grounds that it
> would force them to obtain permission from their arch enemies
> on the "no" committee if they decided to fight for the "no" side,
> government ministers reassured everyone by saying they would use
> the Notwithstanding clause if necessary to protect Quebec's
> "progressive" referendum law.

	|8-)

> In Quebec "progress" is movement away from individual towards
> collective rights -- in this case, the right of society not to be
> disquieted by unofficial opinions.

	A troubling trend, everywhere.  Quebec just has it worse.
	It is not irreversible.  Even Albanian goat herds managed
	to understand that.

	By the way, I am still voting NO (which is not quite
	the same as voting NON, but gets the job done when it
	comes to the business of defeating the forces of evil).

> Thomas Hood - Bookie

--
 Alain - Albanian Stalinist Commitee for the NO
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why Would the Charlottetown Agreement Make People Feel Canadian
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:36:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.171830.8742@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>However, your response brings up the point I was trying to make:  the 
>constitution shouldn't be libertarian/objectivist, NOR social democrat,
>NOR <insert your political philosophy here>.  If we had a Canada clause
>that defined Canadians as being libertarian, socialist, capitalist, or
>what have you, then I'd consider emigrating.
>

But the Charlottetown "Canada Clause" defines Canadians as being a bunch
of racists, tribalists, and collectivists... 

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 16:17:31 GMT

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

>...thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers died defeating
>the evil ideas of tribalism and nationalism espoused by Hitler
>and Canadians and Quebeckers can do it again, with a lot less
>bloodshed by voting NO on October 26.

Please get a grip, Gerald.

>Now contrast this to Charlottetown...
>Charlottetown entrenches executive federalism, and gives the first
>ministers conference the right to make agreements bilaterally or
>multilaterally without restriction and have them constitutionally
>protected from elected legislatures.

False.

>The decentralization in 
>Charlottetown is not a decentralization of power to the people, 
>but a decentralization which accumulates and builds the power
>of premiers, to balkanize the country into their little fiefdoms.
>The resistance of the premiers to an economic union, and their
>resistance to national standards in things like training, likely
>means that be are not going to see internal trade barriers maintained,
>but internal mobility barriers to restrict peoples ability to work
>in various provinces.  Provinces which now make up excuses to not
>allow goods from other provinces to be sold in them, are being given
>the power to do the same with people.
>The people with Hitler-esque ambitions are the premiers...for
>Hitler-esque ideology is written all over Charlottetown in its
>collectivist ideology, and the concentration of power by the first
>ministers at the expense of the legislatures.

One reason you do not like Ch'town is that you do not trust 
provincial Premiers.  Your real aim must be to overhaul Canada's
system of government.  Would you prefer a United-States-style republic?

>...which side has said Canada will become Beirut or Yugoslavia.   
>Gerald

Of all participants you have been the loudest doom-crier.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Referendum Results Newsgroup
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:24:55 GMT

In article <wcsv2k.718551782@cunews> wcsv2k@alfred.carleton.ca (Bill St. Arnaud) writes:
>Has anybody looked into setting up a newsgroup like in the States to
>report on referendum results on Oct 26?
You forget that we have a farce of a democracy, more like a democratic
dictatorship.  When was the last referendum? 50 YEARS ago!
If we set up a referendum news-group, it would gather dust!!!
BTW, does this charlatan accord basically cast in stone our current
parlaimentary (ie stone-age) style of government?
Does it say anything about constituency representation?
Does anyone out there actually like what we have now (a bunch of trained
seals dressed in suits)?
IE DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT USEFUL, MEANINGFUL THINGS TO YOU AND I?

>This would be of assistance to our western friends becuase their
>broadcasters can't reveal the results from Quebec until the wetern
>polls close.

I intend to report anything I hear from any media outlet to this group
on the day of the referendum.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: A few of Trudeau's points
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:37:21 GMT

bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>You are interpreting the different grammatical subjects of these 
>clauses as directly implying a hierarchical power structure.
>I don't see how this follows at all.

E.g.,

2.1(d) says "Canadians and their governments"  (official language minorities)
2.1(g) says "Canadians"  (equality of the sexes)

The courts could interpret these to have the same meaning (after all, the
government is composed of Canadians), and both sections would have equal
force (if any, but that's another argument).

On the other hand, they might reason that if the same thing was meant, then the
same wording would be used, and so 2.1(g) does not apply to the governments.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:51:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.224959.5856@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>Continuing on the theme of accuracy in advertising, what do people think of
>the yes side ad where Bob White implies that the Charlottetown Accord
>guarantees the right to medicare & collective bargaining?
>

What I find amazing is how Audrey McLaughlin, Bob White, Bob Rae, and Maude
Barlow will fight free trade with the US and NAFTA to the last drop of
blood, even though the trade agreements just basically speed up GATT
by a decade or two.  When Mexico joined GATT in the eighties, it
essentially enterred into 1-way free trade with Canada...all NAFTA does
is basically open Mexico up to us.  Yet when the real reactionary
assault on the social programs occurs in Charlottetown, they fall for
it hook, line, and sinker.

Charlottetown does what free trade could never do...prevent new social
programs and decimate the ones we already have by creating a patchwork
country that will slowly drift apart in various North-South pulls...

...all the bloody socialists except Trudeau are asleep at the wheel on
this one.    

Gerald

When the IMF has to intervene in Canada because we can't make the
interest payments on our foreign and national debt, the words in the
constitution aren't going to mean very much when Canada is ordered to
make drastic cuts in spending or else.

Our future is Italy.
Xref: sparky can.politics:8129 soc.culture.canada:7256
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: community, compromise, and individual liberty
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:20:00 GMT
	<1992Oct5.130142.630@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
	<1992Oct5.152219.4287@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<WARKENT.92Oct6103739@ltisun14.epfl.ch>
Followup-To: can.politics
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch's message of 6 Oct 92 09:37:39 GMT

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.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:45:30 GMT

robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: > Jamie Andrews (jamie@cs.sfu.ca) wrote:
: > :      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.
: > 
: > Hear hear! I think the NO forces should be forced by law to put forward their
: > own proposals so that we have something to pick apart. I'm sure that if every
: > NO group put forward a proposal, it would be defeated easily by more than 50%
: > of the population.
: 
: So I can't vote NO unless I can come up with something that more the
: 50% of the people would vote yes to?  Or is this law only for 'lobbyists'?

Come up with SOMETHING!  Or perhaps the fact that only 5 or 10%  
of the electorate would see any merit in such No camp proposals is 
dissuading them from offering suggestions at all.

-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Royal Bank Report
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:00:15 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <1992Oct1.173351.3702@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>>1) Bourassa just said yesterday that a 'yes' will bring prosperity to
>>   Quebec and Canada (again).
>>2) Mulroney & Clark said that a 'no' would start the dismantle of
>>   Canada and turn it into a Yogoslavia.
>>3) The 'yes' campaing is the most over-budgeted propaganda I've ever
>>   seen. Furthermore, it's paid by taxpayers money and doesn't repect
>>   Quebec law in Quebec, while the 'no' campaign has to. It doesn't
>>   have any arguments, just so-called celebrities saying how much they
>>   love their Rockies. Looks like a detergent ad.

Never thought I'd see the day when I'd agree with Francois on anything.
Fascinating.

>The propaganda is extremely inappropriate.  While a "no" would put
>separatists in a strong position, they would not be assured success.
>Furthermore, it is improper for a government minister to predict disaster
>if his government's strategy fails.

But it is commonplace for governments to defend their policies by
claiming that alternatives would lead to disaster. When the government
has a majority, and/or is assured of getting its way, their assertions
never have a chance to be tested.

>Why?  Because, if it fails, that minister will have conflicting interests:
>one in avoiding disaster, the other in proving his prediction correct.

The honorable thing to do, of course, is to admit defeat and resign.

>The Prime Minister had better have a fall-back position.

Doubtful. Am I the only one who sees this as merely Mulroney's
second roll of the dice?

I can only hope that the rejection of this accord (which I now believe
is inevitable, barring a miracle) will hasten the call for a federal
election. Not that the alternatives look that appetizing, but the
approach itself needs an overhaul. And a bit of a rest.
-- 
 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: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: TV ads for the referendum
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 14:07:45 GMT

The arguments in the TV ads sponsored by the "yes" campaign:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
We should vote yes in the referendum, because basically
nothing is perfect, and really, making constitutional amendments
is sort of like swinging at a ball in a game of baseball - you've
just got to take a swing at something that looks good.


We should vote yes in the referendum, because the average
kid hears the word 'no' 26,000 times, so somebody better say yes
for a change, and what better way say to say yes than in a referendum.


We should vote yes in the referendum, because we have
participated in every U.N. peacekeeping force, and we are such a
swell country to help people all over the world like that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The last one is not actually an advertisement for the referendum
but is a timely ad for National Defense, the first I've ever seen
that was not about recruiting!

This is a soft sell, and it is being done so subtly that I would
think the content of the agreement must be too terrible to discuss.

The word "should" appears three times above, in honor of the 
Final Text of the Charlottetown Agreement.

Are there more advertisements like these?
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Canada apartheid
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:34:32 GMT

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"?

--Jamie.