HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Defn of Francophone
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:29:12 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <Bs4Do2.Jst@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

				.
				.
				.

   3rd : if they will make you secure, please note that your previous
   figures were very wrong : you indicate 24% of anglos in 1860? and
   10 % now.  This is not anglophones, this is of British origin, not
   at all the same thing.  Last figures I saw : 7% of British origin and
   anglophones, 13% of other origin and mostly anglophones, 80% of francos.
   I think francos is now 84%, including your child going to a French school.

I am pretty sure that the Quebec (political) definition of
"Francophone" refers to people who claim French as their mother
tongue.  Steven's son, even though he goes to a French-language
school, is probably still an Anglophone.

--
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 15213-3890, USA
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Richard Holden & compulsory bi-elections
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:12:30 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Jul27.110552.2981@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>
>  I stated that I thought Richard Holden was the best reason I had seen
>  in a long time for introducing compulsory bi-elections when an elected
>  representative radically changes his position from that for which he
>  was elected. E.g. changing parties or leaving a party to become
>  independant.
>
>  Such radical shifts in position should be challenged in a bi-election.
>  When an elected representative changes his position so radically from
>  that for which he was elected he should be forced to seek a new mandate.
>
>  Why is there no mechanism to enable constituents to precipitate (for want
>  of a better word) a bi-election?
>
>-- 
>  ///==================================================================\\\
>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
>  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
>  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||

Steve: you were born in England.  The Canadian political system is not
very different from the England one.  One feature here (and probably
in England) is that we elect individuals.  While they are linked to
party and the number of deputies give the government/opposition, the
deputies are free to change their mind.  However, you may prefer
a republican country (like France or Ireland)?  In many republican democracy,
the parties get votes and select deputies.  So, if a deputy change of
party, s/he must loose seat.

Now, I included you origin just to show that IMHO you have lived
a while with the British style parliement, so that even if most of your
posting are _because_ you were not born here, in this case, your
political background is not so different.  BTW, an independent Quebec
would be more likely a republic, and not part of Commonwealth.

As I think to that : is the Republic of Ireland a member of Commonwealth?
Original language of Scotland, Ireland and Wales were not English, but
a large part if not the majority is today English speaking.  The same in
Canada : in 1759, everybody of the French colony was speking French
(except some natives).  After British takeover, there was a drop from
100% to 25%.  I know there is no relation about the debate, but, anyway.


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen and de Gaulle (was Re: Monument to de Gaulle)
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:36:44 GMT
	<SBO.92Jul27175236@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
	<28JUL92.10352461.0067@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:35:08 GMT, CZ94000 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> said:
  > Nntp-Posting-Host: vm1.mcgill.ca

  > In article <SBO.92Jul27175236@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
  > >
  > >God, ride us of the stupid Queen!!!
  > >(No offense intended Dave.)
  > >--

  > I don't like the system of monarchy on principle, so I'd like to
  > see the monarchy abolished in Canada.  I'm not sure exactly
  > what we should replace it with.

Good!

  > That said, I don't think a comparison between the speeches of
  > de Gaulle and the Queen is apt.  De Gaulle was here as a foreign
  > head of state.  His comments on the internal affairs of his hosts
  > were inappropriate, to say the least.  Furthermore, he was free to
  > say whatever he wanted, so he was responsible for his words.

Free he was!

  > The Queen cannot say whatever she wants.  For the most part, she
  > reads speeches written for her by government officials.  If she came
  > to Canada and read speeches written by the British government in
  > favor of either Canadian unity or Quebec independence, that too
  > would be unacceptable foreign interference in our internal affairs.
  > But her speeches in Canada are written by the _Canadian_ government.
  > They're just a reflection of that government's policies.

Therefore the qUEEN is forced to say what the government
wants? Mon oeil! If she does not want to say something she
can choose. Is there a law that makes the qUEEN say what the
government wants? What's the wording of that law? Who wrote
the recent speech? Is anyone able to dig for this
information?

  > If the Levesque government had invited the Queen to read the Speech
  > from the Throne at the opening of the Quebec National Assembly,
  > they could have got her to make a speech in favor of Quebec
  > independence.

Tu crois reellement ce que tu dis?

  > When you refer to the "Stupid Queen", are you referring to the
  > institution or the person?  If it's the former, I'll agree with
  > you.  If it's the latter, I'd ask what's your source of information
  > on her IQ.

L'institution, naturellement. I can't really comment on the
person. 

--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Colonialist legacies (was: God Save your Queen)
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:27:35 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2179

From article <Bs409s.Htn@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 Denis Beauregard writes:-

> Remove your sunglasses, Steve.  

  touche, I was jumping into a conversation without sticking to the subject.

> My posting was a response to the hypothetical fairness of the English during
> conquest.  Original posting was made so that we think we should be
> grateful to be allowed to speak French.  Actually, there was no more
> laws to forbid local languages in Ireland and Scotland and in those
> countries (Et vive l'Ecosse libre) I wouldn't be far from truth if I'm
> not true, in saying that English is now the majority language.
> 

  I think those early attempts to "assimilate" the French language and
  culture were a disgraceful display of arrogant British Imperialism - at
  the time.

  British, and French, and Dutch, and Spanish, and (more recently of course)
  American, histories are full of examples of this around the globe.

  There are one or two examples of a more tolerant approach to "the natives".
  Fiji is one, to some extent. Though the attempt to relieve some of the
  problems in India by lying to Indians about a prosperous new life in new 
  lands so they could get some cheap labour in the new colonies has produced
  a legacy of political conflict in Fiji that is very sad to see.

  I agree that the Brits were responsible for a lot of cultural and
  political damage in the past. So were the French, the Spanish, the Dutch
  and the Americans.

  
  You didn't mention the Welsh nationalists while you were at it. An
  oversight, perhaps?


  We are now living in 1992. We are better educated (? :-) ); We are
  better informed; We are more civilised and we are more tolerant towards
  other races and cultures.

  That is, except for current day Quebec - still trying to exact revenge
  for the crimes against humanity of the past.
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Deportation by British (was Re: God Save your Queen)
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:26:21 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <12455@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>Difficult to say. I wonder what the US would have done in Canada at
>that time. It would probably have been more difficult to assimilate
>the french canadians than it was to assimilate the louisiannians. As
>for the new-england francophones, I though that they were mostly
>late-commers in the US (most of them emmigrating from Quebec in the
>depression years).
>
The settlement and history of Louisiana is very different from the Quebec one.

One thing is that the number of settlers in Quebec in 1763 compared
to that of Louisiana, and the number of places aready settled.
You could compare Louisiana with Detroit.  Also, the second important
settlement in LA (after St-Louis parish in New Orleans) is St-Charles
des Allemands, which was a German settlement.  Quebec was uniformly
French speaking in comparison (excepted the Amerindians). Many old
vital records in New Orleans are in Spanish, so there was too a Spanish
period.

As for New England, what happened was probably caused by the Irish catholic
clergy that fighted the founding of French-speaking parishes.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: So is it all over?
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:12:17 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath) writes:

>I have not yet heard a sensible rationale for treating Northerners as second class citisens in terms of their rights to regional representation in the federal government. The only obvious reason is their relatively insignificant population, a criteria which we do not apply to P.E.I.. (In fairness, it was not P.E.I. which demanded Senate "equality").

This is THE reason.  A province has vast responsibilities, and requires a
large bureaucracy to fulfill them.  The territories would have to employ their
whole populations as bureaucrats!

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: QC SECESSION
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:44:19 GMT

In article <BryBDx.AK5@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.183230.6216@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>In article <q9PDoB2w165w@aficom.ocunix.on.ca> franc@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (francoise webster) writes:
>>>QUITE SIMPLY, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!
>>
>>Quebec has to write Canada a cheque for around $100 billion dollars
>>(plus or minus a few billion depending on the formula) before it can
>>separate...it will have to raise this money internationally in a
>>new Quebec currency...this should be a sufficient deterent to
>>separation.  Canada's (and Quebec's) huge debt basically make
>>separation a fiscally dubious proposition...
>>
>>Even if the debt repayment were rescheduled over several years...
>>it would represent a huge fiscal burden to Quebec and Canada.
>>
>>Until Canada and Quebec clean up their balance sheets, separation
>>is basically suicidal for both sides.
>>
>
>Indeed.  Canada will have to give Quebec some billion (don't know how much)
>in real estate, Crown companies, etc.  Counting how much it will cost
>in both money and trouble and considering Quebec still wants to leave,
>then you will see how profound is the ill, how bad Quebec is feeling.
>

The balance will be such that Canada will not owe Quebec anything,
regardless of the means of deciding who owes who what or who owns
what, and the ball park figure of what Quebec will owe Canada is
about $100 billion. 

Canada's problem (and Quebec's) after separation is that interest
rates are going to be significantly higher which will make the
debt burden both will carry much more difficult, in addition
to the economic dislocation.  Quebec's problem will be much more
difficult than Canada's, and Canada's will not be easy, because
of the need to raise the funds to pay back this $100 billion 
dollars.  Obviously, the repayment of this debt will be scheduled
over several years, but sovereigntists in Quebec are naive if
they think just paying the interest on the principle will suffice...
Quebec's share of the debt is ultimately going to have to be 
assumed directly by the nation state of Quebec.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy)
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:20:10 GMT

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>In article (Don Clayton) writes:
>>I suggest you talk to someone from Croatia, or Palastine, or Mongolia, or...
>>about the rights of the conqueror.  Very few countries are granted self governing
>>rights by the conqueror.  This shows respect.  I see no reason why the receiving
>>individuals can not at least do that in return.

>Man, you really know your history, do you?  When Canada was conquered
>by the british, they didn't grant "self-government" at all, and didn't
>show respect at all. Far from it.  Going through my genealogy, for
>example, you can see that a lot of quebecois were driven away from the
>Quebec City region because of the british occupation. The only reason
>why the french canadians were not deported, exterminated, or quickly
>assimilated, is their number that was too large compare to english
>Canada.

Funny, my ancestors on my mothers side, the Girards and Renauds settled in the
Detroit area for another reason. According to my grandfather, they were peasants
in feudal New France and they saw the British victory as their opportunity to
be free of "their masters".  One point always seems to elude some of the 
descendents of the runners up at the plains of Abraham. If New France was such
a great place why were so few of the inhabitants willing to defend it?

>It took the american revolution to scare the british enough that the
>french-canadians could join the anti-british revolution that they gave
>them some sort of autonomny. Then came 1840 when the french canadians
>lost most of their rights, including french as an official language.
>Then came Lord Durham and his report saying that we are "un peuple
>sans histoire", "des porteurs d'eau" and that the best thing to do
>would be to assimilate us. This report created a lot publicity in
>London, and it used as one of the basis for the Confederation.

>-- 
>                                                       Francois Audet
>                                                           '
>                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
>                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:36:27 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <1992Jul28.131515.29027@spxtech.qc.ca>
	steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:

>> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>>Of course you can put your company's english name on your sign. Stop
>>making unfounded assertions like this.

>              Eaton      was   Eaton's

This was a lightning rod. Taking off the " 's " doesn't really make it
difficult to understand.

>           Chez Ben      was   Ben's Delicatessen

My personal favourite was

Charcouterie Hebraique Schwartz		was	Schwartz's Delicatessen

Yes, Francois, they were told they couldn't use that awful Anglo word
Delicatessen.  The replacement French words are far less descriptive,
to some a cruel joke since this is possibly the best deli on the
continent.

What unfounded assertions are you referring to?

(What's most amazing of all is seeing this place, with all its French
signs on the outside and predominantly-French signs on the inside, you
never hear anyone ask for "du bouef fume". Even the francophones, who
now make up about 40% of the clientele, know what to ask for:

"Une smoked meat gros en rye"!

(or was that "on rye"? ;-)

The claim that you can't put English company names on signs is borne
out, not by all those who *have* changed their names, but by the one major
exception, which stands out in its solitary defiance:

Canadian Tire

>	Pub Alexandre		was	Alexandre's Pub

At least they let them use the word "pub", which is short for "public
house".

Using Schwartz's precedent, it's amazing the pub wasn't forced to call itself

		Brasserie Anglais Alexandre

:-) * .33333

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
    Was "Trouble" (from the Broadway Show, Music Man) the first rap song?
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: C'est la Reine d'Angleterre...
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:40:44 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Thomas Hood) writes:
>Sorry, I was referring to Parizeau's repeated insistence that
>Quebec could join the Commonwealth.  By the way, I'm not British.

Me neither. 

Question for information: does a country have to have the Queen as
head of state to be a member of the Commonwealth.

[ about the Queen ]
>For one thing, she has better manners than you have.

Gosh! I'd hope so, that's what she does all day. (PS: how would you
know?)

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: god save your queen
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:40:41 EST
Reply-To: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

FA>Wake up: she doesn't "lead the Commonwealth". She is purely decorative
FA>(an expensive decoration). Furthermore, I'm sure that the people of
FA>the Commonwealth who do show some sort of "affection" for her are of
FA>british descent, AND are very traditional.

In fact, she *does* lead the Commonwealth, and not only decoratively.

FA>Second: If I choose to insult her (and I don't think I did), I'm not
FA>insulting anyone but her.

FA>Third: By pretending to be Sovereing of people who don't care about
FA>her, she is insulting them.

She is *not* pretending.  Read the Constitution lately?

- Stephanie.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  "What a depressingly stupid machine" - Marvin
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:27:00 GMT

In article <Bs5LIu.3uq@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul28.184857.23551@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
|> >
|> >The French lost the war.  All of Quebec was signed to over to Britian, not
|> >some of it, all of it.  France unconditionaly surrendered.  Yes, they tried
|> >to expell them, which was a scummy thing to do, but they also afterwards,
|> >granted self governing rights to Quebec.  You have the freedom to choose
|> >because of the British Monarchy, and are not a subjegated people because
|> >of it (Quebec culture would be dead by now if that was the case).  If you
|> >don't like the idea, that is your problem.
|> >
|> >Don
|> 
|> Still some bullsh*ting about the right of the conqueror.

I suggest you talk to someone from Croatia, or Palastine, or Mongolia, or...
about the rights of the conqueror.  Very few countries are granted self governing
rights by the conqueror.  This shows respect.  I see no reason why the receiving
individuals can not at least do that in return.

This is a major point that bugs a lot of non-Quebecers.  We try to accomodate
by acknowledging your distinct society and you threaten seperation and show _NO_ 
respect for our institutions.

No wonder we have no constitutional deal!  With this type of attitude we will 
never have one and might as well build the fences now.  I can only hope that
the majority of Quebecers are not this assinine.

Don
My brain, my thoughts, my words.
"Pick up the receiver, I'll make you a believer." - Depeche Mode
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:23:14 GMT

rstory@eci386.uucp (Robert Story) writes:

>In article <skenny.712274436@femto.engr.mun.ca> skenny@femto.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny) writes:
>|
>|Well my own personal opinion of the Queen/Monarchy is that it is a bunch
>|of BS. The only connection to me with Canada is a part of history and
>|that's where it should belong. This is not insulting the Commonwealth
>|nor the Monarchy nor Monarchists. On this note, when I saw clips of the
>|Canada Day celebrations where new Canadians swearing allegiance to the
>|Queen (in Winnipeg I believe), I nearly gagged... what a croc.

>Ever seen Americans, with hand over heart, pledging allegiance
>to their flag? Now THAT's a croc!  I'd rather swear allegiance
>to some ONE than some THING, thank you!

I agree but why should we swear allegiance to the monarchy???, they
are only partially representative of Canada's history. I don't think that to
become a respected citizen of this country that we must subject
new Canadians in being obligated to swear this allegiance. I don't
recall swearing allegiance when I was born and I am damn sure my parents
didn't do it for me. 

--
=================================
skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca
St. John's, NF, CANADA
"Have a touton or do without'n !"