HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 16:31:42 GMT

In article <BvsAHp.LEC@animal.er.bell.ca> alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney) writes:
>Where does this end? Are you saying it is correct behaviour to interfere
>anywhere you want? Well, I don't like that Arab women must wear veils. Hmm,
>a denial of 'basic rights', according to me. Let's vote them out of the
>U.N. I don't trust their judgement.
          

 But of course you have it backwards.
 It is the right of every individual to wear or not to wear a veil. That
 is the basic human (individual) right that should be entrenched in a 
 democracy.  

 There is no right  to interfere in someone else's right. 
 That would be one of your so-called collective rights: 
 ie, the "right" to deprive someone else of
 their right to wear or not wear a veil, based on some "collective" will. 

 We also have a concept of sovereign peoples, which means that all nation
 states can determine their own laws and constitutions and that these
 laws and constitutions can not be interfered with from outside those states.
 That is (was) a guiding principle of the United Nations. You don't have to
 be a democracy to be a member of the United Nations.
 
 So you have the right to criticize the laws of another state from within 
 this state. Assuming of course that you have a constitution here that
 allows all citizens freedom of speech, etc... Which is my concern with the
 present Constitutional proposal.


 Frank.
Xref: sparky can.general:4841 soc.culture.canada:7320
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey)
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:37:56 GMT

In article <BvuvGH.3B8@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.125742.25648@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>>lavackm@wl.aecl.ca writes:
>>
>>>With all this talk on the referendum, I was wondering if the Montreal Canadiens
>>>and the Quebec Nordiques will have to leave the NHL if Quebec separates?
>>
>>I'm not a hockey fan, but I was wondering why the National Hockey League
>>already includes two nations.  Or is the border really an "imaginary line"?
>>Given this, the NHL could encompass many national territories.
>
>It is called a National league because it was initially all Canadian.
>Someone said the Senators where getting back after 58 years.  So, I presume
>years ago, it was including teams like Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal
>and maybe Calgary and Edmonton or Hamilton or Winnipeg (no idea which one).
>Does anyone has the details?

The NHL was really the east-coast Canadian league -- there were western
leagues where teams such as the Victoria Cougars (who won the Stanley Cup
when it was not exclusively an NHL trophy) and others played.  The Cougars,
incidentally, later moved to Detroit and evolved into the Red Wings.

The NHL was formed with an all-eastern Canadian make-up:  Mon.Canadiens,
Tor.Arenas (later St Pats, later Leafs), Mon.Wanderers (rink burnt down,
team folded in first year) and Ott.Senators.  Quebec has a team (the
Bulldogs), but they decided not to operate in the first season.  Their
players were distributed around the league.  The Bulldogs came back to life
the next year and the players came back too.  

The Quebec franchise later moved to Hamilton before folding a few years
later after a player strike.  In 1924-25, US teams were added as well as
the Mon.Maroons who lasted about 15 years.  The Senators bit the dust 
in 1931.  The Habs and the Arenas/St.Pats/Leafs survive to this day.

After the demise of the Maroons, there were no new Canadian franchises
until Vancouver in 1970.
-- 
Mike Godfrey	          "I will not expose the ignorance of the faculty.
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT     I will not expose the ignorance of the faculty."
migod@turing.toronto.edu			   	-- The Simpsons

Xref: sparky can.general:4815 can.politics:8143 ott.general:1221
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:29:06 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

cowan@cerianthus.pinetree.org (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
>remainder would (presumably) be divided by population among the rest
>of the country.  If there are 400 seats, Quebec gets 100 right off the
>top, of the rest BC would get 75 in the example I gave even though it

I couldn't see how you were getting 75 until I read below. BC would get
93 seats in the scenario you mention (25/80)*300.

> If there are 10,000
>seats, Quebec gets 2500 off the top, BC would get .25*7500 or 1875
>seats...  still only 18.75% representation for 25% of the population.
>This applies to ALL provinces if Quebec falls below 25% (which it
>already is at 23.7% or so).  Ontario with fully 40% of Canada's
>population would only end up with 3000 seats in the last calculation -
>30% representation for 40% of the people...  hardly fair.

You are forgetting to subtract Quebec's already assigned percentage of
the population from your equation. Using your numbers:

Quebec         2500
BC             1875
Ontario        3000
Rest           1500
               ====
total          8875

Who gets the other 1125 seats?

Its scary that this type of mistake can be so widely believed. You are
the second person who has made this (grade 8) math mistake on a net
full of EDUCATED people. Imagine what some less educated people must
believe. Now I don't fault someone for making a math mistake, and I
will agree that the 25% floor is a bit ideologically iffy, but the
result is not that bad. It would probably only get bad if Quebec
dropped to around 15% of pop. Then we'd have:

            %Seats     %Pop
Quebec         25       15
BC             22       25
Ont            35       40
Rest           18       20

This is an extremely unlikely scenario.

disclaimer: 'Rest' above does NOT mean I'm playing down the importance
of the other provinces, I am simply using Darin Cowan's supplied Pop%
figures.
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:31:15 GMT

Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
: 
: It is now obvious that Central Canada would never allow anything even close
: to a true EEE senate. As well, it is also obvious that senate reform has
: opened up a whole can of worms wrt democracy & quotas. So, I might be
: tempted to go with Francois' suggestion. However, I suggest the following
: additions to the two points above.
: 
: 1) Changes to HoC rules that would only allow a government to be toppled
:    by an *explicit* vote of no confidence. Such a vote could be
:    automatically triggered when a money bill (budget) fails. Such an 
:    amendment would hopefully give MPs some incentive to be more
:    representative of their ridings and provinces.

I agree with this. If the government didn't have to worry about
non-confidence, MPs would be more likely to vote their mind (and thus
represent their constituents). Keep the non-confidence, but only explicitly.

: 
: 2) An amendment that would make an NEP-like  program illegal. This would
:    be needed to soften the loss of the EEE senate to our friends in
:    Alberta.

Definitely. I think the Charlottetown Accords environmental and resource
areas address this somewhat.

: 
: 3) An amendment that applies to *electrical energy* that would make federal
:    NEP-like tax policies illegal. This should interest our friends in
:    Quebec who make lots of $$ selling hydro and who probably would not 
:    like to be told how much they could sell it for. 

Probably another good point. Gouge the state of New York :)

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: I've just had "Sex"..
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:25:17 GMT

In <1992Oct6.152644.8425@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>
tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
quips: 

> .. entered on my Enumeration Record as "M".
> My sexual-estimation was done by two very nice young ladies in the pay
> [ ... ]
> yet hopelessly-liberalised "Sex" into "Gender".

	It is also nice to know they did not ask for a
	hormonal test as they do in the olympics...
	|8-)
	Or they could have asked to verify de visu...
	|8-)
	|8-)
	At least, we now know the civil service, from
	time to time, hires actual human beings instead
	of the hostile surly ugly droids we are used to
	dealing with.

Tony Wallis

--
 Alain
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: Bell Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:25:53 GMT

Robin Collins (robinc@bnr.ca) wrote:
: In article <BvsAHp.LEC@animal.er.bell.ca> alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney) writes:
: >Where does this end? Are you saying it is correct behaviour to interfere
: >anywhere you want? Well, I don't like that Arab women must wear veils. Hmm,
: >a denial of 'basic rights', according to me. Let's vote them out of the
: >U.N. I don't trust their judgement.
:           
: 
:  But of course you have it backwards.
:  It is the right of every individual to wear or not to wear a veil. That
:  is the basic human (individual) right that should be entrenched in a 
:  democracy.  
: 
:  There is no right  to interfere in someone else's right. 
:  That would be one of your so-called collective rights: 
:  ie, the "right" to deprive someone else of
:  their right to wear or not wear a veil, based on some "collective" will. 

Are you disagreeing with me or not?  Out of context what does MY paragraph
mean? What kind of bizarre reasoning are you using? Don't you understand that
veils are MANDATORY in many states?

:  We also have a concept of sovereign peoples, which means that all nation
:  states can determine their own laws and constitutions and that these
:  laws and constitutions can not be interfered with from outside those states.
:  That is (was) a guiding principle of the United Nations. You don't have to
:  be a democracy to be a member of the United Nations.

Who is 'we'?

:  So you have the right to criticize the laws of another state from within 
:  this state. Assuming of course that you have a constitution here that
:  allows all citizens freedom of speech, etc... Which is my concern with the
:  present Constitutional proposal.

Another 'no limits' on MY free speech person??? Just limits on others??? Are
you against the sign law in Quebec? If so, then where are the French signs
in your community? English people refuse to put up French signs, unless
ordered to by the gov't. Sure there are exceptions, but there wouldn't be
a law in Quebec if Anglo businesses had had more French signs.

:  Frank.

Is that Frank as in 'Frank' magazine? Are you Robin as in Robin Collins? Who
are you?

I don't know if your letter was ironic or not?

--
Opinions expressed are my own, and are not necessarily those of Bell,BCE,etc.,
or any corporation, agency or association I may be affiliated with.
  Alex Laney, Independent User Interface Guru, IWS/TRACS Project.
  Addr: animal!bnkc08!alex  (or maybe alex@bnkc08.Bell.Ca)
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: Bell Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:41:30 GMT

Paul A.S. Ward (pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <BvEIFw.5Dq@animal.er.bell.ca> alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney) writes:
: >
: >I am amazed at you, an anglo in Quebec not wanting the francophones to have
: >the powers they need. What gives you the right? Do you know better?
: 
: And what powers would those be?  Limiting freedom of speech to French
: only?  Preventing signs not in French?
: 
: Tell me, why do they need thos powers?

The above statements only show your ignorance. Again, an anglophone not
wanting the francophones to have the powers that they decided they
needed. And you might wonder why they want them ...


--
Opinions expressed are my own, and are not necessarily those of Bell,BCE,etc.,
or any corporation, agency or association I may be affiliated with.
  Alex Laney, Independent User Interface Guru, IWS/TRACS Project.
  Addr: animal!bnkc08!alex  (or maybe alex@bnkc08.Bell.Ca)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:58:13 GMT

In article <knight.718492325@cunews> knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight) writes:
>
>Yes, if electoral redistribution were controlled by a conspiracy out
>to deny British Columbia seats. However, electoral districts are
>normally distributed roughly by population. Thus, if Quebec were at
>20% of the population and had 25% of seats, if the remaining seats
>were distributed evenly, B.C. (if it were at 25% of the population)
>would have 95% of its 25%, which is 24%.
>

When Quebec's population falls to around 22% of the population (if
you factor in the protected representation of the small provinces), 
it becomes MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for BC, Alberta, or Ontario to
have 95% of representation by population.

And at the crossover point...Quebec would have about 120% of
representation by population...around a 25% difference in voting
power per person.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general
From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Directory assistance for 1-800 number for Accord Text
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 13:05:22 GMT

As heard on CBC radio last week:

   A woman called directory assistance and asked for the 1-800 number
   to order a copy of the Charlottetown Accord.

   The operator replys:

   "I'm sorry, but there is no such place as Charlottetown Accord."


Xref: sparky can.general:4812 can.politics:8128 ott.general:1219
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:30:26 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
>ineffective.  Ray Pereau (sp?) Senator for B.C. did research on the
>proposed Senate.  He found that under no circumstances since the
>Second World War for each majority federal government elected that 
>a 60% rejection in the Senate could not overturn any bill in a 
>joint sitting of the HoC and the Senate.  The only exceptions would be
>in minority governments but then the government would be more sensitive

Is this just a grammatical error? Because what this says is that the
Senate WOULD be effective (ie: they could always have overturned
HoC legislation with a 60% vote in the senate).

By the way, I think you should redo your calculations for how much
BC would lose if Quebec's population dropped to 20%. With your answer
you seem to be assuming that all of Quebec's extra seats would be
taken from BC, which is foolishness. The actual numbers would be more
like:
             %Pop    %Seats     %RepbyPop
Quebec       20      25          125%
BC           25      23.44        94%
RestofCanada 55      51.56        94%

And this is a worst case scenario, as it is unlikely that Quebec will
drop to 20%, and it is even more unlikely that BC will rise to 25%
(hint: Ontario and Alberta are growing almost as fast now, and will
likely grow faster than BC after about 2000 when Hong Kong immigration
slows).
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: One Canada. Invisible. 
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:03:32 GMT

In article <8XNasB1w165w@cerianthus.pinetree.org> cowan@cerianthus.pinetree.org (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
>dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>
>> screwing up as Premier, which leads to the genuinely scary prospect of
>> having Wilson in power. It's almost enough to make one wish for the
>> return of the Zalm.
>
>Not too many years ago, when I lived in Victoria, I voted for Smilin'
>Bill.  I'm glad I didn't have to vote in that last election...  I
>wouldn't have known what to do :-)

Oh, it was *your* fault, was it?

Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.


Newsgroups: can.general
From: rbutterw@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth [MFCF])
Subject: Re: I've just had "Sex"..
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:53:00 GMT

>> Subject: Re: I've just had "Sex"..
>> .. entered on my Enumeration Record as "M".

My favourite response to the M vs. F sex question is something like:
"well I definitely prefer to "F", but sometimes that option isn't
 available to me so I have to "M".
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: Bell Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:01:14 GMT

Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:

: This isn't even remotely analogous. The original poster is a *Quebec*
: resident who believes that *Quebec* laws discriminate against him, and that
: the Constitutional package will worsen this state of affairs. You do not
: have to agree with him to see that he is hardly interfering anywhere he
: wants. He is taking a position on the laws that govern the community in
: which he lives; if that is considered to be interfering, then we obviously
: have very different notions of rights, democracy, and responsibilities

Ok it was a stretch... What I REALLY MEAN is that the francophones constitute
a nation, and that much of anglophone criticism against francophone positions
constitutes an intrusion into another nation's "area". And secondly, that
much of anglophone criticism is parochial towards francophone wishes. It was
not that long ago that business in Montreal especially was in English only.
This is gone now, 'it was the good ol' days' ... and a lot of anglos long
for those. There are anglophone areas south of Montreal and north of Ottawa
where there is still open hatred of the francophones.

Anyway, it is valid to criticize the laws enacted, and proposed agreements, but
the basis for what Quebecois have demanded is to protect their nation. I don't
think it is valid for anglophones to judge that what the francophones think
or feel or need. I am still surprised at the open hostility toward the
'Quiet Revolution' in Quebec. Wake up and smell the coffee, it is a nation in
Quebec, not just a group of francophones. They don't want to be anglos. And
that's okay, okay?

--
Opinions expressed are my own, and are not necessarily those of Bell,BCE,etc.,
or any corporation, agency or association I may be affiliated with.
  Alex Laney, Independent User Interface Guru, IWS/TRACS Project.
  Addr: animal!bnkc08!alex  (or maybe alex@bnkc08.Bell.Ca)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Is this referendum a rational choice procedure ?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:22:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.150109.11512@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca> tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis) writes:
>
>There are influences acting in both the direction of acceptance and
>of _rejection_ of a belief in the rationality of some politicians !
>
>What about the referendum itself ?  It is a rational choice procedure ?
>Or does it have more in common with, say, a game of poker in which
>the sharks are luring in the suckers by presenting it as simple
>best-hand-wins game and gentlemen don't bluff ?
>If not a rational choice procedure then what is the best response to
>its irrationality ?
>

All fundamental choices are ultimately irrational, but this does not
mean one should abandon reason, but let reason take one as far as
it can...i.e. use reason to construct the best educated and informed
hypothesis...and choose based on what your heart tells you about that
hypothesis.

Faith is reasoned willed choice.

The "players" will act to influence your intellect, your emotions, and
even your will to bias the choice, and it is your responsibility as
a citizen, in this case, not to allow yourself to be manipulated or
to surrender your independent reasoned judgement and intuition.

Gerald
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Reform Party's position
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:53:30 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>You might not agree with Preston Manning's idea's, but he probably
>has the most principled position of any of the major party leaders
>on the Accord.

Really? What about his recent statements to Ontarians that the least
divisive thing they could do was vote NO, since it looked like QC, BC,
and AB were going to vote NO.

What about him softening his stance in Ontario where the YES forces are
fairly strong (and where he is trying to grow support) as opposed to
the vehemence with which he pitches it in BC/AB? 

And last I heard, support for the deal in the RP was running about the
same proportion as in non RP people in the same region, so the original
poster's statement was essentially correct. He is trying to pull his
party rather than letting them push him as he claims.

No, I see no significant difference between him and other politicians
with regard to principles and sticking to them.
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
Xref: sparky can.general:4851 soc.culture.canada:7343
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:15:42 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Oct9.145445.19340@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) writes:
>
> Edmonton came from the defunct WHL
> Quebec came from the WHL (?)
> Calgary acquired the Atlanta Flames
> Ottawa revived the Senators this year
> And Hamilton is still waiting after trying for the umpteeth
> time to get i's own franchise.....
>
> Is that it?  Only seven Canadian hockey teams?
>
You forgot Winnipeg, which, like Edmonton and Quebec (and Hartford),
came from the World (sic) Hockey Association.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA