HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Thank You Mr. Clark was Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:36:17 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <13500@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>>
>>>Boy, you really live in a hate-filled artificially created little
>>>world of your own! Who will you hate after Quebec seccedes? Yourself?
>>
>>I don't hate Quebecers. 
>>
>>I hate blackmailers. 
>
>The object of the Charlottetown Accord and the constitutional miasma that
>led up to it was to recognize diversity by producing a 
>"Community of Communities"

  Not quite ... it was to provide a system of government which recognized
and incorporated the fact of Canada being a diverse collection of peoples
who choose to view themselves more from the persepective of local interests
and communities than homogenous nationalism.

>From the evidence of this thread (which is accurately summarized by
>the quotation above), the process has worked. Canada is now a
>"Community of Communities". Unfortunately there is nothing to hold
>these communities together but the mutual ignorance and suspicion generated by
>a process which pitted region against cultural group against national
>vision.

  The fact has always been present. Recognition of it is starting to
come about, as you so aptly demonstrate. Recognition of the problem that
this presents, ie unorganized breakdown into feuding communities and the
growth of all those negative attitudes and feelings that occur during such
a process seems also to be occurring.

>Welcome to the new Canada. Why does it remind me of Cyprus? Maybe it is the
>absolute certainty with which these postings are filled. No one can 
>understand the other and the other must hold his position because of
>hatred, stupidity or ignorance. Welcome to the new Canada. 
>
>Thank you Mr. Clark
>-- 
>i.sinature

  I think this is what Clark and others were warning people about. Are
you trying to shoot the messenger in your frustration with the message?

  But perhaps just as Meech seemed like not so bad a deal when Allaire came
out, some of the suggestions that have been proposed over the last few
years will be reinvented and refined, and will yet provide a flexible
basis for governing (rather than dictating to) the Canadian mosaic.
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: paien00@DMI.USherb.CA (Nick)
Subject: Re: Quebec
Organization: Ascot Boyz - ANS Reader - BB #1
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:38:45 GMT

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) a ecrit:

>But there ARE English language schools in Quebec that English children
>are being denied access to!
>
>Are there any French language schools in Japan?
>
>If you move to a neighbourhood in B.C. where there is a French public school,
>your French-speaking children will not be denied access to that school.

Ok change BC for anywhere else in the world... Because it's right...
Quebec & BC are in Canada!

>
>It is true that there are French communities in Canada that do not have
>their own schools, and in some areas there are sufficient French-speaking
>families to warrant funding such schools, but there is no legislation in
>ROC like that in Quebec that denies access to their own language schools
>for official minority language children.

Anyway like someone said previously... the problem of ROC is that it's
always talking about the English minority in Quebec... Whatever is bad
it because of that... Like I DO NOT care if French People are not
allowed to go to French school in some others countries... or even in
Alberta...  I will not try to teach people about Charter of Rights...
This  may  sound like selfish but that's it!

And BTW 2/3 of the  nglish community is plannig to move out... I'm
sure it's  because  of the School system... it's because they don't
feel accepted... Why???? Because each and everytime there's something
that  the  majority wants... they're against... And they complained
about they rights... 

I hate to do this but just compare with others minorities... I don't
say that it's correct  to do this but it  a choice  of SOCIETY that
TROC can just not accept... that's it! Bill 101 is one of the  most
popular bill ever passed in Quebec...  Anyway it's  not because of
Bill 101 or Bill  178 (witch is total stupid) that  it's not going
well in Canada!

>
>If you moved to a neighbourhood in B.C. where there was a French school
>across the street - would you keep your mouth shut if the B.C. government
>sent you a letter declaring that your children were "ineligible for
>instruction in French"?
>
I guess not because I would go there knowing what's going on!


-- 
						Nick
  - Ce n'est pas parce qu'une rumeur ne tient   
     pas debout... qu'elle ne peut courir !    
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: poem by Calvin Trillin       :->
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 18:26:07 GMT

Baker, Baker, Miracle Maker     (reprise)

Baker, Baker, miracle maker,
Where did your miracle go?
The gay-bashing flopped,
The red scare was dropped.
What more do you have from below?

Baker, Baker, miracle maker,
No wonder you haven't been seen.
In this sort of fight,
One stays out of sight.
A gentleman's hands remain clean.

by Calvin Trillin

published on page 529 of The Nation, November 9, 1992, volume 255, number 15

James A. Baker, III          my all time favorite smoothie ...        R.I.P.
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Definition of/d'un "Quebecois"
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:40:53 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <pvF=Ny#@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>T'as repondu qu'il y a un citoyennite' (???) quebecois.  Je t'ai
>contradit.  Si tu as simplement dit qu'il faut demander aux gens
>si ils se croient quebecois, je n'aurais rien dit.

Bon, j'ai peut-etre trop reagit vigoureusement. Mais il y avait des
petites insinuations irritantes dans ton posting, et ca m'a fait
sursauter. Sorry.

Le problemme restera delicat tant qu'il n'y aura pas de vrai
citoyennete quebecoise. Par exemple, si je demenage en Ontario, je ne
me considairerai jamais comme un ontarien. Donc, pour moi, ta
definition ne fonctionnne pas toujours.

Ciao!
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Re: Virginie's TV violence petition
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:22:09 GMT
Followup-To: can.politics,soc.culture.canada

In article <1992Nov20.174736.2104@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

(Denis writes)
>>I think the point (and you missed it), violence on TV is present enough
>>to show to children that violence is "natural", like the sky is blue
>>or the sun is hot or people are (usually married).

> I would agree with Denis, and I don't see a problem with restricting
> violent TV shows to certain hours (e.g. after 10pm). I consider it quite
> ludicrous that nudity on TV is a no-no, while murder is A-OK. 

You're right. If City TV Toronto can show a little sex after midnight, then
what is wrong if someone shows Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch or Kurosawa's
Ran in prime time. I prefer content labels than the repressive censorship 
that this petition advocates.

> On the other hand, when direct broadcast satellite comes into its own,
> doesn't all this become moot as there would be no way to regulate what the
> public watches?

Isn't that the point. No-one is stopping us from talking on the computer.
Someday the state will want to regulate all of us (just as they are trying
to take away alt.sex.* on Usenet news), but the technologie will make all
this censorship obselete. Like I said... warning labels.

> Here I am not so sure. Cartoons are almost by definition fantasy. Surely
> even children realize this. After all, how many talking, upright walking, 6
> foot bunnies have they run into other than on TV.
> -- 
> Jim Robinson
> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
> {ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Excellent. When I was I kid I believed in le Pere Noel. That didn't hurt me
either. An excellent movie to rent out is Harvey, with Jimmy Stewart (now
there you WILL believe that there is a walking talking 6 foot tall bunny)

-- 

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apologies accepted, Captian Nida", Darth Vader
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Re: (No) Thank you Joe Clark (was something else)
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:13:34 GMT

In article <13615@grayt>, grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:

}>>I don't hate Quebecers. 
}>>I hate blackmailers. 
 
Ever since Trudeau's racist attack on Quebecers and an entire generation of
Quebec politicians in Macleans and Actualite, it has been fashionable to quote
the old man in all too many attacks on the evils of decentralization and
Quebec sovereignty.
 
more ultra federalist blah-blah....
>Since this fact was recognized and provided for in the BNA act, I do not
>see how Clark's proposals are any revelation. However Clark tipped the
>balance. The effect of his ideas is to promote regionalism and isolation.
>Regionalism and isolation breed the comments and attitudes seen above.
 
>The message that Clark was trying to send was common place knowledge.
>Clark's solution instead of alleviating the problem, aggravated it.

 
Joe Clark's problem is that he is just giving Canadians the status quo,
dressed up as the new regionalist Canada. Look at how little was offered
in the area of powers in both Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord.
If anything, Joe Clark failed the communities that you despise.

 
>}But perhaps just as Meech seemed like not so bad a deal when Allaire came
>}out.


Why did people have such a hard time accepting the Allaire report? Ottawa
spends illegally in many areas that are exclusive provincial jurisdiction,
and many of the powers that Allaire was claiming for Quebec were already
legitimately theirs. 


>The pan-Canadian myth now seems to be that your region, group whatever
>is exploited by its neighbours. Such a myth can only bring hardship.
>Now the political entity of Canada is not important. If Canada can provide
>a way for people to live in peace it should continue. However if Canada becomes
>a way of objectifying your neighbour, it should not and will not survive.
>The tragedy will be that the hatreds produced will live on long after
>the demise of Canada.
 
The pan-Canadian myth died many years ago but lives in the hearts of all too
many Canadians. They had their chance to define that beautiful bilingual 
Canada when French minorites really needed it. It is far too late today.
And French Quebecers are not just another ethnic group. Quebec has a history
a culture and is a nation in every classic sense of the word. It's time the
rest of the country woke up on this. The idea that all provinces are the same 
or that Ottawa is the caretaker of Canada must be killed before we can't pay
for this country anymore.
 
> i.sinature
__

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apologies accepted, Captian Nida", Darth Vader
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: plahaie@gel.ulaval.ca (Pierre Lahaie)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: plahaie@gel.ulaval.ca
Organization: Dept. Genie Electrique, Universite Laval
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:07:54 GMT

M. Bruce Jonathan Schuck is an horrible guy, very intolerant, and maybe 
he has in his family some Serbian blood.

Nazi's just before the second world war were speaking just like that about 
Jewish.

plahaie@gel.ulaval.ca

If you want me to respect you, just stop saying stupid things.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:40:01 GMT

plahaie@gel.ulaval.ca (Pierre Lahaie) writes:

>M. Bruce Jonathan Schuck is an horrible guy

No, actually I'm a very nice guy.

>, very intolerant, and maybe 

Not at all.

>he has in his family some Serbian blood.

Nope.

>Nazi's just before the second world war were speaking just like that about 
>Jewish.

Sure , call me a Nazi because I won't suck up to Quebec like a "good"
Canadian. You are dumber than a sack of hammers if you think anything
I've said has anything to do with Naziism.

I'm not promoting violence.

All I'm saying is that there is nothing in it for BC to go easy on
Quebec if and/or when Quebec decides to secede. If Quebeckers think
secession is going to go real smoothe and all the provinces will want
free trade with Quebec, and all the special deals Quebec has recieved
over the years will continue, and all the subsidies will continue, and
you can keep using our dollar, and keep using the Bank of Canada,
then you are deluding yourselves.

British Columbians will ask "whats in it for us" when deciding how to
treat Quebec and the former citizens of Canada -- exactly the same way
Quebec will have asked "whats in it for us" when deciding to stay or
go.

Quebec has been threatening to secede for years if they don't get
their way, and British Columbians have finally gotten real tired of
the whole charade. Stay or go. Piss or get off the pot. Make a
decision. But, stop threatening us. You need us more than we need you,
and your threats are empty.

And if you really think what I have said has anything to do with
Naziism and genocide, then you are a pinhead.




Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Definition of/d'un "Quebecois"
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 04:00:26 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>>A "quebecois" is simply a Quebec citizen. Anyone legally a Quebec
>>>citizen.
>>>
>>>PS: It helps if that person thinks of hiself/herself as being a
>>>quebecois.
>>>
>>I don't think there is such a thing, legally, as a Quebec "citizen".
>>There are Quebec "residents" and even, under the voting law, something
>>like an "ex-patriot", but no citizenship.
>
>Because for now, Quebec is not a country.
>
Just my point.  Since there is no such thing (for now) as a "Citizen of
Quebec", it's not a good definition of quebecois.  Perhaps in a couple
of years it will be an excellent definition, but now....

>>And if there is/were something like a Quebec citizenship, what would
>>it help for a person to think of themself as a quebecois?  After all,
>>it would be a simple matter of legality -- "Papiers, Monsieur?"
>
>You a a paranoid manipulator. Why the hell put policeman-like
>statement in here? If I asked you what's the definition of an
>Ontarian, what would you have said?
>
I'm sorry.  I didn't mean it like that.  I just had in mind the person
at the immigration counter asking for proof of citizenship.  It didn't
occur to me that it might be taken as implying that Quebec would be a
police state.

If you had asked me what an Ontarian was, I'd have said "someone who
lives in Ontario or grew up there."

>>Il y a, peut etre, des degres de quebecois?
>
>Evidemment non.

Poirquoi pas?  Je dirais qu'il y a des degres d'Ontarien.  Il y a
ces qui l'y a demeure toute la vie, et ces qui y habite pendant qu'il
ne trouve pas l'emploi "chez lui" (comme moi!).

On the other hand, a Canadian is someone with Canadian citizenship.
There are no degrees there.

>Je dois avouer que je n'ai jamais vu une mauvaise foi pareille chez
>aucun individu dans toute ma vie. On me demmande "qui est quebecois?"
>Je reponds qu'il faut demmander aux gens si ils se croient quebecois
>pour avoir une reponse et il se trouve quelqu'un pur dire que c'est
>uen representation de l'Etat-Policier fachiste et raciste.
>
T'as lu beaucoup plus que j'ai ecrit.

T'as repondu qu'il y a un citoyennite' (???) quebecois.  Je t'ai
contradit.  Si tu as simplement dit qu'il faut demander aux gens
si ils se croient quebecois, je n'aurais rien dit.

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Re: Virginie's TV violence petition
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:39:26 GMT

In article <By0w44.6xp@DMI.USherb.CA>, paien00@DMI.USherb.CA (Nick) writes:

>>Yeah, there are "weirdos" everywhere and TV caused all of them to go and rape
>>and kill, right? That's like Hitler blaming Jews for Germany's economic woes!
>>(ou Duplessis et les communistes!)
> 
> No but just if it would be to save ten or one it would worth it! You
> could live without A-Team or Wile E Coyte and there's is probably many
> shows that are not on the air beause they're judged too violent! Are
> you upset by them??? No because you don't know they exist... it would
> be the same...

Unfortunately, that is what the lawyers and politicians and lobbyists want
people to believe. They know that people care about real problems and they
go and propose bad ways of relieiving them (witness the Charlottetown 
Accord, RIP). As someone said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
> So if we have some problems we should not be able to solve some
> others???

While we're at it, let's stop inventing scapegoats for our problems (like
my beloved TV)

> But anyways... I mean and you know it there's nothing that will change
> for a long time... The Governement will not do anything anyways. So
> you'Re going to be able to watch whatever you want and the weirdos who
> REALLY get upset by the TV will continue doing what they do...

If the politicians do anything, the courts will probably strike it down
anyways. 

Oh... and the Weirdos, the only reason TV affects them in such a big way
is because all of them are locked up in prison and have nothing else to do
except watch TV (no wonder they have trouble coping with life when they
come out).

> 						Nick
>   - Ce n'est pas parce qu'une rumeur ne tient   
>      pas debout... qu'elle ne peut courir !    

-- 

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apologies accepted, Captian Nida", Darth Vader
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: paien00@DMI.USherb.CA (Nick)
Subject: Re: Quebec
Organization: Ascot Boyz - ANS Reader - BB #1
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:41:30 GMT

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) a ecrit:
>
>Denis suggested that the lack of "Native" education in other provinces,
>compared to the lack of Cree and Mohawk education in Quebec, makes the
>assertion that racism is rampant in Quebec "irrelevant".

But anyway.. whatever Quebec does it bad... so why argu. I mean every
studies are saying the same thing: that Quebec is not worse than
in ROC and is sometimes better... so why always bashing on Quebec???


>In response to being reminded that 12,000 English children are also denied
>access to their own (existing!) language community schools in Quebec, he
>says that those families came here voluntarily after such rules came into
>existence and complain.
>
>People who think rules are racist or unjust should not complain about them
>if they came here after those rules were established!

No but I mean if I move for BC one day, I'm not going to complain about the
fact that there's no French school there... Same thing if I move to Japan!



-- 
						Nick
  - Ce n'est pas parce qu'une rumeur ne tient   
     pas debout... qu'elle ne peut courir !    
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pierre@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Pierre Rouleau)
Subject: Re: Bilingual posts (was Labelling)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:51:19 GMT

In article <TODD.92Nov17094022@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>  
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law) writes:
> 
> {Je suis d'accord avec "not looking down on each other" mais il
> faut que je rejet le part "equals". (LE REALITE!) Est-ce que la majorite
> peut etre egale avec la minorite? Le mathematique elementaire dit que
> "non".  C'est especialement vrai quand on considere qu-il existe
> les voisins Americans qui sont pour la plupart des anglophones,
> que veut dire que les francophones comprise moins que 2% de la
> population du Canada et E.U.  Le realite dit que les francophones
> sont une minorite au Canada. Pourquoi est-ce que une minorite
> doit recu un statu plus important que les autres minorites? ...

La logique de la vison des deux nations fondatrices du Canada,
l'une majoritaire et l'autre minoritaire, n'implique pas un
traitement preferentiel pour quiconque. Le Canada est une
construction socio-politique d'origine europeenne et basee sur
deux regimes: l'un d'origine britannique, l'autre d'origine 
francaise. La culture amerindienne n'y est pour rien, et l'apport
des autres cultures n'est que recent. L'ensemble des deux regimes
a etabli une TRADITION qui nous a TOUS bien servi jusqu'a date,
certainement du point de vue de la paix sociale.

Les Francophones representent un Canadien sur quatre; ca c'est la
realite "mathematique". Une amalgamation de deux cultures predominantes
requiert le respect de chacune, y compris la reconnaissance de
pratiques differentes en matiere de Loi, Langue et Culture. Sans
cela il n'y a pas de Canada tel que reconnu a travers le Monde.
Sans cela il n'y a pas de barriere certaine entre la culture
canadienne et la culture americaine. Sans cela il n'y a aucun
espoir d'amalgamer une troisieme, quatrieme, cinquieme culture.
Sans cela il n'y a pas de tradition, mais plutot un Etat tentant de
fonctionner avec des structures mal definies, volatiles, et
probablement instables ...

Pierre R.


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: tdwebste@sparta.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamp
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:19:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.160146.5864@cerberus.ulaval.ca> plahaie@gel.ulaval.ca writes:
>In response to your post about the partition of Quebec, let me remember how much 
>the federal government is in debt.  So let go if you want to take that part of
>territory in the advent of secession of Quebec from Canada take also the entire 
>debt and maybe everybody will be happy.
>
>
>Pierre Lahaie
>
>plahaie@gel.ulaval.ca
>
>If you want me to respect you stop saying stupid things.
>

How much territory for how much debt forgiveness? Why not forgive Quebec
all of the federal debt and provincial debt in exchange for their
territory :-). 

-tim.

This should give Quebec Inc. the leg up they are looking for. (no debt) :-)
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:08:35 GMT

>>In article <schuck.721856976@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>Well, here's a causality chain:
>>1) Quebec separates
>>2) CSQ cuts off trade with Quebec
>>  This has the result:
>>3) Ontarians whose jobs depend on imports from Quebec find their jobs
>>at least disrupted.  If they're not lucky, the jobs may be lost
>>altogether.  This means that:

This statement is misleading.  The actual statement should be that
     Ontarians whose jobs depend on EXPORTS to Quebec ...

You have more jobs thanks to export and lose 'cause of import.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Que'bec renouvele' dans une Ame'rique renove'e
\_.-===  Ope'rateur de "Racines du Que'bec" (514) 922-9636 BBS/Genealogie
Newsgroups: can.politics