HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep10.154248.601@bnr.ca> <BuF7zA.B4K@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:13:01 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BuF7zA.B4K@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

   In article <1992Sep10.154248.601@bnr.ca> yali@bnrca (Yawar Ali) writes:
   >In article <BuBpMo.I7v@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
   >|> I don't agree:
   >|> In article <1992Sep8.195838.18202@bnr.ca> yali@bnrca (Yawar Ali) writes:
   >|> >My crystal ball shows the following:
   >|> >
   >|> >The new constitutional deal passes the referendum.
   >|> Won't pass.  At less 2 provinces will change there mind and a few
   >|> Quebec liberal will say there are against, enough so that majority
   >|> of Quebec, which is against today, will stay again.  And if it does not
   >|> pass in Quebec, it is useless to pass in Canada :-)
   >|>
   >
   >You are correct when you say that if the deal fails to pass in Quebec it
   >doesn't matter whether it passes in ROC. However, don't underestimate the
   >combined power of the recession, constitutional fatigue, and sophisticated
   >Federal and Provincial Liberal propaganda campaigns to dissuade Quebecers
   >from voting "no".

   If the No camp made clear the following, the agreement will not pass:
   1- The question is not Yes or No against Quebec secession (many will vote
   yes because they are confused at that point)
   2- In 1980, the Federal/No camp used 2 or 3 times the authorized amount

This is why there is a OUI side.  To mention these points.

   3- Even with 50%, majority of Quebec francophones are against.  

Tough shit.  My voice is no less important than yours.  A country must
respect its minorities.  Quebec cannot be "distinct" on this point.

   4- While the question is shorter in 1992, in 1980, it was self-contained.
   In 1992, the actual question is too long to be published in a newspaper.
   This is meaningful.

Really?  What was the question in 1980?  I don't remember is being
cleary defined ANYWHERE what "sovereignty-association" meant.  In
fact, my Canadian History 412 class in 1980 included as a question
"Sovereignty-Association is: <choose from 4 possible answers>".  The
question was eventually invalidated because you could make a case that
at least 3 of them were valid.

--
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: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Adding insult to injury?
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:57:29 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Steve Potter) writes:
>I post this as an illustration of the sort of crap I have to put
>up with, living in Quebec.

Oh no, it goes again...

>There are rumours that there is a movement at my son's (French) school
>to change the school's name.
>It was established as an English Elementary School and was called,
>naturally, "Crawford Park School".
>The P.S.B.G.M. terminated the private lease and reopened the school
>last year as a French elementary school. (A very good one, I hasten
>to add!). It is now called,naturally, "Ecole Crawford Park".
>Why change it? - "the name is too English" apparently.

Look, a school is for children. The name should at least be a name in
the language of the children in the schools. Change the name, I
support it 100%! The same would apply if a french school became an
english schools.  If I was a kid attending a french school with an
english name, I'd like to have it's name changed as well.

In Hull (QC), where I live, an english and a french school swapped
location a few year ago (not in the same area of town) because of a
switch in the proportion in the number of students in both schools.
"D'Arcy McGee" became "Promenade" and "Gamelin" became "D'Arcy Mcgee".
(Gamelin didn't stay because it wasn't on Gamelin blv anymore). Not
that in that case, the english school kept its english name in the
moving, while the french name of the french school was change to a
bilingual name (probably not on purpose).

What's wrong with this? It's no "perte du patrimoine" or whatever,
it's just adapting to new realities.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:14:00 GMT
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!


steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) asks about the status of
schooling in Swiss cantons :writes:
>
> Could you find out what language schooling is available in various
> regions too?   (i.e. minority language, immersion programs, 2nd or
> 3rd language programs etc.)

I will ask my relative, but I doubt very much that immersion programs
exist. As for 2nd and 3rd language programs, German is taught as second
language in the French and Italian cantons and French is taught as
2nd language in the German cantons. As I said, I don't know the
situation for bilingual cantons.  However, given the geographic
situation of Valais, I tend to believe that its German speaking
population is concentrated in one or two valleys, and that its
French population is concentrated in one or two valleys, in which
case German will be the education language in the German valleys,
and French in the French valleys.  But I will have to check.

As for third language programs, it is definitely English. And from
what I gathered from an article published in soc.culture.french,
English may well become the second language, due to the fact that
there is no such thing as a standard Swiss German language, but a
multitude of German dialects. It seems that those dialects are
increasingly taking precedence over "German", up to the point
where people from one region (sometimes only 20 km apart) cannot
understand each other.  This was already the case when I was a
kid, but has worsen with time. In this article, they said that
discourses in the High Chamber (the equivalent of the Commons)
are now all translated and interpreted in English to ensure that
everybody understands what is being said ... :-(

>
> Are there any restrictions? (e.g. German kids not allowed to attend
> German schools, if available, in predominantly French regions unless
> their parents were born there or educated in those shools etc.)

I will also ask about this one.  But there is one thing to be
understood about Switzerland : that country is a Confederation of
fully sovereign states, and the Federal level has NO say in the
language spoken and taught in those states. Now, inside those
states, the communes (municipalities) are also sovereign.  Although
Education is the responsibility of the canton, I would not be
surprised if, in bilingual cantons, the decision about which
language is taught in school would be left to the communes, i.e.
a predominantly German commune would offer schooling in
German, a French commune in French.  

Please give me 2 or 3 weeks before I answer those questions with
more accurate information.


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

La Liberte n'est pas une marque de yogourt.
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 5 Sep 92 16:36:45 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 5 Sep 92 12:44:11 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) said:
  > X-Bytes: 6368

  > I repeat: Quebec is a *predominantly* francophone society. Le "visage"
  > francais du Quebec est un masque!. C'est bien evident.

A moins qu'il y ait deux visages, dont l'un d'eux soit
predominant et francais :-) 
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:49:34 GMT

emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>Lastly, we simply do not have the luxury of pissing around with the 
>consitutional arrangement for another ten years. Our jobs are 
>disappearing, the economy is going to hell in a handbasket, the education 
>system is falling to bits, etc. We simply MUST start paying attention to 
>some of the other problems out there. 

So let's ignore the constitution for a while -- Jeffrey Simpson's
suggestion. The crisis has been manufactured by politician's for their
own ends; it could be un-manufactured as well.

>If TROC accepts this accord, distasteful though it is to many of us, we 
>may have to go through this again - in forty or fifty years. If we reject 
>it, it won't matter whether it was perfect or not.

There was similar thinking following the patriation of the constitution.
If we accept the accord, we may be going through it all over again in just
a few years. And there's also the problem that this deal does a lot to
prevent any future repairs.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:54:38 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>Dividing all demands into "individual" and "collective" can be confusing.
>Do the terms have any meaning at all?

I think we understand what individual rights and freedoms are.  Let us
try to find out what "collective rights and freedoms" are.

Collective rights/freedoms are rights/freedoms claimed by an individual
as member of, or on behalf of, a group.  -- Josee Legault

right/freedom - as member of
----------------------------
In a liberal society, we normally do not discriminate between individuals
according to the group they belong to.  Although Quebec nationalists have
argued that citizens of Quebec should have rights that differ depending upon
the group they belong to, they say this is made "necessary" by the
right of the francophones linguistic group to exist [see below].  No one is
demanding rights/freedoms simply "as member of" a particular group.

freedom - on behalf of
----------------------
We cannot say that a group has freedom.
A group has no will, so it cannot have freedom (unless it is an organization
in which case it derives rights/freedoms from its individual members).

right - on behalf of
--------------------
We can say that a group as a singular entity has a right.
   "The francophone linguistic group should exist" declares such a right.

This is the whole shootin' match right here.  Some people say the francophone
linguistic group should exist.  Some people say the anglophone linguistic
group should exist.  Some people say they cannot coexist.  Some people say
they can.  Some people say the f.l.g. should exist, but not if it means
overriding individual rights.  Some people disagree.

Quebec nationalists base their case on this: an asserted right of the
francophone linguistic group to exist.

Now, it would be nice to have a more precise specification of this right.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:17:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.132844.28402@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>
>I will vote YES because I like the deal.  Do you want to know why?  Well I'll
>tell you anyway.  Because it does virtually nothing to change anyones life
>and settles an annoying problem.  These changes are minimal : 
>

If your living in a suburban neighborhood, under this deal your next
door neighbor could be living by an entirely different set of laws than
you within a decade...based mainly on the genetic content of
chromosomes.  Aboriginal self-government is not limited to reserves,
but is coming to a neighborhood near you.  The schools, social 
services, justice system of your next door neighbor may be entirely
different than yours.  Schools wouldn't be a problem...I favor
school choice, and if Catholics and aboriginals have their own
schools, it will soon be impossible to deny public funding to
other private groups religious or otherwise.  This actually may
be a good thing.  But parallel delivery systems for social services,
parallel justice systems, within an urban setting, I think could be
a recipe for disaster.

>   1. Before we had a useless appointed senate, now we have a useless elected
>      senate,

It might cost $200 million dollars to retire this Senate, and an extra
few hundred million dollars a year to pay for elected Senators and MP's
over appointed ones, and in an agreement where we are giving Ottawa
less to do because we are decentralizing the federation more.

>   2. Ontario and Quebec have always had all the political power in Canada, 
>      now they have a little bit more,
>   3. Almost no powers were exchanged that didn't already exist,

National shared cost social programs will be a thing of the past...
this may be a good thing...but then if you are a resident of one
of the smaller poorer provinces you might not think so.

>   4. The Natives are actually getting something out of it, and since it
>      does not violate the charter it doesn't bug me.
>

G&M version of agreement Sept 1,1992: Section IV-A-43 paragraph 3
says aboriginal governments will have access to the notwithstanding
clause.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill)
Subject: sex and the senate
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:06:59 GMT

     Here in BC, there is a big stink about the possibility of the Senate
seats being legislated as 3 women and 3 men.  I also hear that in Ontario
and Nova Scotia, where similar legislation is being considered, narry a word
is being said against it.  Why is this so?  What is going on over there
that is quieting the masses?  Or what is going on here that is inflaming
them?

     Personally, I would love to see 6 women senators from BC, but that requies
a completely free vote, with the six best/most popular being elected.  I don't
like the idea of legislating Senate seats by sex.  In fact, I am surprised
that no group has come out demanding that ethnic origin or sexual persuasion
should also be criteria for candidates.  I can just imagine a situation 
where, for example, only oriental women candidates are permitted for a Senate
byelection.  Or the more likely situation, that only 3 women decide to run 
and enter the Senate by acclamation.

     I vote for the best mind amongst the candidates -- I couldn't care less
what that brain is attached to.

--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile             gill@physics.ubc.ca
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Wells
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:24:03 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
]This hardly sounds to me like someone too stupid to realise that
]part of his support comes from the red-neck fringe.

This is where I beg to differ. If a politicians receives 15% of his
supports form anti-francophone extremists, it means that his ideas
seems to appeal to them. In the place of that politician (provided
that I'm not anti-francophone), I would not be happy about such a
support and would try to find out why my views are so appealing to
them.

]How do you know that the K-Mart employee is part of the 15 % of
]Wells' supporters who are anti-Quebec fanatics, and not part of
]the 85 % who support him because (rightly or wrongly) they see
]him as more principled and more honest than other politicians?

Intuition?  :-)
How often will the people of one province support a primier of
another province to the point of wanting him for prime minister
(especially when the premier is leading the poorest province)?

]I think that you, like many francophones, overestimate the
]importance of the Orange Lodge in the Ontario of today.  Michel
]Vastel, when he was the Ottawa correspondent for le Devoir, used
]to irritate me with his frequent references to "l'Ontario orangiste."

I would have been very irritated in your place too. It's the
equivalent (for us) of seeing "nationalist" and "separatist" in anglo
newspapers everytime the word "Quebec" is written.

]I grew up in a region of Ontario where the Orange Lodge used to
]be very influential.  Today its remaining members are mostly very
]old, and its bigoted views are very marginal.  I wish one could say
]the same about groups such as la Societe St-Jean-Baptiste de Montreal.

Most people dont use "orangiste" in the stictest sense: its is merely
used to refer to a certain xenophobic-anti-french/catholic spirit that
has somewhat managed to remain in the minds of a few, wether they are
part of the Orange Lodge or not.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: How did you interpret the 1980 Referendum?
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:17:22 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 868

From article <92249.092450BURGER@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, by BURGER@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Bob Burge):
> What I think I am going to do is to charge up my mainframe bill by going back
> to look at the Quebec Referendum study conducted as part of the 1974-79-80
> Canadian national election studies.  If I recall correctly, there was a panel
> component to all four parts.  I think, also, that the referendum part asked
> plenty of other questions -- probably good for cohort analysis purposes.

I'd like to see it.

If you can't post it maybe you can e-mail or FAX it to me?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nfs@kastle (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:44:28 GMT

Time to see if our sysadmin is right when he says this will make it to
Canada.  I'd appreciate email if anyone in Canada actually sees this note;
otherwise, I'll ask Ken Buckland at ubc to post a few things for me.

In article <1992Sep8.183646.4522@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>Am I imagining things, or are the people who are screaming about the
>sacred principle of rep by pop the same ones who want the EEE Senate,
>which would give PEI the same representation in the Senate as Ontario?
>I'm sure some of them are the same people!
>
>Weird.  :-)

From my perspective, the weird (but not unexpected) aspect is that all
the people who were screaming about the sacred principle of rep by pop
(i.e. mostly Ontarians) when EEE was on the table have suddenly come
to their senses and realized that a compromise on this principle is
both necessary and reasonable.

How very generous of them to ditch rep by pop when it costs them nothing!

Definitely no :-)

Norbert
-- Due to brain-dead posting software, email should be addressed to --
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in Quebec
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:37:56 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

>I must vote "NO!".

Steve, the first priority of Quebec anglophones must be to prevent the
separation of Quebec, which is a cause better served by voting "Yes."

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: RE: Senate/House of Commons
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:37:50 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <SBO.92Sep8085100@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
>Here's a little question:
>
>In this country, in order to pass a law we have the
>following (roughly):
>
>        1. Someone get's a brilliant idea !
>        2. It is proposed and debated in the house of common
>        3. It is voted on by the house of common
>        4. If it passes in the house of common it now
>           has to be approved by the senate
>
>
>Suppose now that we have a "true" EEE senate (50%+ against
>any law rejects that law for good)
>
>
>In order to finally get a law you need to reach "bingo" So
>what is the difference, to obtain the end result, between?:
>
>        a) rep. by pop house of common and "true" EEE senate

    nifty flow charts deleted
>
>        b) rep. by pop+EE senate and Equal rep. in the house
>           of common

The main difference is that not all "brilliant ideas" (your point
no. 1 above) are given equal consideration.  The Government sets
the agenda for Parliament, and most of the time is spent on its
bills, while private members' bills have very little chance of
passage.  Who forms the government is determined by which party
controls the House of Commons.  That's why the Commons will remain
more important than the Senate, and why the former should be based
on rep by pop (if you believe that one person, one vote is a basic
tenet of democracy).

I believe the proposed new Senate will be able to initiate legislation.
However, I don't think it's clear yet what priority the Commons will
give to such bills.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics