HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 21:37:47 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

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

> In article <09OCT92.10016101.0067@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
> >In article <1992Oct8.210912.17300@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy
> >>
> >>The only strong support for the Accord is in Ontario, and the main crafters
> >>of the Accord are Rae and that sellout Clark...things that make one
> >>go hmmm?
> >>
> >"Sellout"?  Are you suggesting that because he's from Alberta, Clark's
> >first (only?) loyalty should be to that province?  Isn't it at least
> >possible that Clark believes this deal is in the best interests of
> >Canada as a whole?
> >
> >Your comment is reminiscent of the lowest level of Quebec political
> >discourse, where anyone with the wrong opinion is a "vendu" and a
> >"traitre."
> >
> 
> Clark is the absolutely worst kind of politician...a man who was
> interested in politics and power for the sake of politics and power.
> He is a socialist, who submerged his ideas and ran as a Tory because
> it was the only way he could be elected.  There is no principle he will
> not sacrifice for expediency and the approval of others.  Being liked,
> for Clark, is more important than getting something right.  That 
> characterized his tenure at External Affairs, and the absence of a
> morally principled or intellectually principled vision is written all
> over Charlottetown.  One can simultaneously admire or despise both
> Trudeau and Mulroney because they take positions for reasons, and don't
> give a damn if anyone likes them because of it.  Clark is the ultimate
> appeaser...his politics is the politics of appeasement...Clark doesn't
> care about the diagnosis or solution of problems...whatever it
> takes to make the symptoms bearable and the people like him...thats
> the ticket.
> 
> Bob Rae is essentially a clone of Clark, although Rae had slightly more
> integrity to stay in the party he belongs.  Mulroney will rue the
> day he entrusted his political future to this duo...it was a massive 
> political mistake which will destroy his legacy.  One can survive
> being despised if one is principled, because one can be respected...Trudeau
> and Maggie Thatcher are perfect examples of this, and I believe Mulroney
> would have been respected in hindsight, but for the disastrous
> abandonment of any principle which Charlottetown represents, which
> he will be forever tarred with, and which history will never forgive
> him for.
> 
> Gerald


Joe Clark is a socialist? And Brian Mulroney has a future? And a legacy
(beyond broken promises, unemployment and a fractured nation)?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ......................!

I can't type any more, I'm laughing so hard!!!

emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: Swiss Franc (was Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:00:58 GMT

In article <WARKENT.92Oct7152631@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>In article <15938@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) wrote:
{stuff removed}
>
>> Considered
>> relative to the rest of the world, Canada may be seen as a stable place,
>> despite the constitutional posturing.
>
>You may be right, but the "relative" stability does not count in the
>eyes of most investors, who will only invest in truly stable countries.

This is getting a bit carried away. All investments are risky. The
question is how much risk? And how much expected return? If you make
the investment appear to be riskier, then you will need to offer a
higher expected return. The idea that investors will only invest in
"truly stable countries" is either vacuous, or false, depending how 
you choose to give empirical content to the phrase.

As for the stability of Canada as a place to invest: I see little
clear evidence as to whether the Yes or the No outcome will lead to 
greater long term investment in Canada. Long term real investment is
far more important for the productive capabilities of the country,
than the short term financial flows that try to arbitrage interest
differences. In particular how the politicians choose to give 
content to the concept of aboriginal rights will make a huge long 
term difference. As far as I can figure out "aboriginal rights"
remains a rather nebulous concept that will, if Yes wins, be defined
over the next few years. Probably ultimately by the Supreme Court.

Xref: sparky can.politics:8364 soc.culture.canada:7452
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Why Would the Charlottetown Agreement Make People Feel Canadian
Date: 13 Oct 92 12:28:03 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct9.125307.1074@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>Seriously, I'm *relieved* that the Canada clause isn't partisan, which
>I feared would happen during the conventions.  A bland, generic definition
>of Canada seems to be the most apt one, rather than having one with
>an "edge" that will be assured of alienating large portions of the population.
>

The description which you have given is the reason why the Charlottetown
agreement is headed for certain defeat and will bring the country down
with it.

The agreement is a bland colourless collection of platitudes and temporary
poliitcal accomodations among groups. There is nothing to hold the country
together. There is no reason why being a citizen of the federal state would
encourage anyone to sacrifice anything to preserve it.

We see evidence of this in the phrases "caved in", "sell out" and so
on which are coming from all groups. Westerners were supposed to be relieved
of their alienation by this agreement. They are going to defeat it.
Quebeckers were supposed to be made more secure by this agreement. They
are going to defeat it. None of these groups was made to feel that
Canada as an entity could be the guarantor of their collectivity.
Instead Canada was forgotten in the agreement whils the disputes separating
and alienating these groups are proposed to be enshined in a federal
state.

With Charlottetown, Canada will have lost its purpose or to put it in
your apt phrase, a "bland generic" place which has no purpose in existing.

The shorrt exchange which followed my original posting is an example of this.
I had hoped that posters would agree or disagree on what it was to be
Canadian. Instead of this there was a brief bit of pintless bickering
on crack pot American ideology. I suppose however that I succeeded in 
truly delineating Canada - a place of petty squabbles about ideas
which are imported from outside with all sides claiming moral superiority.
-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:28:21 GMT

In article <16204@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>I understand from this morning's radio news reports that the legal text of
>the accord specifically exempts aboriginal groups from the Charter of Rights
>and Freedoms. That only confirms the unacceptability of the deal for me.
 [ ... ]
>It is precisely because political "reality" is so often unacceptable that we
>need to judge it by standards of principle--not the other way around.

  Principled people have caused most of the wars and suffering of mankind.

  It is the difference between justice and legality that most principled
people never seem to quite understand - ie principle is only a part of a
well rounded whole and sometimes the smaller part.

  Given that most accept the right of self-determination for communities of
people who share a common race, language, culture or other historically
defined trait, I find it somewhat discouraging that many consider it 
acceptable for such groups to form a sovereign nation and then define
their own flavour of rights, but find it totally unacceptable for them to 
have those rights while still part of Canada.

  Part of maturity is recognizing that one of the rights people have is the
right to be wrong. If natives choose to exercise parts of the Accord in a
negative way, that should be their right. We can criticize, but should not
interfere directly or impose our views on them. If their views are wrong
then they will not benefit from them, and will either change them or their
society will fail.

  I am confident enough in the basic Canadian cultural strengths to allow
the natives to join the federation government now without requiring
them to abandon all rights to their past cultural practices. My feeling
is, they/we will adapt and harmonize political institutions better if 
allowed to move at their own pace, rather than having a complete transplant 
rammed down their throat as a condition of joining.
---- 
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
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: NPD en Quebec (was: October 26th Referendum)
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:41:44 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: I am opposed to the Accord for more than one reason...and although there
: there are things he supports in the Accord that I am opposed to, the
: reasons he opposes the Accord are among some of the reasons that I
: oppose it...(which is often the case since my spectrum of opposition
: to the Accord comprises the entire document and almost every clause).
: 

Yah, I gotta agree with you. There are more than enough single-issue nutcases
to disagree with everything in the Accord. There was even a guy on the
Journal the other night who said he was voting NO because he felt Health
Insurance was bad, and that poor people should have to pay their own way. He
also felt that the idea of trying to provide a reasonable standard of living
for all Canadians was a bad thing. So obviously if you disagree with the
Accord, you are going to find a few weirdos who agree with you.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:31:28 GMT

robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
: 
: IMHO, the status quo is better than the proposed deal. Others may disagree
: and vote accordingly, but I do not see why I should vote for a package
: that I view to be inferior than what we have now.

This is perfectly reasonable.  My opinion differs, however, in that I think 
that the status quo is not good.  The aboriginal people certainly don't 
like the status quo, even though their support for the accord itself is 
starting to wane. The status quo isn't serving national unity very well 
either. I also believe that a Canada sans Quebec will be inferior,
and that Quebec secession will be boosted by a rejection of the accord.  
If it is indeed rejected, I hope I'm proven wrong.

Like a lot of Canadians, I'm finding this referendum painful. Two weeks ago,
I was undecided, and was actually leaning towards the No side. The Yes side
began to seem more reasonable as of late (no thanks to Trudeau's unconvincing
remarks).  What has swayed me recently is that the common No complaints about 
the technical ramifications of the accord aren't as absolute as they maintain, 
but are more a matter of the mindset one uses when interpreting the text 
of the constitution.  More disturbing, should the No side win, I don't
see ANY hope of there being a settlement to this mess.  I certainly don't
share a Manning or Parizeau view of Canada, and Mulroney nor Trudeau's
stances on the constitution aren't very important to me.

I really do believe that, not withstanding constitutional issues, this 
current debate is important for Canada.  (Apologies. I should never say
"not withstanding" on can.politics.)  Canadians have little idea of
what Canada is as a country.  This debate might at least show that 
Canada is many things to many people.  It's a pity that the economy 
is a more pressing issue right now, or else we could stretch out
this debate for decades.

[ PS. Some advice for those thin-skinned individuals who I won't mention
      who don't like political lampoonery of Trudeau.  One word: enema.  
     'Nuff said. ]


-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:00:28 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct09.125829.21501@bmerh85.bnr.ca> viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca writes:
>Lots of people have pointed out things that are wrong with this accord.  One that 
>particularly irks a lot of people is the special rights based on race (i.e. Quebec 
>and the Indians).

Wrong!

There is "racial" rights for the indians. However, there is absolutely
no "racial" rights, or even racial distinction between quebecois and
the other canadians. The so-called "distinct society" clause merely
acknowledges the fact that Quebec has a francophone majority AND an
anglophone minority (the opposite of the rest of Canada), that Quebec
has a distinct judicial system (the Civil Code), and that Quebec has a
distinct culture. All of this is pretty obvious. Nothing about race
(thank God!).
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:27:01 GMT

In article <09OCT92.10016101.0067@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.210912.17300@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>The only strong support for the Accord is in Ontario, and the main crafters
>>of the Accord are Rae and that sellout Clark...things that make one
>>go hmmm?
>>
>"Sellout"?  Are you suggesting that because he's from Alberta, Clark's
>first (only?) loyalty should be to that province?  Isn't it at least
>possible that Clark believes this deal is in the best interests of
>Canada as a whole?
>
>Your comment is reminiscent of the lowest level of Quebec political
>discourse, where anyone with the wrong opinion is a "vendu" and a
>"traitre."
>

Clark is the absolutely worst kind of politician...a man who was
interested in politics and power for the sake of politics and power.
He is a socialist, who submerged his ideas and ran as a Tory because
it was the only way he could be elected.  There is no principle he will
not sacrifice for expediency and the approval of others.  Being liked,
for Clark, is more important than getting something right.  That 
characterized his tenure at External Affairs, and the absence of a
morally principled or intellectually principled vision is written all
over Charlottetown.  One can simultaneously admire or despise both
Trudeau and Mulroney because they take positions for reasons, and don't
give a damn if anyone likes them because of it.  Clark is the ultimate
appeaser...his politics is the politics of appeasement...Clark doesn't
care about the diagnosis or solution of problems...whatever it
takes to make the symptoms bearable and the people like him...thats
the ticket.

Bob Rae is essentially a clone of Clark, although Rae had slightly more
integrity to stay in the party he belongs.  Mulroney will rue the
day he entrusted his political future to this duo...it was a massive 
political mistake which will destroy his legacy.  One can survive
being despised if one is principled, because one can be respected...Trudeau
and Maggie Thatcher are perfect examples of this, and I believe Mulroney
would have been respected in hindsight, but for the disastrous
abandonment of any principle which Charlottetown represents, which
he will be forever tarred with, and which history will never forgive
him for.

Gerald
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 13:33:41 EDT
From: corrigible <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Referendum Results Newsgroup

In article <wcsv2k.718551782@cunews>, wcsv2k@alfred.carleton.ca (Bill St.
Arnaud) says:
>
>Has anybody looked into setting up a newsgroup like in the States to
>report on referendum results on Oct 26?
>This would be of assistance to our western friends becuase their
>broadcasters can't reveal the results from Quebec until the wetern
>polls close.
>
Why not just listen to Radio Canada International or the BBC World Service
on Short-wave? Also american broadcasters are notorious for ignoring canadian
bans on election coverage, you can probably get updates from CNN.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Distinct Societies
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:38:16 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct13.200622.23234@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
]I don't think anybody is arguing that Quebecers don't have unique cultures.
]What we do object to is the claim that all Quebecers have the same culture,
]and that that culture is defined legally and legally restricted as francophone.

It isn't. Nowhere is it mentioned that the "culture" is restricted to
francophones.

]In other words we are INCLUSIVE and object to EXCLUSIONARY legislation.
]Not the other way around.

It doesn't change the fact that the Quebec society AS A WHOLE is of
french culture and francophone tradition. Of course, it doesn't mean
that parallel cultures don't have any place here. But, it order to
function fully inside Quebec, you need to accept the predominance of
the french language and culture. This is especially true in national
institutions and in working environments.

]Similarly, I object to the term "english-Canadian". What the hell is an
]english-canadian? The assumption seems to be that not only are all
]Quebecers the same (so-called "disinctly" the same), but all those outside
]Quebec are also the same (and "english", whether they come from England or not
]and whether or not english is their first language.) A very wierd, although
]commonly held false mythology.

It refers to language, not the country of their ancestors. A
anglophone canadian of Czech origin will commonly be referred to as an
"anglais", even if he has nothing to do with england. Similarly, a
francophone african will be refered to as a "francais". 


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 14:15:52 GMT

In article <BvtL5q.Dn@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@minotaur (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Robin Collins (robinc@bnr.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: There are two possibilities. Either people (aboriginal or any other)
>: remain in Canada (or join Canada, depending on how you view it) and
>: are thus subject to Canadian law; or they secede and form a separate
>: state where they are subject to the laws of that new/separate state.
>
>Why don't Canadians join the first nations? Why is it so fair to ask the
>Iroquois to join Canada if we would not join the Iroquois in their place?
>
>: 
>: So if there are violent protests within Canada, I assume Canadian laws
>: will apply. The issue, however, is what causes the protests.
>: Are they legitimate claims. If so, then resolve those issues, but
>: within the context of Canadian law...a law I would again hope would be based
>: on _citizenship_, not race, language or region.
>
>Why not resolve these issues within the context of native law? How is it
>more fair to enforce "Canadian" law than "native" law?


You seem to have created a distinction between "native" law and some other
law (canadian, or "whiteman's" perhaps?). I like the idea of a common law,
decided upon by the majority of people. I think there are good traditions
in some aboriginal laws as well as in some present Canadian legal code.
But I am not willing to have a different law for different "races".  
I have no problem with Canadians joining first nations. It is exactly the
same thing as first nations joining Canadians.

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey)
Subject: Re: A Great Canadian Journalist
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:17:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.131011.5760@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
>
>Adios to Pamela Wallin, co-host of Canada AM and host of Question Period,
>one of Canada's best TV journalists, especially in the political spectrum.
>She's leaving Canada AM for other avenues (anyone heard where?).  Thanks
>for the professionalism and damn good work, Pamela!  I hope you continue
>in the same field - we need people like you.

She's going to be the co-host (with Peter Mainsbridge) of the revamped 
CBC evening news.  It should be premiering soon after the referendum.

-- 
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

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: Polling results -Where are they?
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:58:09 GMT

I would like to remind you about an anecdot the teacher of statistics
was giving about Polling accuracy.  Years ago (should be about 1983).

THe first time a newspaper published a survey, it was based on its
readers' opinion about the next US president.  When the president
was elected, it was completely out of prediction.  The reason is
quite simple : the readership of the newspaper was biased.

The same way, a polling a TV station with a specific or characterized
audience, will not be accurate.  But a polling with a not-characterized
audience would be more accurate.  Most TV shows are not biased except
for language, of course.  But newspapers are usually closer to a more
specific readership and a polling among their readers would be more biased.

The same way, a polling by calling homes may be biased depending on the
sequence of questions.  If you ask about the called person and find it
is someone in favor of something particular, and then say "do you favor
this point in the accord", then you'll get more yes.  You can't change
the questions depending on the called persons, but you can select the
questions you will ask.  It is a reason why there is a big variation
between polls : maybe the same "main" question, but introductory
questions are different.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu indetermine'   Mon opinion ? Non !