HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,sci.research.careers
Subject: Montreal news of Fabrikant - 10
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:56:11 GMT
Organization: Not Philips

Fabrikant's preliminary hearing continued yesterday.  Little worth
repeating here was reported in the media from a day of mainly ballistics
and pathology reports.

A SWAT team member testified that after Fabrikant surrendered, he found a
.38-calibre revolver in his trousers.  The gun had four spent cartridges
and one live bullet in the chamber.

Fabrikant fired his legal-aid lawyer, Michel Leclerc, saying he was
disloyal and gave bad advice.  He did it, Fabrikant told the judge, because
Leclerc did not help him in his attempt to have the trial moved to an
Indian reserve.  Indians, said Fabrikant, "know what it is to be
oppressed."

The judge told Leclerc to stay on as an advisor, but when Fabrikant
continued to launch insults at him, the lawyer said he was fed-up with the
abuse.  When Leclerc asked to be relieved of his role, the judge agreed,
and he strode out of the room saying he felt "relieved".

Fabrikant has made a formal application to legal-aid for a private-practice
lawyer to assist him for the remainder of the preliminary hearing.

[sources: Montreal Gazette and CFCF-12 Pulse News]
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
From: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Registration for the Referendum from outside the country
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:00:35 GMT
Reply-To: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau)
Organization: Michigan State University


In article <BvtAH7.JwL@casper.cs.uct.ac.za>, gds@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (Riel Smit) writes:

|> Can Canadians residing outside Canada (even permanently) also vote 
|> in this referendum?
|> -- 
|
	If I am not mistaken, only Quebecois could register for the
referendum if they lived outside Quebec but where still considered
'resident' (students and diplomats, for example) [An other example
of Quebec specifity ??]

	However, the deadline for registering was sometime last week.
The only thing you can do now is to wait and look at the results of 
the referendum (and hope for a 'NON').


		Normand
	
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: geog421@matai.vuw.ac.nz
Subject: To All Edmontonians
Summary: Query from NZ
Reply-To: geog421@matai.vuw.ac.nz
Organization: 	Victoria University of Wellington,  NZ
Keywords: Work Permits
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:57:33 GMT
Distribution: nzhelp

Kia ora to everybody down there on the bottom side of the globe.

1)
I was wondering if a US passport would be a help or hinderance when applying
for a Canadian work permit?

2)
Could somebody from Edmonton, Alberta please contact me.

Many thanks

Your Kiwi connection.
From: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:52:20 GMT
Reply-To: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau)
Organization: Michigan State University


In article <ldph4aINNkg1@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, mre@teal.Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Eisler) writes:

|> The major difference I see is that the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were
|> essentially artificial unions whose peoples did not enter into on their
|> own free will.  The unions were involuntary and maintained by a force:
|> communism. Once communism fell, nothing was left to keep them together,
|> dissolution was natural. Canada is certainly an artificial creation,
|> but arguably one that 6 out 10 provinces entered into freely, the other
|> 4 being created by the will of the original 5, but still the
|> inhabitants of the 4 were supportive of Confederation. In the case of
|> Canada, only one province appears to be seriously agitating for
|> release, unlike the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, were every nation but
|> one wanted out. Certainly it is not a situation where every province
|> but Ontario wants to leave Canada, at least not yet.
|> 

	Wrong.  Yougoslavia was formed BEFORE the second world war when
the Croats demanded to be part of a country with the serbs under their king.
Before that, Serbia was an independant country and Croatia was part of the
Austrian empire.

|>I depend on CNN for my news, having decided that newspapers are bad for
|>the environment, and Sun doesn't seem to pick up clarinet, so I 
|>rarely see his name in print. I understand your hint.

	You should maybe go back to newpaper.  CNN is not the best place 
to get a go and right view of the world situation...

|> >...mark young
|> 
|> 	-Mike Eisler
|> 	mre@Eng.Sun.Com
|> 

      Normand Mousseau
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Standard of living
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:18:26 GMT

The average Canadian citizen enjoys a standard of living far above
the experiences of many people in the world. Some of our station may be
attributed to
 - good fortune
 - low population versus lots of resources
 - cooperation, practical ethics in government and society
 - hard work and intelligence
 - daring
 - isolation and newness
 - willingness to identify and solve problems
Our concepts are changing, however, as
 - labor shifts to automation
 - new insight to the physical and metaphysical appears
 - the world shrinks from improved communications, travel and 
   resource depletion
 - new problems require solving
 - etc.
I've been prompted to wonder about the future by the problem of
sharing resources. Many people die from starvation, disease, exposure,
and so on because they lack resources. Resources need effort and
knowledge to be put to use. Canada has pledged so much foreign aid,
and has welfare and subsidized medical programs and the like, but
it's very hard to solve the millions of individual problems in the
world. Myself, I have not the expertise nor the power to bring
aid to a wide variety of suffering people. Even groups of experts
can only do so much. I suspect and hypothesize that a computer with
massive parallel power can propose satisfactory solutions to the
sheer number of problems facing many earthlings. It is up to
people to implement the solutions. This is a short term hypothesis.

In the long run, people need to explore. Even as old problems are
being identified, new ones appear. Space in the universe may be
warped, but there's a lot happening out there. There's a lot
happening everywhere, and we have to do it all together. In
history, people have not been able to pull themselves together,
but the conditions have changed. We have new toys to play with.
We just have to believe that we can make it happen now. Does anyone
have the influence, or the will, the interest, the energy, the
knowledge, or anything? I've got ideas. I think they will work.
I don't think they're expensive. Let's hear some voices! 

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca

She's a flower, I can paint her. She's a
child of the sun. We're a part of this
together, could never turn around and run.
Don't need no fortune teller to know        -- Joyride by Roxette
where my lucky love belongs. Oh no. Cos it
all begins where it ends. And we're all
magic friends.

She's says hello, you fool, I love you.
C'mon join the joyride. Join the joyride.

Be a joyrider.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7588 can.politics:8569
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: What if it's No-No?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:07:06 GMT

In article <Bw2EEw.17s@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Stewart Clamen (clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU) wrote:
>: 
>: CSQ  NO - Quebec NO: People will put the constitution on the back
>: 		     burner for a while, but the next round would
>: 		     see Quebec demanding status as an autonomous
>: 		     region, or as an independent country.
>: 
>
>If there is a NO vote, the constitution will NOT be on the back burner. We
>will be scrambling to come up with a new deal. However, the people with a
>political mandate will be
>
>1) Jacques Parizeau

Parizeau cannot be elected Premier of Quebec for probably 18 months...so
it is a minimum of 2 years before he really can have any say at all.

>2) Preston Manning

Manning can at best capture 30 seats in the House of Commons...which
doesn't give him a very powerful hand.

>3) Sharon Carstairs

Filmon still has a long term in his mandate and Gary Doer is the
opposition leader.

>4) Trudeau

He'll crawl back into his shell, until the next time Mulroney and Clark
try messing with the constitution.

>5) COR

Sure...like McKenna is going to lose anytime soon in New Brunswick.

>6) Judy Rebick

Rebick will have divided and conquered the women's movement.

>
>When they reach agreement, and my grandchildren see it, it may be good. Who
>knows?
>

After a NO vote, noone will have a mandate to mess with the constitution
until they go before the voters in an election.  The constitution will
go onto the back burner for a least two years.  Instead of trying to
make the aboriginal problem a constitutional one, which would force
decades and decades of litigation and delay, governments would have to
act on the issue.  Instead of blaming the constitution for our economic
woes, governments would have to get on with governing and managing the
economy.

The millions of Canadians opposed to Charlottetown were not given the
mechanism of a constituent assembly to craft a different set of options
for consideration of the people and the legisilatures.

Gerald

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: mre@teal.Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Eisler)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:58:43 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, CA  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: teal

In article <=95-58+@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>mre@teal.Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Eisler) writes:
>>Besides, last time I was in Calgary, I looked at a book in the "Canadianna"
>>section of a bookstore that discussed geography after Quebec separation. 
>>The author suggested that Montreal itself might be carved up into sectors
>>each governed by Ottawa or by Quebec City. Perhaps his proposed map had
>>the Forum in the Ottawa sector!
>>
>Are you sure it wasn't in the "Science Fiction and Fantasy" section (or
>maybe the "War Stories" section)?

No, I specifically went into the book store seeking stuff on topics
that I can't get in the U.S., i.e.  hockey and Canadianna.  I can buy
my Sci-Fi books for much less money in the U.S. and I'm not interested
in War Stories (Anyway how do Sci-Fi or War Stories relate to Quebec
separation?). As far as Fantasy, it is you who are living in one if you
think that Quebec's current borders are going to remain intact after
separation. For one thing, the Quebec/Labradour border is to this day
in dispute.

Why don't you go into a Canadian bookstore (you are closer to the border than
I am) if you don't believe me.

>Was it perhaps co-authored by Slobodan Milosovic?

Who?

	-Mike Eisler
	mre@Eng.Sun.Com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: H of C seats (was Re: I was going to vote...)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 16:13:51 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>In article <t!8-KBA@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>
>>The first two tables below show Quebec's position after the 1971 and 1981
>>census redistributions (carried out in the middle of each decade).
>> [...]
>There's a mistake here.  You have the 1971 populations, which
>you've used to calculate the rep-by-pop numbers, but the real
>number of seats you give are those based on the 1961 census.
>
Thanks for pointing out the mistake.  However you didn't finish fixing the
table:

1971    Seats   Population  RepByPop    Gain
----    -----   ----------  --------    ----
Nfld       7        522         7         0
PEI        4        112         2        +2
NS        11        789        10        +1
NB        10        635         8        +2
Que       75      6 028        79        -4
Ont       95      7 703       101        -6
Man       14        988        13        +1
Sask      14        926        12        +2
Alta      21      1 628        21         0
BC        28      2 185        29        -1
YT         1         18         0        +1
NWT        2         35         0        +2
-------------------------------------
Can      282     21 568       282

Also, since I have these numbers as well, here's the '61 data:

1961    Seats   Population  RepByPop    Gain
----    -----   ----------  --------    ----
Nfld       7        458         7         0
PEI        4        105         2        +2
NS        11        737        11         0
NB        10        598         9        +1
Que       74      5 259        76        -2
Ont       88      6 236        90        -2
Man       13        922        13         0
Sask      13        925        13         0
Alta      19      1 332        19         0
BC        23      1 629        24        -1
YT         1         15         0        +1
NWT        1         23         0        +1
-------------------------------------
Can      264     18 238       264

Again, there is not much deviation from rep/pop -- certainly nothing to
justify the chance that they might soon have an extra twenty seats.

...mark young
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Mike Godfrey
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:31:21 GMT

godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
: 
: 
: I feel sorry for poor Mike Godfrey, who people keep confusing with me.
: I (Laurence) am the "idiot" who loathes Canada, Mike is the person who
: seems to like it over there.  As far as I know, neither of us is an American,
: though i frequently wish I were.  I do not think we are related.
: 
: Laurence


Aha! A classic case of multiple personalities!

There's the benevolent Mike, who likes Canada and babies.
And there's the domineering, evil Laurence, who hates Canada, babies,
and believes that there's a world-wide plot by scientific grant agencies
to kill him.


-- 
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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:42:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.080911.7499@schbbs.mot.com>, RNM192@paccvm.corp.mot.com (Irene Pan)    writes...
>------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
>Path: schbbs!mothost!ftpbox!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!m
>From: scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U)
>Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
>References: <1992Oct9.065258.12434@schbbs.mot.com> <9OCT199206080694@sscvx1.ssc.
>Message-ID: <Bvv1Br.1M9@mach1.wlu.ca>
>Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
>Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:21:26 GMT
>Lines: 28
> 
>great place to live.  If you want any information at all about Canada, the
>best source would be from the Canadian Embassy.  I'm sure they have all
>sorts of tourism material and other information.  I'm also sure they'd be
>more than willing to help.
>=======================================================================
> 
>I hope you are correct about Canadian Embassy in Japan.  I am having
>some difficulty to get my visa here.  First the person who work in the
>embassy told me how much more money I have to pay and later said I don't
>have to when I went to the Embassy in the morning.  Later, the embassy
>stuff called and said that I still have to pay.  Therefore I have to go
>to Embassy in the afternoon again.  This is not yet finished.
>They told me that wait our call and the visa can be permit on 7th of Oct.
> I wait all through last week without getting any phone call from the
>Embassy.  So I try to call them on 12th of Oct..  Guess what I got?!!
>"Just wait until we call you!"  Without second word after that.
>This morning, I tried to call Embassy and Embassy stuff asked me same
>question and give me same answer. So my Canadian boss called and finanlly
>get a response from Embassy.  Answer is "next Monday".
>Those stuffs I had talken with are Japanese.  I thought they are supposed
>to helpful since they work in Embassy.  But..., can they be more helpful?
>This is not my account!!
>Nakagazu Urabe
> 


Honestly, what do you expect!!  I told you canada was an awful place to go, an
and they have the gall to act like they're doing you a favour when you want
to visit!  Take my advice and go somewhere else.  Ask the Canadian embassy
how they treated the Japanese Canadians during WW2 and when they intend to
compensate them for the property the confiscated.

regards Laurence

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: What if it's No-No?
Keywords: canadian broadcast, usa federal, government
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.150722.15371@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>clarinews@clarinet.com ((Marshall-GLOBE/Standard Broadcast News)) writes
>in clari.canada.gov,clari.canada.general:
>>
>>	(TORONTO) Here is the breakdown by region for this morning's Globe
>>and Mail poll on the October 26th referendum.
>>	
>>	The question asked was: ''Do you agree that the Constitution of
>>Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August
>>28th, 1992?''
>>	
>>	REGION........... YES......... NO.......... UNDECIDED... OTHER
>>	
>>	B.C.............. 34.......... 51.......... 13.......... 3
>>	Prairies......... 47.......... 41.......... 11.......... 1
>>	Ontario.......... 44.......... 37.......... 16.......... 4
>>	Quebec........... 27.......... 54.......... 14.......... 5
>>	Atlantic......... 52.......... 33.......... 14.......... 1
>>	
>>	All of Canada.... 40.......... 43.......... 14.......... 3
>
>[n.b., I believe that proper attributionss have been made above for
>use of this data for my article.]
>
>Okay folks, so far we've been talking about the ramifications of
>Yes-Yes and Yes-No in the referendum for (Canada - Quebec) and 
>Quebec, respectively (using set notation (-;) ... what about No-No?
>
>Seems that it'd come out as a united country to me ... (-;
>

The triple NO scenario...a Quebec NO, a BC-Alta-Man NO, and an overall
NO is the only way the country is going to come out of this thing
unified.  A double NO...a Quebec NO, and one Western NO, might be
almost as good.

With Quebec opposition, Western opposition, and growing aboriginal
opposition, the whole fraudulent basis of this abomination is being
slowly revealed.  Charlottetown fails every test of its raison d'etre...
it is failing to solve the problem of Quebec, the problem of Western
alienation, and the problems of aboriginal Canadians.  On top
of that, it recklessly decentralizes the country on the basis of
empire-building by provincial premiers, rather than on the basis
of how can we build a better federation; it diminishes individual
and democratic rights; and it imperils our economic future.

That the people of Canada are seriously considering the Accord and
not falling for the expensive appeals to a false patriotism and fear
from the YES side is justifying/restoring my faith in democracy.

We may save Canada yet...from the Charlottetown Deconfederation
Agreement...and it will be done by the Canadian people telling
our cowardly power-grubbing elites to shove it.

For the love of Canada (and Quebec), and our future together or
as neighbors....vote NO/NON!

Gerald
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:38:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.205017.11679@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.185857.25295@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>>Thus the Constitution did not define citizen when originally written.  The
>>14th Amendment did, however, define citizen as all persons born or naturalized
>>in the United States.  If a state denied voting to any "person" over 21 years
>>of age, they lost representation in Congress.

>>The 15th Amendment denied States the right to deny voting to anyone because
>>of race, the 19th Amendment likewise wrt the question of sex.  The 26th
>>Amendment lowered the age from 21 to 18 wrt voting.

>If the 14th Amendment clarified what a citizen was, ie all persons born or
>naturalized in the US, why the need for the 15th/19th etc Amendments?
>Are they not redundant?  Or were slaves and women not considered persons?

Since at the time of founding of the country, all persons living in the
country were not considered citizens and were not all considered having the
right to vote, the Congress at the end of the Civil War decided that they
should 1.  Define Citizenship, and 2.  Define voting rights.  (I'm just
guessing here).

Notice, however, that even with the 14th defining all inhabitants (including
women) as citizens, women were not given the right to vote until the 19th
Amendment was passed almost 50 years later)

>(My point here is that the 14th Amendment should have been adequate to
>use the courts to enforce the constitutional rights of all citizens, in
>that citizen was finally defined.)

It should have been, but obviously was not.

Charlie
From: hlee@unixg.ubc.ca (Henry Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Vancouver comparisons (Was - Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!)
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:20:58 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: kynok.ucs.ubc.ca

In article <1992Oct9.164932.17993@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.203220.3156@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>Vancouver is even more boring, mediocre, and cold than TO. Please do not
>>even *think* about visiting, let alone moving here. :-)
>
>You left out damp :-)

Don't forget : people coming west from Ontario and coming north
from California ... we gotta keep these people away.

So, remember, it's boring-flat (mountains? - aaah, they're just
a bunch of rock!), it's really wet (non-stop rain, I tell ya!),
and geez-Louise, there's just plain NOTHING to do here!
							   ;-)   :-)=
Man, I's so tired of this place that I'm pickin'
up my bags and movin' to Trawna!
-- 
Henry Lee   <hlee@unixg.ubc.ca> // <lee@physics.ubc.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics