HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:32:54 GMT

In article <WARKENT.92Oct7163226@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>I wrote:
>|>[1]Can we agree that French Canadians have gotten the short
>|>end of the historical stick, especially in Acadia and
>|>Manitoba?
>|>
>|>[2]If so, is it possible to understand why French Quebeckers
>|>look for some guarantees that this will never happen again?
>|>...
>
>Murray Frank wrote:
>>As a general proposition for Canada as a whole, the answer [to 1] is
>>certainly NO. Did they ever get the short end? Yes. Were Acadia and
>>Manitoba examples, probably. I will leave more precise interpretation
>>to professional historians.
>>
>>Since I do not buy your intial premise, the rest of your argument does
>>not appear relevant from my perspective.
>
>"As a general proposition for Canada as a whole"? Come on Murray, let's
>cut the bullshit.
>
>On the one hand you agree that French Canadians have been historically
>mistreated.  

Careful. I agreed to nothing of the sort. In my view at various times
and places various sorts of decisions have been made when rights, and
claims on the nation, came into conflict. Those who "lost" in those 
cases "got the short end of the stick" on those occasions. Such
conflicts are an inevitable element of human interactions. It is
important to try to minimize the damage from such events. I explicitly
reject the claim that French Canadians have lost more often than they 
have won in such instances. Indeed my perception is quite the reverse.
(I started writing down a long and tedious list of instances, but 
decided to delete them. There is nothing to be gained from asserting 
"We got screwed worse than you did", "did not", "did to", "did not", 
etc.)

>On the other you do not feel obliged to address the fears
>of French Quebeckers that history might repeat itself.

I have great difficulty with the suggestion that I am supposed to
accept second class citizenship. In my perception that is what the
accord offers to those of us who live in BC. Since I am not persuaded
that such fears are well founded, why should I accept second class
status to allay such fears?

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy)
Subject: Re: Why Would the Charlottetown Agreement Make People Feel Canadian
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:20:22 GMT

godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:

>In article <Bw2In3.8M5@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)             writes...
>>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>: 
>>: But the Charlottetown "Canada Clause" defines Canadians as being a bunch
>>: of racists, tribalists, and collectivists... 
>>: 
>> 
>>Only you define us thus.
>> 
>>--
>>Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca

>No, I do too

>Laurence

	Sign me up too.

Charles Jobagy		| What's wrong with life, liberty and the
charles@cs.ualberta.ca	| pursuit of happiness?
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: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:36:43 GMT

In article <Bw66IH.7AI@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>Why do you say the commissions weren't listened to? 
>

The Calgary Conference on the Senate recommended an equitable Senate
elected in standalone elections with proportional representation using 
a single-transferable-ballot from gender-balanced lists...a Senate both
Preston Manning and Judy Rebick could have lived with.

The Halifax Conference was open to the idea of considering greater
asymmetrical federalism.

The Toronto Conference included the Charter as one of the fundamental
characteristics in the Canada Clause.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robertfe@microsoft.com (Robert Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Phone number for the Constitutional Legal Text: 1-800-448-3000
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:10:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

In article <1992Oct13.154926.23706@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>1-800-448-3000

In the U.S., this number connects you to the national emergency counselling 
hotline for Boys Town.

Make of that what you will.
Xref: sparky can.politics:8350 soc.culture.canada:7440
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individual Rights
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:51:10 GMT

Robin Collins (robinc@bnr.ca) wrote:
>Mathew:
>From a quick reading of your entry and the US constitutional amendments,
>I DID NOT see any reference to the colour of a citizen's skin, nor any
>mention of "blacks" etc. 
>
>This was my point. The amendments basically abolished slavery and
>restated the equality of all citizens. There was no need to specifiy
>that slavery was not longer permitted "against blacks".
>All citizens were to be protected, not just a particular skin colour.
>I saw one reference to "Indians", which I assume is a reference to 
>the special arrangements coming out of treaty rights and land claims based
>on treaty rights (it is unclear whether "Indian" is defined here as a
>"race" or as a group defined by occupancy on treaty land.) 
>
>So I maintain that there is no reason to insert "racial" definitions in
>the Canadian constitution, in that ALL CITIZENS should have equal rights
>stated.

To reiterate Frank's point; it is one thing to pass legislation that
covers everyone regardless of race/gender/etc with the intention of
helping a specific group. It is a totally different thing to pass
legislation that specifically discriminates on the basis of
race/gender/etc. The US constitution wrt slavery falls into the former and
most people do not have a problem with this. It is when legislation
explicitly discriminates on the basis of race and/or gender that many of
us get concerned.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 14:01:33 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>The self-government that results from this process is not guaranteed to be
>racially based.  The accord contains the following clause (section 46):
>
>        -- Self-government agreements may provide for self-government
>           institutions which are open to the participation of all
>           residents in a region covered by the agreement.
>
And, shortly after I posted that, I read Jim Robinson's article quoting the 
Oct 9 Vancouver Sun saying:
>In a surprise change, mobility rights would also be limited. The text would
>amend the charter to specify that the right of Canadians to reside anywhere
>in the country would not preclude aboriginal governments from establishing
>programs or laws for the 'protection and advancement of aboriginal
>languages and cultures'.

So much for any hope of avoiding race-based government.  They may be able to
say "But anyone who lives there can participate, regardless of race", but 
only at the cost of saying "Certain kinds (that is, races) of people can't 
live there."

I'm disgusted.

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Curious Yes Campaign
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:43:27 GMT

In article <1b4jdpINN7b2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank) writes:
>I am a bit puzzled. The Yes team decided to have the referendum. They
>chose the question. They defined the rules under which the debate
>would take place (financing, tv time allocation, etc.). Yet the seem 
>not to have thought through how to fight the battle. What is going on?
>Can someone please explain this to me. Thanks.

They have a bad product...

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:31:14 GMT

In article <16377@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>In this morning's Globe, Tom Berger raised a respectable argument against the
>"apartheid" issue: that present aboriginal governments are the successors of
>the governments of the aboriginal peoples at the time of European arrival, so
>the "racism" argument is beside the point.
>
>What remains to be seen is whether de facto Bantustans would nonetheless
>result from the agreement. I think all parties are handicapped by cultural
>blinkers; it's hard to use the word "nation" to describe both 250 members of
>a particular tribe, and the United States. We need a new vocabulary that
>would enable us to discuss the role of small ethnic groups in a world of
>large bureaucratic organizations.


	'Polity' is used to label the nation-equivalents of the Yucatan
Peninsula (At least those communities pre-Columbus). Perhaps that term
could do?

	A potential argument is over what qualifies as a bona fide
polity and what does not. 

						James Nicoll
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:04:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.151756.1574@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>: 
>: The people with Hitler-esque ambitions are the premiers...for
>: Hitler-esque ideology is written all over Charlottetown in its
>: collectivist ideology, and the concentration of power by the first
>: ministers at the expense of the legislatures.
>
>Sheesh. 

Remember, I did not bring up Hitler...a YES supporter did in describing
some of the NO forces.  You've conveniently edited out the initial
Hitler allusion by the YES side.  Since the YES side raised the issue,
I was merely demonstrating why Hitler would be on the YES side.

>
>: And which side has come up with the slogan "the enemies of Canada",
>: and promises millenial prosperity with a YES vote, and a hellish
>: doom with a NO vote...which side has said Canada will become Beirut
>: or Yugoslavia.   
>
>Well, the NO people are certainly pushing the idea of Balkanization
>and a hierarchical class system based on race. Both sides are just as
>guilty of fear mongering.
>

The arguments about the ideas of Balkanization of Canada, and the
hierarchial class system come from the content of the Charlottetown
text.  The fear-mongering of the YES side has nothing to do with the
content of the text...and they don't want to discuss the arguments of
the NO side.

>: Manning's rhetoric is calm and reasoned...you need not agree with
>: all of his arguments or policies, I don't, but there are much better
>: candidates for demagogues in the country than him.         
>
>Manning is doing a fine job, and I think he is embarrassing many of his
>political opponents who have long claimed that he is Hitler incarnate.
>He's a more balanced orator than Trudeau, which isn't saying much.
>I wonder if, as in the Trudeau case, there is a Reform Party bureaucrat
>who is begging Manning to father her children?  One can't ask for two
>finer biological and intellectual specimens than Manning and Trudeau.
>

And you were doing so well for awhile before you had to abandon reason
and resort to an ad hominem!   I guess you and Dan Quayle are cut from
the same cloth...you both seem preoccupied about who is or isn't the father
of the children of upper middle class women.  The best that can be said
for you I guess is that you have chosen a real rather than a fictional
one.

Gerald

Xref: sparky can.politics:8398 soc.culture.canada:7465
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:11:45 GMT
	<1992Oct13.163959.17375@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <1bfh8qINN2jh@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
Followup-To: can.politics
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 13 Oct 92 22:06:18 GMT

Anyone know how women were granted the right to vote?  Did the framers
of the law find a way to do so without mentioning women?
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:58:32 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Oct6.144120.20864@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.161115.6946@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.230442.2671@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>The Charter comes with a notwithstanding clause...it did not change
>>>the powers of the Quebec National Assembly.
>>  [ ... ]
>>>Trudeau changed hardly anything...all he did was patriate the damn
>>>constitution...the current gang is the gang that wants to change
>>>everything.
>>>Gerald
>>
>>  Then since nothing was changed, I take it you do not object to an 
>>amendment to drop the Charter and its Notwithstanding clause from the 
>>current Constitution and return completely to the former status quo.
>
>No...let's have a referendum on it, and give people the choice of
>a Charter(with the NWC) or No Charter at all...I personally prefer
>the Charter(with the NWC) to no charter at all...because although
>it does not change the actual powers of legislatures to restrict
>individual rights, it makes the political cost of doing so greater
>...which is a net plus.  As our parliamentary system adjusts to
>a charter system, and when we get a proper appointment procedure to
>the Supreme Court, then I could see the eventual removal of the NWC...
>but I see the "reasonableness" clause and the Canada Clause as 
>more insidious clauses against individual rights than the NWC.
>
>Gerald

  Glad to see all the strong feelings about how nothing was changed have
matured into a more moderate defence of the changes.
---- 
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,bc.general
From: brougham@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Brougham)
Subject: Re: Brainless BC Electorate
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: bc
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:58:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.170126.29150@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.180221.10532@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>>     Since Thomas Wong's sensitivities have been so hurt by my
>>persistent use of the phrase above, I will no longer refer to
>>the BC electorate as "brainless".  I will instead use the phrase
>>"cephalically challenged".
>>
>>     Example:  "My theory is that Trudeau chose to deliver his
>>No message first to a group of elementary schoolchildren in
>>White Rock because he accurately perceived that they were fairly
>>close to the BC average in terms of general knowledge and
>>political sophistication.  This can only be explained by the
>>unusually high degree of cephalic challenge that politics gives
>>to the over-18 population of BC."
>>
>>     There, isn't that better?

Yes.

>I assume your question relates to earlier articles posted by you, so I
>can't answer it directly, not having read them. However, the current
>article (whether or not it is better than earlier ones) appears to be
>essentially ad hominem (or, if you prefer, ad homines).

Actually, Jamie made something callled a "joke."  I believe it's 
supposed to make you go "Ha Ha Ha." Perhaps you have diffuculty
with these so-called "jokes." Jamie, any suggestions on the
politically correct terminology we can apply for the poor
dysfunctional Mr. Powell.

>If it's not too much of a challenge to your encephalon, perhaps you could

Oh please don't. I've heard enough of this constitutional crap.
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Distinct Societies
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 20:06:22 GMT

In article <hugh-091092092637@192.139.129.128> hugh@imax.com (Hugh Murray) writes:
>
>Like it or not, Quebec has a different cultural history than English
>Canada, and (not unnaturally) they are not too keen on losing the things
>that make home seem like home to them.  It is in this sense, and only in
>this sense, that they are claiming to be distinct.  They are not making any
>claim to superiority.
>I find it infinitely sad that it now looks as though we may lose this
>rather amazing country to small minded attitudes and fear of self generated
>phantoms such as those expressed in this article.


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

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.

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cfash@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Christopher Ash )
Subject: Bias (was Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:12:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.132320.16949@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>  Perhaps for those who are so easily prone to offense, I should explain
>more fully. Besides, I disagree about the personal life not being pertinent
>to her political credibility. If the quality of a government contractor
>is somehow determined by the political friendships of its executives, or
>the suitability of an employee related to the family relationship to the
>boss, then the political and stated personal relationships of Ms. Coyne is
>certainly germane to a political debate in which she is actively campaigning
>for one proponent's position. She is hardly and independent or unbiased
>party. (I note that the 'discredit' concept is your own and not mine, shame).
>  
	Personal bias bears no relation to the validity of a rational
argument.  Discussing who said what only serves to divert attention from
what was said.  If the argument is flawed, the argument is flawed.  If
it is sound, it remains so irregardless of the personal inclination of
the speaker.  The only circumstance under which bias becomes a valid
concern is in the case of research -- for instance, where a personal
view taints the results of a study, survey, or something of that nature.
	When it comes to rational argument, if the Prince of Darkness
should defeat the ontological argument for the existence of God, we
shouldn't automatically discount his conclusion simply because it arose
out of the mouth of Lucifer! :)  His _logic_ must be shown to be faulty.
Likewise, it doesn't matter who the father of the baby is.  If Coyne
says "vote No," her child's genetic history has no relevance.
	
	Christopher
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:51:04 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:

> Stating that the status quo is not good does not negate the assertion
> that the deal is worse than the status quo. One can easily argue that
> both statements are true.
> 
> While it can be argued that the status quo is better than the deal
> (answering the question "what is better than this deal"), this does not
> deny the likelyhood that solutions can be found which are better than both.
> 
> I honestly believe that the accord is the best thing that the present
> crop of feds and provinces can come up with. The is a far cry from
> saying that nobody could do better.
> 

This may be true. It's also extremely unlikely that anyone else is going 
to get the chance. And that if they did, that they would come up with an 
improvement with a better chance of acceptance by all.


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
Xref: sparky can.politics:8536 soc.culture.canada:7562
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individual Rights
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:56:05 GMT

Ross Wetmore (rossw@sco.COM) wrote:
>In article <1992Oct13.184856.833@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>Robin Collins (robinc@bnr.ca) wrote:
>>>So I maintain that there is no reason to insert "racial" definitions in
>>>the Canadian constitution, in that ALL CITIZENS should have equal rights
>>>stated.
>>To reiterate Frank's point; it is one thing to pass legislation that
>>covers everyone regardless of race/gender/etc with the intention of
>>helping a specific group. It is a totally different thing to pass
>>legislation that specifically discriminates on the basis of
>>race/gender/etc. The US constitution wrt slavery falls into the former and
>>most people do not have a problem with this. It is when legislation
>>explicitly discriminates on the basis of race and/or gender that many of
>>us get concerned.
>>-- 
>>Jim Robinson
>
>  When the 'etc' includes culture, and you and others like you continually 
>substitute 'race' for 'culture' because you subconsciously know one has
>historical validity and the other would tend to colour the argument the
>other way, then I find your arguments smacking of a certain shiftiness
>that would suggest much less noble motives.

The 'etc' does *not* include culture. It includes only those attributes
that an individual has no control over. Race and gender are two obvious
ones - they might even be the only ones as far as I am concerned. However,
culture is a different kettle of fish and it is a shame that I was not
clear enough about this that it was not obvious.

>  The Accord is about entrenched protections for culture, not entrenched 
>privileges for race.

From what I understand there is nothing in the Accord to prevent
aboriginals from limiting mobility rights according to *race*. 

>  Let's not try to overwork the negative labels to the point of transferring
>the entire debate to the topic of whether the label is bad or not and
>thus losing sight of the real issues, eh?

Sorry, I was taught that racism is always wrong. Period. Full stop. No
argument. Wrong. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky can.politics:8203 soc.culture.canada:7287