HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:53:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.142005.17596@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.162120.6433@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>To a large degree, a lot of enlightened and well-meaning people
>>are supporting the YES side because they want to do what is right,
>>because they care about people, and because they want to right past
>>wrongs.  Unfortunately, a YES vote (in my view) will do extreme damage 
>>to the principle of equality and justice and liberty. It will enshrine
>>the concepts of "difference" into the most important document of the country
>>and it will divide people on the basis of race, language and region. 
>>Nobody pretends we are not all different, but what is needed is a
>>Charter that ensures that we have equal rights, 
>>no matter what our differences.
>
>  An excessive zeal for anything, be it democracy or equal rights, is just
>as dangerous and wrong as a zeal to any other extreme.
>
>  It is precisely because of this zeal for extreme equality, and refusal to
>acknowledge differences and build in protections for minority communities
>that countries like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia are fragmenting into 
>there minority components.
>

The way to protect and acknowledge difference is to protect INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS...individuals rights include the right of association, while
protecting the right to dissent...the assertion of collective rights
is the assertion of "separate, but equal", but does not include the
right to dissent of a person who wants to be "equal, but not separate".
The individual right of free association means that those who want
to be "separate, but equal" can be, but those who want to be "equal,
but not separate" can also be.  The assertion of collective rights
does not recognize diversity and difference on the level of the 
individual, which is why the idea of "collective rights" is flawed.

I fully admit that societies often have great difficulty in achieving
the ideal of free association and equal opportunity, and thus the
desire of certain groups to obtain special recognition or status
is kindled...but to start on the slippery slope of collective rights
is the path that will ultimately lead to fascism or totalitarian
socialism...the assertion of collective rights is not a solution
to the problem.      

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 19:27:17 GMT

In article <WARKENT.92Oct7164315@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>Stephen Potter insists that the charter commits Canadians, but not Canadian
>governments, "to a respect for individual and collective human rights and
>freedoms of all people".
>
>Canadian governments represent Canadians.  If Canadians are committed
>to respect for individual rights, then their governments, by definition,
>are so committed as well.
>
>Please, no arguments that our governments don't really represent us.
>They are supposed to, and that is what counts here.


Putting aside the fact that our present governments do not represent us,
let's look at the hypothetical possibility that an oppressive government
of the future might ban a minority language on storefront signs.
Your individual right to free speech is now abrogated. What will you do
if your Constitution says that's not only okay, but the courts are obliged
to defend the oppressive government's position. 

What will you do? 

Frank.



Xref: sparky can.politics:8477 soc.culture.canada:7518
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: bourassa vs. parizeau
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:17:14 EDT

In <1992Oct13.175539.19567@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli)
reports on the big debate:

> It is clear to me that Parizeau is an absolute jerk.  I couldn't
> stop laughing when he pulled out the map of Quebec.  Entirely
> and utterly irresponsible action.  He appeared hesitant and 
> less-certain than Bourassa on just about all topics and stuck 
> less to the facts and relied more on emotional outburst and fear
> mongering.  Bourassa appeared more credible and offered greater 
> logic and pragmatism.  

	We were not watching the same show.  Or we were not
	wearing the same glasses.  Our prejudice and our
	expectations tend to colour our perceptions to a much
	larger extent than I was previously aware.  For the two
	of us (among the many) to have such different perception
	of the same thing, not just in terms of opinions on the
	people themselves, but in terms of the facts, there must
	be an extremely high level of adrenaline in the air.

	I have no problem with your appreciations of the two
	persons; mine are phrased in just about the same way
	with the names reversed.  But I have a problem with
	your description of what I felt were facts: I did not
	see P hesitate (although he is more elaborate in his
	speach), I did see B hesitate (although he hid it
	under tons of words).

	Over all they were both preaching to the converted,
	and I felt they were equally bad in this respect.

	As to the sticking to the facts, we are bound to have
	a different idea of what the real fact and issues are.
	I felt P was addressing the issues, except when he started
	mumbling about "peuple distinct"; I think he put his
	foot in his mouth.  Whatever the validity of sovereignty,
	this was a misplaced statement.  I did not feel B could
	stick to (what I think to be) the facts.  He tried to
	derail the debate a couple of times in the direction of
	nationalism and he often covered his inability with
	very fancy verbal skating.  Which by the way impressed
	a lot of people.

	As to the stunt with the map, I thought it was cute
	and had I been B, I think I would have gladly given
	him the point and smiled.

> For the record, I'm voting Yes to the Charlottetown Accord.  
> My rationale: It's good enough - amongst thousands of other 
>               reasons.

	Some of us will vite YES.  I just hope they do this
	for the right reasons (not just because they feel
	some kind of faith or unconditional solidarity with an
	idea or a person).  Saying it is good enough is not good
	enough and saying there are thousands other reasons is a
	bit weak.  Can you make a good argument for the YES?

>Tony Cifelli

--
 Alain
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:38:04 GMT

Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
: It seems to me that something is quite wrong when a solid majority of
: citizens cannot enthusiastically embrace a package. It also seems that
: something is wrong when a deal is "sold" one way in one part of the
: country, and "sold" the opposite way in another part of the country. Given
: that we are talking about the soul of the country, I want a package that I
: can feel good about, nothing more and nothing less.
: 

The deal is not being sold in different ways -- the ways that best deal with
the views of each region are being stressed, true, but the deal is being sold
on its merits. The NO side is the one fighting on different ground in
different places -- anti-Quebec sentiment in the West, anti-English sentiment
in Quebec, economics in Ontario, etc. The YES side is firmly on side with one
another. The NO side is fragmented, and cannot possibly  agree on anything,
so why should we believe them?


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Date: 10 Oct 92 16:42:02 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

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.

I also see that Audrey McLaughlin, in this morning's Globe, says we have to
distinguish between the principle of equality and the reality of politics.
The first example that sprang to my mind was the forced deportation of
Japanese-Canadians after Pearl Harbor--which many people defended, despite
its blatant injustice and racism, on the grounds of political realism: too
many white Canadians were hostile to their Japanese fellow-citizens, so too
bad for the Japanese.

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.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@minotaur (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Polling results -Where are they?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:31:39 GMT

Wayne Smith (wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca) wrote:
: In article <Bvt5Ds.J8B@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade writes:
: >Any self-selected poll is absolutely false. I could ask people to phone two
: >numbers -- one if they felt there was too much pollution, another if they
: >didn't. Which group do you think would call the most?
: 
: So isin't this referendum going to be a "self-selected" poll/vote?
: What's the diff between asking people to call one of 2 numbers, or
: walking to a voting booth and marking one of 2 circles?

However, you were talking of a poll in the Star, if I remember. You quoted
75% as NO, yet all three polsters agree that Ontario is hovering at around
54% yes, with some 25% undecided. The difference is in the people who are
so vociferous about their beliefs that they would call in. Voter turn-out
should be around 75% if it follows previous federal elections. I would think
that, for an informal newspaper poll, the turnout would be around 1% (you
said 9000 called, how many read the Star?)

: 
: >Common to all the polls was a huge undecided margin -- as much as 40% in some
: >regions if I remember correctly.
: 
: So these are the people that aren't going to vote.
: Is there any correlation, from past experience, between the percentage of
: undecided and the percentage that don't end up voting?
: 

Undecided people vote. They decide just before the election day. Canadian
electoral turnout is around 75% (CBC news, Sunday). However, the undecided
rate is usually greater than 25% up to any election.

Don't forget, that if you ask someone what they think, and they don't think
the same as you, they will often say "I don't know" rather than force a
confrontation.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: Re: Watch the Journal this week
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:08:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.164926.28254@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
|> Don Clayton (dclayton@bnr.ca) wrote:
|> >|> When it comes to constitutions as they bear on rights, I would argue,
|> >|> that we should worry about worst case scenarios...
|> >
|> >I agree with the Brian Ross - the 'hierarchy' argument had no substance.  Yes,
|> >the courts will decide for each case, but it seems to me that the Canada Clause
|> >is the best part of the deal - a perfect balance between the individuals and
|> >societies rights - a perfect reflection of Canada.
|> 
|> After Brian's post I took another viewing of the Journal episode in
|> question (I had taped it), since his  recollection of it did not quite
|> match mine. Bliss said:
|> 1) the interpretation of the Charter must be consistent w/ the Canada
|>    Clause 
|> 2) nuances of language important because the language must prioritize
|>    rights
|> 3) we are bound to get difficult court cases where the various rights 
|>    collide
|> 4) every word used in the Charter is an instruction to the judges when
|>    dealing with these difficult cases
|> 
|> At the closing he said (this is a direct quote):
|> 
|> "I think this discussion shows, so far, that human rights under the
|> Charter are going to be qualified by collective rights under the Canada
|> Clause and by the aboriginal order of government."
|> 
|> Thus, it would appear that Bliss believes that the Canada Clause, in a
|> sense, sets the pace of the entire Charter; and thus when a case involves a
|> human (individual) right up against a Canada Clause collective right, the
|> latter will be given the advantage; Ditto for aboriginal government. So,
|> he seems to indeed be supporting Trudeau's view of a hierarchy of rights.

Can you also post the response to his arguments?  I was attempting to indicate
that I did not find that his (Bliss) argument had substance, and that the
responses to them indicated so, not what Bliss himself believes.  I seem to
remember that all of the others disagreed with Bliss on this point, and had
valid arguments for their disagreement.  Bliss indicated that he was upset
that a "race", to use his words, received preferential treatment, both in the
case of Quebec's Distinct Society Clause, and the Native Self Government clause.
This was the basis for his argument.

Don Clayton
a.k.a. Rear-Adm. Maverick, DM of the Drow
My brain, my thoughts, my words.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a K-car (a nice reliant automobile),
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: chris@mks.com (Chris Retterath)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individu
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:10:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.132114.18694@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.164231.17506@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>I agree with Tom. Not only are the American Constitution and amendments
>>quite different, but also quite superior to the Canadian proposal.
>>Frank.
>
>  The American Constitution is designed to create a 'Melting Pot' and 
>strong internal national identity (ie 'We the people' not peoples or 
>any concept of others).

Isn't that what we should be doing, trying to create a country we would all
be proud of, not a country of squabbling regions?

>  Canadian history, whether French, British, native or immigrant has been
>made up of people who saw value in their own identities and resisted  
>total assimilation into whatever nearby country or culture was currently
>felt to be the dominating presence.

Why do Canadians think they invented multiculturalism?
Go to American cities and you'll find strong Polish,
Chinese, German, Hispanic, Italian, Jewish, etc communities.
Foreign language TV is commonplace, as are newspapers & ethnic organizations.
This is all done within a framework of *individual* rights.
There are *very* strong differences between regions of the U.S.

> Our Constitution reflects the 
>diversity of our patchwork nationality, and willingness to tolerate
>regional differences in return for national solidarity in other areas.

Funny, it always looked more like political blackmail: vote for the
Liberals down east to get your roads paved. Regional development to
garner votes. 

>  Now you can just ask any foreign national which they prefer, Canadians
>or Americans and why - the result says something about which approach
>is superior or not.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.. why should we care what others
think of us in comparison to Americans? So lots of people think that
Canadians are 'nice' -- so what?

Reminds me about tom-cats -- they spray, they're independent as all hell,
feisty, and tough. Cut their nuts off and they're 'nice'. Fat, stupid, slow,
but nice. BUT, which would *you* rather be?

	Chris Retterath




Newsgroups: can.politics
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: Quebec restricts freedom of speech
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:20:25 GMT

In <13270@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.221317.12443@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>In Quebec, the law governing referendums restricts the amount of money
>>that can be spent by the Yes and No "sides" of the debate.  The
>>allocation of each quota is controlled by a committee (one for the "yes"
>>side chaired by Premier Bourassa, one for the "no" chaired by P.Q.
>>leader Jacques Parizeau).
>[ ... ]
>>In Quebec "progress" is movement away from individual towards
>>collective rights -- in this case, the right of society not to be
>>disquieted by unofficial opinions.

>The more I look at postings like this, the more I think that the
>anglo-canadian view of Canada becomes almost indistinguishable from
>the American ideals. It is total bullshit to pretend that allowing
>ORGANISATIONS (not individual) to use huge amounts of money to
>brainwash the electors is a basic individual right. That law simply
>gives equal opportunity to both sides (unless, like in this
>referendum, the Feds decide to do otherwise).

>The law on referendum, just like the law on election (in fact, they
>might be under the same law, I don't know) ensures that the
>election/referendum does not become a money war where the side with
>the deeper pockets wins. It is an anti-"capitalisme sauvage" law. I
>don't believe it's perfect, but I'm sure it is a lot better than
>american-style patronage.

I agree almost entirely. The only bit I object to is the idea that
there is one anglo-Canadian view of such things. Fortunately, the
strength with which a view is presented on USENET does not often have
a strong correlation with the opinion of the general public.

-- 
 Alan Knight  knight@mrco.carleton.ca  +1 613 788 2600x5783   Vote
 Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering                Yes/Oui
 Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6        Oct. 26

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:14:58 GMT

In <2ADE38EA.F75@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:

>In article <T83NsB3w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:

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

>>> 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.

>I'm interested to know upon what you base this opinion. This is not a
>rhetorical request. I'd like to know the underlying beliefs, facts and
>assumptions behind the view expressed above. I don't see any evidence at
>all that another attempt, led by some new faces with new approaches and
>a little less interest in confrontation, is "extremely unlikely".

>I'd be much more receptive to your opinion if it hadn't also been
>advanced during Meech. The second time around, this argument is starting
>to wear thin. I would like a little evidence this time.

  In Quebec, most of those voting against this accord (~80%) indicated
that they thought Quebec got too little out of it. In B.C., ~90% of
those voting no indicated they thought Quebec got too much. This would
appear to make it difficult for succeeding governments to compromise
if this is defeated.

  With regard to Meech, the Quebec government refused to even
negotiate until the other governments agreed to give them "the
substance of the Meech Lake accord". I suggest that the position of
the next government of Quebec will be to demand more than the
Charlottetown accord, regardless of who forms it. 

  I think the current crop of premiers demonstrated a great ability to
compromise and to see each other's and the national point of view. It
appears that perhaps they exceeded their constitutuents ability to do
so.



-- 
 Alan Knight  knight@mrco.carleton.ca  +1 613 788 2600x5783   Vote
 Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering                Yes/Oui
 Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6        Oct. 26

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: silver@fraser.sfu.ca (Craig Silver)
Subject: I want that Political Farce
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 02:03:15 GMT

        I heard there's a political farce (or something like that) 
in Quebec that made fun of the politians and their involvement in 
the Charlottetown Accord.  In it were ten reasons for voting yes 
and ten reasons for voting no.  Is there some way I could get that 
paper or at least get the two top ten lists?




-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Silver	                	    Simon Fraser University
silver@sfu.ca (Internet)	            Burnaby, B.C., Canada
From: novanet@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Chronological records -- where published?
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:30:14 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In the mailing received at home (Your guide to Canada's proposed
constitutional changes), on page 3, lower right column it says
"In areas where consensus was not unanimous, some participants
chose to have their dissents recorded. Where requested, these 
dissents have been recorded in the chronological records of the
meetings, but are not recorded in this summary document"
I called the 800 number (800-561-1188), but the person there
could not tell me where to find these chronological records--
does anyone know if they are published somewhere??
Leslie Foster, Novanet @ ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: A Great Canadian Journalist
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:16:05 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 going to co-host the revised National/Journal at 9PM with Peter
Mansbridge...poor Peter...Pamela is going to make him look like 
a dope.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: NPD en Quebec (was: October 26th Referendum)
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:40:47 GMT

Stewart Clamen (clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU) wrote:
>In article <13164@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>				.
>				.
>				.
>
>   NDP? I think they never got a seat in Quebec. I don't even remember
>   the name of their leader.
>
>Phil Edmonston -- Granby.

Note that he was elected in a by-election (sp?). 10 to 1 his seat does
*not* go to the NDP in the next general election. In fact, 10 to 1 no seat
in Quebec goes to the NDP in the next election.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics