HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:45:52 GMT

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

>In article <schuck.721542163@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>
>>Evil? Immoral? You are now deeming the bombing of factories producing
>>war material evil? Did you expect England to do nothing while London
>>got bombed by V-1's, V-2's, Stukas and Heinkels? 
>>

>No...I said "we (the Allies) deemed that evil and immoral acts (on
>our part) were necessary to win the war"...war is basically an evil
>business...because we sometimes find ourselves unable to avoid it,
>does not make it morally acceptable or justifiable.  

I'm sorry. Run that by me again. Defending your country from attack
and invasion is immoral and evil?
Is there any difference in evil and immorality between defending your
country and gassing 6 million jews? Are they morally equivalent?
Do you just lump them in together as equally immoral and evil?

Thats sick.

>>Please let me know which "war crimes" of the allies you are talking
>>about, since none come to mind that even come close to the war crimes
>>of the Third Reich.

>Because the other side committed greater and more numerous atrocities
>than our side did, does not give moral sanction to the atrocities we
>committed.

So....when England went to war to defend itself from Germany it was
committing an evil and immoral act? It was committing atrocities by
defending itself to the best of it's ability. The defense of England
was just another immoral and evil act, as was the gassing of 6 million
jews. You lump the two together. It's so sad you can't see the
difference, but then it's obvious Brian McKenna couldn't either.




-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Good news / Bad news :-)
Organization: BC News and Mail
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:36:33 GMT

The good news: Mulroney is going to resign in February.

The bad news: He's going to appoint George Bush to the senate first.

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.bc.ca> ....................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:55:57 GMT

In article <17215@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>I've just heard an exchange on As It Happens between Brian McKenna, who
>helped produce the docmentary The Valour and the Horror, and a member of the
>Senate. The Senator's line of questioning was 100-proof McCarthyism of the
>most shameful sort, and I am furious that I didn't catch the wretch's name.
>
>Can someone please advise me of the name of this tax-funded son of a bitch. I
>have a bone to pick with him.

Yes, I was that.  I didn't catch any names, but the CBC will give the whole
circus more air time I'm sure.  He even asked Mckenna if he was anti-semetic?!

I don't know what those old fart's problems are.  If I understood the series
(V&H) correctly, it was a policy decision by the head Brit in bomber command
that had Canadian airmen following those orders.  The series really shit upon
that guy, not canadians.  Or did they?
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 15:32:06 GMT

southiea@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Southiere Alain) writes:

>   If it is so, they at least got the right reason ! Just read some editorials
>or articles in the Gazette, you'll see that it's against Quebec and 
>francophones, at least some journalists are...

Whom do you mean?

--
Thomas Hood                                                     thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Mulroney succession
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:52:19 GMT

clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:

>In article <schuck.721291542@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>   andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>   >Yesterday's Star had an article speculating on BM the PM's possible resignation
>   > and perspective candidates for Tory Chiefdom.

>   > Listed were: Joe Clark, Kim Campbell, Jean Charest, Bernard Valcourt,
>   > Barbara McDougall and Perrin Beatty. No handicaps were given. Do you think
>   > Brian will go soon? Who will run? What are their odds? Who will win?

>   The Tories have to win Quebec to win the next general election. 

>   A non-quebecker has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected Tory leader.

>Given the strength of the BQ, it's possible that no federalist has a
>chance at winning Quebec.

The BQ`s fortunes are dropping. 

Federally, Quebeckers like to vote for a winner.
The BQ has zero chance of forming a government.

If Mulroney leaves, and Jean Chretien is likely to win, 
and Jean Chretien is the only Quebecker leading a major party,
Quebec will vote overwhelmingly for the federal Liberals,
just like the old Trudeau days.

On the other hand, if Mulroney stays, or is replaced by a Quebecker,
Quebeckers will have a very tough choice. 

They will have to guage each Quebeckers chance of forming the 
next government.

In either case, the NDP has no chance. 

I really hope I'm right on the last one -- a 30 billion deficit is bad
enough, we couldn't survive a 50 billion one. I Shudder at the thought.
-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Releasing Results B4 the polls close (was Re: Referendum and the w
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:36:31 GMT

In article <92313.1601382893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>I think the concern wasn't as much that people in the West would switch their
>vote but simply that they wouldn't bother voting because the election was seen
>as over. In 1988 Bush was declared elected at 6:30 Pacific time, observers
>noted a sudden 50% or so drop of the number of people who voted following
>the announcement.

So? So some people didn't vote.  It wouldn't have made a difference if they
did, so what's the big problem?

The only problem with people in Cal. not voting is that they also vote on
Senate (or House?) representatives, or they vote on a lot of local/state
(binding?) proposals or referendums, which, of course, everybody should
participate in.  But we peasants in Canada don't get to take part in that
kind of democracy, so there's not much lost when you're voting on a single
issue or you have a single election vote to be cast...
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Subject: Re: Mulroney succession
Reply-To: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Organization: Environment Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 13:57:15 GMT


In article <schuck.721416120@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce
Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> 
|> By the way, Joe only last 9 months in a minority government because he
|> couldn't win Quebec -- Pierre Trudeau could.
|> 
Horseshit. He got caught with his pants down in a confidence vote
He could have been there years.
And while were at it why, just because he's from Quebec, wouldn't
Chretien represent the interests of Canada. PET is a Quebecer..I'd
rather have him on the "other" side of tha table than say Joe who

|> 
|> -- 
|> ============================================================================
|> "We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
|> ============================================================================
Pat Hertel                 Canadian Meteorological Centre
Analyst/Programmer         2121 N. Service Rd.        
phertel@cmc.aes.doe.ca     Dorval,Quebec             
Environment Canada         CANADA           H9P1J3

"Its not a bug..its an undocumented feature." - unknown
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 12:58:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.063005.25814@csi.uottawa.ca>, cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
|> In article <schuck.721092172@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
|> >Why give a *competitor* free access into our markets?
|> >
|> >What's in it for us? 
|> 
|> I suppose that free access into THEIR markets is something that you
|> wouldn't bother asking for?
|> 
|> -- 
|> Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
|> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
|> University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
|> Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier

Given that we don't have free access to their market now and given the size
of the market - no.
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Toronto Sun: another case of paranoia???
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:08:53 GMT

Christopher Browne (cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca) wrote:
>
>You probably haven't seen the APEC types that REALLY want to go to war
>against separatists.  They might be REALLY scary.
>
>It's not Ontario that really hates you guys - whether Quebec separates
>or not, Ontario's going to have to live with it, and we'll be living
>closer than anyone else.
>
>It's when you go to the far west that you find REAL hatred..

First off, I'd like to point out that if APEC exists in BC (the far west),
then they must keep an awfully low profile, because I haven't heard of them
being out here. They seem to be an *eastern* phenomenon, and this is
inconsistent with the notion of BC (the far west) being the hotbed of
hatred assuming APEC is what its detractors make it out to be (disclaimer:
I know next to nothing about APEC). If we revisit (yes, once again :-() the
infamous Quebec flag stomping incident we remember that it took place in
Ontario, not BC (naturally one incident is much too small a sample space
from which to draw any conclusions, but hey, we're just tossing around
gross generalizations anyway). What this is all leading up to is that I
find Christopher's assertion that BC (or a significant percentage of its
people) REALly hates Quebec to be rather curious (at best!) and I would
appreciate some evidence, as this is a fairly serious charge to make.

IMHO, many, if not most, BCers view a hypothetical Quebec separation as
having minimal impact on BC. We see the Atlantic provinces and Ontario as
taking the brunt of any problems arising from this scenario. So, to turn
Christopher's words around a bit, it's not BC you guys should be worrying
about, it's Ontario that has the most to lose if Quebec separates, and it
is thus Ontario you should be most worried about - they have the motive
*and* the power, we have neither.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky can.politics:9511 soc.culture.canada:8408
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: ab.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: ATTENTION!! Conventioning New Democrats.  We want information!!
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 06:16:48 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Terry Labach and other conventioning NDs from this weekend.

Parliamentary question:  At your weekend conferences, what policy resolutions
                         were passed and how were they exactly worded.

Recall someone who do this before from another party.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
American (n) - A person resident or born on the Continient of America
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:08:56 GMT

> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
>In article <schuck.721445040@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>   What does fairness have to do about opening bargaining positions?

>   Obviously you want english-Canada to have a bargaining position that
>   is generous to Quebec.

>Negotiation is, of course, necessary, but starting with the most
>radical position is ridiculous.  Where do you think you are, the
>Middle East?

Radical? I think 50% is a realistic position because I genuinely thin
half the debt was caused by Quebec's blackmail and consititutional
wrangling.

>You forget that an independent Quebec will still be a neighbour to
>CHQ, and a very major trading partner.  Oh right, I forgot, you want
>to embargo Quebec.  Never mind, you are being consistent.

Thanks. BC doesn't trade with Quebec now and I doubt it will start
after secession.

> 
>   Who gurantees Quebecs opening bargaining position would be as generous?

>Quebecers do.  Most are far more reasonable than you.

I doubt that.

>   When you are talking about distributing 425 billion in debt,
>   and trillions? in assets, a tough opening bargaining position is
>   necessary.

>   Obviously you are lacking in the characteristic known as "brains" if
>   you think Canada should open up the bargaining with an overly generous
>   first 'offer'.

>It doesn't matter what I think.  I'm one of those people whose
>citizenship you would revoke.

I forgot. All your responses make sense now. Pure self interest.

The best deal for Quebec is the best deal for you -- if you resist the
urge to join the migration of anglo-quebeckers.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Summary: Don't forget to smash the State!
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:38:20 GMT
Distribution: can
	<schuck.721165680@sfu.ca>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <schuck.721165680@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce
Jonathan Schuck) writes: 
> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
> 
> >In article <17215@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca
> (Crawford Kilian) writes: 
> >>I've just heard an exchange on As It Happens between Brian McKenna, who
> >>helped produce the docmentary The Valour and the Horror, and a
> >>member of the 
> >>Senate. The Senator's line of questioning was 100-proof McCarthyism of the
> >>most shameful sort, and I am furious that I didn't catch the wretch's name.
> >>
> >>Can someone please advise me of the name of this tax-funded son of a
> >> bitch. I have a bone to pick with him.

> The V&H [at least the part on the bomber crews]
> was left wing propaganda of the worst sort. Very typical of the NFB.

What was this leftist propaganda?  I didn't hear any calls for the
workers seizing the means of production or class war during the
documentary.

It certainly couldn't be the the (allegedly) pacifist sentiments of the
series as leftists were fighting the fascists in Europe long before
Mackenzie King or Chamberlain figured out that Nazis and fascists
weren't nice people.  Left-wing != pacifist.

Could it be that you're reading too much between the film frames?  You
shouldn't read those semiotics texts just before bedtime.

> I applaud the reason the Senators are going after the guy, and
> completely understand their anger ,as much as anyone can who didn't
> fight in WWII or have friends and relatives die.
> [my uncles made it back]

2 out of 3 of my relatives made it back.  All served in the RCAF.  The
message I got from the V&H was that brave fighting men got fucked over
by bonehead commanders.  Sounds like most wars to me.

- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"England is the most class-ridden country under the sun.  It is a land
 of snobbery and privilege, ruled largely by the old and silly."
 - George Orwell, _The Lion and The Unicorn_
Newsgroups: can.politics
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:14:17 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Releasing Results B4 the polls close (was Re: Referendum and the w
 <92313.1601382893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <1992Nov8.223631.3503@julian.uwo.ca>

In article <1992Nov8.223631.3503@julian.uwo.ca>, wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca
(Wayne Smith) says:
>
>In article <92313.1601382893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy
><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>I think the concern wasn't as much that people in the West would switch their
>>vote but simply that they wouldn't bother voting because the election was
>seen
>>as over. In 1988 Bush was declared elected at 6:30 Pacific time, observers
>>noted a sudden 50% or so drop of the number of people who voted following
>>the announcement.
>
>So? So some people didn't vote.  It wouldn't have made a difference if they
>did, so what's the big problem?

The problem is while it wouldn't have made a difference for the presidential
election, there were a number of Congressional and other races in the West
that were decided by a few hundred votes. That's where the difference may
well have been made. In Canada, a lower western turnout may not change
the outcome as far as who forms the government (if a majority has been
declared) but it may effect indivdual races for MP.

>
>The only problem with people in Cal. not voting is that they also vote on
>Senate (or House?) representatives, or they vote on a lot of local/state
>(binding?) proposals or referendums, which, of course, everybody should
>participate in.  But we peasants in Canada don't get to take part in that
>kind of democracy, so there's not much lost when you're voting on a single
>issue or you have a single election vote to be cast...

See above, there are individual MPs in the West who may have been defeated
or elected in a higher turnout. I don't know off hand but I'm sure if you
look at the result, there must have been SOME close races in BC and the
Praries. As well, knowledge of a tight race or possible minority government
may well effect the Westerners vote, it would also give them more knowledge
when voting than other Canadians, arguably an advantage that would be unfair.
The blackout at least ensures (or tries to ensure) that all Canadians have
the same knowledge or lack of advance knowledge about the election's outcome
when they vote.  I agree though, it would be preferable to either time the
polls so they close simultaneously (though this might not be fair by giving
Easterners less time in the day to vote than Westerners) or hold off counting
the ballots till the polls close everywhere (though this would increase the
possiblity of ballot box tampering, unless you expect scrutineers to do nothing
for three or four hours but stare at the ballot box.


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: duquet@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Jean-Remi Duquet)
Subject: Toronto Sun: another case of paranoia???
Organization: Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, Qc, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:33:13 GMT

(This  message is written in bad english so that unilingual
anglos can respond as well)

It is well known that quebecers are frequently affected by
serious socially-induced paranoia when it comes to discussing
the way Canadians view each other. ( :)??? )

But then again maybe not. As a nice illustration, I recently
fell on a comic strip published in the Toronto Sun, which
goes something like this:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Title: 3rd millenium Templars. The all-Canadian superheroes.

The first episode I read shows a quiet manifestation of young
canadians "reflecting on the future of their country" disturbed
with no apparent reason by a violent guy wearing a "Bloc Quebecois"
T-shirt, saying "The Bloc Quebecois say No,no,no! We will fight
encore to the bitter end! No!". Then the superhero arrives and puts
an end to the struggle while singing the national anthem.

Second episode: Hidden in a dark secret cavern (!!!) under Mont Royal,
a "more radical and potentially dangerous group of the bloc quebecois 
is deciding (???) the country's future". There we hear them shouting:
"We must stop the Yes vote.", "Sovereignty or death!". Then someone
asks them to do it without violence, and someone answers: "T'es fou
toi? You're crazy? No violence! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!". The strip finishes
on the the reflection that it "Sounds like another FLQ crisis."
----------------------------------------------------------------
(from the Toronto Sun, reproduced in Universite Laval's students
newspaper, Impact Campus)

I notice here the same tendency that some journalists spotted after
Oka crisis, which is to introduce french quotations where it comes
to frighten people; it sounds like a foreign language and calls to
their potential xenophobia. (during Oka crisis it was reported that
english journalists switched from "Quebec police" to "Surete du Quebec"
because it sounds more like "Securitate" or "KGB".)

In any case, it certainly is a nice case of Quebec bashing, and 
a call to intolerance if not total war against separatists. I
never saw anything like this on this side of the... the whatever
it is that separates ontario from quebec. 

I would like to hear other opinions on these. 
By the way, how did the story end ?



Jean-Remi Duquet
Xref: sparky can.politics:9475 soc.culture.canada:8386
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Ready for independence?
Date: 07 Nov 92 16:03:12 EST

In <13430@grayt>
grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
quotes and comments:

> In article <1992Nov4.005025.1327@pandora.matrox.com>
> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
> > Interesting quote by Eric Kierans (former Quebec and federal cabinet
> > minister who headed Nova Scotia's constitution commiettee):
> >     If [anyone] is voting Yes because some bank teller has said there's
> >   going to be a financial crisis, or two ex-prime ministers said there
> >   was going to be chaos, that is absolutely trash.

	Good!

> >     Because Quebec will never separate.  It can't separate for a
> >   variety of reasons, mostly financial.
> If this is the reason that Quebec should not separate then it should
> separate.

	Agreed.

> Isn't the application of a Zen koan to the Canadian constitution 
> appropriate. A koan is made deliberately internally inconsistent.

	I had not thought in these terms, but the ultimate
	logic is similar.

> [ ... ]


--
 Alain
 [ ... usual disclaimer... ]
Newsgroups: can.politics