HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scottp@skyfox.usask.ca
Subject: Hypertext version of Consensus Report now available
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:52:27 GMT

I have created a hypertext version of the Charlottetown
Constitutional consensus report. It contains the non-legal text,
plus highlight and fact-sheet files. It is written to run under
MSDOS.

You can get it via anonymous ftp from:

access.usask.ca

in the pub/hytelnet/pc/extras subdirectory. It is listed as CONST.ZIP

Information follows, describing how to obtain CONST.ZIP from the ftp
site:

TO RETRIEVE CONST.ZIP:
At your system prompt, enter:               ftp access.usask.ca
      or                                    ftp 128.233.3.1
When you receive the Name prompt, enter:    anonymous
When you receive the password prompt, enter your Internet address.
When you are at the ftp> prompt, enter:     binary
At the next ftp> prompt, enter:             cd pub/hytelnet/pc/extras
Then enter:                                 get const.zip
After the transfer has occurred, either
   proceed with the instructions below to
   retrieve the UNZIP utility (which you
   need unless you already have it) or enter:   quit

CONST.ZIP is archived using a ZIP utility.  To unarchive it, you must be
able to "unzip" the file.  If you have the file PKUNZIP.EXE, it will
unarchive the CONST.ZIP file (see below for instructions). If you do not
have it, you may retrieve it with by following these instructions:

TO RETRIEVE PKUNZIP:
Use the above instructions for connecting to access.usask.ca
At the ftp> prompt, enter:                   binary
Then enter:                                  cd pub/hytelnet/pc
Then enter:                                  get pkunzip.exe
After the transfer has occurred, enter:      quit

TO UNARCHIVE CONST.ZIP:
Make a new directory on your hard disk (e.g., mkdir const)
Copy PKUNZIP.EXE and CONST.ZIP into the new directory
Make sure you are in that directory, then enter: pkunzip const
It will then unarchive CONST.ZIP.

PLEASE NOTE that I offer the above instructions as a service for those
who are unfamiliar with the steps required to download and use files
from network sources.  I cannot be responsible for any local variations
in these procedures which may exist.  Please contact your local computer
support staff if you have difficulty performing these tasks.

To change the colour scheme run HRK.EXE, which is included.

Peter Scott
Manager, Small Systems, University of Saskatchewan Libraries
scottp@skyfox.usask.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Curious Yes Campaign
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:50:03 GMT

Murray Frank (frank@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: 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.

The YES side did not define everything -- it was agreed upon by both sides
for debates, tv allocation is done by elections Canada, a neutral party. The
YES side would have loved to not have a referendum, I am sure. It was the
people who will vote NO and the undecided who wanted it.

They are having trouble with the fight because

1) People, instead of reading the deal and thinking about it, are going to
vote NO because they hate politicians.

2) People love to hate, and are having an easier time hating the deal than
thinking of what they would do differently.


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:04:01 GMT

In article <SBO.92Oct6105633@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>(En passant, la traduction de "achieve" est "accomplir")

     Danke schoen.

>Je pense  que l'element essentielle n'est pas  tellement  ce
>que  les  hauts fonctionnaires veulent.  L'element essentiel
>concernant   l'affaire  Wilhelmy  est   la  credibilite   de
>Bourassa.

     Alors si Wilhelmy a dite "oh, l'accord de Charlottetown est
fantastique, nous avons gagne plus que dans mes reves, c'etait
un grand jour pour le Quebec", tout le monde remarquerait que
Bourassa a accompli beaucoup?  Je pense que non.  A l'autre
cote, cela n'aurait pas ete des nouvelles.  C'est comme "chein
morde homme" et la presse aime meilleur "homme morde chien".

     L'affaire Wilhelmy est un embarras pour le solidarite de la
gouvernement, et c'est tout.  Il ne dit rien sur l'accord soi-meme.

>(Te souviens-tu,  il y a  de ca  pret  d'un an, lorsque nous
>avons eu l'occasion de discuter  politique pendant  quelques
>minutes,  je t'avais dis que  Bourassa etait  federaliste et
>qu'il signerait n'importe  quoi le  moment  venu?

     Oui, je me souviens (empruntant une phrase :-)).  Mais
trouves-tu que Bourassa a signe "n'importe quoi"?  Il a negocie
beaucoup, ou en secret ou publiquement, et le resultat est si
beaucoup pour Quebec que le cote "non" menace de gagner en CB,
par l'argument que Quebec obtenira de trop.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:07:07 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <1992Oct8.203128.13711@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
	bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:

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

>This is perfectly reasonable.  My opinion differs, however, in that I think 
>that the status quo is not good.

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.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Charter of Rights (was Re: The Manning-Trudeau ...)
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:20:20 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <R7yPsB3w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>Oh, bull, Francois. If you weren't so paranoid, you'd realize it's a 
>common sense approach. If you've got enough students to make up classes, 
>you do so. If not, you don't. There's NOTHING sinister about it. And the 
>amount of french language courses throughout Canada certainly make your 
>contention that English speakers think french education should be kept in 
>Quebec ridiculous.

How do you expect to have a situation where number warrants if there
is no existing schools? Parents won't move to a place where there is
no french school unless they are prepare to sacrifice their children's
french education to an english education. It's not paranoia, and I
know a lot of people to whom it happened. For example, the military.
Do you think that when Quebec started to have english schools, there
was a "where number warrants" clause? Of course not.

The "where number warrants" clause consacrate the status quo, i.e.,
guarranteed english education throughout Quebec and very scarce french
education  troughout english Canada.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Bouh, bouh
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 15:06:44 GMT

In article <14018@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca> alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes:
>Now that I think about it, even the results of
>this referendum are not binding.  We could
>be all voting YES and they could still decide
>that we start all over again anyway...

Meanwhile, over in the French Quebec press, I think it was just yesterday's
front page headline on La Presse quoting an agreement between Mulroney and
either Rae or BouBou (or both) that there will not be any more negotiations
if Quebec turns it down for the forseeable future.

Obviously, that is just logical political maneuvering, since none of
the current crop of politicians can run a re-election campaign on
getting a constitutional agreement. But I must add that those on the NO
side advocating no constitutional negotiations for the next few years
are holding onto such a draconian position that if they go into
negotiations with that position there is no chance ever of getting even
7/50 approval, so they simply use the easy excuse and say there will be
no negotiations. Slick, but rather unproductive and misleading.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Polling results -Where are they?
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:52:31 GMT

In article <Bvt5Ds.J8B@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) 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?

>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?

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: NPD en Quebec (was: October 26th Referendum)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:04:48 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Oct9002400@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.031025.26697@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>   >
>   >   NDP? I think they never got a seat in Quebec. I don't even remember
>   >   the name of their leader.
>   >
>   >Phil Edmonston -- Granby.
>   >
>
>   And he's voting NO!
>
>Yup.  But I don't believe he is voting NON for the anywhere near the
>same reason as you.
>

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

Gerald
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Citing newspaper articles
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:47:44 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: robinson@mdivax1.uucp's message of 14 Oct 92 00:22:42 GMT

Some people have been quoting or citing newspaper articles to back
up their arguments.  However, given the low quality of Canadian
journalism, this isn't necessarily useful.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:59:07 GMT

In article <WARKENT.92Oct14111145@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>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?

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America 
(ratified 1920):

	The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
	denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account
	of sex.

	Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
	legislation.

Charlie
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:40:18 GMT

Robert Osborne (robert@isgtec.com) wrote:
: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: > Jamie Andrews (jamie@cs.sfu.ca) wrote:
: > :      C'mon Preston and Jacques, Judy and Rafe.  Sit down and
: > : give it a try, and just see if you can all sign your names to
: > : anything better.
: > 
: > Hear hear! I think the NO forces should be forced by law to put forward their
: > own proposals so that we have something to pick apart. I'm sure that if every
: > NO group put forward a proposal, it would be defeated easily by more than 50%
: > of the population.
: 
: So I can't vote NO unless I can come up with something that more the
: 50% of the people would vote yes to?  Or is this law only for 'lobbyists'?

Actually, what I meant was that those who vote "NO" should have to say what
they don't like, thus we could fix things.

: 
: Jamie and Don probably say things like "Can you do better?" to
: art and literary critics.
: 

Sure, don't you? :)

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:55:57 GMT

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

That's pretty funny. Lets bring more dead people into a discussion, and
arbitrarily assign views to them. I think Sir John A. and G.E. Cartier would
be in favour. I think John Lennon likes the deal.


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: community, compromise, and individual liberty
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:25:11 GMT

In article <WARKENT.92Oct7152000@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>We see it over and over in these arguments, this notion that everything
>boils down to "individual liberties".  We also see people brashly
>claiming that "compromise" is a dirty word.  What crap.
>

There is a difference between "honourable compromise" and appeasement.


Gerald
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE NOT protected in the Canada Clause
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:31:14 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Oct4.143142.29470@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>The Can. Chrtr. of Rts. & Frdms. is to be interpreted in a manner
>consistent with ...
>
>"2.(1)(c) Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society, which includes
>   a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition;"
>
>(The English-speaking community isn't a part of Quebec's distinct society?)
>
Come on, Steve.  Just because the clause doesn't explicitly say
that Anglos are part of the DS, that doesn't imply that we are *not*
part of the DS.  It doesn't say anything about no right turns on red
lights, either.  So what?

>"2.(1)(d) Canadians and their governments are 'committed' [except in
>  *Quebec] to the vitality and development of official language minority
>   communities throughout Canada."
>
>(except in Quebec because "l'attachement" is not a commitment - this will
>be interpreted by the Supreme Court in the context of Quebec's distinct
>society and the role of the Quebec government!)
>
I think it is dishonest of the drafters of the Ch'town Accord to
deliberately mistranslate "commitment" as "l'attachement."
However, I doubt that the Supreme Court would resolve this
problem by ruling that the French version applied in Quebec and
the English version elsewhere.  This would be denying the principle
of Section 133 of the BNA Act, which gives equal validity to the
English and French versions of acts of Parliament.  Anybody know
how the courts do resolve such cases of mistranslation?
>
>Just as important are the things that are NOT in the consensus report.
>
>Why is "Education" not mentioned?
>
>It is at least as important as culture, mining, tourism, housing and
>recreation.
>
Surely you know why education is not mentioned.  The thrust of the
sections on forestry, tourism, etc. is for the feds to vacate
these areas and leave them to the provinces.  Education is already
a provincial field.  Changing Section 23 of the Charter in the way
you want would be a move in the opposite sense, reducing the
provinces' freedom of action in questions of education.  You can't
be unaware that such a move would be politically unacceptable to
the majority here, and would likely kill any chance of it being
ratified.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (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 15:12:11 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: This Accord is alleged to address the grievances of Quebec, the
: West, and the aboriginals...how come the strongest opposition to the
: Accord is now in Quebec, the West, and among aboriginals...and not
: for antagonistic reasons...aboriginals are concerned about the
: diminishment of their treaties, the West about underrepresentation and
: a partly elected, ineffective Senate, and Quebec because of the
: division of powers.

The strongest opposition comes from the intolerant few. The strongest
opposition from the West has nothing to do with the West, it is a whining
"Quebec got more than we did". Anybody remember kindergarten?

: 
: The only strong support for the Accord is in Ontario, and the main crafters
: of the Accord are Rae and that sellout Clark...things that make one
: go hmmm? 

What really makes one go hmmm is your selective amnesia.

You've been selectively forgetting things again. There were 10 premiers at
the table. Why do you call Clark a sellout? I don't think his personal
integrity or his committment to Canada was ever in question except by the
rabid few who can find nothing else to fault him on. To suggest that Bob
Rae ordered the other premiers about is ludicrous. Bob Rae certainly didn't
suggest the EEE senate. Don Getty and Bourassa came up with the senate
compromise if I remember correctly. Native issues -- did Bob bring those
up? The Accord is strongly supported in all of the Atlantic provinces, but
you forgot to mention that, didn't you?

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

So you would disregard the contents of the deal because you didn't like who
made it, wouldn't you? I suppose you would have been against the treaty
that ended WWII since one of the sides negotiating was Nazi?

Accept the deal for what it is, and look at the contents.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca