HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Separation?
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:00:58 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <29EA5A31.680A@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.001603.4877@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
>	schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>
>>In article <29E7811F.3BE2@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>>>>About this campaign of the trucker, in French, it says "Mon Canada comprend 
>>>>le Que'bec". Direct translation in English: could be "My Canada includes
>>>>Quebec"  OR "My Canada understands Quebec".
>>>>The true exact translation should be "Mon Canada INCLUT le Que'bec".
>>>>
>>>>Why the words are different in French?
>>>>Many people think exactly that Canada DOES NOT understand Quebec.
>>>>Coincidence???
>>>
>>>I heard a CBC interview with the trucker just before the full campaign
>>>started. I think before the billboards, he tried to get as many
>>>signatures on a "letter" to Quebec to demonstrate that people in English
>>>Canada did care.
>>>
>>>I recall that he said the choice of the word "comprend" was deliberately
>>>to allow the double meaning. He intended both.
>>
>>Well, in that case, that's what I thought.
>>
>>So, many English Canadians signed a paper they did not know what it
>>*exactly* meant in French.
>
>Let's not get hyper over things that didn't happen, Sylvain. The
>billboards and the letter were not done at the same time, and as I
>recall the letter was not as simply-worded as the billboard.
>
>>I find it....   let's say a tiny bit of hypocritical. Why a double
>>meaning in French and not in English?
>
>Is it possible that someone thought it was a clever pun, and that's all?
>In the world of advertising, be it politics or soup, being catchy can be
>more important than being 100% linguistically pure.

Well, as far as I am concerned, I know both languages, so I was not
at all impressed, and the message did not pass.
So I don't think it was clever.

>>Anyway, we need more than love letters to make up our mind. What we need is
>>*proofs*, true actions...
>
>True action takes many forms. It is possible to show love for Quebec and
>its culture without believing that this requires institutionalized
>changes or political upheaval. It is possible to agree that Quebec is a
>distinct society with believing that the preservation of that society
>requires re-interpretation the Charter of Rights to factor in this
>distinctiveness.

Maybe, but what Quebec need right now, is a strong sign, and that means
"distinct society" and "more powers". Bourassa's gang made it clear
enough.

> Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
>         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
>              If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?

Sylvain Chamberland
Dept. of Biology
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario.
Xref: sparky can.politics:3620 can.francais:154
From: riese@litsuns1.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.francais
Subject: Incroyable. (Re: Lionel Groulx...)
Date: 30 Mar 92 09:35:32 GMT
Followup-To: can.francais


>Lionel Groulx is my hero.
...
>One definition of race in Webster : a family, tribe, people, or nation
>belonnging to the same stock.  Stock (same source) is source, family, lineage.
>That is, a race is a family having a common origin.  
...
>In this definition of race, which is enough to form a nation,
>secession of Quebec is something natural and most people will prefer
>a country where they are "part of it".
...
>Denis Beauregard        beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca


Alors le pays voulu par Monsieur Beauregard sera forme' naturellement
sur la race. Est-ce qu'il y a d'autres sur le reseau qui sont d'accord 
avec ce genre d'idee? 


Marc Riese
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Suisse
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: stevew@tsltor.uucp (Stephen M. Webb)
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:56:33 GMT

In article <SBO.92Apr12121903@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>You're in for a tough break Peter. I've seen support for the queen even by
>the so called moderate in can.politics. I agree with you that the queen has
>no business in Canada, but I suspect that a large segment of the
>anglophones still worship the queen.
>


Okay, time for an informal survey.  How many here worship, adore, or favour the
Queen as sovereign of Canada, or even think it's a good idea, and how many
participants of this news group feel we should turf the old biddy and her silly
offspring and get on with it (did my bias show though)?

_______
Stephen M. Webb
From: galbrth@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Name-calling again.  What Quebecois want instead.
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:09:05 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

About Stephane's name-calling of Quebecois, stereotyping rednecks we have yet
to hear from here, Sylvain said:

|Well, they may be a minority, but it's them we hear the most in Quebec.
|
|I still remember seeing on TV an old ontarian general who said that
|TROC should send the army in Quebec...
|Or APEC dinosaurs...
|
|Only YOU know that's a minority. French Quebeckers don't. Media
|show them the contrary.

No, YOU know it too.  Because you haven't seen it in this net, and if you've
lived it in Ontario you're keeping quiet about it.  I haven't lived it here
in 5.5 years.

|Maybe "la majorite silencieuse" (silent majority?) should do something
|before it's too late...
|
|(I'm not talking of silly "love letters")

Well, all Denis wants is for Canada to `Qc'.  
Seems to me that going crross country collecting signatures in support
of Quebec within Canada is doing a whole lot more!
 _____________________________________________________________________________
 Peter Galbraith       [Phone: (902) 494-7007] |  GALBRTH@AC.DAL.CA (InterNet)
 Dept. of Oceanography,  Dalhousie University  |  GALBRTH@DALAC     (BitNet)
 Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 4J1         |  rhogee@dalcs      (UUCP)
From: warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The B.C. NDP and the EEE senate (was Re: Alberta ...
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:23:51 GMT
	<SBO.92Apr1102823@gunther.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
	<1992Apr2.033204.19689@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<1992Apr06.072628.29969@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>
	<92097.234107FAFARDP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <gill.702681156@physics.ubc.ca>
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: gill@physics.ubc.ca's message of 7 Apr 92 21:12:36 GMT

Ken McVay:
>Barring some major miracle, I believe that British Columbians will reject
>outright any constitutional change that does not include the EEE senate,

<FAFARDP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>Last week the Committee of the B.C. Legislature studying constitutional matters
>>issued a report that DID NOT recommend a EEE Senate.  Late last week Mr. Sihota
>>the B.C. Minister responsible for constitutional matters announced the position
>> that the Government of B.C. with respect to constitutional reform.  So much
>>for the consensus among residents of B.C. on the merits of a EEE Senate.

Arnold Gill (in response to FAFARDP@QUCDN):
>      You are making the erroneous assumption that Sihota speaks for the
>      people of B.C.  He speaks his mind, like any representative should.
>      Whether the majority of people in BC agree with him is another matter
>      entirely.

I think that if the NDP government decides not to demand an EEE senate,
we can conclude that a significant proportion of British Columbians
are not terribly enthusiastic for such a thing.  So to state, as
Ken McVay does, that "British Columbians will reject outright any
constitutional change that does not include the EEE senate" seems
to be a bit of an exaggeration.

Personally, I think that Harcourt is right in favouring a devolution of
powers over increasing regional representation in Ottawa.  At the
same time, he might think about putting some ministries back in Victoria
before the place irrevocably turns into a combination of Canada's Retirement
Home, an amusement park for USAmerican tourists, and beggar's hospice.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Monday, 6 Apr 1992 23:41:07 EDT
From: <FAFARDP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Distribution: can
 <SBO.92Apr1102823@gunther.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
 <1992Apr2.033204.19689@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
 <1992Apr06.072628.29969@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>

In article <1992Apr06.072628.29969@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca
(Ken Mcvay) says:
>
>Barring some major miracle, I believe that British Columbians will reject
>outright any constitutional change that does not include the EEE senate,
>or which grants special powers to any province. Any politician who
>stood up to urge another position would be committing political suicide.
>Perhaps it is the same in Alberta.
>
I hate to cloud the debate with facts ... but  if memory serves ....

Last week the Committee of the B.C. Legislature studying constitutional matters
issued a report that DID NOT recommend a EEE Senate.  Late last week Mr. Sihota
the B.C. Minister responsible for constitutional matters announced the position
 that the Government of B.C. with respect to constitutional reform.  So much
for the consensus among residents of B.C. on the merits of a EEE Senate.

If my memory does not serve please correct ...
From: galbrth@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: DIR/NEW
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:48:21 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes

|coady@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Coady Michael) writes:

|>It's hard to believe that some heartless anglo devised this as a
|>way of trivializing Quebec (the province).
|
|The trouble is not with the reason of the PQ abbreviation.
|It is just that Quebec is using QC now.
|
|So, why not accepting a standard from Quebec instead of something
|that we found offensive.  

Please speak for yourself.  I doubt all or even most Quebecois find
the use of `PQ' offensive, or would find it offensive for that reason.
I, for one, started using `Qc' a long time ago because `PQ' reminded 
me of the Parti Quebecois!

|                          Canada is so afraid of Quebec secession
|that it will not even accept to remove the [P].

You're putting *way* too much into this matter.
If you persist, how are Canadians to decide what is *really* important
to the Quebecois?  They may start to think Quebecois feel as much or
little about very important issues as about the use of `Qc'!

|This is a 2-letter code that ALWAYS means a province in that context.
|PQ is then redundant.  Moreover, Quebec per se has only ONE lettre
|to represent it, while other have 2.

Sure.  But the use of these abbreviations is not even mandatory!
I worked for the federal gov. in Quebec city and they always used...
Que'bec!
 _____________________________________________________________________________
 Peter Galbraith       [Phone: (902) 494-7007] |  GALBRTH@AC.DAL.CA (InterNet)
 Dept. of Oceanography,  Dalhousie University  |  GALBRTH@DALAC     (BitNet)
 Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 4J1         |  rhogee@dalcs      (UUCP)
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:53:59 GMT
	<SBO.92Apr1102823@gunther.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
	<1992Apr2.033204.19689@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<1992Apr06.072628.29969@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>
	<92097.234107FAFARDP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <gill.702681156@physics.ubc.ca>
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada

In article <gill.702681156@physics.ubc.ca> gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std) writes:

   <FAFARDP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

   >Last week the Committee of the B.C. Legislature studying constitutional matters
   >issued a report that DID NOT recommend a EEE Senate.  Late last week Mr. Sihota
   >the B.C. Minister responsible for constitutional matters announced the position
   > that the Government of B.C. with respect to constitutional reform.  So much
   >for the consensus among residents of B.C. on the merits of a EEE Senate.

	You are making the erroneous assumption that Sihota speaks for the
	people of B.C.  He speaks his mind, like any representative should.
	Whether the majority of people in BC agree with him is another matter
	entirely.

Well, if Boubou speaks his mind he must really be mixed up...
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | 
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | (514)340-5950
From: warkent@ltisun11.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations. [F/E]
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:49:51 GMT
	<1992Apr13.143823.22566@bmerh2.bnr.ca>
	<1992Apr13.151614.24133@bmerh2.bnr.ca>
	<1992Apr14.052853.17566@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu's message of 14 Apr 92 05:28:53 GMT

Francais:
Bien sur qu'il existe une nation canadienne francaise.  Le probleme
c'est que quelques quebecois pensent que le Quebec et cette nation sont
la meme chose, pendant que les autres canadiens considerent le
quebec juste comme une province qui a la distinction d'etre
majoritairement francophone.

Si on reprend la definition de Denis Beauregard on ce qui concerne
la nation franco-canadienne, on a:
La francophonie canadienne > la nation canadienne francaise > les franco-
quebecois < le Quebec.

English:
Of course there exists a French Canadian nation.  The problem is that
some Quebeckers think that Quebec and this nation are the same thing,
while other Canadians consider Quebec as just a province that has
the distinction to be largely francophone.

If one makes use of Denis Beauregard's definition concerning the
French Canadian nation, one has:
French speaking Canadians > the French Canadian nation > Franco-Quebeckers
< Quebec.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
From: warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Freedom of Expression / language law oppressive?
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:18:19 GMT
	<1992Apr01.153317.5570@bmerh2.bnr.ca>
	<WARKENT.92Apr2105329@ltisun11.epfl.ch>
	<1992Apr10.160848.4567@bmerh2.bnr.ca>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: robinc@bnr.ca's message of 10 Apr 92 16:08:48 GMT

Once upon a time, I wrote:
kw>Can someone please provide a clear, precise definition of "freedom
kw>of expression"?  In following the discussions in can.politics,
kw>it seems that it has something to do with putting up signs.  But
kw>can someone then explain why we seem to accept the many other limits
kw>to "freedom of expression" that pervade Canadian society?

In article <1992Apr10.160848.4567@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) wrote:
rc> If you accept the basic liberal (small l) principles of the Rights of Man,
rc> then you must accept the idea of freedom of expression being fundamental.
rc> If not, then why do you bother to debate at all?

Robin, you still refuse to answer my question: what is "freedom of
expression"?

rc> If deprivation of language rights is hurtful, then the Quebec langauge law
rc> should be removed.

As I have tried to make abundantly clear in previous posts, I agree that
the banning of English on signs should be repealed.  (By the way, the
language law is not just about banning English on signs.  Do you mean
to include all the other facets as well?)

But be careful, my reasons for opposing this ban are based on pragmatic
reasons.  The rule "if enacting law X is hurtful, then X should be
removed" cannot be made a general principle of any workable society,
and your insistance that regulating signs is a grievous contravention
of the rights of Man strikes me as silly.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
From: warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 13 Apr 92 09:17:53 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: galbrth@ac.dal.ca's message of 11 Apr 92 19:03:51 GMT

Someone wrote:
> |                         If it insults you're poor little ego then go home
> |the Queen is as much as a part of Canada as the beaver and the maple leaf.
> |She is OUR queen as well.

[Warning, strong republican sentiments follow, sensitive monarchists may
wish to avoid reading them]

The beaver and the maple leaf are positive symbols. But what about the Queen?
When I think of the Queen, I see a benign old lady who represents: a
shameful colonial past;  class discrimination;  inherited privilege;
and boring but nasty gossip in Fleet Street rags.

Yes she is our Queen. Pity.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
From: thood@pluton.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: O Canada, O Quebec  - reaction
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:13:32 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

I finished reading the infamous O Canada, O Quebec on the weekend, and
I must say, I do not recommend it to anyone.  Reading it is about
as much fun as seeing a bad movie the second time (all the unpleas-
antness and none of the novelty).  Richler fails to do what
a writer must do to -- break new ground, or offer new information
or a new perspective.  He shamelessly recites the whole familiar
history once again, and drags out all the old gripes that would be
better left buried if not forgotten.  Instead of analysis, we get the
unfunny remarks of half-drunk "wags" at Woody's Pub who have not
realized that we are overly-well-acquainted with their attitude
of bemused scorn and condescension.

The renewed accusations of anti-semitism are unfair.  Even if Abbe Groulx
was a racist, that does not prove that Quebec society was also racist,
or that it was particularly racist, or that it remains so.
Furthermore, what is the point?  If he is trying to prove that les
Quebecois are "disconcertingly tribal" and "trapped in the past",
then Richler proves that the English can be just as bad.

Of course the situation is very bad for the English, but they could do 
with something more than articulate fussing and bitterness.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:07:24 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada

In article <1992Apr9.234957.19190@splunge.uucp> adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley) writes:

   galbrth@ac.dal.ca writes:

   >sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:

   >     I think the more onerous parts of the official bilingualism laws are in
   >     areas like commercial packaging ("French on labels in Alberta? Why??"...)
   >  
   >  Note that the design and drawings of the packages represent a negligeable
   >  cost. You then have to show me that it cost more to print a bilingual box
   >  than an English only box.
Note that the above paragraph was written by me, not by Peter.

   No, actually I don't have to show that at all; you've missed the point.
   The government has no business mandating what languages may or must be
   printed on packaging.  Let consumers decide.

But it has business mandating to have metric system on our packagings?
Where do we draw the line?

I'll tell you that the governments have no business setting standard for
the environment. The market should decide. If people want to buy things
that are the result of manufacturing that is damagable for the environment
then be it. That's analog to what your are saying.

   Stephane wrote:
   >  Should the fed translate the laws in Chinese?
   >  
   >  So, as I said before. It all comes down to how you define "where numbers
   >  warrant".

   Well, I agree it does come down to that.  If there are significant
   numbers of Chinese speakers, *yes*, laws should be translated.
   I'll duck the question, for now, of how to define "where numbers
   warrant" -- it needs statistics that I don't have nearby...

In other words you will look at the statistics and at what you want, and
then make a definition that will fit both? I don't see why you need
statistics for that.

--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | 
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | (514)340-5950
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jalsop@seachg.uucp (John Alsop)
Subject: Re: Bourassa is my hero
Reply-To: jalsop@seachg.UUCP (John Alsop)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 21:44:47 GMT

In article <1992Mar30.173733.27332@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:

>
>I certainly think that the use of the army by Trudeau/Bourassa/Turner
>was an abomination.
>
>I think that the perception of that act within QUebec, although partly
>generated by nationalist fervour (and hindsight) is more justified that
>the initial support given for armed personnel in the streets.
>
>Trudeau's famous JUST WATCH ME line still puts shivers up my spine.

I was a student in Montreal at the time, and I can assure you that the
anglophone community was 99.9% in support of Trudeau's move. (Of course
anglophone opinions don't count for anything anymore!).

As the events recede into the past, people tend to forget the exact
circumstances and tend to rewrite things to support their current political
agenda (e.g. another case of "oppression" against Quebec).  However, I would
hope that if the same situation occurred today, the response would be the same.

I don't know about others of my generation from Montreal, but I still get
nervous walking past mailboxes!

John Alsop

Sea Change Corporation
6695 Millcreek Drive, Unit 8
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 5R8
Tel: 416-542-9484 Fax: 416-542-9479
UUCP: ...!uunet!uunet.ca!seachg!jalsop
-- 
John Alsop

Sea Change Corporation
6695 Millcreek Drive, Unit 8
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 5R8
Tel: 416-542-9484 Fax: 416-542-9479
UUCP: ...!uunet!uunet.ca!seachg!jalsop
From: rwood@superior.carleton.ca (Richard Wood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:09:54 GMT
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

In article <342@catnix.UUCP> michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele A. Simond) writes:
>
>Differences of opinions.  I believe that a strong central
>government is bad.  It means a lot of power duplications, a
>lot more whining for loss of time, loss of money, loss of
>energy.  Again, Switzerland is a very good example of
>a much decentralized federal government. And it works.
>
>Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP

   Perhaps the problem is that Canada does not have a strong enough central 
government.  A U.S. think-tank recently described us as already the most
decentralized confederation in the world (it was reported in the Financial 
Post).  The same study also observed that very decentralized countries
break up.  We're well on our way.
--
Richard Wood  :  rwood@ccs.carleton.ca 
       Computing and Communications Services
               Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6