HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 16 Apr 92 06:57:32 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Apr15.223446.21515@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>Enough of this silly feudal tradition (it's almost as bad as the
>fleur de lis, symbol of french royality on the Quebec flag.) 
>Ooops, sorry, steph!
>
>(chuckle)
>Frank.

Well Frank, be careful about the "fleur de lys", because many French-Quebeckers
(including myself) love it as much as most Canadians love the maple leaf...
So I would say it's a "sujet chatouilleux"... (translation?)
I know you were joking, but the "fleur de lys" has now lost all its links
with the royalty in Quebec...

Sylvain
schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Les immigrants et les purs
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:15:27 GMT
Organization: Hydro-Quebec

Ce que je tentais de demontrer avec mes chiffres, c'est que si
les canadiens francais de 1760 avaient eu le taux de natalite
des britanniques, le Canada serait probablement anglophone d'un
ocean a l'autre.  En ayant eu le mem taux de natalite, les
francos d'origine seraient 1.2 millions au Quebec, pas assez pour
y maintenir une langue de facon definitive.

Le taux d'echanges linguistiques (franco devenant anglo et vice-versa)
ne serait pas a peu pres le meme, mais tres en faveur des anglos.

Donc, si ce n'etait que de la "generosite" du Canada britannique,
notre langue serait disparue ou presque, comme aux Etats-Unis apres
2 generations, ou comme elle le serait sans doute dans l'ouest
si les Quebecois n'allaient pas y enseigner.

La question des immigrants est un derive involontaire.  J'ai voulu
utiliser une hypothese pessimiste (contre les francos) en reduisant
le nombre de descendants pour ne pas tenir compte des non-francos.
Je n'ai pas voulu nier leur existence ou dire qu'ils rendent impurs
la race canadienne-francaise (peu importe la definition d'une "race").
J'ai pense simplement que les calculs seraient plus precis.  Aussi,
j'ai pense que le chiffre de 16 millions de descendants etait
hors de proportion devant mon estimation precedente (10 millions) et
j'ai suppose que la difference etait a ce niveau.


-- 
    Denis Beauregard       _ _ _ _  Collecting Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca | * | * | Promoting use of QC as Quebec Postal Code
  Andre Jarret, sieur de  |===|===| Mes opinions?  Oui, oui, les miennes!
   Beauregard 1642-1992   |_*_|_*_| My opinions?  Yes, yes, mine!
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:07:54 GMT
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Distribution: can
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1992Apr15.022025.14281@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr14.192118.7162@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
|> 
|>    In article <1992Apr13.215633.9275@tsltor.uucp>, stevew@tsltor.uucp (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
|>    |> 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)?
|> 
|>    I favour the Monarch because it symbolizes our attachment, both socially and
|>    economically, to the British Commonwealth.  I assume that separatist oppose
|>    it for the same reason.  Without this connection we are just the 51st state
|>    (or is it 53rd - never did learn much about US history or geography), and 
|>    that is something I find offensive.
|> 
|> The majority of the Commonwealth nations do not have the Queen E as
|> their Head of State.  (eg. Cyprus, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan,
|> Zambia, Zimbabwe.)
|> 
|> Some even have their own monarchs.

True, but a lot do, like Britian, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.  I'm not saying
it's critical, just that is gives us a link, and hopefully reminds us of our past, and why
we are different than the US.  Besides, how much does it cost us?  Some nice hotels during
visits?  Big deal.  It's a little like being in NATO, the cost is minimal, but the economic
benifit is substantial (even though this is not the purpose of NATO or the Commonwealth).

Don
BNR has better things to do then tell me what to say on Internet,
  so I hardly think these are their views.
"Pick up the receiver, I'll make you a believer." - Depeche Mode
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 03:34:41 GMT

In article <92097.234107FAFARDP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <FAFARDP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>I hate to cloud the debate with facts ... but  if memory serves ....

"If memory serves" is hardly clouding the debate with facts.  In fact,
it fits right in with all the other "facts" that do so much to cloud
these debates.                                                :-)

Now, SOLID facts - those would CLARIFY the debate.  I think that's
forbidden, though - what would be the point of debating if we knew all
the facts?

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:37:05 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada


 I say turf the old bitty and get on with it.
 Frank
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:07:38 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr13.215633.9275@tsltor.uucp> stevew@tsltor.uucp (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
>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)?

OK - I am a French-Canadian, and a monarchist.  As symbols go, I prefer
the Queen to some other national symbols (and no one is asking for the
sort of attachment to the Queen that some people in the U.S. demand
for their flag.)

On the other hand, Frank, and Stephen, and a number of other anglophones
oppose the monarchy, again on symbolic grounds (symbol of privilege,
foreign domination, etc).

So much for stereotypes...

Anyway, if we "turf the old biddy", what symbol do you propose in
her place?  (And I think we do need some symbol - I will not pledge
allegiance to the current government, or to the existing country of
Canada, but I will do so for the "ideal" Canada, the country as it
strives to be in its best moments.)

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: National Referendum?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can.politics
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 21:31:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.003340.10603@cunews.carleton.ca> rwood@superior.carleton.ca (Richard Wood) writes:
>>
>The fact is, there is not much TROC can do to stop Quebec from quitting, 
>referendum or no referendum.  But I disagree with your use of the word 'right'
>concerning self-determination.  It has a legal sound to me, and there is no
>right to self-determination defined in the BNA act or in the Constitution Act 
>of 1982 that I know of.

Perhaps not, but the principle does exist in internatinoal law (especially
in the UN Charter, also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc.)
and Canada is a signatory to the Charter.
This is why Aboriginals have sometimes used the UN platform to issue
their views.

While the Canadians may not abide by UN principles, they would be sanctioned
internationally (and legitimately) if they didn't. 
South Africa (I believe) is/was not a member of the UN (having been expelled?)
but was sanctioned for policy in contravention of equality clauses written
in the Charter and Declaration. So while the S.Africa constitution made
racism legal; the international body did not.

Frank.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:00:47 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Richard Wood) writes:
>  My opinion exactly.  There are two nations, but TROCers are determined to
>press ahead with the pretence that there is only one Canada, requiring that all 
>10 components must be equal.  The end of this road will probably be something
>like a Commonwealth of Independent Provinces.
>  Quebec is not the same and should, I think, stand apart from the other 9 with 
>some form of independence (with a TROC equally independent of Quebec).
>  There will never be a united Canada.  What I want is a united TROC.

This is exactly what I think. Maybee there is hope afterall.

However, I doubt that most of TROC share your opinion. 

People don't even acknowledge that Quebec is different from P.E.I.
-- 
Francois Audet
Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:43:35 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr14.180738.7227@bmerh2.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>
>Anyway, if we "turf the old biddy", what symbol do you propose in
>her place?  (And I think we do need some symbol - I will not pledge
>allegiance to the current government, or to the existing country of
>Canada, but I will do so for the "ideal" Canada, the country as it
>strives to be in its best moments.)

I would prefer that we don't have symbols at all, or if we must,
we have a democratic constitution that can be the model for the 
world.
How about the scales of justice?
Or coitus?

Frank.
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations. [F/E]
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:27:40 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <WARKENT.92Apr14104951@ltisun11.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun11.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>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.


But that is the ethnic nation.
Do the franco-Ontariens fit in the fr-can nation that you describe.
what if they don't feel part of it?
How about the Metis?

Why do you want to divide up people in this way?
Language is such an arbitrary way of defining people.
I can carry a conversation in French. Does that make me fr-can?
Or do I have to have a really good accent? What about the
Manitoba versus Quebec City french accent?
Or is my blood not good enough? If my french was better, would
I THEN become a fr-can?
Are the english-speaking members of the PQ part of your fr-can nation?

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Aboriginal nationalism?
From: kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 03:40:14 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island

In article <1992Apr07.144658.17529@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:

>I suppose they could vote to secede and then set up anarchistic states.

They _could_? That's something I'm sure the Lubicons would like to
know... hell, all they want is for Canadians to keep their damned word
- just once. They can't exactly "leave" since they've never "been."

>However I detect a sense of *victim status* martyrdom in the words of
>some. The majority of aboriginals prefer to remain within Canada.

How have you determined this fact? (I haven't got a clue what the
proportions are like in this regard, and have doubts that anyone else
does either.)

>"OUR government"? Why do you assume the crimes against the aboriginals
>were your and my crimes. Don't we both denounce such?

So long as we sit by and do nothing, as a people, we are guilty. The
Lubicon story in particular is sickening, and getting worse every day
- I don't KNOW what the hell to do about it, but I don't think that
I'm absolved of guilt just because I squawk.

>>(I have a Mohawk acquaintance who I see from time to time, and once
>>when I asked him if he wasn't afraid of being killed by the army -
>>this when he was leaving for Oka - his response was "The white man has
>>been killing my people for hundreds of years - we are used to it.")

>And all white men are the same, of course.....

When they have been murdering your people with impunity, yes. Logic
often finds itself overshadowed with cultural pain. Does he trust some
white men? Yes, he does. Most of them are his brothers.

-- 
      === The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, Canada ===
  Waffle v1.64: (604) 758-9698 HST v32bis, (604) 758-6208(x4) 2400's
-------------> NO Veto for _any_ province -  EEE Senate!  <------------
kmcvay%oneb.wimsey.bc.ca@mala.bc.ca (.ALMANAC.BC.CA application pending)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Fleur de Lys et Symbolisme
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 19:55:18 GMT

[ Since Denis was courteous enough to write his article in
  both French and English, I'll do the same.  The English version
  is 3 paragraphs down. ]

Comme tu lis beaucoup de choses dans un simple item (ou deux),
tous parsemes de :-)...

Alors, on peut meme pas taquiner le Quebec, mentionner que ceux qui
critiquent certains symboles sacres (comme la reine), ont eux-memes
leurs symboles sacres, auquels il ne faut pas qu'on touche.  Parce que
faire ca, c'est vouloir imposer un pays ou tout le monde parle pareil,
pense pareil, agit pareil!  Mais a part Olchowy, avec son obsession du
Commonwealth, qui veut cela?

Comme c'est moi qui vous ai taquine au sujet de ce drapeau, vous
accusant de vous attacher a un symbole ayant des origines royalistes
et religieuses, tu crois vraiment que je desire imposer un tel pays,
monotone et restrictif?  J'espere bien que tu me connais mieux que
ca!

(Et puis, notons que celui qui parle le plus de former un groupe
homogene, c'est toi!)

[ You sure read a lot into a simple article (or two), full of :-)...

[ So one can't even tease Quebec, and mention that those who criticize
  certain sacred symbols have their own untouchable sacred symbols?
  To do so is to try to impose a country where everyone speaks the
  same, thinks the same, acts the same!  But besides Olchowy and his
  Commonwealth obsession, who here wants such a thing?

[ Since I'm the one who teased you about that flag, accusing you of
  being attached to a symbol with royalist and religious roots, do
  you really believe that I wish to impose such a country, boring
  and restricting?  I hope you know me better than that!

[ (And note, in passing, that the one who speaks the most about forming
  a homogeneous group is you!) ]

     ,          ,
Le Rhealiste (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Recherches Bell-Northern
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
Mon employeur ne controle pas mes opinions. |  (613) 763-4266
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:56:03 GMT
Organization: Hydro-Quebec

In article <1992Apr16.160954.24141@cunews.carleton.ca> rwood@superior.carleton.ca (Richard Wood) writes:
>
>   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
>--
>Richard Wood  :  rwood@ccs.carleton.ca 

Again, the Canadian dilemme.  Quebec wants a more decentralized government
and others want a more centralized government.  You can't resolve that!








-- 
    Denis Beauregard       _ _ _ _  Collecting Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca | * | * | Promoting use of QC as Quebec Postal Abbrev 
  Andre Jarret, sieur de  |===|===| Mes opinions?  Oui, oui, les miennes!
   Beauregard 1642-1992   |_*_|_*_| My opinions?  Yes, yes, mine!
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Freedom of Expression / language law oppressive?
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:08:48 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <WARKENT.92Apr2105329@ltisun11.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun11.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>Can someone please provide a clear, precise definition of "freedom
>of expression"?  In following the discussions in can.politics,
>it seems that it has something to do with putting up signs.  But
>can someone then explain why we seem to accept the many other limits
>to "freedom of expression" that pervade Canadian society?
>
>The banning of certain languages on signs is unjust.  The people who
>suffer from such a ban have been injured, and may certainly feel insulted.
>However, to go from there and claim that such a restriction contravenes
>the fundamental rights of Man is to cross from the uncertain world of
>human frailty to the black and white dreamland of the self-righteous and
>naive.
>
>We who remain deprived of such assurance struggle to understand why
>injustice X is so much more worthy of outrage than injustice Y when
>both injustices take place so close to each other.  In the context of
>the actual debate, why is the plight of the anglophone community of
>Quebec so much more worthy of outrage than the plight of the francophone
>communities of Alberta, in particular, and Western Canada in general?
>
>Take a few years and think about it.


If you accept the basic liberal (small l) principles of the Rights of Man,
then you must accept the idea of freedom of expression being fundamental.
If not, then why do you bother to debate at all?
 
Forget that for the moment.
OK, Ken, you have two choices:
Either deprivation of language is hurtful or it is not (whether we 
define hurt as oppression or persecution or just nastiness is pretty
irrelevant to my point, which is this:)


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

If deprivation of language rights is not hurtful, then why is there a 
Quebec language law in place to protect the french language?


Hmmm,

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: When do we stop being outsiders? (WAS Re: The Journal on ...)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:18:51 GMT

@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Organization: The Ohio State University
Cc:
Bcc:


This may sound like a stupid question, but I am her south of the border and 
would like to know why Quebec wants to break away from Canada.  All views 
please.  This is just one issue that I cannot understand.  And don't call me 
some ignorant US citizen.  If I was not ignorant, I would not be posting this.
All points of view welcome.  Try to keep it semi-short. Thanks.

Ryan C. Scharfy
Ohio State University

p.s. --  One note, I don't speak French, nor do I intend to learn.  Reply in
English.  Russian is already bad enough.  No offense to the French intended.
From: coady@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Coady Michael)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Separation?
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:44:23 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Universite de Montreal

Stephane was asking about the trucker who decorated his vehicle with
signatures of Canadians who wanted Quebec to stay within Confederation.
I believe that he got something in the region of 100,000 signatures.
He got a lot less publicity though, than the three or four morons who
walked on the Quebec flag in Brockville.

Mike Coady
COADY@ERE.UMONTREAL.CA
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Separation?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 08:23:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.152103.11849@pandora.matrox.com> thood@pluton.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>olin@reg.triumf.ca (ART OLIN, TRIUMF INET 128.189.128.2) writes:
>
>>Now suppose Quebec separated and gave all its residnt Canadians
>>Quebec citizenship. On what possible grounds could their Canadian
>>citizenship be revoked?
>
>Disloyalty to the Crown.
>

The same question could be asked in reverse...on what grounds could
Quebec deny Quebec citizenship to any resident of Ontario or British
Columbia or....

The way I look at it, two new countries would be created, and every
citizen of the old one would have to choose citizenship in one of
the new ones...choosing both "New Canada" and Quebec would not be
allowed.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics