HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.francais
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:18:27 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article jnetto@bnr.ca (John Netto) writes:
> Une autre farce.. on dit souvent au Qc que Rene a ete poignarde dans le dos par
> le 'gang de neuf'. Mais pourquoi ? Comment ? C'est pas possible.. Comprends tu,
> que, comme etant chef d'un parti souverainiste (ou d'independance)
>
> IL NE POUVAIT JAMAIS SIGNER UN ACCORD AVEC LE FEDERAL !!!!!!!????????
>
> Est-ce si difficle a comprendre? Si tu etait dans sa place, aurait tu agit de la
> meme facon? Dites, supposons que le RDC aurait propose un accord selon Meech,
> est-ce qu'un gouv. pequiste (avec toi au leadership) aurait signe avec le
> federal ??????? 
> Trudeau a fait bien.. Rene n'aurais jamais signe, n'importe ce qu'on lui aurait
> propose. 

Tout ca c'est de la foutu propagande trudeauesque, et c'est totalement
faux. Lors des negotiations qui ont eventuellement mene au desastre de
Trudeau, le Quebec etait le chef de file des provinces dans cette
bataille qui etait contre OTTAWA. Toutes les provinces, a l'exception
de l'Ontario qui s'en foutait pas mal, partageaient plus ou moins le
meme point de vue que le Quebec. Finalement, les demandes UNANIMES des
provinces ont ete depose a Trudeau contre contre-proposition du
scam-a-Trudeau. Trudeau a dit de manger de la marde et a annule les
negociations. Un an apres, il revient a la charge avec la menace que
si les provinces ne signe pas, il passe son projet pareil. Les
provinces disent que ce n'est pas legal, et ca va en cours dans
plusieurs provinces et a la cour supreme (il me semble). Le verdict
dit que c'est "contraire a l'esprit de la Constitution, mais legal".
Trudeau fait donc savoir au provinces que si elles veulent un morceau
de gateau, elles soivent se ralier a son projet, ce qui arrive dans la
nuit des longs couteaux. Apres l'entente de cette semaine, un des
premiers ministres provinciaux (un des seuls qui etaient present lors
des negotiations du plan Trudeau) a dit que ces negotiations n'etaient
pas rempli du meme estprit de menace qui regnait a l'epoque.

Si tu ne me crois pas, lit "Les lendemains pieges" de Claude Morin
(oui, celui qui travaillait pour la GRC...). C'etait lui qui a
l'epoque etait le bras droit de Levesque dans le dossier. Il avait ete
choisit precisement parce qu'il etait un des moins radical du Parti en
ce qui concerne l'independance. Son bouquin est complet avec
correspondance entre premiers ministres, etc.

> NOTE: C'est surtout au Quebec que le media mentionne le fait que le Quebec
>       n'a pas signe la Constitution, en impliquant qu'il ne fait pas
>       partie du Canada (legalement).. ca c'est faux !!!!!

La seule chose que ca implique, c'est que la constitution a ete signe
sans l'accord du Quebec.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Economie et Entente de principe sur la constitution
Date: 25 Aug 92 02:03:37 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal


Bonjour,

Je suis etonne de voir les gens dire: "Bon, la constitution
c'est presque regle. On va pouvoir passer a des choses plus
importantes comme l'economie". 

Pourtant, il y a un probleme que le monde des affaires
soulevent souvent et qui doit etre regler par la
constitution: Le libre echange entre les provinces.
Pourtant, ce probleme a ete mis de cote lors des
negotiations constitutionnel, de sorte que ca n'a 
pas vraiment ete regle.

Il va donc falloir attendre encore 100 ans avant qu'une
solution soit apportee a cela car aucun politicien n'osera
plus se remettre a negocier la constitution.

--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:35:10 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

>From article <plante.715113702@iros1>, by plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante):

>> yet you would support discrimination based on country of origin,

>  I am in favour of total freedom of choice.
>
>  I do not support discrimination.
>
>  I see the Chambers' Task Force recommendation as a step in the right
>  direction.

I hope you will admit, Steve, that freedom of choice for all immigrants
is something that Quebec and Canada are not bound to allow, and something
that is never likely to be allowed.

>> So, Mr Potter, aren't you as racist and fascist as you say we are?
>  Obviously not.

Hey, guys, this isn't can.sandbox!

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: It's racist, Separation is unavoidable
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:58:00 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Aug31.160556.19150@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>No one will be in the mood for constitutional upheaval after October 26th.
>_If_ the referendum passes, separatism will be discredited for at least
>another ten years.  A P.Q. government will have no mandate to negotiate
>independence and the Government of Canada will be quite right to refuse
>to discuss the matter.
>
>Separatists had better concentrate on winning the referendum.
>
>--
>Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
>Montreal

But, consider the situation.  Boubou had to use his position of party
leader to make the agreement accepted by his own party.  He could not
even use its content!  I guess he didn't even know what is the content
of the agreement.

Having a federal referendum at the same time is a very good thing.
[1]  The pressure on Quebec will be weaker than having 9 provinces like
in 1980.  Maybe also less money spent in Quebec (in 1980, the No camp used
probably 2 or 3 times the money spent by the Yes camp because much money
was out of Quebec control.  HOWEVER, there is no limit to expenses
in the Federal version!!!!)

[2]  The Canada will not appear as unified.  A No from Canada will be
interpreted as a No to Quebec in Canada.  A Yes from Canada will be
interpreted as an agreement more in favor of Canada than of Quebec.
I think the Quebec referendum will be done after the Canadian one.
Remember that in 1980, a No was said to mean Yes to change (and no change
occured in the axis of Quebecois majority).
 
-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Xref: sparky can.politics:6297 soc.culture.canada:6195
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: It's racist, Separation is unavoidable
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:56:03 GMT

In article <Btv8wo.55y@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>[2]  The Canada will not appear as unified.  A No from Canada will be
>interpreted as a No to Quebec in Canada.  A Yes from Canada will be
>interpreted as an agreement more in favor of Canada than of Quebec.

So a NO  vote will be "interpreted" as unfavourable to Quebec, and
   a YES vote will be "interpreted" as unfavourable to Quebec.

No surprise here, Denis - you have been doing this all along, always
interpreting events in the way that justifies your views.  It is clear
that NO deal can ever get your approval - you're opposed to any deal,
on principle.  Even your sacred independence won't satisfy you -
there will always be problems, and you will always blame them on others.

Alors un vote NON sera "interprete" comme defavorable au Quebec, et
      un vote OUI sera "interprete" comme defavorable au Quebec.

Aucune surprise la, Denis - c'est justement ce que tu fais depuis le
debut, interpretant tout de la maniere qui justifie tes opinions.
Aucun accord ne pourrait te satisfaire - tu t'opposes a tout accord,
par principe.  Meme ta sainte independance ne pourrait te satisfaire.
Il y aura toujours des problemes, et tu les blameras toujours sur "les
autres".

Cela m'attriste enormement.

Le Rhealiste - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Parlant pour moi-meme
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:25:16 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <Btx3Kq.102@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan) writes:
>Francois, Francois, when will you learn.  I think I have personnaly had this
>conversion with you four times now and you keep coming back with the same
>assertion that there are no French nor French services in the west.  Its
>not true, please listen.  As to the above comment do you think those French
>people arrived yesterday?  They have been there 3 to 4 generations already
>and haven't assimilated so why would they all of a sudden start now.
>Particularly considering the assimulation pressures are less now than before.

A huge fraction of them has already been assimilated. Are you denying
this? All statistics show that they are rapidly being assimilated.
That's just a fact, and I don't think its stoppable.

Furhtermore, the assimilation pressures, au contraire, are a lot
bigger today than they were yesterday. People are no longer stuck into
farms for their entire life. If they go at University, they will
probably be educated in English. If they move away from their village
(to get a job), they will integrate an english-speaking majority.
The Media are now omnipresent. 


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:59:22 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

VERY but very debattable arguments...

Anyway, I already said that in a title...

In article <12720@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>In article <Btnv6o.Hw4@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>>
>>This is one part of the problem : if Canada was that generous with francos,
>>why is the west almost unilingual anglo?  Why does it take one century
>>to change the illegal law in Manitoba that make it unilingual?
>>Just look some historical books and you'll see that a lot of people
>
>Well Denis, the answer that you are looking for is people just like you.
>There has long been a tension in Canada between those who can allow
>the cultural groups to cooperate and those (like you) who can
>only see releationships in terms of domination.
>
>The loss of French schools in Manitoba was the result of the foeud
>between the Orangemen of Dalton Maccarthy and the ultramontanists
>of Honore Mercier. Maccarthy saw any accommodation with the French
>Canadian as an example of French domination. Mercier attempted to
>turn Quebec into a clerical state.
>
>During the battles on the Jesuit Estates bill, Maccarthy (
>and his ultramontane opponents) stirred up a great deal of
>religious and ethnic resentment across the country. 
>Part of this religious rage spilled over into Manitoba
>which attempted to eliminate the religious schools which
>had received religious support during the period 
>1870-1890.
>
>
>Eventually the forces of toleration prevailed (as they always
>do in Canada) and the ultramontanists and the Orangemen were
>forgotten.

The forces of toleration prevailed one century later!  
Otherwise, YOU talked about francophones working for their
religion and anglophones fighting francophones.  You see the
picture : one group against the francophones in west and they
won, one group in favor of church in Quebec and they won too.
You missed probably something...

>
>However Denis, if you wonder how the rights of the francophone 
>were damaged in Manitoba, it was because of peoplle like you.
>People who could (and can) only see relationships is terms
>of domination of one group over another.

Because I tried to give a realistic portray of Quebec?  
Where's the smiley?

I MADE AN EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND YOU.  I LEARNED ENGLISH.
WHEN WILL YOU LEARN ENOUGH
FRENCH TO UNDERSTAND FRENCH-SPEAKINGS????   YOU ARE RACIST, and
your posting did not changed that.

>In short Denis, your side is again on the defensive.

I don't see why.  You just said that anglo manitoban fighted
francophones and won and did not won.  Even your arguments are
not logical!  But, where are the smileys?

>-- 
>i.sinature


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pierre@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Pierre Rouleau)
Subject: Re: A bilingual West
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:56:35 GMT

In article <14741@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca
(Crawford Kilian) writes:
> As an anglophone western Canadian who's put a daughter
> through French immersion, I feel frustrated by Quebec's
> apparent lack of interest in the west ... etc.

Upon reading Kilian's pamphlet I felt uncertain whether
he fully realised where the cart was relative to the horses.
The lack of interest explicited in his paternalistic assessment
is only that: apparent. And even if a shread of support exist for
this, it could demonstrably be because it is rather the west
which presents the cold shoulder to French - History is unequivocal
on that matter.

That French is still in existence here is largely due to the shear
presence of Quebec in Confederation. The many "Maisons du Quebec" in
western cities, maintained at costs to Quebeckers and without any
threat of budgetary cuts as are basic services in French schools
here, have for mandate to promote French culture and related
interprovincial exchanges.

One wonders what Kilian expects from Quebec: that they come
riding in shinning armour to restore French Order ? 

Pierre R.
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 4 Sep 92 03:31:39 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep3.213751.912@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>But Denis just said Trudeau was an anglophone!! :-)

How do you define an anglophone?  Some one who's mother language is English?
This is an adaptation to English of the French expression langue maternelle.

Mother of Trudeau was Grace Elliott, no?  And she was anglophone, no?
Thus, Trudeau is an anglophone!  
In the context, Trudeau should not be used as a perfect example of
a pure francophone since he was not educated as a pure francophone.
ANd please don't flame for this : it is a fact, period.  The same way,
Mulroney was rised in English.  BUt, this is another story.

>Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:19:51 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep2.175853.26178@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>Quebecers are liberal... except when it comes to culture and language.
>That's a huge "except."  In fact, the lack of openness in culture
>goes further towards explaining the difficulty of integrating
>immigrants than the influence of our southern neighbour.
>

This depends on what you depict as progressive or freedom.
If being humanitarian is boeing totally altruist and forget about
oneself, and if liberal is defined in that context, then yes Quebec
society is totally not liberal in culture and language.

But, if you compare the society 30 years ago, where culture was
just getting out of church control (if you accept that a clerical
society maybe quite hypocrit and take Avignon as an example of that :
the Popes city was a whore city too), the farmers were loosing control
(i.e. Duplessis marketshare was using the farmers and catholic church
to keep the control), etc.  The fact that PQ had more bilingual MNA
than previous liberal is meaningful : while opening to the world,
you have to understand that world.  So, yes, there is some opening to
the world, more freedom in what people can say.  Even in language.
The Quebec remains a leader in language : despite laws 101 and 178,
there is a much larger number of bilingual individuals in Quebec than
in Canada (at least proportionnally, and I would not be surprised this
would be true absolutely, then comparing CSQ and Quebec).

There is some trouble at the level of language.  Immigrant anglophones
may feel discriminated in regards of natives anglophones, but since they
choosed to come here, then they should not complain (i.e. they choosed
their situation).  Native anglophones are harmed by reduction of the
size of communauty.  But, they are still more numberous that PEI
population.  Why complaining?  We could thus argument that these
troubles are more or less existing, but they are either a personal
choice (immigrants) or part of the dynamics of society (natives anglophones).

>French-speaking) society.  Limiting the freedom of choice of immigrants
>has been justified according to the principle of French predominance.

And what is wrong with French predominance in Quebec?  There are 9
other provinces and USA for an immigrant prefering English predominance.

I think what hurts most the anglophones are the fact that now a lot
of them will have to learn French to keep social status.
Sign law effects have been exagerated and school in French for immigrants
results of a choice by the same immigrants.

>Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: How did you interpret the 1980 Referendum?
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:12:12 GMT
Reply-To: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (IREQ)


	Les quebecois ont donnes une autre chance au federalisme.


---
Robert Meunier                     Institut de Recherche d'Hydro-Quebec
Ingenieur                          1800 Montee Ste-Julie, Varennes
Internet: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca  Qc, Canada, J3X 1S1 
maintainer: BASIC mailing list request to basic-request@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Les interets collectifs
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:08:04 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1877

From article <1992Sep1.205618.27772@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, by nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau):
> 
> Ce qui s'oppose, bien sur, aux efforts de ceux qui defendent les
> interets collectifs de la communaute francophone.  Les uns valent-ils
> plus que les autres?

I support the efforts of those who defend the collective interests of
the French community. That is as far as the protection of the language
and culture is concerned - to some extent.

Perhaps someone could explain to those of us who have difficulty
understanding this:

How does forcing English-speaking children (who could learn French in an
immersion program) to attend French school help to defend the collective
interests of the French community?

Is it in the collective interest of the French community to make "newcomer"
anglophones in Quebec angry, resentful and bitter?

Quebec is surely a better place to learn French than in England or
Australia. (Even if it is a Quebec dialect :-) )

What is to be gained, in the collective interests of the French community,
by turning a marvellous opportunity to learn one of the World's most
important languages into a legally imposed obligation?

> 
> Je sais ce que va dire Denis - la communaute francophone est la
> majorite, donc elle a raison.  Par contre, il critique fortement la
> decision de la majorite anglophone protestante au Manitoba, il y a 100
> ans, d'avoir voulu proteger "democratiquement" leur "interets
> collectifs", en tentant d'imposer un "visage anglais" a leur province.
> 
> Le Rhealiste - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Parlant pour moi-meme
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:00:54 GMT

In article <12737@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <12733@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>>No that is not correct. THere are people in the west who are fighting
>>to maintain their French culture.
>
>Of course, but this is beside the issue: in a few years, there will be
>none left. Give one or two generations.

And once again, you casually dismiss those people who don't fit into
your narrow vision of the world.  Oh, they don't count, they'll just
go away and leave us with our simplistic little world.

Je m'excuse bien, mais nous sommes la, les francophones hors Quebec,
et nous avons bien l'intention d'y rester.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A bilingual West
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:31:25 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article Denis writes:
>My 7 millions is the number of descendants of Quebecois of French origin
>and not speaking French now as a mother language.  If half of migration
>has been directed to west, west would have been francophone and migration
>from Europe would have had a different effect.

There was an exodus of "french canadians" to the states in the darker
years. While in the States a few weeks ago I read an article on the
ethnic background of americans. The numbers where something like:

German - 14%
English - 11%
Irish - 10%
...
French - 4%
French-Canadian - 1.4%

My memory is not perfect, so there migh be some slight variation in
the numbers (I still have the article however). What I do remember is
that German was the highest. I also remember that 1.4% were
"french-canadians", which translates to about 3.5 millions. There were
virtually no english-canadian (labelled as "canadian" in the article)
background.

Newsgroups: can.politics