HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:07:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.035957.27182@epas.toronto.edu> hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus) writes:
>
>This is missing the main point that the best things that the
>Conservatives got going for them are Jean Chretien and Audrey
>MacLaughlin.  Get rid of Mulroney and it's an entirely different
>ballgame.  Chretien is "old wares" while the NDP is not viewed as a
>valid alternative by most Canadians after the Rae experience.
>

If Mulroney stays, the best way to clean house of all three within
two years, Mulroney, Chretien, and McLaughlin, ironically would be
to re-elect Mulroney...and we would likely have a then have a subsequent
election in about 3 years with all new blood...and a lot sooner if
it were a minority government.    

Giving Chretien a five-year mandate is a little like saying, I dislike
the terminal cancer I have, so I'm going to commit suicide.

There choice in the next election is a lesser of evils choice...I've
narrowed it down to the choice of three poisons...Tories, Reform, and
the National...(the National Party probably has the best policy for
democratic reforms, even though their economic policy is ridiculous)...
but the only choices are the status quo, or a protest vote, to attempt
to deny any single party a majority...and those are the three best
choices for doing that.

The Liberals and the NDP are not real alternatives...and to give
either, or the Tories, a majority government, I think would be a
serious mistake, the Tories less so than the others, since Mulroney
would only stay half a term.  Having Mulroney for two more years
is less of an evil than giving Chretien five, in my opinion.

To clean out the current crop of crud in Ottawa on
both sides of the aisle we need two elections in relatively rapid
succession.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:37:43 GMT

cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>Brian Mulroney is "too detested to get re-elected."  If he steps down,
>the whole ball game changes rather a lot.

I disagree. I think it's going to be just like John Turner and
Trudeau. Trudeau left way too late for Turner to put a stamp of his
own on the PM's office and differentiate himself from the equally 
detested Trudeau.

An election has to be held by October, and by the time a leadership
convention is held it will be toooo late.

>There's a theory out there that the only person in Canada capable of
>getting a MAJORITY government is BM the current PM.  I don't know
>about that - but I do have this suspicion that none of the major
>competitors are capable of doing better than a minority government.

If the vote is splite up by the BQ in Quebec and Reform in Alberta,
the Liberals will only need 38 - 40 % for a majority government.

A 5 way race will make it easier for the Liberals to win. 

>When the Conservatives start getting ready for the next election, I
>fully expect things to look QUITE different from the way they do now.
>In what ways?  I haven't the slightest.  I'm sure that something will
>happen.  The PC's would be STUPID to go into an election without doing
>SOMETHING.

You mean stupid like the Tories and Richard Hatfield were?

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 22:35:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.175345.27765@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>Look what happened in the last provincial election when the voters
>to cavalierly just voted against Peterson without carefully checking
>whether the opposition party they were voting for had any coherent
>policies.
>
>The purpose of the next election should be to attempt to achieve
>a result that forces the three major parties to have leadership
>conventions.

Ah, but a lot of people who voted NDP in the last Ontario election
didn't expect them to win a majority government, and were shocked when
they did.  Voting to ensure a minority government (and I agree that this
is best, in general and especially in this specific case), may lead to
unexpected, and perhaps unwanted, results.  (There are people who will
vote for Reform, or the BQ, or the NDP, without wanting them to win.)

The best way to ensure minority government is proportional
representation (very few parties, after all, ever get more than 50% of
the vote; this would be even less likely under PR, since now people
often refrain from voting for their prefered, but unlikely to win,
candidate for fear of wasting their vote).  Of course, since all three
major parties hope to form a majority government in the next election,
there is no chance we'll get PR in the foreseeable future - it's just
not in the interest of the established parties.

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Taxation as Theft
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 22:47:16 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>This couldn't have been recently...I don't think I would say something
>the way you have said it, and gun control is not particularly one
>of my hobby horses...are you sure it was me...I am for waiting periods,
>and graduated licensing after proper training and medical assessment of
>competency...however, I would not ban any particular weapons.

I brought gun control into a debate on "Fundamental Human Rights".  I
believe that it is possible for two countries to have two different sets
of laws regarding gun control without either one being in any way 
inappropriate.  At the time you were saying that any action by the
government that in any way restricted the freedom of individuals was
wrong -- individuals' freedom could only be constrained by other
individuals' rights.  I suggested that that meant that there was only
one correct set of gun laws, and that therefore either Canada or the
US was behaving improperly.  You agreed.  Nothing more was said about
particulars.
>
>You offer no explicit means of checks and balances so
>dissidents have a mechanism to appeal government edicts.
>
Individuals always have recourse to lawlessness.  If the gov't offends
them mightily, they can start killing people in the gov't.  Of course
a better system would build in explicit means of checks and balances
so that citizens would not have to resort to violence.

All I am saying is that the particular form of those checks and
balances may differ from society to society, and that that is OK.  It
does not mean that all but one of those societies is wrong.  You and
Charles are arguing for a much narrower band of variation.

>>No need to invent spurious rights.
>
>I would argue that the notion of individual rights is an extremely
>utile, since it is the basis for a mechanism of checks and balances
>on the government.
>
I agree.  But I recognize that there may be other ways to achieve those
balances, and so requiring a government to use _that_ basis in order
to be legitimate is a spurious restriction, IMHO.

>If you won't even concede or agree that mistreatment of dissidents
>is not particularly a good or healthy basis for a sustainable 
>society and government, what exactly is your position on, say for
>example, genocide...the ultimate mistreatment of dissidents?
>
*Sigh*  I guess I should just go back to watching debates.  I'm
clearly inadequate to the task of explaining even the simplest
notions, as this massive misreading of my statements shows.

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The next federal election 
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:53:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.154342.536@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.110729.12481@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>There choice in the next election is a lesser of evils choice...I've
>>narrowed it down to the choice of three poisons...Tories, Reform, and
>>the National...(the National Party probably has the best policy for
>>democratic reforms, even though their economic policy is ridiculous)...
>>but the only choices are the status quo, or a protest vote, to attempt
>>to deny any single party a majority...and those are the three best
>>choices for doing that.
>>
>>The Liberals and the NDP are not real alternatives...
>
>That's funny.  I don't consider the Tories, Reform, or National Party as
>real alternatives.  Right now my options are Liberals, NDP, or a fringe
>party like the Greens - not because I really like them, but as the
>lesser evils.
>

But nothing is solved unless the Liberals are denied a majority...
we can clean out the barn, as Ross Perot, might say, as long as
Chretien is denied a majority government.

Look what happened in the last provincial election when the voters
to cavalierly just voted against Peterson without carefully checking
whether the opposition party they were voting for had any coherent
policies.

The purpose of the next election should be to attempt to achieve
a result that forces the three major parties to have leadership
conventions.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject: Re: A vote for Reform is a vote for the Tories
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:04:45 GMT

In article <93009.1804012893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.213854.16918@julian.uwo.ca>, larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN
>LAROCQUE) says:
>>
>>In article <93009.1617472893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy
>><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>>Subject line speaks for itself. People voting Reform as a protest could end
>>up
>>>with a Tory/Reform majority government if the Tories are able to recover even
>>>modestly in the polls.
>>
>>So what. The NDP are communists. The Liberals are big government spenders.
>
>The NDP are communists? Either you know nothing of the NDP or you don't have
>a clue what communism is!
>
The NDP are socialists, however, and the Ontario party has shown a
tendency to favour large-scale social engineering projects such as
labour reform and employment equity (as
oppossed to the Saskatchewan party) that have had them realing with
reactions they never planned for (trouble with large-scale s.e. is
that, like all s.e., there are unexpected side-effects, plus with the
scale being so grand you commit a large amount of resources, including
human, and put a great deal of your personal integrity on the line.
If it doesn't work it's a hell of a mess to clean up and you have a
lot of people that you have to account to.  Therefore, a common
reaction is to deny that the programme is really failing and come up
with reactionary measures, which create more unforseen problems, and
try and save a futile situation.).  The federal NDP party has been
rather warm and supportive of the Ontario party's endevours.  I have
my doubts that this is what Canada needs, especially when our major
problems are of an economic nature.

The Liberal Party, on the other hand, have stated they will keep NAFTA
(while vaguely alluding to some revisions) and made no commitment
regarding the GST.  They have also been courting the Business
Council on National Interests.  They will not touch anything the
Conservatives have done, though they (following Liberal tradition) may
be more of a burden on the deficit.

And the National Party naively believes we can scrap FTA and NAFTA and
then negotiate "managed fair trade agreements with the European
Community, Japan, the U.S., and other nations" (Hurtig, 1992).  It
takes two to tango and how on earth Hurtig et al feel we can be in a
strong bargaining position with Japan and the EEC (that is, what the
hell do they need us for? why would they want us when 40% of our companies
have American majority ownership anyways?) is beyond me,
and it is hardly likely the Americans will be willing to negotiate a
"fair trade agreement" if we were to abrogate free trade.

We can attack a right-wing coalition of the Conservatives and the
Reform Party, but what does the left have to offer?
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Welcome to Quebec/repressed liberties
Followup-To: mtl.general,can.politics
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:53:43 GMT

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

>Chapter viii of Bill 101, and the fact that paragraph 23(1)(a) of the 
>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not applicable in Quebec,
>make it legally possible for about 12,000 English speaking children in
>this province to be DENIED access to education in their own language
>schools. (If the parents attempt to obtain their certificate of 
>eligibility for instruction in English the children are actually
>"declare' ineligible pour l'instruction en anglaise" !!!!)

Could someone possibly state what paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms says?
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Cabinet Shuffle: Kim Campbell Demotion?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:16:23 GMT

cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>In article <schuck.726433074@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>Kim Campbell is just like any other Mulroney minister, she has no
>>policies of her own because you aren't allowed to have any.

>QED all politicians with federal experience are necessarily clueless.

>Do you think that ALL of the bills proposed in Parliament come
>exclusively out of Brian Mulroney's imagination?  I think it hardly
>possible.  He hasn't got enough time in the mere 24 hours available to
>him each day.

I guess I should have clarified my statement by sayinging she doesn't
have any policies of her own "in public".

Who knows what ideas she has in Cabinet because of Cabinet secrecy.

She may have hundreds or none.

She could be the most brilliant idea person to ever get elected or the
most total drone ever elected. She's never shown much indication of
either "in public".


>If you had suggested the "taint" of having been associated with an
>unpopular Brian Mulroney would hurt Campbell, I'd have to agree.  I
>might disagree on the degree to which it would affect Campbell, but
>not that it could be a problem.  However, you never suggested that
>THAT would be the problem.

Why bother. We were talking leadership chances, not electability.

The Tories are too detested to get re-elected.


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: A vote for Reform is a vote for the Tories
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:10:19 GMT

In article <J2u7wB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:

>> >Anyone who can't distinguish moderate social democrats from communists
>> >isn't likely to inspire confidence in anything else he says, either.

>> Anybody who can't take a little hyberbole and who's idealogy is offended
>> so easily lacks confidence in himself.

>Exaggeration is one thing. Blatant misrepresentation is another. You 
>stand condemned out of your own mouth as a liar.

Getting paranoid here, aren't we.

Hey if you can misrepresent my views fair is fair right?
From one name-caller to another - this is getting out of hand.

>emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)
>
>Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
>instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne

Buy the lousy American novels. They're cheaper.
-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Inaccurate Labels, Was Re: Neg Income Tax
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:41:54 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

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

> Socialism is ideologically incompatible with limited democratic
> government based on individual rights.  Social democracy or democratic
> socialism is at best social majoritarianism and only transiently
> stable.  Democracy is ultimated rooted in the idea of popular
> sovereignty, and that individuals have rights, both concepts which
> are at odds with socialism who see the state as the holder of 
> sovereignty and the dispenser of privileges...rights having no
> existence.  A socialist government can be dressed up to look
> like it is compatible with democracy temporarily...mixing democracy
> and socialism is like mixing oil and water.
> 
> Gerald

This is more of your right wing fantasy world, Gerald. It's YOUR
concept that "socialism sees the state as the holder of sovereignity". 
It's easy to knock down phoney straw men you set up yourself. One of 
the precepts of socialism that draws many of it's adherents is a 
fundamental respect for ALL individuals, not just those with power
and money. 


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Inaccurate Labels, Was Re: Neg Income Tax
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:19:48 GMT

In article <kwP2wB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>It's traditional sense was, and is perfectly clear, although you don't 
>seem to comprehend it. From Websters Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (1983)
>come the following applicable definitions
>
>- liberal : of or constituting a political party advocating or 
>associated with the principles of political liberalism; esp : of
>or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated
>with ideals of individual esp economic freedom, greater individual 
>participation in government, and constitutional, political and 
>adminstrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
>

That sense of liberal, however, is not really applicable to any of
the main or minor political parties in Canada...there is no "liberal"
party in Canada. 

>While this doesn't seem to describe the Liberal Party of Canada very
>well, it's hard to see what YOU would object to here....
>
>- liberal : one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of 
>orthodox, traditional or established forms and ways
>
>Well, this is probably objectionable. Someone who's open minded. Gosh!
>And may not believe in doing everything the old way!
>
>- liberalism :a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from 
>restraint and usu. based on free competition, the self regulating market,
>and the gold standard
>
>Boy it sure sounds like radical "left wing" stuff, huh?
>

The problem is Canada's "Liberals" are hardly liberal...in some
sense "liberals" today are "conservative" (not Tory, who aren't
really "conservative" or "liberal"), because they, "liberals" are
trying to "conserve" what is left of "liberalism" in our society
from the marauding statists of the right, center, and left...
and totalitarian boomers.

>
>The Liberals, aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, socialists. 
>I'll grant that they are to the left of the Tories and the Reform 
>party, but that relative position doesn't make them socialists. Hell, 
>even the bloody NDP isn't socialist. (Socialists generally scare the
>hell out of NDP'ers, who are always afraid of being seen to be 
>"revolutionary" in any way)
>

All the political parties in Canada are basically statist, is the
way I would put it.

>
>You have it wrong. I don't want to be labelled as a social democrat.
>There's a big difference between socialists and social democrats. 
>Social democrats SUPPORT the capitalist system. They want to make sure 
>everybody gets looked after, and they have all kinds of, as you said, 
>"warm 'n' fuzzy" motives. But they DON'T want to substantially alter
>the system.
>

Social democracy as social democrats define it is not a stable
socio-economic system as it is an ideologically confused...it will
either degenerate into socialism, or rise into democracy...socialism
and democracy are ultimately incompatible...oil and water.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: A vote for Reform is a vote for the Tories
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:38:54 GMT


In article <93009.1617472893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>Subject line speaks for itself. People voting Reform as a protest could end up
>with a Tory/Reform majority government if the Tories are able to recover even
>modestly in the polls.

So what. The NDP are communists. The Liberals are big government spenders.
And the BQ are separatists. What a pathetic collection of heroes you can
choose from.

Mulroney's greatest crime is that he isn't a real conservative and hasn't
made the fundamental changes that Canada needs. This country should wake
up and smell the coffee. Any party that believes that government spending
can solve Canada's problems is just going to make things worse. 




-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**