HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:31:28 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Steve Potter) writes:
>Quebec has a French community and an English community, both of which
>use an official language of Canada. Both of which have the same 
>political rights - don't they?

Yes. It doesn't mean it applies to british immigrants.

>England doesn't have two official languages!

Quebec doesn't either.  And don't tell me Quebec is part of Canada
because it is totally irrelevant. Obviously you do not understand the
concept of a Confederation (even if it is debatable that Canada is
really a Confederation). England is part of the European Union, and it
doesn't mean that it is bilingual (or X-lingual).

>You must have studied geography in a French school in Quebec! :-)

Obviously you learned yours in England: that's why you have such a
great knowledge about Quebec's political powers.

>English and French are both official languages in Canada. The constitution
>says as much.

On s'en balance! It's a provincial matter, not a federal matter.

>There is nothing wrong with English children learning French in an
>immersion program in an English school is there?

No. Today's anglo-quebecois are a lot more open to french than they
were in 1977. Back then, they would probably had an heart attack if
they were called "anglo-quebecois".  :-)  I think that Bill 101 did a
lot to improve their integration in Quebec. Bill 101 was necessary at
the time. Perhaps, some parts of it are now outdated and excessive
(not "extreme" :-) and modifications are needed.

>I don't recall mentioning 1867 provisions of any legislation from Ottawa,
>did I?
No, but this is when the trouble started (Constitution). Ottawa forced
institutionalised bilinguism on Quebec, but not on the other
provinces. It was (and still is) a very had to swallow injustice.

>I'm sorry if the Canadian Constitution is offensive to francophone
>quebecois. The section I'm particularly interested in doesn't apply
>in Quebec anyway.

What section is it?

>Can you receommend an alternative stratagy?

Never use the Constitution in a argument with quebecois when it
relates to culture, language or education. You won't have any success
by trying to get Ottawa to push for what you want inside Quebec. Go
from the inside. The only valid points I saw in your argumentation was
when you mentioned a study (done by a quebecois) that said that the
"loosing" of french to english by immigration was an exageration, and
the numbers you gave.

Ciao!

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Balance of power in Quebec of tomorrow
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:33:51 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2105

Somebody said Liberals were "passively nationalist" while PQ was
"actively (or was it aggresively) nationalist".

Some anglophones support the Liberals out of fear for the PQ.

The Liberals have proven that they can continue to win support
from most of the anglos who continue to vote for them for fear
of the PQ in time for election. The Liberals then ignore them.

Are anglophones in Quebec disenfranchised?

No. They still have some power at the ballot box.

The Equality Party has survived attacks from the nationalist
media in Quebec. It has survived attacks from the Gazette.


Now, the thread for which I have posted this:-

Ideal situation for anglophones in Quebec:-

Minority Liberal government (possibly minority PQ government -
there's not much difference!) with sufficient number of seats
under anglophone influence to weald the Balance of power.


Comment:-

The Equality Party is seen to be an "anglo rights" party.

I would like to see the party become known as a party of
tolerance, respect, understanding, reason, and common sense.

The Equality Party would seem to be the one most likely to
hold a Balance of Power.


Additional remark:-

Alliance Quebec prefer not to rock the boat in the hope of
obtaining small but important victories. They are quite
effective at that. They do not necessarily represent the
needs and views of the English community as the community
sees them.

A true voice in the National Assembly, holding a Balance of
Power is what is needed.

While the Equality Party is still young it is possible to
influence policy. It is possible to get people involved in
the party who want representation in the National Assembly
but don't feel they have been getting it.


"Balance of Power"

Balance of Power!

The Balance, of Power. :-)


That's what I want to see.
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Our brilliant leaders
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:49:22 GMT

In <Bu9G31.Hxr@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:

>Do you prefer a Canada with or without politicians?

Certainly without all the extra ones we're going to be getting with
the Amendments From Hell.

Michael
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 20:39:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.095536.29141@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <12824@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
>> In article nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>>I suspect the whole individual versus collective issue is mainly a
>>>smoke screen, one of those tricks people seem to like to pull with
>>>words and definitions to make their case look stronger.  If I'm wrong,
>>>I'm sure people will tell me why.
>> 
>> No, you are right: that's the whole point. The anglophones description
>> of their rights as being "individual" (thus the nec-plus-ultra of
>> rights) and the francophones as beign "collective" (thus oppressive)
>> is just a way to legitimize their complaints. 
>> 
>
>Is Francois trying to suggest that "individual" rights are not
>legitimate?

He would probably like to suggest that supposed "individual"
anglophone rights are invalid because they're merely a way to
"legitimize" collective anglophone complaints.

Unfortunately, it's pretty much impossible to PROVE things one way or
another.  Decisions on the rights of individual anglophones will, in
Quebec, have an influence on the anglophone community.

Thus, from a legal perspective, there's not much difference between
individual and collective rights, particularly with respect to matters
of culture.  Indeed, can there be a "culture" that merely involves
individuals?  I don't think so.  

There's some libertarian novels by L.  Neil Smith that try to describe
theorized versions of such societies, but they are: (a) not really
"cultures," in any sense that people would think of, just a sort of
"organized chaos" (they're less "culture" than they are "society") and
(b) idealized and highly unrealistic.  That's the only real case that
I can think of...

People can and do use the dicotomy of individual versus collective
rights, often as a smokescreen to obscure their own agendas.  This
probably happens on all THREE sides of the language issue in Canada.
There's the anti-francophones, the anti-anglophones, and those that
are anti- the other two - "pro-choice", to steal a term from a certain
other debate.  In this forum, we mostly see the anti-anglophones and
the "pro-language-choice" groups.  (In spite of the acrimonious
discussions, I really don't think we have anyone here that is TRULY
anti-francophone.  If someone feels that they are, and I'm painting
them wrong, speak up!  My asbestos suit is warmed up and ready!)

For someone to generalize that it's just the anglophones that are
misusing the dicotomy would be incorrect.  I'm sure that francophones
in Quebec are misusing it to meet THEIR purposes as well.  It's
probably unfair to accuse EVERYONE of this sort of thing...
-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: The 1-800 number to order a copy of the "agreement"
Keywords: Constitutional Amendments
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 13:59:36 GMT


As heard this morning on CBC Radio, the number to call for a copy
of the text of the agreement for constitutional amendments,
which we are being asked to vote for or against in October,
can be obtained by phoning 1-800-561-1188 .

This works in Ontario, at least.  On the radio they didn't define
whether it was Canada wide or not.  A number previously posted
on the net produced a message that this number was not accessible
from my area.

The text which appeared earlier in the Globe and Mail, and in other
sources, was a draft only, and was non-binding in terms (the
word "should" appeared dozens of times).

If we are being asked to vote on this, I think we ought to have
a good look at the contents of the thing, and forget the debate
about what "no" and "yes" mean psychologically to the country,
and who it groups you with.  If we had this sort of discussion of the
meaning of soap, we would all have difficulty washing in the morning.

--Donald Teed
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:38:29 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>The governing council of the EC which wields the power has 1 vote
>per country regardless of size.  The European Parliament is 
>an essential powerless body.

I'll have to verify that vote thing. In some cases, it doesn't work
that way.

The European Parliament's powers will increase with time, Maastrich
being a first step.

>We have one of the most decentralized federations in the world.

And yet we are supposed to be a Confederation. We also have the
2nd largest country in the world, and we have 2 Nations. Federations
only work properly when the country has a unique nation.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:28:27 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>The book is called "L'invention d'une minorite: Les Anglo-Quebecois."

[Extraits du livre de Josee Legault]

>I think you have also been reading this book recently, Frederic.

J'attendais justement que quelqu'un me dise cela.

Je n'ai pas trouve que ce livre etait tres bon (il m'a semble un peu
confus, et peut-etre un peu revanchard).  Mais quand elle parle de la
defense cachee des droits collectifs (en ce qui concerne l'education,
l'affichage, c'est une autre chose), je crois qu'elle tape dans le 
mille.  C'est tres evident dans le discours de M. Potter (qui reprend
celui du parti Egalite), quand celui-ci, dans le meme texte, parle
du libre-choix de la langue d'enseignement, du fait que 10000 enfants
anglophones ne peuvent aller anglaise et que les reseaux scolaires
anglophones deperissent. 

Faut pas se le cacher, les anglophones defendent leurs droits
collectifs avec ce discours.  C'est seulement un peu hypocrite de
se draper dans ce qui est presque devenu une religion ici (et qui l'est
devenu aux Etats-Unis), la notion de droits individuels.  

Frederic Plante
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Rights of members, and rights of collectivities
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 06:23:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.041516.14022@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>No.  The rights of the francophone linguistic group are judged more
>important than the rights of the anglophone linguistic group
>_and_ the rights of individuals, by the provincial government.  The
>government was democratically elected by a francophone majority.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well then, Quebec the Nation better get itself a senate, to prevent, or
at least to sanitize, this type of tyranny of the majority in the future.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: "Individual"/"Collective" (Was: L'invention d'une minorite)
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:50:06 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1825

From article <1992Sep11.145203.2433@pandora.matrox.com>, by thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood):

> Dividing all demands into "individual" and "collective" can be confusing.
> For example, Josee Legault defines collective rights to be rights
> claimed by a person "as member of" or "on behalf of" a group, as opposed to
> individual rights claimed by a person "as an individual".
> 
> But: individual rights are often called "Human rights" which we could say
> are claimed "as a member of the human race."  Animal rights groups claim
> rights for animals "as beings capable of suffering."  Are human rights
> then collective rights?
> 
> Do the terms have any meaning at all?
> 

Rights are often discussed in terms of a balance between "individual" and
"collective" rights.

I think it is useful to think of the rights of an individual.

I think it is usefuk to think of the rights of a group of individuals
(a collective).

That is as far as it should go. That is to say that for the purposes of
discussion, individuals and groups of individuals (collectives) can be
identified as labelled elements with certain rights.

Whether a discussion focuses on an individual's rights in conflict with
another individual's rights; or an individual's rights in conflict with
a "collective"'s rights; or a "collective"'s rights in conflict with
another "collective"'s rights; it is simply a discussion of a conflict
of rights.

Why should the term "individual" or "collective" attach any extra
significance to a set of rights?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:10:28 GMT

In article <12859@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>                                                               The
>immigrants who came here integrated (in a few generation) one or the
>other of these "nations", including language and culture. Canada
>expanded to other regions (new provinces) who all eventually became
>anglophone, or where anglophone from the very begining.
>

The point is that there has not yet been "a few generations" since many
immigrant groups came to Canada. Many people across the country have
retained elements of their ancestors' culture while still considering
themselves Canadian. Even if they speak English, they do not think of
themselves as English-Canadian.

What you have to understand, Francois, is that there is no "English
Canadian nation". Being so close to the US means that anglophoneness isn't
a distinctive factor in the same way as among French-Canadians, where
language and culture are so closely linked.

Mathew Englander.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:34:32 GMT

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.003643.10644@thinkage.on.ca> dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
>>audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>>And yet we are supposed to be a Confederation. We also have the
>>>2nd largest country in the world, and we have 2 Nations. Federations
>>>only work properly when the country has a unique nation.
>>
>>You don't consider Newfoundland to be a part of Canada? Or are you
>>refering to the First Nations? We have many nations, depending upon who
>>you ask.

>Fundamentally, Canada has two Nations: English Canada & Quebec (french
>Canada).

>You may want to add the so-called First Nations if you want, but
>that's just rethorics. I can hardly see Canada as a 3-Nation state
>when one of these Nations consist of 2% of the canadian population and
>has a set of values which are not the same at all as the other 2
>Nations, are are not at all cared off in the Canadian system. (I'm not
>saying that it's alright).

I am going to take issue with this because the statement implies that every
other province in Canada has the same roots and values.  I personally see
the Atlantic provinces as having a distinct society as compared to the West.
(Some darn fine music!)  Many other Canadians take issue with the idea of
us being to "2 nation state".  The provinces joined confederation at different
times yet only Ontario and Quebec are the only ones considered nations in this 
argument.  IMHO, we are much more diverse than  the 2 nation state implies.

>-- 
>                                                       Francois Audet
>                                                           '
>        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
>                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
|   David Joseph Regeczi              |  If crime fighters fight crime...    | 
|   Simon Fraser University           |  and fire fighters fight fires...    | 
|   Vancouver, BC, TROC               |  then what do freedom fighters fight?|  
|   dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca            |  G.Carland                           | 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Balance of power in Quebec of tomorrow
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:43:24 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

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

>The Balance, of Power. :-)
>That's what I want to see.

You are quite insane, you know.  The Equality Party will never have the
balance of power because the Liberals and the P.Q. would form a coalition
to prevent it.  For you, it would be a bit of power for a struggling
minority, but for the French, it would be the return of the colonial era.
You'd see an anti-English reaction that you can hardly imagine now.
I'm telling you this in all seriousness.  Don't pretend that this
is a normal democracy.  I think you should read up in the nationalist
literature to disabuse yourself of any notion that a party associated
with the English could dictate policy.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 10 Sep 92 06:40:17 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

> After years of dealing with Ottawa and the Provinces,...

Huh?  That's like saying "the humans and a human".  Last I heard, Quebec _was_
a province.

Of course, that may be why some Quebecers want to separate: TROC considers
Quebec "just another province, equal to the others".

> ...it is very clear that as soon as Quebec share of the population becomes
> lower than 25% by only a few percent, there will be a major gang-up to change
> this.

They'll probably demand huge concessions for giving up the 25% minimum at that
point.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:29:57 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
>I disagree, here. I expect the western provinces to eventual fill out to
>populations comparable with those of Ontario and Quebec. With relatively
>even industrialization, Quebec could easily be 1/6th to 1/8th of the
>population.

By the time this happens (if it ever happens), you and your
great-grandchildren will be dead for a long time. The Constitution
will have been re-written numerous times. Canada may not even exist
anymore (in fact the planet may not as well :-)

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:43:12 GMT

Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>Can people in Quebec tell the rest of us why they like or dislike the deal, and
>can people elsewhere in the country give us a sense of how the deal seems to
>affect their interests?

Caveat: I haven't seen the actual (or draft) proposal, just a write-up in
the Globe and Mail, and that is only memory now.

25% for Quebec:
Civilization has been fighting for centuries to win the ideals of liberal
democracy, but here in Canada we're thinking of throwing them away.
If a constitution isn't a place for principles and ideals, what is?
This kills the deal for me.

senate:
The proposal is not too bad. The problem is that the senate has a fixed size,
and the commons has a monotonically increasing size. I would like a larger
senate/commons ratio, and a fixed size for the commons. The energy and
culture exceptions are stupid: just make them provincial responsibilities,
and let provinces delegate to the feds where it seems reasonable.
The senate should be elected, too, not appointed by provincial governments.
Why pay for a whole chamber if it's just going to be a mouthpiece for other
existing powers?

native self-rule:
Is there anything to comment upon? It's a ridiculously vague thing to be
putting into the constitution. It seems harmless, that self-government will
be under the Charter, but I'm against institutionalized pidgeon-holing.

breaking down the internal borders:
It's regrettable that they couldn't do anything about this, but it is best
left to a future constitutional round. There seems to be this dichotomy
of federal/provincial spheres: why not allow something to have federal
application but provincial responsibility? E.g., trade certification could
apply nationally, but to standards (etc.) determined collectively by the
provinces.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]