HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Polling results -Where are they?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 16:53:57 GMT

In article <Bvt5Ds.J8B@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>I don't remember the exact numbers, but they showed something like 53% in
>favour in atlantic and Ontario, 40% in favour in Quebec, and 36% in favour in
>prairies and BC. Surprisingly, the three polls, all with the same sample
>size, showed results that differed by up to 6 points, and were considered
>accurate within three points. Obviously they could not be accurate to within
>three points..
>
>Common to all the polls was a huge undecided margin -- as much as 40% in some
>regions if I remember correctly.


How can you claim they could not be accurate to within 3 points.
The studies (we must assume) were based on standard statistical methods
with appropriate margins of error calculated to the samples used.

The differences reflect different questions or different times asked,
different regional influences, different individuals polled and the
result of a varying media impact.  All three are accurate, but with differing
results. Why does this show "obvious inaccuracies" in your view?


If you do any experiment a number of times you will often find somewhat
different results, even with a similar margin of error. But would you claim
that the findings had no relevance or were not "accurate" as a result?

You could also do a statistical analysis of different poll results and
calculate the margin of error for the total sample.

Frank.
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Swiss Franc (was Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:26:31 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca's message of 3 Oct 92 06:50:00 GMT

In article <15938@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) wrote:
> It also ignores the fact that the whole world is experiencing similar
> problems with their currencies.  I just heard that the Canadian dollar, bad
> as it seems to us, looks great against the Swiss franc (?).

Not the Swiss Franc.  The Canadian dollar was at 1.20 SF some months
ago and is now almost at par.

> Considered
> relative to the rest of the world, Canada may be seen as a stable place,
> despite the constitutional posturing.

You may be right, but the "relative" stability does not count in the
eyes of most investors, who will only invest in truly stable countries.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Distinct Societies
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:40:49 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1678@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka) writes:
>In article <hugh-091092092637@192.139.129.128> hugh@imax.com (Hugh Murray) writes:
>
>>
>>Like it or not, Quebec has a different cultural history than English
>>Canada, 
>

Like it or not Quebec and English Canada have  intertwined cultural and
political histories. There must be a way devised to aloow theses histories
to be compatible or there will be endless discord.

Solutions which assume that the cultural groups can be separated into
disjoint collectivities will fail due to the basic facts of the 
geography of the population of this country. The cultures will have to
learn to live amicably with each other since they do live with each other.




                         Tom Gray



-- 
i.sinature
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: sliding Clyde
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:41:17 GMT

Isn't it a riot?  Slimy Clyde, the man who almost single handedly
scuttled the Meech glitch, is now waltzing towards a not so gracious
exit away from the Charlottetown clowns.

Now that's a politician, a true unprincipled weasel!  And
not afraid to show it.

Who next?
If Wells breaks, will Getty spawn?
Can Fillman fork?


--
 Alain
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@minotaur (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:36:39 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: to come out opposed.  A simple non-derogation clause in Charlottetown
: probably would have been sufficient to satisfy aboriginals with Treaty
: status, because Charlottetown is likely taking away from them more than
: it is giving.
: 

I think you missed something. There is a non-derogation clause already
dealing with treaty rights.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:20:05 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Oct05.162120.6433@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>To a large degree, a lot of enlightened and well-meaning people
>are supporting the YES side because they want to do what is right,
>because they care about people, and because they want to right past
>wrongs.  Unfortunately, a YES vote (in my view) will do extreme damage 
>to the principle of equality and justice and liberty. It will enshrine
>the concepts of "difference" into the most important document of the country
>and it will divide people on the basis of race, language and region. 
>Nobody pretends we are not all different, but what is needed is a
>Charter that ensures that we have equal rights, 
>no matter what our differences.
>Frank.

  An excessive zeal for anything, be it democracy or equal rights, is just
as dangerous and wrong as a zeal to any other extreme.

  It is precisely because of this zeal for extreme equality, and refusal to
acknowledge differences and build in protections for minority communities
that countries like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia are fragmenting into 
there minority components.

  Quit imposing your view of equality on the rest of us that don't accept
either your views, or your right to force them on us. This is what many
peoples around the world are saying.

  Now, you can relax your equality provisions by providing protections to
individuals, communities and other groupings that feel threatened. You can
fragment the whole into completely sovereign components which share a common 
view, or you can limit the jurisdiction of enforcement of various rights
and democratic privileges by stratifying the whole into a hierarchy of
jurisdictions and insuring that unless the citizens of a particular
jurisdiction agree to surrender certain perogatives to the larger community
they cannot be subject to the views or regulations that that larger
community chooses to impose on itself.

  The key element is you must stop 'forcing' people to do things they do
not want, ie forcing decisions from the top in the absence of an prior
agreement on what rights and responsibilities people have exchanged or
surrendered in order to belong to the whole.
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Why Would the Charlottetown Agreement Make People Feel Canadian
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:18:38 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: But the Charlottetown "Canada Clause" defines Canadians as being a bunch
: of racists, tribalists, and collectivists... 
: 

Only you define us thus.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:19:10 GMT

>Harold Henriksen (viking@bnr.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: 
> By the way, for all you 'hold your nose and swallow it - its good for you' types,
> what exactly is it you are voting yes to?  The agreement as the politicians saw it
> or the agreement the legal text spells out (they have significant differences)?


What exactly are those significant differences? It's now released, and
(to quote Deborah Coyne) there were "No surprises".

-- 
 Alan Knight  knight@mrco.carleton.ca  +1 613 788 2600x5783   Vote
 Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering                Yes/Oui
 Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6        Oct. 26

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: YES in CHQ contradicts YES in Quebec
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:09:21 GMT

Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
: In a way it is almost irrelevant who is right. The fact that a supposedly
: unifying accord is being be sold in different parts of the country by
: spouting exactly *opposite* messages should be cause for concern.

One could point out that the NO camp is also using contradictory arguments.
Trudeau says this, Manning says that, Rebick says something else. Who is
lying?

ie -- Trudeau says this Accord gives way to much powers to Quebec, Parizeau
says not enough. Add to this mess COR and Sharon Carstairs, and we end up
with a group of people saying opposing things, and all on the same side.

At least the YES forces are unified in their message of vote for the Accord
based on the contents -- the NO side wants everybody to vote NO for
differing reasons.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:02:06 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: In article <1992Oct14.131646.5679@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: >golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: >: 
: >: And you were doing so well for awhile before you had to abandon reason
: >: and resort to an ad hominem!   I guess you and Dan Quayle are cut from
: >: the same cloth...you both seem preoccupied about who is or isn't the father
: >: of the children of upper middle class women.  The best that can be said
: >: for you I guess is that you have chosen a real rather than a fictional
: >: one.
: >
: >Gerald, some advice: try to smile.  Laugh.  
: >Don't take things so seriously.  (Or were your
: >Nazi witch-hunt rantings attempts at humour.  :O).
: >
: 
: Michael, a YES supporter, brought up Hitler, and was comparing certain
: Canadian politicians to him...so I merely pointing out on which side
: of the debate the philosophical ideas of National Socialism are more
: related to.  Collective rights and executive power are enhanced by
: the Charlottetown accord...National Socialism is about collective rights
: and executive power, rather than legislature power.  If you don't want
: the ideas underlying the Charlottetown Accord compared to the ideas
: underlying National Socialism, tell your YES friends to stop the ad
: hominem comparisons of Preston Manning to Hitler.    

Gerald: chill!

(Anyone know any good "Manning-Trudeau are Nazi's" knock-knock jokes?)

-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:41:24 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <WARKENT.92Oct7164315@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:

>Stephen Potter insists that the charter commits Canadians, but not Canadian
>governments, "to a respect for individual and collective human rights and
>freedoms of all people".
>
>Canadian governments represent Canadians.  If Canadians are committed
>to respect for individual rights, then their governments, by definition,
>are so committed as well.
>
>Please, no arguments that our governments don't really represent us.
>They are supposed to, and that is what counts here.

But the complaint Steve makes is on the wording in the Canada Clause.

Adjacent clauses and other statements specifically commit or empower
governments to act in certain ways. In one clause it refers to the
commitment of "Canadians and their governments" and in others refers to
the commitment merely of "Canadians".

Because this is designed to be an interpretive clause which is designed
to guide court rulings, the intention behind these discrepancies must be
analyzed. Are certain clauses merely stating that Canadians believe in
certain premises, without requiring their governments to act in manners
consistent with those premises?

What is worst about this kind of interpretive situation is that I'm sure
others can read these same clauses, and put either an incredibly good
light on them or an incredibly bad one. That can be done from any
perspective, using perfectly sound reasoning no matter which way you'd
like the clause to be interpreted.

This strikes me as a significant flaw, because its full effect can not
be determined until we see which particular slant the courts take to it.
That's significant ammunition for those who claim the accord is a blank
cheque we're being asked to sign. Even the politicians can't guarantee
that the provisions they wrote will be interpreted in a manner consistent
with what they intended (whatever that is).

I really intend to keep an open mind going into the vote. But having
read and re-read the agreement, and (for the most part) lurked while the
discussion was going on here, the more I see and read, the less I like
the accord.

I don't think the "yes" ad blitz is going to help, nor is the excuse
that the "no" side started their campaign sooner. The "yes" campaign,
based on the ads I've seen, is appealing to an emotional approach
(and, by inference, appears to have given up on the rational approach).
Whether it succeeds or not, to me this is not a good sign.
-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: Curious Yes Campaign
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:36:06 GMT

In article <1b4jdpINN7b2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank) writes:
>I am a bit puzzled. The Yes team decided to have the referendum. They
>chose the question. They defined the rules under which the debate
>would take place (financing, tv time allocation, etc.). Yet the seem 
>not to have thought through how to fight the battle. What is going on?
>Can someone please explain this to me. Thanks.

Quite simple : they just did not choose anything.  Only the rules.

Boubou wanted not to vote about sovereignty because 12 years after the 1980
referendum Quebec was still not considerin herself as back in confederation
with dignity (i.e. a vote for sovereignty was expected), because Boubou
is afraid of sovereignty.  So, his only move was to change the question.

In Quebec, the YES campaign is just ignoring Canada.  A big OUI on a blue
sky with 3 Quebec flags, and absolutely nothing in red nor a maple leaf,
nothing to make think a YES is a YES to Canada.  In the Monday debate,
Boubou talked about the state of Quebec.  Thus, he is promoting more
statehood (?) for Quebec.

In Canada, the YES campaign is just ignoring Quebec.  The main issue is
Quebec gets no more power.  This is contradicting Quebec's campaign.
In such conditions, how can the YES campaign be something else than
improvisation?

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu indetermine'   Mon opinion ? Non !
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:47:04 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: Charlottetown would have been a more tolerable agreement if they would
: have accepted a few of the recommendations of all those committees and
: people's conferences...instead the first ministers treated them as a
: show and then neglected most everything they said.

You'll have to prove that.

: The people who are imposing their views are the first ministers, who
: demonstrated their inability to listen to any of the commissions they
: set up.
: 

Nobody is "imposing" their view. They are presenting it (sometimes
rationally, sometimes not). You are being allowed to decide.

Why do you say the commissions weren't listened to? 

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Charter of Rights (was Re: The Manning-Trudeau ...)
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 21:19:14 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

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

> In article <0(CZ94000) writes:
> >It does somewhat more than this.  It requires the provinces to
> >provide schooling in French "where numbers warrant."  Admittedly,
> >this phrase has provided an excuse to some provinces and school
> >boards to drag their feet on providing French schools, but Section
> >23 does not apply only to existing schools.
> 
> "Where number warrants" is very vague, and means that you get
> schooling in your language only if you have enough voices make believe
> the governement that it will have more chances of being re-elected if
> it provides adequate schooling. In practice, the "where number
> warrants" clause never force any government to provide french
> schooling. Secondly, the "where number warrants" situation is a
> chicken & egg thing: how do you expect to have the required number of
> francophone to justify french schooling, it french schooling doesn't
> exist? You'd need intantaneous massive francophone immigration...
> 
> The "where number warrants" provision is merely an excuse to justify
> the anglophone vision of a Canada where english education should be
> provided everywhere, including Quebec, and french education should be
> kept in Quebec.
> 

Oh, bull, Francois. If you weren't so paranoid, you'd realize it's a 
common sense approach. If you've got enough students to make up classes, 
you do so. If not, you don't. There's NOTHING sinister about it. And the 
amount of french language courses throughout Canada certainly make your 
contention that English speakers think french education should be kept in 
Quebec ridiculous.


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

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: bourassa vs. parizeau
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:27:23 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct13.175539.19567@bmerh85.bnr.ca> tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli) writes:
>It is clear to me that Parizeau is an absolute jerk.  I couldn't
>stop laughing when he pulled out the map of Quebec.  Entirely
>and utterly irresponsible action.  He appeared hesitant and 
>less-certain than Bourassa on just about all topics and stuck 
>less to the facts and relied more on emotional outburst and fear
>mongering.  Bourassa appeared more credible and offered greater 
>logic and pragmatism.  

You think that Bourassa is better when saying that no new territorial
claims by the natives is a "great achievement"?

Bourassa is also a specialist at using corrupted logic (i.e.,
politician logic). He said that Quebec did not loose at the Senate
(from 1/3 of the senators to less than 1/10) because the powers of the
senate are diminished. Typical Boubou.

Bourassa is a wimp, and he is scum. The worst part is that he seems to
be proud of it.

I wasn't totally impressed with Parizeau. He could have used better
arguments, and he lowered himself to Bourassa's level when using that
map.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Chretien/Bouchard debate
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:53:18 GMT


Last night I watched the debate between Chretien/Bouchard on whether Canada
will be made less governable. I would be curious to hear other people's
opinions -- ie what did the debate cause you to question, what did you like,
dislike, etc.

Personally, I disliked the format where the panel of people argued amongst
themselves, just repeating the rhetoric of their individual groups. I would
have liked to have seen specific questions put to Chretien/Bouchard, with
little or no input from the panel.

Did anybody see a clear "winner" to this debate? I would, out of 100, give
Bouchard 53, and Chretien 47 points. I felt that Chretien did not have the
power to get his message across, and relied a little to much on rhetoric
rather than logic. However, I felt Bouchard really lost ground when
questioned as to why he supported Meech and doesn't support this, from a
standpoint of Quebec only. He really didn't have an answer, I felt.

Also, I didn't feel that the debate had anything to do with the subject,
really. Both Chretien and Bouchard rapidly changed the topic of each question
to an area they wanted to answer.

All in all, I liked the debate between Audrey/Preston better. In that one I
felt that each gave their own opinions more clearly, and then defended them.

Anybody else care to comment?

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individual Rights
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:39:59 GMT

Mathew:
From a quick reading of your entry and the US constitutional amendments,
I DID NOT see any reference to the colour of a citizen's skin, nor any
mention of "blacks" etc. 

This was my point. The amendments basically abolished slavery and
restated the equality of all citizens. There was no need to specifiy
that slavery was not longer permitted "against blacks".
All citizens were to be protected, not just a particular skin colour.
I saw one reference to "Indians", which I assume is a reference to 
the special arrangements coming out of treaty rights and land claims based
on treaty rights (it is unclear whether "Indian" is defined here as a
"race" or as a group defined by occupancy on treaty land.) 

So I maintain that there is no reason to insert "racial" definitions in
the Canadian constitution, in that ALL CITIZENS should have equal rights
stated.

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics