HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: galbrth@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Les immigrants et les purs
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:52:07 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) ecrit un `beau' traite'
mathematique:

> Une chose dont on n'a pas parle encore : le taux eleve de natalite
> des Quebecois jusqu'a il y a une vingtaine d'annees.
> 
> Prenez le Quebec de 1763, au moment ou la conquete devient chose
> officielle, et supposer un instant que le taux de natalite
> devient la moitie de ce qu'il etait reellement.  Les familles de
> 15 ou 20 etaient nombreuses a l'epoque.
> 
> Quelque chose comme 30000 ou 60000 personnes en 1763 ont 16
> millions de descendants en 1980.  Enlevons l'effet des mariages
> "mixtes" recents (mixte = avec ceux qui ne s'associent pas avec
> ce qu'on appelle traditionnellement les Canadiens-francais)

Ah, les batards!  Qu'on les eradies de notre societe pure!
>                                                             et
> disons qu'il y a 10 millions de descendants.  EN toute proportion,
> des pays comme la France, l'Allemagne ou le Royaume-Uni, avec
> une population d'envirion 50 millions auraient eu 150000 habitants
> autour de 1760!
> 
> En ramenant le taux de natalite du Quebec a un taux plus normal
> auquel le conquerant de 1759 s'attendait, qu'arriverait-il au
> a la population totale?
> 
> Supposons des generations de 30 ans.  De 1760 a 1910, cela donne
> 5 generations.  EN diminuant de moitie le taux de natalite,
> nous serions 2^5 = 32 fois moins nombreux.  Ajoutons un facteur
> 2 pour 1910-1992 (puisque le taux commence a faiblir au debut
> du siecle, le facteur s'appliquant sur 82 au lieu de 30 ans).
> 10 millions divises par 64, cela donne combien?
> 
> 156250!

Non mais!...
Avec une croissance `normale', tu passes de 30000 ou 60000 `a 156000, soit
de 2.6 `a 5.2 fois plus de personnes, en 5 generations!!!!

Relis ce que tu dit avant de le `poster'!!

En plus, 5 generations de familles de 15, donc chaque personne en produit
7.5, corresponds `a

  30000 `a 60000 * (7.5*5) = 712 millions `a 1.4 billions de Quebecois purs

Pas si sur de ca moi...

> Si nous avions eu un taux de natalite normal, l'assimilitation
> se serait faite depuis longtemps!

Bien sur, les anglophones etaient deja des millions `a ce temps la.

> Au moment ou le nombre d'immigrants est de l'ordre de grandeur de
> notre population en 1760, n'est-il pas normal de vouloir se proteger
> tant soit peu?

Bien sur!  Car on sait bien que les impures immigrants vont avoir des 
familles de 15 enfants dans le contexte economique actuel, et qu'ils
vont imposer leur volonte' me'chante sur les purs dans 5 generations, 
comme l'ont fait les mechants anglais!!

Non mais!
 _____________________________________________________________________________
 Peter Galbraith       [Phone: (902) 494-7007] |  GALBRTH@AC.DAL.CA (InterNet)
 Dept. of Oceanography,  Dalhousie University  |  GALBRTH@DALAC     (BitNet)
 Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 4J1         |  rhogee@dalcs      (UUCP)
Xref: sparky can.politics:3622 can.francais:155
From: galbrth@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Incroyable. (Re: Lionel Groulx...) (de can.francais)
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:26:31 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Denis Beauregard ecrit

> Donc, si les gens veulent participer pleinement a la societe quebecoise,
> pas de probleme.  Par contre, s'ils veulent se creer des ghettos,
> rester dans leur maison, placer au premier rang leur propre race,
> et nous accuser d'etre raciste (au sens pejoratif), la, je suis moins
> d'accord.  Je ne dis pas qu'ils doivent abandonner leur culture ou
> couper leur monde original, je dis que s'ils veulent etre consideres
> comme des Quebecois pure-laine, ils n'ont qu'a faire comme les
> Quebecois pure-laine.

Et rejettons les `Quebekers-Anglais' parce qu'ils n'ont pas choisi notre
langue.  Rejettons ceux qui ne font pas parti de notre belle culture
Quebecoise pure-laine.

Non merci.  Tous les Canadiens sont bienvenues partout dans ma vision
du Canada, qui soit en passant inclut le Quebec.
 _____________________________________________________________________________
 Peter Galbraith       [Phone: (902) 494-7007] |  GALBRTH@AC.DAL.CA (InterNet)
 Dept. of Oceanography,  Dalhousie University  |  GALBRTH@DALAC     (BitNet)
 Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 4J1         |  rhogee@dalcs      (UUCP)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Aboriginal nationalism?
From: kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 03:56:04 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island
Keywords: oka

In article <1992Apr06.165958.7976@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:

> We all have a common-ness of interest in this regard, just in terms of
>being democratic. I am the first to demand recognition of title and fair
>settlement of land claims based on TREATY not RACE, ie based on who lives
>there, not what was so-and so's bloodline.

What would you do to handle those bands that have never negotiated,
let alone signed, a treaty?

>They may wish centralized forms of government for their lands claimed by
>treaty. They may wish to secede and form nation states (I don't recommend
>it.) They may want decentralized networks. This is up to every people.

and if the government steadfastly refuses to negotiate a treaty, or
sets insane limits on the number of land claims permitted to be
settled per year? (Did you know that the maximum number of land claims
that the government will negotiate at one time is SIX?)     

From DRUMBEAT, take a look at this bit of Georges Erasmus's
introduction - you may find it of interest:

"Six other claims (the maximum that the government will negotiate at
any one time) remain unresolved at time of writing [ed note: 1989],
and it may be noted that none of them has been on the table for less
than ten years. Another nineteen claims have been accepted for
negotiation, eight are under review, and anther twenty are expected to
be submitted. So, with fifty-three claims either submitted or awaiting
access to the process, at the present rate it will take 160 years to
resolve these problems." (DRUMBEAT - Anger & Renewal in Indian
Country, ISBN 0-929091-03-5)

>>In my opinion aborignals have suffered a greater
>>oppression than the Quebeqouis. It should be noted that my opinion
>>does not state that Quebecers don't have the right to claim their own
>>distinct society. I think their claim is just, what some of the
>>politicians are asking for is unrealistic and downright dangerous. 

> Aboriginals certainly live in miserable circumstances (at least
>a disproportionate number do.) A lot of people live miserably.
>However, I refuse to "solve" that problem by falling into ethnic
>apartheid, where aboriginals have one law and non-aboriginals have 
>another.

Then you'd best do something, and fast, because that is EXACTLY the
situation that has existed from Day One in Indian country. Since you
refuse to accept it, please tell me what you are planning to do to
make the government STOP, and obey its own laws for a change.


-- 
      === The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, Canada ===
  Waffle v1.64: (604) 758-9698 HST v32bis, (604) 758-6208(x4) 2400's
-------------> NO Veto for _any_ province -  EEE Senate!  <------------
kmcvay%oneb.wimsey.bc.ca@mala.bc.ca (.ALMANAC.BC.CA application pending)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std)
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:12:36 GMT

<FAFARDP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>Last week the Committee of the B.C. Legislature studying constitutional matters
>issued a report that DID NOT recommend a EEE Senate.  Late last week Mr. Sihota
>the B.C. Minister responsible for constitutional matters announced the position
> that the Government of B.C. with respect to constitutional reform.  So much
>for the consensus among residents of B.C. on the merits of a EEE Senate.

     You are making the erroneous assumption that Sihota speaks for the
     people of B.C.  He speaks his mind, like any representative should.
     Whether the majority of people in BC agree with him is another matter
     entirely.

--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile             gill@physics.ubc.ca
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele A. Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: A propos de codes postaux [F/E]
Date: 15 Apr 92 07:38:06 GMT
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!

Une bonne facon d'en finir avec ces histoires de codes
d'abreviation pour les provinces, serait d'utiliser le
meme systeme qu'en France, a savoir, un code de 2
chiffres au lieu de 2 lettres.

-----
A good way of putting an end to this trivia about the
2-letter code for provinces, would be to adopt the
French system : use a 2 digit code instead of a 2-letter
code.


--
Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP
(514) 671-8820				   OU :	michele%catnix@cam.org
From: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A propos de sport (WAS: Re: Denis Beauregard's hero?)
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:11:23 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <338@catnix.UUCP> michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele A. Simond) writes:
>
>Alors, SVP, essayons de ne pas meler les cartes; de ne pas
>meler sport et politique plus qu'il ne faut.

Mais, Michele, que dire du cas des Duchesnay???

Le frere et la soeur qui font du patinage artistique pour la France,
alors qu'ils sont nes au Canada???

Ils sont partis parce que quelqu'un a mele sport et politique dans
l'association canadienne....


Sylvain Chamberland
Dept. of Biology
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 11:14:59 EDT
From: <QPID@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
 <1992Apr14.210058.16581@bmerh2.bnr.ca>

There are always going to be minority groups.  This is not the problem the prob
lem arises when the minority group feels that they are being treated poorly and
 reaches a critical point where they decide to take some action such as seperat
e.  If Quebec truly votes in favour of an independent Quebec than Canada really
 has little to go on to stop it.  To force them to stay in Canada would make th
e hostility increase even more.

All provinces are unique however, your (Rheal) correct in stating that Quebec h
as a significant difference, that being the french language.  The reason that t
his is important to Quebec is that the langauge is so closely tied together wit
h culture and heritage.

If Canadians want to truly keep Quebec in Canada they must seriously begin to c
onsider how to protect, sustain and build the french culture, not only  in Queb
ec but across Canada.  If Quebec wants to stay in Canada they must present to C
anada a method of working together without causing hostility.  At present many
Canadians outside of Quebec are not pleased with Quebec's langauge laws inside
Quebec and of the demands that are being put on them.  It seems to me that one
of the big problems is that comminication is breaking down due to inhospitable
natures on both sides.



Rheal, I'm curious about your views on this since you have a french heritage bu
t live in Ontario, you've probably seen both sides of the picture.
From: dale@dale.CAM.ORG (Dale Wharton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: QC Quebec, SK Saskatchewan...
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:48:16 GMT
Organization: none

Denis Beauregard seems ready to forfeit something distinct
about Quebec:  this is the only government in Canada
addressed as a rustic outlying zone (if you see the P
in PQ as Province, not Parti).  His preference makes
sense, though.  The abbreviation QC is intuitive and
politically neutral--unlike the PQ.

A software product from down south lists two-letter
abbreviations for the 50 states as well as for 12
governments of Canada:

     AB  Alberta             NT  Northwest Territories
     BC  British Columbia    ON  Ontario
     MB  Manitoba            PE  Prince Edward Island
     NB  New Brunswick       QC  Quebec
     NF  Newfoundland        SK  Saskatchewan
     NS  Nova Scotia         YN  Yukon


dale@dale.cam.org     M O N T R E A L     Te souviens-tu?
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: French in france
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:31:46 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Robin Collins) writes:
[ In 1500 in France ]
>Half spoke French and only 12% spoke it "properly", as they say.
>Most colonists from France came from one small area, which was
>french-speaking.

Well, this is very subjective. I'm sure that the French of today (in
France) would pretend that french in Quebec, Belgium, Switzerland and
the African ex-colonies is not spoke "properly". (I heard it quite a
few time). Similarly, a british subject will argue that the americans
don's seak english "properly".

>If you ever get a chance to look at the Historical Atlas of Canada,
>look at the map that shows the origins of the Quebecois French.
>One big blob.

Slight exageration again, but yes most colons came from two two areas:
Normandie and the West cost (Poitou-Charentes, etc.).

At one point in time, Quebec City was considered to be the place where
the richest french was spoken, because it was made up of french from
all accross France. (As you pointed out, this meant
Northern-Western-France-Excluding-Brittany). 


-- 
Francois Audet
Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: French in france
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:43:23 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Apr03.231628.26105@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>  I state again::
>Half the population of France at the time of the Declaration did not
>speak French.
>(Source: Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780.)

Well, I'll have to verify.

If this is true, then it is remarkable that the colons who colonized
Quebec (then Canada) all spoke french, and no other languages from
France. It is also strange that all the remaining text from the time
are in French. There is no litterature from France in languages other
than french from that time.
-- 
Francois Audet
Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:45:40 GMT
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Distribution: can
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1992Apr06.072628.29969@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr2.033204.19689@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
|> 
|> >Getty is only adopting a stand similar to Quebec nationalists...and
|> >I disagree with both of them...Getty only is adopting a milder form
|> >of the unilingualism espoused by Quebec nationalists.
|> 
|> I think Getty is simply taking the only position a Western Canadian
|> premier _can_ take and keep his job. 
|> 
|> Barring some major miracle, I believe that British Columbians will reject 
|> outright any constitutional change that does not include the EEE senate, 
|> or which grants special powers to any province. Any politician who 
|> stood up to urge another position would be committing political suicide. 
|> Perhaps it is the same in Alberta.

When I was in Calgary for Christmas that's exactly what I heard :

  If Quebec wants Distinct Society then Western Canada has to get EEE
  Senate.

I didn't talk to anyone who was willing to negotiate, which is kind of
too bad, stubborn stances don't help.

|> 
|> Whenever I receive mail (usually from Ontario or Quebec) which says
|> that a EEE senate would be "unfair" because it would grant equal power
|> to provinces barely the size of a "real" city, I can only wonder that
|> folks back east haven't grasped the reality yet that that is EXACTLY
|> why we favour EEE - the Western view of its domination by Montreal and
|> Toronto, correct or not, is probably unshakable at this point, and
|> folks who believe otherwise are in for a rude shock when our referenda
|> are held.

Absolutely!  It's amazing how different the two views (East and West)
can be.  I would highly recomend living in both areas at least a little
while in your life, it's an eye opener.

Don
Are these the views of BNR?  Hell no, BNR doesn't even understand what
     the hell I'm talking about.
No more boy meets girl, boy loses girl, more like man just tries to 
     understand what the hell went wrong. - The Pursuit of Happiness (TPOH)
From: dalton@gafs.Geop.UBC.CA (David Dalton)
Subject: Re: Newfoundland and Labrador
Organization: Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy, UBC, Vancouver, Canada
	<DALTON.92Apr4025043@epoch.Geop.UBC.CA> <881277m.89@ace.acadiau.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 02:15:20 GMT

Sorry for misunderstanding.  If the name in the Terms of Union is
still Newfoundland, then it should be changed.  However, in practice
the provincial government has referred to itself as `Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador'  for  years, as on the piece of official
government letterhead I have in front of me.  Clyde Wells
refers to himself as premier of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and licence plates, among other things, read Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hence the name is in effect `Newfoundland and Labrador'.
It should be easy to convince the MHAs and premier that the name
in the Terms needs changing, but it might be hard to convince them
that it should be a priority given the other pressing local and
national issues.  How difficult would it be to implement the name
change --- would it require the participation of all the other
provinces, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador  and the federal
government?  Would Quebec try to veto any change as a backlash
against the Meech Lake failure and because Quebec still claims
Labrador, and might bring such a claim to an international court
if they separate.
    Given all that, I support your lobby effort and may write
a letter to Wells as you suggest.  At least he should issue an
intent to make official the name change when the national and
local political and economic roCugh seas abate.
    Perhaps a convenient abbreviation for Newfoundland and
Labrador should be developed; otherwise despite any official
name change, the name would commonly be truncated.  Then we 
would at least have many NL or NFL teams :-)  .  It would 
take a long time for any such abbreviation to become common usage.
  
                                     David <Dalton@Geop.UBC.CA>
From: panisset@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (Jean-Francois Panisset)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:38:38 GMT
Organization: McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines

In article <WARKENT.92Apr13111753@ltisun9.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>Someone wrote:
>> |                         If it insults you're poor little ego then go home
>> |the Queen is as much as a part of Canada as the beaver and the maple leaf.
>> |She is OUR queen as well.
>
>[Warning, strong republican sentiments follow, sensitive monarchists may
>wish to avoid reading them]
>
>The beaver and the maple leaf are positive symbols. But what about the Queen?
>When I think of the Queen, I see a benign old lady who represents: a
>shameful colonial past;  class discrimination;  inherited privilege;
>and boring but nasty gossip in Fleet Street rags.
>
>Yes she is our Queen. Pity.

It's been quite a while since the queen, and indeed all royals, have been
largely irrelevant in Quebec (did I say distinct... nah, couldn't be...).
I wonder if the reason why none of the royals come to Quebec is because
of fears of negative demonstrations or because they worry about complete
indifference. Imagine if the queen came and no one showed up?

So, although I have only lukewarm feelings on this subject, I still feel
that Canada has trouble calling itself a real country as long as its
ceremonial head of state lives in a foreign country.

JF Panisset

-- 
Jean-Francois Panisset                    
INET: panisset@mcrcim.mcgill.ca            
      panisset@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
UUCP: ...!mcgill-vision!panisset
From: plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Freedom of Expression / language law oppressive?
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:07:31 GMT
Reply-To: plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante)
Organization: Universite de Montreal

In article <1992Apr15.154937.29490@bmerh2.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <WARKENT.92Apr15111819@ltisun9.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Apr10.160848.4567@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) wrote:
>>rc> If you accept the basic liberal (small l) principles of the Rights of Man,
>>rc> then you must accept the idea of freedom of expression being fundamental.
>>rc> If not, then why do you bother to debate at all?
>>
>>Robin, you still refuse to answer my question: what is "freedom of
>>expression"?
>
>Just to confuse things even further...
>
>One ongoing debate about freedom of expression is:  does it apply to
>individuals only, or to organisations/businesses as well?  Is a
>business a legal entity, with the same rights as an individual.
>(Would a business then have the right to vote?)
>
>An obvious example:  laws against cigarette advertising.  Are these a
>breach of freedom of expression, or does freedom of expression not
>apply to tobacco companies?
>
>The law on business signs is a law restricting business practices, not
>one suppressing the rights of individuals.  And such laws are common
>all over Canada - check your local or provincial restrictions on signs,
>advertising, etc.
>
>Does law 178 prevent John Doe (or Jean Labiche) from putting up a sign,
>in any language he wishes, to express his views on some topic?  If so,
>then it is clearly a violation of freedom of expression.  If not, if it
>only applies to commercial practices, then the violation is nowhere
>near as obvious.

I think it only applies to commercial practices.

So this is not a black-and-white issue.

Frederic Plante
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Bourassa is my hero
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:52:33 GMT
Organization: Hydro-Quebec

In article <1992Apr3.214447.29340@seachg.uucp> jalsop@seachg.UUCP (John Alsop) writes:
>In article <1992Mar30.173733.27332@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>>
>>I certainly think that the use of the army by Trudeau/Bourassa/Turner
>>was an abomination.
>>
[stuff deleted] 
>I don't know about others of my generation from Montreal, but I still get
>nervous walking past mailboxes!
>
>John Alsop

In 1970, I was 14 and living 3 house from a Federal M.P. in a suburb town.
While I was young, I remember the confusion, but not really the fear.
In my family I have a lot of uncles/aunts/cousins etc., thus reason
to travel with family, go to town, etc.  But, except for a soldier
no so far, it was just like if it happened in another country.
The only fear I remember was because the soldier had a gun and it could
be dangerous to play there. 

Maybe in some ward, there was some level of paranoia with the support
of media.

The same way, I was in a party in Ste-Catherine last summer.  This
town is just besides Kanawake.  It was the only time I was there.
Except for heavy traffic (because the bridge was close), surrounding
looked normal.

So, when you don't feel to be the target, when you are not lost in the
middle of the incident, it is just another day. 

In Goodbye Mr. Chips, while V2 were falling on London, the characters
had to do their usual daily work, not to give Nazi the feeling they
are winning the fear challenge.


-- 
    Denis Beauregard       _ _ _ _  Collecting Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca | * | * | Promoting use of QC as Quebec Postal Code
  Andre Jarret, sieur de  |===|===| Mes opinions?  Oui, oui, les miennes!
   Beauregard 1642-1992   |_*_|_*_| My opinions?  Yes, yes, mine!