HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:49:28 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Sep3.140851.29519@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>>>French-speaking) society.  Limiting the freedom of choice of immigrants
>>>has been justified according to the principle of French predominance.
>
>>And what is wrong with French predominance in Quebec?  There are 9
>>other provinces and USA for an immigrant prefering English predominance.
>
>There is nothing wrong with French predominance.  That was part of my
>argument.  It is the goal of nationalists and the majority of Quebecers,
>and it is valid, even if anglophones are indifferent.  It can be a valid
>reason to limit individual rights.  However, the reasoning behind the
>limits must be explicit; otherwise, the limitations are arbitrary.

Quebec was created at the time of Confederation as a political entity
that could protect the French Canadian culture. There has been agreement`
from the beginning that French has a special place in Quebec.

However the French and English Canadian cultures have special places
within Canada. Canada was created as a means of the expression of
these cultures within a national entity. Other cultures (non-aboriginal
for this discussion) were welcomed into Canada. However the rights of the
original cultures for a national expression within their homeland must be
respected.

Provincial governments were created in Canada to allow local control
of culture. Sometimes this has been interpreted as local *domination*
of culture by one group. This latter interpretation has always led to strife.
Confederation was a compromise to allow local control by the majority
cultural group with respect for the local minority. Note that this
was true in allowing the expression of the culture of Nova Scotia as
well as French Canada. Unfortunately certain elements can sieze upon 
local control to create local domination and we see the enmity that
this can produce.


-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<12798@audetf>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:22:09 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <12798@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

   In article <1992Sep4.080518.2508@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
   >> Quebec official language is French.  period. 
   >Quebec may declare its official language to be swahili.
   >Quebec is still a province in Canada.
   >Quebec is de facto bilingual (at least).

   Ce qu'il ne faut pas entendre...

   Get this:
	   Belgium is bilingual - Flandres is unilingual and Wallonie is
	   unilingual
	   Switzerland is quatrilingual - the individual townships are
	   not
	   Canada is bilingual - All provinces but New-Brunswick are
	   unilingual

   BILINGUAL (for a country) means that different regions (in Canada
   these regions are called Provinces and are a political entity) have
   different languages.

Each of these countries, however, has bilingual
regions/cantons/provinces.  It is not black and white.


--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:31:06 GMT

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>As for your question - if I favour unity so strongly, why not join
>the U.S.?  Because I don't believe the U.S. would respect our variety,
>our various distinctivenesses; I continue to believe (or hope) that
>Canada can continue to do so.

The exact reasons are not important. You have principled reasons for not
wanting to be part of the US. But, when it's somebody else's principled
reasons that aren't so important to you, you say they're just being petty
(you're "take my ball and go home" comment, and somebody else's "better
dead than red").

The one person, one vote principle is a cornerstone of democracy, and Canada
is turning its back on this principle virtually irrevocably. I think this
principle is worth the risk of Quebec separating, or even the risk of a
separated Canada (i.e., *after* Quebec goes).

The major difference between us is what we predict for the possible futures.
You think Quebec separation will be nigh-apocalyptic (countered by the positive
desire to have the large francophone presence in Canada -- one of your
principles that you value highly, I'll warrant), I think Canadians and
Quebecois value their prosperity too highly to let the split go badly.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Rebick on Canada AM
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:17:42 GMT
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <mjenkins.716561928@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca
(Michael Jenkinson) writes: 
> Judy Rebick, prez of NAC-SOW, was on Canada AM this morning. I only
> saw a clip of it, but in it she said that one of the reasons she was
> opposing the constitutional deal was that some governments would use
> it to take away women's rights.
> 
> Did she ever say which governments? I can only assume Messrs. Rae and
> Harcourt, they of the politically correct stripe, are not on the list.

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, child.

Rae, and Harcourt, and every other premier who was in favour of the deal
got blasted by her in another interview yesterday.  I don't agree with
Rebick any more than I agree with Rae and Harcourt, but they're
certainly not together on this issue - not at all.

> I would hope if this is her main reason for opposing the deal she come
> clean and identify exactly who she thinks will do this. Otherwise, I
> will assume this is merely politics on her part.

I'd hope that you'd take the trouble to find out what she said instead
of getting a backwards dig in by bringing up accusations of collusion
without evidence.  (or, if you honestly just want information, ask for it
directly, rather than in this leading way)

- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you're teaching classes, you don't necessarily have to know your
 subject.  If you watch movies there are many actors who are excellent
 teachers."
 - Alberta Advanced Education Minister John Gogo
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:44:25 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

>I have noticed. What's your point? The rest of Canada should drop 
>everything just to save Quebec? Why should I be prepared to sacrifice my
>future in BC, any more than those in Quebec?

"Sacrifice your future" is too strong.  The amendments will have a small
effect on the lives of individual Canadians.

>Basically, my view is: do it right, or not at all. I can put up with things
>as they are. But don't waste our time with incomplete "solutions".

I always said "not at all" because I know it is extremely difficult to
agree on a constitution, and perhaps impossible in a country with so many
tribal, linguistic, political and class differences.  It hasn't helped
that our politicians have lacked vision.  Nevertheless, when you have come
this far, there is no going back.  We have to pass these amendments
to avoid further turmoil.

>IF you believe all this shameless fear-mongering and doomsaying, then
>you've been duped. CAnada did not self destruct after Meech. Either way,
>Canada will not self destruct on OCt 26th. With Yugoslavia, Somalia, 
>Cambodia, Iraq etc in the world, Canada's problems are laughable in
>comparison, and international magazines snicker at Canada's endless
>bickering.

You are right: Canada is paradise in comparison.  Still, IMHO
fragmentation would be the worst path for us to choose.

>compromises are for car dealers. Don't ask me to write the word 
>compromise next to words like justice, equality, indivual rights.
>The constitution is the basis for our country. While we may compromise
>on day to day issues in a democracy, we don't call into question
>certain basic principles. If we don't spell out what those basic principles,
>are, then we won't have a sound basis for our political institutions.

Compromise is unavoidable.  Other people have different conceptions of
"justice," "democracy" and "equality" that can no longer be dismissed.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:10:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.061805.11458@thinkage.on.ca> dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
>
>I think the only real fracture line is around Quebec, so that's as far as
>it would go.

Well, there's been a lot of talk about Central vs Western Canada, there
have been calls for BC separatism (aren't you the one who said BC
would be more naturally aligned with the NW US states?).  So the biggest
distinction is Quebec (distinct society!), but there are others.

As for your question - if I favour unity so strongly, why not join
the U.S.?  Because I don't believe the U.S. would respect our variety,
our various distinctivenesses; I continue to believe (or hope) that
Canada can continue to do so.

A simpler statement:  I believe I have been, and am still, better off
in Canada than I would be in any other country.  So something is
working, and it's worth trying to preserve.  As to whether the current
deal will help preserve or destroy that, well that's the gamble we're
discussing now.  (And no, I'm not happy that it is a gamble; but then,
I'm old enough to know there are few sure things in life.  And the sure
things tend to not be overly desirable...)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 19:18:41 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:

> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> >Lastly, we simply do not have the luxury of pissing around with the 
> >consitutional arrangement for another ten years. Our jobs are 
> >disappearing, the economy is going to hell in a handbasket, the education 
> >system is falling to bits, etc. We simply MUST start paying attention to 
> >some of the other problems out there. 
> 
> So let's ignore the constitution for a while -- Jeffrey Simpson's
> suggestion. The crisis has been manufactured by politician's for their
> own ends; it could be un-manufactured as well.
> 

Yes and no. Yes, they undoubtably manufactured it for their own ends, but 
no, it can't just be un-manufactured. The constitutional problem has 
given Quebec separation a lot of momentum, and it will take at least a 
YES on this deal to slow down or reverse it.

> >If TROC accepts this accord, distasteful though it is to many of us, we 
> >may have to go through this again - in forty or fifty years. If we reject 
> >it, it won't matter whether it was perfect or not.
> 
> There was similar thinking following the patriation of the constitution.
> If we accept the accord, we may be going through it all over again in just
> a few years. And there's also the problem that this deal does a lot to
> prevent any future repairs.
> -- 

Yes, we may. And I agree that the accord makes it MUCH more difficult to 
make future changes. And I, too, wish that bastard Mulroney had left well 
enough alone - but he didn't. I'm not, however, willing to bet that 
Canada will stay together if TROC votes no. It's going to be close enough 
as it is in Quebec.
> David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
> Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]


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
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:11:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.172245.18648@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>This agreement represents a further movement away
>>from rep-by-pop. So, it is not just a matter of maintaining the status quo
>>as the above question would imply. It is a matter of further degrading a
>>principle that just about every liberal democracy considers basic.
>
>As I recall, many contributors to this newsgroup supported the idea
>of an EEE senate almost equal in power to the House of Commons, and remote
>as hell from rep-by-pop.
>
>Now, Quebec wins a concession that may give it a few percent more seats than
>its population share sometime in the distant future, while accepting
>an immediate drop from 23% to 10% of the Senate, and there's complaining?
>
>Hypocrisy!
>

The purpose of a bicameral legislature is to provide every person with
a "meaningful" vote...one chamber has representation by population,
and the other has whatever compromise is necessary to effect
"meaningfulness" for every person, even from a sparsely populated
regions.  There are two fundamental democratic principles...the right
to a vote and the right to self-government...the second chamber gives
effect to a sufficient measure of self-government for sparsely populated
regions.

The current proposal is all muddled-head in terms of fundamental
principles, screwing up both chambers.

But to argue that the second chamber should not have rep by pop is
not hypocrisy, it is just the compromise necessary between the
fundamental rights of a person to a vote, and a region to
self-government.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:31:11 GMT

warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>Those who fanatically defend rep by pop might take into consideration
>the fact that Canada does not truly have it.  Does every riding have
>the same population?  No, far from it and Ken McVay should know it well
>since he lives in British Columbia, a province where for years the region
>of Greater Vancouver was seriously under-represented in the legislature.

Just because we've always been doing things the wrong way doesn't mean that
we should continue to do things the wrong way.

>The impression I receive from this discussion is that the real problem for
>the self proclaimed defenders of "the ideals of liberal democracy" is
>that they feel that, once again, Quebec is getting "special" treatment.

Then you're getting the wrong impression. Quebec is getting special
treatment, and that's wrong, but it doesn't make a difference whether it's
Quebec or BC or whoever.

>Wake up folks and smell the pulp mill (it's the morning breeze from Crofton).
>We either take the deal, warts and all, and get on with our lives or we
>throw it out and step into the wonderful world of "interesting times".

I hope we choose the interesting times -- at least something good might come
of them.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: School names (Was: Adding insult to injury?
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:50:43 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2681

From article <12838@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
> In article (Steve Potter) writes:
>>I post this as an illustration of the sort of crap I have to put
>>up with, living in Quebec.
> 
> Oh no, it goes again...
> 

I also said I didn't want to chase this one. I think I said that I
believed that if I tried to fight every attempt to bury my language
in this province it would be a full time job and I would likely lose
what is left of my sanity. :-)

>>There are rumours that there is a movement at my son's (French) school
>>to change the school's name.
>>It was established as an English Elementary School and was called,
>>naturally, "Crawford Park School".
>>The P.S.B.G.M. terminated the private lease and reopened the school
>>last year as a French elementary school. (A very good one, I hasten
>>to add!). It is now called,naturally, "Ecole Crawford Park".
>>Why change it? - "the name is too English" apparently.
> 
> Look, a school is for children. The name should at least be a name in
> the language of the children in the schools. Change the name, I
> support it 100%! The same would apply if a french school became an
> english schools.  If I was a kid attending a french school with an
> english name, I'd like to have it's name changed as well.
> 

Many of the children in the school are English. How would you explain
to them that their language is not wanted in the school, Francois?

You might like to read the discussion unders Denis' search for
St. Catherine under mtl.general[?]. I object to changing names of things
for reasons other than than changing the language.

> In Hull (QC), where I live, an english and a french school swapped
> location a few year ago (not in the same area of town) because of a
> switch in the proportion in the number of students in both schools.
> "D'Arcy McGee" became "Promenade" and "Gamelin" became "D'Arcy Mcgee".
> (Gamelin didn't stay because it wasn't on Gamelin blv anymore). Not
> that in that case, the english school kept its english name in the
> moving, while the french name of the french school was change to a
> bilingual name (probably not on purpose).
> 

That raises an interesting question:-

Does the name of a school belong to the building, or to the 
administration operating within its walls?

This might generate some interesting philosophical discussion.

Any comments?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:06:33 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.


Another weird thing about Legault's book:  you turn each of her criticisms
around 180 degrees.

She says the anglophone spokesmen have "culpabilized" francophones for their
own problems.  But this claim is itself "culpabilization."  In other words,
each side thinks the other is wrong.  What a revelation, eh?

She speaks one minute of anglo dominators, the next of certain spokesmen
challenging the dominance of French.  What makes one domination better
than another?

As for "disguising" a collective-rights issue as an individual-rights
issue, it just hasn't been done.  The individuals who went to the courts
WERE fighting for their individual rights, and took advantage of the
fact that those rights are protected in the Charter.  That the visibility
of the English community would have been restored as well was a bonus.
But what does Legault do but disguise a desire to assert the "dominance
of French" as a necessity (to properly orient new immigrants, or help
francophones achieve equality of employment)?

-------------

Am I right to assume that Legault represents a majority of P.Q. members?

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:34:56 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

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

>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.

Actually, anglophones were well integrated before Bill 101. If you mean
that it caused anglophones to learn French, then I can tell you that that
began in earnest after Bill 22, when francophones made it clear that they
would make French the first language of Quebec.  Bill 101 just scared
people off and made enemies.

>Bill 101 was necessary at
>the time. Perhaps, some parts of it are now outdated and excessive
>(not "extreme" :-) and modifications are needed.

You reject the conclusion that it was wrong to begin with. I suspect that,
somehow, you have been convinced that parts of Bill 101 are bad, but your
pride will not allow you to admit that you made a mistake.  So you say
"things have changed; the law is _no_longer_ necessary."

Josee Legault warns against people like you: backsliders who have allowed
themselves to be seduced by anglo trickery.

What has changed to make some parts no longer necessary?

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: cultural/religious ev
Date: 6 Sep 92 09:36:45 EST
Reply-To: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Stewart Clamen writes:
SC>In article <1992Sep3.083647.13958#spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve
SC>ter) writes:

SC>   From article <CLAMEN.92Sep2171925@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by clamen+@CS.CMU
SC> (Stewart Clamen):

SC>   > For instance, it would be hard (some might say mutually-exclusive) to
SC>   > be a good Christian and have a religious Easter and be a good Jew
SC>   > and celebrate Passover (last year they were coincident, even!).

SC>   Just an aside:-

SC>   The Passover was an important event for both the Christian and Jewish
SC>   faith. It is possible for a good Christian to join in the celebrations
SC>   for Passover (Apart from the sombre remembrance of the Crucifixion; the
SC>   Resurrection is certainly something Christians celebrate.)
SC>   It may be a little harder for a Jew to celebrate Christ's death and
SC>   resurrection. (No racist or anti-semitic sentiments intended.)

SC>You are thinking about the celebration associated with the religious
SC>events, while I was referring to the religious activities themselves.
SC>Perhaps this wasn't such a good example, since secular holidays are
SC>far less demanding than most religious ones.

Passover is a relatively solemn holiday in which those taking part
recollect God's freeing the Israelites from slavery in Egypt.  There's
nothing about it that is incompatible with Christianity, unless
Christians choose not to emulate Christ himself in his participation in
this holiday.

- Stephanie.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  "Eat any good books lately?" - Q
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044