HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Virginie's TV violence petition
Followup-To: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:48:04 GMT

Denis Beauregard (beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca) wrote:
>In article <1992Nov19.185703.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>>
>>No, you have not read this correctly at all. Lance et Compte did not cause
>>the rape of women any more than the A-Team or Wile E Coyte is responsible for
>>the death of Virginie's sister.
>
>I think the point (and you missed it), violence on TV is present enough
>to show to children that violence is "natural", like the sky is blue
>or the sun is hot or people are (usually married).

I would agree with Denis, and I don't see a problem with restricting
violent TV shows to certain hours (e.g. after 10pm). I consider it quite
ludicrous that nudity on TV is a no-no, while murder is A-OK. 

On the other hand, when direct broadcast satellite comes into its own,
doesn't all this become moot as there would be no way to regulate what the
public watches?

>I think one major point is that TV present violence in a way that
>there is no hurt associated to it.  See the Road Runner show.  The
>coyote is continuously victim, but is still alive.  This is not correct.
>If you fall a 1000 feet hole, you are dead.  If the road runner show
>was using different coyotes (i.e. with variable colors or some wearings),
>then the child would understand that when you're died, it is final
>and you won;t survive at the next episod.  But, violence is shown as
>of no physical effect, just for the action or for the special effect
>(like in Terminator II).

Here I am not so sure. Cartoons are almost by definition fantasy. Surely
even children realize this. After all, how many talking, upright walking, 6
foot bunnies have they run into other than on TV.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Au revoir
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:00:25 GMT

Considering the law of diminishing returns, this seems a good time to
end my participation in can.politics.  Thanks to everyone who made it a
learning experience.

--
Thomas Hood                                                     thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 14:36:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.175356.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>
>The pan-Canadian myth died many years ago but lives in the hearts of all too
>many Canadians. They had their chance to define that beautiful bilingual 
>Canada when French minorites really needed it. It is far too late today.
>And French Quebecers are not just another ethnic group. Quebec has a history
>a culture and is a nation in every classic sense of the word. It's time the
>resto of the country woke up on this. The idea that all provinces are the same 
>or that Ottawa is the caretaker of Canada must be killed before we can't pay
>for this country anymore.
>

Quebec thinks so much of its culture that its government told Michel
Tremblay to go to "hell" when he attempted to sell his papers to them.


Gerald
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 13:58:11 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Distribution: can
 <schuck.721165680@sfu.ca> <LABACH.92Nov9083820@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
 <92316.135417SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <schuck.721543654@sfu.ca>
 <92317.121200SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <schuck.721608394@sfu.ca>
 <92318.143616SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <schuck.721767010@sfu.ca>

In article <schuck.721767010@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan
Schuck) says:
>
>John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>>If your defence can do more damage to the enemy than your offensive,
>>then you'll obviously do better to defend rather than attack. History
>>records many commanders who won by letting the enemy come to them.
>
>Would you be thinking of France in 1940 and the maginot line?

Try Rommel's trick of luring the British tanks onto a mobile AT gun
screen in the desert war (see Rommel, the Desert Fox by Morton), the
French (and American) navies use of the tactical defence (USS Constitution
vs HMS Macedonian, also Villeneuve vs Calder in the 15/20 battle), the
defence of Kursk and Stalingrad by Marshall Zhukov (contrasted with
Timoshenko's failed offensive to recapture Kharkov in 1942). After
the initial surprise of the blitzkrieg, most advances (from the
German attack on Stalingrad to Alamein to the Russian offensives
following the battle of Kursk) followed a successfully repelled enemy
attack.

Obviously, letting the enemy come to you does not always work. But when
clear advantages exist for doing so, as in the Battle of Britain, it
is ridiculous to assume you have some kind of obligation to attack.

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Defending Jean Chretien
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:11:07 GMT

andy (2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA) wrote:
>
>There has in the past, been an attempt to take over the Liberal Party by groups
> such as the Campaign Life Coalition by packing nomination meetings with
>instant Liberals

Something that I don't understand is why only the Liberal Party has
experienced this phenomenon. Do their convention rules allow for instant
members whereas the rules of the other parties do not?
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Reform Party
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 22 Nov 92 06:10:57 GMT

murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy) writes:


>I've been hearing a lot in the US press about the Reform Party and its
>impact on the next election, especially in the Western provinces.

>Can someone give me a good idea what the Reform Party stands for and how
>it differs from the Conservatives?
>-- 
>-------------------
>Daniel A. Murphy        Net:         murphy@well.sf.ca.us
>San Francisco, CA       GEnie:       D.MURPHY11
>U.S.A.                  MCI Mail:    377-7947

The Reform Party of Canada is committed to 
fundamental reforms to the political operation
and economic and social policies of the
Canadian government.

Reformers see the need for more accountability 
of our government to the public.
We propose to accomplish this through:
  - greater freedom for MPs to represent their
constituents;
  - the EEE (equal/elected/effective) senate;
  - recall of MPs;
  - referenda and initiative.

Reformers want our government to manage our
public finances responsibly before our children's
futures are swallowed by our debts.
It is *imperative* that we make the difficult
decisions to balance our federal budget ASAP.
The time to hestitate is far past.  How much 
longer before Canada loses all its social
programs by default?

Yes, we are talking about eliminating many grants 
to corporations and targeting social spending to 
those in need.
This melds with our philosophy that people should 
be responsible for their own affairs as much as 
they are able.  We envision a diminished role for
government in society with greater responsibility
for us as citizens.

I am committed to the Reform Party because I believe 
the Conservatives have *no commitment* to these ideals.
They may talk around about them, and they may even
adopt some of our policies, but I think they feel they 
can tinker with the policies our governments have 
applied for the past ~30 years to create this mess 
when a radically new approach is necessary.

A clear example of the Conservative's philosophy was
shown in the constitution amendments and the referendum.
The Charlottetown Accord attempted to define Canada
on a concept of founding nations and as a
collection of collectives.  Even after the people
had finally put that notion to death, the Prime
Minister was on television spouting the same rhetoric.

The Reform Party campaigned on the *principle* that
all Canadians are equal and that our constitution
should reflect that.

I wonder if the Reform Party weren't so strong (in
certain regions) if we would have even *had* a 
referendum.

In summary, the Reform Party represents the opportunity
for ordinary Canadians to make fundamental changes
in their government.  The Conservatives (and the Liberals 
and the NDP) represent certain groups with vested 
interests in perpetuating their views of Canada.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: kpicott@alias.com (Socrates)
Subject: Canadian solutions (was Re: Virginie's TV violence petition)
Organization: Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:39:22 GMT

In <1992Nov20.174736.2104@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

>I would agree with Denis, and I don't see a problem with restricting
>violent TV shows to certain hours (e.g. after 10pm). I consider it quite
>ludicrous that nudity on TV is a no-no, while murder is A-OK. 

Just out of curiousity; given that you consider this ludicrous, why do you
not support relaxing the restrictions on nudity, rather than tightening the
restrictions on violence?  I'll even grant the necessity of adding some sort
of warning to the beginning of all TV shows that used to fail under the
restrictions.

Is this a typical Canadian attitude?  If there is a problem we demand the
government-who-protects-us-all step in and hide it from us?  If so, is this
attitude the cause of our current economic problems, or the reason that it
rates as such a great country to live in?

(we have ignition... :-)

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Reform Party vs Quebec (was Reform Party)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 04:00:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.144230.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>The Party... the Party.... that is the problem with this organization. They
>operate just like the others, and demand the same loyalty. When I hear the
>words "Party" I immediately think of Stalin, Hitler and all those other guys
>pushing their platform and claiming the people are on their side. Do you know
>what. It is all pollitical b*s*.

Towards his later years, Mao's Chinese Communist Party did the same thing.
They still do, actually.  :-(

             Ask not what the party can do for your country.
             Ask what you yourself  can do for your country.

>Like I said, this party is no different from socialist parties from the 30's.
>They pushed populism, but as time wore on they became just like all the rest.
>Look at the NDP and tell me that is the same party JS Woodsworth founded.

The Ontario NDP is not that recognizable these days compared to the
stance they took during their long drought in Opposition is due to
many, many factors, one of which is the lack of real talent in cabinet,
and for some obscure reasons, lack of, or inability to absorb, real
quality advice, or even when given quality advice, inability to carry
them out in new programs, which brings me back to the above. The NDP
could have done better if we had an executive branch in each province
and Bob Rae can simply hire whoever he wants to be in cabinet.

>I look forward to the day when all of our politicians will no longer be a
>necessity. They get in the way of personal and economic freedom.

Real politicians impart leadership and vision onto their underlings.
We simply hadn't had many of those after P.Trudeau's second term.
Do not confuse individual failings with "politicians" as a category.

>Deep down they want
>what the other parties want but have failed to achieve with bilingualism...
>the restoration of the English language as the domininant economic and cultural
>language of Quebec and the dominance of the Quebec anglophone community.

I suppose one way to counteract that is to learn the french language
really well and start using it daily all over Canada, even though you
were born an anglophone. Heck, I was born a Cantonese-speaking Chinese,
but I can debate successfully with most anglos anywhere in Canada.
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: plahaie@gel.ulaval.ca (Pierre Lahaie)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamp
Reply-To: plahaie@gel.ulaval.ca
Organization: Dept. Genie Electrique, Universite Laval
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:01:46 GMT

In response to your post about the partition of Quebec, let me remember how much 
the federal government is in debt.  So let go if you want to take that part of
territory in the advent of secession of Quebec from Canada take also the entire 
debt and maybe everybody will be happy.


Pierre Lahaie

plahaie@gel.ulaval.ca

If you want me to respect you stop saying stupid things.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:01:20 GMT

In article <13533@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>Now here is another example for the "Thank You Mr. Clark" file.
>This person is a perfect example (as if we needed another after
>Beauregard and Schuck) of someone living in ignorant certainty.

Selective list?  I don't feel as an ignorant certain, but I feel
that you often are.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Que'bec renouvele' dans une Ame'rique renove'e
\_.-===  Ope'rateur de "Racines du Que'bec" (514) 922-9636 BBS/Genealogie
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Reform Party
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:56:27 GMT

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

>In article <aidler.722412657@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>The Reform Party of Canada is committed to 
>>fundamental reforms to the political operation
>>and economic and social policies of the
>>Canadian government.
>>

[ The rest of my own text deleted. ]

>These are excellent principles.

>So why does it feel so icky to support the Reform Party?

Just as in the recent referendum, the Reform Party
stands against some very powerful elites in 
Canadian society.  It takes *courage* to make a
stand against groups we have been taught to revere.

The Reform Party is the largest political organization
in Canada.  However, we receive few corporate or
union donations because these groups fear that we
will act to undermine entrenched privileges.

>I want much clearer evidence that the Reform Party is not dragging in
>a lot of relgious, moralistic, sel-righteous dogma in with its policies.

>I am not totally convinced that the Reform Party stands for seperating
>religious and moral issues from the economic and democratic issues.

>Ideally, I want the Reform Party to be somewhat libertarian:
>economically conservative, let market forces rule. But socially
>liberal, in that the State has no business declaring actions
>or lifestyleas immoral or illegal, if those actions affect no-one else
>but that individual.

If you basically agree with the Party's philosophy,
I invite you to become involved in our democratic
organization.  Then, you will have a role in shaping
the Party's future.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Definition of/d'un "Quebecois"
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:33:50 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1144

From article <13519@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
> In article <BxprxH.2uu@mach1.wlu.ca> scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U) writes:
>>What is the definition of a "Quebecois"?  I'm especially interested in what
>>Quebec nationalists have to say.  Is a Quebecois someone who lives in
>>Quebec, or is it much narrower, i.e. someone who can trace their family in
>>Quebec back to the 1600's?
> 
> A "quebecois" is simply a Quebec citizen. Anyone legally a Quebec
> citizen.
> 
> PS: It helps if that person thinks of hiself/herself as being a
> quebecois.
> 

Many 'anglophones' consider themselves to be "quebecers" (which, i suppose
could be linguistically translated to "quebecois" ?) - but you won't find
many of them taking to the streets screaming "Le Quebec au quebecois!" on
Jean Baptiste Day. :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:9894 soc.culture.canada:8745 can.general:5429
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Hurtig's New Party
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: can
Date: 23 Nov 92 05:33:16 GMT

ddjohnson@galaxy.gov.bc.ca wrote:
>In article <1992Nov21.010426.3934@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim
>Robinson) writes: > > Hmmm, the Reform Party should siphon off PC votes, and
>the NoWayFreeTrade > Party should siphon off NDP votes - the Liberals may coast
>to a majority if > this kind of vote splitting goes on. Perhaps Hurtig is
>really a Liberal > double agent :-). 
>
>Actually, this isn't very funny Jim! 
>
>In the '88 election the Liberals were sort of against Free Trade (BFTA) and the
>NDP were. The split vote (> 50% for the Liberals/NDP) resulted in Mr.
>Mulroney's election, the implementation of the BFTA, and the massive
>destruction of our manufacturing sector, especially in Central Canada. NEVER
>AGAIN! (I hope). 

Harvard professor Robert Reich, who is one of Clinton's main (if not his
main) economic advisors, has appeared on Canadian TV a number of times this
year (at least twice on Question Period). His contention is that *global*
forces (GATT and all) are resulting in the decline in manufacturing in
North America, those jobs are gone for good, and the smart move for both
countries is to get in gear for the post-industrial information & service
era. It really seams to me that the NDP are modern day luddites wrt this
issue and are being driven by their ideology.

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 00:35:06 GMT

In article <BxvuyB.3vM@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>>>In article <schuck.721856976@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>>Well, here's a causality chain:
>>>1) Quebec separates
>>>2) CSQ cuts off trade with Quebec
>>>  This has the result:
>>>3) Ontarians whose jobs depend on imports from Quebec find their jobs
>>>at least disrupted.  If they're not lucky, the jobs may be lost
>>>altogether.  This means that:
>
>This statement is misleading.  The actual statement should be that
>     Ontarians whose jobs depend on EXPORTS to Quebec ...
>
>You have more jobs thanks to export and lose 'cause of import.

You stumbled onto my underlying point!

Guess what?  BOTH import and export related jobs would get pretty
trashed under the conditions of an "embargo".

I said "imports" meaning "imports".

If an Ontario company depends on parts that they buy from Quebec, when
that trade gets cut off, their supply gets, (surprise!) terminated.

They then have to search for another supplier that isn't in
Quebec.

That may take some time.

Such suppliers may have gone out of business, because they used to
sell to Quebec, and got their sales cut off.  (It was a sudden
separation, so there wasn't six weeks to look around for alternatives
ahead of time.)

The problem may not be that of getting the PARTS - it may be the
problem of getting transportation.  The day after trade is cut off,
there's going to be a lot of trucking companies that go out of
business.  Not because there weren't clients around SOMEWHERE, but
because they couldn't find them in time.

EVERYBODY gets hurt.  Importer and exporter alike, and anybody that is
faintly involved with inter(national|provincial) trade.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Defending Jean Chretien
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 08:01:52 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Givien the leadership we have, I PERSONALLY would LOVE to see Jean Chretien
become PM..  Jean, during the Referendum, has proven himself to be his own man
and wants to here everyone opinions.

From personal experience, I believe that he is the more approachable of all the
Canadian leader we have today.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
American (n) - A person resident or born on the Continient of America
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:48:03 GMT

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

>In article <schuck.721723283@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>
>>Whats friendly about secession? It usually turns into civil war.

>So, was there a civil war during or after secession of
>- Singapour?
>- Czequy (sp?)/Slovaquia (soon to be former Czecoslovaquia)?
>- Australia/New Zealand/Canada most other former British colonies?
>- Baltic countries?

Czeckoslovakia is the only true secession among the lot, and we don't
know how that will turn out.

If you want to talk secession examples, how about:

The US from the UK.
The Southern US from the Northern US.
Texas from Mexico.
Biafra from Nigeria.



>>Please do. Make my day. Then Canada can get with the job of saving itself.
>>We can't if you stay. It's too expensive economically and politically.

>Felix Leclerc wrote something like that:
>The day Quebec will go on her own, the first one that will come to
>felicitate and begin negotiations for trade exchange will be our
>Canadian (future) neighbors.

Thats wishful thinking. Free Trade with the US is causing problems in
Central Canada, and it gives us access to a market of 250,000,000.
The Quebec market is so small comparatively.