HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Trudeau - Dark Lord of Hypocrisy, Anti-christ, Non-eater of Vegetables
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:36:40 GMT


And He sayeth: "Your vote has tremendous importance -- so important that it
                it can't be based on emotions..."

Meanwhile He also sayeth: 

     "When every citizen isn't equal to every other citizen,
      you are in a dictatorship..."

     "There will be six distinct classes in society..." (and the bottom 
      hierarchy will be "the little, obscure people. People like many of us."

     "The blackmail will continue...if you vote Yes."

     "They have created a big mess, a big mess that warrants a massive No."
		
When asked if all the attention reminded him of the old times, He replied,
"Yes, it's nice". Demi-gods say the darndest things!

-----

Well, I *will* take Trudeau's astute advice and make my vote without basing it
on emotions. I'll therefore disregard his rhetoric about dictatorships, 
blackmail, and the threat of a caste system.  I'll also impartially consider 
the fact that Trudeau himself is largely responsible for the current 
"big mess", given his failed repatriation of the Constitution, as well as 
the national fissures which developed during his reign.

The current proposal is non-partisan, progressive, and recognizes the 
pluralistic nature of Canada.  There are technical deficiencies -- the
most notable being that there needs to be a clarification that the charter 
of rights cannot be superceded by any other section of the constitution.  
(Favour: Would one of the many self-proclaimed constitutional lawyers on 
this newsgroup please point out to me how this is possible with the current 
document?). 
If this is fixed -- assuming that this complaint has any real technical 
substance, and isn't based on some fantastic semantic sophistry -- it will 
immediately cancel the majority of the NO side's complaints. I'm sure, however,
that they'd find more problems. 

Yeah, the accord isn't perfect. Canada is a country whose character defies
the possibility of a Constitution that is perfect for everybody.  But, other
than the No argument mentioned above, the rest of the No complaints are 
reactionary, emotional criticisms. And these groups are not lifting a finger
to offer solutions or amendment proposals.  The excuse that they will
"the next time" is lame, since the reason they don't is that they *can't*!

This camper will vote Yes (despite Mulroney's histrionic bufoonery). 

( Is Mr Dressup really voting No? )
-- 
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: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:28:35 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BvG0yC.oK@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
]In article <13040@audetf] audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
]]In article <1992Sep28.143809.10290@spxtech.qc.ca] steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
]]]Quebec doesn't have a right to declare independence!
]]
]]Any nation has the right to independence (self-determination).
]]However, it is up to the countries of the world to recognize it or not.
]
]It's very nice to see you are in favor of self-determination.  I hope
]that applies to the natives of Northern Quebec, who just might want to
]stay with Canada (or even have their own country), rather than stay
]with Quebec.  That's quite a chunk of territory you will be giving up,
]but I guess "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

The indians of Quebec, countrary to the indians elsewhere in Canada,
renounce to their right to claim the land in Northern Quebec (which
they didn't legally owned because the judges hadn't said so) for huges
amounts of money. There is nothing they can do except killing
policemen, which won't give them the land anyhow. The place where they
are the most likely to succed with potential land claims is in BC.

I'm not saying I am opposed to self determination for arboriginal
people. Of course, claims for disproportionate territories are a laugh
and they would probably have better success if they wouldn't "push
their luck" as much.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Equality Party to decide Ref. position
Date: 26 Sep 92 03:45:19 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 723

There is a General Assembly meeting of the Equality Party on Sunday 27th.

The Party's position wrt Charlottetown "deal" will be decided.

My prediction:-

"NO!" - officially - for a number of important reasons.

Efforts will be made to obtain campaign funding from Uncle Jacques.

Members will be advised to search their own souls and conscience 
before voting.

Robert Libman better have a soft chair available? :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:50:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.220829.1331@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>
> Isn't Ms Coyne the Nfld aide to Clyde Wells that had Trudeau's baby?

This is a sexist way of stating the question; if she gave birth to it
it is not only "Trudeau's baby".

In any case, it's offensive to imply that her personal life should
discredit her legal and political opinions.

And one more thing: she's no longer an aide to Clyde Wells.

Mathew Englander.
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: notwithstanding clause nonobstandante
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:11:25 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <4741@disuns2.epfl.ch> riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese) writes:
>
>L'accord de Charlottetown indique (je paraphrase) :
> "Autres questions ont ete discutees pendant les seance multilaterales.
>  Le consensus etait de ne pas poursuivre les points suivants :
>  ...   @ changements a la `clause nonobstandante'".
>
>Alors :
>
>1. Qu'est-ce que le texte ci-dessus veut dire ?
>2a. Qu'est-ce la clause nonobstandante ?
> b. Quand peut-elle etre invoquee ?
> c. Quel est son rapport avec la constitution actuelle ?
> d. Quel est son rapport avec la charte de droits ?
>3. Quand pourrait-il etre invoque si l'accord reussit ?
>
>J'ai cru qu'un des buts majeurs des discussions de reforme
>etait d'obvier et, d'une facon ou une autre, d'eliminer cette clause.
>
>????

Le but de Charlottetown etait de faire une pseudo-entente et de jeter
de la poudre aux yeux des electeurs.  C'est, comme toujours, le
concept de l'homme politique qui rejette ses responsabilites et
tente de se faire re-elire en pretendant avoir assume ces responsabilites.

De toutes facons, Boubou ne pouvait pas signer une entente mettant
fin a la clause non-obstant puisqu'il s'en est servi lui-meme!

-- 
  \_\    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 secret      Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: What does Quebec take with them when they go, and who decides?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:38:17 GMT

Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
: Don A. Bowman (dbowman@shade) wrote:
: >
: >I wouldn't believe anything they wrote. APEC is a white-supremacist,
: >anti-french group. I'm ashamed to say that they had a lot of support around
: >my home town in eastern ontario (red necks etc)
: 
: I knew APEC was most definitely anti-bilingualism, but I wasn't aware that
: they were white-supremacists. Could you possibly elaborate on their
: white-supremacist views - we don't hear much about APEC in this part of
: the country.

I'll elaborate a little. This is all from memory of the last federal
election, and they may have changed a little. Like I said, I'm ashamed to say
they were fairly popular at home (eastern ontario).

I apologise if they have changed somewhat and I am unaware of it.

Part of their platform included immigration reform. A common theme (eastern
ontario is economically depressed, and jobs are disappearing) was the "don't
let THEM take jobs away from _REAL_ Canadians" The THEM, it turned out, was
anyone who was not White, or not English-speaking. They were actually a lot
more anti-french than anti-black, etc.

They wished to reform immigration to a quota system. The quota of non-white
immigrants would be related to economic circumstances. (They were always
careful to not say "non-white". They'd say things like "developing
countries", "refugees", "boat-people", "non-european", etc. But they all mean
the same thing)

A common thing at some meetings was the denouncing of Quebec, the Quebec
flag, etc. (I don't recall them burning one, however).

The rest of their platform was your basic right-wing agenda -- women stay at
home with the family, men go out to work. Lower taxes, less social programs,
"get the bums back to work" type thing.

They mostly appeal to less-educated people.

They are now called the Confederation of Regions with a modified platform
stance.


Like I said, I apologise if some of this is now inaccurate, or if it was
unique to the campaign in our area.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:11:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.223014.5686@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <1992Sep28.213441.16557@ee.ubc.ca>, by jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison):
>>
>> ...
>>
>> The whole process looks exactly like Meech, only with TV cameras allowed,
>> and some token consultation of the public.
>> 
>
>The "token consultation" included the Belanger-Campeau Committee, the Spicer
>Commission, the Beaudoin-Edwards Commission, and numerous polls.
>
>Much of it seemed to me, IMHO :-), to be staged. There was very tight
>control over who was permitted to present what, when, to whom.
>
>The testimonies, submissions, reports and analyses are now gathering dust
>where the sun doesn't shine in the H. of C. :-)
>
>An expensive sham, perhaps, but hardly a "token consultation", sir.


semantics...


If the procedure was just a giant bitch session, and the politicians just went
ahead with what is mostly their own agendas, I'd call that token.

If support is only 30 something % in BC and Quebec, somebody obviously wasn't
listening.
>
>-- 
>  ///==================================================================\\\
>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
>  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
>  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
From: thood@hilda.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:38:01 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>In article <1992Sep28.214510.21071@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>>it will create an unwelcome opportunity for separatists
>>to argue that Canada is a dead end for Quebec.
>
>It was for the most part the YES supporters that opened the
>Pandora's box in the mid-eighties before the country was
>ready for or required a new constitutional debate.  Quebec
>nationalism was quiescent and it was reawakened prematurely by
>political incompetents.

I agree with this history, but it does not change the facts: a "no" puts
Quebec separatists in a strong position.


>>What should happen after the accord is rejected?
>
>The current constitution endured 125 years...it can endure a few
>more.   

Does this mean you would defend the status quo (which includes the
Government of Quebec's non-endorsement of the Constitution) as
a permanent solution? Or, would you argue for a constitutional
convention? Or, would you prefer a referendum in Quebec
on independence?

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:54:22 GMT

Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <13073@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
: >
: >However, the fact that a huge proportion of francophones in Quebec
: >also speak english AND will use it when talking to anglophones even
: >within Quebec definitively shows TOLERANCE.
: 
: I disagree.  They may respond in English "Bugger off, asshole".  They
: would be adequately demonstrating English, but not tolerance.  

However, this is not usually the case. French people are just as nice as
English people. If you were to go to Montreal, and ask someone directions in
English, chances are that if they speak english they will answer in a civil
and polite fashion just as anybody anywhere else would.

Francois is right. There are far more francophones who speak english than
there are anglophones who speak french. I have found whenever I am in Quebec
that the people are very tolerant of me and my abismal french -- they almost
always will speak english to me instead. I have also found that if you speak
french to someone outside Quebec/New Brunswick and other francophone areas,
you are far more likely to get an intolerant response.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Oct2.141156.22233@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<1992Oct4.154931@ltisun14.epfl.ch>
	<1992Oct4.154821.17114@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:22:32 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct4.154821.17114@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

   In article <1992Oct4.154931@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch writes:
   >Can we agree that French Canadians have gotten the short
   >end of the historical stick, especially in Acadia and
   >Manitoba?
   >
   >If so, is it possible to understand why French Quebeckers
   >look for some guarantees that this will never happen again?
   >
   >If you find the 25% allotment an unacceptable way of doing
   >this, please suggest an alternative.
   >

   25% of a Senate...and remember we do have the Official Languages
   Act.

Is the Official Languages Act constitutionally protected?

   Getty and Bourassa were argueing over a trade of bicycles...and
   Mikey Harcourt weighed in and offered Bourassa a Mercedes if he
   would give Getty the bicycle he wanted.

I've heard that Bourassa would have even settled for 20% of the Senate
(ie. 1 of 5 regions in an Equitable Senate).  Too bad Getty (and
Wells?) was so set on an 1/10 setup.

--
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,can.general
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:08:44 GMT

In article <BvGA7E.36G@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: Well there still are my objections to the Canada Clause, the appointment
>: procedure (but not the numbers) for the Supreme
>: Court, the abandonment of representation by population, the Canadian
>: Politburo, the surrender of training and telecommunications to the
>: provinces, the lack of an economic union and common market.
>: 
>
>It does not abandon rep by pop -- it guarantees it by at least 95% by the
>next census.

And only for the next census...after that all bets are off for BC.

95% cannot be maintained if Quebec falls to 22%...and at 22% a Quebec
voters vote will be worth 1.2 times what a vote is worth in BC.

>
>There is no Politburo.
>
>The provinces can train people at least as well as the feds.
>
>We have an economic union based on Bank of Canada. We have a common market.
>

We do not have a common market....Europe has a common market...
a common market allows for the free flow of goods, services, and people,
and the provinces are obstinately opposed to allowing this.

Gerald
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:43:02 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep23.171117.9179@bmerh85.bnr.ca> jnetto@bnr.ca (John Netto) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.034742.4681@pandora.matrox.com>, thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
 
>|> Not two or three years; a few months.  Not a referendum; an election.
>|> 
>|> In Quebec, the P.Q. will be elected on a separatist platform, thus
>|> giving the P.Q. government a mandate to declare unilateral independence.

If we take all that was said about the objective of the referendum since
the bill was adopted by Quebec nat. assembly, we find that bill 150 is
for either a vote on sovereignty or the best offer Canada can make since
Meech Lake.  This is what Bourassa is arguing most time (..we can't get more)
and this is what local media are demonstrating as false (by making
obvious BOubou caved in for instance).

PQ can be elected with a mandate to prepare sovereignty (whenever this
means full independence or shared sovereignty with some asymetrical
federalism) because of the very nature of law 150 : a referendum on
the best offer that could be made.  If Quebec rejects that offer because
it is not enough, then whatever was said about the vote (i.e. why vote no),
Canada can made a better offer and there is no choice except sovereignty.

>
> NOW, if the referendum is passed (YES), can anyone please show (not tell) us
> without a doubt that Qc will not ask for more powers (etc) next year.

I think Boubou declared that this was just a step and that there will be
more discussion later.  Is later meaning next year or after election?
I would say later is October 27th.  

> much in TROC media ?? Or is complacent TROC thinking that they finally
> understand Qc ?? ) The current deal does include future negotiations on a

CSQ or CHQ will understand better Quebec the day most of people
interested in understanding Quebec will know enough French to read
directly French litterature or understand TV shows.  That is, when they
won't need an intermediate to get Quebec point of view.  Just in this
group, there is a small number of anglophones (in proportion) who fully
understand French (to give an idea of how much CHQians understand French).
Obviously, in this net, non-francophones are privileged as they can
get directly opinion of francophones (while not always with the better
wording possible or sometimes after translation by Tom).

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:51:32 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <14003@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca> alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes:
>> From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
>> In the present case, they are asking for the moral authority
>> to proceed along the lines described by the Charlottetown Accord.
>
>	Then why bother asking us now?  

  You can think of a better time?

>	I understand those who wish to vote OUI.  There is not
>	much of a choice.  My support for NON is because I object
>	to being cornered, blackmailed, browbeaten when there is
>	no urgency, no crisis.  The desperados are creating the
>	crisis.  They are scared.  As they should well be.

  The timing of this vote was set over 18 months ago, by the Quebec
legislature. The legislatures of enough of the provinces setup their
own referendum requirements that not consolidating everything into 
one big countrywide event would have been asking for a permanent
and ongoing crisis mentality.

  No one (especially the QUIs) is particularly ramrodding anything.
In fact, I specifically remember most of those on the NON side asking
for exactly this sort of thing when it looked like no agreement would
ever be possible.

  Moral indignation is an interesting, but somewhat transparent political
weapon, especially when used by the hypocritical or those with selective
memories, ie those that use it most often.
---- 
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
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:51:39 GMT

Some postings have said or implied that under the Canada Clause,
individual rights are not recognized as a fundamental characteristic
of Canada.

This is incorrect. The text is:
	
	2. (1) The Constitution of Canada, including the _Canadian
	Charter of Rights and Freedoms_, shall be interpreted in a 
	manner consistent with the following fundamental character-
	istics:
		[...]
	    (f) Canadians are commited to a respect for individ-
	    ual and collective human rights and freedoms of all
	    people;
		[...]

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics