HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 20:42:42 GMT

In article <13101@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <BvG2rJ.zu@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>>I'm Canadian.  I'm not committed to collective rights.  In fact, I strongly
>>oppose them.  Therefore that statement is false.  At least one Canadian (me)
>>is not committed to collective rights.
>
>There is a word for a Canadian who doesn't believe in collective
>rights: an American.



What is a collective right?
Where does it exist and not over-ride individual rights?


Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:32:19 GMT

Tom Gray (grayt@Software.Mitel.COM) wrote:

: >Individual liberties remain protected under the Charter. Which rights are you
: >concerned about losing?
: 
: Well for one - mobility rights. Tradespeople resident in Ontario (or anywhere
: except Quebec) are prhibited from paracticing their craft in Quebec.
: The Economic "Union" clause which entrenches the right of provinces to make
: such regulations will constitutionally protect such injustices.
: 

It is not the constitution that prevents people from working there -- it is
provincial laws. The SEU isn't going to alter this positively or
negatively.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rph@sq.sq.com (Pontus Hedman (VE3RPH))
Subject: Re: Norway (was: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 20:39:12 GMT

clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.154431.10754@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>    Clark and Andre have mentioned Beirut and Yugoslavia, but not Norway
>    or Czechoslovakia (knock on wood).
> 
> Norway was already a country separate from Sweden.  It had its own
> currency, its own bureaucratic elite.  It was however 'ruled' by the
> Swedish monarch, who they had to kill to attain independence.

*Ahem*. As I said in private email to Stewart Clamen almost TWO YEARS ago
when he made this very same allegation on the net (as retrieved from my
mouldy old mail files):

| Date:	Thu, 14 Feb 1991 13:59:00 -0500
| From:	Pontus Hedman <rph@sq.com>
|
| As I recall, the last time a king (Gustaf somethingorother?) was
| assassinated in Sweden was 1798 (or thereabouts). Previous to that, king
| Carolus XII was shot by his own battle-weary troops in a battle in Norway,
| but the location was incidental.
| 
| There was then a long lull in the assassination front until Palme was
| shot a few years ago.

Norway gained full independence *1905*, about as quietly and bloodlessly
as Canada did in 1867.

Mr Clamen! Write 100 times on the blackboard:

	The Norwegians did NOT kill any Swedish Kings to gain independence.
	The Norwegians did NOT kill any Swedish Kings to gain independence.
	The Norwegians did NOT kill any Swedish Kings to gain independence.
	The Norwegians did NOT kill any Swedish Kings to gain independence.
	The Norwegians did NOT kill any Swedish Kings to gain independence.
	The Norwegians did NOT kill any Swedish Kings to gain independence.


> --
> 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: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:57:53 GMT

marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm) writes:
: In article <1992Sep21.225456.20015@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: [...]
: >Any astute politician would have waited until a better political climate
: >ensued before bringing the document [the constitution] over.  But noooooo...
: >Pierre wanted to grab this historical prize for himself.  Pretty foolish.
: 
: So the man is human.  What a revelation!  What politician does _not_ want to
: leave his mark on the country?
: I'll give him this much: he was trying to leave the country with a good, fair
: and equitable constitution.  

This sounds like a virtual carte blanche for politicians to do whatever the
hell they want, because, after all, they're just human.  

I'm continually amazed of the lengths at which Trudeau fans will rationalize
and forgive His Divine Holiness's behaviour and actions.  Absolutely amazing! 
Do you grant other politicians such as Mulroney or John Turner the same 
degree of moral leniency?  

: In the meantime, Mulroney is trying to leave the
: country with a set of perverted amendments which pander to special interest
: groups...

Yes, it is so damned perverted to give aboriginals self-rule.  And the Quebecois
simply don't know what's good for them, do they?  

No, the current accord is far from perfect.  But all this current fiasco is
an effect of Trudeau's fatal ego.

-- 
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
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: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:34:41 GMT

In article <365@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>If the consequences of voting No are so horrendous, according to the bankers,
>party leaders, and other assorted Jeremiahs, then why on Earth have responsible
>leaders put the country in a position to do itself such damage? Would they put
>a loaded pistol in a kindergarten and tell the kids not to pull the trigger?

This sums it up perfectly (at least the fear and threats)

The Oct 26th deadlin was arbitrary, and could have been moved.

The whole process looks exactly like Meech, only with TV cameras allowed,
and some token consultation of the public.

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 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                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:56:28 GMT

In article <BvEA5z.FHI@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
|>(In fact, if I do think someone is stupid, then I would find it pointless
|>debating with them)

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: New social programs if Charlottetown passes
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:56:37 GMT

dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: National shared-cost social programs are a thing of the past...
>: with Charlottetown.  It is misleading to suggest otherwise.
>: 
>It is misleading to represent your opinions as fact. Since the Accord does
>not say, "no more shared-cost programs" I don't think you can argue this. In
>fact, the Accord specifically entrenches national shared-cost programs.
>Social or otherwise. 

On this point Gerald is right. While Charlottetown does not absolutely
prevent new national social programs, it makes them extremely unlikely.
Think about what it means to say "the Government of Canada must provide
reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not
to participate in a new Canada-wide shared-cost program that is established
by the federal government in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction,
if that province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible
with the national objectives."

Why would the federal government want to pay for a program when in some
provinces the provincial government will get all the credit?

Furthermore, consider the meaning of "a program or initiative that is
*compatible* with the national objectives". It doesn't have to achieve
those objectives, just be compatible with them.

For me, this provision is the most troubling in the entire Accord;
without it I would have no hesitation in voting Yes. (I may vote Yes
anyway, but it's a much more difficult decision.)

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Quebec's percentage of the population
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 13:38:14 GMT

In article <hq1-h2#@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>In any case, the 25% guarantee will become more and more important as
>the next century progresses.  By 2041 Quebec will have dropped to about
>20% of Canada's population.  By that time the House may have swelled to
>more than 400 members.  Quebec's 25% guarantee would then be getting it
>at least 20 extra seats in the HoC.  
>
>As Canada continues to grow and Quebec to shrink as a proportion of the
>total, this disparity will only get worse.

Here's a new thought (and boy, do we need some in this constitutional
muddle):

   If the referendum/plebiscite passes, and everything gets sorted
   out, perhaps the increased stability will halt the decline in
   Quebec's population.  Perhaps more people, businesses etc. will
   consider locating in Quebec.  Perhaps people might move there
   from other provinces.  Perhaps more people will immigrate.

   Then the 25% guarantee may not come into play at all, because
   Quebec may not drop below 25% of the population.

   Something to chew on...


Andy
-- 
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
:  Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp)  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)   :
:  "AT&T thinks Usenet is an Underground organization" - are we really?   :
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Where's the $ (?!)
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:25:15 GMT

Get out the plunger!  The dollar's in the toilet! (79.5)
They'd better bring back Leonard Nimoy for an episode of
In Search of: The Canadian Dollar...

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: That was Zen, This is Now
Organization: SFU CS, but I speak only for myself
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:06:27 GMT

A monk asked Trudeau: "Does Quebec have a distinct
society or not?"  Trudeau said: "Mu."

--J.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:08:12 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: >     C'mon Preston and Jacques, Judy and Rafe.  Sit down and
: >give it a try, and just see if you can all sign your names to
: >anything better.
: >
: 
: This is a fraudulent argument...ordinary Canadians for the NO
: vote would believe that it would be just as illegitimate for
: Preston, Jacques, Judy, and Rafe, to make a deal as it is
: for Lyin' Bryan, Joe, Mikey (I can't add) Harcourt, Robert,
: and Bob.  The alternative is an elected constitutional convention
: to propose constitutional options and text only...leaving
: the ratification to the people and legislatures.
: 

This is not a fraudulent argument. Our PM and premiers already have made a
deal. We've just watched them do it. They did it because it was good for
Canada. They did it because the electorate demanded it. Sure they were an
unlikely alliance, but they rose above personal differences to agree. I'm
sure the NDP premiers would have loved more on the Social Charter. I'm sure
the PC would have liked more for Government, etc,etc,etc. The fact is that
they agreed. They compromised. They rose above personal differences,
ideological differences, and compromised. This compromise is the best for ALL
Canadians. The problem with the individual NO groups is that each solution is
only the best for a SINGLE group.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: svanegmo@zeno01.math.UWaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:15:28 GMT

> Wrong. Nothing gives them more rights, it simply better protects their
> rights. Where do you see that someone has a right you do not? Collective
> rights simply provide a way of helping traditionally disadvantaged or
> discriminated against groups.

Putting aside the fact that 'better protecting their rights' is newspeak for 
'giving them more rights' -- you said so in your next sentence -- enshrining
'collective rights' of one group over the rest of the society is not the way
to achieve equality.

To take an example from American history, consider the time when blacks were
slaves, and were treated as non-people.  The objective of accepting them fully
into American society was acoomplished, not by inserting a clause into their
constitution specifically granting blacks 'collective' rights of some sort.
It was accomplished by actually following what their constitution already said
(or even, implied): that people are free to live their lives (life, liberty, etc.)
free from all forms of discriminaton against their race, ethnic background, etc.
That is enshrining the rights of the INDIVIDUAL; not of a collective group
of society with some common trait.

I do not think for a moment that a Quebecois deserves rights that I do not have;
that 'Quebec society' is somehow superior, or deserving of more rights, than
'non-Quebec society' (whatever those two terms may mean) is greatly offensive.
Same goes for any minority group.  I think that all people in Canada can
get along quite fine in their lives with minimal government interaction.
Protecting the rights of a particular group of society, supposedly to prevent
discrimination against them, only polarizes that group even more from society,
as people who are borderline mebers of this group seek to include themselves in it
in an effort to gain those rights, which makes the group all the more vocal.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: SFU CS, but I speak only for myself
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:19:36 GMT

     I'd like to see Preston Manning (noted No campaigner) and
Jacques Parizeau (noted No campaigner) sit down and negotiate
what they want to do with Canada, particularly in the area of
French language rights.

     After Manning and Parizeau smilingly decide to split up
the country, I'd like to see them sit down again and negotiate
exactly how they're going to split up land, resources,
responsibility for social programs, transfer payments, and so
on.  I'd like to see them do this without racial slurs or
threats of military action.

     I'd also like to see Judy Rebick (noted No campaigner) and
Rafe Mair (noted BC No campaigner) sit down and decide exactly
how much the Constitution should promote the equality of the
sexes.

     We live in a pluralistic democracy, wherein people have
opinions all over the political spectrum.  The Constitution has
to be a compromise among all interested parties; it's inevitable
that people on one side or another of some of the major issues
of our time will not like it.  The only thing those people have
in common is that the Constitution is not formed in the image of
their opinions.

     C'mon Preston and Jacques, Judy and Rafe.  Sit down and
give it a try, and just see if you can all sign your names to
anything better.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: The courts continue to take away our self-defense capability.
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:38:23 GMT

A little while ago the court (Ontario I guess) ruled that stun-guns
are illegal.  I was thinking that these devices could be made safer
by having a detachable wrist band that, once the device is pulled out
of the owner's hands (by an attacker), that the device would deactivate
itself and emit an alarm sound.  Basically what I'm saying is that these
devices *could* be made safer by making it so that it couldn't be used 
against it's owner.

But when I flew my theory that the courts generally want to take away
our ability to protect ourselves to a friend of mine, he said that
"get some of that new pepper spray.  It's organic, etc, etc". 

Well, this morning on CBC radio, I heard a story that an undercover
police woman went into an army surplus store (in TO I think), bought
a pepper sprayer, and then charged the store with selling a prohibited
weapon.  If the pepper sprayer was marketed/sold as a device to ward
off bears and other animals, then, so the story goes, it would be
legal to sell.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: David Crane on the Accord
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:58:12 GMT

In article <BvCKzz.IB4@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>The major banks have given predictions of what they feel the results of
>disunity are. You seem to believe a NO vote does not lead to disunity. If you
>believe this, then the bank report is good to you. That you believe the bank
>report shows economic uncertainty only proves that you KNOW that a NO vote
>will cause disunity. Discord. Conflict. Dissension. Separation.
>
>The banks were very careful to avoid being political. They say that Unity (in
>my mind a YES vote) will lead to investor confidence, increased employment,
>etc. Disunity will lead to lack of confidence, increased unemployment, etc.
>I'm sure you can't argue with this premise. (Do you really believe that
>disunity would be better? If so, why?)
>

The trouble is that a YES vote is the vote for greater disunity...it
doesn't solve the Quebec "problem", exacerbates Western alienation,
and leaves the country less able to meet the political and economic
challenges of the future.

We will ultimately have to challenge the Quebec nationalists, but
appeasement is not the way to do it...we have to offer Quebec
the chance to make an informed choice about their future...i.e.
we have to lay out in detail the Canadian option and lay out
in detail the sovereigntist option in a systematic way and in
a non-threatening and non-emotional environment...and let 
Quebeckers choose.  Appeasement is not a solution...we lose
Canada and hurt Quebec by slow disintegration.

Gerald
Xref: sparky can.politics:7547 can.general:4669 soc.culture.canada:7019
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: How I'm Voting on Oct. 26
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:29:04 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Sep29.212941.8009@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>
>>There is nothing wrong with strategic voting, as Mathew has described.
>>
>
>For example, suppose in a federal election my favourite candidate
>is from the Green Party, but I know, through polling information or
>just common sense, that the winner will be from either the Liberal or the
>Conservative Party.

No, it is not because of either common sense or polling information.  It is
because every other voter is making the same (IMHO silly) decision to
vote "strategically" instead of for who they support.  As a result, they
all vote for either Liberal or Conservative, when in fact they all
prefer Joe Canada.  As a result they get the Liberal or Conservative,
whine about the gov't and do the same thing at the next election.  Now,
if they would all forget about this silly strategic voting, and vote for
Joe Canada, He would win.  Got it?  Good!
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Elected Senate (was Re: Why vote NO?)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:18:22 GMT

In article <02OCT92.18795899.0066@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.160747.11813@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>The prime minister, subject to a few requirements, can appoint anyone
>>to the Senate, he could easily appoint people nominated by the provin  ces
>>or elected by the provinces.  It doesn't require a constitutional
>>change...after all Stan Waters ended up in the Senate...and he was
>>elected.
>>
>Note, however, that these senators would not be elected for a
>fixed term, but would hold office until they turned 75.  Not
>many people would consider this desirable.
>
>Organizing province-wide by-elections every time a senator turned
>75 or dropped dead might get rather expensive.
>

If provincial laws were used to run the elections, the law could require
a "promise" or "oath" that if elected, the candidate would agree to
resign and run for reelection in 5 or 6 years.  Democracy can be
improvised...all it requires is honorable people.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:28:14 GMT

svanegmo@zeno01.math.UWaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
>To take an example from American history, consider the time when blacks were
>slaves, and were treated as non-people.  The objective of accepting them fully
>into American society was acoomplished, not by inserting a clause into their
>constitution specifically granting blacks 'collective' rights of some sort.
>It was accomplished by actually following what their constitution already said
>(or even, implied).

You've got it exactly backwards. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments
to the U.S. Constitution specifically entrench the rights of blacks.
Even with these amendments, blacks are far from "equal"; it's scary
to think what the U.S. would be like without the amendments.

Mathew Englander.
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Elected Senate (was Re: Why vote NO?)
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:24:12 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Oct1.160747.11813@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>The prime minister, subject to a few requirements, can appoint anyone
>to the Senate, he could easily appoint people nominated by the provin  ces
>or elected by the provinces.  It doesn't require a constitutional
>change...after all Stan Waters ended up in the Senate...and he was
>elected.
>
Note, however, that these senators would not be elected for a
fixed term, but would hold office until they turned 75.  Not
many people would consider this desirable.

Organizing province-wide by-elections every time a senator turned
75 or dropped dead might get rather expensive.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics