HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Has Your Busy Schedule Kept You From This - Denis? was Re: How about this - Denis!?
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:16:38 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

One frequent poster to this net seems to have a great deal of time in which
to make posts proclaiming that Canada was based on the racist domination
of the French Canadian. In one post he even stated that the anglo's in
Canada regard themselves as a Master Race like the NAZI's and
so of course could not accept French or Aboriginal cultures.

However his busy schedule seems to have kept him from responding to
the claims below. The actions of Canadians of both cultures in forcing
the British to accept the Frecnh culture in the government seems to
falsify your claims of a socoety based on domination, doesn't it Denis?

Please take time from your busy schedule to reply. One less post documenting
anglo-racism would be all that it would take.


In article <12609@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
|I would like to see the reaction of one of the frequent posters to this
|board to this. You keep saying that the French culture within Canada
|was persecuted by Anglo dominators. These historical incidents are
|evidence that this was not so.
|
|So how about it - Denis - amy comments or do you agree that the
|French Canadian politicians of the XIXth century were influenential
|in shaping the government of Canada as a protector for the Frecnh
|culure?
|
|In article <12604@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
|}
|}This was the point of the rebellions of 1837-38. It was the desire of the
|}residents of Canada to be reflected within their local government.
|}To discount this in favour of some idea of British manipulation is
|}to discount the direction of Canadian history.
|}
|}The British ministries did wish to govern Canada according to British interests.
|}However the ministries which followed Durham's report would not have it.
|}The British wished to appoint councils to further their own interests.
|}The Canadian politicians insisted that these ministries have the
|}confidence of the legislature.
|}
|}As a particular example, the British govenor Sydenham attempted to
|}exclude French Canadians from the legisaltive council (cabinet).
|}This was unacceptable to Canadians and Frech reformeers entered the
|}council. Durham (and the British) attempted to exclude the French
|}Canadian people from their government. Canadians as a whole would not
|}accept this and forced the British to concede on this and to concede on
responsible government.
-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada (WAS :Re: Criticizing "My Canada includes Quebec")
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:26:43 GMT

In article <402@catnix.UUCP> michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond) writes:
>pierre@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Pierre Rouleau) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.224135.19029@pandora.matrox.com>
>>thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>> > As for "doing something to save Canada," I am hereby
>> > announcing my candidacy for the position of King of
>> > Canada.  On guard, Rheal and  Peter!
>>
>>SAY WHAT ! ?  none of you guys are qualifed for this;
>>who do you think you are ?  The idea is to replace
>>Q. E-II by another QUEEN ...
>>                   ^^^^^
>>I propose Mitsou.
>
>
>Pas besoin de Mitsou. D'une part elle est deja occupee ailleurs et
>d'autre part, c'est, moi la reine.  Il ne manque
>que le Prince consort pour s'occuper de mes trois jolies
>princesses.... :-)

NO NO NO NO!  This whole thing started up because people objected to
having a foreign-born Queen!  So you're disqualified!  (Mind you,
people might not object as much to a Swiss-born Queen as they do to one
from England.)

Besides, I WAS FIRST!  All these people trying to cash in on MY
wonderful idea...

On the other hand, your three lovely princesses do outnumber my two,
but mine are lovelier.  :-)

(Sheesh, and my plan was to create a symbol of unity.  Then all these
pretenders to the throne pop up with their conflicting claims.  Ya
just can't win...)

King Rhealist I - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Kings don't need disclaimers
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Radio stations in Quebec, Western Canada
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<CLAMEN.92Aug12212036@BYRON.CS.CMU.EDU> <Bsz6Cr.LJE@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:00:44 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <Bsz6Cr.LJE@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

   In article <CLAMEN.92Aug12212036@BYRON.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
   >
   >Although allocation of radio spectrum is currently an exclusively
   >federal power, that might be changed soon.  In any case, there is
   >probably nothing unconstitional with Manitoba setting up
   >provincially-subsidized German and Ukrainian radio networks.  Quebec
   >and Ontario, for instance, have provincially funded French language
   >networks.
   >--
   >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 15213-3890, USA

   [1] There is no relation between having a provincial radio or TV subsidized
   network and the power to enact rules or to choose who will get the
   authorization to broadcast.

True.  But I am sure that a province could request a licence from the
CRTC, just like Quebec did when they were setting up R-Q.

   [2] What are these Quebec and Ontario RADIO networks?  Except Radio-Quebec
   (despite the name, it is a TV network) and TV Ontario (2 networks),
   I don't know any provincially funded RADIO network!

I was thinking about the TV networks; my language was ambiguous.
--
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 15213-3890, USA
From: hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Time to dissolve confederation...
Date: 20 Aug 1992 15:31:56 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <rleroux1.714291108@sol.UVic.CA> rleroux1@sol.UVic.CA (Roger Leroux) writes:
>I think with all the ballyhoo that's been going on lately, the resentment
>that Quebec is going to generate (whether they get more or less than they
>want/desire/deserve) from this latest set of constitutional haranguing,
>that perhaps the best solution for this entire mess would be to dissolve
>confederation entirely.
>
 You've got my vote.

 Either make the current Canada better (not worse, as the current
 constitutional talks seem to be doing), or break it up and let the 
 parts see if they can do better. 

                                  Myron Hlynka
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: income tax rate in ca
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:06:11 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug13.711.8742@dosgate> "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com> writes:

   Randy Armstrong writes:

   RA>Trivia: The US is the ONLY major industrialized without a GST,
   RA>(Europeans have had it for years but they call it VAT and is at
   RA>least 15%). It is the most economically sensible form of
   RA>consumer tax.


   I agree.  I just wish they'd take the GST *off* of reading materials!
   Does anybody know if most European countries tax books, newspapers and
   magazines?

The state of Pennsylvania taxes books, and it doesn't even have a
GST/VAT. 
--
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 15213-3890, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: Governors-General (was Re: God Save your Queen)
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 14:29:45 GMT

In article <L17DPB1w164w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>
	[...]

>> This is great, Yadallee arguing to dispose of the
>> monarchy!
>>
>> (yeah, yeah I know that's not what you meant, but this was
>> too much fun to pass up).
>>
>  Excuse me, but we elect our representative, why not choose who Her Majesty's
>representative democratically. Let's start a 20th Century trend. As for your
>staring phrase - NOT!!!

And where will this "trend" spread to?  Perhaps to England itself?  But that
would mean that the monarchy would have to be elected.  And what would poor
Lizzie do if she were turfed out of office?  Perhaps become a barmaid?

Dave, it's ridiculous that you propose the election of the Governor General.
In the first place, the position is purely ceremonial.  In the second, it
leads to the absurdity of an elected monarch...
-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Last week in Canadian History/La semaine derniere en histoire canadien
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:40:02 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <CLAMEN.92Aug17225539@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>
>Aug 13  In 1848, the 1940 Act of Union was amended to repeal a clause
>	that stated English was to be Canada's only official language.

Please note that this was a formality. It had been recognized that
both English and French had places in the government with the 
appointment of the first ministry of Baldwin and Lafontaine.
Before 1848, French was spoken in the legislature. It was
even spoken in the speech from the throne.

Durham had tried to suppress the French culture in Canada. This
was successfully opposed by the Canadian Reformers. The British
government had attempted to restrict Frech members from entering the
council (cabinet) and the speaking of French in the legislature.
The Reformers insisted on a government responsible to the legislature
(and not to the UK government) and drawn from both cultural groups.
A government could govern only with the confidence of members from
both Canada East and Canada West. The UK was forced to acquiece to
these demands since doing otherwise would make Canada ungovernable.

This can be interpreted in two complementary ways:

a) Canadians had a sense of a separate identity (from the UK, US,
France etc) even in the earliest days.

b) this identity was based on the mutual respect and toleration of
the two cultural groups. It was recognized that each cultural group
was supreme within its own cultural affairs.


Now a frequent poster to this board keeps denying this and makes
assertions of domination * not the originator of this thread *
However when confronted with these events, the poster who has
made several hisorical assertions chooses to remain silent.
We can wonder why?

-- 
i.sinature
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: That pathetic "includes Quebec" slogan.
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:45:10 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <Bt6Hyy.FGv@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <CLAMEN.92Aug16232609@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>Actually, in 1980, the question was not "Do you want to be part of Canada"
>but do you want a new kind of federal deal (in a very long sentence).
>And the No party was said that a No would give anyway a new deal!

This is incorrect (not that this is surprising considering the source).

The 1980 question did not ask for a new federal deal. It asked for a
MANDATE to begin negotiations on sovereignity association.
It was an insipid question designed to find some way in which to get the
electorate to vote yes.

It was a question to allow the government to BEGIN to negotiate the
details of an undefined concept. Even this would not pass.

-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Canadian Collectivism
Organization: University of Victoria
Distribution: can
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:36:06 GMT

I wrote in support of Crawford Killian because I believe he was
writing about one of the key assumptions in the current social
discourse in this country that many are leaping over when
wrestling over more pressing concerns.

Is Canada a nation of citizens equal under the law or a collection
of groups combating for their own welfare?

If citizens are to be considered on their own merits, then there is
no need for special clauses for special privileges for special groups.
Rights either apply to all Canadians or none.

Otherwise, we enter our recurrant squabble over which groups deserve
special status, how we define these groups, and who will speak for them.

As Crawford stated, these groups become an enterprise founded on
maintaining and fostering the grievance (sexism, racism, etc.)
that bore them.

While working collectively towards any beneficial goal is a basic 
human right I wouldn't want to deny anyone, I object that the 
organizational efforts of many of these groups are funded through 
the public purse.
The Reform Party is correct that people should sustain these causes 
through their own efforts.

Many of these groups blatantly misrepresent their public support.
Some Canadian women vehemently oppose the National Action Committee 
on the Status of Women on many issues.  Yet, NAC representatives 
are continually presented as the authority on women's issues.

There was a time when governments collected tithes for a state
approved religious organization along with your taxes.
I am sure that most of us would be arguing that it was wrong 
because it infringed on the freedom of all -- not apologizing
that they did some fine things with your money...

A IDLER
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: The Hegemony Continues
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:48:10 GMT

In <1992Aug21.065122.25961@ee.ubc.ca> kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland) writes:
>We *were* completely ignored.

That's a pretty negative viewpoint.  The new senate will definitely be
elected (with the possible exception of Quebec) and equal (by virtue of having
the same number of senators from each province).  The only point you can
dispute is whether or not the new senate is effective.  

>Regardless of how accurately these numbers reflect population, the fact is
>that Ontario and Quebec will exert 55% of the political clout, and there 
>will be no counteracting form of regional representation.  

You are neglecting to point out that Quebec and Ontario currently have over
60% of the population.  Since each province has the same number of senators,
the smaller provinces INCREASE their share of power in the joint sessions
of Commons and Senate while the large provinces LOSE some of their power.
The effect may not be as dramatic as you would like but it is there!
-- 
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
"Why can't we just forget about our constitutional problems and go canoeing?"
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Radio stations in Quebec, Western Canada
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:15:19 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

>hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka) writes:
>
>>> 800 CJAC  A  Clear channel
>
>>It must have some trouble getting through the powerful CKLW station 
>>in Detroit/Windsor at frequency 800. 
>

Sorry for the mistake.  I remember have caught PJB on 800 and thought it
was a clear channel.  PJB is in Netherlands Antillas.  Probably a night
where both CJAD and CKLW were down.

It was in the good old time where I was trying to catch radio stations
from far away.  I just check in my WRTH of 1980 (the one that wrote my
name in page 370).  In 1980, CJAD was rated U4 AN7, U4 means a directional
antenna days and nights (thus avoiding other stations, probably beamed
North-South) with a different pattern.  AN7 means 24 hrs/day.  Was 50kw
day and 10 kw night (clear channels are always 50 kw).

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rleroux1@sol.UVic.CA (Roger Leroux)
Subject: Time to dissolve confederation...
Organization: University of Victoria
Distribution: can
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:11:48 GMT

I think with all the ballyhoo that's been going on lately, the resentment
that Quebec is going to generate (whether they get more or less than they
want/desire/deserve) from this latest set of constitutional haranguing,
that perhaps the best solution for this entire mess would be to dissolve
confederation entirely.

We would distribute the national debt by proportion of population and then
any of the former provinces who wished to form a nation could, and those
who did not could go their own merry way.

Yes, in the short run it would make life miserable for a great deal of
people. In the long run however, all the hassles we have now where the West
feels betrayed by the East, and Quebec feeling imposed upon by everyone and
bilingualism problems etc etc etc would all be gone.

As for the native issue? Give them their land (i.e. settle all land claims)
and then they can either join with a new federation as equal members, with
the same privileges and obligations of every other citizen, or do their own
thing.

Not necessarily realistic, but an interesting philsophical viewpoint
nonetheless (IMHO). Comments?

Roger

-- 
Roger Leroux          | "Climate is what we expect; weather is what we get." Me
rleroux1@sol.uvic.ca  |	"Everybody lies about sex." Lazarus Long
----------------------+ "Six of one, half a dozen of the other." Number 2.
rec.motorcycles DoD#43| Be seeing you...
Xref: sparky can.politics:6027 soc.culture.canada:5885
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wednesday, 19 Aug 1992 14:13:16 EDT
From: Peter Gogolek <GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
 <SMITH.92Aug10122030@gramian.harvard.edu> <jstewart.713465217@cunews>
 <92223.150051GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1992Aug17.200811.18325@pandora.matrox.com>
 <92231.164741GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1992Aug19.154516.25963@pandora.matrox.com>

In article <1992Aug19.154516.25963@pandora.matrox.com>, thood@corvus.matrox.com
(Thomas Hood) says:
>
>GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Peter Gogolek) writes:
>  [stuff deleted]
>
>>However, an elected Monarch is not an impossibility, and in fact
>>has historical precedence in the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania and
>>is current practice in the Vatican.
>
>Electing the monarch _is_ an impossibility because she has _a priori_
>the sovereign authority upon which democratic process and legitimacy
>are based.
>

   We must be speaking different languages.  Something that has
happened, and continuous to happen, cannot be an impossibility.
The Pope is an elected monarch.  The King of Poland and Lithuania
was an elected monarch.  How can this be impossible?

   The election of the monarch is simply the mode of succession.
It in no way affects the role, power and privileges of the monarch.

Peter Gogolek
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: kpicott@alias.com (Socrates)
Subject: Re: Labatts/Molsons
Organization: Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:22:15 GMT

In <WARKENTI.92Aug17141543@syscad8.CAE.Mitel.Com> warkenti@CAE.Mitel.Com (BJ Warkentin) writes:

>...Of course the average Canadian beer drinker,
>who insists on drinking the stuff at 34 F, probably cares more about
>the trendiness of his/her brand of choice than the taste...
...
>If enough people and hence buying power boycotted the biggies, their
>offerings would change. Simple supply and demand.

Why would the people with the buying power boycott the biggies when they are
getting exactly what they want (lots of flesh, ice cold temperatures, and the
illusion that drinking the same 'light' beer that muscular well built models
carry around on commercials somehow nullifies the existence of their 50 inch
beer belly)?

What me, cynical?
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome": Update
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:21:43 GMT
Organizarion: Rhinoceros, chargez!

ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias) writes:
>
> Great!  So "F*CK THE LANGUAGE LAWS" signs are legal...  Hm.
>
> Denis, I leave it to you to come up with a French language translation...


Bon.  Je ne m'appelle ni Denis ni Denise, mais comme la traduction
c'est mon domaine .. :-)

	MERDE AUX LOIS SUR LA LANGUE

PS:  Mais surtout :

	Merde a` tous ceux qui nous empe^chent de vivre en paix
	et en harmonie, a` commencer par nous-me^mes.


--
Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP
(514) 671-8820				   OU :	michele%catnix@cam.org

"L'or est le socle du savoir, le trone de la sagesse; mais si vous
confondez le socle et le savoir, il tombe sur vous et vous ecrase."
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: income tax rate in ca
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 08:35:08 GMT

stephanie fysh <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com> writes:
>I agree.  I just wish they'd take the GST *off* of reading materials!

Actually, a much better GST would be one with an even broader base
and a lower rate.  Every special-interest group wants an exemption,
and the narrower the base gets, the higher the rate has to be and
the more the distortion on the economy.

Reading materials should (in my view) not be free of GST.  Nor should
food.  Nor should drugs and medical devices.  (For political reasons,
of course, this will never happen.)

There is a GST credit system (paid through the income tax return) to
cover off the effects of GST on the poor.  If that's insufficient, it
should be enhanced.

David Sherman
Editor, "Goods and Services Tax, Annotated"
Xref: sparky can.politics:6062 soc.culture.canada:5924
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Absolute Madness...
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:57:13 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

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

>Our first ministers have gone mad...they are actually talking
>about getting rid of representation by population in the
>House of Commons...

I will follow up in "The tentative agreement of August 19th."

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com