HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Referendum and the west
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 02:10:59 GMT

In article <5004@disuns2.epfl.ch> riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese) writes:
>
>"apland@mala.bc.ca" writes:
>>Thanks to those revealing the referendum results. If you want to get some
>>idea of the alienation those of us in the West experience then look at 
>>how the government is controlling the results.  They have declared it a
>>National referendum (even the one on Quebec) and have threatened the
>>cable, TV, and radio stations witjail terms if they reveal results
>>before 8:00 PM Pacificic Time.
>
>Give me a break.
>What a pathetic display of unfounded self-pity this is.
>Election blackouts exist so that people will THINK and vote BY THEMSELVES.
>Didn't you have anything better to do before the results were out?

Oh how wonderful and benevolent of the wise government to look out
for my interests, by restricting by right to freedom of information,
and the journalists and publisher's right to freedom of speech.

I think for myself, and I don't need the government to keep me in
the dark. I am not that concerned by poll reults, but on PRINCIPLE, I
object to the government restricting information in this way.


Last night, Washington, Oregon and California helped to carry Clinton
into the Whitehouse. I doubt if anyone switched their votes just because New
York voted for him. (Americans stick to principles like free speech, and don't
let arbitrary govt. decrees override their right to free speech, just
because the govt thinks it might be nicer for them).


>
>Marc Riese
>Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
>Lausanne


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:50:57 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Mulroney resignation watch

OK, post guesses as to what day BM the PM will resign. Also take a jab at
guessing his successor. If you don't think he'll resign, what will be the
date of the election?

          My guess: He'll resign 15 February, successor: Joe Clark
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: duquet@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Jean-Remi Duquet)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Organization: Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, Qc, Canada
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:17:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.211408.29426@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>
>A while ago I got this pamphlet from APEC.
>

Thanks for posting it! very interesting indeed.

>2) A Canadian Corridor
>(picture a corridor of land roughly 50 miles wide that runs down the middle
> of the St. Lawrence river  from Montreal to Quebec city, then runs along the
>south shore all the way to the Gaspe penninsula.  This roughly indicated
>corridor actually does isolate the extreme southern Quebec and the Gaspe
>penninsula from the rest of the province)
>
>Canada must retain a corridor of sovereignty with her maritime provinces and
>the Atlantic ocean, including the St. Lawrence seaway, the TransCanada
>Highway, the Canadian national railway, and the sovereignty to sustain her 
>transcontinental air and telecommunications services.
>

Pretty funny! It means Montreal and Quebec (and everything in between) would
determine if Quebec should stay in Canada but wouldn't be part of the
country they (hypothetically) voted to create! In other terms, Montrealers 
would vote to get rid of Lac St-Jean, Gaspesie, Beauce and Cantons de l'Est...

>3) Federalist Quebec:
>
>Canadians living in Quebec must be allowed to show, by regional referendums,
>whether their regions would choose to remain part of Canada.  If Quebec can
>legitimately separate from Canada, then Federalist regions can legitimately
>separate from Quebec.
>

How nice! And what exactly is a region? What if me and my 5 neighbours vote to
join to France instead? Can we secede??? And if Sept-Iles choses to remain in
Canada, would you create another 50 miles corridor that runs north of the
St-Lawrence River?

Does the opposite apply as well, that is regions in Canada voting to join
an independant Quebec?

>Is Partition Legal?
>Section 42(1)(f) of the Constitution Act, 1982, gives Canada the right to
>partition Quebec.
>

Hey guys, let's include another section that would allow us to partition 
the States and Russia as well, so we can have some fun!

>If Quebec Nationalists aspire to create an independant state, they must 
clearly understand that such is achievable, BUT ONLY ON CANADA'S TERMS.

Nice way of conducting a negociation! Now let's be serious. If Quebec
choses to become a independant country, I don't think Canada has any say
in that. Where Canada comes into play is when time comes to NEGOCIATE
the share of the debt, the price of federal possessions on Quebec territory
(and the share of quebecers on these same institutions in CHQ). Such a
statement only implies that an imposition of Canada's conditions w/o regards
to Quebec's opinion will degenerate into an open conflict with all the
risks it implies. But maybe this is what APEC wants...

>Well?  Do they make any credible points?

Not a single one, from my point of vue. Not even a decent approximation of one.


Jean-Remi Duquet
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Genocide treaty?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 20:12:03 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends

In article <mjenkins.721000630@cunews> 
(Michael Jenkinson) writes: 

> Can anyone give me a lead on a genocide treaty that Canada signed in
> the Netherlands? (I don't know how long ago)

        Was this for or against?

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 13:14:18 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>There is *no* legal mechanism in the BNA Act or Constitution for
>secession.
>
True, but irrelevent.

If you take the stance that "the decision by province X to secede
was illegal", then you are forced into accepting that the residents
of province X are still citizens of Canada -- their citizenship
cannot be revoked by the illegal action of any government.  Once
you have that, then all your "ideas" to deal with that province are
also illegal, since they also deny the citizenship of those people.

Even if you accept the legal discontinuity -- allow that province
X is now an independent country -- you then have the problem that
people are losing their citizenship due to the action of a foreign
power -- namely, the country X.  The actions of a foreign country
cannot have legal effect in Canada without the consent of the
Canadian government -- which in this case would be illegal -- and
so all of these people are still legally Canadians.

In my opinion, the only reasonable thing for the federal government
to do in the case of a unilateral declaration of independence by
one of the provinces is to ask all federal office holders/employees
to choose between the two countries -- and perhaps to require those
choosing Canada to renew their oath of loyalty/office.  Only those
choosing the new country would have to resign.  As for ordinary
citizens, I expect we would see a law saying that all those born
in X before the break would have a "right of return" -- the right
to get Canadian citizenship at majority or within a specified
number of years.  I would expect the new country to have a similar
law for people born there but living elsewhere in Canada at the
time of separation.

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:11:57 GMT

Bruce Jonathan Schuck (schuck@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>
>I think Canada should separate peacefully, but I think there should be
>almost zero relations with the secessionist province until
>relationships with our trading partners and political allies are
>stabilized.
>
>Why buy goods and services from a secessionist province when people
>need jobs in the provinces that remain?

Countries trade because it benefits them to do so. Should in the future
Quebec separate I would expect CSQ to immediately attempt to negotiate a
mutually beneficial trade arrangement (along with a multitude of other
things); and in the meantime I would hope that some sort of interim measure
would be taken, e.g., apply the terms of the FTA to CSQ-Quebec trade. Yes,
there would be a lot of hard feelings after a Quebec separation; but I
don't see how it is in anyone's interest to initiate a trade embargo or
war.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,ont.events
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: British governor of Hong Kong will visit Canada soon
Followup-To: can.politics
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 04:21:19 GMT

CANADA NEWSWIRE 11/9
HONG KONG GOVERNOR CHRISTOPHER PATTEN TO VISIT CANADA NEXT WEEK

  TORONTO, Nov. 6 /CNW/ - The Governor of Hong Kong, the Rt Hon Christopher
Patten, will visit Canada from next Wednesday (November 11) to November 14 to
mark the closing of Festival Hong Kong '92.
  The month-long Festival features over 150 spectacular events staged in five
major cities across Canada, and is regarded as the largest overseas promotion
ever organised by the Hong Kong Government.
  The Festival reciprocates Festival Canada which was held in Hong Kong last
year.
  Upon his arrival on Remembrance Day (November 11) in Canada, Mr Patten will
lay a wreath at the Cenotaph at Victory Square in Vancouver, paying tribute to
the Canadian soldiers who helped to defend Hong Kong during the Second World
War.
  During his two-day visit in Vancouver, Mr Patten will meet with the
Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, the Hon David Lam and the Premier of
British Columbia, the Hon Michael Harcourt.
  Mr Patten will also attend a gala dinner, tour the Chinatown, visit the Dr
Sun Yat-sen Garden and the Chinese Cultural Centre in Vancouver.
  Mr Patten will depart for Ottawa on Thursday (November 12) afternoon on
board Government of Canada aircraft and he will stay at the Canadian
Government Guest House in Ottawa.
  After meeting with Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Brian Mulroney on Friday
(November 13) morning, Mr Patten will present an official gift from Hong Kong
to the people of Canada: the traditional 12-metre dragon boat specially made
for this occasion will be donated to the National Museum of Civilization in
Ottawa.
  The Hong Kong-Canada Business Association and Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade
will host a luncheon for Mr Patten, and Mr Mulroney will host a dinner for Mr
Patten on Friday.
  Mr Patten will arrive at Toronto on board Government of Canada aircraft on
Saturday (November 14) morning and meet with the Secretary of State for
External Affairs, Mrs Barbara McDougall.
  After attending a luncheon hosted by Mrs McDougall in Chinatown, Mr Patten
will meet with community leaders and Hong Kong students at a tea reception at
the University of Toronto.
  The Governor of Hong Kong will depart for London, England on Saturday night.
  /For further information: TORONTO OFFICE: (416) 777-2209, George Yuen
(Mobile Phone (416) 417-4932), Terri Lai, Jeanne Woo; VANCOUVER OFFICE: (604)
691-7079, George Yuen (Mobile Phone (416) 417-3932), Stephen Siu (Mobile Phone
(416) 417-4931); OTTAWA OFFICE:  (613) 238-3331, George Yuen (Mobile Phone
(416) 417-4932), Agnes Tse  (Mobile Phone (416) 417-4983), Nancy
Johns-Luckman/
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:43:07 GMT

In article <17215@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>I've just heard an exchange on As It Happens between Brian McKenna, who
>helped produce the docmentary The Valour and the Horror, and a member of the
>Senate. The Senator's line of questioning was 100-proof McCarthyism of the
>most shameful sort, and I am furious that I didn't catch the wretch's name.
>
>Can someone please advise me of the name of this tax-funded son of a bitch. I
>have a bone to pick with him.

Does it really matter? Senator McCarthy was a senator in a real senate, with
real power to ruin people. An old fart on a radio show doesn't seem to be
worth getting upset about. Any you can't vote hime out anyway...
>
>Crawford Kilian
>Usenet: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca
>Internet: ckilian@first.etc.bc.ca
>


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: Quebec
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:46:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct27.140016.13677@bmerh85.bnr.ca> viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca writes:
>
>And racism is not rampant in Quebec?  Talk to the Cree or Mohawks.

Compare the number of Natives being educated in their own language
to that in other provinces and you will find that your remark is
absolutely irrelevant.

>So, you can't understand why TROC takes the position that if Quebec
>wants to be independent then it can bloody well take a number wrt economic
>ties to TROC?  What possible advantage would TROC enjoy from an economic
>union with an independent Quebec?  I can see Quebec's attraction to the
Heard about NAFTA?  Consider similar advantages (considering the positive
effects).

>idea but most economic activity in TROC is North-South (with the exception of
>possibly Ontario).  BC, for example, would see a consumer benefit from the
>economic separation of Quebec.  No more bilingual packaging or repackaging
>of US goods to accomodate bilingual labelling.
>
>There is a consensus.  Most people don't want Quebec to leave but there is
>a limit to what they are willing to pay.  If after all the compromises TROC
>has offered Quebec to stay, it decides to leave why should TROC maintain any

What compromises?  Useless powers?  Veto for everybody so that whatever
Quebec want to do can be blocked by attacking francophones out of Quebec?

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  NOTE: news get in 7 days later.  Please answer/flame by email
\_.-===  Ope'rateur de "Racines du Que'bec" (514) 922-9636 BBS/Genealogie
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Toronto Sun: another case of paranoia???
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:23:26 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BxJ4KM.Eq6@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tdwebste@sparta.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster) writes:
>Quebec Separatist are an enemy of Canada. The Bloc Quebecois have as
>their mandate, the separation of Quebec. Therefore they are an enemy of
>Canada. Remember this comic strip did not attack Quebecois ONLY
>Separatist. 

Canadian Federalists are an enemy of Quebec. The federal parties have
as mandate, the submission of Quebec to Canada. Therefore they are an
enemy of Quebec. Remember this comic stric did not attack Canadians
ONLY federalists.

Does this make any sense? No less than your previous paragraph. You
have to be careful about falsified rethoric like the one you used, it
can lead to justification of unjustificable hatred. If Quebec would
secede, would you hate all quebecois?

Sovereignty is a valid option and should be entitled to the same level
of respect as any other option. "Separatist"-bashing is also people
bashing, and I doubt a lot that the Toronto Sun makes any difference
between Quebecois and Separatists, and even if it did, it isn't the
point. There is no excuse for this type of hatred. And if the Toronto
Sun publishes it, there is obviously a good market for this type of
ideas.

>But Canadians are proud of their country and HATE Separatist. 
>This does not mean they hate Quebecois or wish to impose there culture
>onto Quebec.

According to you, Canadians like only Quebecois if they think like
anglo-canadians and act like them. They like Trudeau/Chretien-like
quebecois. Hatred for "separatists" is not more legitimate than hatred
for foreigners, francophones, etc.

>(Quebec's threating to separate is like a kid holding his breath to get
>his/her way.)

Canadian behaviour is like a kid doing it his way and not taking into
consideration to what his brother's saying.

>In the past the Quebec influence has been a postive one. Through it
>Canadians have greater tolerence and some have learned a second language.

And now we have articles like the one in the Toronto Sun. Great
example of tolerance. 
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: montas@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Hubert J Montas)
Subject: Re: Benevolent Dictators
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:05:40 GMT

In article <1di1r9INNrq8@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>Someone mentioned that Singapore could be considered a benevolent
>dictatorship. According to my grade 9 geography textbook, which even
>then was probably out-of-date, Kuwait is/was a b.d., in that its emirs
>(who take office through heredity, I think) used the country's
>oil revenues for the good of all citizens, creating welfare programs,
>universal education and health care, etc. However, my impression is
>that while Kuwaitis might have it good, guest workers in the country
>did not.
>
>Mathew Englander.

       Right, some atrocities like torture and rape of domestic workers
seem to be more than uncommon in Kuwait. This is so especially now, as
these measures are used to punish those outsiders which may have had
even the slightest link with the Iraqi invasion. Check out October's
issue of Z magazine for more.

       H.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:52:44 GMT


> Christopher Browne writes:
>>> Bruce Schuck (me)

>>>   When it comes to division of the national debt only, I believe in the
>>>   'two nation theory' and Quebec is entitled to 50% of the national
>>>   debt. :)

>Since there's a smiley, and because that's pretty ridiculous, you MUST
>be joking

Not really. My other opening position is based on the responsibility
for the national debt. The national debt was started under Pierre
Trudeau. For 23 out of the last 24 years the PM has been from Quebec,
and the debt was created during the same time frame. BC would be
responsible for .5 years out of 24 [John Turner -- although he really
represented Bay Street] and Alberta 3/4 out of 24 [Joe Clark]

Therefore Quebec is responsible for 23/24 of the debt.
Thats a little too radical I guess. :)

>Obviously you don't think that opening bargaining positions should be
>at all REALISTIC.  50% isn't realistic.  Nor is 10%.

>Something in the range of 18% to 30% is probably realistic.  18 might
>be on the low side - 30 might be a little high.

I think 50% is an excellent starting position since we hold all the
trade cards. With no free trade to Canada or the US, Quebec would sink
really fast.

>I don't much care what the OPENING position is - nobody's likely to go
>with the opening position.  I care a lot more about the FINAL
>position.  And neither 50% nor -50% are likely to be anywhere close to
>the final figure.

I truly believe Quebec will try and stiff Canada with the debt.
Therefore, the opening offer is relatively unimportant.

>If I were the Canadian negotiator, I certainly wouldn't go to Quebec
>and straight off offer to settle with them taking an 18% share of the
>debt - I'd start higher than that.  Maybe by discussing the issue, we
>may be able to come up with a ``first approximation.''

>Starting with 50%, when that is totally unrealistic, is ridiculous.

Too bad you think so.

>I don't want to discuss "opening offers".  I'd much rather talk about
>realistic offers.  They're much more informative.

50% is a realistic offer to a Province that broke up Canada.

Most past and modern 'offers' to secessionists is civil war,
or trial for treason and execution. 

By limiting my "offer' to money I am being 'kind'.



-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:13:08 GMT

robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

>Bruce Jonathan Schuck (schuck@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>>
>>The series implied bomber crews were no better than Nazi concentration
>>camp guards because they burned and killed civilians during their
>>raids over Germany. "Just following orders".

>The way I remember it, the bomber crews were under the impression that
>they were bombing military targets, not civilian targets. It was the
>higher-ups who were allegedly guilty of ordering these arguably immoral
>raids.

Immoral? In comparison to what?

>At any rate, this is what happens once the government starts getting into
>the act and making pronouncements of officially sanctioned versions of
>history. The thin edge of the wedge was started with the criminal
>prosecution & conviction of Ernst Zundel [see disclaimer], and now it is
>not terribly surprising to see the Senate attempt to justify its pitiful
>existence with this witch hunt. When you f*ck with free speech, you better
>be prepared for the fall out.

>disclaimer: At best I regard Ernst Zundel as a person playing with less
>than a full deck, at worst he is an honest to goodness present day Nazi. I
>do not believe anything he has to say re the Holocaust. However, I will
>defend his right to say it, as I defend Brian McKenna's right to make
>documentaries that question the spoon fed version of history. Freedom of
>speech is just too precious a commodity to deal with in any other way
>IMHO.

The Senate has as much right to question McKennas *version* of
history.

Of course, they managed to produce historians who said McKenna was
factually wrong. He didn't produce any historians who said he was
right.

The Senate is under no obligation to allow funding to continue to the
NFB for revisionist history, just as they are under no obligation to
allow funding for someone with Zundels point of view.

Free speach does not include the right of access to the public trough.

McKenna can say whatever he wants , but I resent paying for it.
-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics