HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Fete Nationale du Quebec
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:23:09 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Sep1235002@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>In article <Btx74v.DG9@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>   Obviously, before 1976 (1980?), I have not seen any anglophone
>   fighting for the right of francophones out of Quebec.  They
>   tolerated some situation, but never promoted the French.  ANd if
>   some did, they were some few that they were like talking in desert.
>
>Pierre Trudeau, perhaps?

No no no no!  In THIS case, Trudeau counts as a francophone (because,
by definition, anglophones never promote French).  It's when Trudeau
opposes separatism that he's an anglophone (because, by definition, the
francophone Quebecois are united in their desire for a country of their
own).

Did I get that right, Denis?  :-)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Future "Projections"
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:24:31 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Aug29.152604.11596@ccs.QueensU.CA> hallin@QueensU.CA (Aksel L. Hallin) writes:
>
>	Practically, the current politics of Canada dictates that the 
>prime minister and half the cabinet will be from Quebec (that has been the
>case for my political memory, with only a brief interlude) and there is
>no reason that Quebec should expect that will change, unless it is tired of
>running this large and unruly nation.
>
>Aksel 

Quebec is not ruling Canada at all nor is there any rule that dictates
PM and half the cabinet are from Quebec.  It is just based on number
of seats for government party.  If Quebecois are enough intuitive and
vote on the right side, it is just a random fact.  If BQ get a lot of
seats in the election (BQ is in head of Quebec's voting intents), then
in the next government, Quebec will be less present.  That's all.

Quebec is not ruling.  If it were, Quebec would have changed the 
Charter of Rights so that bills 101 and 178 would not be jeoparded.
Most of discussion arised not because of what these bills promoted,
but because of the notwithstanding clause.

-- 
  \_\    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: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: It's racist, Separation is unavoidable
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:03:44 GMT
	<SBO.92Sep1212154@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
	<1992Sep2.153241.13745@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 2 Sep 92 15:32:41 GMT, nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) said:

  > >Donc, aucun accord conclus par Bourassa ne pourra me
  > >satisfaire. Pas plus que si c'est Mulroney.

  > La, aucun argument.  Moi non plus, je n'ai confiance ni en Bourassa, ni
  > en Mulroney.  Deux manipulateurs avec plus d'ambitions que de
  > principes.

Comme la plupart des politiciens d'ailleur!

  > Malheureusement, ce sont eux qui nous menent.  Et pourquoi?  Parce que
  > les gens (les Quebecois surtout, soit dit en passant) ont vote pour
  > eux, alors nous n'avons que nous-memes a blamer.  (J'utilise ici le
  > "nous" collectif.  La volonte du Quebec, le "nous" aime des
  > nationalistes, les voila en action!)

Ben moi je me dis qu'il n'est jamais trop tard pour bien
faire. Il suffit d'aller a l'encontre de leur position. On
finira par les balancer par la fenetre. Evidemment, ca ne
regle qu'une partie du probleme. Il faut ensuite les
remplacer, ce qui n'est pas tellement evident. Peut-etre que
je devrais me presenter comme candidat a la succession...

C'est la strategie que j'ai adoptee. 
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Tom Gray who is ra*
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:06:39 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1624

From article <LABACH.92Aug26085922@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>, by labach@acs.ucalgary.ca 

 Terence Michael Labach suggests:-
> In article <BtLD6z.454@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
> (Denis Beauregard) writes: 
>> >Well Denis has not been able to reply so I hope we have seen the
>> >last of his Canada bashing posts with references to Anglo
>> >"Master Races" like the "NAZIs"
>> 
>> You forget, in your racist limited mind, that this was in a response
>> to a posting comparing the Quebec laws to South Africa's.
> 
> I'm sure he didn't really mean that Quebec's laws were like South
> Africa's.
> 

  Yes - he really did mean that Quebec's law regarding access to
   publicly funded schooling are like South Africa's!

   See last posting!


  N.B. I have made no comparison between Quebec and S.A.

       Neither have I made any comparison between Quebec and NAZI
       Germany or the regime.

       I have declared that I consider parts of Bill 101 racist.

       I have delared that I consider part of Bill 101 similar
       to S.A. law.

  N.B. I do not accept any argument about the difference in extent
       or circumstance in which the law (type) is applied in Quebec
       or in S.A. as justification for its application.

       A racist law is a racist law - whatever the "circumstances"!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:6251 soc.culture.canada:6158
From: richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin)
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Organization: Carp Systems International, Kanata, ON
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:26:06 GMT

If Quebec wishes to maintain its population, I believe that it
must rely on immigration (I think that's what the censae have
been hinting at), and if Quebec refuses to accomodate the desires
of those who wish to speak an official language, immigration to
Quebec will decline.  Tough for Quebec.
(ha ha!  Can't flame me!  I'm going away for a year!  Bye!
Actually, it's been interesting--thank you for the thoughts.)
Richard.
-- 
Richard Martin               	richard@csi.on.ca
If I had anything witty to say, I wouldn't put it here.
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Referendum > mandate (was: ... Separation is unavoidable)
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:49:41 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1557

From article <1992Aug31.160556.19150@pandora.matrox.com>, by thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood):
>
> ...
>
> No one will be in the mood for constitutional upheaval after October 26th.
> _If_ the referendum passes, separatism will be discredited for at least
> another ten years.  A P.Q. government will have no mandate to negotiate
> independence and the Government of Canada will be quite right to refuse
> to discuss the matter.
> 
> Separatists had better concentrate on winning the referendum.

  If the referendum goes against the package it will not give the
  separatists a mandate to negotiate independence.

  I noted in an earlier posting that there are other reasons for
  rejecting the package.

  Here are a couple:-

  1) A bad deal for the English community in Quebec.

  2) A bad deal for French communities outside Quebec.

  3) A significant anglophone vote against the package is certainly
     not an indication of a call for independence. A mandate derived
     from that would be dishonest. (What would one expect?)

  and others.

  I'm not saying those are my reasons, I'm offering them for
  possible discussion. I'll state my position when I've had a
  chance to see what the package means for "English Ethnics" like
  me.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Promotion of French outside Quebec (was Re: Fete Nationale ...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:59:00 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <Btx74v.DG9@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>>In case it's hard to tell - it wasn't anglophones that created the
>>celebrations, and it's not anglophones that are celebrated.
>
>Because they DO NOT ACCEPT the French reality, the fact they are
>a minority in Quebec that was privileged for years and that they
>will be no more.
>>
This is what you're really looking forward to, isn't it, Denis?
The day when there will be no more anglophones in Quebec.  If
this is part of what you call the "French reality," are you
really surprised that anglos do not accept it?
>
>Obviously, before 1976 (1980?), I have not seen any anglophone
>fighting for the right of francophones out of Quebec.  They
>tolerated some situation, but never promoted the French.  ANd if
>some did, they were some few that they were like talking in desert.
>
How much attention were you paying to what was going on outside
of Quebec?  The Laurendeau-Dunton Royal Commission was established by
the Pearson government in the early 1960s.  I think the work of
this commission and what followed from it, including the Official
Languages Act of 1969, did a lot more for the promotion of French
outside Quebec than the election of the PQ government in 1976 and the
referendum of 1980 (I presume that's what you are referring to when you
mention those dates).

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 29 Aug 92 19:20:17 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Universite de Montreal

plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante) writes:

>So, you insult quebecois because they support discrimination based on
>the education of the parents on the question of accessibility of english
>schools, yet you would support discrimination based on country of origin,
>which, IMHO, is worst (think about it, all immigrants now have the
>same rights as the majority in Quebec; should we change the law to do
>this, an immigrant from, say, Germany, would not have the same rights
>as one from the U.K. or the US.).

>So, Mr Potter, aren't you as racist and fascist as you say we are?

>---
>Frederic Plante



>origin, which, IMHO, is worst  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Je me demandais pourquoi j'avais une impression de deja vu.  J'ai ecris
ce bout de phrase deux fois!


---
Frederic Plante
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier)
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:06:37 GMT

In article <92241.224616BURGER@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Bob Burge <BURGER@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>Should not all provinces have the same set of powers? ...

If a jurisdiction is devoluted to the parliament of Quebec for the province
of Quebec only, and to the federal parliament for other provinces, what
difference does it make for citizens of other provinces?  Nothing is gained,
nothing is lost.












-- 
Marc Frappier				| e-mail: mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca
Department of Computer Science          |
University of Ottawa                    | phone : (613) 564-9232
Ottawa, Canada, K1N 6N5                 | fax   : (613) 564-9486
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:03:35 GMT
	<12752@grayt>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 2 Sep 92 15:01:41 GMT, grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) said:

  > |I MADE AN EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND YOU.  I LEARNED ENGLISH.
  > |WHEN WILL YOU LEARN ENOUGH
  > |FRENCH TO UNDERSTAND FRENCH-SPEAKINGS????   YOU ARE RACIST, and

  > Why on earth do you think I don't make an effort to understand
  > posts written in French. Complicated constructions and literary
  > conventions do make it difficult for me to entirely sure of
  > the true intentions of the writer. I therefore hesitiate to reply
  > but only attempt to place the post in context. I have two French/English
  > dictionaries at my terminal to assist me.

If you don't learn French it will of course be hard to
understand!!!

People have been arguing, some time ago, that French is not
harder to learn than English. You did learn English. You
should therefore be able to learn French.

However, you can do whatever pleases you. You don't have to
learn French.

People who are trying to read the French posts can politely
ask les grenouilles (I had to slip one in :-)) to make
shorter sentences, ask people to reread at least once their
post (which is probably never the case). You can ask
clarification on parts that you do not fully understand. I'm
sure people will be patient. If more people keep putting
pressure to have good French on the net, maybe there will be
more good and easier to read posts, and less traffic on the
net (but I'm obviously dreaming :-))!

If people say: "I'll wait till my French is good before I
use French" then you can rest assure that they will never
use French, because they will never learn it!

It seems that one of your fear is that people will nitpick
on your quotes because of your lower French skill. That
surpises me, since you seem to be telling people that good
will always prevail. I suspect that this situation is quite
common. Of course there are people who can't, or almost
can't figure out what in hell is in a French post (usually
as much as in an English post: nothing most of the time
:-)). But there are also those anglophones who are afraid to
be given a hard time on the basis of there French skills
rather than the content of their posts. So instead, they
leave it to the francophones to "work hard".

Oh Well! Enough serious stuff for this month.

Now it's time to relax. I'll get the junk food and watch TV
for the rest of the evening, just like a good 'ol couch
potatoe. Now THAT'S life :-)
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:52:45 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <CLAMEN.92Aug27225457@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>In article <Btnv6o.Hw4@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>   A wide majority of Francos favor a similar structure.  In national
>   days celebration, most Quebecois will celebrate Quebec National Day
>   while _anglo-quebecois_ will celebrate Canada days.  I think this
>   is meaningful.
>
>Christmas Day is a holiday in Canada (and Quebec).  Most Canadians
>(and Quebecers) celebrate Christmas on Christmas Day.  Me and my
>family do not celebrate Christmas.  Does this make me any less a
>Canadian or a Quebecer?
>
>
>--
>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

If I remember well, Friday is a holiday for jews and saturday for arab
(or is it saturday/friday?).  Christmas and Easter are the few (the only?)
christian holydays.  SInce you said you were a jew, I understand that
you are not celebrating a christian holiday.  But, if there is a jew
holiday, you will probably celebrate.  Thus, you act like a jew.

The fact that Quebecois celebrate the Quebec day and not the Canadian day
make them feeling more Quebecois than Canadian, no?

-- 
  \_\    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 !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: It's racist, Separation is unavoidable
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:32:41 GMT

>Donc, aucun accord conclus par Bourassa ne pourra me
>satisfaire. Pas plus que si c'est Mulroney.

La, aucun argument.  Moi non plus, je n'ai confiance ni en Bourassa, ni
en Mulroney.  Deux manipulateurs avec plus d'ambitions que de
principes.

Malheureusement, ce sont eux qui nous menent.  Et pourquoi?  Parce que
les gens (les Quebecois surtout, soit dit en passant) ont vote pour
eux, alors nous n'avons que nous-memes a blamer.  (J'utilise ici le
"nous" collectif.  La volonte du Quebec, le "nous" aime des
nationalistes, les voila en action!)

Le Rhealiste - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Parlant pour moi-meme
Xref: sparky can.politics:6214 soc.culture.canada:6118
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Has Denis Been Struck Mute?was: Has Your Busy Schedule Kept
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:51:41 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Aug24.094121.2364@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
}From article <BtEs64.DKI@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
}> Tom (Gray) : 
}> You're annoying me.  I don't see why I shall respond to your texts.
}> I already said I found your articles and opinions inspired from some
}> kind of racism.  I don't see why I should take time to translate
}> what you wrote (yes, I have to make an effort to read your article,
}> but you made no effort to write them in French).  The day _you_
}> (not another translating for you) will write in French, that day
}> I will answer you.
}> 
}> 
}
}
}  I don't blame Denis for not answering when he can't. He would have
}  nothing to gain by doing that.
}
}  This is not the first time he had ignored or refused to answer a direct
}  question.
}

You see I exepected Denis to respond becasue the historical cooperation between
the French and English Canadians in the Union was in direct contradiction
to the usual fanatsy which he tries to spread here (ie the domination
of the French Canadian). 

You see Denis has an advanatage when the historical facts don't support
his myths, he makes up a fantasy. Now whether Denis responds or not,
he knows that none of his little imaginings (especially when they impute
perfidy or bigotry to historical characters or events) will go unchallenged.
-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:13:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.194008.1402@csi.uottawa.ca> mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier) writes:
>Why is asymmetrical federalism so unacceptable to the rest of Canada?
>Why is the devolution of powers to Quebec perceived as a "privilege"?
>

If there is significant asymmetrical federalism, you will have members
of the Quebec National Assembly voting and legislating on an issue
as it pertains to Quebec, and Quebec MP's in Ottawa voting on the same
issue as it pertains to the rest of Canada not including Quebec.

Asymmetrical federalism means the MP's would also have to be
asymmetrical and there would have to be limits on what issues
Quebec MP's could vote on in Ottawa, in the amount of money they 
earn, in what Cabinet positions they could hold, and whether they
could be PM or certain members of the Cabinet.

Without limitations Quebec MP's would be voting on issues that only
pertain in some areas to the rest of Canada, and this would be
undemocratic from the point of view of citizens in the rest of 
Canada.

This is why assymmetry has to be limited or very carefully constructed
so as to not undermine the equality of MP's.

Opting out with compensation is how all provinces can be treated
equally, federal spending power curbed, and the result being somewhat
asymmetrical, since Quebec would have and manage its own program.

The other problem with assymmetry is that it undermines support
for equalization...with significant asymmetry, equalization becomes
taxation without representation for citizens of the have provinces.

Gerald
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: It's racist, Separation is unavoidable
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:21:54 GMT
	<Btv8wo.55y@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> <1992Sep1.035603.12216@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 1 Sep 92 03:56:03 GMT, nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) said:

  > In article <Btv8wo.55y@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
  > >
  > >[2]  The Canada will not appear as unified.  A No from Canada will be
  > >interpreted as a No to Quebec in Canada.  A Yes from Canada will be
  > >interpreted as an agreement more in favor of Canada than of Quebec.

Ah! Un article en francais! Voila enfin une occasion de me
manifester :-)

  > Aucun accord ne pourrait te satisfaire - tu t'opposes a tout accord,
  > par principe.  Meme ta sainte independance ne pourrait te satisfaire.

Je devis un peu, mais voici ma position sur l'entente
provisoir sur la constitution:

        Il est certain que je vais voter NON, car je
        n'accepte absolument pas l'attitude de Bourassa.
        Il avait signer le rapport Allaire. On pouvait
        certainement se douter que c'etait de la frime.
        Neamoins, je considere ca inacceptable. Il aurait
        au moins du avoir l'honnetete de mettre cartes sur
        table et dire ce qu'il pensait reellement. Il ne 
	l'a pas fait. Mon vote est donc NON a Bourassa.
        Mon vote tiendra tout simplement pas compte des
        offres. La seul chose qui compte est Bourassa, et
        c'est: "Non, j'en ai assez."

Donc, aucun accord conclus par Bourassa ne pourra me
satisfaire. Pas plus que si c'est Mulroney. Apres tout
Mulroney a le culot de dire que c'est plus que les demandes
traditionnelles du Quebec. Mulroney ne pourrais meme pas
dire pourquoi. (Il y a d'ailleur un article d'un prof de
mcgill qui a ete publie dans La Presse et qui montre que
l'accord est en fait inferieur au demandes traditionnelles
du Quebec. Cette article pourrait sans doute etre interprete
differemment selon la personne qui lit, comme c'est le cas
pour tout les questions politiques :-)). Si Mulroney disais
"C'est un bon accord" alors la je pourrais dire qu'il est
"honnete" parce qu'il n'exagere pas grossierement les faits.

--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
----------------[ Je parle aussi francais ]-----------------
                                     '