HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henriksen)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 12:58:29 GMT

In article <Bvt4r7.I27@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
(deleted)
|> : > 
|> : > Hear hear! I think the NO forces should be forced by law to put forward their
|> : > own proposals so that we have something to pick apart. I'm sure that if every
|> : > NO group put forward a proposal, it would be defeated easily by more than 50%
|> : > of the population.
|> : 
|> : So I can't vote NO unless I can come up with something that more the
|> : 50% of the people would vote yes to?  Or is this law only for 'lobbyists'?
|> 
|> Actually, what I meant was that those who vote "NO" should have to say what
|> they don't like, thus we could fix things.
|> 

Lots of people have pointed out things that are wrong with this accord.  One that 
particularly irks a lot of people is the special rights based on race (i.e. Quebec 
and the Indians).  Isn' racism noble in the cause of political correctness?  Of
course, PC'ers don't label it racism but that is what it is.  So, why don't 'we'
fix the accord before we enshrine the disaster into law?

By the way, for all you 'hold your nose and swallow it - its good for you' types,
what exactly is it you are voting yes to?  The agreement as the politicians saw it
or the agreement the legal text spells out (they have significant differences)?
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 04:40:08 GMT

In article <Bw2rJ4.Kwo@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
> <Sundry stuff deleted>
>He's arguing that if we kick Quebec out of Canada, there will be more power
>for Westerners.

Well, that's pretty axiomatic:
Assertion A): Kicking Quebec out of Canada reduces the number of
voters in Eastern Canada
Assertion B): Kicking Quebec out of Canada does NOT reduce the number of
voters in Western Canada
Assertion C): The House of Commons is based on representation by
population

QED, if Quebec leaves Canada, Western Canada holds proportionately
more power in "Canada Mk II".

It's not as if there's much to be ARGUED with here...

>Its pretty easy to confuse the issues by calling something "Nazi"
>isn't it? 

Definitely.  And if people keep up the "Nazi" thread, I'll start
posting REAMS of quotes from Mein Kampf to show how little the
arguments REALLY relate to anything that Hitler planned or did.  That
shut things up pretty quickly the last time...

If you're going to compare present day politicians with Adolf Hitler,
you'd BETTER back it up with DIRECT quotes from either primary or
secondary sources.  (I keep a copy of William Shirer's "The Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich" near my computer for precisely this purpose.)
None of this blathering about "Oh, I think his policies in <BLAH> are
repressive.  Hitler did some repressive things...  So and so's just
another Hitler..."

If the politician you want to trash isn't guilty of at least a minor
genocide involving a hundred thousand deaths, DON'T compare him to
Hitler.  You minimize the gravity of Hitler's crimes by doing so...

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           | <-- Finger this account
University of Ottawa              |
Master of System Science Program  |
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:37:37 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <Hf2-BY-@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>
>>I don't see why PEI (any other province) should be allowed to be so
>>over-represented NOW, but that the POSSIBILITY that Quebec becomes a
>>bit over-represented in 40-50 years is that evil.
>>
>PEI is over-represented by _two_ seats today.  Given recent demographic
>trends and the tendency of the HoC to grow, Quebec will likely be
>over-represented by _twenty_ seats by the middle of the next century.
>It's the _magnitude_ of the over-representation that's the issue.
>(And that's why Quebec's extra 18 seats it gets immediately is not
>such an issue -- they only bring Quebec from being somewhat under-
>represented to somewhat over-represented, and that only for about
>five years (until the post-2001 redistribution).)
>
Another way to look at it is that PEI is overrepresented by 100 %
today, while Quebec may be overrepresented by 20 - 25 % at some
point in the future.  I agree the latter would be unfair.  But
why is the former not even more unfair?

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: roholdr@ccu.umanitoba.ca (R Ross Holder Jr)
Subject: Re: UTILITY IN POLITICS
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:51:18 GMT

In <16125@mindlink.bc.ca> Alan_Schianni@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Schianni) writes:

[Stuff deleted.]

>Considering what side
>to support, I trust in utilitarianism to rectify such normative problems.
>However, both sides do not promote the greatest happiness.  So, I suppose I
>will resort to voting No simply because to produce such a document is a
>wasteful attempt to divert attention away from the economy and other social
>issues that are in a present crisis.

I think J.S. Mill (my favorite utilitarian) would say something like;
"Shame on you!  This accord detracts from the very pinnacle of utilitarian
thought: individual liberty."  At least, that's what I think he'd say.
Clearly, the idea of collective rights being entrenched into our Constitution
threatens the right of certain individuals' liberty.

[More stuff deleted.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Ross Holder, Jr.  INTERNET: roholdr@ccu.umanitoba.ca  (Winnipeg, Manitoba)
       Department of Philosophy                The University of Manitoba
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Ross Holder, Jr.  INTERNET: roholdr@ccu.umanitoba.ca  (Winnipeg, Manitoba)
       Department of Philosophy                The University of Manitoba
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: A few of Trudeau's points
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:33:26 GMT

In article <WARKENT.92Oct6103739@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>Someone wrote:
>> All you need is one person to dissent from the collective, and
>> collective rights will infringe the rights of the individual.
>
>It is trivial to state that living in a community constrains individual
>action.  If it did not, then the community would quickly disintegrate.
>The question is finding a good balance between collective and individual
>rights.  The people posting to this group obviously accept some constraints
>(unless they are posting from jail :) and it galls me to see the
>objectivist/randroid taint running through their hypocritical arguments.

Libertarians and Objectivists are not the only people who advocate
individual rights.  One should view economics/liberty as a 2-D grid
where Libertarians and Objectivists are at the far end of the
individual rights and capitalist end of the spectrum, and other people
like Pierre Trudeau are social democrats, at the far end of the
individual rights axis, but socialist-leaning.  (I am a strong supporter
of individual rights, and am slightly right-of-center economically,
and a supporter of things like public health insurance and pensions
and other social programs, which make me an anathema to Libertarians
and Objectivists).  Nevertheless, I am certainly more "libertarian"
than the mainstream political parties in Canada, and probably most
Canadians, although true Libertarians and Objectivists would disown
me, and rightly say that my socio-economic views are 
blasphemy to them...(I know because they have told me so).

The Libertarian and Objectivist argument is basically irrelevant
to the Canadian debate, because none of the strong advocates of
individual rights, are including individual 'economic' rights
(such as property rights) as part of the argument...and those
who would argue for such rights (a few Tories, but certainly not
Red Tories like Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney) are collectivist
with respect basic issues of liberty and individual and democratic
rights.  The advocates of liberty in Canada tend to be of the Pierre
Trudeau school which mean they tend to be social democrats, and
this school is on the decline, with the collectivist left (Bob Rae
and Audrey McLaughlin and Joe Clark), and the collectivist right
(Brian Mulroney and Robert Bourassa) in ascendancy.  Jean Chretien
will be whatever he has to be to become PM...don't ask him to
stake out a position on anything...he's waiting for the coronation.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Bill 40 (Labour law) was Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:37:01 GMT

In article <92280.195857SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>The word "extort" appears in this discussion when referring to
>Union bargaining. This makes no sense, for two reasons: first,
>refusing to cooperate with another person until they accept your
>price is not "extortion". The supermarket sells me food at (their)
>fixed price; that's not extortion.

It's extortion when companies don't have the ability (and now the right) 
to shop around for employees.  

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 05:22:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.225619.4310@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>BTW, as for the press "faithfully" reporting the RP's "rhetoric". Here is
>an excerpt from an editorial on the Oct 7 Globe & Mail. It is about the
>debate between Manning and NDP leader Audrey Mclaughlin in Guelph two days
>earlier. The editorial was, in general, favourable to McLaughlin, but it
>contains one relevant tid-bit:
>
>**************************************************************** 
>"The surprise was Ms. McLaughlin's competence as a debating opponent to
>Mr. Manning, who clearly has the best mind among the national party
>leaders."
>****************************************************************

Just this morning Preston Manning was asked at the end of an interview
by a CBC Radio journalist for his comment on just that editorial. He
declined to say anything.

Manning has directed his fine mind towards reinforcing people's
grievances and channelling the blame for those grievances towards a
source of his own choosing, all the while conveniently offering weak or
even incorrect reasons for linking the two (the grievance vs. the
source).

Hitler also had that very same magical gift.
Hitler was a _very_ smart man too.

Listen to this week's Double Exposure. I got a good laugh out of it.
Your second chance to hear it would be Sunday afternoon on CBC Stereo.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Watch the Journal this week
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 19:36:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.164926.28254@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Thus, it would appear that Bliss believes that the Canada Clause, in a
>sense, sets the pace of the entire Charter; and thus when a case involves a
>human (individual) right up against a Canada Clause collective right, the
>latter will be given the advantage; Ditto for aboriginal government. So,
>he seems to indeed be supporting Trudeau's view of a hierarchy of rights.

Yes, that seems to be the case.
I recommend the Globe insert today (Wednesday) on the Canada clause.
Look particularly at the section: How Would it be Used?  Note that the
notwithstanding clause remains within the Charter and that vetoes are
being put in place (this not mentioned in the Globe article) 
that will keep it there.

I have copied excerpts in can.politics.

Frank.


Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individu
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:42:31 GMT

In article <12OCT92.17592629.0072@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>>
>I don't see _anywhere_ in these amendments where it "specifically
>entrenches the rights of blacks," as Matthew claims.  These
>amendments apply to *all* Americans.  It is no doubt true that
>the intent of these amendments was mainly to ensure greater rights
>for blacks, but they do not set blacks up as a distinct class of
>people with special rights.  In this respect, theses amendments are
>quite different from the proposed amendments to the Canadian
>constitution concerning aboriginal people.
>
>Tom Box


I agree with Tom. Not only are the American Constitution and amendments
quite different, but also quite superior to the Canadian proposal.

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:09:45 GMT

Don A. Bowman (dbowman@griffin) wrote:
>Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
>: 
>: IMHO, the status quo is better than the proposed deal. Others may disagree
>: and vote accordingly, but I do not see why I should vote for a package
>: that I view to be inferior than what we have now.
>
>I don't disagree with you about the status quo, however I disagree with your
>hypothesis that if we ignore the problem it will go away. I feel we must vote
>in this deal and use it as a framework for future discussions.

I don't believe it will go away if we vote no (I also don't believe that it
will go away if we vote yes, at least not in the long run). However, my
view is that we should send the politicians (or a constituent assembly)
back to the drawing board, hopefully after a breather, until they do come
up with a package that is *clearly* superior to the status quo. And if they
screw up again, we send them back again. If, after trying for a while, it
is not possible to come up with a widely acceptable package, then maybe we
should take the hint and look for non-constitutional methods of dealing
with the more pressing concerns. 

It seems to me that something is quite wrong when a solid majority of
citizens cannot enthusiastically embrace a package. It also seems that
something is wrong when a deal is "sold" one way in one part of the
country, and "sold" the opposite way in another part of the country. Given
that we are talking about the soul of the country, I want a package that I
can feel good about, nothing more and nothing less.

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky can.politics:8426 soc.culture.canada:7489 mtl.general:347
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,mtl.general
Subject: referendumdum
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:39:42 EDT

Alea jacta est... or, as they say out West, them cookies they
have crumbled.  We all know the referendum will be a total loss
for the politicians of the YES side.

How do I know this?  Tea leaves, buffalo feces, snake bile,
lizard intestines, and I can read/hear the news.

All polls tend towards a NO majority accross Canada, and a
total victory in BC, Quebec and possibly Alberta.  But polls
have been wrong and there are still a few days to go.  But
one thing never misses: rat instinct.  There are 3 symptoms.

Politicians of all sides are beginning to hint that Mulroney
is cramping their style (symptom one: finger pointing).

A couple are hinting they may very well reconsider if things
don't improve soon; I am talking about Getty and Wells (symptom
two: jumping ship).

Bourassa never misses an opportunity to tell all within earing
distance that this is a referendum, not an election (symptom
three: hedging).

Made up your mind yet?


--
 Alain
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Will the BM'er throw out the first pitch in the World Series?
Organization: The Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:33:36 GMT

Will the BM'er even show up at any of the games, and risk a resounding
chorus of boo's?  I don't think he even showed up for last year's ALCS
games.  What a total loser.
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: p.r. again (was re: Oops
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:24:59 GMT
	<WARKENT.92Oct14172817@ltisun14.epfl.ch>
	<1992Oct15.193224.26210@thinkage.on.ca>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch's message of 16 Oct 92 11:08:19 GMT

I wrote:
>... if imperfect
>proportional representation has been accepted by generations of Canadians,
>maybe it is because Canadians recognize that our country requires such
>compromises to exist and that, in the Canadian view, perfect proportional
>representation is not terribly important.

David Tanguay replies:
>For most of western voting history women were not allowed to vote, so, by
>your reasoning, it must be okay to deny them the vote. Hell, for the vast
>majority of history we did not have any form of democracy...

You are right: habit is not a justification and I do not wish to
employ it as such.  I simply present a bit of history and suggest
an interpretation; make of it what you will.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Will Mulroney pull another PET? (was Re: Will Mulroney resign?)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:13:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.121805.14030@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>
>But how long will that last? Will the Demoncrats win the 1996 USA
>presidential election? If the Republicans win again then, does that
>necessarily give Mulroney a reason to come back to run again?

It sort of depends whether Clinton will be a successful president or
not...but the Republican Party is likely to fracture after a Bush
defeat.  The glue that held the Republican Party together were the
Reagan Democrats and the young libertarian-free-enterprise group.

Bush has alienated both of these groups, which were essential to
what was the "emerging" Republican majority which is now quickly
"disappearing".  If Clinton is a successful president, the Republican
Party is dead...it will be down to its core of rich country-club
moderates, the religious fundamentalists, and the neo-Nazi law-n-order
types...and the libertarian-free-enterpise group.

It would just make more sense for the libertarian-free-enterprise group
to form its own party with Kemp as its candidate.

The Republican Party will only survive if Clinton is a rotten president,
which means it might be possible for a quick comeback provided Kemp
can win the nomination, which is not a sure thing...

>Especially since the Conservatives losing the next election will cause
>them to re-evaluate their party platform and I predict a drastic shift
>towards the center as they gear themselves up for a late 90's
>election.  Pat Buchanan and David Duke have had their share of the
>limelight already.  After losing the upcoming election the Republicans
>in the USA will also alter their strategy into a far less extreme one.
>It's simply political reality, since otherwise they will again be
>vulnerable to a third candidate just a bit more centrist than
>themselves dividing the vote and spoiling the election.
>

Losing will do the exact opposite...Bush will have lost the base upon
which the future Republican Party was being built, and the remaining
factions will likely have a civil war among themselves.  Even though
Jack Kemp is the only hope for the Republican Party (well maybe William
Weld), he and other reasonable candidates will have an incredibily
difficult time getting nominated.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Will Mulroney resign?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:16:08 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <1bl4ojINNevq@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
: >I am all-but-certain that if there is a Yes vote in every province,
: >Mulroney will resign. If there is a No vote in one or more provinces
: >he is more likely to hang on as Progressive Conservative leader.
: >
: 
: The referendum is irrelevant to getting rid of Mulroney....if he doesn't
: leave we can vote him out next year anyway....Mulroney promising or not
: promising to leave doesn't change the fact that the Charlottetown Accord
: is a bad deal...
: 
: The place to deal with politicians is in elections...it is best to cast
: your vote in the referendum based on an informed judgement on the
: content, and not be distracted by other issues.  A YES vote on the 26th
: means we have to live with the Charlottetown abomination forever.
: Mulroney, if he doesn't resign, will have to face election next year.
: Deal with him then.

You missed his point. He is predicting what Mulroney will do, not saying
"Vote YES to get rid of Mulroney".

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics