HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:37:54 GMT

Hugh Murray (hugh@imax.com) wrote:
>
>> : 
>> : Manning's rhetoric is calm and reasoned...you need not agree with
>> : all of his arguments or policies, I don't, but there are much better
>> : candidates for demagogues in the country than him.         
>> : 
>> 
>
>This is the same Manning whose radio bites start every sentence with:
>
>"The Mulroney deal .... blah, blah............."
>..
>..
>"The Mulroney deal .... blah, blah............."?
>
>This is transparent rhetorical jingoism.  Manning is no better than any
>other advocate in this debate.  Speaking in a boring flat monotone doesn't
>make you "calm and reasoned".

I tend to agree. The deal can be blamed on a great number of people.
Manning is simply trying to capitalize on Mulroney's low standing in a
less than honest manner.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: TV ads for the referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:16:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.140745.16392@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>The arguments in the TV ads sponsored by the "yes" campaign:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>We should vote yes in the referendum, because basically
>nothing is perfect, and really, making constitutional amendments
>is sort of like swinging at a ball in a game of baseball - you've
>just got to take a swing at something that looks good.
>

The proper "way" to think of this commercial is to realize that
Brian Mulroney is the batter...and that we can strike him OUT!

>
>We should vote yes in the referendum, because we have
>participated in every U.N. peacekeeping force, and we are such a
>swell country to help people all over the world like that.

The proper thing to remember about this commercial is that the
countries where we have to send peacekeepers to are those who
have upheld group rights of tribal or nationalistic form, and not
individual rights.

>Are there more advertisements like these?

There is the ad which gives the 1-800 number that lies...and claims
that Charlottetown results in a stronger economic union and common
market through an expanded 121...which of course it doesn't.

Gerald
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: CBC Referendum Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:02:04 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

I watched the 90 minute debate on Sunday Report.  The theme of the debate was
along the lines of: "It is the day after the referendum, and the YES side
won; how will Canada be different?"

I didn't hear any significant positive arguments from the YES side; they
seemed to be spending their time attacking the NO side, or trying to divert
attention from the NO arguments.  One YES side person dismissed all the NO
voters as "malcontents", and something else insulting that I can't remember.
Ed Broadbent blew his credibility as far as I was concerned by trying to
dismiss Quebec's guaranteed 25% representation in the HOC by saying that that
was effectively no different from the 5% minimum of other provinces.

The NO side presented decent arguments...IMO.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Reform ads misleading, ironic
Keywords: penguins, lobotomy
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 20:49:35 GMT

In article <knight.719247776@cunews> knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight) writes:
>As Chris Cobb in the Ottawa Citizen points
>out, this is "at best misleading, and at worst an outright lie". 
>
>  I also find it very ironic that the "Reform" party now says that
>Canada's constitution does not need to be changed.

This last point faces a powerful counter argument in Joe Clark's piece
in the same paper on the same day, on the second last page of section A.

A whimsical but heartening sight greeted me this morning as I walked
out onto the hallway of my apartment. Last night, someone distributed
Reform's broadsheet illustrating why they think one should vote NO in
the referendum.

This morning, every door in my section of the apartment still had their
blurb outside in the hallway, with one of them torn in two. I took
great delight in tearing my copy into FOUR pieces and scattering it all
over the hallway. I had already read it all last night, of course.

:-}

Michael MY Hui  ~{PmCw6w~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Will Mulroney pull another PET? (was Re: Will Mulroney resign?)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 12:18:05 GMT

What are the possibilities of Mulroney rising from the ashes and
getting elected a third time as Prime Minister of Canada, after either
resigning before the next election or losing the next election?

I sense a North American-wide shift towards the political Centre.
(Of course, I personally would prefer a shift to the Left ...)

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?
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.

Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada  <<Democrats for 1992 in USA>>
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,mtl.general
From: rclark@alcor.concordia.ca (Richard Clark)
Subject: Re: referendumdum
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:04:02 GMT

In article <14024@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca> alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes:
>Alea jacta est... or, as they say out West, them cookies they


There are newsgroups for political discussions - use them.

rick clark
-- 
rick clark (rclark@alcor.concordia.ca) | Ban Handguns.
           (CIS 70272,3270)            |
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Quebec restricts freedom of speech
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 22:13:17 GMT

In Quebec, the law governing referendums restricts the amount of money
that can be spent by the Yes and No "sides" of the debate.  The
allocation of each quota is controlled by a committee (one for the "yes"
side chaired by Premier Bourassa, one for the "no" chaired by P.Q.
leader Jacques Parizeau).

The Royal Bank did not distribute its recent report on the costs
of separation in Quebec because it decided it would be illegal under
the law.

Josh Freed has spent a year making a film called Entre Solitudes
about Anglo angst that was originally supposed to be broadcast
on Radio Quebec a week from now.  It was delayed because Radio
Quebec thought it might contravene the spending law  -- this
despite the fact it has nothing to do with the referendum per se.

When the Equality Party objected to the law on the grounds that it
would force them to obtain permission from their arch enemies
on the "no" committee if they decided to fight for the "no" side,
government ministers reassured everyone by saying they would use
the Notwithstanding clause if necessary to protect Quebec's
"progressive" referendum law.

In Quebec "progress" is movement away from individual towards
collective rights -- in this case, the right of society not to be
disquieted by unofficial opinions.

--
Thomas Hood - Bookie
thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:25:43 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: The problem with the current process is that the drafters of the
: amendments are also the ratifiers...which presents a conflict of
: interest and which means the informed debate that is supposed to
: occur between drafting and ratification never occurs.

This is untrue. The ratifiers are We The People. That is what the vote is
about. You are being asked to give your representatives a mandate to ratify.
If we don't give them the mandate, they won't ratify.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Watch the Journal this week
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:48:36 GMT

Myron Hlynka (hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Oct6.130526.991@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: >
: >Bryan Schwartz, a law professor from the 
: >University of Manitoba, believes that the current accord improves over Meech 
: >in many ways, especially in protecting minority language rights. 
: 
: 
: He means OFFICIAL language minority rights, doesn't he? There is nothing
: in the charter for languages of UNOFFICIAL Canadians - like German
: Canadians, Italian Canadians, Ukrainians. 
: 

The Charter already protects all language rights.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:40:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.180401.10606@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>
>     Oui, je me souviens (empruntant une phrase :-)).  Mais
>trouves-tu que Bourassa a signe "n'importe quoi"?  Il a negocie
>beaucoup, ou en secret ou publiquement, et le resultat est si
>beaucoup pour Quebec que le cote "non" menace de gagner en CB,
>par l'argument que Quebec obtenira de trop.

L'argument en CB n'est pas que le Quebec en obtiendrait trop, c'est que
la CB pourrait eventuellement avoir en proportion moins de votes (ou
plus d'electeurs par depute).  Si c'etait vrai que le Quebec a trop
obtenu, l'Ontario et les Maritimes ne voteraient pas oui.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu indetermine'   Mon opinion ? Non !
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Watch the Journal this week
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:36:57 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.164926.28254@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Don Clayton (dclayton@bnr.ca) wrote:
>>I agree with the Brian Ross - the 'hierarchy' argument had no substance.  Yes,
>>the courts will decide for each case, but it seems to me that the Canada Clause
>>is the best part of the deal - a perfect balance between the individuals and
>>societies rights - a perfect reflection of Canada.
>
>After Brian's post I took another viewing of the Journal episode in
>question (I had taped it), since his  recollection of it did not quite
>match mine. Bliss said:
>1) the interpretation of the Charter must be consistent w/ the Canada
>   Clause 
>2) nuances of language important because the language must prioritize
>   rights
>3) we are bound to get difficult court cases where the various rights 
>   collide
>4) every word used in the Charter is an instruction to the judges when
>   dealing with these difficult cases
>
>At the closing he said (this is a direct quote):
>
>"I think this discussion shows, so far, that human rights under the
>Charter are going to be qualified by collective rights under the Canada
>Clause and by the aboriginal order of government."
>
>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.
>-- 
>Jim Robinson

  The fact that the government with the Charter has taken upon itself the
power to define and assign rights also makes it inevitable that there
will be cases where those definitions are invoked and various rights 
collide and one will be forced to make a decision favouring one or the other.

  The question is whether the decision will automatically go the same way
ie in favour of one particular right irrespective of the other factors in
the cases. That one right wins over another is not a class hierarchy, that
one right 'always' wins out over another is.

  Since most cases are based on a balanced judgment of several competing
views, I think you can take all of Bliss' arguments as given and still
come to a completely opposite conclusion. Only time and a consistent
series of court decisions that sets up a hierarchy by overwhelmingly
weighting these aspects in any decision will prove him right.
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Subject: Re: Distinct Societies
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:08:20 GMT

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>In article <1678@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka) writes:
>>Where is English Canada? I have lived in Manitoba, Alberta, and Ontario,
>>and haven't found it yet.
>>
>>Alberta has a different cultural history than Ontario, and very different
>>ethnic proportions. So?

>Quebec is a child of the Kingdom of France, who became orphan at an
>early age, and so was Acadia before it got conquered. Upper Canada
>(Ontario) is a child of the Kingdom of England. The other provinces
>are children of Ontario...

>Consequently, only Quebec is a francophone society and of french
>culture. This is the most fundammental difference between Quebec and
>the other provinces. It is the Canadian duality. Of course the ethnic
>composition of Manitoba or Alberta is very different from that of
>Ontario. Of course their (short) history is very different from
>Ontario. It is nothing compared to the FRENCH-ENGLISH (nevermind if
>your ancestors were or were not from England) duality of Canada. This
>country emerged from the France/England wars.

I think much of the problem is in how the languages interpres the
meaning of distinct which has probably been mentioned here in previous
postings. I would beg to differ on whether the Maritime provinces or
Newfoundland & Labrador are a child/offshoot of Upper Canada. In
particular NF&Lab lead an "isolated" path of growth and development. 
--
"There is the smell of an election in the air. Some of you believe it is
the smell of tar and asphalt... I assure you, however, that it is indeed
the smell of an election." -   John Savage, Leader of the N.S. Liberals.
                           skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca St. John's, NF Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: UTILITY IN POLITICS
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:08:04 GMT

R Ross Holder Jr (roholdr@ccu.umanitoba.ca) wrote:
: In <BvtLqu.1AA@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@minotaur (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: 
: [Quote of another user deleted.]
: 
: >The government cannot deal with with [other] issues until the constitution is
: >fixed.
: 
: Why not?  God knows there's enough people employed by the government to do
: more than one thing at once.  This line of reasoning is very weak and every
: time I hear it, I get a belly-ache.  It's not like the Minister of Defence
: can't manage his department - even innovatively without a YES vote in the
: referendum.

As long as there is world uncertainty as to Canada's future, and the
government's mandate, the government cannot do anything. Our HoC is
essentially gridlocked until the problem is resolved.


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: English Quebec politics
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:32:12 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article  (Thomas Hood) writes:

>Most young anglophones intend to leave Quebec. Why?

Because it's not the Banana Republic it used to be...  :-)

Because it is more and more difficult for anglophones to live in
Quebec the way they would in other provinces (i.e., in english).

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Watch the Journal this week
Date: 12 Oct 1992 15:04:43 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <1992Oct6.130526.991@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>Bryan Schwartz, a law professor from the 
>University of Manitoba, believes that the current accord improves over Meech 
>in many ways, especially in protecting minority language rights. 


He means OFFICIAL language minority rights, doesn't he? There is nothing
in the charter for languages of UNOFFICIAL Canadians - like German
Canadians, Italian Canadians, Ukrainians. 


                                                  Myron Hlynka


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:10:03 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: Which is why we need an elected constiuent assembly or constitutional
: convention so we can elect people we trust specifically on
: constitutional issues to prepare a series of options and amendments.

This is wishful, unrealistic thinking.  Do you really believe that
so-called "constitutional experts" will be able to draft a universally
acceptable constitution?  As soon as we elect such mythical beings, they
won't be any different than our beloved politicians anyway.  Besides,
its painfully obvious that a universally acceptable constitution is an 
impossibility in Canada.  The "options" and "amendments" you mention
will get shot down like B17's over Schweinfurt. And that would be the
result if we only allowed the involvement of the current NO campaigners,
let alone the country as a whole!


-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@minotaur (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:34:37 GMT

Robin Collins (robinc@bnr.ca) wrote:
: 
: There are two possibilities. Either people (aboriginal or any other)
: remain in Canada (or join Canada, depending on how you view it) and
: are thus subject to Canadian law; or they secede and form a separate
: state where they are subject to the laws of that new/separate state.

Why don't Canadians join the first nations? Why is it so fair to ask the
Iroquois to join Canada if we would not join the Iroquois in their place?

: 
: So if there are violent protests within Canada, I assume Canadian laws
: will apply. The issue, however, is what causes the protests.
: Are they legitimate claims. If so, then resolve those issues, but
: within the context of Canadian law...a law I would again hope would be based
: on _citizenship_, not race, language or region.

Why not resolve these issues within the context of native law? How is it
more fair to enforce "Canadian" law than "native" law?

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: The Communications Research Centre
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:00:15 GMT

In article <13164@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>NDP? I think they never got a seat in Quebec. I don't even remember
>the name of their leader.

Phil Edmunston is a NDP MP from Quebec. The only one ever elected
I think.




-- 
Michele Guillet 			The Communications Research Centre 
3701 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2H 8S2	tel:613-998-2384
Internet: michele@dgbt.doc.ca
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:32:26 GMT
	<1992Oct2.141156.22233@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<1992Oct4.154931@ltisun14.epfl.ch> <1992Oct4.165540.19870@unixg.ubc.ca>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: frank@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 4 Oct 92 16:55:40 GMT

I wrote:
|>[1]Can we agree that French Canadians have gotten the short
|>end of the historical stick, especially in Acadia and
|>Manitoba?
|>
|>[2]If so, is it possible to understand why French Quebeckers
|>look for some guarantees that this will never happen again?
|>...

Murray Frank wrote:
>As a general proposition for Canada as a whole, the answer [to 1] is
>certainly NO. Did they ever get the short end? Yes. Were Acadia and
>Manitoba examples, probably. I will leave more precise interpretation
>to professional historians.
>
>Since I do not buy your intial premise, the rest of your argument does
>not appear relevant from my perspective.

"As a general proposition for Canada as a whole"? Come on Murray, let's
cut the bullshit.

On the one hand you agree that French Canadians have been historically
mistreated.  On the other you do not feel obliged to address the fears
of French Quebeckers that history might repeat itself.

Okay, we've found a candidate to settle the wars in ex-Yugoslavia,
Moldavia, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Azerbaijan, Georgia, etc.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:01:46 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <BvID78.Eyy@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>   21:
>     A permanent formula should be developed and section 51 of the
>   Constitution Act, 1867 should be adjusted to accommmodate demographic
>   change
>
>Demographics changes have happened in the past in Canada. They have been
>dealt with in the past. They will be dealt with in the future.

They have been dealt with badly since 1974, if you believe in rep
by pop.  One may hope that the "permanent formula" will be better,
but I'm not very optimistic about this.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA