HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 00:35:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.142518.23533@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>Only apparently?  I would like a clear statement from aboriginal
>leaders and in legal text that "aboriginal rights" 
>will be defined by territorial claims  (treaty, etc.) alone
>and not by "race".

It is the present laws w.r.t. Department of Indian Affair's definition
of a Status Indian that is out of date: it's based on hereditary
linkage only. Your persistent misuse of the term "race" is grating,
since I've already noted a long time ago that members of the Assembly
of First Nations is racially very diverse.

>IN fact the evidence is already out. There is a notwithstanding clause
>inserted allowing Aboriginal governents to over-ride the law of the land. 
>This is unacceptable, and ironically the Const. proposal is being denounced
>by some Aboriginal leaders, allegedly because it doesn't go far 
>enough!

You may be misreading the main reason of the Manitoba Chiefs' dislike
of the proposals. They have no respect nor desire to negotiate with the
government minister with this portfolio, since he's proven to be
completely out of touch with the natives' views, and worse, the
minister was (as reported on CBC radio) simply hysterical during the
constitutional debate over self government and he never took the
Chiefs' idea seriously.

>So it looks like the new Constitution will define rights based on
>(aboriginal/non-aboriginal) "race" and (francophone distinct/anglo-french)
>language. I want rights based on citizenship, nothing more, nothing less.

You are presupposing the criteria for being an aboriginal. Why don't
you find out what the criteria will be? By hereditary linkage? By
adoption of their culture? By consent of the aboriginal government,
say, from their department of immigration? Or none of the above,
namely, Indian land will be under aboriginal government, based on
territory alone, much like our provinces are presently?

I hate to clump the two of you together, but some of your arguments
have such a populist tone, namely, they help your audience conjure up
sinister scenarios that have no basis in fact, that you might as well
campaign on the NO side on the same podium as the Reform party. The
Reform's rhetoric is faithfully reported in the press nowadays, and
I never fail to spot their populist propaganda every time. Perhaps you
are learning from their technique too?

Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
<< Mary Ellen Turpel is my hero. >>
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: Will Mulroney resign?
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 11:45:45 GMT

In <1992Oct16.023114.24666@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>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...

   Who's "we"? Replace him with who? My fine friend, I would argue that
Mulroney will NOT resign, and will be re-elected in the upcoming elections
next year. Who would you ever replace him with? Baudy Audrey? 
I-can't-speak-english-or-make-decisions Chretien? My, the choices are under-
whelming wouldn't you say? 
   But, of course I could never disprove your well-founded and
accurate arguments. Thanks for telling me the Charlottetown Accord _IS_
a bad deal, and not just your humble opinion. How open of you. 
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: How will Don Cherry vote? Same way as Guy Lafleur?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 03:49:17 GMT

( Our international readers may even know him: he's a former Boston
  Bruins hockey coach now doing commentary during the hockey game
  intermissions in Canada.

  Most of his hockey analysis is insightful. His political analysis lacks
  detail and substance. He once supported the Reform party. He may still
  support them. The Reform party is a strong NO. But Mr. Cherry is also
  a blindly faithful patriot, even though his best moments came while
  coaching an American team. So I would imagine that he'll be torn between
  trying to understand the Reform party's propaganda and his absolute
  devotion to any cause with even just a mildly patriotic connotation. )

Now then: which way will he vote?

( Another angle is that the NACotSoW, Ms. Rebick's refuge, compares to
  Mrs. Cherry much like how Hillary Clinton compares to Barbara Bush,
  so you can understand the dilemma faced by this quintessential Sports
  Fan: NACotSoW is a strong NO, so Cherry is left with no choice but to
  vote YES! Mrs. Cherry can quite credibly play the role of an anglo
  Yvette. Of course, maybe Don Cherry should take a hint from Guy Lafleur's
  disastrous perfomance in the last few days, and keep his big mouth shut
  on this issue. Does Don Cherry know what a veto is? )

But let's get to the heart of the matter:

Is it a worse offense to denounce Don Cherry than to denounce Guy Lafleur?

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:56:10 GMT

warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch writes:
>If you find the 25% allotment an unacceptable way of doing
>this, please suggest an alternative.

Give greater enforcement to the provincial/federal jurisdiction split,
and give jurisdiction of culture to the provinces.
And/or make it 25% (or whatever) of the senate, which is the proper chamber
for such things.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada Direct
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:17:41 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Mathew B Englander) writes:
]In article <13073@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
]]
]]However, being answered "Speak English, this is Canada!" when
]]Canada-Direct (a suppositively bilingual service that allows you to
]]get a "friendly canadian operator" anywhere in the world and "avoid
]]foreign language operators") from Japan (thus a BC operator) is
]]profoundly intolerant and unacceptable.
]
]Yes it is. I hope you got the operator's name and filed a complaint.

It wasn't me, but the guy to who it happen did complain.

](Incidentally, I'm not sure that just because you were calling from
]Japan you reached someone in B.C. 

I don't know, but they told him they were in B.C.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: szathmary@sscl.uwo.ca
Subject: Polling results -Where are they?
Organization: Social Science Computing Laboratory
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:03:46 GMT




I know that polling results on the referendum are available in Quebec at least
once per week. But what about the rest of Canada? I'm surprised that there are
so few (any?) polls made public for the other 9 provinces. Are they being
suppressed??? ---      

An informal (read _unscientific_) poll carried out by the Toronto Star and
reported last Sunday indicated a 76.5% NO vote among 9000+ respondents.
Admittedly there would be error due to biased sampling (self selection, etc.)
but at least the poll was not 76.5% the other way.
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:17:54 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Robin Collins asks about the origin of the term "collective rights." I'm not
sure...might be a trickle-over from Marxism, but the best account I've seen
of the term comes from the black American academic Shelby Steele. See his
article "The New Sovereignty" in the July 92 Harpers, and his essay
collection The Content of Our Character. The Harper's piece made all kinds of
problems click into a new perspective for me, and now that I have the book
I'm finding even more (alarming) parallels between the predicament of
American blacks and various Canadian groups.

Now that we have the term "entitled collective," we can at least begin to
grapple with the problems such collectives present to their societies. When
the Canada Clause explicitly approves of collective rights, I know I can't
vote for the deal; it's the first step toward a caste society.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:07:20 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Jim Robinson) writes:
]It is now obvious that Central Canada would never allow anything even close
]to a true EEE senate. As well, it is also obvious that senate reform has
]opened up a whole can of worms wrt democracy & quotas. So, I might be
]tempted to go with Francois' suggestion. However, I suggest the following
]additions to the two points above.
]
]2) An amendment that would make an NEP-like  program illegal. This would
]   be needed to soften the loss of the EEE senate to our friends in
]   Alberta.
]
]3) An amendment that applies to *electrical energy* that would make federal
]   NEP-like tax policies illegal. This should interest our friends in
]   Quebec who make lots of $$ selling hydro and who probably would not 
]   like to be told how much they could sell it for. 
]
]What say ye?

While I agree 100% with the objectives of your propositions, I differ
a bit in the actual measure that should be implemented to achieve
these objectives.

I don't think that an amendment to make NEP-like program illegal is
the best way to solve the problem. In the event were another Trudeau
would get in power again, he would certainly find a way to get around
the law anyways. Or he would simply eliminate the law. The best
alternative is to make that particular field (amongst others) of power
a Provincial matter, completely under priovincial jurisdiction. To do
this, you need to abolish Ottawa's power to spend money in provincial
matters.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Xref: sparky can.politics:8541 soc.culture.canada:7563
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Brainless BC Electorate
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:02:21 GMT

     Since Thomas Wong's sensitivities have been so hurt by my
persistent use of the phrase above, I will no longer refer to
the BC electorate as "brainless".  I will instead use the phrase
"cephalically challenged".

     Example:  "My theory is that Trudeau chose to deliver his
No message first to a group of elementary schoolchildren in
White Rock because he accurately perceived that they were fairly
close to the BC average in terms of general knowledge and
political sophistication.  This can only be explained by the
unusually high degree of cephalic challenge that politics gives
to the over-18 population of BC."

     There, isn't that better?

--Jamie.
From: hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Oct. 26 Referendum government literature
Keywords: referendum
Date: 11 Oct 1992 19:31:41 GMT

I have two documents printed by the federal goverment about the
referendum. One is entitled "Your Guide to Canada's Proposed
Constitutional Changes". This includes some highlights written
by some government employee, together with the complete text of
Aug. 28 agreement. I find the summary of the highlights to be
particularly offensive, and uses language which does not appear
in the agreement itself.

page 5  "equality of the two founding linguistic communities"
I could find nowhere in the text the term FOUNDING communities.
When they came to Canada, they found the native peoples, of course. 
   I thought that the politicians had stopped talking about
the "two floundering peoples", when every else was offended
by the terminology. I guess not.

page 4 (section entitled Protecting Minority Language Rights).
Sounds good. But unfortunately, the section talks about the
vitality and development of OFFICIAL language minority communities
throughout Canada. 

    I wonder what the legal implication is of not mentioning other
language minority communities? The federal governmnet is NOT committed
to their development?? The federal government is committed to their
NON development??


Next booklet "Our Future Together: An Agreement for Constitutional
Renewal". 
Page 2 : "Canada contains two large and vibrant linguistic communities,
complemented by a rich heritage of Aboriginal languages and the many
languages of new Canadians. The Canada Clause would ensure the future
interpretation of the Constitution relected the commitment of
Canadians and their government to the vitality and development of
OFFICIAL language minority communities." 
  NEW Canadians! My 6 week old children are NEW Canadians. 
My 77 year old Ukrainian speaking Edmonton born mother is an 
OLD Canadian. 


GRRR!!!
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:49:51 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <13131@coxm> coxm@Software.Mitel.COM (Michael Cox) writes:
>The only thing I don't like about Quebec is: in a Federal election they seem to
>vote as one.  So whichever party "turns them on" is usually the one which gets
>into power.  I just wish they were more "split" politically.

They are, a lot more than in the rest of Canada, except that the split
is between federalists and "nationalists" (I hate that word).

Nevetheless, my prediction is that in the next election, there will be
no block vote in Quebec. There not a single candidate who has a bit of
credibility in Quebec.

What's the choice?

Jean Chretien, the Disauraur who's strategy is to piss on Quebec
anytime he can?

Brian Mulroney? Not very popular.

NDP? I think they never got a seat in Quebec. I don't even remember
the name of their leader.

BQ? A contestation vote that won't affect the outcome of the election.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:37:11 GMT

In article <T83NsB3w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:

>evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:

>> I honestly believe that the accord is the best thing that the present
>> crop of feds and provinces can come up with. The is a far cry from
>> saying that nobody could do better.

>This may be true. It's also extremely unlikely that anyone else is going 
>to get the chance.

I'm interested to know upon what you base this opinion. This is not a
rhetorical request. I'd like to know the underlying beliefs, facts and
assumptions behind the view expressed above. I don't see any evidence at
all that another attempt, led by some new faces with new approaches and
a little less interest in confrontation, is "extremely unlikely".

I'd be much more receptive to your opinion if it hadn't also been
advanced during Meech. The second time around, this argument is starting
to wear thin. I would like a little evidence this time.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
From: dbowman@griffin (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Polling results -Where are they?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:17:05 GMT

Robin Collins (robinc@bnr.ca) wrote:
[deleted about polls, accuracy]
: 
: How can you claim they could not be accurate to within 3 points.
: The studies (we must assume) were based on standard statistical methods
: with appropriate margins of error calculated to the samples used.

I realise that. I meant that the media used the wrong term, or maybe were
misleading. Yes the polls were accurate to within 3 points, but the results
were not. As you point out, it probably means leading questions were asked,
each a little bit different. If the media says that each pollster asked only
YES/NO, and each poll received varying results over the margin of error, it
is obvious that the polls are not representative. I didn't expect them to be.
I feel the media makes this a little misleading by saying the poll is
accurate to 3 points, one is lead to believe that the country as a whole
believes this to within 3 points.


: 
: The differences reflect different questions or different times asked,
: different regional influences, different individuals polled and the
: result of a varying media impact.  All three are accurate, but with differing
: results. Why does this show "obvious inaccuracies" in your view?

The polls were done at the same time. They were Canada-wide polls. I'm not
quibbling about the accuracy, what I meant was that since the results
differed, they obviously were not representative. (I think thats maybe a
better word).

Its like saying I have a measuring system that is accurate to +- 1 mm, and
measure the same part 10 times. If the standard deviation is over 1mm, I
obviously have a non-repeatable measuring system.

: 
: 
: If you do any experiment a number of times you will often find somewhat
: different results, even with a similar margin of error. But would you claim
: that the findings had no relevance or were not "accurate" as a result?

I wouldn't claim they had no significance, but I wouldn't try to persuade
someone they were representative to within the margin of error.

: 
: You could also do a statistical analysis of different poll results and
: calculate the margin of error for the total sample.

Thats an interesting idea. How would you deal with potential bias of
questions from different pollsters?

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: community, compromise, and individual liberty
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:52:41 GMT

In article <WARKENT.92Oct7152000@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>
>People could not live together without compromising over something
>everyday.  We agree to do so because we derive immense benefits from
>living in a community.  We must also recognise that a healthy community
>has needs of its own and that we have an implicit contract to uphold
>these needs. 

Society and community should be a contract between the individuals within
that society to: leave one another alone (ie, don't murder, rape), respect
one another's property (don't steal), and not to deprive people of their 
various rights. In that context, I view government as a neccessary evil
needed to uphold those contracts, to have impartial courts, and so that
citizens can delegate the tasks they can't accomplish by themselves to
the government.

Government is by the people, and for the people. The people are delegating
repsonsibility, not forfeiting responsibility. The society first argument
assumes that people should give up their rights for the supposed good of
all. Unfortunately, that doesn't work. As long as socialist style governments
try to turn people into sheep who follow around a few rams; socialist style
governments will fail: people do not want to give up their own interests.

Co-operation has its uses, that isn't to say we must give up our rights
over our own lives. Co-operation is voluntary, and government has to capitalize
on that, not impose it. Individual Liberty is not a rejection of society, just
rejection of coersion. If my actions don't have measurable impact on someone
else, then society has no moral right to restrict those actions. 

> The question is where to draw the line between the needs
>of the community and the wants of the individual, and I agree that
>it is far from clear.  But please stop this "individual liberties are
>all" argument; it is tiresome and futile, and there are sounder arguments
>against giving extra priviledges to certain groups.

such as?????

the "individual rights are all" argument is elegant and powerful, because
it is simple: if invidual rights are protected, then everyone is protected.
That is not true, in general, with "society's rights". People will always
be oppressed as long as the "it's good for the majority of society" fallacy
is believed.
>--
>Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
>                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics