HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Richard Holden & compulsory bi-elections
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:11:08 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Jul28.220909.13011@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>
>  Richard Holden was 1 of 4 M.N.A.s elected on the Equality party platform
>  in the last provincial election here.
>
>  his critics, when he pronounced that he believed that the Parti
>  Quebecois would be the best party to look after the interests of
>  the English community in an independent Quebec.
>
>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||


ONe reason may be that the PQ governments were those with the largest
proportion of bilingual deputies, much more than Liberal Party.
Then, PQ is in better position to listen and understand anglos.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Fautes de francais (was Re: Monument to de Gaulle)
Date: 26 Jul 92 05:46:41 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <25JUL92.18766956.0071@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000) writes:
>Denis, tu a clairement suggere que la raison pourquoi Steve a melange
>ces noms, c'est qu'il vit "resolument en anglais sans attacher
>d'importance a ces faits folkhloriques (sic) que sont les noms des
>francophones."  Toi, tu massacres allegrement la langue anglaise et
>personne ne te le reproche, parce que tes idees nous interessent
>et on sait que tu fais de ton mieux pour ecrire en anglais.  Je
>ne vois pas pourquoi tu as prete de mauvaises intentions a Steve
>quand il a fait un simple lapsus.
>
>Tom Box
>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Il m'arrive de faire des fautes d'orthographe en ecrivant un mot
de la meme facon qu'il est prononce (par exemple, phote au lieu de faute).
C'est rare, mais le cas arrive.  Dans le cas present, Boucher et Bouchard
peuvent se prononcer de la meme facon en anglais.  C'est pourquoi
j'ai associe la langue anglaise avec l'erreur en question.  Pour le
reste, c'est du sarcasme.  Mais, le contenu de ce genre de groupe
n'est-il pas du sarcasme a pleine pelletee?


En ce qui concerne mon anglais, c'est cent fois mieux que mon
espagnol (j'utilisais l'espagnol il y a une quinzaine d'annee, tout
comme l'anglais et le francais pour un certain type de correspondance).
Mais, je peux faire un effort et poster en francais.  Les traductions
de Tom Hood sont sans doute plus precises que les miennes ;-)


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Deportation by British (was Re: God Save your Queen)
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:03:45 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>I'm confused by your use of the word "failed."  Are you suggesting that
>there was an attempt to deport French Canadians, similar to the
>deportation of the Acadians, but that this attempt failed?  Can
>you provide more details?

Sorry: bad choice of words. What I meant was that it would have been
impossible to deport the french canadians of Quebec like they did for
the Acadians because their number was too big. They wouldn't have been
able to do so militarly. My point was that the british didn't
deport/exterminate/assimilate the french canadians out of generosity,
(as suggested by some posting on the net) but because they were not
able to do so at the time, and because it would then have been
politically not very wise considering what was happening in the US.

>In the period during and after the American Revolution, I
>suppose the Americans would have supported the French Canadians
>against the British.  This would probably have resulted in
>Canada becoming part of the United States.  Considering the fate
>of the French populations in New England and Louisiana, do you
>think this would have been a good thing for the survival of
>French in North America?

Difficult to say. I wonder what the US would have done in Canada at
that time. It would probably have been more difficult to assimilate
the french canadians than it was to assimilate the louisiannians. As
for the new-england francophones, I though that they were mostly
late-commers in the US (most of them emmigrating from Quebec in the
depression years).

I think the only reason the french population survived these critical
times was the isolation in which they were into (partially on purpose,
partially because of French/British antipathy, and partially because
of geographical isolation). I don't think it had anything to do with
generosity, but only the "concours de circonstances".



-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Biliguism
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:07:15 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 971


  Francois,

  There are so many inconsistencies in your assertions and arguments
  that it is difficult to follow you.

  One moment you try to deny the existence of the English community in
  Quebec.

  Then you refer to "anglo-quebecois"

  Then you say that French is the language of Quebec.

  Then you say people speak to you in English in parts of Montreal.

  You also try to say how things are in Great Britain and other parts
  of Europe to support your governments legislated discrimination and
  racism - but there are numerous examples to illustrate that your
  perception of Europe is wrong.

  I shake my head and sigh.

  Am I getting through to you?
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Political power of provinces
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:17:54 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article  (Steven C. Potter) writes:
> You are right. It is called a High Commission - they can't call it an
> Embassy but it is functionally the same thing. People generally think
> a High Commission is a funny name for an Embassy. Nevertherless, 
> "[Province] House" is viwed as a tourist information office and a
> waste of Tax money for duplicated services.

The Levesque government used the Quebec House in London to try to
convince that a unilateral rapatriation of the constitution
(accompanied by major changes to the functionning of the country) was
not desireable without the approval of the provinces.

Finally, some idiot from the british government decided that the
opinion of a legitimate government (recognised by London) was not
important. They gave the GO and said to the Levesque government that
"unfortunately" they felt that it was a canadian problem.

Soon after, that idiot was fired when the more competent people from
the british governement realised all potential for trouble that it
created.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: Richard Holden & compulsory bi-elections
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:36:11 GMT

In <12389@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>In article (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>>  We have those non elected "Bloc-Quebecois" M.P.s in Ottawa. One of them,
>>  Gilbert Chartrand for Verdun (he happens to be my fed. rep., bummer!),
>>  crossed the floor twice.

>They are elected: in Canada you vot for the individual, not the party.
>That's why you can have independent MPs. 

Yes, they were elected but not for the Bloc-Quebecois.  If you had voted
Conservative because you believed in Federalism wouldn't you be pissed off
if your Conservative MP suddenly switched to the Bloc Quebecois?

>Also, the Bloc Quebecois is not recognized in the chamber, therefore
>it's members are independent MPs.

Just as a point of information, the Bloc Quebecois doesn't have enough 
seats to receive recognition as a party in the House of Commons.  If a
party has enough seats they are entitled to various privileges such as
office space and money to operate a party office, more influence on 
committees and a greater share of time in Question Period.
-- 
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
"Why can't we just forget about our constitutional problems and go canoeing?"
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Richard Holden & compulsory bi-elections
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:47:12 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 24 Jul 92 17:47:33 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) said:
  > X-Bytes: 895

  >   How Mr. Holden can state that he would join a party so opposed to
  >   the principles of individual liberty and freedom after declaring his
  >   support for tearing up parts of Bill 101 is incomprehensible.

I tought he said he would not mind to join the PQ in an
independant Quebec because he believe that things would
improve for the anglophones in an independant Quebec...

From what I know, he seemed coherent. Whether or not he's
right is another question.

La Presse of thursday published a short article from La
Presse Canadienne.

You might want to give it a look.

BTW, I still waiting for the unanswered questions I asked
you.

--
  ,                          ,                           ,
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: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Bilingualism at universities (was Re: Bla, bla)
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:26:10 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (CZ94000) writes:
>I know several students at McGill who wrote their theses in French
>with no problem.  (I'm not claiming there are never problems.)

At least McGill (unlike Ottawa U) does not pretend it's bilingual when
it's not.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ph3@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Hamilton (phys 306))
Subject: Commonwealth requirements (was Re: C'est la Reine d'Angleterre...)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:18:30 GMT

In <12460@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>In article (Thomas Hood) writes:

>Question for information: does a country have to have the Queen as
>head of state to be a member of the Commonwealth.

No, the only requirement is that the country must either be Britain, or a
former colony (maybe even protectorate) of Britain. I guess that in light of
the British-South Africa-Apartheid politics, member countries must also
toe the line or jump ship, as SA did drop out, and Britain almost did. (Not
exactly what one would call a democratic organization...

Commonwealth - "I see that you are opposed to sanctions because you think they
		don't work very well."

Britain-       "Yes, that's so."

Commonwealth - "Right, off you go then!")

-Mike.

(BTW - I like sanctions and dislike aparthied...the iron lady had her head up
her ass on that one, I think.)
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Monument to de Gaulle
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:52:36 GMT
	<SBO.92Jul23164304@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
	<1992Jul24.191516.6311@pandora.matrox.com>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 24 Jul 92 19:15:16 GMT, thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) said:

  > >>>>>> On 23 Jul 92 16:05:26 GMT, thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) said:
  > >	[...]
  > >  > soldiers.  This man had the gall (forgive the pun) to
  > >  > come over here, and interfere uninvited in the internal
  > >  > affairs of Canada, in an extremely ignorant and disruptive
  > >  > manner, by saying something he never bothered to justify,
  > >  > even in his memoirs.  The bad taste is very strong.

  > sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
  > >Tu aurais pu dire la meme chose de la reine. Recemment elle
  > >est venu et elle a parle d'un Canada uni, ou quelque chose
  > >du genre. En plus, on a erige une statue en son honneur tout
  > >recemment.
  > >
  > >Tu aurais pu aussi parler de cela, mais tu-as choisi de ne
  > >parler que de De Gaule...

  > To see the difference, please note the words "interfere", "uninvited",
  > "ignorant", "disruptive", and "unjustified".

  > interfered?   The Queen was not "entering into the concerns of others"
  >               because Canadians are her subjects.

Je ne suis pas le sujet de la reine. Je ne l'ai jamais ete,
et ne le serai jamais. En plus la reine n'est pas
Canadienne.

  > uninvited?    She was invited.

J'etais sous l'impression que De Gaulle avait ete inviter,
comme tout les autres chefs d'etat. J'ai deja entendu dire
qu'il avait meme fait des remous en ne voulant pas suivre
l'itineraire qui avait ete prevu. Je ne suis pas certain de
ces faits. Quelqu'un peu confirmer?

  > ignorant?     She knows what she's talking about.

:-) Laisse moi rire :-)

  > disruptive?   She called for unity.

La reine est venu deranger la dynamique du debat
constitutionnel. Elle a pris position sur la question.  Bien
que certaines alternatives politiques ne plaisent pas a tout
le monde, il n'en demeurent pas moins que l'option
"independance" est tout aussi legitime que l'option "Canada
uni".

  > unjustified?  She was thus fully justified.

Alors, si les paroles de De Gaulle etaient injustifiees,
alors l'intervention de la reine l'etait tout autant.

  > As for the statue, I haven't seen it.

  > If Quebecers hope to remain within the Commonwealth after
  > separation, then it will be prudent for them to show
  > respect for Her Majesty.

Look at it this way. I have absolutely no respect for her
and have no intention of showing any respect for her,
and I am still part of the commonwealth.

God, ride us of the stupid Queen!!!
(No offense intended Dave.)
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Richard Holden & compulsory bi-elections
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<12432@audetf>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:50:43 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <12432@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

   In article steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
   ]  He has broken with party ranks on several occasions, he has openly
   ]  criticised the party leadership and was thrown out of the party. He has
   ]  remained in his seat, despite repeated calls from his constituents to
   ]  vacate it. Recently he was seen with Parti Quebecois Brass during a
   ]  nationalist rally (I think it was St. Jean Baptiste Day, but I'm not
   ]  sure). He said a few days ago that he would consider joining, or he
   ]  wouldn't mind joining, the Parti Quebecois if Quebec separates. He
   ]  astounded many in the English community in Montreal, even some of
   ]  his critics, when he pronounced that he believed that the Parti
   ]  Quebecois would be the best party to look after the interests of
   ]  the English community in an independent Quebec.

   So he's an anglo who is not totally paranoid about the PQ?
   Interesting.

There have been a few influential anglo PQ members in the past.

   Even more interesting is that the "nationalist press" (like some
   people say on the net), or even the ordinary press, did not cover
   that incident too much.

Perhaps you don't read the right papers.  It got a lot of press in the
Gazette.

--
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 15213-3890, USA
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:26:53 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 851

From article <CLAMEN.92Jul28163850@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by clamen@CS.CMU.EDU 
 Stewart Clamen explains:-

> J'avais entendu deux raisons pour laquelles on peut avoir des
> affichages chinois-francais en Quebec.
> 
> 	1) L'OLF a decide que les caracteres chinois sont des
> 	  "dessins", et donc legaux,
> 
> 	2) Le quartier chinois est une quartier touristique, et donc
> 	   exclus de qq provisions d'affichage de la Chartre Francaise.

  I wonder if signs in Olde English Scripte would therefore be acceptable
  in Montreal's West Island? :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:00:39 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1015

From article <Bs2uL0.AsI@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 Denis Beauregard writes:-

> And the Acadia was a british land since 1713.  They did not repeat in 1763
> for an economical reason : it was too much trouble to handle those
> NEUTRAL FRENCHes.  ANd they could not kill everybody directly.  Other
> colonies would had rebel.
> 
> And someone shown me some papers about the 1755 deportation, about the
> harm they had.  WOrking like slaves in New England.
> 
> I would say that in 1763, they were afraid of some effects on their
> American colony.
> 
> But don't talk about respect please.
> 

  Maybe I should start whining about the Norman Conquest and the Battle
  of Hastings. :-)

   
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: franc@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (francoise webster)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: PQ SEPERATION
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 15:20:25 -0400
Reply-To: franc@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (francoise webster)
Distribution: can
Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

QUITE SIMPLY, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!
From: robichau@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Benoit Robichaud)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Monument to de Gaulle
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:41:03 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal


In article <1992Jul23.160526.1822@pandora.matrox.com>, thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
|> Recently, a monument to Charles de Gaulle was unveiled in
|> Montreal with some fanfare.
...
|> Here is a man who as "leader" of the French resistance against
|> the Germans, benefitted from the generous and courageous
|> assistance of Canada -- despite resistance from Quebecers --
|> including the sacrifice of thousands of young Canadian 
|> soldiers.
...
|> There are over 200,000 Canadian soldiers buried on French soil.

Il ne faudrait pas oublier que cette genereuse et courageuse assistance
du Canada a ete mise sur pied en vue d'empecher l'avance des forces allemandes
en territoires anglais (ou tout du moins faire cesser les bonbardements
sur la Grande-Bretagne).

Soulignons aussi le fait que le Premier Ministre de l'epoque (M.King) a fait
campagne au Quebec en promettant qu'il n'y aurait pas de conscription
s'il etait elu ... 

Pour ce qui est de la rue Sherbrooke ... peut-etre devrions-nous
trouvez autre chose ... et peut-etre devrions-nous aussi bannir
l'effigie de la Reine du Canada (car tel est son titre) sur les
billets de banque canadiens.

A la memoire de ces 200000 Canadiens qui ont, de gre ou de force,
ete emmener a se battre au nom de M.King et de Bethy ....

Benoit 
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy)
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:08:08 GMT

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.171928.23163@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>>
>>BTW, if you want to talk about the past you may recall that it was the Monarchy
>>of England that gave the people of Quebec their freedom after they lost the
>>war.  You have the language rights and the claim to self government because
>>a former Queen gave them to you.  They could have expelled all of the French
>>from their soil if they wanted to.  They showed some respect for you, can't you
>>show some respect for them?

>THEY DID SO in 1755.  DEPORTATION DES ACADIENS!!!!

>And the Acadia was a british land since 1713.  They did not repeat in 1763
>for an economical reason : it was too much trouble to handle those
>NEUTRAL FRENCHes.  ANd they could not kill everybody directly.  Other
>colonies would had rebel.

>And someone shown me some papers about the 1755 deportation, about the
>harm they had.  WOrking like slaves in New England.

>I would say that in 1763, they were afraid of some effects on their
>American colony.

>But don't talk about respect please.

>>
>>Don


>-- 
>  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
> /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
>J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
>\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !

There, there, my little sovereignist, did the big bad anglophone scare
you?

Charles Jobagy		|	My Canada does not include police states
charles@cs.ualberta.ca