HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:30:49 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
> ...thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers died defeating
> the evil ideas of tribalism and nationalism espoused by Hitler
> and Canadians and Quebeckers can do it again, with a lot less
> bloodshed by voting NO on October 26.

Hitler was defeated in a war; but he initially came to power
because German moderates were too committed to their divergent ideological
positions to ally against him, and were too busy stabbing each other
in the back to deal with Germany's serious economic problems.

The Nazi era offers more than one lesson.

--
Thomas Hood - Bookie
thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:29:23 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:


>Bob Rae is essentially a clone of Clark, although Rae had slightly more
>integrity to stay in the party he belongs.  Mulroney will rue the
>day he entrusted his political future to this duo...it was a massive 
>political mistake which will destroy his legacy.  One can survive
>being despised if one is principled, because one can be respected...Trudeau
>and Maggie Thatcher are perfect examples of this, and I believe Mulroney
>would have been respected in hindsight, but for the disastrous
>abandonment of any principle which Charlottetown represents, which
>he will be forever tarred with, and which history will never forgive
>him for.

>Gerald

	Only if the accord passes the referendum. Otherwise Mulroney will
be remembered as a man who increased our taxes and shipped our industry to
Mexico.
From: riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Oops
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:11:37 GMT
            <1992Oct15.193224.26210@thinkage.on.ca>


David Tanguay writes:
>over-representation of the smaller provinces are caused by a floor
>number, which can be fixed by increasing the size of the commons
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Uh, you are joking there, aren't you?
Does this mean you think the current number of MPs, 
their effectiveness, and their salaries are acceptable?


Marc Riese
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Lausanne
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hugh@imax.com (Hugh Murray)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Followup-To: can.politics
Organization: Imax Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:48:30 GMT


> : 
> : 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".


Hugh Murray   hugh@imax.com
Imax Corporation																			|  These are personal opinions    |
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 22:50:30 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>In article <1992Oct15.153539.2783@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>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.
>
>I try to always call it the Charlottetown Accord...although I slip up
>occassionally, but then Manning isn't the only guilty person...I have seen
>clips of Mike Harcourt calling it the Canadian Unity Agreement over and
>over.  Such is the state of Mulroney's popularity, that it is considered
>an attack and negative ad just to mention the leader of the opposing
>sides name!

Continuing on the theme of accuracy in advertising, what do people think of
the yes side ad where Bob White implies that the Charlottetown Accord
guarantees the right to medicare & collective bargaining?

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

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Phone number for the Constitutional Legal Text: 1-800-448-3000
Organization: The Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:49:26 GMT

1-800-448-3000

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individual Rights
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 14:22:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.141802.19160@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>
>  The Accord is about entrenched protections for culture, not entrenched 
>privileges for race.
>
>  Let's not try to overwork the negative labels to the point of transferring
>the entire debate to the topic of whether the label is bad or not and
>thus losing sight of the real issues, eh?


Ross,
Aside from the fact that one does not "protect" culture, but create with it,
if it is to survive without coercion, I think it is still a fact that
there are "racial" concepts in the Proposal as well as cultural ones
and linguistic ones.
The Aboriginal clauses are without question racial in content, the
distinct society clause certainly refers not just to _a_ language/culture
group.  (At least that is the interpretation implied according to
the Quebecois "pur laine" hacks.) Just in terms of the idea that for a 
Quebecois to be distinct, he/she has to be a francophone, and bilinguals
whose mother tongue is not french don't count....raises certain questions....
But there are also  references to the french/english
"founding" of Canada, etc that are not only inaccurate, but spurious and
racial at heart (Was Canada founded by "english" and "french"? In what
sense? Even if so -- and it is NOT true -- why does it matter now when
citizenship has nothing to do with historical origins of residents anyway?)

 Frank.
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: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:48:47 GMT

Harold Henriksen (viking@bnr.ca) wrote:
: 
: 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?

First of all, Quebecois are not a different race. Those who call linguistic
rights 'racism' really have problems...

Natives aren't being given special rights -- the Charter still holds. The are
being given the right to govern themselves, much like the rest of us do.

: 
: 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)?

Both. I am voting YES because I believe in the Accord. You say there are
significant differences. They are one and they same, the legal text more
verbose.


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@griffin (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:06:44 GMT

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.

The problem really is that, in my opinion, neither a YES or a NO vote leaves
us with the status quo. YES brings in sweeping change and future discussions,
NO sends us scurrying to achieve agreement again, under harsher conditions.
There is no "mu" vote on the plebiscite.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli)
Subject: Re: Will Mulroney resign?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 13:12:22 GMT

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.
>
>My reasoning is this: you can tell just by watching him over the
>last few months how tired he is of the job. I'm sure he'd love to
>say "Well, I've had two terms and accomplished what I set out to,
>so now I'll give somebody else a chance." This would be easy to do
>after a Yes vote, but if Charlottetown fails he couldn't resign
>because it would make him look like a quitter, getting out when
>the going's rough.
I don't think the result of this vote will affect his decision to step down.
He has stated he will not, but will give Canadians a chance at the general 
election polls next year to decide on the PCs and him.

>I think the next Conservative leader will be either Kim Campbell
>or Barbara McDougall. Perrin Beatty has an outside chance.
Wilson seems like the best guy for the job to me.
 
Tony.
--
[Tony Cifelli              ][Phone:    613-765-2798   ][BNR is not accountable]
[Bell-Northern Research    ][FAX:      613-763-7043   ][for the opinions      ]
[P.O. Box 3511, Station C  ][Internet: tcifelli@bnr.ca][expressed herein.     ]
[Ottawa, On. K1Y 4H7 CANADA]["Still looking for a dramatic quote to put here!"]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:32:37 GMT

bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:

>Like a lot of Canadians, I'm finding this referendum painful. Two weeks ago,
>I was undecided, and was actually leaning towards the No side. The Yes side
>began to seem more reasonable as of late (no thanks to Trudeau's unconvincing
>remarks).  What has swayed me recently is that the common No complaints about 
>the technical ramifications of the accord aren't as absolute as they maintain, 
>but are more a matter of the mindset one uses when interpreting the text 
>of the constitution.

Yes.

>More disturbing, should the No side win, I don't
>see ANY hope of there being a settlement to this mess.

I agree.  When you consider all the views that MUST be accomodated in order
to keep the country "together," the Accord seems to be a very good
compromise.

>I certainly don't share a Manning or Parizeau view of Canada, and neither
>Mulroney's nor Trudeau's stance on the constitution is very important
>to me.

It is noteworthy that the people saying "yes" are nicer than the people
saying "no".

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Xref: sparky can.politics:8503 soc.culture.canada:7541
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individu
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:21:14 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.164231.17506@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>I agree with Tom. Not only are the American Constitution and amendments
>quite different, but also quite superior to the Canadian proposal.
>Frank.

  The American Constitution is designed to create a 'Melting Pot' and 
strong internal national identity (ie 'We the people' not peoples or 
any concept of others).

  Canadian history, whether French, British, native or immigrant has been
made up of people who saw value in their own identities and resisted  
total assimilation into whatever nearby country or culture was currently
felt to be the dominating presence. Our Constitution reflects the 
diversity of our patchwork nationality, and willingness to tolerate
regional differences in return for national solidarity in other areas.

  Now you can just ask any foreign national which they prefer, Canadians
or Americans and why - the result says something about which approach
is superior or not.
---- 
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,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why Would the Charlottetown Agreement Make People Feel Canadian
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:16:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.125307.1074@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>I hope you wouldn't want socio-political value judgements put into it.
>I suspect that a lot of the No people would prefer their special interest
>platforms entrenched into it, for example,
>
>	Canada is a country characterized by albino Ayn Rand
>	worshippers who don't eat meat and watch Cheers...
>

I don't see any Objectivists or Libertarians in this argument...
Randian arguments aren't going to have much sway in a society where
90% of the people think public health insurance is a great idea.

Most of the people advocating "individual" rights in this debate
are economic centrists, and essentially noone is advocating the
"individual economic rights" that a Randoid would demand.  Trudeau
is a social democrat...not an Objectivist.

There is not a great movement out there for the entrenchment of
"property rights"...                                           

To say that the critics of the collectivist ideology of Charlottetown
are Randian is absurd.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: barry@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Barry G. Adams)
Subject: getting enumerated
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:10:00 GMT

  How does one get enumerated for the referendum?
  I am never at home when the enumerators call.

 Barry Adams, Sudbury, ON (barry@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca)
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Distinct Societies
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:17:59 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

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.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: community, compromise, and individual liberty
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:45:11 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <WARKENT.92Oct7152000@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
} We see it over and over in these arguments, this notion that everything
} boils down to "individual liberties".  We also see people brashly
} claiming that "compromise" is a dirty word.  What crap.
} 
} 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.  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.

It all depends on the willingnes of those concerned to agree that they
live in a "community". There can be many groups living under one
political system without constituting a community. The former Soviet Union
is a case in point. Various groups held together only by force of arms which
split into chaos when the central political system collapsed.

Now thw real question of this referendum is "Does Canada consititie a 
community?". If so then the various groups should be willing to compromise for
the greater good of the community. However i see no indication of this. Instead
I hear words such as "sell out", "Knife to the throat" and so on.
Collective rights in this context are not compromises for the sake of the
community but selfish assertions of group power.

-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: NPD en Quebec (was: October 26th Referendum)
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:09:58 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Oct8220207@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>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 Edmonston -- Granby.
>
In Chambly, not Granby.

Howver, NDP is center-left like PQ used to be.  On Federal level, 
liberal are traditionally (Chretien is however a dinosaur) a bit at left,
but massively in center, PC is center-right and NDP is center-left.
For Quebecois, Liberal are left-enough.

But if we consider what are the parties platform today, left/right
is now meaningless.  NDP could elect more Quebec M.P. if it was
thinking a la Quebecoise and marketing electoral campaign accordingly.
Thinking of Canada as something that should be preserved as is can be
perceived as something rightist.  Think of something that can be
improved by changing dramatically many institutions (think of an NDP
having in electoral program the end of monarchy and senate, merging
maritimes in one province and/or promoting asymmetrical federalism).

-- 
  \_\    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 !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 13:53:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.170347.6977@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>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.         


I think Gerald is right again.
One should attack Manning when he is wrong (and I believe that his
basic economic agenda IS wrong), not when he is right (as in on
many positions of his positions on the constitutional proposal.)

So Mike, let's skip over the guilt by association stuff and start
discussing the issues: in this case, the issue of collective rights
and what they actual mean; whether they are racist or not in practice.

Your comments criticizing my position on the aboriginal peoples
sounded like they were copied from the Citizen editorial (including
such words as "grate" etc.)
Are you missing the fact that the Citizen is basically calling for the
entrenchment of apartheid in our constitution?
They argue that because the Indian Act is racist (and it is) and unequal
status was always "given" aboriginals, therefore we should accept 
unequal rights for aboriginal and non-aboriginal citizens in the future.
No thanks.

Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: bourassa vs. parizeau
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 23:50:08 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.175539.19567@bmerh85.bnr.ca> tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli) writes:
>>It is clear to me that Parizeau is an absolute jerk.  I couldn't
>>stop laughing when he pulled out the map of Quebec.  [...]
>
> [...Bourassa is worse... deleted]
>I wasn't totally impressed with Parizeau. He could have used better
>arguments, and he lowered himself to Bourassa's level when using that
>map.
>
I couldn't watch the debates from down here, and I haven't seen anything
about this on the news...why did Parizeau pull out a map?  I mean, what 
was he _trying_ to do?

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada