HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U)
Subject: Re: No Senate Elections
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:58:55 GMT

In article <18548@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>Jeez, what a spiteful little snot Mulroney is.  Accepting Alberta's elected
>senator was fine when he wanted Alberta's support for his constitutional
>deal, but now that Alberta didn't support him, accepting the Alberta voter's
>choice isn't acceptable anymore.  He sounds like a little brat who's taking
>his ball home because the goalie blocked his shot at the goal.

No, not at all.  Albertans rejected the Accord which would have allowed
elections.  What would Albertans say if Mulroney gave Quebec 25% guarantee
anyway, "even though Quebecers voted no on the deal".
-- 
Steve Cooper      |  Internet:  scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca
Waterloo, Ontario |  If you actually think I speak for Wilfrid Laurier
Canada!!          |  University, well... I don't even want to think about it.
Xref: sparky can.politics:10832 can.general:6028 soc.culture.canada:9428
From: dpl@aber.ac.uk (David Philip Langstaff)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australian
Subject: Re:    Do we really need the monarchy?
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:12:52 GMT
Organization: University of Wales, Aberystwyth

In article <1992Dec10.222835.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>
>That is a good point. Queen Elizabeth is the RICHEST WELFARE QUEEN in the
>world - she is a billionaire who is head of state because for the SOLE
>REASON that her ancesters were. 
[...]
>
>Let the monarchy perish, or put them all in a funny museum. It is 
>completely silly to let "tradition" persist. 
[...]

I'll say this for the french, they really know how to treat royalty.


-- 
Dave Langstaff | Janet:dpl@uk.ac.aber
Any views expressed are those of the author alone. | Phone:(0970)622838 
After-life, After-shave, don't hold with any of it, bleugh! - Sir Henry 
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: guns
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:09:24 GMT


the problem with all these anti-gun arguments, is that they restrict
a person's right to own/keep something.

The public (ie your neighbors) have a right to restrict another person
from owning or keeping an object, but only if that object has a high
probablility of injuring or killing them. Ie. restricting another person's
right to own and keep something on their premises (a gun) is justifiable
as a pre-emptive act self defence.

However, it is not obvious to me that a gun, by itself, poses a direct
and immediate threat to your neighbors, so therefore, I don't see why
people think they  have such sweeping rights to limit other's liberty
(your liberty ends only when exercising your liberties interferes or
immediately threatens to interfere with another persons). Sweeping
statements about 'for the good of society' etc. just don't cut it with
my sense of individualism and liberty. Especially when we limit rights
for the supposed good, when in the majority of cases, guns as kept
by law-abiding citizens, pose no threat to your neighbors.

We can look at another example: suppose you find out that your neighbor
makes plastic explosives as a "hobby". Now given the volatility, and
the probability that your neighbor could blow not just HIMSELF up,
but you and the whole neighborhood, justifies restricting that person's
rights (make them stop it, or do it in a bunker so they only kill 
themselves, not you). Of course, it's a bit sticky to define 'probability'
of causing harm to another person, but I'm sure common law precedents 
would help sort that out after a few iterations.

jpm


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australian
From: hm@fwi.uva.nl (Hans Mulder)
Subject: Re: Do we really need the monarchy?
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:04:42 GMT

In <1992Dec12.234429.13224@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>>>I'll bet the *French*-Canadians haven't suffered from this "national
>>>identity crisis".  
>>
>>No, they have their own identity crisis -- they think they are being
>>persecuted.

>This is true.  Still, IMO, their relations back home certainly
>had a rather efficient way of ridding themselves of a parasitic
>monarchy a few centuries ago.

If you think all those revolutions the French staged between 1789
and 1848 rid them of parasitic monarchies, you're wrong.  The one
thing that finally worked (in 1871) was getting conquered by Prussia.

>Probably can't be done today, I suppose.

Seeing as Prussia no longer exists, no, it can't be done today.
Maybe the Canadians could ask the Germans to conquer Canada.

HansM
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australian
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Do we really need the monarchy?
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:32:25 GMT

In article <u8FXVB4w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>   I furthur arge that the people show, based on a value system, should keep the
> government in check.

Shurely, as well asthat, it shold only be people. govenrments should not,
no circonstunces, be allwed to do it.

Simon.

Marks out of 10 anyone?

-- 
  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:54:15 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1606

From article <4NcoVB2w165w@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca>, by bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca (Brad Crockett):
> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
> 
>> The Human Right is the Right to Education which is not at all as the
>> right to choose the language of education.  And this right to choose
>> just can not exist with the right to migrate because a lot of migration
>> involves a change of local language.
> 
> He's right - the two contradict each other!
> 

The right to choose is unrelated to the right to migrate.

The right to choose between publicly funded services available in an
area has nothing to do with the right to move into or out of the area.

Saying that the "right to choose just can not exist with the right to
migrate because a lot of migration involves a change of local language"
is non sequitur.

Both freedom of choice in education and mobility rights are recognised in
the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Incidently, while on the subject of mobility rights, the Parti Quebecois,
or some of its key members at least, have indicated that they would like
Quebec legislation to dictate where immigrant families should be allowed
to settle - as well as denying their right to choose the kind of education
they want for their children. :-(

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:19:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.112132.7592@spxtech.qc.ca>, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes

> English canadians whose parents landed here after 26th August, 1977 are
> NOT allowed to attend publicly funded English schools in this province. :-(

I could debate why the whole system of "public" schools violates freedom
of choice, but that is another debate. Steve continues...

> The law that says immigrants must go to a French school violates the
> U.N. declaration of fundamental human rights and freedoms in that it
> denies parents the right to choose the kind of education that shall be
> given to their children. :-(

Like the UN members actually believe what the declarations say. Good
point though. Freedom of choice is not a priority like it should be when
it comes to education. 

>> I don't see why anglo immigrants
>> shall be treated differently than other immigrants.

Equality before the law, unless you were born in Quebec, in which new sets
of rules apply. Perhaps French Quebecers are right to suspect the conclusions
of the Chambers report on English education. That being said, English
education is a real issue, and the whole issue of giving immigrants a 
different set of standards than those of Quebecers born in Canada is
in my mind suspect. 

If person who was born in an English speaking country called Canada
moved to Quebec, he would have the right to send his kids to English
school. If a person who was born in an English speaking country called
Great Britain or the United States or Australia and moved to Quebec,
he would NOT have the same right to send his kids to English school.
Deux poids, deux mesures.

Equality demands that either special considerations for English Quebecers
be set aside, and they be mandated to go to French school (at this point
I would be convinced that some of Steve's friends would start arming
themselves for a revolution  :-)   ), or immigrants
from English speaking countries be considered the same as an English
speaking Canadian who lives in Quebec. Or perhaps another third unnamed
option that also puts these people on the same legal footing. Any way
you have it, the current system uses double standards.

> Why should anglo citizens be treated differently from other anglo citizens?

Trust Steve to reduce my long winded arguments (see above) to one simple
sentence. Nice job.

>   ///==================================================================\\\
>   ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
>   ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
>   |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
-- 
a la prochaine

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apology accepted, Captain Needa", Darth Vader
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:21:32 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1868

From article <13726@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM
Francois Audet declares:-

> Quebec not only allows english canadians to be educated in english,
> but it provides publicly-funded schools to do so virtualy anywhere.

English canadians whose parents landed here after 26th August, 1977 are
NOT allowed to attend publicly funded English schools in this province. :-(

Another English school (St. Kevins), it was announced last night, is to
be closed. :-(

>
> New-Brunswick is a BILINGUAL province. The only officially bilingual
> province in Canada. NB has a 60/40 anglo/franco population while
> Quebec has a 85/15 franco/anglo population.
> 

Quebec has less than 10% english mother tongue population!

> What "oppresive" law? The law that says that immigrants into a francophone
> province must go to french school?

Yes - that's one of them!

"francophone province" includes an English-speaking community!

The law that says immigrants must go to a French school violates the
U.N. declaration of fundamental human rights and freedoms in that it
denies parents the right to choose the kind of education that shall be
given to their children. :-(

> I don't see why anglo immigrants
> shall be treated differently than other immigrants.

Why should anglo citizens be treated differently from other anglo citizens?

Why should franco citizens be treated differently from "vieux-souche" Quebec
anglo citizens?

Why should franco immigrants be treated differently from anglo immigrants?

Why should their be any discrimination against "immigrants" at all?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:10873 soc.culture.british:17709 soc.culture.australian:5178
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:47:21 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australian
Subject: Re: Do we really need the monarchy?
 <1992Dec17.164928.7051@mdivax1.uucp>

In article <1992Dec17.164928.7051@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim
Robinson) says:
>
>Tom Oates (th2_oate@csd.uwe.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>>Despite this, people in Britain (and those in countries such as NZ, Oz
>>and Canada are just as bad) throng the streets to clap and cheer when royalty

Oh really, when the Queen was last here, there was a conspicious shortage
of spectators, I believe only a few hundred showed up at Queen's Park in
Toronto for her compared with sixty or seventy thousand when Mandela came to
town or countless numbers when the Blue Jays had their victory parade.

Her Maj comes here every once in awhile, goes around and opens shopping malls,
that's about the extent of it. Of course thousands turned out for her in
Quebec City in the 60s, but they all had their backs turned to her in order
to symbolise their opinion of the monarchy.


>>appear. Watch how commoners bow, scrape and generally abase themselves.
>>I was very amused to see film of a University Professor bowing to Princess
>>Diana whose sole academic qualification is one O-level.
>
>What? The future (well, maybe) Queen of England (and Canada) never made it
>out of the Brit equivalent of grade 12? A high school drop-out for a
>Queen? Say it ain't so.
>--
>Jim Robinson
>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
>{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
>
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: 5th Mulroney Tory MP Convicted
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:10:57 GMT

CP -- Quebec Tory MP Maurice Tremblay has been convicted of using
$5,000 of public money from his office budget to pay for a trip to
Acapulco in 1988 for three members of his riding association and their
spouses.

Tremblay (PC - Lotbiniere), who has represented his riding since 1984,
will be sentenced Jan. 25.

Tremblay could face expulsion from the house, although John Fraser,
Speaker, suggested any disciplinary action would have to wait until
after sentencing and after any appeals launched by Tremblay's lawyers
have been exhausted.

The last time the possiblity of an MP being expelled came up was in
1989, when another Quebec Tory, Richard Grise pleaded guilty to two
charges of fraud and nine charges of breach of trust.

Grise was sentenced to one day in jail and three years probation and
fined $20,000. Grise resigned his Commons seat before the House had a
chance to act on the matter. 

Tremblay becomes the fifth Conservative MP convicted of a crime since 1984.

Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australian
Subject: Re: Do we really need the monarchy?
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 05:45:13 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:

- In article <PRBoVB5w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
-
- ... no, I'm sorry, I can't quote any of it, I'm too emotionally disturbed.
- Are you sure you're all right, Dave?
- --
- Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757
- Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
- New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl
- Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk

My dear fellow, when it comes to any pro-Republican, I nuke away!!
When it comes to anyone challenging the monarchy for rightful reasons, I do
decide to side with them quickly.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Happy Christmas and Merry New Year to One and All - John Lennon
Xref: sparky can.politics:10759 soc.culture.british:17527 soc.culture.australian:5137
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australian
Subject: Re: Do we really need the monarchy?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 05:45:22 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #2, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

- >
- >  Froeign Sovereign?  I BEG YOUR PARDON.  Since when did Canada's indigenous
- >population were made up of white-people?  And on on whose model of governmen
- >has Canada based itself on?  THE BRITISH !!  You seem to ignore the fact tha
- >Canada's government culture in BASED ON THE BRITISH parliament.  Canada was
- >fact the Loyalist answer to a Nation in North America!! You are forgetting
- >what
- >is historically and fundamental Canada.
-
- If you're going to defend the monarchy, you should try to use the Queen's
- English, I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say. If our
- political system were based solely on the British, we wouldn't have a
- constitution, a charter of rights or a federal system. There are many
- parliamentary democracies (Ireland, Germany, Finland) that function quite wel
- without monarchs, foreign or domestic.
-
  Baloney!! The Charter of Rights and Freedoms are an ENHANCEMENT thatCanada
and Australia have.    British Centrists  are also seeking such a document.
As for the democracies under Republicism, most of them that I know of are
going through major internal problem. Key reason : NO UNITY and NO ONE to
truely look to as a State leader!

- >  In case you missed it, Canadians, Australians, anybody who has Her Majesty
- >as Head of State, IS consulted! That was definitely the case 56 years age wh
- >Edward 8th abdicated the throne.  IT depends on whether or not Parliament OR
-
- but not the case last week, there is no evidence that there was any consultat
-
- >he Privy Council addreses it and if the media CARES to report this!!
- >
  Ever heard of suppresion of information? Considered it a possibility?

- >Andy, I suggest you go back and re-read what is Canada, or even British nort
- >America before posting again!!
-
- I suggest you learn the Queen's English so you can discuss this coherently.
- As a politics major, I am well aware of the structures involved.

  Wher have I heard that one before.  My dear fellow, you are addressing a
Policy Director for Liberal Party Consitutency Associations!
-

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Happy Christmas and Merry New Year to One and All - John Lennon
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rcroteau@sobeco.com (r.croteau)
Subject: Re: Relative salaries (was: Legalized Discrimination) in Quebec
Organization: Sobeco Ernst & Young
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:23:51 GMT

In <1992Dec10.095553.1721@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

>                                    Revenue total     Revenu de travail
>   Langue maternelle                1970    1980      1970    1980
>   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Francais (reference group)       100.0   100.0     100.0   100.0
>   Anglais                          144.7   116.3     130.5   110.9

>   Groupe linguistique
>   Francophones unilingues (ref.)   100.0   100.0     100.0   100.0
>   Francophones bilingues           192.5   168.8     142.7   137.3
>   Anglophones unilingues           169.3   125.0     145.8   120.5
>   Anglophones bilingues            219.3   157.7     163.9   132.3

>(Source: Conseil de la langue francaise)

>I read somewhere recently that this trend had continued, and that unilingual
>francophones were now earning more than unilingual anglos and you can see
>that in 1980 bilingual francophones were already earning more than bilingual
>anglos.

>Does anybody have more recent figures?

I went to the OLF offices on Thursday and quickly went through a book
called "Langue et status economique au Quebec, 1980-85" by Francois
Vaillancout. It was published in 1991 based on the census of 1986.

Because you cannot borrow their books from the library, I was only able to
go through it very quickly(Gotta earn my paycheck!).  My impresion I got was
that the statistics of 1985 are very similar  to 1980 such that the previous
trend of unilingual francophone catching up to unilingual francophone has
slowed downed.

I will probably go to the "Publication du Quebec" offices(Quebec Government
publishing arm) and buy it.  Look for more on this next week...

Remember, statistics are only as good(or bad) as you want it.

P.S. For those not in the know, OLF is Office the la langue francaise
-- 
Robert-Andre Croteau BSD,MOTU       3575 St-Laurent #132 Montreal, Quebec
Le Groupe MacLawran Inc.            +1 (514) 843-4269
uunet!sobeco!paxmtl!robert
		"Go HABS Go !!!, NHL's best"
Xref: sparky can.politics:10842 can.general:6036 soc.culture.canada:9438
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:05:21 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Dec16.093540.24784@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>
>M. LaRocque suggested that francophones hors Quebec are afraid of the
>consequences of Quebec seccession.
>
>Given the Quebec Governments record of intervening in minority language
>matters hors Quebec AGAINST the interests of minority francophone
>communities I suggest that those francophone communities hors Quebec would
>probably be better able to defend their own interests WITHOUT "help" from
>the Quebec government - post seccession.
>
I think what francophones hors Quebec fear is not the loss of "help"
from the Quebec government, it's the loss of francophone influence
in Ottawa which would follow Quebec independence.  No more federal
transfer payments for minority language education.  No more
Radio-Canada radio and television.  No more federal funding for
la Societe des Acadiens, l'Association canadienne-francaise de
l'Ontario, etc.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Xref: sparky can.politics:10663 soc.culture.british:17345 soc.culture.australian:5107