HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics,mtl.general
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: S.A. law re school access
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:22:31 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2036

From article <1992Aug28.045523.7932@cc.umontreal.ca>, by pilon@JSP.UMontreal.CA Pilon Guy writes:-

> ...
> 
> 	I was reading my news, quietly, when I read the position of Steeve, who
> compare the Quebec English people position with the South Africa's blacks 
> peoples.  I can say now, this reading made me mad.
 
  No I didn't! : I compared sections 72 & 73 of Bill 101 with laws in
  South Africa.

> 
> 	Every body in this false big country (CANADA) has to answer to this
> question to convince me to change one character to the 101 law.
> 
> 	1- Is'nt true than the French people of the rest of Canada as
> the same number of UNIVERSITIES where they can study in their language than
> the Black People of South Africa; against 2 major English Universities in
> Quebec.
> 
> 	2- Is'nt true, this as easy to the French people to has their school
> (like the constitution of 1867 promise) for the primary and secondary than
> the Black People of South Africa, against the complete school system for
> English people in Quebec.
> 
> 	
> 	3- ......  for the health services.....
> 
> 
> 	4- .....   justice procedures in his languages .....
> 
> 
> 
> 	5- Who in this FALSE BIG COUNTRY (CANADA) would you compared to
> South Africa black people French people out of Quebec or English people
> of Quebec (for me neither).
> 

  I said before that I do not accept any argument about the difference
  in extent or circumstance in which the law (type) is applied in Quebec
  or in S.A. as justification for its application.

  A racist law is a racist law - whatever the "circumstances"!


 (Note for M. Boucher: I did not answer M. Pilon's questions and I don't
  intend to. I consider them irrelevant. You may, of course, disagree)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:6203 soc.culture.canada:6108
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Has Denis Been Struck Mute?was: Has Your Busy Schedule Kept
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:01:53 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 900

From article <SBO.92Aug24205124@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>, by sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher):
>>>>>> On 24 Aug 92 13:41:21 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) said:
>   > X-Bytes: 1322
> 
>   >   I don't blame Denis for not answering when he can't. He would have
>   >   nothing to gain by doing that.
> 
>   >   This is not the first time he had ignored or refused to answer a direct
>   >   question.
> 
> Steve, t'as donc quelque chose en commun avec Denis !!!


  Si c'est vrai - Touche' !

  If there is a particular question you wanted me to answer - by all means
  ask it again.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:37:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.200637.16403@csi.uottawa.ca> mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier) writes:
>
>If a jurisdiction is devoluted to the parliament of Quebec for the province
>of Quebec only, and to the federal parliament for other provinces, what
>difference does it make for citizens of other provinces?  Nothing is gained,
>nothing is lost.
>

Quebec MP's would be voting on issues that then apply only to the rest
of Canada, while Quebec MNA's would be voting on these issues for
Quebecer's.  There is particularly wrong with the devolution of 
powers to the provinces so provincial politiicians can decide the
issue, but if the powers are devolved only to Quebec asymmetrically
then when Quebec MP's are voting on these issues in Ottawa, for
the rest of Canada it becomes an undemocratic government since
they did not vote for these MP's...why should these Quebec MP's be able
to decide on these issues in the rest of Canada, but not in Quebec.

Assymmetical federalism would mean Quebec MP's would have to abstain
from certain votes, that they would probably be ineligible to be
Prime Minister or hold certain cabinet posts where power had been
devolved asymmetrically to Quebec.  It would make government 
unbelievably complex...how would confidence votes work...etc.

Gerald
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:18:32 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier) writes:

>Why is asymmetrical federalism so unacceptable to the rest of Canada?

Asymmetry implies nonuniformity of federal authority, which implies
an unequal legitimacy of votes by members of Parliament.  If the
Government of Quebec (for example) sets telecommunications policy
for Quebec, then Quebec M.P.s would not be justified in voting on
telecommunications policy for the rest of Canada.  This would make
the parliamentary process impossibly complicated.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:41:42 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Universite de Montreal

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

>Here are a few interesting quotes on my central theme:-


[Some quotes deleted]


>   Recommendation #1 of the Chambers' Task Force on English
>   Education in Quebec.:-

>   "THAT THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNMENT
>    OF QUEBEC THAT access to education in English be widened at
>    least to include any child who was being educated in English
>    or who has a parent from an English-speaking part of the world."
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>                          [Submitted February 5th, 1992]

By quoting this, I suppose you agree with it. 

So, you insult quebecois because they support discrimination based on
the education of the parents on the question of accessibility of english
schools, yet you would support discrimination based on country of origin,
which, IMHO, is worst (think about it, all immigrants now have the
same rights as the majority in Quebec; should we change the law to do
this, an immigrant from, say, Germany, would not have the same rights
as one from the U.K. or the US.).

So, Mr Potter, aren't you as racist and fascist as you say we are?

---
Frederic Plante



origin, which, IMHO, is worst  
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pierre@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Pierre Rouleau)
Subject: Re: A bilingual West 
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:53:13 GMT

In article <28AUG92.15383525.0083@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
> As Stewart shows, Manitoba *was* bilingual from 1870
> to 1890, but during that period it went from a province
> with a francophone majority to one with a small francophone
> minority, where it was politically acceptable (and popular)
> to extinguish the official status of French.  So there was
> a lack of francophone immigrants to this region even before
> the passage of the "anti-French" laws...   etc.

[lots of text, which should be read by all, deleted]

I think Tom's assessment is most illuminating on
circumstances which lead to the contemporary predicament
of western french-canadians. Although perhaps not
intended, it demonstrates the effectiveness of an implacable
mechanism of assimilation; therefore, it offers some
support to strong legislative measures aimed at insuring
the continuing existence of a culture, particularly if
the latter has been implanted for centuries.

Pierre R.
  
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: Rep. by pop. in the Commons
Organization: McGill University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:26:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.231257.6602@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>In article <20AUG92.11629298.0064@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000) writes:
>>...
>>   A brief history of apportionment
>>of seats in the H of C follows.  I'm working from memory, so I
>>can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of all that follows.
>>
>>The rule established in 1867 was [...here to 1981 omitted...]
>>
>>After the 1981 census, it was decided that the Commons would grow
>>too rapidly if the 1971 ruls were used, so yet another scheme was
>>devised.  It is basically a return to the 1941 system of a fixed
>>total number of seats, apportioned by population, but with the
>>additional rule that no province can ever lose seats.  [...]
>
>Huh? If the total number of seats is fixed, then the only way a province
>can gain a seat is by getting one that was previously allocated to another
>province. But if no province can ever lose seats, this means that no
>province can ever gain a seat.
>    But if no province can either gain or lose seats, this means they all
>stay the same (barring yet another change in the rules), regardless of
>population shifts. So how can it be said that the seats are (on a
>continuing basis) apportioned by population?
>
>Was the description of the post-1981 rules subject to inaccurate
>recollection, or are the folks in Ottawa really as logic-impaired as the
>description would suggest?
>
My description was just not precise enough.  Here's how the system
of reapportionment works at present (though perhaps to be changed
soon):

The basic idea is to produce a House of Commons of 282 MPs.  One seat
is allocated to Yukon and 2 to NWT, leaving 279 for the provinces.
So divide the total population of the ten provinces by 279, giving
the average riding poulation.  Now divide this number into the popula-
tion of each province, to give the number of seats for that province.
The total may not come to 279, because of round-off error.

I was incorrect when I said that no province can ever lose seats.
The rule is that no province's number of seats can ever fall below
the number it had after the redistribution which followed the 1971
census.  When the process described in the previous paragraph is
followed, several provinces *will* fall below this minimum.  The
solution is not to take seats away from one province and give them to
another, but just to add seats to the "under-represented" provinces
to bring them up to the minimum number of seats.  That's why the
current H of C has 295 seats, not 282.

To recap, the number used for the basic calculation is fixed at 279,
but later corrections are applied which can increase the total size
of the House.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Les interets collectifs
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:54:16 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Universite de Montreal

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

>From article <plante.715459277@iros1>, by plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante):
>>
>> On ne peut comparer la situation des anglophones du Quebec en ce moment
>> avec celle du Manitoba il y a cent ans (et meme maintenant).  On a jamais
>                                                                !?!?!?!?!?!
>> enleve le droit aux anglophones d'avoir leurs ecoles au Quebec. 
>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>> 

>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


>     Hello?

>                                        Excuse me?

>            OI!           
>                      OVER HERE!


>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Ben, jusqu'a nouvel ordre, il existe encore des ecoles anglaises au
Quebec, et elle ne sont pas illegales.  Est-ce que je me trompe? 

Comment osez-vous comparer la situation des anglophones du Quebec
a celle des francophones du Manitoba du siecle dernier (et meme
d'aujourd'hui, dirais-je)?

Frederic Plante
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan)
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:31:23 GMT

In article <BtJvLD.I18@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.085646.12416@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>From article <1992Aug25.063838.25321@cc.umontreal.ca>, by dignard@ERE.UMontreal.CA  Michel Dignard waxes:-
>
>7 millions of francos where assimilated and humiliated because of
>illegal laws in Western Canada.  We just don't care about your silly
>problem.
>

Just out of curiosity could you please tell me when there were ever 7 million
French speaking people in western Canada?  Even for you this statement is
pretty outrageous.

>
>We don't care.  Quebec is not yet part in the 1982 constitution.
>

This is actually wrong.  Quebec *IS* part of the 1982 constitution because
it is part of Canada.  If you don't except that logic then ask yourself this
how did Bourasa envoke the not-with-standing clause if Quebec isn't part of
the constitution.  This idea that Quebec never signed the constitution is
a facilacy started by Mulroney.  No province ever signed the constitution.
In fact, the only Canadian names that are on the constitution are all French
names from Quebec.

>
>
>-- 
>  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
> /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
>J   __>  Vient de paraitre : Andre Jarret et ses Ancetres
>\_.-===  En vente par l'auteur                      Opinions ? Et pis non !

Gordon

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: more on rep.by pop.
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:20:33 GMT

CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>Several postings have expressed strong objections to the latest
>proposed constitutional deal, because it violates the principle
>of representation by population in the House of Commons.  In a
>previous posting, I tried to show that the rules for apportioning
>seats in the Commons have changed frequently with time, and have not
>always respected the principle of rep. by pop.

[...]

>In the past, every single province has benefitted at one time or
>another from a departure from the strict rule of rep by pop.  Quebec
>was the very last to do so.

What's your point? Yes, they've always done this. That doesn't make it right.
In 1867 women weren't allowed to vote; does that make it okay to take away
their vote now? Is beating your wife okay because you've always done it?
We should be righting wrongs, not perpetuating them.

(sickeningly rhetorical, but I hope you get the idea)
-- 
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: The Accord and the future
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:23:54 GMT
Distribution: can.politics
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Richard Wood) writes:
>I think we would have been better off making Quebec an 'autonomous' province,
>(ie, asymmetry), having the powers described in the Allaire report.  Powers
>shared with Ottawa would be managed by some sort of joint government.
>  Instead, we're locking ourselves into a structure that Quebecers will soon 
>find unacceptable.  Far from solving the problem, the accord strikes me as 
>a big step towards the separation of Quebec. 

I like this point of view. That's exactly what Quebec has been asking
for, for quite a few years now. Daniel Johnson, Lesage, Levesque. What
you are describing is also very similar Souverainete-Association. I
think they are two long-term alternatives: an "autonomnous" province
(i.e., a form of Souverainete-Association) or "staight" independance.
Note that with the current world politics, there is no such thing as
complete independance.

However, I don't think the accord is a "total" waste of time. It
reports the problem till later, when the flames are less violent.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:37:51 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante) writes:

>Je vous l'ai dit par e-mail, mon language a ete involontairement ambigue.

Mea culpa.  I didn't read my mail.

>Je n'ai jamais dit que les quebecois ne sont pas ouverts aux autres
>cultures.  En fait je crois qu'ils sont plus ouverts aux autres cultures
>que les anglo-canadiens, et les americains (un exemple, les films
>etrangers; combien de films etranger retrouve-t-on dans les salles
>de cinema de grand public (pas de repertoire) dans les cinemas 
>anglophones?  pas beaucoup; a la television?  pas beaucoup).
>
>Ce n'est pas le manque d'ouverture des francophones aux autres cultures
>qui est la cause de la loi.  En fait, je crois que c'est le manque
>d'ouverture des anglophones a la culture francophone qui en est la cause.

If it's the Anglo-Quebecers who lack openness to French, why do the
eligibility restrictions apply only to immigrants??

>>I do not claim that Quebecers are less individual than other Canadians,
>>and if you take their freedom away, they react like anyone else -- with
>>anger.  However, the whole justification for language laws has been
>>derived from the premises that liberty is less important in the end
>>than cultural continuity and that individual rights are balanced by
>>collective rights, premises that reject modernity and its insistence
>>upon liberty, the individual, the equality of all persons, and so on.
>>I simply suggested a reason for this unmodernity -- late modernization.
>>By this I do not mean that Quebec is out of date.

>Je rejette cette hypothese.  Le Quebec n'est pas moins moderne que le
>reste du Canada.  Qui a donne au Canada sa chartre des droits?  Un 
>quebecois.

But Denis just said Trudeau was an anglophone!! :-)

>N'etes-vous pas d'accord qu'en 1977, quelque chose devait etre fait
>pour changer la situation par rapport a l'affichage et a l'education?
>Qu'aurions-nous du faire, a votre avis?

Signage:
   French required on all signs, at least as large as any other
   language, perhaps with priority (to the left or on top).

Education:
   No restrictions on eligibility, but regulations to ensure
   that students in _all_ schools attain fluency in French.

>Je continue a croire que vous etes legerement
>condescendant envers les francophones.

I know too many francophones to harbour any silly ideas about their
superiority or inferiority.

>En tout cas, votre argumentation sur la non-modernite du Quebec est faible.

I concede.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: La constitution et l'Equality Party
Date: 25 Aug 92 02:06:59 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal


(Cette question est ouverte a tous, bien qu'elle s'adresse
plus particulierement a Steve Potter)

Quel est la position du Equality Party en ce qui concerne la
recente entente de principe sur la constitution?
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
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: plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:55:18 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Universite de Montreal

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>The following is probably worth reading.

[...]

>Quebec is not the best place to seek a liberal-rights utopia
>because, of all western countries, it has spent the least time in
>the modern era: perhaps two decades. For the same reason, it does not
>idolize objectivity: its concerns are articulated subjectively, and it
>is this subjectivity that anglophones as modernists misinterpret
>as bad faith, disguising hostile intentions.  The subjectivity can
>be self-serving, but it can also be sympathetic.

Ca c'est de la grosse bullshit.  La societe quebecoise est la societe la
plus post-moderne au monde.  C'est le reste du Canada qui nous suit
peniblement.  Le Quebec avait une charte des droits avant que le Canada
en ait une.  Dans les faits, les quebecois sont beaucoup plus 
individualistes que la plupart des canadiens, et sont beaucoup
plus respectueux des droits individuels (les homosexuels sont beaucoup
plus accepte ici que dans le CSQ), sauf par rapport a la culture et
la langue, parce que nous sommes minoritaires et que nous avons de la
difficulte a integrer les nouveaux arrivants (a cause de notre voisin
du sud). 

On dirait que vous prenez les quebecois pour des enfants, M. Hood.

Comme societe moderne, le Quebec a depasse le reste du Canada depuis
longtemps.

Frederic Plante
 
Newsgroups: can.politics