HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Re: Prospects for Quebec independence
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 16:41:49 GMT

alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes:
>In <1992Nov3.155814.24917@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>> Firm separatists:   30%
>	My estimate is 35%

>> Swing voters:       40%

>> Firm federalists:   30%
>	25%, but who is counting?		|8-)

My estimates were derived from the observed support for "sovereignty"
which has swung between 30% and 70% during the past decade or so.

>> The "swing" voters are ambivalent francophone Quebecers.
>	... and a number of rational Anglos who see no great
>	problem with an independant Quebec.

... a very *small* number ... :-)

>> [ ... ] 
>[ ... ]

>> [ ... ] 
>[ ...? ]

... !

>	But a I have a question: 
>		Why are Federalists assuming that Quebec's
>		nationalism, and even separatism, are not
>		in the common best interest?  (Note that I
>		do not exclude the possibility of minor
>		hardships and incidents, but I don't believe
>		it should matter in a large scale, long term
>		choice)
>	I have a feeling that here, as in church, the basic
>	tenets are not being questioned.  It is a shame.
> Alain

It's a matter of opinion, not assumption.

--
Thomas Hood                                                     thood@matrox.com
Xref: sparky can.politics:9500 soc.culture.canada:8400
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:07:38 GMT

Bruce Jonathan Schuck (schuck@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>
>I think Canada should separate peacefully, but I think there should be
>almost zero relations with the secessionist province until
>relationships with our trading partners and political allies are
>stabilized.

If Quebec secedes, I truly hope that this sort of "civil-war" mindset
("if they leave us, then let's be bastards") is only held by a 
minority of Canadians, and definitely not by the ruling governments 
of the day.  If not, perhaps our evil "political elites" won't have this
confrontational attitude.

I will always put the people who live in present-day Canada (Quebec, TROC)
above any nationalist abstraction of the country.  If Quebec leaves, I'm
not about to screw them because they've declined their holy Canadian 
citizenship.  They are the same people -- they just decided to
identify with a different abstraction.

We'll see the true colours of Canadian nationalism if Quebec secedes,
for better or worse.

-- 
Brian Ross                         "How do we arrange lures in our tackle box?
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     From left to right, according to size and 
                                    frequency of use." -- Anal-Retentive Chef.
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: The October Crisis (was Re: Quebec)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:14:42 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1280

From article <1di2hiINNrr1@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, by mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander):
> In article <1992Nov04.210255.21421@microsoft.com> robertfe@microsoft.com (Robert Ferguson) writes:
>>It is, of course, impossible to determine whether the intent of 
>>his kidnappers was to kill him; but the law holds that anyone who
>>is killed in the commission of a felony is considered to be a victim
>>of murder, regardless of the circumstances.
> 
> Please don't talk about "the law" when you really mean "U.S. law". In
> Canadian law, there is no such thing as a felony.
> 


You must understand that the kidnappers were not murderers.

They only kidnapped him and stuffed him in the trunk of a vehicle to be
picked up by the police.

The police were responsible for his death because they didn't get to the
vehicle soon enough.

:-)

N.B. I do not support this argument! THEY kidnapped him and THEY put him
     in the trunk - the responsibility for his death is clear.

:-(
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Plan B
Organization: BC News and Mail
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:41:23 GMT

In article <schuck.721358888@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>>You've been arguing ruthlessness all along.  I'm just suggesting
>>that there ought to be consistent treatment to separatist provinces.
>>What's appropriate treatment for Quebec ought to be appropriate
>>treatment for BC.

We would insist on it. Of course the difference is in one case Ottawa stops
making transfer payments. In the other it stops collecting taxes. 

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.bc.ca> ....................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Mulroney succession
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:12:46 GMT

afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel) writes:

>In article <schuck.721416120@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce
>Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>|> 
>|> By the way, Joe only last 9 months in a minority government because he
>|> couldn't win Quebec -- Pierre Trudeau could.
>|> 
>Horseshit. He got caught with his pants down in a confidence vote
>He could have been there years.

Years? Thats stretching it. You are right that he had to call an
election because he couldn't count, but he didn't get reelected
because Quebeckers rarely if ever vote for parties led by
non-Quebeckers. Joe couldn't win in Quebec against Trudeau.

>And while were at it why, just because he's from Quebec, wouldn't
>Chretien represent the interests of Canada. 

Not a chance. I can just see it. Chretien negotiating with Parizeau
over the national debt.

JP: How about 10%. It would be good for the Quebec economy.
JC: Well, since I'm going to live there, how about 5% ?

>PET is a Quebecer..I'd
>rather have him on the "other" side of tha table than say Joe who

I'd rather have neither on 'our' side.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:38:36 GMT
Distribution: can
	<schuck.721165680@sfu.ca> <LABACH.92Nov9083820@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
	<92316.135417SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <schuck.721521140@sfu.ca>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <schuck.721521140@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce
Jonathan Schuck) writes: 

> I think the Senators did a wonderful job in defending the memory of
> the Canadians who died in WWII and those whose returned.
> 
> Let us remember the CBC is a public broadcasting instutution which
> spends a pittance on allowing the people to respond to news shows and
> documenteries. 
> 
> I will contrast them to the Globe and Mail.

Better yet, let's contrast the Globe and Mail to you...

"That a Senate committee should be conducting a formal investigation of
 a work of journalism is shameful enough.  Senators are of course free
 to hold whatever opinion they like, and to express it in the same way
 as any other citizen.  But to compel witnesses to come before public
 hearings to answer their "charges" is another thing entirely.  This is
 no innocent encounter, as the senators protest, intended to shed light
 on a dark subject: it is to array the machinery of state against a free
 press, and its sole design is intimidation."

 - from a Globe and Mail editorial (Nov. 12, 1992) on the Canadian
   Senate's hearings into the accuracy of The Valour and the Horror, a
   documentary on World War II.

> Does the CBC devote 10 minutes to viewers responses, applause or
> criticism? No. How about 1 minute. I think not. As far as I know,
> there is no time reserved for such feedback on the national network.
> Our local CBC used to dedicate 3 or 4 minutes once a week to viewers
> phone calls , and I think they still do but I haven't seen it since
> the revamp of the early evening newscast.

The Talk-back line, on As It Happens.  CBC Calgary runs a "letters"
forum for responses from listeners.  That's two.

> I applaud the Senate Committee, and I urge the CBC to provide a daily
> forum for the peoples view on it's news programs.

Did it ever occur to you that those Canadian soldiers who died in WW II
were trying to _protect_ us from interventionist, paternalistic, fascist
government?

- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mythology, n. The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its
origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished
from the true accounts which it invents later.

 - Ambrose Bierce
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:51:59 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2658

From article <1992Nov7.050703.1680@cc.umontreal.ca>, by southiea@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Southiere Alain):
> In article <1992Nov4.121126.4318@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>He/she might also expect to be welcomed by francophone neighbours who
>>offer him ample opportunity to learn/improve/perfect his/her french.
>>
>>Naturally, since more than 80% of the population in Quebec is francophone,
>>he/she would be pretty stupid not to have his/her children learn french.
>>This can be done in perfectly good immersion programs in English schools.
> 
>    Get serious ! If a law is needed to get these people to put their children
> in a french school, it might be because they wouldn't do it in the first
> place, no ?
>

Such a law is not needed. People are demanding more and more French programs
in English schools. Many anglophone families place their children in French
schools in Quebec by choice (about 10,000 of them).
 
>    So, if for some reason they're not interested to to have their chidren
> go to a french school, do you seriously think that they're interested in
> learning/improving/perfecting their french ?
> 

Your assumption is wrong and, in any case, I don't think forcing parents to
send their children to French school, whether they would choose to send them
there or not, encourages them to learn/improve/perfect their French, do you?

>    I don't mind of immigrants coming to Quebec, but hey, if they want to
> live in an English community, there's all other provinces in Canada and
> all of the USA they can go to !

There is also an English community in Montreal that is on the decline -
why shouldn't they join that English community if they want to?

>>
>>Denying English parents the right to place their children in English
>>schools in Quebec does not encourage them to improve their French - it
>>makes them angry, bitter, resentful, and leaves them feeling unwanted,
>>rejected, and unwelcome!
> 
>    As I juste said, if they're not willing to send their children to a
> french school, they're surely not interested in learning french for
> themself !

Completely non-sequitur!

Children can learn French as a second language, perfectly well, in a French
immersion program, in an English school. Their English mother tongue
education, on the other hand, in a French school - is another matter?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Benevolent Dictators
Date: 8 Nov 1992 03:34:01 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

Someone mentioned that Singapore could be considered a benevolent
dictatorship. According to my grade 9 geography textbook, which even
then was probably out-of-date, Kuwait is/was a b.d., in that its emirs
(who take office through heredity, I think) used the country's
oil revenues for the good of all citizens, creating welfare programs,
universal education and health care, etc. However, my impression is
that while Kuwaitis might have it good, guest workers in the country
did not.

Mathew Englander.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:34:15 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <schuck.721472936@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
[ About Quebec getting 10% of the land and 50% of the debt after an
  eventual secession ]
>Radical? I think 50% is a realistic position because I genuinely thin
>half the debt was caused by Quebec's blackmail and consititutional
>wrangling.

Boy, you really live in a hate-filled artificially created little
world of your own! Who will you hate after Quebec seccedes? Yourself?

>>Quebecers do.  Most are far more reasonable than you.
>
>I doubt that.

I don't.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:02:40 GMT

clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:

>In article <schuck.721246968@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>   You are insane if you think Canada would allow Jean Chretien to sit at
>   a table with Jacques Parizeau to negotiate how much of the national
>   debt goes to Quebec, how much land it keeps, which region stays, etc
>   etc.

>Why not?  Cretien's riding is in Nouveau Brunswick, and his official
>residence is Ottawa. 

Please, don't be ridiculous. Jean Chretien represents New Brunswick as
much as John Turner represented BC. Both were just conveniences.

>   Nobody in the BC would allow a Quebec Prime Minister or Quebec
>   Cabinet Ministers or Quebec MP's to negotiate for us during talks on
>   such an agreement with a Quebec government.

>Cretien is not a Quebec MP.  He is a NB MP.

See above.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: (Gerry Gryschuk)
Subject: Re: Releasing Results B4 the polls close (was Re: Referendum and the w
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 10:51:32 GMT

From article <92313.003808SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, by John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>:
> I believe, however, that this kind of censorship makes no sense. The
> government should simply seal the ballot boxes until the polls close
> everywhere (send the scrutineers out for coffee). It'll lower the
> E-day ratings for the CBC in Atlantic Canada, but I think it would help
> reduce western alienation.

Interestingly enough(or maybe not), I've been thinking exactly this ever
since the question arose. There's no censorship here, nobody's freedom
of speech is denied and thus you would think it would be the natural
way to go. But then stick politicians in the equation and of course
things aren't going to work correctly.

Now if I was paranoid, or a conspiracy minded person I would claim this
wasn't done because then Easterners would have to stay up until the wee
hours of the morning to find out who won and we wouldn't want to inconvenience
them. But I'm not paranoid or anything so I won't mention it.
--
Gerald Gryschuk            Saskatoon,Saskatchewan = a place with 9 months
gerry@sask.usask.ca           of hockey and 3 months of poor skating.
Go Habs!!!		              (The Bum rules!!!)
Xref: sparky can.politics:9459 soc.culture.canada:8375
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:32:40 GMT

In article <schuck.721590352@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>No...I said "we (the Allies) deemed that evil and immoral acts (on
>>our part) were necessary to win the war"...war is basically an evil
>>business...because we sometimes find ourselves unable to avoid it,
>>does not make it morally acceptable or justifiable.  
>
>I'm sorry. Run that by me again. Defending your country from attack
>and invasion is immoral and evil?
>Is there any difference in evil and immorality between defending your
>country and gassing 6 million jews? Are they morally equivalent?
>Do you just lump them in together as equally immoral and evil?
>
>Thats sick.
>

I make no comparisons between our actions and Nazi actions...any
comparison is irrelevant.

As I said before....

>
>>Because the other side committed greater and more numerous atrocities
>>than our side did, does not give moral sanction to the atrocities we
>>committed.
>

My sins are no less sins because someone else was a greater sinner.

I do not gain absolution for my sins by pointing out how much worse
somebody else was, but by critically examining my own actions and
reasons for them...this is something that as a country we should
be able to do with regard to our actions in any war, including WWII...
something which a few of our veterans seem unable to do.  

Gerald
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:52:07 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <schuck.721416339@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>If you read the news today you will see that the US is prepared to
>start a trade war with all of Europe to stop subsidies. Quebec's
>economy is subsidy based and the US would be very, very tough.

Of course... I guess this is not an overstatement. :-)
Of course, the american are so naive that they don't see that Quebec
is "subsidy based" because it is only a province. Of course, if it
became a country the americans would see the light. Of course, the
canadian governement and the other provincial governement don't give
subsidies.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: "Canada is like a dull party"
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:42:02 GMT

In article <5038@disuns2.epfl.ch> riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese) writes:
>
>"The bog in which [Canada] now comes to rest is deeper and
>stickier even than the one from which it started, and it is not clear
>that there is a way out. Canada may well be mired for years.

Just goes to show you that even The Economist can be wrong some times!

Their reporter obviously has too many establishment friends...the NO
vote cleared up the bog...not made it worse.  Quebec now has a clear
choice to make, and once Quebec makes its Canada can finally get on
with things.

>[...]
>The disaffection is nationwide, and any attempt to reduce it in one
>place is certain to increase it elsewhere. 

The disaffection in Canada is undoubtedly less than in the US, Britain,
France, Germany, or Italy.  If you wanted to have problems, which
country's problems would you most like to have.  I would choose Canada's
problems over almost any other countries.

>[...]
>Quebec could well vote to pull out by 1995.

So what...the simple fact is that Quebec is probably not going anywhere
because the international investors who hold Canada's and Quebec's foreign
debt will say NO!  

>[...]
>In their current morass, with the eventual break-up of the country looking
>more probable than ever, Quebeckers are likely to see more jobs,
>people and investment go elsewhere; and other Canadians are likely to 
>go on watching their young drift south and their economy suffer from
>paludinous uncertainty. This week's No will have echoes for years."
>

The echoes will be have mostly positive reverberations, because 
the clear unambiguous decision made on October 26 means we have chosen
a particular fork in the road...and the better one at that.

A Yes vote would have meant we would have chosen the fork that looped
back upon this very same intersection.  The patriation era is over...
the future can now unfold as it should.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Natives
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 04:23:18 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

In article <1992Nov3.215053.11536@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James or Brian) writes:

>	Heh. How large is each band and how hard would it be to them
>to deploy 1-band bbses?  Technolgy exists  now  which might  be applicable
>to scaling up consensus rule.

To quote my sister-in-law, who has had a high speed communications system in
her home since 1986, "I won't talk to a box that talks back." 

You can forget trying to use this sort of technology - trust me - I spent
five years and a lot of money setting up a dos-based Native network, only to
watch it fail through disuse. It is so foreign to the culture that it may be
(literally) several generations, if not centuries, before it is adopted on a
scale large enough to be useful. 

Even when it was embraced (I believe their are still two systems running in
Haid Gwai, used to administer a Haida fisheries project) by one band, it was
for "in house" use (like the Haida case), and the Haida did not want to
communicate with the prairie Cree, for reasons which do not matter here, but
which would not go away (and have not gone away).     

The United Native Nations had one node, and they turned it off the day they
received a rebuke from some loudmouth at UBC about a job posting I had
forwarded to can.jobs for them - it required a Native applicant. When they
received the flame, which told them their ad was illegal, they turned the
computer off and forgot it - instantly. Culture shock. (The fact that the
job required absolute fluency in a specified Native language, and an
intimate knowledge of a specific band's history and culture, was of no
consequence whatsoever to the asshole that flamed them, but he set Native
communications back at least twenty years with his cute litte asswipe of a
flame.

My sister in law still won't talk to boxes that talk back.


-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
Newsgroups: can.politics