HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: el_dunn@pavo.concordia.ca (DUNN, ERIC L.)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:28:00 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <SBO.92Apr13173234@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>, sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes...
>In article <WARKENT.92Apr13112149@ltisun9.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
> 
>   In article <SBO.92Apr12121903@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) wrote:
>   > You're in for a tough break Peter. I've seen support for the queen even by
>   > the so called moderate in can.politics. I agree with you that the queen has
>   > no business in Canada, but I suspect that a large segment of the
>   > anglophones still worship the queen.
> 
>   The Queen has a large amount of personal popularity because she has been
>   quite good at doing her job.
> 
>You mean smile at the camera ? :-)
>--
>  ,                          ,                           ,
>Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
>sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | 
>sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | (514)340-5950

	That is the Queen's job. :)

	In all seriuosness though most people must admit the Queen is the
best head of state a country could have.  She and the Royals are paid
entirely by the British people ant not a penny (as far as I can tell) from
Canada.

	Should we get rid of the Queen all the Canadian taxpayers better
be ready to pay a new head of state to represent us.  As frivolous a job
as it may seem it is something that is necessary in world politics. One example
that jumps to mind is France.  They have both a prime minister and a president.
One is in power with the government the other is appointed as head of state.

							Eric L. Dunn
							Concordia University
							Montreal
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:09:58 GMT
	<SBO.92Apr4114716@walhalla.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
	<1992Apr10.161700.4894@bmerh2.bnr.ca>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada

In article <1992Apr10.161700.4894@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:

   In article <SBO.92Apr4114716@walhalla.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
   >In article <1992Apr3.000638.16902@splunge.uucp> adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley) writes:
   >

   >Frank (or Robin), what is your definition of "Where numbers warrant"? I did
   >ask you that I while back and you did not answer.

   The line would be drawn somewhat arbitrarily. It would at least be drawn
   at 50% or more, and somewhat less, depending on who rules.

How would you apply the 50%? At the country, province, town etc. level?

   >   Sure, I think that in the domain of official government services,
   >   providing service in minority languages where numbers warrant is
   >   a reasonable approach.  But why only French?
   >
   >Well, it depends... Would you want to translate the laws in german? How
   >many german speaking Canadians? At the federal level, the laws are
   >translated in French for 25% of the population. What would be the % for
   >german speaking Canadians? I guess this all comes down to the meaning of
   >"where numbers warrant".

   Yes, it would.
   But in some areas of the country, 
   German exists in higher numbers than french.

So the Fed should translate the laws for 1% (or whatever) of Canadian that
are German?

   >Should the fed translate the laws in Chinese?
   >
   >So, as I said before. It all comes down to how you define "where numbers
   >warrant".

   This is why I argued that it should be bilingual or NO OFFICIAL language
   as policy. That means that ENGLISH would not be available where numbers
   do not warrant.

Like in Rosemere :-). (assuming the 50% you gave above)
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | 
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | (514)340-5950
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A propos de sport (WAS: Re: Denis Beauregard's hero?)
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:31:02 GMT
	<1992Apr10.161123.23904@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
	<SBO.92Apr11112855@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> <345@catnix.UUCP>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada

In article <345@catnix.UUCP> michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele A. Simond) writes:

	[...]
   C'est trop facile de limiter les griefs au seul Quebec.  Ils sont
   les memes partout.  Et les regles aussi, sont les memes partout.
   Prends le cas de Sylvie Frechette.  Elle est championne du monde
   de nage synchronisee solo.  Elle a son propre entraineur, ici
   au Quebec, et risque d'etre exclue (ou l'a ete, je ne sais
   plus) de la selection olympique parce qu'elle a refuse d'aller
   s'entrainer a Calgary.  A prime abord, on peut crier au scandale
   et dire que ce n'est pas juste, que c'est encore une fois un
   affront au Quebec.  Mais si on se met a reflechir un peu,
   Sylvie Frechette, jusqu'a preuve du contraire, represente le
   Canada aux competitions internationales.  Son entrainement est
   defraye par tous les contribuables du Canada et par les
   commanditaires qui contribuent a la caisse de la
   federation canadienne de nage synchronisee.

Note qu'en ne se deplacant pas elle permet de faire economiser les
contribuables ou encore permettre a d'autres athletes de benificier de
contribution. En fait, obliger des athletes a se deplacer alors que ce
n'est pas necessaire est un gaspillage de l'argent des contribuables. Dans
certains cas ca devrais etre sur une base volontaire. Evidemment les sports
d'equipe ne peuvent y echaper.

    Si elle veut
   participer, elle n'a pas d'autre choix que de ce soumettre
   aux regles.  Et cette annee, l'entrainement est a Calgary.
   Et Calgary, c'est encore plus loin pour les athletes qui
   viennent des provinces atlantiques.  Mais s'ils veulent
   participer, ils n'ont pas le choix, ils doivent y aller.

Je crois que cette annee l'entrainement aura lieu a Montreal. Les dirigeant
de l'equipe n'ont pas vraiment eu le choix. Imagine un peu qu'un pays
exclus de sont equipe la detentrice du record mondial de sa discipline. Ca
parraitrait plutot mal... 

   --
   Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP
   (514) 671-8820				   OU :	michele%catnix@cam.org
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | 
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | (514)340-5950
From: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: O Canada, O Quebec  - reaction
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:28:24 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Apr14.145654.22601@bmerh2.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.194127.14902@watserv1.waterloo.edu> schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr13.134326.13629@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>How...Quebec nationalists claim this...but how can a book which
>>>comdemns intolerance and stupid unilingualist policies be used by
>>>bigots?  
>>
>>In proving that Quebec is fundamentally bad, racist, antisemite, antidemo-
>>cratic...
>>
>>Quebec has many ("defauts" in French????), but it's not THAT bad.
>>Quebec is not only bad.
>
>("Defauts" is "faults" or "defects")
>
>Who believes Quebec is all bad?  Who believes that Quebec is
>fundamentally racist, antidemocratic, etc?
>
>I think most people realize that, when we discuss problems in Quebec,
>we are discussing the more extreme situations.  Most people realize
>that the average Quebecker is much like the average Canadian, with much
>the same qualities and faults (only in French, hein?).

The whole point is that I don't think most people are able to do so.

As many French-Quebeckers have not been able to realize that the APEC
dinosaurs were a minority. (including myself at first)

>So why discuss these topics?  Well, first because Canada is constantly
>being accused of intolerance against Quebec - so it seems fair to show
>that there is intolerance everywhere.  And just as you don't want us to
>judge Quebec by its more intolerant characteristics, I would hope you
>don't judge Canada by its worst characteristics either.

Point taken...

>The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
>Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
>BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266

Sylvain Chamberland
Dept. of Biology
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario.
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: French in france
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:46:37 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <11462@std-2> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article (Robin Collins) writes:
>[ In 1500 in France ]
>>Half spoke French and only 12% spoke it "properly", as they say.
>>Most colonists from France came from one small area, which was
>>french-speaking.
>
>Well, this is very subjective. I'm sure that the French of today (in
>France) would pretend that french in Quebec, Belgium, Switzerland and
>the African ex-colonies is not spoke "properly". (I heard it quite a
>few time). Similarly, a british subject will argue that the americans
>don's seak english "properly".
>

 Come on now, Francois, be fair.
I put properly in quotes on purpose. I do not accept the
idea that dialects are good or bad version of a standard.
My wife is a linguistics graduate and she has convinced me
that there are no proper dialects, only deviations from 
standards.




>>If you ever get a chance to look at the Historical Atlas of Canada,
>>look at the map that shows the origins of the Quebecois French.
>>One big blob.
>
>Slight exageration again, but yes most colons came from two two areas:
>Normandie and the West cost (Poitou-Charentes, etc.).


What do you mean *again*. This sounds a little suspicious.
Are you suggesting that there is NOT one big blob and thus
my credibility is in question?  (Didn't I say that the majority
of Quebecers in the early migrations came from Paris and Normandy?)

Or are you now agreeing with the main thrust of my argument (re
French in France in 1789?)


>
>At one point in time, Quebec City was considered to be the place where
>the richest french was spoken, because it was made up of french from
>all accross France. (As you pointed out, this meant
>Northern-Western-France-Excluding-Brittany). 


In fact, as I have pointed out before, Quebec french is closer to
early french (and thus in the view of purists, *MORE* french) than 
contemporary french in Paris. I dispute that too. 

There is no such thing as MORE-linguistically pure. 

Thus I have to question your expression *RICHEST*  french, after
you have criticized the idea of *PROPER* french. 
I had proper in quotes, but you don't seem to have richest in quotes.
How come?

Frank.
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Fleur de Lys et Symbolisme
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:06:35 GMT
Organization: Hydro-Quebec

Where is the joke : fleur de lys means the royalty, so we want a king,
so we can't at the same time want the fleur de lys and reject the queen!

C'est quoi cette blague : la fleur de lys signifie la royaute, donc nous\
voulons un roi, et nous ne pouvons a la fois vouloir la fleur de lys
et renier la reine?


La fleur de lys est un symbole dont le symbolisme a change, point.
En 1763, c'est le symbole de la France, puisque le roi de France
symbolise la France (dixit le celebre l'Etat, c'est moi).

Alors, les Quebecois (ou Canadiens francais) ont conserve ce symbole
associe a la France pour nous, et non plus associe au roi.  D'un autre
cote, les monarchistes francais voient un symbole de la monarchie a retablir.
Donc, DEUX SYMBOLES!  Pour nous, celui de notre langue et de notre origine.
Pour la France, celui d'une monarchie abandonnee.

Fleur de Lys is a symbol of which symbolism has changed, that's all.
In 1763, it was the symbol of France since the king of France represent
the France (dixit the famous The State is Me).

Then, Quebecois (or French Canadian) kept this symbol as associated to
France for us, and not associated to king.  On another side, French
monachists see it as a symbol of a monarchy to re-install.
Thus, TWO symbols!  For us, that of our language and roots (94% of roots).
For France, this of a lost monarchy.

                             - - - - -

As usual, they are looking to use the symbolism to fight our difference
and nationalism.  Quebec is not a nation, we are the bad that abandon
the Francos hors Quebec, we did lost ourselves, treators are among us,
etc.  Then, we have no hero, our nationalism is bad, etc.  Hate, always
hate.  And say they want to rebuild Canada from that.

Comme d'habitude, ils cherchent a utiliser le symbolisme pour combattre
notre distinction et notre nationalisme.  Quebec n'est pas une nation,
nous sommes les mauvais qui abandonnent les Francos hors Quebec, nous nous
sommes perdus nous-memes, les traitres sont parmi nous, etc.
Alors, nous n'avons plus de heros, notre nationalisme est mauvais, etc.
De la haine, que de la haine.  Et dire qu'ils veulent reconstruire le
Canada a partir de cela.

				- - - - -

Un peuple sans ame, un pays sans vocation, sans saveur, voila votre
Canada avec le Quebec integre de force.  Avec un multi-culturalisme
a sens unique.  102 ans pour que le francais devienne une langue
officielle.  102 ans de plus pour que le Quebec se sente accepte?



-- 
    Denis Beauregard       _ _ _ _  Collecting Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca | * | * | Promoting use of QC as Quebec Postal Abbrev 
  Andre Jarret, sieur de  |===|===| Mes opinions?  Oui, oui, les miennes!
   Beauregard 1642-1992   |_*_|_*_| My opinions?  Yes, yes, mine!
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele A. Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Date: 15 Apr 92 07:33:51 GMT
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!

tcifelli@bmerh326.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli) writes:
>
>No. There is no "Quebec nation within Canada".  There is however a
>province called Quebec in Canada which has some properties different
>from the others (which for some reason beyond any rational human being's 
>comprehension, must be recognized formally in the constitution).  The 
>same however can be said about all provinces.  Each province has unique 
>or distinct properties.

If Canada was a true Confederation, there would not be such
problems.  If, as in the Swiss Constitution, it was explicitely
recognized and stated in the first clause, that each province
is a distinct and separate entity, entitled to govern its own
destiny, culture and language, there most probably would not
be as much whining.

>These too could be formally captured in the
>constitution, but they are not crying like babies.

Not only could they be formally captured : they MUST.
And because Quebec is crying a little louder than the
rest of the country (probably some form of "latin
exuberance"), does not mean the other provinces of
the country are not crying.  In fact, the Western
provinces whine about Ontario and Quebec, and the
Atlantic provinces whine after Ontario and Quebec
and the rest of Canada.  And the noise level is
so high that nobody listens to anybody anymore.

>Canada must be united across ALL provinces and be bound by the
>constitution to survive as one nation.  Strong central government
>is required to administer and manage the common national agenda.

Differences of opinions.  I believe that a strong central
government is bad.  It means a lot of power duplications, a
lot more whining for loss of time, loss of money, loss of
energy.  Again, Switzerland is a very good example of
a much decentralized federal government. And it works.



--
Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP
(514) 671-8820				   OU :	michele%catnix@cam.org
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:00:58 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <11448@std-2> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article (Richard Wood) writes:
>>  My opinion exactly.  There are two nations, but TROCers are determined to
>>press ahead with the pretence that there is only one Canada, requiring that all 
>>10 components must be equal.  The end of this road will probably be something
>>like a Commonwealth of Independent Provinces.
>>  Quebec is not the same and should, I think, stand apart from the other 9 with 
>>some form of independence (with a TROC equally independent of Quebec).
>>  There will never be a united Canada.  What I want is a united TROC.
>
>This is exactly what I think. Maybee there is hope afterall.

So here we have it.  There are frictions within Canada, so let's
split it up and get two united countries - a united Quebec and a
united TROC.  No more disunity!

Except - what's this?  I see disaccord in Quebec.  Minority groups
claim their rights, demand that their cultures be respected.
Politicians from the Outaouais complaining that they are ignored
by the power-brokers in Montreal and and Quebec City.  Natives in
Northern Quebec claiming the territory.  (Or am I to expect that
Richler and Bouchard and Trudeau and Parizeau will all suddenly
become best friends, and cease to disagree?)

As for a united TROC - squabbling between the West and Ontario,
between the territories and the provinces, between those who would
seek a monolingual, monocultural British (or U.S.) clone, and those
who support multiculturalism.

So let's keep splitting up, whenever disaccords occur.  Eventually,
there'll be 26 million little countries.  Then we'll have peace, right?
Well, except for 26 million border disputes, trade wars, protectionism...

>However, I doubt that most of TROC share your opinion. 
>
>People don't even acknowledge that Quebec is different from P.E.I.

OK - how is Quebec different from P.E.I.?  Which of those differences
makes it impossible for people from Quebec to get along with people
from P.E.I.?  (To answer my own question, the main difference, and
the one most likely to cause trouble, is language.  But language
need not always be a source of conflict - otherwise, we should all
be seeking a universal language, to eliminate such a source of
contention.  So, shall we all learn Esperanto?)

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY)
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:33:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.203132.26421@splunge.uucp> adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley) writes:
>>>Why on Earth should the Francophones be encouraged to keep their language
>>>and culture alive, while others should not??  What's wrong with everyone
>>>doing so?
>>
>>See above.
>
>Err, I saw above and still didn't get it.  Why, apart from sheer numbers,
>should we treat French differently than other languages?

Well, let's put it bluntly as a Quebec nationalist would do.

"My ancestor, Simon Chamberland, came in "Nouvelle France" around the
year 1677, long before it became "Canada". What about yours?", would
say a nationalist.

Many people agree that we have to help Native Indians to preserve their
culture. (I agree also). They were there before all of us.
And French-Quebeckers were there before English-rooted people.

English Canadians federalists are the one talking about the "two founding
nationalities - or nations?" (even if it should be 3).
People who came in Canada had to merge themselves in the English-speaking
society or the French-speaking society. That's, I think, what
the "founders" wanted...

Do you get it now???   :-)

Sylvain Chamberland
schamber@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca

P.S. Did I stated my opinions, aside from what I think was the "founders"'
     past will?
     NO.  So no need to throw rocks at me.
     "Chat e'chaude' craint l'eau froide."
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: On Exaggeration
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:51:16 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <11463@std-2> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article (Robin Collins) writes:
>>>It says that in 1832, the jews in Canada were not allowed to have
>>>cimetaries or synagogues. In 1832, the deputies of the Patriote party
>>>(under Louis-Joseph Papineau) voted the first Charter of Rights, that
>>>got these rights (synagogues & cimetaries) for the jews.
>
>>NOW you're talking. Papineau is one of my heroes too.
>Good!
>
>>Surely you don't associate the present breed of nationalists 
>>(so-called) with the calibre of Papineau?!
>
>If you read about Papineau, you will find that he didn't have too much
>leadership and was kind of overwelmed by the events. He lost control
>over everything, and was not such a big hero afterall. His legend is
>bigger than what he actually was.

Well we all have our flaws. But this is the first time I have
heard a so-called Quebec nationalist distance himself from
the legacy of Papineau. Pity.



>
>>I don't think you would find him legislating sign laws or
>>anti-semitic decrees. 
>
>Anti-semitism again! Are you referring to Lionel Groulx (that's not
>recent history...)? I never thought of Groulx as a hero. In fact, I
>would never have a hero who is associated with any religion.



No I was pointing out that unlike Groulx, Papineau was very 
internationalist
in scope, not narrow, and in fact he took the hand of that anglo,
Mackenzie in Upper Canada. Something that Groulx would never have done.

 Frank.