HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 16:04:47 GMT

Responding to Francois Audet's protests against continued monarchism, in
article <1992Jul27.171928.23163@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>
>Common courtesy.  Respect for human life.  Or maybe just enough intelligence
>to realize that she leads the Commonwealth and that if you insult her you
>insult the Commonwealth, and people generally don't associate with those
>who insult them.  I can understand wanting you're own country, but to go
>around insulting everyone that your economic life depends on is just plain
>stupid.

The Queen does deserve common courtesy.  But were we to drop out of the
Commonwealth, how much do you think that would actually affect trade?  Do you
think that businessmen in other nations would stop trading with Canada simply
because it left the Commonwealth?  And our economic life hardly "depends" on
the Commonwealth -- I'd be willing to bet that it depends on the U.S., Germany
and Japan far more.

>BTW, if you want to talk about the past you may recall that it was the Monarchy
>of England that gave the people of Quebec their freedom after they lost the
>war.  You have the language rights and the claim to self government because
>a former Queen gave them to you.  They could have expelled all of the French
>from their soil if they wanted to.  They showed some respect for you, can't you
>show some respect for them?

Well, gosh weren't the British generous!  I think this argument should force
the Quebecois to be indebted to English Canada and to respect the monarchy for
at _least_ another 4 or 5 centuries, even as more and more Canadians come from
non-English backgrounds and the monarchy becomes less and less relevant.  Silly
of Francois to think otherwise!

It's attitudes like those above which give royalists a bad name.
-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:22:05 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Jul25.041509.26912@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
]I've done accounting work for a plethoria of small Quebec companies
]that had english names; when they tried to keep those names on the
]sign out front, in the aftermath of Bill 178, the OLF headed out in
]force (and I don't know if they actually FOUND the village of
]Shawville...)

Shawville! This is where a friend of mind was told "go home frog" by
very friendly inbread hillbillies.

]It's hardly helpful to be allowed to use a name for legal purposes,
]and then find that you can't put it on a sign...

Of course you can put your company's english name on your sign. Stop
making unfounded assertions like this. They are tonnes of shops with
legal english names, written on their signs.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath)
Subject: Re: So is it all over?
Reply-To: heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:54:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.191319.23688@pandora.matrox.com>, thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
|> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
|> 
|> >I don't have the details of everything about this question,
|> >but suppose that Newfoundland gets split in 100 provinces.
|> >You now end up having Newfoundland deciding a LOT because of
|> >its strenght in the senate. (I know it is an exagerated
|> >example, but the principle is there).
|> 
|> A more realistic supposition is that the North-West Territories
|> get split into three (as is planned) and then the territories
|> become provinces.
|> 
|> The North would then control 4/14 of the Senate as against 1/14
|> for Quebec.
|> 
|> (Caution: The territories will not become provinces in the near
|> future.)
|> 
|> --
|> Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Additional note of caution:

Under the current proposed constitution it is likely the territories will never become provinces, even if Quebec does not get a veto over creation of new provinces. It is unlikely 2/3 of House of Commons and Senate would agree to the 3/13 representation in Senate for 3 northern provinces.

I have not yet heard a sensible rationale for treating Northerners as second class citisens in terms of their rights to regional representation in the federal government. The only obvious reason is their relatively insignificant population, a criteria which we do not apply to P.E.I.. (In fairness, it was not P.E.I. which demanded Senate "equality").

In my mind, all of this kind of makes a mockery of Getty's, Romanow's, Filmon's and Well's insistence on equal representation for all provinces.  If they were willing to accept the future eventuality of northern provinces, wouldn't they avoid creating new political barriors to this outcome? Wouldn't they show an acceptance and generosity towards the North by proposing equal representation for all regional partners in confederation? Or do they simply view the territories as Canada's colonies and therefore n





ot really an integral part of Canada?

Ultimately, this Constitutional Deal is about POWER despite all the lip service being paid to one person's or another's "principles".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  These are my opinions and do not reflect those of my employer.
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: EMT pop. of QC, by riding
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:12:02 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

1st : what is EMT?  It would be nice when using abbreviations
that are not common to at least give some meaning, no?
English Minority Troportion?

2nd : I suppose you idd not type all that data, but took it from
a (political party?) database.  FOr historical comparisons, why not
using data from Statistics Canada?  Census divisions were about the
same in 1871 and 1991 (except for Western Townships which was about not
settled).  So, if your point is to say that those terriblific francos
made some troubles to anglos that they leaved, your figure are
useless.  Electoral Counties are changing almost each elections.
And if you want to bring some hardcore arguments, why not comparing
Electoral Listings so that you will know that Mr This is was present
in 1975, but going out in 1979 (electoral listings are not available
after 1979).  By the same time, you will have the opportunity
to see at which extent some counties had listings in English only in
Quebec.  First election I was, I could not even have the right to
indicate my profession in French.  And this was in Montreal Island.

3rd : if they will make you secure, please note that your previous
figures were very wrong : you indicate 24% of anglos in 1860? and
10 % now.  This is not anglophones, this is of British origin, not
at all the same thing.  Last figures I saw : 7% of British origin and
anglophones, 13% of other origin and mostly anglophones, 80% of francos.
I think francos is now 84%, including your child going to a French school.


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Political power of provinces
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:20:54 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1461

From article <CLAMEN.92Jul28155007@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen):
> In article <1992Jul25.135304.20736@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
> 
>      Most people I know of in the UK look upon things like "Ontario House",
>      "Quebec House", "British Columbia House" as nothing more than a
>      glorified Tourist Information Office. The Canadian Embassy (yes, there
>      is one in London) carries an image of authority. "[Province] House", I
>      am sorry to say, is seen as nothing more than a waste of Canadian Tax
>      money. 
> 
> Canada does not have an Embassy in London.  Canada House is a "High
> Commission".  I doubt there is much of a real difference anymore, 
> but I believe all Commonwealth countries have High Commissions, not
> embassies in London.
> 

 You are right. It is called a High Commission - they can't call it an
 Embassy but it is functionally the same thing. People generally think
 a High Commission is a funny name for an Embassy. Nevertherless, 
 "[Province] House" is viwed as a tourist information office and a
 waste of Tax money for duplicated services.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:39:09 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <12373@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>Maybee you should tell your agents that it's legal to have companies
>with english names.
>
In Quebec it's not legal.  Charte de la langue francaise (Bill 101):

Article 63:  Les raisons sociales doivent etre en langue francaise.
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Independence is already in process
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:05:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

Someone writes about the constitutional acrimony:
 
>Unfortunately,I'm on of the legion of people who JUST DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT 
>IT ANY MORE!!!!!! I say lets get it over with, and start rebuilding. This 
>senseless squabbling is sapping the lifeblood from the entire nation. It's time 
>to get it over with....
>Thanks, I feel better now. You poor misguided souls can go back to calling each 
>other names and ignoring each other's postings again. I'm going home to bed...

 I  find myself in complete concurrence with this message. This group has been
a microcosm of the endless acrimony that has been enervating the Canadian
will.

Canadians have lived together for over 200 years. In that time, Canadians
have found constititutions and conventions that have allowed separate
individuals and separate cultures to coexist within one state. This
process is not complete and it has not been universally applied but
it has been ongoing. Canadians have been involved in a continuing
attempt to find ways of coexisting without domination since the
inception of this community.

There  have been forces opposed to this. Dalton Maccarthy,
J.P. Tardivel, George Brown, Lionel Groulx have all attempted
to undermine this effort and produce homogeneous mono-cultural
states of one form or another. These efforts have all been
rejected.

Now in this forum we continually see the false accusations that
Canada is based on domination, intolerance, or whatever.
We continually see the effort to convince these accusers that
Canada is what it really is - a country of people and cultures
attempting to live together.

Don't we really see that this attempt to convince the accusers
is futile. They really believe in a homogeneous society. They
accuse Canda of this merely to justify their own opinions and
actions. You won't convince them of the worth of Canada by
showing its attempts to provide coexistence. They do not want
coexistence of cultures.

Why do we continually try to convince the successors
of Maccarthy and Tardivel instead of discussing the
continuing solutions to Canada's cultural and 
constitutional evolution. You won't convice bigots
by showing a solution of tolerance so why try.

There is the old 80/20 model of systems development.
Why not concentrate on the 80% of the problem that
can be solved instead of wasteing our efforts on the
20% who can never accept what Canada is and wishes to be?
-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:36:40 GMT

ph3@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Hamilton (phys 306)) writes:

>In <12466@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:


>>Well I wouldn't swear allegeance to a Queen of England more than to an
>>American flag. They both are, for me, equally "a croc".

>Francois, did you ever have to pledge allegience to the Queen? I never did,
>and I assume that my situation is common to most Canadians, except possibly
>immigrants to Canada. (I don't mean for this to be a snarkey question, I just
>want to know.)

Why should new Canadians have to swear allegiance?? isn't it already too
much that they still exist?
--
=================================
skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca
St. John's, NF, CANADA
"Have a touton or do without'n !"
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: god save your queen
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:36:41 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com> writes:
>She is *not* pretending.  Read the Constitution lately?

Mais foutez-nous donc la paix avec la fichue constitution! The Queen
has ABSOLUTELY NO REAL POWER IN CANADA! That's what is important, and
that's what REALITY is.

As far as I am concerned, I (like many others) have never swore
allegiance to a Queen, and its not some little Constitutional deal
(not even signed by my province) who's going to change my mind.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Why Natives get more sympathy than Quebec
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:36:04 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

Some Quebec commentators are asking why, in the recent
constitutional proposals, Natives have been given undefined
self-government, but Quebec a narrowly-defined distinct
society clause.

1) Comfort

The Natives are perceived to be pathetic, and no threat
to white society, even with expanded powers.  Quebec, on
the other hand, is considered by many to be very well off,
and too powerful already.

2) Patriotism

The Natives have not threatened to separate from Canada,
despite their claims of sovereignty.  I doubt that such
threats could be credible anyway, but avoiding them, even
after having been treated like shit, has induced in whites
a certain feeling of comradeship.

Quebec, on the other hand, threatens to leave at every
moment, and makes much of its supposed indifference to
Canada.  This has caused resentment.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome"
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 13:47:57 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>If this is so, why did "McKenna's Flowers" have to go to court and
>>eventually repaint their sign to read "Les fleurs McKenna"?
>
>I'm no law expert, but I would think that the name of the business was
>"McKenna" instead of "McKenna's Flowers".
>
>BTW: It doesn't mean I agree with forcing the businessman to change
>the name of its store.

It seems to me that if the store could have kept its sign by changing
its name from "McKenna" to "McKenna's Flowers", then it would have 
done so.  Nevertheless, I will grant that this _may_ have been the
company's name (extremely unlikely, verging on the absurd, but,
strictly speaking, possible).

But then, how do you explain the fact that Simpson's and Eaton's, two
companies with English names, had to change _their_ signs?

Also, do you expect us to believe that the real estate company that
was the original topic of this discussion would be less knowledgeable
about the requirements of the law than you (who didn't even know that
putting a "Bienvenue/Welcome" sign in the window was illegal)?

Face it, Franc,ois, you're not only not a legal expert, you are
woefully uninformed when it comes to the provisions of Que'bec's
language laws.  

...mark young
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:46:02 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>A statement like this puzzles me. How can anyone be so ignorant about
>life outside your little british sphere?

Sorry, I was referring to Parizeau's repeated insistence that
Quebec could join the Commonwealth.  By the way, I'm not British.

>And why show respect?

For one thing, she has better manners than you have.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Bilinguisme
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:55:26 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 814

From article <12344@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM
 Francois Audet writes:-

> 
> I agree. Especially since I wrote the thing about the british since I
> believed Mr. Potter's example of a school in a language I've never
> heard of in London was totally irrelevant.

  Francois asked "What do immigrants do in Great Britain?" - I gave him
  an example of a Gujarati school in London, provided at public expense.

  I thought the example was relevant to the question.

  Draw your own conclusions folks.
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: question on english
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:42:16 EST
Reply-To: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

SB>Can someone explain to me the origin and exact meaning of
SB>gravy train? I've seen it here and there, but never found a
SB>clear explanation.

    gravy(-)train, the.  Easy money, esp. from a well-paid but
    undemanding task in political life or with a large commercial or
    industrial company: frequently in _to ride the gravy train_: orig.
    US (OED 1910); known in Britain, but not widely adopted until
    mid-1970s.    (Partridge's Slang)

I presume that it is related to "gravy" as in "perquisites" (tips).

- Stephanie.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  "It's hard to work in groups when you're omnipotent" - Q
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: louis@cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: PQ SEPERATION
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:44:00 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Athabasca University

In article <1992Jul24.183230.6216@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> In article <q9PDoB2w165w@aficom.ocunix.on.ca> franc@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (francoise webster) writes:
> >QUITE SIMPLY, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

> Even if the debt repayment were rescheduled over several years...
> it would represent a huge fiscal burden to Quebec and Canada.
> 
> Until Canada and Quebec clean up their balance sheets, separation
> is basically suicidal for both sides.

All the more reason to hang tough on the current constitutional
package.  Time to call the separists' bluff.  Don't move.  Let them
call the referendum.  CSQ will win either way in that case.  If they
separate, good.  CSQ can finally get on with fixing it's problems and
forgetting about the "language" issue.  If they don't, then they have 
stayed on our terms, are part of the country and we can then go on to
devoting our energies to something more substantial than which language
should be allowed on a sign in a shop window.
-- 
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
========================================
Not everything that counts can be counted.  Not everything that can be
counted counts.   - Charles Garfield
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: The 51st State (was: Independence is already in process)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:02:00 GMT

	Of what benefit would annexing parts of Canada be to the USA?
What resources would they gain greater access to which would be worth
changing the political makeup of the USA? Surely a Central American 
style of handling us would suit them as well.

	Remember that even if the majority of Canadians *wanted* to
join the USA , the USA would have to want us to join. Annexation
is not automatic: look how many years passed between the Hawaiian
Revolution  and its entry into the US as a territory.

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Education
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:43:34 GMT

In article <SBO.92Jul25193352@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
	sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:

>  > >You talk to people in french and they answer
>  > >you in english.
>
>  > What odd logic can use this statement as proof that these
>  > groups are not subject to state discrimination?
>
>  > If a merchant won't speak to you in the language of your choice, then
>  > don't buy from them. If enough customers act this way, then these
>  > businesses either:

>Evan? Is that you? A couple of months ago I posted a message
>asking people if I should by a product from a unilingual
>anglophone, and you basically said yes. So did most of the
>persons who answered my post.

I believe it was said (not just by me) that a number of factors were in
play when one chooses where to do business. If a unilingual anglo can sell
you an item for less than a francophone would sell it to you, there is
a decision to be made. Do you make the purchase that will encourage your
culture, or the one which will benefit your pocketbook?

How a merchant treats customers should *always* be a factor in whether
or not a shopper buys goods there. And I would certainly consider it to
a store's detriment if its personnel could not speak my language. It
could be a major factor, but not the only factor, in making a purchase
decision.

>It sounds contradictory. Don't you think?

I have always believed that a francophone boycott of stores that wouldn't
offer service in French would be a more effective tool than using the law
to force them to change. I have postings almost two years old in which I
stated this opinion. Which posting of mine, specifically, was contradictory?

But I'd rather have you reply to the original point, rather than change
the subject, don't you think?

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
   Said Captain Jean-Luc Picard to the tailor at his machine: "Make it sew!"