HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individu
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 14:11:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.132114.18694@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.164231.17506@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>I agree with Tom. Not only are the American Constitution and amendments
>>quite different, but also quite superior to the Canadian proposal.
>>Frank.
>
>  The American Constitution is designed to create a 'Melting Pot' and 
>strong internal national identity (ie 'We the people' not peoples or 
>any concept of others).
>  Canadian history, whether French, British, native or immigrant has been
>made up of people who saw value in their own identities and resisted  
>total assimilation into whatever nearby country or culture was currently
>felt to be the dominating presence. Our Constitution reflects the 
>diversity of our patchwork nationality, and willingness to tolerate
>regional differences in return for national solidarity in other areas.
>  Now you can just ask any foreign national which they prefer, Canadians
>or Americans and why - the result says something about which approach
>is superior or not.    <----
                            |
                            |
                            |

I never compare Americans to Canadians, as if  some people are "superior"
to others. This is racist thinking and should be rejected (by you)
although it _is_ consistent with the idea of looking at people's rights
on the basis of nationality and "race" etc.


But please explain how a constitution based on the principle of equal
rights for all citizens leads us to either a melting pot _or_ a vertical
mosaic.
Consider, for instance, that the PRESENT constitution in Canada
does not have most of the components of the NEW proposal and yet
some are arguing that without the new proposal being accepted Oct 26,
we will end up like some kind of homogenous soup.

Evidence suggests the opposite. One could argue that 
the _present_ constitution is responsible  (in part) for what 
we are now, not the new proposal with divisive clauses and unequal 
rights based on "race", region and language.

You have it wrong. The opponents of the new proposal are the ones
who are inclusive.


Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Phone number for the Constitutional Legal Text: NOT 1-800-448-3000
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:16:45 GMT

Wayne Smith (wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca) writes:
> 1-800-448-3000

I called it.  That number belongs to Boys Town National Hotline; it has
nothing to do with the constitution, and they'd probably not like to get
any more calls from people interested in it.
-- 
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
	"I'm a little worried about the bug-eater," she said.  "We're embedded
	in bugs, have you noticed?"		-- Niven, "The Integral Trees"
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: YES in CHQ contradicts YES in Quebec
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:58:08 GMT

Denis Beauregard (beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca) wrote:
>Heard on TV News yesterday :
>
>In CHQ, the YES camp is selling the deal in saying it gives no new power
>to Quebec.
>
>In Quebec, the YES camp is selling the deal in saying it gives 31 more
>new powers to Quebec.
>
>Who's right?  Or aren't they both wrong?
>
>Definitively NO to the Charlatan Accord.

In a way it is almost irrelevant who is right. The fact that a supposedly
unifying accord is being be sold in different parts of the country by
spouting exactly *opposite* messages should be cause for concern.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:48:36 GMT

In article <05OCT92.09317155.0058@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>Another way to look at it is that PEI is overrepresented by 100 %
>today, while Quebec may be overrepresented by 20 - 25 % at some
>point in the future.  I agree the latter would be unfair.  But
>why is the former not even more unfair?
>

It is more unfair, but because the numbers involved were so small and
PEI could be so easily outvoted, it didn't matter.  When Quebec becomes
overrepresented, the amount of overrepresentation could easily be
20-25 seats...which on crucial issues could equalize over half the
votes of MP's in Alberta or in BC.

It is the size of the perturbation...in Charlottetown, it certainly
was unfair of the small provinces because of their guarenteed floors
to stick BC and Alberta (and Ontario) with the entire burden of
absorbing the underrepresentation that will occur do to the likely
future overrepresentation of Quebec.  There would probably be a lot
less opposition to the 25% threshold in BC, if all the small provinces
would have agreed to share the burden...but the burden for the threshold
is dropped almost entirely on BC's and Alberta's lap.  It is easy for
the small provinces and Clyde Wells to accept this...they pay no
price...would Clyde Wells be voting yes if he were premier of BC...
I think not.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 18:39:40 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>In article <Hf2-BY-@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>PEI is over-represented by _two_ seats today.  Given recent demographic
>>trends and the tendency of the HoC to grow, Quebec will likely be
>>over-represented by _twenty_ seats by the middle of the next century.
>>It's the _magnitude_ of the over-representation that's the issue.
>>(And that's why Quebec's extra 18 seats it gets immediately is not
>>such an issue -- they only bring Quebec from being somewhat under-
>>represented to somewhat over-represented, and that only for about
>>five years (until the post-2001 redistribution).)
>>
>Another way to look at it is that PEI is overrepresented by 100 %
>today, while Quebec may be overrepresented by 20 - 25 % at some
>point in the future.  I agree the latter would be unfair.  But
>why is the former not even more unfair?
>
I agree that the former is unfair, but I say it is only one tenth as
unfair as the latter.  PEI gets two seats it doesn't deserve, while
Quebec gets twenty.

Suppose we have two welfare cheats (I apologize if this offends anyone's
political sensibilities).  The first person makes two hundred dollars a
month at his part-time job, but scams another two hundred a month from
welfare.  The second has a much better job, gets paid about ten thousand 
a month, but cheats the government of another two thousand a month.

The two cheaters are caught, and come up for trial the same day.  How
should we determine the penalty for each?  Surely the punishment should
be in proportion to the crime.  The first person stole one hundred
percent of his income, while the second stole only twenty percent.  Thus
the former should pay a penalty five times as large as the latter, right?

Well, I don't agree.  If I were judge, the former would only get put on
probation (do it again and we'll come down like a ton of bricks), while
the latter should repay the stolen funds and pay a stiff fine as well
(if not just get sent straight to jail).

The matter of excess seats in Parliament I see the same way.  It's a 
cheat of the rest of the country.  But while we don't have an effective
Senate (which we did not now have nor will we have under Cha'town), I'm
willing to look the other way on small infractions.

What I would prefer, tho', would be an effective Senate, in which case 
the cheats in the HoC should go away.  PEI would then lose its two seats,
and the other small provinces their excess seats, and the larger provinces
would get better rep in the HoC.

The Senate should be the "safety net" of Parliament, keeping the smaller
provinces from falling through the cracks.  The EEE premiers were so
intent on making it a "universal" program, that they didn't notice that
all the funds were taken away and one province was given the right to
cheat outrageously -- a right that cannot be taken away without its
permission!

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: A few of Trudeau's points
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 15:30:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.143326.8520@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>...to the Canadian debate, because none of the strong advocates of
>individual rights, are including individual 'economic' rights
>(such as property rights) as part of the argument...and those
>who would argue for such rights (a few Tories, but certainly not
>Red Tories like Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney) are collectivist
>with respect basic issues of liberty and individual and democratic
>rights.  The advocates of liberty in Canada tend to be of the Pierre
>Trudeau school which mean they tend to be social democrats, and
>this school is on the decline, with the collectivist left (Bob Rae
>and Audrey McLaughlin and Joe Clark), and the collectivist right
>(Brian Mulroney and Robert Bourassa) in ascendancy.  Jean Chretien
>will be whatever he has to be to become PM...don't ask him to
>stake out a position on anything...he's waiting for the coronation.

Gerald:
I think your analysis is pretty good and quite accurate.
[I think where we differ is not on the issue of individual rights and
liberties, but on the argument of the "justice" of private property
(and all the repercussions of that concept, including the right to employ
others and to benefit from the labour of others, etc.)]

But your observations are clearly true, in my view.  I particularly
like your thoughts about the commonality of the collectivist left
and right. You should write something down on this. It is an important
observation.

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:44:37 GMT

Brian J Ross (bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA) wrote:
>robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: > Jamie Andrews (jamie@cs.sfu.ca) wrote:
>: > :      C'mon Preston and Jacques, Judy and Rafe.  Sit down and
>: > : give it a try, and just see if you can all sign your names to
>: > : anything better.
>: > 
>: > Hear hear! I think the NO forces should be forced by law to put forward their
>: > own proposals so that we have something to pick apart. I'm sure that if every
>: > NO group put forward a proposal, it would be defeated easily by more than 50%
>: > of the population.
>: 
>: So I can't vote NO unless I can come up with something that more the
>: 50% of the people would vote yes to?  Or is this law only for 'lobbyists'?
>
>Come up with SOMETHING!  Or perhaps the fact that only 5 or 10%  
>of the electorate would see any merit in such No camp proposals is 
>dissuading them from offering suggestions at all.

IMHO, the status quo is better than the proposed deal. Others may disagree
and vote accordingly, but I do not see why I should vote for a package
that I view to be inferior than what we have now.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 23:16:03 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>Aboriginal self-government, in itself, makes this deal a no-go for me. I
>don't like the idea of *any* kind of government based on the genetics of a
>given group of people. If aboriginal self-government, then why not black,
>brown, or Slovako-Canadian self-government?
>
>The fact that aboriginals' ancestors were here before my ancestors is beside
>the point. On that logic, Native Indians deserve more self-government than
>Inuit, who appear to have arrived later. The "First Nations" are all dead. 

The First Nations are not all dead.  They have all been conquered or otherwise
pacified, but many still have their governments -- for instance the Mohawks
continue to run their own government despite a foreign system imposed by the
Canadian gov't.  It is these governments that are to be codified by the 
accord.

The self-government that results from this process is not guaranteed to be
racially based.  The accord contains the following clause (section 46):

        -- Self-government agreements may provide for self-government
           institutions which are open to the participation of all
           residents in a region covered by the agreement.

This is not by any stretch of the imagination proof against a race-based
interpretation, however it shows that the governments (including the First
Nations) are open to a non-race-based interpretation.  The very presence of
this clause should warn the courts (if it comes to that) that a race-based
government is not the only model that was considered.

>Self-government may even create a kind of extra-territoriality, like China in
>the bad old days, when a European couldn't be tried in a Chinese court. A
>Native Indian who gets in trouble outside a reserve might be exempt from
>prosecution in an ordinary Canadian court.
>
The fact that this is possible under the accord is another flaw I see in the
whole.  By itself, however, it would not be a deal-breaker for me, because it
is not entrenched in the Constitution.  If the negotiations lead to such a
state, I would -- given the chance -- vote against it.  (Of course, since
political accords are now going to be entrenched anyway, I am concerned that I
might not get a chance to vote before it's permanent -- another flaw in the
accord!)

...mark young

Xref: sparky can.politics:8505 soc.culture.canada:7543
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individual Rights
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:18:02 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.184856.833@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Robin Collins (robinc@bnr.ca) wrote:
>>So I maintain that there is no reason to insert "racial" definitions in
>>the Canadian constitution, in that ALL CITIZENS should have equal rights
>>stated.
>To reiterate Frank's point; it is one thing to pass legislation that
>covers everyone regardless of race/gender/etc with the intention of
>helping a specific group. It is a totally different thing to pass
>legislation that specifically discriminates on the basis of
>race/gender/etc. The US constitution wrt slavery falls into the former and
>most people do not have a problem with this. It is when legislation
>explicitly discriminates on the basis of race and/or gender that many of
>us get concerned.
>-- 
>Jim Robinson

  When the 'etc' includes culture, and you and others like you continually 
substitute 'race' for 'culture' because you subconsciously know one has
historical validity and the other would tend to colour the argument the
other way, then I find your arguments smacking of a certain shiftiness
that would suggest much less noble motives.

  The Accord is about entrenched protections for culture, not entrenched 
privileges for race.

  Let's not try to overwork the negative labels to the point of transferring
the entire debate to the topic of whether the label is bad or not and
thus losing sight of the real issues, eh?
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Oops
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:22:35 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <ikyasB2w165w@cerianthus.pinetree.org> cowan@cerianthus.pinetree.org (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
>That's still ridiculous.  No constitutional deal can be
>worth trading in the value of a vote of 76% of Canadians to keep a whiny
>24% happy.  The floor on Quebec's representation in the House of Commons
>is a sellout of all other Canadians.

The worst part about this is that Quebec never wanted a 25% floor at
the commons. It just appeared out of thin air because the West was too
stubborn about an "equal" (which effectively mean "unequal" on a
rep-by-pop basis) Senate. They felt (or at least, their Premiers
felt), for some reason, that they would loose face if the "equal"
senate was rejected, and thus compromised on a 25% floor. It doesn't
make any sense.

Quebec and Ontario loose on the Senate issue.
All other provinces win on the Senate issue.
Quebec maintains Status Quo on at the Commons, in the near-term and
the middle-term. What happens in the far-term still need to be seen.
In the near-term, the samller provinces win (although, the importance
of that win in not that great).

No one wins.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rodney@sq.sq.com (Rodney Boyd)
Subject: Re: TV ads for the referendum
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:33:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.151641.28251@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.140745.16392@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>>The arguments in the TV ads sponsored by the "yes" campaign:
>>
>
>>Are there more advertisements like these?
>

Hmmm. Last night I saw an "inspirational" Government of Ontario
TV promo for "Ontario's mining industry". (It really persuaded
me to transfer my uranium orders to Ontario producers :-( ).
Now it happens that jurisdiction over mining is being transferred
to the provinces under the Charlottetown Agreement. Coincidence?
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Date: 9 Oct 1992 23:33:22 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: kynok.ucs.ubc.ca

In article <BvvIrH.ws@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
>: It seems to me that something is quite wrong when a solid majority of
>: citizens cannot enthusiastically embrace a package. It also seems that
>: something is wrong when a deal is "sold" one way in one part of the
>: country, and "sold" the opposite way in another part of the country. Given
>: that we are talking about the soul of the country, I want a package that I
>: can feel good about, nothing more and nothing less.
>: 
>
>The deal is not being sold in different ways -- the ways that best deal with
>the views of each region are being stressed, true, but the deal is being sold
>on its merits. The NO side is the one fighting on different ground in

Out of curiosity, how do you explain the now imfamous speech by Moe
Sihota? 

>different places -- anti-Quebec sentiment in the West, anti-English sentiment
>in Quebec, economics in Ontario, etc. The YES side is firmly on side with one

I agree that different people oppose the Accord for different reasons.
Of course, different people support the Accord for different reasons
too.

>another. The NO side is fragmented, and cannot possibly  agree on anything,
>so why should we believe them?

Consensus does not guarantee correctness. Listen to whoever you wish,
and decide which arguments make sense to you, and which do not.
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:43:15 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: steven@spxtech.qc.ca's message of 2 Oct 92 13:41:57 GMT

Stephen Potter insists that the charter commits Canadians, but not Canadian
governments, "to a respect for individual and collective human rights and
freedoms of all people".

Canadian governments represent Canadians.  If Canadians are committed
to respect for individual rights, then their governments, by definition,
are so committed as well.

Please, no arguments that our governments don't really represent us.
They are supposed to, and that is what counts here.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Xref: sparky can.politics:8236 soc.culture.canada:7301
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Why Would the Charlottetown Agreement Make People Feel Canadian
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:12:14 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

After reading the "Canada" clause in the constitutional agreement, I was left
with the question of why anyone would classify themsleves as Canadian.
This clause does not define Canada but lists ethnic rights and some bland
principles that could be appplied to almost any western country.
Charlottetown lists many rights for certain groups and provides obligations for
assitance to other groups (equalization and such). 

Now upon reading this why would anyone wish to be Canadian as oposed to being
a citizen of some other country. As a citizen of Ontario, I find this most
interesting. Being Canadian seems to provide me with the opportunity of
subsidizing other regions, being under-represented in the federal legislature
and generally being blamed for all that is ill in the federal state.

Now why would I want to be Canadian?







-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:30:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.153539.2783@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Hugh Murray (hugh@imax.com) wrote:
>>> : 
>>> : Manning's rhetoric is calm and reasoned...you need not agree with
>>> : all of his arguments or policies, I don't, but there are much better
>>> : candidates for demagogues in the country than him.         
>>> : 
>>
>>This is the same Manning whose radio bites start every sentence with:
>>
>>"The Mulroney deal .... blah, blah............."
>>..
>>"The Mulroney deal .... blah, blah............."?
>>
>>This is transparent rhetorical jingoism.  Manning is no better than any
>>other advocate in this debate.  Speaking in a boring flat monotone doesn't
>>make you "calm and reasoned".
>
>I tend to agree. The deal can be blamed on a great number of people.
>Manning is simply trying to capitalize on Mulroney's low standing in a
>less than honest manner.

I try to always call it the Charlottetown Accord...although I slip up
occassionally, but then Manning isn't the only guilty person...I have seen
clips of Mike Harcourt calling it the Canadian Unity Agreement over and
over.  Such is the state of Mulroney's popularity, that it is considered
an attack and negative ad just to mention the leader of the opposing
sides name!

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada