HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: The position of E. people coming to QC (was various others)
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:30:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2277

In article <1992Jul27.095941.28784@spxtech.qc.ca>, by steven@spxtech.qc.ca 
 I wrote :-

>   Let me see if I have understood my position correctly.
> 
>   Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> 
>   I chose to come to Quebec, but because I wish to join the English
>   community in Quebec I can not be a part of Quebec society.
> 
>   My use of my English mother tongue is a colonial reflex.
> 
>   I am a member of an elite, paternalistic group which is part of
>   a British Imperial invasion force.
> 
>   I was not born and raised in Quebec so I am not an "anglo-quebecois".
> 
>   English bosses used to force everybody to speak English so I must
>   send my children to French school.
> 
>   If I don't stop complaining then the laws will have to be strengthened
>   in an effort to shut me up. I have no right to complain - I was not
>   born here.
> 
>   Allowing English-speaking children coming here to attend English school
>   would be a form of discrimination. Only "white", sorry, 'English-speaking'
>   children whose parents "are white", sorry, 'were born and educated in
>   English, in Canada' can go to "white', sorry, 'English' schools. This is
>   not discrimination.
> 
>   Quebec has a French face so I must be assimilated into the French
>   community. Unfortunately, my French language skills could not meet an
>   acceptable standard so I would not be accepted.
> 
>   It is necessary for Quebec to take these measures because the French
>   language is threatened by a sea of English in North America; and by the
>   constant threat of an invasion of immigrants who want to swell the ranks
>   of the overpowering and expanding arrogant English community in Quebec.
> 
>   I am a particularly dangerous threat to the French language because I
>   am British.
> 
> 
>   Have I understood correctly?
> 
> 
>   (N.B. These are not MY positions - this is a summary of some of the
>         comments that have been placed on this network)
> 

  Well?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: the new Constitutional Deal
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:42:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.104402.8700@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>
>  Alan Borovoy of the C.C.L.A., however, asserts that the notwithstanding
>  clause has accidently returned utimate legislative authority to the
>  elected representatives of the people. I.E. removed the utimate authority
>  from the non-elected Supreme Court Bench.
>
>  I am largely in agreement with most of what I have read in Mr. Borovoy's
>  books. I can not accept that his argument for a notwithstanding clause is
>  of greater value then the protection of individual rights in the Charter.
>
>  The notwithstanding clause, and possibly the Distinct Society clause (I
>  don't know), gives that legislative power back to the very authorities
>  against which the Charter was meant to protect individual rights and
>  freedoms.
>

No constitution can protect rights perfectly...I would argue the
reasonableness clause in the constitution limits individual rights
more than the notwithstanding clause...whose invocation by a government
attracts enormous attention.  The reasonableness clause has already
put rather severe limits on freedom of expression.

Courts are not perfect either...the notwithstanding clause protects
us from the tyranny of the courts, and in some sense protects the
court from over-politicization as has occured in the US.  Sometimes
it might be the 9 justices individual rights need protection from...
the notwithstanding clause provides a good balance between the
legislature and the courts.

>
>  I am against any "clause" that allows any level of government to override
>  Charter protections.
>

The notwithstanding clause protects us from the Court overstepping
the dictatorial powers we give it.

>  I don't like Charter provisions being bargained on the same table as
>  constitution clauses either. Perhaps the Charter should be taken out of
>  the hands of elected governments altogether. How about requiring Charters
>  and Charter ammendments to be approved by the U.N., for example? (The U.N.
>  Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms is a good starting point!)
>

Not many countries in the UN have a very good record of human and
individual rights...besides the UN is not a democratic body.

You would rather entrust dictators and authoritarians in the UN with
our rights than with our own democratically elected representatives,
and constitutionally appointed justices?

Gerald
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Olympic Musing
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:26:03 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <neilg.712257808@sfu.ca> neilg@fraser.sfu.ca (Neil K. Guy) writes:
>
> Btw, I'm not attacking *you*, Denis. I think that the Olympics is a
>seriously overrated orgy of commercialism that actually seems to
>believe in the elaborate fantasy that's been constructed around it. I
>just wish that people wouldn't pretend otherwise. They'd be a lot more
>fun. Either that or have more volunteers like at Calgary, which was
>kind of fun...
>
> - Neil K. (n_k_guy@sfu.ca)

We share the same opinion.  In those days, I rarely open the TV, and
not to look at the Olympics games anyway.  Looks like the human is not
any more the center of Olympiads.

-- 
  \_\    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 !
Xref: sparky can.general:3406 can.politics:5343 soc.culture.canada:5229
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Canadian diplomats in London (was Re: Political power...)
Date: 25 Jul 92 21:41:47 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Jul25.135304.20736@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>From article <12370@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM
> Francois Audet writes:-
>
>> representants in most countries. There are "Maison du Quebec" (or
>> whatever they call it) in most major capitals, including London and
>> Paris. Note that in the case of London, there is not Canadian embassy:
>> there is 11 "houses", one for each province and one for Canada. They
>> are set up for political purposes and do have weight. Similarly, there
>> are foreign consulates in Montreal (and maybee Quebec city). The
>> provinces, especially Quebec, do have their own international
>> political importance.
>
>  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.
>
Strictly speaking, Canada has a High Commission in London (and other
Commonwealth capitals), not an Embassy.  In practice, I don't think
the name makes much difference.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Xref: sparky can.general:3515 can.politics:5472
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias)
Subject: Re: RACISM???/Access to English schools
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:43:23 GMT


>It is not the Quebecois that want to stay in Canada, it is Canada that
>want Quebecois not to leave.  It is then to Canada to make compromises.
 
Denis, you crack me up :-).  You keep making outlandish statements like
these and no one is going to take you seriously any more!  If you actually
*believe* this, I think we should collectively declare you a
'distinct society'...

>Except for economical reasons, give me one reason for Quebec to stay in
>Canada.

That sounds like a pretty damn good reason to me!  Let me paraphrase:
"Except to stay alive, give me one good reason why I shouldn't shoot 
 myself in the head."  N'est pas?

>Canada just does not know what it is ready to give to Quebec.
>CSQ has to decide in a one for one basis, not one against 10.
>...
>Why is that "united" Canada unable to find something that Quebec will accept?

You have an awfully egocentric view of this country.  Quebec is a PROVINCE.
As such, if its elected representative want more power, they must
*negotiate* for that power with the other PROVINCES.

>And personaly, I have 2 parents, not 10. 

What does your parentage have to do with what we are discussing?

Edgar
Newsgroups: can.general
From: klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen)
Subject: Re: USA IMMIGRATION LOTTERY
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 06:42:52 GMT

In article <14lmroINNkq2@agate.berkeley.edu> kam@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Timothy Kam) writes:
>Natives of the following countries can participate in a "visa lottery" from
>July 29 to August 28, 1992.  The prize of the lottery is a "green card" for
>living permanently in the United States.
>
>1 Albania		11 France		21 Liechtenstein
>2 Algeria		12 Germany		22 Lithuania
>3 Argentina		13 Great Britain	23 Luxembourg
>4 Austria		14 Hungary		24 Monaco
>5 Belgium		15 Iceland		25 Netherlands
>6 Canada		16 Indonesia		26 Norway
>7 Czechoslovakia	17 Ireland		27 Poland
>8 Denmark		18 Italy		28 San Marino
>9 Estonia		19 Japan		29 Sweden
>10 Finland		20 Latvia		30 Switzerland
>						31 Tunisia
>
>For complete written instructions, send US$2.00 for postage (in cash or 
>international money order) to:
>
>	DTC International Services
>	194 Farallones Street, Suite B
>	San Francisco, CA 94112
>	United States of America
>
>P.S. Please do not response to this email address.


Xref: sparky can.general:3675 can.politics:5598
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias)
Subject: Re: Does Quebec *want* to stay in Canada> (was Re: RACISM???...)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:00:58 GMT


>Edgar, you want blab for blabling only.  I tried to describe a Quebec
>point of view more than my personal point of view.  Maybe you live
>in a island in middle of Toronto, but I don't.  I have some feeling
>about what Quebec wants, about the Quebec complex mind, etc.  This from
>the point of view of the majority.

I post to this newsgroup a lot less often than many of the other netters
(yourself included), so I don't see how you can accuse me of blabbing.
Also, Toronto is not an island.  I'm told Montreal *is* and island.
Draw your own conclusions...  ;-)

Like I keep telling, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE MAJORITY
OF QUEBEC.  NO ONE DOES.  The only way to find out is to have a
referendum.  Unless you've done when I wasn't looking, you cannot
state the point of view of the majority because you do not know what
it is.  You can only state your own point of view.

THE MORAL:  Stop using I/we in your posts when refering to Quebec.
            YOU ARE NOT QUEBEC.  You are Denis Beauregard.  One
            person.  One vote.

>I am not a politician, I have no power control nor politics control.

Amen to that.  ?-)

>So, in the limited domain of opinion, I can speak for Quebec.

In the limited domain of opinion, you can only speak for yourself.

Edgar "bla, bla, bla,..." Matias

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb)
Subject: Re: Gwen Jacobs day--reflections
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:51:50 GMT

In article <ph3.711669548@unixg.ubc.ca> ph3@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Hamilton (phys 306)) writes:
>
> [regarding a GJ rally and on-looking dickheads]
>
>Yes, I tend to agree. I wish that every woman had gone to the rally, and that
>every man had stayed home. This to me would suggest a fairly well adjusted
>attitude (that women have no problem removing their shirts to stay cool, and
>that men don't care if they do.) 

That would have been worse.  That would have marginalized the entire protest
("oh," says Mr. Dude Studley, "That's just a women's thing.  Damn feminists
off burning their bras again.  Pass me a beer and deal.").  Better to
have dickheads gawk and let consciousness pass in one ear and out the other.
Even better would be for both men and women to join in protest, all of them
taking off their shirts.

Wasn't the whole point that men and women are treated arbitrarily differently?
It is EVERYONE's responsibility to change for the better, not just those who
are wronged.



-- 
------- Stephen M. Webb -------

Ack!  I've accidentally broken my leg!  -- Ed the Happy Clown
From: rwa@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Ross Alexander)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Labatt "Draft";Molson "Dry" etc
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:56:56 GMT
Distribution: can
Followups-To: rec.crafts.brewing

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
	[ a lot of chat, and then ]
>    Do you know what the difference is between Canadian (read North
>    American) "beer" and making love in a canoe?

I always heard that one posed as "what's the _similarity_ between ....".
The obvious answer is "it's f*cking close to water".

Take this thread to rec.crafts.brewing, where you might get
intelligent discussion.  There's nothing particularly Canadian about
this phenomenon, it's quite global in scope.

regards,
Ross
(a long-time home brewer)
--
Ross Alexander  rwa@cs.athabascau.ca  (403) 675 6311  ve6pdq@ve6mgs.ampr.org
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: the new Constitutional Deal
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:50:25 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1126

From article <1992Jul22.204209.3664@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, 
by golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Gerald Olchowy writes:-

> No constitution can protect rights perfectly...
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
> The notwithstanding clause protects us from the Court overstepping
> the dictatorial powers we give it.
> 
> [stuff deleted]
> 
> Not many countries in the UN have a very good record of human and
> individual rights...besides the UN is not a democratic body.
> 
> You would rather entrust dictators and authoritarians in the UN with
> our rights than with our own democratically elected representatives,
> and constitutionally appointed justices?
> 

  You are right.

  I don't have a good answer.

  I don't like the notwithstanding clause being used to override
  individual rights though.

  It's a problem isn't it?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.general:3396 can.politics:5340 soc.culture.canada:5221
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Shame?? (was Re: Gwen Jacobs day--reflections)
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:32:48 GMT
Distribution: can

dominic@scooter.genie.uottawa.ca (Dominic Richens) writes:
> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
> ! brea9430@mach4.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u) writes:
> ! >By the way, I am male--and right now I am ashamed to be.
> ! Why? [...]
> ! I hate guilt trips.  And I especially resent those who try to impose
> ! them on me.
> 
> I think he is just highlighting one of the problems of discrimintory
> behavior.  Being a white anglophone male puts me in a very difficult
> position when discussing issue regarding sexism, racism etc..., because I
> have, and will continue to have, a privledged life in our society.

This is interesting.  I grew up in a rather economically depressed area
with virtually no minority groups.  The only three black families I
knew were the families of the town doctor and of two high school
teachers;  the rich people.   Since I, as a male, couldn't get easy
jobs like cashier or librarian I had to pound spikes on the railway for
11 hours a day to afford university.

I REALLY resent people who talk about "a privledged life" because
I certainly never got one.  This is why I hate affirmiative action
programs: they want to discriminate against me for some supposed
'advantage' I have or have had.

> In order to be able to truely empathise with those who are marginalized, I
> have to feel some amount of shame whenever I get somewhere because of my
> sex, race etc...

Well it's nice that you got somewhere due to discrimination.
Ever think of doing something instead of just feeling shame?

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Xref: sparky can.general:3374 can.politics:5306
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: the new Constitutional Deal
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:37:07 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Jul21.175347.24421@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>ph3@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Hamilton (phys 306)) writes:
>>
>>I remember when M. Bourassa used section 33 of the Charter to pass the sign
>>law in Quebec, he said that if Meech had been law, he would have used the
>>Distinct Society clause instead. (The Distinct Society clause, I suppose,
>>would not have the politically difficult 5 year expiry date in the
>>Notwithstanding clause.) I, up to that point, was unaware that the Distinct
>>Society clause in Meech was worded strongly enough to allow suspension of
>>"equality before and under the law" (Charter, Section 15(1)). I have also
>>heard, from some French politicians, that the Distinct Society "equivalent"
>>in this recent "deal" is not strong enough, so the eventual DS clause might
>>have some effect on suspension of some Charter guaranteed rights, such
>>that Quebec can suspend the icky ones permanently to preserve their culture.
>>This, I think, is a fairly Canadian thing to do. (Imagine, however, if people
>>had gone for the Vander Zalm initiative that EVERY province is a distinct
>>society. Ouch.)
>
>I don't understand why it should be OK for Quebec to suspend Charter
>guaranteed rights in the name of cultural preservation, but not the other
>provinces. For example, why should it be fine for Quebec to pass a sign law
>in order create a French exterior in Quebec, yet BC could not do so in
>order to create an English exterior in the face of serious Asian
>immigration? Does BC's culture not deserve the same considerations as
>Quebec's?
>
The notwithstanding clause applies equally to all provinces.  Any
province could use it to "defend" their culture.

The distinct society clause, in any proposed version I have seen,
does not explicitly give Quebec the power to suspend rights.  It
instructs the courts to interpret the Charter taking into account
Quebec's status as a distinct society.  The courts might decide
this status justifies suspending rights.  Then again, they might
not.  I don't think anybody really knows what the effect of the
distinct society clause would be.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: ph3@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Hamilton (phys 306))
Subject: Re: Islands in Canada (was Re: lots o' other stuff)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:59:49 GMT

In <1992Jul30.150058.5724@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias) writes:


>>Edgar, you want blab for blabling only.  I tried to describe a Quebec
>>point of view more than my personal point of view.  Maybe you live
>>in a island in middle of Toronto, but I don't.  I have some feeling
>>about what Quebec wants, about the Quebec complex mind, etc.  This from
>>the point of view of the majority.

>I post to this newsgroup a lot less often than many of the other netters
>(yourself included), so I don't see how you can accuse me of blabbing.
>Also, Toronto is not an island.  I'm told Montreal *is* and island.
>Draw your own conclusions...  ;-)


No no no, you people are all confused; Montreal and Toronto are Canadian
_cities_. If you two don't even know the geography of each other's province,
how will you ever learn about _culture_. For future reference, here is a 
partial list of Canadian islands:

Ellesmere, Baffin, Vancouver, Prince Edward, Queen Charlotte(s), Thousand(s),
Miquelon^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H,...

-Mike.

Smily for the humourously challenged follows ... :)
Newsgroups: can.general
From: neilg@fraser.sfu.ca (Neil K. Guy)
Subject: Olympic Musing
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:33:24 GMT

 Well, just caught a few minutes of Olympic events, flipping the dial,
procrastinating. And they were showing various gymnastic events, which
I don't find particularly interesting so I wasn't watching for long,
but I did notice one thing.

 Most of the Canadian athletes actually appeared to be women. But many
other athletes appeared to be girls. I mean, *really* young girls -
they were saying ages like 14 and 15 on the commentary.

 Is it just me, or does anyone else doubt that a child that age is
going to handle Olympic stresses all that well? I mean, we all know
how completely screwed up chronologically mature athletes seem to get.
But these little kids? (And why did the Canadians tend to be older?)

 There oughta be a law...

 - Neil K. (n_k_guy@sfu.ca)
Newsgroups: can.general
From: Mother Nature <gaea@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Bicycle Helmets
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:16:13 GMT

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>gaea@zooid.guild.org (Mother Nature) writes:
>
>> I think bicycle helmets are a great idea, and I think that all "serious"
>> bicyclists (defined as bicyclists who do a lot of road riding, racing, or who
>> go very fast) should wear one. But I would hate to see them mandatory, it
>> would really put a damper on just taking my bike down to the store, or going
>> for a leisurely evening ride.
>
>Actually, once you get used to a helmet, you don't feel comfortable without it,
>even on a quick ride to the store, or a leisurely evening ride.  I finally got
>one, wore it a few times, then felt "naked" riding without it.

I don't have a bike helmet now, but I feel uncomfortable (mentally) when I am
out. I am getting one within a week or two (delayed Christmas present ;).

>Another reason to wear the helmet on short rides is that most accidents
>probably happen in the first few minutes of a ride (of any length), as is the
>case with motorcycles.  I forget the exact figures, but a large percentage of
>serious bicycle injuries (head injuries) happen when the bike is moving slowly
>or is standing still.

What differentiates a bicycle accident that happens when you're not moving and
just a plain "accident"?? I mean, you can fall off of just about anything
that's hip height or so, they don't call it a "wall accident" (gotta watch out
for those... :)

>A bicycle helmet one of those things you think will be uncomfortable, and may
>be the first time you try it, but in a very short time you wonder how you got
>along without it.  :)

I don't doubt it one bit.

Gaea