From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why I like the Charlottetown Accord
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:23:37 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <Bw2Hxz.7Js@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
	dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:

>W.A.Simon (alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: 	You actually believe they listened?  Allaire is on the
>: 	NO side, and he was one of the people who had to listen
>: 	to us.  He knows Charlottetown is a sham that has nothing
>: 	to do with the best interest of the people, and everything
>: 	to do with image projection.
>
>This is paranoid. You simply say, with no proof, that Spicer,
>Beadoin-Edwards, et al, spent millions, heard thousands, and then ingnored
>it? Paranoia.

No, he's saying that the accord does not reflect many of the recommendations
thoughfully offered by these commissions.

>:> I believe the Canada clause is going to prove beneficial to all Canadians.
>:> The Canada clause is designed to interpret the Charter of Rights where it
>:> [ ... ]
>:> rights, will make Canada a better and more tolerant place for all Canadians.

>: 	This is a declaration of faith.  No more.  You accept
>: 	the written words for what you think they mean, when
>: 	many others tell you they can VERY easily mean something
>: 	else, and when not a few tell you that the words are
>: 	only as trustworthy as the politicians who wrote them.

>I accept the words for what they say, what they mean. You obviously are one
>of the "I don't trust politicians. Ergo I don't need to read the agreement, I
>can vote NO and spite them" type people. This is stupid.

Well, I read the agreement, and I have found that certain clauses in it
can be interpreted in different ways by different people. I also accept
the words for what they say, what they mean, and by my interpretation of
these same words, this agreement is just damned scary.  That you and I can
read the same words, with you finding them so favourable and me finding them
so unfavourable, is in itself, a significant flaw of ambiguity.

>If vote NO to spite the politicians, you don't
>convey your message.

How can you say that with assurance? That's what polls are for :-).

>: 	Everything that is described in the accord is in some
>: 	way commendable.  But there are as many possible ways
>: 	to interpret it all as there are political factions
>: 	and pragmatic moods...  the text is very rich in details
>: 	but the wording is always vague; it relies too much on
>: 	good will and reason.  This doesn't work.  And they
>: 	know it.
>
>If you think the deal is commendable, you will vote FOR it. Since you are one
>of the paranoid -- "I won't trust the politicians, even though the proof is
>in front of me" types, this won't matter to you.

Replace "paranoid" with "cynical" and this makes some sense. 

If the clauses are subject to interpretation, then confidence in who's doing
the interpreting is as important as the wording itself. If you don't trust
the interpreters, then the wording must be sufficiently tight as to *direct*
them to act in the desired fashion. Vague wording along with untrustworthy
interpreters, is unacceptable.

>Where do you get this paranoid "The politicians are lying to me, everyone is
>out to get me" attitude?

From Quebec nationalists? ;-)

>What is a clear indication of decay is that people
>will say "You are lying" when confronted with clear proof otherwise.

I'd soften "lying" and use "misleading" instead. The wording of the
Canada Clause is sufficiently vague to allow politicians supporting the
accord to tell CHQ that it gives Quebec nothing more than a recognition
of distinctiveness, while telling Quebecois that the Clause gives them
new powers to prevent the encroachment of the anglo hoardes.

Which interpretation would be used by politicians if the Clause was
adopted? The one promised to CHQ or the one promised to Quebec? Or some
strange mutation of the two?

Someone's being misled. The problem is, we wouldn't know exactly who is being
misled until it's too late...

>This is very telling language. You have isolated the world into the "ME" and
>the "THEM" camps. It is the "US" camp. We have to vote. The Prime Minister
>gets 1 vote. You get 1 vote.

I had no say in the forging of the agreement's various elements.
"They" created it, and have merely presented it to "us" for ratification.
In toto.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
Xref: sparky can.politics:8476 mtl.general:350