From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Why I like the Charlottetown Accord
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:03:35 GMT

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.

: 
: > 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.

: 
: > There is another important section of the Accord which deals with our
: > Social and Economic Union. It commits our government to providing us with
: >  [ ... ]
: > have access to food, housing, and other basic necessities. This ensures a
: > basic minimum that all Canadians will have.
: 
: 	Big whooping deal!  We have this in the current setup.
: 	We don't need to sign a blank check to have it. 

If we already have it, why are you concerned about saying we have it? Simply
not logical at all.

: > [ ... Fast Forward... ]
: 
: 	Great principles.  I just don't trust the princes
: 	to implement them.  All of the points you raise are
: 	relevant, but you make one basic assumption which
: 	I think is flawed: you trust our politicians to
: 	do the right things.

The referendum is not about trust of politicians -- there are these things
called ELECTIONS for that. If vote NO to spite the politicians, you don't
convey your message. All you are doing is misinterpreting the question, and
lying to your fellow Canadians. Think of this as another issue -- if there
was a referendum on whether we should have the GST, and you voted YES because
you liked the suit the PM was wearing...

: 
: 	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. You are like those people
Bob Rae was talking about, who said "I don't believe you" when he READ them
the Canada Clause -- they somehow thought he was lying and had made the whole
deal up. Sheer paranoia.

: 
: 	You insist the details matter.  They don't.  The
: 	fact that our politicians have to lie to us, and
: 	scare us to make us vote YES is a clear indication
: 	that something is rotten.

Where do you get this paranoid "The politicians are lying to me, everyone is
out to get me" attitude? What is a clear indication of decay is that people
will say "You are lying" when confronted with clear proof otherwise.

: > revisions, and clarifications. A NO vote simply puts us back to the start,
: > looking for consensus in a strained environment.
: 
: 	A YES would place us in a situation where the organized
: 	criminals in Government can forge on without ever getting
: 	our assent on points.

You should seek help for this paranoia -- you are calling everyone a
criminal? If you ran for government tomorrow, and were elected, would you be
afraid of yourself?

: 
: 	The current proposal addresses the Quebec issue, the first
: 	nations issue, the Senate issue, social issues, philosophical
: 	issues... and they ask us ONE single vote, and they say that
: 	a NO vote is a betrayal of Canada.  This alone disqualifies
: 	them... 

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.


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics