From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:08:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.210912.17300@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.203128.13711@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>>robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>: 
>>: 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.
>>
>>This is perfectly reasonable.  My opinion differs, however, in that I think 
>>that the status quo is not good.  The aboriginal people certainly don't 
>>like the status quo, even though their support for the accord itself is 
>>starting to wane. The status quo isn't serving national unity very well 
>>either. I also believe that a Canada sans Quebec will be inferior,
>>and that Quebec secession will be boosted by a rejection of the accord.  
>>If it is indeed rejected, I hope I'm proven wrong.
>
>This Accord is alleged to address the grievances of Quebec, the
>West, and the aboriginals...how come the strongest opposition to the
>Accord is now in Quebec, the West, and among aboriginals...and not
>for antagonistic reasons...aboriginals are concerned about the
>diminishment of their treaties, the West about underrepresentation and
>a partly elected, ineffective Senate, and Quebec because of the
>division of powers.

  Naturally those who are most upset with the current system, and don't
get everything they want in the new one are going to be among the most
critical of the agreement at this point.

  Certainly too divisive campaigns of the "NO" camps are designed to focus
on all the negatives they can muster, but whether Canadians are really so
self-centered and immature as to buy this in the crunch remains to be seen.
If they are then we have taken a big step towards the Yugoslav mentality
where our own concerns far outway any others, even those we would consider
fellow countrymen.

  I think that we will have to wait for the sobriety of actually entering
an election booth to see whether the gains rather than the losses are more
of concern to the electorate in those areas.

>Which is why we need an elected constiuent assembly or constitutional
>convention so we can elect people we trust specifically on
>constitutional issues to prepare a series of options and amendments.
>Gerald

  Like the Spicer Commission, Beaudoin-Dobbie and every other townhall
group in the last 2 years, right?  I noticed how well they all came to
firm definite concensus on all the key issues :-).

  And if we elected them they would just be more politicians, no? Who
except the politician and political special interest groups would want
to spend the next 10 years of their life arguing politics.

  If the current system doesn't work and can't handle the problem, then
superficial changes to the makeup of the participants will not change it.
What is needed is a bit more grassroots tolerance and less of the desire
to impose one's own views and desires on others, and of course fewer
spokespersons who exploit the opposite for their own personal advantage.
---- 
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>
----
Xref: sparky can.politics:8360 soc.culture.canada:7447