From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: David Crane on the Accord
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:53:45 GMT

Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
: 
: The RP's immigration policy, as I understand it, is to de-emphasize family
: re-unification and emphasize the independent class. I believe that this is
: the same track the government's proposed immigration changes take. What is
: wrong with this?

The Reform Party's immigration policy is aimed at increasing western european
immigration, reducing others.

: 
: I am not really sure what you mean by "Look at their position on women's
: rights". Assuming that this was more than just mere rhetoric, could you
: elaborate on what you find intolerant in their alleged  position. Making
: negative remarks about a policy and then not explaining what you perceive
: this policy to be is far from helpful to anyone.

What I meant was, their platform goes along the lines of "traditional family
values" <Sounds kind of american, doesn't it?> When I heard Preston Manning
speak, he kept hinting that a woman's place was in the home until the
children were raised, a man's in the workforce. No, I don't think Preston
Manning is an extremist by any means. I just find their platforms somewhat
objectionable.

: >1) They hate Quebec. Here is the classic western argument "I'm sick of having
: >French on my cereal box"
: 
: If you believe that that is the western argument against the accord I
: suggest you read a bit more on the topic. For a starter, concentrate on
: western alienation and its causes, and on how this accord has the
: potential for increasing this. And, if you really believe that the "man in
: the street" in BC spends his time concerned about French on his cereal
: box, I suggest that there is a huge communication gap between east and
: west. Your cereal box argument is nothing more than a straw man.

I'm not talking about rational arguments here. When I was in Alberta, I kept
hearing about "french on the cereal box" and "shoved down my throat". I'm not
saying that these are representative of the view of westerners.  In BC I saw
more graffiti saying "French go home, Canada for English, etc" I know that
this is not representative of the views of the majority. These are the
irrational hate mongerers that I am arguing against.

I guess all I meant was that the people with the "irrational" arguments get
me riled. If you have arguments based on logic (which I agree or disagree
with) that is fine. If you argue based on emotion and hatred, you simply
provoke me. This is not really a problem on the Net as most people are too
educated to "spew"

: 
: >2) They hate minorities. Many of the people on the Net here seem to be in
: >this group, arguing against entrenching protection of minorities, and women.
: 
: Many of the people in this group believe in the primacy of individual
: rights and see mechanisms such a gender quotas as being diametrically
: opposed to this concept. Is this what you mean by "hating minorities" and
: being "against entrenching protection of minorities, and women", or is
: there more to it?

I guess what I meant was that it is ok (in my opinion, true) to do a little
bit of affirmative action to get a desired end. I would like to think that it
was not necessary to do this, that magically the senate would be
representative of Canadians. Unfortunately, I'm also a bit of a realist. In
retrospect, my statement was a little insulting, and I apologise.


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