Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Sydney Sharpe and Don Braid's new book on the Reform Party
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:05:34 GMT

myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.011849.18558@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>I encourage you to call up the RP and ask for a copy of their blue book.
>>It is much less time consuming to read than S&B's book (and cheaper as well
>>:-). This could give us and anyone else interested, an easily obtainable,
>>cheap (it's free), and concise base from which to debate. I will probably
>>pick up S&B's book, although probably not for a while (due to other
>>commitments).
>
>Why not read both the RP's blue book, and also Sharpe & Braid's book?
>Do you always believe in reading material from one source only?
>Or prefer to read material not critical of your own view?

I will probably read S&B's book when I have the time - I said so in my last
post. However, I do read newspapers, Macleans, etc as well. For example. in
an issue of Mcleans several months ago University of Toronto historian
Michael Bliss said something along the lines that comparing the RP to
racists makes about as much sense as comparing the NDP to communists -
unfortunately I tossed that issue so I cannot provide a direct quote. Here
we have an extremely respected historian who has appeared many times on the
Journal shooting down the RP-as-racists theory.

>You have not disproved what is said in Sharpe & Braid's book.
>You haven't even read Sharpe & Braid's book, and you're already telling
>me it's not true.

I'm doing no such thing, Michael. You have made no hard accusations which
can be discussed. Obviously it is impossible to disprove phantoms. Your one
accusation re Manning's style is extremely subjective and thus not worth
more than a few sentences - indeed, others in this group have taken issue
with your use of that example.

>Meanwhile, I'm going to read the RP's blue book and compare it with
>Sharpe & Braid's book, and also another book written by someone else on
>the RP. If that's not enough, or if I still have some doubt in my mind,
>I'll keep seeking a fourth source of information.
>
>Here is an aside to you, Jim, about how ethnic minorities think:
>
>Do you want me to assume that every single Canadian white male think the
>same? I do NOT assume that. Hence you should not assume the same for my
>ethnic minority. Most recent immigrants (within 3 years) from Hong Kong,
>if they have not been living outside HK at all before they come here,
>tend to think quite differently from longer term immigrants (came here
>when he/she was between 10 and 15 years old), and still different from
>those who were born here, and have had several generation's roots here.
>Also, while it's true that recent immigrants are mostly above average in
>education and intelligence since they've all been screened by
>Immigration Canada, the distribution is more uniform, over most of the
>spectrum, for those ethnic minorities that were born here. That
>notwithstanding, there is indeed a stronger emphasis in Chinese
>traditional family values that academic achievements is a high priority,
>hence you may find that regardless of how many (fractional) generations
>a Chinese family has been here in Canada, their kids tend to study just
>a wee bit harder; if not voluntarily, then by coercion from their
>parents.
>
>So please, don't go around telling me just because one Chinese woman joins
>the RP, it proves that I should too. I mean, gimme a break, eh? I
>laughed off my chair when I saw Manning parading his prized Chinese
>candidate in front of the TV cameras. The small-time narrow mindedness
>of Manning was laid out bare for everyone to see right there and then.

The point was *not* to claim that all minorities think the same - an
obviously ludicrous assertion - but, of course, straw men are by definition
easy to knock down. That point was *not* that you should join the RP
because Hu did; indeed I in *no* way even implied such - please read
*carefully* what I am writing. The point was that I don't see too many
visible minorities in the KKK, the Aryan Nation, etc, yet Sheila Copps and
company would have you believe that Manning is David Duke. That was the
point, nothing more and nothing less. To reiterate, the point was that I
know of no racist organizations that actively recruit visible minorities.

Of course, Manning and the RP were trying to prove something with Hu. On
the one hand they were courting the ethnic vote - as has been done by the 3
major parties in the past. On the other hand, due to people like Copps,
they apparently felt the need to make a big deal out of what shouldn't have
been a big deal. Was it opportunistic? Sure. But consider how times have we
seen the 3 major parties parade around a "star" candidate for media
consumption. Why, when the NDP, say, show off their candidate from the XXX
community (thus "proving" their empathy and support of this community), it
is reasonable; but when the RP does it, it is unreasonable? Is this not a
double standard? Yes, it is opportunistic (for all parties!); no, it's not
an illegitimate or unusual tactic. 

BTW, I have another article that I will type in when time permits that
looks at the RP and ethnic minorities in the party in BC.

>>Finally (yes, I am almost finished) I would like to include an excerpt
>>from a Globe and Mail editorial, dated June 14 1991; this was when 
>>Manning was making a speaking tour of Ontario:
>>****************************************************************
>>
>>The Reform Party's legitimate voice
>>-----------------------------------
>>.........
>>Ironically, those who would write the Reform Party off as a gathering of
>>cranks (or worse) would relegate it to the fringe where only cranks would
>>find it. Mr Manning, who is far from a crank, has a vision of a party with
>>a far broader membership, necessarily (and happily) pushing aside bigots
>>and xenophobes. His is a defiantly, unapologetically conservative vision,
>>which appeals to many people who are not bigots, who are not xenophobes,
>>but whose vision of Canada is not that of any of the three main parties.
>>One doesn't have to agree with all it says, or even most of what it says,
>>to recognize the legitimacy of its voice
>>****************************************************************
>
>Well, you've typed in a very good quotation right there yourself !
>
>     "His is a defiantly, unapologetically conservative vision,
>      which appeals to many people who are not bigots, who are not
>      xenophobes, but whose vision of Canada is not that of any of the
>      three main parties."
>
>1. I find his "unapologetically conservative vision" unbearable. I have
>   already stated often times publicly that I'll leave Canada if the RP
>   forms the federal government of Canada. And, just so that I stroke my
>   own ego publicly, Canada will be a lesser nation if I should leave.

You are perfectly free to form your own opinion, Michael. I find the NDP's
unapologetically left wing vision outdated at best.  But, I would find it
intellectually dishonest to claim that they are all hiding AK-47s under
their beds. Personally I like the part of the quote that says "...appeals
to many people who are not bigots, who are not xenophobes, ...".  BTW, are
we back to discussing policy now?

>2. This "unapologetically conservative vision" is held by a man who
>   believes devoutly in his religion, and stoops to using evangelistic
>   speeches to spell bind his audience into voting for whatever he
>   tells them to vote for. Oh yes, you quoted Manning as saying that he
>   won't impose his religious views on someone else. But there are many
>   other views in his "unapologetically conservative vision" he can
>   impose on his party members, and by extension onto me.

Is this country so narrow-minded that we hold a person's religion against
them?  I'm agnostic, but I certainly try to look beyond a person's religion
to the person and what he/she says. As for not liking Manning's
"unapologetically conservative vision", I'm not saying you should vote RP;
I'm saying that that "unapologetically conservative vision" is as
legitimate an option as the NDP's vision is.

To reiterate,  there are two issues here: 
1) why does Michael Hui dislike RP policies?
2) is the RP a legitimate option?

I am willing to debate either issue, but let's try to keep them separate,
eh. 

BTW, this country has had Roman Catholic PMs for years; yet, contraceptives
are still available, abortion is legal, premarital sex is legal, gays are
not branded (personally I believe sexual orientation should be protected
by the Charter), woman hold positions of power, etc. Should I not listen
to what Jean Chretien says on the issues, but instead base my opinion of
him on the tenets of his religion? Is there perhaps a double standard at
work here?

>Voting or joining a party based on just reading the party propaganda is
>like joining the mafia after you've been told that your wife and
>children will forever be safe because you're now under protection. The
>party propaganda is the lure. The investigative reports tries to tell
>you the truth.

That's why I like to read the newspapers and news magazines; and watch TV
news programs. As for "investigative reports", on any issue there are
usually several and it is often possible to find one that fits your
viewpoint. That doesn't mean that they should not be read and analyzed; it
does mean, however, that one should be willing to look at other sources as
well.

>Chapter Six in Sharpe & Braid's book opens with two quotations:
>
>    "The Reform Party is asking some questions which some people don't
>     want to hear."                   --- Calgary Reformer Ron Beer

This could mean anything. For example, is Manning asking why immigration
should be slanted towards family unification versus the independent class
immigrant? Indeed, it is not even obvious from the context that Beer is
talking about racism and the RP - is this established in the chapter? Or is
Beer talking about Manning asking how we can afford a medical system whose
costs are rising significantly faster than revenues?

>    "What we now need is a calm, rational analysis of why so many
>     non-white people break out in a nervous sweat whenever Manning
>     speaks of his vision of Canada." --- Activist Rosemary Brown

I read that editorial by Rosemary Brown - it was carried in the Vancouver
Sun and, I believe, the Globe and Mail. She asked the question, but if I
remember correctly she made no real attempt to answer it. My impression was
that she was attempting to sow a seed of fear/doubt. It was the usual
phantom fluff put forward by the likes of Christopher Young and Geoffrey
Stevens when discussing the RP.

>That's the chapter on racism within the Reform Party. It goes from page
>125 to 148, in large type. Go to the bookstore and read it just standing
>there. Then come back and tell me whether there's anything in there you
>believe is wrong.

I don't see how the two of us discussing paragraph 3 of page 131 is going
to contribute to this thread in this newsgroup. It may be endlessly good
sport for the *two* of us; but will do little or nothing for everyone else
who has *not* read the book or chapter. At any rate, I will try to sneak a
read of the chapter.

BTW, Michael, you do realize that you too have not attempted to answer Ms
Brown's question? So far you have merely said: read S&B's book. I have
quoted part of a G&M editorial, I have made reference to words by John
Turner, and Michael Bliss. I have brought up how the RP turfed out the
Quebec flag stomper and the members of a racist organization. I would like
to hear what evidence there is that the RP is racist as you allege. I
believe that is the least that you can do, given the seriousness of the
charge. 

>After all, books are still a valid form of communication. At least the
>authors put their names and their resumes down in full; even their
>own smiling-face pictures.

But like anything else, books vary enormously in quality. For example, it
would be ridiculous to attempt to obtain an objective analysis of the
effects of the FTA by reading Mel Hurtig's book. At any rate, I like to
obtain my information from a variety of sources, as I have already stated;
various newspapers, news magazines, news TV. I like to think my information
sources are reasonably diverse. I will read the book eventually, but I will
also read and consider Globe and Mail editorials, and people like Michael
Bliss and John Turner. Perhaps we should all attempt to broaden our
horizons?

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdivax1.mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17924 alt.individualism:2407 sci.econ:3692 alt.activism:7596