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: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:11:59 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: >And hatred and intolerance is the NO sides most effective and most used
: >weapon.
: >
: 
: Exactly which of the prominent NO forces are preaching hatred and
: intolerance...the prominent NO voices are Deborah Coyne's group,
: NAC, Preston Manning and the Reform Party, Gordon Wilson and the
: BC Liberal Party, Sharon Carstairs, the BQ and the PQ and the
: Equality Party, and probably Pierre Trudeau in a couple of days...

You forgot the Confederation of Regions. They are the most anti-french
bigotted group in Canada. They want a unilinual english Canada, no
immigration for non-white non-english speaking people. Need I say more?

The Reform party's campaign is based on intolerance. Nobody has forgotten
their alliance with the Heritage Front "The holocaust didn't happen, whites
are better" group. Look at their immigration policy. Look at their position
on women's rights.

Less heard from are the extremist reactionary groups. The neo-nazis, the Jim
Keegstra's, the Ernst Zundels. If you know someone who has racist views, ask
them what they think of the Accord. Racism is based on hate, and they'll hate
the Accord.

You're also not realising what the "man in the street" is saying. Those who
say NO say no because

1) They hate Quebec. Here is the classic western argument "I'm sick of having
French on my cereal box"

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.

3) They are suspicious of other provinces. Here's where all the "I think
Quebec/BC/Alberta/Ontario got a better deal" people come in. Their favourite
argument is economic domination coupled with personal attacks on the people
of these provinces.

Note that I realise that some people vote NO for rational reason. Reasons I
happen to not agree with, but rational nontheless. I have no objection to you
arguing against the agreement based on logic. It is when people argue against
it based on spite, hate, and ignorance that I get riled.

: remark in August.  The major Banks are ratcheting up the economic
: fears, diverting the issue from the question at hand which is 
: Charlottetown, to the issue of sovereignty.  Who exactly is preying
: on the baser instincts of our nature.
: 

The major banks have given predictions of what they feel the results of
disunity are. You seem to believe a NO vote does not lead to disunity. If you
believe this, then the bank report is good to you. That you believe the bank
report shows economic uncertainty only proves that you KNOW that a NO vote
will cause disunity. Discord. Conflict. Dissension. Separation.

The banks were very careful to avoid being political. They say that Unity (in
my mind a YES vote) will lead to investor confidence, increased employment,
etc. Disunity will lead to lack of confidence, increased unemployment, etc.
I'm sure you can't argue with this premise. (Do you really believe that
disunity would be better? If so, why?)

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