Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: David Crane on the Accord
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:39:44 GMT

Don A. Bowman (dbowman@shade) wrote:
>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.

As I understand it, there were a couple of Heritage Front people who were
also RP members. The RP found out and gave them the boot. Is this the much
vaunted alliance or am I missing something?

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?

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.

>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.

They are less heard from because they are wacko's who have no credibility.
Your argument seems to be one of guilt by association. Yup, according to
this argument, PET & Sharon Carstairs are one step away from being racists.
Not surprising as the forces of political correctness have already
labelled June Callwood racist.

>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"

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.

>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?

>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.

Please explain how the CF-18 contract and the NEP were *not* examples of
economic domination. And, unfortunately, the personal attacks go both
ways. 


Well, it seems to me, Don, that you are the one who is intolerant of other
views. If some person's or group's policy on
federalism/minorities/women/immigration/etc differs from yours, you label
them as being evil and/or stupid , throw up a straw man or two, add a dash
of Ernst Zundel, and then proceed to *not* explain what it is about the
policy that is so offensive. I often read well written articles promoting
positions that I disagree with that may me think about and sometimes
reconsider my own position. On the other hand, articles that amount to
little more than ad hominem attacks are worse than useless. Let's try for
the substantive articles, eh.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics