NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/can/politics/9882

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!nott!cunews!revcan!software.mitel.com!grayt
From: [e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Thank You Mr. Clark was Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Message-ID: <13615@grayt>
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:21:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <13500@grayt> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ross Wetmore) writes:
}In article <13500@grayt> [e-mail] (Tom Gray) writes:
}>>
}>>>Boy, you really live in a hate-filled artificially created little
}>>>world of your own! Who will you hate after Quebec seccedes? Yourself?
}>>
}>>I don't hate Quebecers.
}>>
}>>I hate blackmailers.
}>
}>The object of the Charlottetown Accord and the constitutional miasma that
}>led up to it was to recognize diversity by producing a
}>"Community of Communities"
}
}  Not quite ... it was to provide a system of government which recognized
}and incorporated the fact of Canada being a diverse collection of peoples
}who choose to view themselves more from the persepective of local interests
}and communities than homogenous nationalism.

Since this fact was recognized and provided for in the BNA act, I do not
see how Clark's proposals are any revelation. However Clark tipped the
balance. The effect of his ideas is to promote regionalism and isolation.
Regionalism and isolation breed the comments and attitudes seen above.

}
}>From the evidence of this thread (which is accurately summarized by
}>the quotation above), the process has worked. Canada is now a
}>"Community of Communities". Unfortunately there is nothing to hold
}>these communities together but the mutual ignorance and suspicion generated by
}>a process which pitted region against cultural group against national
}>vision.
}
}  The fact has always been present. Recognition of it is starting to
}come about, as you so aptly demonstrate. Recognition of the problem that
}this presents, ie unorganized breakdown into feuding communities and the
}growth of all those negative attitudes and feelings that occur during such
}a process seems also to be occurring.
}
}>Welcome to the new Canada. Why does it remind me of Cyprus? Maybe it is the
}>absolute certainty with which these postings are filled. No one can
}>understand the other and the other must hold his position because of
}>hatred, stupidity or ignorance. Welcome to the new Canada.
}
}  I think this is what Clark and others were warning people about. Are
}you trying to shoot the messenger in your frustration with the message?

The message that Clark was trying to send was common place knowledge.
Clark's solution instead of alleviating the problem, aggravated it.
}
}  But perhaps just as Meech seemed like not so bad a deal when Allaire came
}out, some of the suggestions that have been proposed over the last few
}years will be reinvented and refined, and will yet provide a flexible
}basis for governing (rather than dictating to) the Canadian mosaic.

I disagree. Meech implied Allaire.

I hope your optimism will be reflected. However countries live by their myths.
The pan-Canadian myth now seems to be that your region, group whatever
is exploited by its neighbours. Such a myth can only bring hardship.
Now the political entity of Canada is not important. If Canada can provide
a way for people to live in peace it should continue. However if Canada becomes
a way of objectifying your neighbour, it should not and will not survive.
The tragedy will be that the hatreds produced will live on long after
the demise of Canada.


--
i.sinature