Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!sask!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis From: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Free trade, Canadian culture, $$ Message-ID: <882@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Mar-87 22:09:28 EST Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.882 Posted: Tue Mar 3 22:09:28 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Mar-87 02:43:47 EST References: <191@fornax.uucp> <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <195@fornax.uucp> <2760@hcrvx2.UUCP> <873@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2767@hcrvx2.UUCP> Reply-To: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) Distribution: can Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science Lines: 88 In article <2767@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >>I'm not sure whether to describe this as nonsense or twaddle. Apart from >>being historically and legally incorrect, it is also logically inconsistent. > >[I guess the above is Vince's incredibly subtle way of saying he >doesn't agree with me] Please, Jim, don't accuse me of being subtle. I'd regard it as an insult. I hope you noticed the ambiguity in the first sentence, though. >My claim was *not* legally incorrect, merely incomplete. A piece of >legislation that contravened the Charter in an obvious manner, e.g. >shooting all persons of West Indian background, *would* indeed be struck >down in any court in this country. No, Jim, I'm sorry to disagree with you. Though I'd hope that any court in the country would strike such a law down, there is no requirement for it to do so. Article (1) ties those rights down to the maintenance of a ``free and democratic society'' (I quote from memory), and therefore if the courts could be convinced that shooting Jews (I'll use a minority *I'm* a member of) served that purpose, it would uphold the law. Mr Justice Angelo Branca, in upholding the right of the Vancouver Sun not to print an ad for a gay publication, enunciated the concept of a ``reasonable bias''. Essentially, he said that if you don't like somebody, it's ok to discriminate against them (the Supreme Court of Canada upheld his judgement, but rejected his reasoning; this was under the Bill of Rights, not the Charter). More strongly, let's assume that Les Bewley (a loony right-winger beloved of the antimetric supporters of Jim Keegstra) were still on the bench. The Charter is a living document; at any point, our understanding of what rights (and responsibilities) it guarantees depends on our understanding of ourselves and our country. It's up to us to make sure our courts' understanding grows as ours does. >I should like to point out something that Vince did *not* say. He did >not claim that minorities would have *less* protection under majority >rule than they have now. The last majoritarian society I know of is the Athenian democracy of Perikles' times. Apart from the fact that it denied the rights of women, slaves, and non-citizens, one of its high points was the institution of ostracism. The members of the Assembly would from time to time banish people because they didn't like them. Find me an example to prove me wrong, Jim. In any case: under direct democracy, minorities would have less protection than they do now. Jim goes on to discuss various California propositions. Without getting into the merits of the English-language proposition, let me point out that the main argument used to convince people to support for it was ``the Canadian experience''. Much was talked of separatism, the FLQ, and many other subjects of limited relevance to 1986. Californians, who know as much about Canada as an oyster knows of balanced budgets (despite having a high proportion of resident Canadians), bought this argument. My point is simple: the average citizen knows little of many abstruse issues (as a diehard Canadian nationalist, I don't know how I'd vote on a free trade referendum, because I don't understand the economics of it), and therefore cannot vote on an informed basis. The best we can do is to find a party with whose philosophy we agree, or an individual whom we respect, and ask him/her to investigate the matter thoroughly and decide accordingly. As a gay person, I have particular qualms about referenda. In the late 1970's, city and state bodies across the United States passed civil rights laws regarding gay people. Consistently, referenda were organised to overturn these ordinances (Anita Bryant's effort in Miami is the most famous of these). Last year's Larouche-organised AIDS proposition in California did not pass; however, a poll showed that over 20% of its supporters were inspired by homophobia. It's a lot easier to get people to oppose something (anything) than to support something; that's why decisions ought to be made on a basis of sober decision, not in the heat of public debate. >BTW, Vince, I've got thesis writing to do and I'm sure you have papers >to mark so why don't you just admit I'm right and we can call it a day >:-)? You are right, Jim. Very right. (I really do like that Chiclets commercial, even though I hate chewing gum). ----- Vincent Manis {ihnp4!alberta,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis Dept. of Computer Science manis@cs.ubc.cdn Univ. of British Columbia manis%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5 manis@ubc.csnet (604) 228-6770 or 228-3061 "BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of 'Scientific Creationism'."