🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Oct26.093337.24516@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>
mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse)
writes:

> [I just *know* I'm going to regret sticking my nose into this...]

	The slippery slope of opinion shaping debates...  one gets
	drawn into them at the expense of one's comfortable neutrality
	and anonymity.  One even gets mail from cranks such as the very
	unpleasant and very anonymous BFRS000... 			|8-)

> In article <1992Oct26.000340.14150@cs.mcgill.ca>,
> hfrg@cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Choi) writes:
[ .. fast forward past Mr Choi's angst... ] 

> In any case, to answer that: trick question.  A united Canada is not
> necessarily inconsistent with Quebec no longer being a part of
> Canada...but given history, does appear to be inconsistent with Quebec
> remaining a part of Canada.  Hence, "two seperate [sic] countries" and
> "a united Canada" are not in fact the diametrically opposed choices the
> question's phrasing makes it appear they are; instead, they are
> probably close to being the same thing, opposed to "a Canada containing
> Quebec, and the internal strife that implies".

	I have never seen it expressed so accurately or so
	concisely.  It is not news to anyone, but it needed
	such a lucid statement so we can discuss it properly.

	Thank you.

> Unless, of course, "united" is taken in some very restricted sense,
> such as geographical contiguity.

	I believe that for a large number of people, "united"
	means the same thing as ironed out, leveled.  Kind of
	like "pacified" in the totalitarian vocabulary.

> Which is better for Canada, a Canada with Quebec or a Canada without
> Quebec?  I don't know.  I hope for the status quo in this respect,
> primarily because I like Montreal the way it is.

	Most of us do.  But those who want change are numerous
	enough, and some of their demands are legitimate enough
	that, to paraphrase you: "a Canada containing Quebec,
	and the internal strife that implies" is worth avoiding,
	even at the price of a few compromises.

	The "loss" of Quebec would be a loss of face for the
	politicians and an emotional (knee jerk) loss for those
	who espoused the imperial view of the world.  There are
	plenty of economic fall outs to consider, but nothing
	that two adult governments can't bargain out over time.

	Which leads us to the next question: for $64,000,000,000:
	How are we going to find ourselves adult politicians?

> I am not convinced that this has anything to do with the outcome of
> Monday's referendum.  Whichever way it turns out, one side will point
> to it as evidence for their program, and the other will get upset and
> explain why it doesn't mean what the first side says it does...

	I will let a great friend of freedom of opinion answer
	that one:

    } From: BFRS000 <BFRS@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA>
    } Subject: referendum '92...der mouse
    } Message-ID: <26OCT92.18658916.0083@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
    } Thanks for pointing out the obvious!

	This referendum has proved only one thing: politicians
	and other power elites do not learn lessons.  They took
	a giant slap in the face, and they carry on as if it
	were business as usual.  There doesn't seem to be any
	will to reform the institutions or the approach.  Ritual
	suicide is not required, but admission of a general
	failure would be welcome.  Without it, there will be
	no possible way to effect repairs.



--
 Alain