The Terrible Sweal

You have a mistaken impression. No-one in eastern Canada sees 'Westerners' in general as racists and rednecks. What has likely happened is that YOU personally or people you associate have been seen as racists or rednecks and you perceive that incorrectly as being related to being from the west. The truth is, the vast majority of Easterners think of the vast majority of Westerners as just like us, our Fellow Canadians. I know for a fact that isn't true. When I watch a CBC special on interracial marriage and Ian Henamansing says to a couple from Calgary "growing up in Calgary, I imagine there was a lot of pressure to marry within your own race" As if we are some backwoods Arakansas town. Or when I go to Ottawa on Canada day in 1998 and they have a film show where they portray Albertans as racially intolerant. Give me a break, the east loves to think of us as rednecks. I think you're being over-sensitive. Hanomansing might as easily have said growing up in Fredericton. I can't speak for the film you saw, of course, but I suspect that it may have shown SOME Albertans. Some other Albertans perhaps doth protest too much.

It refers to the historical status ... the territory of these provinces was the possession of the Crown in Right of Canada after it was ceded by the Northwest Company. By and through the constitution of Canada, these territories were made into 'Provinces'. In the absence of that constitutional status (say if rioting or a purported 'separatist government' overthrew or destroyed the government structure) the landmass of these provinces is basically just federal crown land. As for the Clarity Act, it is only effective to the extent it is constitutional, so I don't think it changes the basics of my point.

Well, 'reason' is a more or less well understood concept ... reliance on facts, the application of logic to them, (and therefor the capacity to form common standards of meaning). Therefore, I suppose, by 'unreason', I meant a reliance on belief over fact, and the application of illogic (preventing the capacity to form common standards of meaning). I'm not sure what the issue for debate is. I think my initial point was that having a 'secular' society is not the point in and of itself, but is merely the result of having a rational society with the capacity to form common standards of meaning. These features would be frustrated in a 'non-secular' society.

Hi there, Just a point of information here ... Whether any province has a 'right' to Separate is open to a lot of question. However, in contrast to self-governing colonies who who pre-existed confederation and may argue a right to 'retract their contract' with the Dominion, Alberta and Saskatchewan certainly have no such right. To be specific, the territory of Alberta and Saskatchewan have provincial-soveriegn status only by and through their status within the constitution of Canada. The moment they should somehow cease to be Provinces of Canada, they revert the the sovereign jurisdiction of the Crown in Right of Canada (as directed by Parliament, of course). So there you go.

You have a mistaken impression. No-one in eastern Canada sees 'Westerners' in general as racists and rednecks. What has likely happened is that YOU personally or people you associate have been seen as racists or rednecks and you perceive that incorrectly as being related to being from the west. The truth is, the vast majority of Easterners think of the vast majority of Westerners as just like us, our Fellow Canadians.

Actually, Jack did an overall very good job. He worked effectively without a seat, he won seats, won more popular vote, and sees proportional representation within his grasp. He gets to stay.

No part of the platform specifies that objective. However: a-important members of the party express a desire to; b-important intellectual influences of the party express an intention to eviscerate the institutions which sustain the right; and c-the party platform until recently contained a specific policy which could lead from b to a (referenda). Voters can draw their own conclusions.

The name means nothing in that respect. The 'Conservative' Party is not really conservative, and in fact, it's even possible to be an 'extreme conservative' if you think about it. The Court did that, not the Liberals. Well, it's extremely unfortunate that this was necessary, but it's not an example of extremism. It's an example of moderate conservatism, actually -- people wanted to stick with what they knew rather than what they suspected wouldn't suit them. They are planning to work within the institutions provided. How is that 'extreme'?

No. The Liberal negative campaign worked because it informed people about the truth about the Con Party.

Now what about Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

You're not allowed. My Canada includes Banff.

Alberta isn't allowed to separate, though.

I think you're missunderstanding that issue a little bit: Federal health care funding is not dished out differently based on provinces. Whether you pay a separate premium for it in your province depends solely on how the province chooses to structure its revenue stream(s). The perception of Westerners among Eastern Canadians is definately not predominantly, or even substantially, that you are dumb rednecks. Eastern Canada is also so rife with dumb rednecks that we cannot apply that as a regionally distinquishing feature. Honestly. I think western alienationists regionalize everything too much, when region is not the true basis of the matter. And btw, Eastern Canada is not the CBC, or Toronto alone.

Harper's and the Alliance's views just don't make sense to many Canadians. An Alberta firewall? Judges who shouldn't judge the law they're hired to judge?

But that's just it, isn't it. 'Fear' of the right wing may be a clever shorthand way to describe it, but what it really is is people don't want what the right has to offer: -undermined federalism -devastation of institutions and social infrastructure -the mingling of church and state -confusion of our interests with America's

Despite frequent attempts, I have yet to comprehend 'western alienation'? Whenever I ask what the problem is, I can't ever seem to grasp the explanation. Often, I don't see why it's a 'western' issue, other things I can't see why they're an issue at all. Three solitudes?

I don't think that's a valid criticism. The Liberal Party ran a full slate of candidates in Alberta every time and they run into a completely intransigent wall of Rightwing self-righteousness. News flash: if you want a party to take account of your special interests, you have to elect someone who can inform them of it.

Spector is an old-line Mulroneyite, not a Liberal.

I find that appeal disingenuous. You cry that you only want to 'debate' something and not discriminate, but the objective of your position in the debate is precisely to discriminate. Feel free to debate all you want, no-one is stopping you. But please don't try to evade the consequences of your position.

I don't agree that its just a matter of spin. Even if we accept your characterization of some of these items, you have to concede that they have been more or less deliberately hidden in this campaign. But the items themselves should also be examined for what they are, for example: To say 'respect provincial jurisdiction' is doublespeak. Provincial jurisdiction is not under threat, so the implication that it needs protection is a coded message for something else. To 'have an open debate on gay marriage and nothing else' is impossible. The debate you want to have requires an unacceptable concession in another debate: whether we have a liberal democratic society, or something else. To concede that we can have 'equal rights except for some' is not acceptable. I was actually refering to other ways of undermining the court, but having judges to go before committees and looked at by the house before appointment raises the question of what it is they are being scrutinized for, exactly. I see nothing that such scrutiny would do to improve the bench, based on the quality of the candidates we tend to get.

Which one?

Likewise Alberta rushing to defend Nova Scotia? But more importantly, 'defend' eachother from what? Your post seems to presume a great adversary somewhere which doesn't exist.

What kind of a hidden agenda are you talking about? Can you give us some examples? There was nothing wrong with what Randy White said and furthermore he made that comment 2 weeks before the election was called.. that's almost 2 months ago!!! Hidden Agenda: -gut federal powers -re-open 'social conservative' issues through referenda -undermine the supreme court -privatize health care -relax environmental enforcement -lower taxes on the wealthy by shrinking public institutions and social infrastructure I can't see how 2 months is likely to have evolved Mr. White's views very much. If you agree with his goals, then certainly there would be 'nothing wrong' with what he said. On the other hand, people who sensibly disagree with such nonsense would disagree.

I think that if either the Liberals or Conservatives appear to be sustained for any length of time by the Bloc alone, they will lose credibility in ROC. Frankly, however, I see no prospect of the Bloc being able to stomach working with the Alliance Rump anyway, unless they together adopt an aggressive agenda of carving up the country right away. Furthermore, I'm not even certain the Conservative caucus could remain intact in a minority situation, given the quick mortar job that's holding that foundation together. So, in your scenario, NDP nowhere, Bloc holding the balance, a Conservative minority won't last six months. I don't know what the Liberals would do if they have the plurality.

August: That's an interesting perspective. But I put it too you ... imputing suspicion to others, is itself a bit suspicious.