mack@ubc-vision.CDN (Alan Mackworth) (12/12/84)
Dear Prime Minister Mulroney,
Both you and John Turner (my local M.P.) have demonstrated a
total lack of leadership on the nuclear freeze issue. Despite
the fact that 84% of Canadians support a bilateral, verifiable
nuclear freeze and despite the fact that the P.C. party said
before the election that it was willing to support a freeze,
you instructed our representative to vote against a freeze at
the U.N. First Committee meeting. That kind of cynical,
hypocritical behaviour contributes to the disgust that many Canadians
have for their elected representatives. It makes a farce out
of democracy. None of your blather about the need to support our
NATO allies makes any sense whatsoever. Two of them voted "yes"
and four abstained! Even Australia had the guts to vote "yes".
You have seriously miscalculated if you believe that
Canadians want to sacrifice our principles in order to
curry favour in Washington. I urge you to rethink and change our
vote as soon as possible. Canadians voted for a change, for
honest leadership, not for the same old self-serving opportunism:
talking peace and voting for the war machine.
Yours etc.
cc: Joe Clark, John Turner, Ed Broadbent, Doug Roche, Stephen Lewismsb@lsuc.UUCP (12/13/84)
> ... 84% of Canadians support a bilateral, verifiable > nuclear freeze... 1. Verifiable? Hah! 2. "Bilateral" implies two sides, but at least six countries have nuclear weapons -- so far. What about the others? 3. 84% of Canadians are naive. { allegra | decvax | duke | ihnp4 | linus | watmath | ... } !utzoo!lsuc!msb Mark Brader also uw-beaver!utcsrgv!lsuc!msb
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (12/13/84)
In article <756@ubc-vision.CDN> mack@ubc-vision.CDN (Alan Mackworth) writes: >Dear Prime Minister Mulroney, > > Both you and John Turner (my local M.P.) have demonstrated a >total lack of leadership on the nuclear freeze issue. Despite >the fact that 84% of Canadians support a bilateral, verifiable >nuclear freeze ....... It would appear that the 84% of Canadians that support the freeze have as about as much say in how things are run as the approximately 75% of Canadians that support the return of capital punishment or the majority of Canadians that support removal of Japanese car import quotas. Initiatives anyone ? J.B. Robinson
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/14/84)
>It would appear that the 84% of Canadians that support the freeze >have as about as much say in how things are run as the approximately >75% of Canadians that support the return of capital punishment or >the majority of Canadians that support removal of Japanese car >import quotas. Initiatives anyone ? > > J.B. Robinson In today's Globe and Mail (which I don't have in front of me), it reported that 84% of Manitobans(?) supported the death penalty for premeditated murder, 82% for killing a policeman, about 70% for sexually molesting a child, and 35% for causing a fatal accident while under the influence of alcohol. (These figures may be off a bit, but they are in the right ball-park). We are a bloodthirsty people, aren't we? Thank goodness we have the insulation of Parliament and (perhaps) some thought between us and the wishes of the people. At least we might solve the population problem if we listened to the people :-( -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
mack@ubc-vision.CDN (Alan Mackworth) (12/14/84)
************************************************************************ In article <885@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >It would appear that the 84% of Canadians that support the freeze >have as about as much say in how things are run as the approximately >75% of Canadians that support the return of capital punishment or >the majority of Canadians that support removal of Japanese car >import quotas. Initiatives anyone ? > But the 75% in favour of the noose have been guaranteed a full scale debate in the house and a free vote (no whips) in the life of this Parliament. Seems to me that a bilateral, verifiable freeze is at least as important and the consensus of the people is clear. I'd settle for a full scale debate and a free vote. I do not favour binding initiatives for the reason given by Martin Taylor: the majority can be totally wrong and uninformed - we elect MPs to act in our enlightened self-interest (not against it).
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (12/16/84)
In article <1274@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >In today's Globe and Mail (which I don't have in front of me), it reported >that 84% of Manitobans(?) supported the death penalty for premeditated >murder, 82% for killing a policeman, about 70% for sexually molesting >a child, and 35% for causing a fatal accident while under the influence >of alcohol. (These figures may be off a bit, but they are in the right >ball-park). > >We are a bloodthirsty people, aren't we? Yes, we ( homo sapiens ) certainly are a bloodthirsty bunch. Unfortunately, this is something that members of the peace-at-any-price school of thinking ( especially those advocating *unilateral* nuclear disarmament ) either don't realize or tend to ignore. J.B. Robinson
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (12/16/84)
*
It looks like we're going to get a free vote in the Commons concerning
capital punishment and at least one person in this group has called
for a free vote concerning a bilateral verifiable nuclear weapons
freeze. So my questions/comments are:
-Is it reasonable to expect a "free" vote to be genuinely free in
that each MP votes his/her conscience? If the leader of the party
lets it be known what his stand is and also lets it be known that
he feels very strongly about the particular issue then what chance
is there that a party full of *prospective* cabinet ministers,
senators, and ambassadors is going to go against their leader's
wishes? I may be cynical, but I tend to think that the likelihood
of that happening is rather small.
-What is the criteria for deciding that a vote be free? Why should
the vote on capital punishment be free, but not the vote on, say,
street solicitation? It seems to me that the Canadian people would
be better served by a system in which an MP's vote truly represents
the interests of his constituency and not necessarily those of the
party.
-Should foreign policy be decided by free votes as would be the case
in a free vote on the freeze? Given that the Cabinet probably is privy
to information that is denied to not only average Canadians but also
those MPs who are not in the favoured inner circle of power, then does
it not make sense that Canadians should trust their Government in
foreign policy matters? ( I've previously aired my views concerning
trusting governments, and I do not think that the above argument, even
if it is mine, changes my mind on the subject ) Also, shouldn't all
members of a Government at least *appear* to be solidly behind its
leader in foreign policy matters?
-This doesn't have anything to do with free votes but I figured I'd
throw it in anyway. Can anyone explain to me why a self-professed man
of peace like Pierre Trudeau, who would probably shoot ( figuratively,
of course ) anyone who accused him of attempting to curry favour in
Washington, was in favour of cruise missile testing and against
the freeze? Remember External Affairs Minister Allen McEachan (sp?)
saying that the freeze was "a half-baked idea that wouldn't stand
the test of time".
J.B. Robinson