‘October 24, 1995

By J. Jones This Week: The much- anticipated, oft-delayed National Debates Part 2

After a few weeks sabbatical, I think I’ve composed myself enough to make a few more passing remarks on the October 30 referendum in Quebec. If nothing else this will get all these lame political puns out of my head. I really hope this will be the last time I write something about the Quebec Question, partly because I’m just re-hashing what other people said and thought, but mostly because I’m bored to tears with the entire fiasco.

NOTE: The writer is going to state something that may be a little bizarre. Reader discretion is advised.

I WANT the people of Quebec to vote Yes (or Oui, depending on their mother tongue). Yes, you heard it, a born- and-raised English-speaking (but bilin- gual) person living outside of Quebec that actually wants the October 30 referendum to be a resounding Yes. Note, however, that I did not mention ‘‘separation.’’ Let me explain:

NOTE: Boring, flawed Canadian political history lesson ahead. Once again, reader discretion is advised.

Since Trudeau repatriated the Canadian constitution in the early 80’s, Quebec has not been included in the Canadian constitution. Still a part of Canada, mind you, but officially an outsider. Two previous attempts have been made to include Quebec in the constitution (Meech Lake in the late 80s and the Charlottetown Accord in the 90s), both of which were shot down in flames. Not only did this alienate some Quebecers (causing the BQ to form), it also bored many Canadian TV viewers with endless sound bites from Canadian politicians. According to the PQ’s own question (see the Panther Prints, October 3, for my “*translation’’), Quebec is forced to give one more kick at the constitutional can by giving another offer to the rest of Canada.

This is why I hope Quebecers vote Yes: the premiers of both British Colum- bia and Ontario (I imagine other premiers said this as well, but when you see a Tory and an NDP leader agreeing, cherish it like a blue moon) have both stated that they are not in favour of the status quo, ie.

they want constitutional change. If the voters of Quebec decide to vote Yes on October 30, then three major provinces will at least indirectly agree on one thing: they want change that is lasting and permanent. Having a problem common to more than one person is an excellent way to finding a solution to this problem.

NOTE: Sappy writer is about to make a hasty retreat. As always, reader discretion is advised.

Okay, so the idea is a little far- fetched, but I like stretching things to make a point. I’m pretty certain that the voters of la Belle Province will see through the PQ and BQ smoke screen and vote No, but a political pundit can dream, can’t he?

For a final far-fetched metaphor, take this as an example:

(FINAL NOTE: disgusting biologi- cal a is upcoming. Beware!)

Question eee mp reeniqnetic flaming red zit on

Panther Prints

TELL IT LIKE

IT

Welcome once again to my opinion article, now in its second week of operation. This week I'll be voicing my opinion on homosexual marriages.

The largest objection comes not from the heterosexual community at large but rather from the religious community. Many of those in the hierarchy believe that marriage among couples of the same sex is against the church and God’s will. Of course some may recognize these objec- tions, as similar ones were used in the mid- fifties concerning inter-racial marriages. We’ve sure come a long way haven’t we? Pretty scary when we talk of all the steps the world has taken, when all we do is turn our hatred towards another group.

Homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, only with different sexual preferences. Why does this matter? They’re not recruiting people like some sort of military group. If anyone is guilty of that it is the heterosexual community, treating homosexuality like it is some sort of dis- ease. It’s not -- it’s a feeling of love for someone of the same sex. Why shouldn’t

by Lorne Caborn

Page 5

IS

they be aloud to express this love in mar- riage and receive the same rights and benefits as the rest of the population? Everyday you hear of another divorce or separation. These are people don’t want to be married. Here is a group of people who do and we won’t allow them. Next you know we’ll be reverting back to arranged marriages and telling our children who they should care for and why.

Canada was a country formed by free thinking people to be a democratic society in which free thinkers could flourish and survive. Not allowing someone the right to express their love through marriage is morally and ethically wrong regardless of who it is they want to marry. What rights will be refused next? Would you want someone to tell you who to love? Think about it.

I welcome response to this topic or any others through my email, lcabon@ upei.ca. I’ll be back next week when Ill focus on the question ‘‘Are all men jerks?”’

your forehead. You P=! know, the kind that is so big and nasty that it hurts to think? Okay, now imagine the possible ways of getting rid of it: you can leave it alone, hoping that it will disappear by itself (but you run the risk of it spreading), or you can apply direct hydrochloric acid and melt your face away (sure, it’Il hurt like

995

Justy

Come in and test drive the best in All Wheel Drive Safety and Performance

UBARU

Wheel Drive

LPG STUDENTS CME IN AND ASK ABOUT OUR GREAT DEALS!

hell -- it may even kill you -- but that zit is history!). Person- ally, if it were my zit (like I need any more), I’d try the acid bath.

To sign off for this week, I’ll leave you with the immor- tal words of Scatman John:

od:

|| 41 Sherwood Road Charlottetown 9O2-8A956)

iy

‘*Skee ba ba ba ba do bo. Ba ba ba do bo. I’m a scat man.”’