Re: taboos

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Sun Apr 08 2001 - 15:41:26 BST

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Determinism"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA14266 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:07:11 +0100
    Message-ID: <000d01c0c03a$1398efc0$5508bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <E14j0vU-000GsE-00@gaea> <002901c0bbb0$f2000660$b902bed4@default><3AC8E1B1.33BCD878@clara.co.uk> <001101c0bc77$1fa65b20$0307bed4@default><3ACA3B58.F9D77350@clara.co.uk> <002101c0bd40$443d5280$820abed4@default><001101c0be06$a97a0000$1908bed4@default> <3ACEC8A4.5444C707@clara.co.uk>
    Subject: Re: taboos
    Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:41:26 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Good afternoon Douglas,
    You wrote,

    > Responsible government in Canada has been traditionally seen as a matter
    of
    > convention, not law, but there are clearly stated legal rules which are
    > neglected or ignored in favour of reliance on convention. It's complex,
    very
    > historically grounded, very much a product of scholarly conservatism, in
    which
    > each new generation of writers continue the traditions of the prior
    > generations.

    << Yes indeed, I would apply the same arguments for the situation where
    my country is in for the moment. But, change is slowly coming because
    now the government has changed from conservatism ( catholics) to a more
    right winged liberial course. For what counts my personal attitude to this,
    I think for one they are still too slow in exercising their power, maybe due
    to their understanding that traditions of prior generations are not so
    easily
    broken. But I have doubts that they understand this in the first place....
    !!

    On the other hand, the ' change ' as you will is seen by the old conserva-
    tive leaders as nit- picking to what the conservative side stood for, for
    the last 50 years.
    One example where they made a fuss about was the proposition to expell
    all the catholic crosses out of the class- and courtrooms.
    One of the arguments which the conservative side was using to explain
    that the liberial side was playing games was to argue that by than all the
    cases were done in not a partial way because the " cross " has shown
    Gods mercy and meaningfullness and not the courts one.

    Of course, you can argue such a decision made by the liberials but IMO,
    we are now at the treshhold of a new era, and we must go on with our
    businesses. We must look forward and not behind.

    The patriation of the Canadian constitution 1982 breached a
    > tradition of consensus - Foley would describe it as a breach of issues
    that had
    > had been kept in abeyance because there was some form of understanding,
    perhaps
    > unconscious, that to raise the issues would precipitate a constitutional
    crisis,
    > which is what happened in Canada.

    << Indeed, I agree here also with your comments.
    An example in which even the conservative side breached a tradition of
    consensus was when King Boudewijn I refused to sign a law concerning
    abortion.
    As a convinced catholic he was against all kinds of abortion.
    The government, in deep mess because by the kings refusal the king made
    a difference between and in his people. Something what he as the king
    could do not.
    The government, in order to refute a constitutional crisis and for that
    matter
    a civil war ( it was that close due to the fact of the already existing
    split
    of the country in three seperate parts) came up with the idea that the king
    was " in a position by which he could not rule ".
    In fact they stated a coup d' état, the country was for at least 24 hours
    without the king as king. The government signed the law in the kings
    place, set the poor man back on his trone and went on with their business
    like nothing happened.
    In writings and analyses after this accident it became clear that the king
    was
    willing to step aside for 24 hours in order to refute a civil war... and to
    be
    in the clear with his conscience.

    I will be back with more,
    See you soon,

    Best,

    Kenneth

    ( I am, because we are) in power

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 08 2001 - 15:10:04 BST