Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

May 06, 1982 - Image 6

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1982-05-06

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Og inion
Page 6 Thursday, May 6, 1982 The Michigan Daily


The Michigan Daily
Vol. XCII, No. 2S
Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by student',
at the University of Michigan
A cruel joke
T HE DISPUTE OVER the once obscure
Falkland Islands, that many were joking
about just one month ago, now serves as a
brutal reminder of the deceptive, cold cruelty
of war.
Several hundred lives have now been sen-
selessly lost as two governments, too stubborn
and impatient to try to resolve the situation
peacefully, have thumped their military
chests. The Danish Foreign Minister echoed the
sentiments of governments around the world
when he said, "Further loss of life must be
avoided. Both parties must put prestige aside
and concentrate on a negotiated solution."
The Argentine government grievously erred
in grasping the Falklands with hasty military
hands. But Britain was just as misguided to ac-
tually begin fighting just one day after
receiving U.S. support capable of pressuring
the Argentines into a diplomatic resolution.
Instead of waiting a little bit longer to see
what negotiations might bring, diplomats now
haggle over the definition of sovereignty
while stranded sailors bob in icy waves of the
South Pacific.
Any notion of British invulnerability to
Argentina's inexperienced forces went down
with the destroyer Sheffield. Thousands more
will die if the British insist on regaining control
of the islands they cannot possibly afford to
Recent casualties suffered by both the British
and the Argentines, have not induced either
government to suggest talks again. This war,
however, should be fought over the negotiating
table under the auspices of international law
because "War makes its own rules," as one
military expert said-rules too tragic for any
nation to follow.

Finally, a truly
Canadian constitution

By Georgs Golubovskis
Without a doubt, Canada is a
moderntand industrialized coun-
try. Yet, until recently, it could
not amend its own constitution,
the British North American Act
of 1867. The document could only
be amended by the British
On April 17, Queen Elizabeth of
England, in a flurry of pomp and
circumstance, handed Canada its
right to constitutional self-
determination. No longer is our
northern neighbor, as Prime
Minister Pierre Trudeau has
quipped, a "confederation of
shopping centers."
SINCE IT granted Canada full
independence in 1931, Britain has
been more than willing to let
Canada choose its own course.
Only recently have Canadians
decided which route to take. The
constitutional debate has been in-
tense, and there is no sign that it
will cease now, even after the
Queen's proclamation.
First, there is the question of
constitution rights. Canada has
had a Bill of Rights, but it has
been open to legislative changes.
A recent example of abuse of this
loophole occurred when martial
law was declared in some parts of
Canada during the Quebec
terrorist crisis in October 1970.
Hundreds of people were un-
necessarily arrested and homes
searched without warrant,
though only a handful of
prosecutions resulted.
To prevent a similar event
from occurring again, many
argued that Canada's Bill of
Rights should not be open to such
easy perversion. Whatever the
civil right, it should be the same
for all Canadian provinces, which

Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip with Canadian Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau.

would prevent a checkerboard of
different provincial civil rights
legislatures balked at this idea,
however, because it would tran-
sfer their key law-making power
to the courts. As a compromise,
the new Canadian constitution
allows the possibility of civil
rights laws to be discontinued by
a provincial legislature. This
change must be reaffirmed every
five years, presumably to
prevent abuse of such power. "
Of course, one can imagine that
a Nixonesque politician in
Canada could still misuse this
clause for his own gain.
A second problem Canada
faces is the province of Quebec
doesn't recognize the new con-
stitution. Quebec Premier Rene
Levesque and his ruling Parti
.Quebecois have reinstated in-
dependence as the long term goal
for their province. This proposal,
however, or a lesser sovereignty-
association (a soverign Quebec,
still economically associated
with Canada) seems unlikely.
There is a large segment of
Quebec opposed to secession,
which, remains silent until
aroused before an election.
LEVESQUE once thought
Quebec would support his plan to

negotiate sovereignty-
association with the national
Canadian government. But when
a May 1980 referendum asking
people to favor this plan neared,
latent oppostion become arou-
sed, and Levesque's proposal lost
Quebec is also presently in
economic dire straits. Its budget
deficit is larger than all the other
provinces' deficits combined. A
move away from Canada would
only exacerbate its economic and
revenue problems.
Even though Quebec may not
practically implement any form
of secession - the disregard of
the new constitution by the
maverick province still presents
a major obstacle in the con-
tinuing debate.
THE CANADIAN constitution
does have its faults, but it also
has its good points. The con-
stitution has a women's rights
provision, for example -
something the American con-
stitution regretfully lacks.
Most importantly, Canada can
now amend itself for the better-
ment of its citizens and the
Golubovskis is a graduate
student at the University.
in's rally
exclude them from a march
against the draft?
It seems to me that a statement
against violence should be one of
community solidarity.
Finally, while a woman's veto
power, her "no," should be the
last word when the issue involves
her body or even her "space",
her authority ceases when it
comes to ousting me from the
public streets.
-Howard Grodman

Man invades' wome

S4v l4EP'O Ar JSO

To the Daily:.
I am a male who feels strongly
against violence aimed at
women. As such, I attended the
"Take back the Night" rally to
show my support that women
should have the night without the
fear of attack by male rapists. As
I marched, two women ap-
proached me and intimated that
males were not welcome, and
that I should leave. When I
politely declined their
suggestion, I was told by one that,
by remaining I was "invading

(her) space when (she) said
'no' " and thereby I was "raping
I decided that if the women
wanted to congregate in this ex-
clusive fashion, they should have
rented a private hall. The fact is
that I will not be denied my right
to walk on the public streets. Nor
will I be denied my right to ex-
press myself as I please,(namely,
by marching and chanting at a
public rally). I ask the women
who oppose men's presence that
night whether it would be right to


Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan