Mr. McDonaldrnReplies:rnMr. Graham repeats the myth that Canadarnwas confederated in 1867 as two peoplesrnin a bilingual nation. Then PrimernMinister Sir John A. Macdonald called itrn”the Confederation of one people andrnone government instead of five peoplesrnand five governments.” Constitutionalrnauthority Senator Eugene Forsey saidrnthat “[Canada] was certainly not intendedrnto be two political nations. Over andrnover again the ‘Canadian’ fathers of thernConfederation, French, English, Irishrnand Scots, declared emphatically thatrnthey were creating a new nation.”rnSection 133 of the British North AmericarnAct states that either English orrnFrench “may be used” in debates of thernfederal parliament and the Quebecrnlegislature and that both languagesrn”shall be used” in the written records ofrnthose houses. Either language “may bernused” in a federal court or a court ofrnQuebec.rnEnglish Canada’s leaders opposed thernCharter because it was to be “Canada’srnsupreme law,” denying the historicrnsupremacy of Parliament. Trudeau’srn”compromise” was to insert a “notwithstanding”rnclause which enables federalrnand provincial governments to pass a lawrneven if it contravenes certain provisionsrnof the Charter. Provisions that can bernoverridden include the freedoms of consciencernand religion, thought, belief,rnopinion and expression (including freedomrnof the press, freedom of peaceful assembly,rnand freedom of association), andrnlegal and equalit’ rights. Provisions thatrncannot be overridden include the people’srndemocratic and mobility rights, thernentrenchment of English and F>ench asrnofficial languages, and the rights of minoritiesrnto be taught them.rnPierre Trudeau declared afterwards:rn”We’ve got all the aces…. We’ve got thernentrenchment of both official languages,rnwhich can never be removed. We’ve gotrnFrench in the educational system of ever}’rnprovince.” In his Memoirs, he wrote:rn”On the whole the Constitution Actrnlargely enshrined the values I had beenrnadvocating since I wrote my first articlernin Cite libre in 1950.”rnThe Meech Lake Accord was sandbaggedrnby Pierre Trudeau when he attackedrnit in a nationally published articlernfive days before the accord reached Ottawa.rnHe wrote: “Those Canadians whornfought for a single Canada, bilingual andrnmulticultural, can say goodbye to theirrndream: we are henceforth to have twornCanadas, each defined in terms of its language.”rnQuebec Premier Robert Bourassarnresponded that he was “in profoundrndisagreement with [Trudeau’s] analysisrnof federalism.”rnThis remains the Canadian paradox.rnTrudeau imposed the French system ofrncentralized authority and legislatedrnrights on the whole of Canada. For allrnbut two of the past 30 years, the near dictatorialrnpower of a Canadian prime ministerrnhas been vested in politicians fromrnQuebec, who see nothing wrong with arnsystem which is the political opposite ofrnfederalism and which denies Quebec’srnoriginal, and exclusive, power over property,rncivil rights, and education. I suggestrnMr. Graham read my article again, asrnwell as my 1995 book. His Pride, OurrnFall: Recovering from the Trudeau Revolutionrn(Key Porter).rnOn CasablancarnWell, thank Heavens! Someone has finallyrnlabeled Casablanca what it has alwaysrnbeen: puerile war propagandarn(“Restless Natives,” March). I wish Irncould say that I recognized this film forrnwhat it was when I was a young schoolboyrnin the 1940’s. Then, I endlesslyrnpestered my parents to “sign” so I couldrnrun off to the palm-fringed Pacific islandsrnand “fight Japs!” (They neverrnsigned.) But I do remember disliking thernfilm because it was a mushy love story.rnAnd what about Bogart? Casting him asrna former “American idealist” was arnstretch. Bogie had only two modes ofrncharacter: he was tough and cynical, andrntougher and more cynical. For this guyrnto be cr)’ing in his beer over being stoodrnup by Ingrid was overly Hollywoody—rneven for 1940’s Hollywood. Any warintoxicatedrnschoolboy who lost his ownrnshare of “true loves” could see how unmanlyrnthat was.rnBut even today Hollywood (oops!), Irnmean the Turner p.r. machine, goes onrnhyping the un-hypable. Great Americanrnclassic, indeed! “Restless Natives” wasrnright on target, and a good read.rn- / . R . WheelerrnPort St. Lucie, FLrnOn Samuel FrancisrnI interrupt my work to express greatrnpraise for Samuel Francis’s article, “ThernOther Face of Multiculturalism” (April).rnIn a word, it is superb. As an intellectualrnanalysis, it has a clarity that knows nornequal, and it is truly a work of art. Wouldrnthat we could persuade every congressmanrnand school administrator to read itrnin the quiet of their studies. (If they havernsuch!)rn— Garrett HardinrnSanta Barbara, CArnOn Errors andrnBishopsrnPaul Gottfried’s “Fascism and Anti-Fascism”rn(March) was a fine piece, butrngremlins attack even the best. The primasrnGalliae is the archbishop of Lyons,rnnot Paris.rn-DuaneL.C.M. CalksrnMinneapolis, MNrnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnSANCTIONS are a favorite instrumentrnof U.S. foreign policy, but the Clintonrnadministration seems to be having secondrnthoughts. Recently, at a WhiternHouse meeting with evangelical leaders,rnthe President told the group that wellintentionedrnsanctions were getting in thernway of U.S. interests. His statementrnechoes a report issued last July by thernPresident’s Export Council, which recommendedrnthe elimination of unilateralrnsanctions against Cuba, Iran, Libya, Burma,rnSudan, and other countries.rnIf the assembled “Billy Bibles” werernconfused, they may have begun to getrnthe point when a National SecurityrnCouncil document obtained by thernWashington Times revealed the administration’srnplans to speed up the export ofrnmissile technology to China. MichaelrnChapman, writing in Investor’s BusinessrnDaily, points out that the United Statesrnhas already supplied China with a nuclearrnfission reactor, even though CIArnJULY 1998/5rnrnrn