dependence. In such a case, the governmentrnof Canada has a constitntional dut-rnto accommodate the people of Quebecrnin their wish. The judgment even saysrnthat, if the government of Canada failsrnin this dut)-, Quebec may proceed unilaterallyrnto secede without further negotiationsrnand without a constitutionalrnamendment allowing the withdrawal.rnJean Chretien’s government has sincernpassed the Clarity Act, which deliberatelyrnmisrepresents the judgment of thernSupreme Court as holding the ver’ oppositernof what it says. By innuendo, thernact threatens PoHsli-stle partition ofrnthe province, and possiblv civil war,rnsliould Quebec attempt to secede withoutrnthe consent of Anglo-Canada. Eminentrnlawyers and statesmen agree thatrnthe Clarity Act is imconstitutional andrnis simply the hysterical posturing ofrnAnglo-Canadians using French-speakingrnscalawags in Ottawa to say to Quebecrnwhat they prefer not to say themseUes. hirnfact, the Clarity Act would facilitate secessionrnif the people of Quebec actualK’rn oted for independence.rnWliat about die prospects of secessionrnby Quebec? The judgment of the SupremernCourt of Canada has essentiallyrnquenched the fires of separatism for therntime being. The acknowledgment of thernright of secession has actually stabilizedrnCanada. The Parti Quebeeois formedrnthe government, yet it received fewerrnotes across the province in the last electionrnthan the Liberal Party. The oppositionrnis led by an eloquent federalist,rnsupported by one of the leading constitutionalrnlawyers in Canada in his shadowrncabinet. The Liberals of Quebec haverndone as much for the cause of independencernand distinctness as the Parti Quebeeois.rnThe difference is only a matter ofrnst}’le and approach.rnAt the moment, secession would bernvery bad for Quebec, not because sherncannot make it alone, but because tiiernseparatist part}’ has been subverted b- “intellectuals”rnwho tiiink that the FrenchrnRevolution must have been good becausernit was PVeneh, and act accordingly.rnI’hankfully, the right of secession, andrnother important features of legal order inrnQuebec, are based on the British constitution.rnThe French in Quebec have alwaysrnbeen very good at British parliamentaryrngovernment.rnQuebec should not, and probably willrnnot, secede for the reason that a federalrnunion is a thing of great value; it shouldrnnever be jettisoned except for very urgentrnand just cause. Most people in Quebec believernthat urgent and just cause for secessionrndoes not exist, certainK not at the moment.rnOnly the purest political idioc’ inrnOttawa could create such a situation. Thernpeople of Quebec alue the right of secession,rnnot because they presently intend tornuse it, but because, as Lord Acton observed,rnit is useRil as a constihitional shield.rnQuebeeois are too tradition-minded,rntoo shrewd, too patient, too cunning, andrntoo intelligent to tolerate a neo-Jacobinrngovernment. They vote like seasonedrngamblers playing five-card draw or blackjack.rnThey elected die Parti Quebeeoisrnto power last time only because theyrnthought the Liberal government hadrnbeen in power too long, which, vievcd inrnlight of sober objectivih’, was correct, hirnfact, I am sure that the Parti Quebeeoisrnwill be ousted in the next provincial election,rnas it should be.rnMeanwhile, at the federal level, thernbest we can hope for in Ottawa is to cliprnChretien’s wings by giving him a reducedrnmajority, or else oblige him tornform a coalition government with thernConservatives and the Alliance Partvrn(which Mr. Scallon calls CRP). Bad asrnChretien is, he cannot last forever; if wernrestrain him, he cannot do much harmrnbefore he is eventually shown the door tornbe replaced by his favorite, Br}’an lobin,rnor his enemy, Paul Martin. Joe Clark isrnthe only party leader competent to bernprime minister of Canada at the moment,rnbut he will have his hands fidl inrngetting a few conservatives elected to parliament.rnMr. Scallon is right when he says thatrnJean Chretien is simply awful. But he isrnawful in the sense that Stephen Douglasrnwas in 1860. American history proves thatrnit would have been better to have a presidentrnowned by railroads and financiers (asrnDouglas was) than a president who actuallyrnbelieved his own incondite ideology,rnas Abraham Lincoln did.rn— John Remington GrahamrnSt. Agapit, QuebecrnOn Paleo PrinciplesrnThere is no way to put a price on the excellentrnvork that ou and your staff do forrnour cause. There are times that Chroniclesrnseems like the only reason for one tornretain his American citizenship.rnI read that the Flian Gonzalez situation,rnand the strange reaction of conservativesrnto it, have caused you to want tornspell out our principles more clearly. I’mrnglad. You and your organization did thernright thing by faoring family and its importancernover the relatively minor issuernof where one child ends up living. I wasrnastonished at how nian “conservatives”rn—even people usually associatedrnwith the paleo point of view—were willingrnto create tiie new precedent of therngovernment taking a child from his solernparent on the basis of some vague “riglifrnto an American middle-class life. It wasrnas if they learned nothing from the socialrndecay of the past 40 years.rnI’m also ver’ impressed with yourrnSummer School and the trips to Italy thatrnyou’ve made possible for readers ofrnChronicles. A friend reeendv pointed outrndiat this shows the eidtural deptii of thernpaleos. He contrasted these offeringsrnwith National Review’s cruise, tiie mainrnappeal of which is the opportunity tornschmooze with Bill Buckley and company.rnThis obvious difference had neverrnoccurred to me.rnGood luck with the conference andrnwitii future plans. Soon, I will try to beginrnmaking a monthlv donation to ThernRockford Institute.rn— jVlarv’ Emilio Stackrn’ Brooklvn, NYrncyfSShdisrnSave a Stamp! E-mail your letters to the editor to:rnPolemics@ChroniclesMa^azine. orgrn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn