POLI 1102 Simon Fraser University Week 3 The Charlottetown Accord Analysis Paper

User Generated

ouneng2002

Humanities

POLI 1102

Simon Fraser University

POLI

Description

critical essay political science this essay should be 100 percent plagrism free

apa style 1000 words

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Assignment 1: Critical Essay . Length ~1000 words (including everything). Formatting: Standard, 12pt font, double-spaced, with standard 1 inch margins You do not need a title page; however, your assignment should include your name, student number, and the word count at the front, right under the title. The purpose of this assignment is to write a critical argument on one of these three prompts • • • The presence of distinct French and English populations had a decisive effect on the shape of Canadian institutions. Agree or disagree: Canadian institutions have been strongly shaped by American influences in the 19th century Agree or disagree? Canada would have been better off had the Charlottetown Accord been approved. You are not expected, nor required, to draw on any sources beyond those assigned for this class. You should answer the questions by drawing on the ideas/theories/arguments that you have encountered in the lectures and the assigned readings, along with your own reasoning. You must, of course, cite the sources you use – be it the textbook, an assigned article, or some other source. You may use any standard citation format. Just be consistent and comprehensive. When in doubt, cite. The library website, and the internet more generally, has excellent guides regarding citations. Failure to cite sources used in an academic paper, particularly if you fail to indicate that you are quoting or paraphrasing someone else, is considered a serious form of academic misconduct. Please ensure that you are familiar with the college’s rules, standards and guidelines regarding plagiarism. You can find information about these standards regarding plagiarism on the course syllabus, as well as the university website. Don’t assume that your reader agrees with you as you write; indeed, it can be helpful to take the opposite approach and think about how a skeptical reader might view the case you’re making. What objections might they raise? What questions are likely to pop into their heads in response to your argument? The better you can anticipate and respond to these, the better your argument. Think about the skeptical reader, and how to address their skepticism. A good essay should have a clear introduction that includes a clear statement of the thesis, and explains to the reader how you will put your argument together The body of the essay will need to establish any concepts and theories you will be using to create your argument; evidence you need to support it; analysis to explain how the evidence supports it; and consideration of alternative views to your own. The conclusion should summarize what you have done. The criteria used for marking the critical essay are: 1. Is the question answered/prompt responded to explicitly, clearly, and plausibly? Is there an argument presented in the introduction and defended throughout the thinkpiece? So, don’t just repeat other people’s arguments, tell the reader what you think. Do you identify counter-arguments to your own position and explain clearly why you reject that counter-argument? 2. Clarity, Organization, Structure. There should be a clear introduction, main argument and conclusion with good transitions between these sections. As the paper is very short, you should make every sentence count: i.e. does it answer the question and support your argument or address a counter-argument? 3. Evidence, including integration of class readings and other academic sources to back up your argument. Anything that came up in class can be used; just tell us where you got the idea, argument or fact from (e.g. syllabus readings, lectures, tutorial discussions, and news stories discussed in tutorial). Anything from the syllabus, or a published academic source should be properly referenced, using APA or MLA references (see above). For any other material, include a footnote stating which week’s lecture or tutorial the material came from. If you are using another student’s argument, then include that student’s name. 4. Presentation. The paper should be clearly written: grammatical, with correct spelling, and in short logical paragraphs. It should not go over the page limit and should follow the correct formatting (see above). Using material to back up your argument doesn’t just mean describing what another author thinks about the topic. You should tell us your argument, then explain how your argument is supported by Author X’s argument. Or, alternatively, tell us your argument, explain how Author X raises a counter-argument, and then give reasons why you think your argument is right and Author X’s is wrong.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Please view explanation and answer below.Hey, I chose the topic on The Charlottetown Accord

Surname 1
Professor’s Name
Student’s Name
Course
Date
The Charlottetown Accord
Introduction
The Charlottetown Accord, proposed in 1992, was a failed attempt by Brian Mulroney,
the then Prime Minister, and other provincial leaders to amend and change the Canadian
constitution. The main purpose of this Accord was to ensure that the Quebec Act of 1982 was
consented to as a constitutional Act. It is essential to note that the Accord had many provisions
for the Canadian people. Some people might even say that it was promising and would have
ultimately changed the fate of the Canadian people. However, it was still rejected and was not
passed to law by the Canadian people. The paper argues that Canada would not have been better
off had the Charlottetown Accord been approved. In as much as the proposed changes provided
many promises to these people, they also failed to address some of their core problems and
issues.
Body
It is essential to note that the constitutional reform in Canada was driven by the zeal of
the then two personalities; Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney. These personalities presented
strong reasons for their commitment and dedication and believed that the introduced reforms

Surname 2

would have a great impact and benefit the people of Canada. Pierre Trudeau wanted Canada to
have a government that recognized both individual and community rights, while Brian Mulroney
wanted to overcome the political isolation that had long faced Quebec (Boismenu, 1993). Both
of these personalities believed that their constitutional efforts would have a significant influence
on Canadian unity. One important factor to consider is that the purpose of both individuals met
the needs of national sensibilities and respected the rights of the Canadians to propose
constitutional reforms they believed would have the maximum amount of change.
In as much as the Charlottetown Accord was promising and contained many elements
that sought to unify the Canadian people, they still voted No for it. A critical analysis of the
Accord reveals various factors as to why the Canadian people were disgruntled by the political
reforms suggested. First, the Canadian people recognized the element of political risk in minority
community rights in fracturing the nation (McRoberts & Monahan, 1993). Critics might argue
that this aspect was beneficial as it sought to stabilize and unify the nation. However, it ripped
some of the Canadians of their cultural and ethnic rights and did not necessarily address the
needs and wants of the entire population. The Charlottetown agreement seemed to betray the
universal nature of the benefits of a Charter of Rights. This is as much as anything seemed to
explain the waning motivation and enthusiasm on the side of the Canadian people.
The Accord had proposed to grant a significant amount of autonomy powers to Quebec,
thus its failure. This factor alone led to a significant degree of opposition from the Canadians.
They felt that these constitutional rights and reforms would jeopardize their individual and
collective rights. It is vital to note that one aspect of the Accord proposed reforms on linguistic
duality. Minority communities were concerned that this would define their duality and territorial
axis and would consequently segregate them (Lougheed p. 180, 2019). The initial purpose was to

Surname 3

transform Canada into a united nation. However, some of the proposed changes disrupted this
process and instead ended up inspiring segregation. The Canadians were worried...

Similar Content

Related Tags