UNFORTUNATE TREATIES, SEXY REFERENDA AND TEN LETTER ACRONYMS

In keeping with a review of written agreements and legislation, three such documents feature on the 26^th October.

I do not pretend to be an historian, and I know very little about the so called Bishops’ Wars which were both military and political conflicts which took place in 1639 1nd 1640, centring around the nature of the governance of the Church of Scotland, and the rights and powers of the Crown. They constitute part of a larger political conflict across Scotland, England and Ireland, and are often considered a prelude to the English Civil Wars. They were so named due to the central conflict between Charles I, who favoured an Episcopalian system of church government for Scotland (with bishops), and the desire of much of the polity of Scotland for a Presbyterian system of governance (without bishops).

Charles I

The Treaty of Ripon was an agreement signed by Charles I, and the Scottish Covenanters on 26 October 1640, in the aftermath of the Bishops’ Wars. The Covenanters were associated with the promotion and development of Presbyterianism as a form of church government, as opposed to Episcopacy, favoured by the crown.

Replica Covenanter Flag

John Campbell, 1st Earl of Loudoun

 leading spokesman for the

 Covenanter movement

Archibald Johnston, Lord Warriston

Scottish judge and statesman.

He assisted in negotiating the treaty in 1640.

The treaty was a major setback for Charles, and its terms were humiliating. It stipulated that Northumberland and County Durham were to be ceded to the Scots as an interim measure, that Newcastle was to be left in the hands of the Scots, and that Charles was to pay them £850 a day to maintain their armies there. Detailed negotiations between the two sides in London dragged well on into 1641. This treaty was a factor leading to the calling of a session of Parliament, which is now known as the Long Parliament; this session was one of the major stepping stones to the outbreak of the First English Civil War, and we all know what that unfortunate movement led to.

In Canada, The Charlottetown Accord (French: Accord de Charlottetown) was a package of proposed amendments to the Constitution of Canada, proposed by the Canadian federal and provincial governments in 1992.  It was submitted to a public referendum on the 26^th October 1992 and was defeated. The proposals were supported initially; the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals, and the New Democratic Party supported the accord. First Nations groups endorsed it, as did some women's groups and business leaders. All ten provincial premiers supported it. In the English media, almost all opinion pieces were in favour. The campaign began with the accord popular across English Canada, with a statistical dead heat in Quebec. All three major party leaders travelled the country supporting the accord while large amounts of money were spent on pro-accord advertising. While many advocates of the accord acknowledged that it was a compromise and had many flaws, they also felt that without it the country would break apart. Canada is still with us. Why it failed is bizarre, considering it had some pretty good measures ensuring minority rights. However here is one of the Vote Yes commercials at the time; Go Canada. Remember all this is to do with performance writing and performative words.

The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the "Patriot Act") is an Act of the United States Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on the 26^th October, 2001. The title of the act is a ten letter acronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for: Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Isn't that just wonderful.

The act, a response to the terrorist acts of the 11^th September, dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Sewcretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

On May 26, 2011, President Barak Obama signed a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act: roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the “library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.

Here is a sample wording from quite early on in the legislation. This is performance writing gone mad.

SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.

Any provision of this Act held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed so as to give it the maximum effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event such provision shall be deemed severable from this Act and shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.