Clarifying Differences: A Rejoinder to Alan Cairns's Defence of the Citizens' Constitution Theory

Abstract

Alan Cairns's criticisms of our analysis are conceptual, methodological and substantive.' First, he claims we miscontrued his category and invented a non-Charter category that has no support in his writings. Secondly, he questions the adequacy of our data. Finally, there is a thought experiment in which Cairns wonders if would have formed participatory impulses towards the Constitution in a Charterless Canada influenced by New Politics. first criticism, that our comparisons of and nonCharter Canadians are based on an invalid distinction, is serious. highest authority on Cairns's meaning is surely Alan Cairns himself and he does an important service by clearing up the conceptual scope of the Canadians category. According to his reply, when he wrote about women, native people, official-language minorities, ethnic minorities and the disabled, he was simply highlight[ing] the most potent illustrations of Charter-induced behaviour in constitutional The remainder [of the population], he continues, less endowed with organizations pursuing particularistic Charter goals, are, nevertheless, also Charter Canadians (263; our emphasis). We were surprised to read that all are Charter and this clarification may prompt others to recast their scholarship on contemporary Canadian politics.