Are the majority of British Columbians too ill informed to vote properly in the referendum on treaty principles The Anglican bishops of British Columbia seem to think so. They recently instructed their churchgoers to vote "no" if they vote at all. They base their advice on a couple of concerns: For example, they allege that the majority of British Columbians are mostly "uninformed", and that it is improper for the "majority" to vote on the rights of a "minority."

To be blunt, the Bishops' concern over minority rights, while superficially legitimate, is baseless. Court-protected, constitutionally entrenched rights - anyone's - cannot (properly) be infringed upon, period. Given that reality, everything else is in the realm of political horse-trading between native councils, and the federal and provincial governments.

For example, in 1996 the Supreme Court ruled against the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal council for a private commercial fishery based on an alleged aboriginal right. The court said that right did not exist. Despite that ruling, federal and provincial politicians proposed an agreement delivering separate (i.e., racially based) commercial fisheries. The Nuu-chah-nulth rejected that offer as not generous enough. Meanwhile, a similar offer to divide up the fisheries is now on the table with the Tsawwassen band.

Given past behaviour by negotiators, the provincial government should come to the negotiating table with a firm mandate delivered to it by a strong "yes" vote in the referendum. Otherwise, it is highly likely that negotiators will give ground on alleged "rights" that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled are nothing of the sort.

But what of the accusation of the "uninformed majority"

Referendums - unlike elections - spur debate, and in fact contribute to an informed electorate. It is precisely because referendums are about issues and ideas - and the fact that the public knows such votes matter - that the public does read up, debate with friends and relatives, and become more informed on an issue. Contrast that with elections, which are generally as content-free as possible because politicians prefer not to give straight answers or discuss tough issues lest they lose a vote.

Importantly, referendums can also be about principles, which is why the Bishops are all wet on this one. A referendum on treaty principles is a danger to no one and to no one's constitutional rights, but it will expose the real divide in B.C. over ideas. One view, probably the majority, is that individual rights and individual ownership of property should reign supreme, treaties should be final and ultimately, laws and treaties ought to be as racially blind as possible given certain exceptions imposed by the courts. The other position, to which this writer is opposed, is one where group rights and group definitions would instead take precedence. That would splinter B.C. into a multiplicity of miniature nation-states, some based on race, some not, with selected governments forever supported by other taxpayers who have little or no say in the affairs of such racially-based territories.

British Columbians don't need to be experts in the treaty process to know their core convictions and to express the same in a referendum. There is nothing wrong with elite opinion; occasionally, even elites get it right. But this time, similar to the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, the Anglican bishops and others who attack the referendum are wrong.

Voting "yes" on the referendum would help give some backbone to the provincial government at the negotiating table. A "yes" vote would ensure private property - which forms a whole whopping 5% of the province's landmass (the rest is government-owned) would not be up for grabs. It would also ensure, among other things, that negotiators work towards a tax system that phases out tax exemptions for Aboriginal peoples and replaced by a more neutral tax code. Over time, and regardless of what some now say, a "yes" vote will lessen - not increase - the current unhealthy focus on dividing British Columbians based on their ethnic ancestry, an outcome the Bishops would surely desire.