"Moot Point", Etc.,
I do not detect any attempt at disrespect in your post. I do, respectfully, disagree with some of it.
Let me preface my remarks by noting that although I take issue with much of Jurgen Habermas' theory of communicative action, I must confess to being a philosophical Habermasian at heart. The philosophical core of the many volumes Habermas has devoted to this theory is the notion that the 'telos' of language is to achieve understanding. He contends that, in principle, if we are allowed to engage in unfettered discourse we can achieve mutual understanding on any issue eventually. As is often the case, the rub comes in the practical application of the theory. I have little doubt that the fourth CSJ ruling and any other legal recourse that may be required to put this matter completely to rest will occur long before mutual understanding is achieved in the arena of public discussion. Having said that, I do not think continuing public discussion can serve no purpose.
We rarely, if ever, find ourselves in a completely unfettered discourse. In public discussions such as those surrounding this case, I think there is a certain pressure--overt or otherwise--to conform to the popular sentiment. However, what is 'popular' is not always 'correct'. Take, for example, your use of the phrase 'moot point'. Popular usage of the phrase suggests that it means 'irrelevant', but it does not. In fact, in the context of your opening paragraph I suggest your statement properly means the exact opposite of what you wanted to convey. 'Moot' properly means 'arguable, not yet decided'. I have no doubt that you wanted to make the point that the previous three CSJ rulings are an unalterable part of the history of this matter. In short, the questions which were under consideration are very much decided. I concur fully. However, I will stipulate once again that the first ruling was rendered with respect to some very specific points of law and the subsequent two rulings were with respect to the legal consequences of that ruling.
Perhaps what I most wanted to get across, but failed, was that the Law is not a seam-less web immediately apparent in all its aspects. It is open to conflicting interpretations. This is precisely one of the reasons why most jurisdictions have an organ such as the Supreme Court. Moreover, because a specific aspect of a matter has been judged legal does not necessarily mean that it is legal in all its aspects.
I thank you for your offer of assistance in locating links. If it comes to my attention that I should look at some further documents, I may take advantage of your offer--time permitting.
As for your discussions at the PDAC, I have no reason to doubt that they took place. However, that does not affect my own comfort level. I have been an investor for more than twenty years and have frequently been in contact with company presidents, other insiders, geologists and so on, on a weekly (and at some crucial points) daily basis. My experience has been that they are not always the best barometer of the actual state of affairs. In the end, they must interpret matters and we must interpret their interpretation. Having said that, I can certainly empathize with your confidence. However, your experience is not my experience. Regards. |
