I prefer const to always mean immutable as noted by Mark. My intention is not to introduce redundant syntax (although it my appear so), but to clean up the Pascal language to the point where explaining what const means in a program (whether a const section, const parameter or typed const (local or global)) can be described in a simple, short sentence.
There are limits to which a language can buck industry conventions, before it and the community around it becomes a laughing stock.
I'm happy to argue against the periodic newbie demand that braces be accepted as an alternative to begin/end keywords.
I'm prepared to tolerate the core team's refusal to even consider parameterised macros.
But for some to argue that consts being mutable is defensible is... well, indefensible.
The industry has eventually adopted or at least noted many of the language features introduced by Wirth in Pascal and Modula-2 (strong typing, modularisation) which in some cases might have been influenced by the UCSD and Borland Pascal implementations (plus of course Borland's Modula-2 implementation).
The C and C++ communities have also looked upon Wirth's use of const, and seen that it was good.
ALGOL had "own" variables. C, as a rather closer ALGOL derivative than Pascal can claim to be, has long had "static" variables.
FPC, plus the tattered remains of Borland, are well out of line conflating "const" and "static".
MarkMLl