** DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE HERITAGE FRONT **
The Madman
********************************************
********** NAZIS OUT OF OTTAWA!!! **********
********************************************
The Heritage Front, an openly racist
organisation, is holding a rally in Ottawa
on the evening of Saturday, May 29. This
Toronto-based organisation wants to pull
together local Nazis and racist skinheads
to establis a base in Ottawa, and they're
busing in Nazi skinheads from Montreal to
help them. NAZIS AREN'T WELCOME HERE!!!
********************************************
** DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE HERITAGE FRONT **
********************************************
6:30 pm, Saturday, May 29
Minto Park (Elgin and Lisgar)
The rally will march to the location
of the Heritage Front rally. Bring
your friends, co-workers, fellow
students, family, etc.
********************************************
*************** Endorsements ***************
********************************************
This action has been endorsed by:
Ottawa District Labour Council
Ottawa Pro-Choice Network
Anti-Racist Action (Ottawa)
International Socialists
Ontario Public Interest Research Group
(OPIRG) -- Carleton U.
Association of Lesbians and Gays of Ottawa
(ALGO)
Women's Place/Place Aux Femmes
Ottawa Coalition for Social Justice
David Megginson
the assholes have only more fuel for their fire: after all, the gays,
lesbians, trade unionists, socialists, feminists and other endorsing
groups are exactly who they _want_ to hate them, and they can use
their presence to help recruitment among people who are intimidated by
these groups to begin with. On the other hand, if we just sit back
and don't do anything, they have free reign, and that can be even more
dangerous -- for example, they recently stalked and attacked a worker
at a women's shelter in Toronto.
Perhaps the best solution would be to demonstrate, but without all of
the endorsing groups. After all, you do not have to be pro-abortion
to be anti-NAZI (though I am both), and you don't have to be a
socialist, a labour union member, or a feminist. I have been to
several rallies for various purposes in Toronto before I moved to
Ottawa, and they always lost me when the endorsing groups managed,
somehow, to link their own issues (ie. anti Free Trade) with something
like violence against women -- it just cheapens the real issue.
David M.
Michael Hui
printed with the protest message you believe in yourself. Each group
will have their own group of generic signs, but if you do not want to
be associated with those groups, simply having your own sign with your
own unique message will actually increase your chance of getting a two
second video clip on the local TV news show. The TV news producers are
already getting bored with the same message put out by the usual
groups, so the onus is actually on the individual protester to be more
creative.
See you out there!
--
Michael M.Y. Hui Ottawa Ontario Canada ~{许明恩~}
work: my...@bnr.ca play: my...@bigbunny.isis.org
Paolucci Paul
>
>********************************************
>********** NAZIS OUT OF OTTAWA!!! **********
>********************************************
This whole artice sounds pretty anti-anti-racsist to this writer.
Perhaps I am slanted, but I feel any group should be able to speak. Isn't
that how we find out who is spouting garbage? Oh, yeah... that is the
government's job. Silly me. I forgot...
>
>help them. NAZIS AREN'T WELCOME HERE!!!
Who is?
>********************************************
>** DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE HERITAGE FRONT **
>********************************************
Demonstrate for the 1st amendment... Oh, sorry, you don't
have that. Now where can I get a list of government approved topics
of discussion? Oh yeah, at the 1984 Bookstore...
>This action has been endorsed by:
>
>Ottawa District Labour Council
>Ottawa Pro-Choice Network
>Anti-Racist Action (Ottawa)
>International Socialists
>Ontario Public Interest Research Group
> (OPIRG) -- Carleton U.
>Association of Lesbians and Gays of Ottawa
> (ALGO)
>Women's Place/Place Aux Femmes
>Ottawa Coalition for Social Justice
And which of these woulTz$ d support MY RIGHT to say whatever
I want to say? Remember, the Constitution didn't grant any rights; it
just stated what rights ARE ALREADY POSSESSED BY THE PEOPLE. Guess you
Canadian's were out on that day. Oh, well...
Michael Hui
if all opinion is allowed to be aired. Hence, the obnoxious opinion espoused
by the Heritage Front can only be exposed for what it is if others express
their own opinion against it. The less opposition to an opinion, the more
likelihood society will adopt that opinion as its mainline position.
Paul Paolucci's suggestion of keeping silent therefore reduces opposition to
the opinion espoused by the Heritage Front, and cannot but help its adoption
as a potential mainline opinion of society at large.
Alan J Rosenthal
>Perhaps I am slanted, but I feel any group should be able to speak.
So then why are you arguing that this demonstration should not take place?
>Demonstrate for the 1st amendment... Oh, sorry, you don't have that.
...
>Remember, the Constitution didn't grant any rights; it
>just stated what rights ARE ALREADY POSSESSED BY THE PEOPLE.
Listen, [epithet deleted], not all people in the world are Americans.
It's people like you who make us glad we're not. Not all of your stupid little
American rules apply to us, ok? Stop forcing your stupid, self-contradictory
politics on us.
OUR constitution DOES grant rights. Guess you Americans were "out on that day".
I'm always amazed when Americans try to silence people in the name of free
speech.
Rajendra Singh
>It's people like you who make us glad we're not. Not all of your stupid little
>American rules apply to us, ok? Stop forcing your stupid, self-contradictory
>politics on us.
Well said Alan!
Swag Valance
Number one, what the hell is this doing in alt.music.alternative?
>********************************************
>********** NAZIS OUT OF OTTAWA!!! **********
>********************************************
Number two: this sounds embarrassing like the same types of slogans the
Nazis use when it comes to blacks, gays, etc. in Ottawa. Ironic,
is it not? (More like "hypocritical" I'd say however.)
>help them. NAZIS AREN'T WELCOME HERE!!!
Number three: Again -- this sounds too frighteningly close to what
some racists say about minorities moving into their neighborhoods, etc.
You gotta love intolerance of intolerance. I think it's good that you're
demonstrating, but statements such as these convey an attitude that
you are just as guilty of being intolerant, screaming, mindless fanatics
as the Nazi's are. I mean, what bystanders are going to tell you apart from
them? I remember living in Marquette Park in Chicago in the mid-'80s when
the Nazis would march there (ever see 1980's "The Blues Brothers"?) ...
I remember having PLENTY of sympathy for the cause of the anti-Nazi
demonstrators when they started pelting the Nazis with rocks. Unfortunately
these people were just hurting their own cause -- I hope you won't do the same.
--
greg | "You want a mystery? Pick up your phone book ...
gshe...@nyx.cs.du.edu | and tell me what are all these people doing living
yeah, "PEACE" this | around here?" -- Howe Gelb
Richard C. Mills
: paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
: It's people like you who make us glad we're not. Not all of your stupid little
: American rules apply to us, ok? Stop forcing your stupid, self-contradictory
: politics on us.
Who's forcing politics on you?
: OUR constitution DOES grant rights. Guess you Americans were "out on that day".
Gee, you got us there Beave. Are you really that stupid?
: I'm always amazed when Americans try to silence people in the name of free
: speech.
I'm always amazed at idiots like you.
-Richard Mills
Henry Spencer
>Paul Paolucci's suggestion of keeping silent therefore reduces opposition to
>the opinion espoused by the Heritage Front, and cannot but help its adoption
>as a potential mainline opinion of society at large.
It's hard to say what the best thing to do about the Heritage Front bozos is.
Remember, they *want* a big noisy confrontation with Radical-Looking Weirdos,
especially if the RLWs are openly supporting causes that Mr&Mrs Average will
see as peculiar and unpalatable. It makes the HF look like the voice of
reason and sanity. They get far more new members and sympathizers this way
than they would if everyone ignored them.
On the other hand, given that the RLWs are going to show up anyway, it is
probably not a bad thing for there to also be some opposition from folks
that Mr&Mrs Average would see as respectable citizens.
I suggest that a good rule of thumb is whether Mr&Mrs Average would be
pleased if you turned up on their doorstep as their daughter/son's latest
date. If not, you are a liability to the anti-HF demonstration; stay home.
(For example, I have shoulder-length hair and a beard -- I'd be a liability.)
Otherwise, look as respectable as you can, carry your own sign that does
not associate you with an RLW cause, and attend.
And for God's sake, *DON'T* make your sign something like "No Free Speech
For Nazis". The "Nazis" part is fine; the "No Free Speech" part is not.
Apart from being a thoroughly bad (indeed, evil) policy, it plays right
into their hands. Nothing makes them happier than publicized attempts to
suppress them; it gives them an underdog image.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Michael Hui
I'll bring my camera, along with a very powerful electronic flash, with
fast film, to catch every single one of them faces with their arm raised
high in their salute. What do you all say? Are these individuals cowardly
enough to not want to get on a picture? If we cannot catch them doing the
salute, at least catch them coming out of the meeting. We do have freedom
of association here in Canada, and those associations can indeed be private
ones, where membership lists as well as the meetings themselves (obviously)
are held in private. But we know what group is meeting in there, and we
intend to find out who hangs out with those groups via perfectly legal means.
RAICEVIC, HELEN JELENA
>In article <1993May25....@bnr.ca> sams...@bnr.ca (The Madman) writes:
>>
>
>Number one, what the hell is this doing in alt.music.alternative?
>
>>********************************************
>>********** NAZIS OUT OF OTTAWA!!! **********
>>********************************************
>
>Number two: this sounds embarrassing like the same types of slogans the
>Nazis use when it comes to blacks, gays, etc. in Ottawa. Ironic,
>is it not? (More like "hypocritical" I'd say however.)
>
>>help them. NAZIS AREN'T WELCOME HERE!!!
>
>Number three: Again -- this sounds too frighteningly close to what
>some racists say about minorities moving into their neighborhoods, etc.
>You gotta love intolerance of intolerance. I think it's good that you're
This is not the slightest bit hypocritical. The statement "Nazis out of Ottawa"
is not racist. Nazism is not a race. People CHOSE to be follow racist, facist
movements. People do not chose their skin color or their sexual orientation
and should not be discriminated against on that basis. That being said,
the Heritage Front has a right to state their case, and I have a right to
ignore them, or better yet, demonstrate against them.
Stephe. ---my opinions only.
Michael Hui
>On the other hand, given that the RLWs are going to show up anyway, it is
>probably not a bad thing for there to also be some opposition from folks
>that Mr&Mrs Average would see as respectable citizens.
Exactly. People like ... moi! :-> :-) |->) (Sleeping Bunny smilie)
I'm so respectable, I'm downright certifiably boring.
>I suggest that a good rule of thumb is whether Mr&Mrs Average would be
>pleased if you turned up on their doorstep as their daughter/son's latest
>date.
Yes, the parents are always pleased. But their daughter usually isn't.
>And for God's sake, *DON'T* make your sign something like "No Free Speech
>For Nazis". The "Nazis" part is fine; the "No Free Speech" part is not.
I am thinking of the following sign; what do you all think?
The New World
has no place
for racists
Michael Hui
>Number three: Again -- this sounds too frighteningly close to what
>some racists say about minorities moving into their neighborhoods, etc.
>You gotta love intolerance of intolerance. I think it's good that you're
>demonstrating, but statements such as these convey an attitude that
>you are just as guilty of being intolerant, screaming, mindless fanatics
>as the Nazi's are.
That's a very good point. Perhaps the original poster,
sams...@bnr.ca (The Madman), purposely planted this on
behalf of the Heritage Front to ensure that it'll be a
noisy occasion? After all, people who want to join will
be *very* difficult to persuade on the sidewalk not to
join at the last moment. But it'll still be worth a try.
Nick DiFranco
As a card-carrying member of the American population, I have a few things
to say about the debate going on here. For one thing, the American
constitution grants more rights than I think I would if I wrote it. The
document itself is completely contradictory. It supports the will of the
majority (here, the anti-Nazis), but upholds the rights of the minority
(the Nazis). It seems self-defeating, but actually isn't. The whole
purpose of the American experiment (we ARE an experiment...in 1789, no one
ever dreamed that the philosophies of men like John Locke would actually
influence a real government) was to allow people of different race, creed,
and nationality to live together in some sort of harmony. To just have us
living across the continent would be anarchy; therefore, some government
was necessary.
After persecution by the British, the American forefathers
tried not to squash anyone in the Constitution. Unfortunately, they squashed
the African-Americans, but that is a whole other discussion. Anyway, with
modifications in the form of Amendments, the Constitution has lasted 204
years and is going strong. Now, everyone is protected under the
Constitution. This is where the problem lies: the Nazis are protected
along with the blacks, Catholics, Jews, and women.
My solution: The Nazis still violate the principle of the entire
document: they are against the free speech and the quest for equality that
the Constitution was devised to uphold. Therefore, we are within our
rights as Americans to tell them, plainly, to shut up, and get out of our
country.
Just my opinion...feel free to express your own.
...Nick DiFranco drexel university philadelphia pa
st92...@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu
Alan J Rosenthal
> My solution: The Nazis still violate the principle of the entire
>document: they are against the free speech and the quest for equality that
>the Constitution was devised to uphold. Therefore, we are within our
>rights as Americans to tell them, plainly, to shut up, and get out of our
>country.
WILL ALL YOU FUCKING AMERICANS LISTEN?
THIS DEMONSTRATION IS TAKING PLACE IN CANADA, NOT IN YOUR STUPID COUNTRY.
We have our own constitution, thank you very much.
Shit! Why can't Americans realize that the whole world is not composed of
Americans?
Pugwash -- Michael Gifford
Let's not mix words here.. The Heritage Foundation (HF)
ain't that popular, and I think that generally people, even
generally pale folks like myself, would disapprove of a branch
of skinheads popping up in the Glebe..
Their are a couple questions which come to mind when
considering the type of action which would be most appropriate
to dissuade further solidification of the institutions of
racism and homophobia.
Is the object of the protest to raise awareness of racism
and homophobia in Canada (HF unfortunately does not have the
cornerstone on this type of institutionalize violence), or is
it to simply stop a branch of the HF from forming a stronghold
in Ottawa.
If you are thinking of stopping people from joining the HF,
is it best to simply give them a show of force (ie. sheer
numbers of anti-HF demonstrators, or by kicking their heads in?),
or by working to remove the still blatant forms of sexism,
racism and homophobia that are still plaguing our schools.
And if you do bring together a large number of people who
are honestly working to irradicate this type of violence in
their community (however they are dressed or from whatever
community they themselves are coming from and not those who are
not just interested in bruising their knuckles against some
skinhead) what is the best way to demonstrate the commitment,
power and truth contained within this group?
The HF thrive on fear and anger.. The skinheads that have
been mentioned are not alien life forms but also people, probably
amongst the most disempowered (this is a controvercial term,
however they would have to be fairly resourceless in order to
base their entire life around the hatred of others and what they
believe those others may have taken from them) lot of youth in
Canada.. Do we perpetuate their fear, anger and resourcelessness
by alienating them from any alternative community?
Do we respond to their violence with violence? And there is
no reason to assume that they won't respond with violence.
AN ALTERNATIVE MIGHT TAKE THE FORM OF:
-Hold a protest the day before the HF gathering, if the
participants of the demonstration aren't that committed
(ie. May 15 type protest).
-This could dissuade people from attending the
meeting
by initiating discussions around racism and
homophobia.
-Street theater
1,001 possible variations (big silly looking
hitler
dolls, ext.)
-Chant non-violence and anti-racism statements outside the
building or inside (being aware that this is illegal and
other than direct physical damage could result in being
charged with mischief (>2yrs indictable)
-Hold the protest as planned, *BUT* train everyone in the
use and rational for non-violence and have structures in
place so that the protesters can actually carry this
through.
There are a lot of other forms of non-violent protests
which could be effectove here aswell.. But the point of all of
this is pretty simple..
They are going to attack us.. And we have to be organized
and committed enough not to strike them back..
As long as that is understood, it almost doesn't matter what
type of a protest it is and it will be effective for keeping the
HF out of Ottawa and to strike at the core of racism and
homophobia in Canada..
You can not win over the violence of racism and homophobia
with violence against skinheads and the HF, it just won't work..
Men and women are being attacked every day for their skin
color or sexual preference and if the point of the action is
to gather diverse communities together to demonstrate the
inherent injustice in this type of violence, perhaps it is
necessary for this diverse community to stand up and accept
unjustified suffering..
The strength of this kind of struggle comes not from getting
beaten up, but from the willingness to take such unjust suffering
Furthermore you will not get much attention in the press if
it comes down to a fist fight between the skin heads and the
alternative freaks.. They expect it to happen, if you want to
raise international or even local awareness in this issue we
will have to give them something unusual in this day and age..
Self-Sacrifice..
I don't want to be beaten up.. I don't want to see my
friends get beaten up.. But this personal sacrifice is the
only way that I can see any long term social change to occur..
"It is soley by risking life that freedom is obtained" -Hegel..
Darin Cowan
>
> And which of these woulTz$ d support MY RIGHT to say whatever
> I want to say? Remember, the Constitution didn't grant any rights; it
> just stated what rights ARE ALREADY POSSESSED BY THE PEOPLE. Guess you
> Canadian's were out on that day. Oh, well...
>
>
Sadly, the Canadian Charter of Rights, though originally intended as a statement
of fact and a document of guidance, has been perverted into a weapon to be
weilded against the politically incorrect.
I think Nazis are a ridiculous lot, but I support their right to make fools
of themselves in public. Nobody makes a person become a Nazi, people do it
of their own free will. Trying to stamp out these groups that have
opinions that are offensive to someone will only serve to give them purpose.
Oh well... you'd think we would have learned from the Americans.
--
Darin Cowan - co...@balsam.pinetree.org | I just try to make people's
VE3 OIJ | lives a little more surreal
Darin Cowan
> The only way public opinion is shaped in a society with freedom of speech is
> if all opinion is allowed to be aired. Hence, the obnoxious opinion espoused
> by the Heritage Front can only be exposed for what it is if others express
> their own opinion against it. The less opposition to an opinion, the more
> likelihood society will adopt that opinion as its mainline position.
>
Very true. I tend to get upset when I see legal action taken against groups
who voice their opinions. Protesting against HF is reasonable... Prosecuting
them for the Orwellian ThoughtCrime of "promoting hatred" is over the line
though, and I hope thing don't progress to that.
Darin Cowan
> >Demonstrate for the 1st amendment... Oh, sorry, you don't have that.
> ...
> >Remember, the Constitution didn't grant any rights; it
> >just stated what rights ARE ALREADY POSSESSED BY THE PEOPLE.
>
> Listen, [epithet deleted], not all people in the world are Americans.
>
> It's people like you who make us glad we're not. Not all of your stupid litt
> American rules apply to us, ok? Stop forcing your stupid, self-contradictory
> politics on us.
>
> OUR constitution DOES grant rights. Guess you Americans were "out on that da
>
> I'm always amazed when Americans try to silence people in the name of free
> speech.
I didn't think he was saying "don't demonstrate". I thought he was saying
"you're entitled to voice your opinion against the Heritage Front, but
bear in mind that the Heritage Front has a right to it's opinion and to voice
that opinion as well."
But hey, that's only my opinion...
Nick DiFranco
American Constitution presents the dilemma that you Canadians are facing
in plain English. Now, I'm not some FUCKING AMERICAN...just like you
aren't some FUCKING SLOW TALKING, EH SAYING, BEER GUZZLING, ESKIMO
LOOKING, YUKON LIVING, PISSED-ON-SNOW-EATING, DUDLEY DORIGHT ACTING
CANADIAN. I'm an anti-Nazi, just like you say you are. Now that we have
the flames out of the way, I can concentrate on explaining to you that my
post wasn't asnarrow as you said it is. I used the American Constitution
because it's the best example I know. I'm not familiar with the Canadian
constitution, but I'll wager that it comes close to the American
Constitution on the free speech topic. If not, please tell all of us what
it does say. I just wanted to explain to you, in my terms, the dilemma
and my suggested solution/opinion. That's it.
..nick
Paolucci Paul
In article <1993May26....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> my...@bigbunny.isis.org (Michael Hui) writes:
>The only way public opinion is shaped in a society with freedom of speech is
>if all opinion is allowed to be aired. Hence, the obnoxious opinion espoused
>by the Heritage Front can only be exposed for what it is if others express
>their own opinion against it. The less opposition to an opinion, the more
>likelihood society will adopt that opinion as its mainline position.
>
>Paul Paolucci's suggestion of keeping silent therefore reduces opposition to
>the opinion espoused by the Heritage Front, and cannot but help its adoption
>as a potential mainline opinion of society at large.
I think that you must have the wrong attribution or misunderstood a
post. I do not recall saying anything of the sort. I think I said just the
opposite.
My response was primarily aimed at showing the need for more talking
and less fighting. I was supporting the Freedom of Speech in whatever guise
it finds itself. The article seemed to be just the opposite of that. I was
condeming the attitudes of the poster on the basis of them being restrictive
and oppressive. I value any form of speech or expression particularly when
it propogates more of itself, not less.
I don't remember the exact statements at the moment, but certainly
I did not say the above...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBLASMfjAsUV8MXTRTAQEKVgP5AYDcdAFGIYv9GzvTqw+xjxaYvVheoQc9
wCO5QQBTNvCgSANsJ8kvZnM2i3wfFtLW5crxg4iqKYson/sWJHgEsYrr8HZ04ujt
fijKVDlDCItNoVFDMU4Os/q5vaj7mSqS8hrdN0mhK05Mr7HhFhaXZHn8tWlrreN0
bATA7hER5BI=
=Cc/U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paolucci Paul
There must have been an error in the original post or some words that
came across poorly. I do not support stopping any demostration. What
I was alluding to was that I would like to see less *violence* not speech.
This is the second response to a post I entered earlier that misconstrued
my meaning. I am sorry if I have given the wrong impression.
In article <1993May26.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
>>Perhaps I am slanted, but I feel any group should be able to speak.
>
>So then why are you arguing that this demonstration should not take place?
I was not saying that any demostration shouldn't take place, just
that I would like to see different attitudes concerning violence. It seemed
to me that the post was advocating a violent path. I was simply saying that
we should have more speech and less violence.
>>Demonstrate for the 1st amendment... Oh, sorry, you don't have that.
>...
>>Remember, the Constitution didn't grant any rights; it
>>just stated what rights ARE ALREADY POSSESSED BY THE PEOPLE.
>
>Listen, [epithet deleted], not all people in the world are Americans.
The reason to point out that the Const does not grant rights was
to say that ALL PEOPLE have these rights...
>It's people like you who make us glad we're not. Not all of your stupid little
>American rules apply to us, ok? Stop forcing your stupid, self-contradictory
>politics on us.
What rules (besides the incorrect perception that I was advocating
an attempt to silence anyone) that we American's have do you dislike?
What are these contradictory politics? MINE aren't. Maybe other
American's are...
>OUR constitution DOES grant rights. Guess you Americans were "out on that day".
Your Const does not grant rights either. It only enumerates what
rights and powers that the people already have.
>I'm always amazed when Americans try to silence people in the name of free
>speech.
Not trying to silence ANYONE. Quite the contrary... PLEASE SPEAK UP!
Again, something I said was a poorly worded statement or it is being
interpreted incorrectly. I do not wish to silence anyone. Please feel free
to put my words back in my face if this does not settle this portion of the
question. I will happily correct myself if I misstated.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBLASPDzAsUV8MXTRTAQGfagP/etyOqDTznxB6lwqw53jywnOVgRM6bT8v
pS/2L1KuSQLdOaF8AllZL6vR7jLauIBWI0GIKlx7jZLEdUYFdD6sNKwUPrxByzKg
aDqwgq7XDCnqAEhmSjd0WwxioOaqiPlwYfTCxpBcElnPBrWSb+Fcws6er/O/Clwv
OGi16TE+yro=
=PMnG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brian Amer (Sverdrup)
>st92...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Nick DiFranco) writes:
>>
>WILL ALL YOU FUCKING AMERICANS LISTEN?
>THIS DEMONSTRATION IS TAKING PLACE IN CANADA, NOT IN YOUR STUPID COUNTRY.
>We have our own constitution, thank you very much.
>
>Shit! Why can't Americans realize that the whole world is not composed of
>Americans?
Why can't Canadians realize that this stuff doesn't belong in
alt.music.alternative? And if you don't want Americans to comment on
this stuff, why not post it on an all-Canadian news net? (I'll
assume one exists)
I'm sorry, but I missed the announcement that Americans aren't
allowed to comment on anything relating to Canada.
And speaking of steriotypes (which you're against, aren't you?) you're
sure spouting one with your description of the ugly American.
Anshu Prasad
|>
|> Very true. I tend to get upset when I see legal action taken against groups
|> who voice their opinions. Protesting against HF is reasonable... Prosecuting
|> them for the Orwellian ThoughtCrime of "promoting hatred" is over the line
|> though, and I hope thing don't progress to that.
I don't have my copy of the Canadian Criminal Code with me right now, but
I'm quite sure there are provisions to take legal action against a group under
Canadian genocide laws. I'm not completely familiar with the agenda of the
Heritage Front but if they are in any way promoting violence against a particular
cultural group, the genocide laws are written in such a way as to classify
such promotion as illegal. They don't actually have to commit cultural/racial
genocide to break the law, they just have to promote it. At least this is my
understanding (I researched this topic for a debate a few years ago). It is
possible to interpret these laws differently, however, and I'm not sure what
precedents have been set in the courts on this matter.
--
__ ___
/\ \ \ \ Anshu Prasad stud...@bnr.ca
/--\ \/_/ Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
/_/ \_\ All opinions are my own, not my employer's, BNR Ltd
Alan J Rosenthal
>And if you don't want Americans to comment on
>this stuff, why not post it on an all-Canadian news net? (I'll
>assume one exists)
>I'm sorry, but I missed the announcement that Americans aren't
>allowed to comment on anything relating to Canada.
I didn't say you couldn't comment on this thread.
I am getting angry with the Americans who are posting and discussing American
laws not realizing that they don't apply here because this event is in Canada.
For example, Nick DiFranco, whose article I followed up with the shouting and
swearing, in discussing the demonstration said that "we are within our
rights as Americans to tell them to shut up and get out of our country."
This particular heritage front rally is not IN your country.
Eric Johnson
<much stuff deleted>
>This is not the slightest bit hypocritical. The statement "Nazis out of Ottawa"
>is not racist. Nazism is not a race. People CHOSE to be follow racist, facist
>movements. People do not chose their skin color or their sexual orientation
>and should not be discriminated against on that basis. That being said,
>the Heritage Front has a right to state their case, and I have a right to
>ignore them, or better yet, demonstrate against them.
If choice is the essential criterion, and religion is by choice, then it sounds
remarkably like you must believe that it is ok to discriminate based on religion.
I agree with your conclusion but the reasoning seems flawed..
--
Eric Johnson (er...@qnx.com) Technical Development, QNX Software Systems Ltd.
(613) 591-0931
Stephen Watson
>>And if you don't want Americans to comment on
>>this stuff, why not post it on an all-Canadian news net? (I'll
>>assume one exists)
>>I'm sorry, but I missed the announcement that Americans aren't
>>allowed to comment on anything relating to Canada.
>I didn't say you couldn't comment on this thread.
>I am getting angry with the Americans who are posting and discussing American
>laws not realizing that they don't apply here because this event is in Canada.
The problem seems to be that this got cross-posted to alt.activism,
and I suspect that most of the Americans commenting are following up
from there. Certainly dicussion of the free-speech vs. hate-speech
tension, and how it is (mis?-)handled by various jurisdictions' laws
is appropriate and valuable.
But discussions specifically related to American constitutional law
are clearly out of place in ott.events and ott.general. And to us
local yokels, it looks like (stereotype mode ON) loud, bossy Yanks
acting as if Canada were their front yard and we didn't have our own
way of handling our own problems, thank you very much and MYOB
(stereotype mode OFF). (Not trying to offend, just trying to explain
the heat of some local reaction).
May I respectfully suggest that alt.activists who write posts in which
the American constitution is the dominant theme remove the ott. and
ont. groups from the Newsgroups field?
(Note that I have removed the music group from the list, and also
ott.events as this is also in ott.general. My isn't ott.general getting
INTERESTING these days? ;-)
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. wat...@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
| this->opinion = My.opinion; assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion); |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn
Socks
enough to worry about as it is - with Trent Reznor dead, Lullapehloser 3
coming up, a new New Order record out in neat orange packaging that's
twice as expensive even though it has no extra tracks on it but you can
show it to your friends and look cool, and last, but not least,
threads on cover songs.
Followups to alt.activism.
Thank you.
Joshua H
--
| ho...@athena.cs.uga.edu | indie-list co-moderator | neurotic, but cute |
I'm so afraid you'll phone while I'm out waiting by the mailbox.
- Nothing Painted Blue
Marc Roussel
paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
>In article <1993May26.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
>fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>>paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
>>>Remember, the Constitution didn't grant any rights; it
>>>just stated what rights ARE ALREADY POSSESSED BY THE PEOPLE.
>>
>>Listen, [epithet deleted], not all people in the world are Americans.
>
> The reason to point out that the Const does not grant rights was
>to say that ALL PEOPLE have these rights...
>
>>day".
>
> Your Const does not grant rights either. It only enumerates what
>rights and powers that the people already have.
So that we can stop arguing about this point, here is the wording
of the first several lines of the Canadian Charter of Rights:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the
supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the
rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable
limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in
a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
While Paul is in some sense right that the Charter simply
enumerates our rights, the preamble gives a clear sense that
rights are granted. Furthermore, since the Charter is an innovation
in Canadian politics (enacted 1982), it is difficult for any of us
to think anything but that they have been granted to us.
For the information of the Americans in the audience, we
previously had a Bill of Rights (introduced in the 1950s), but since
this was an ordinary piece of legislation, it could be overridden by an
Act of Parliament and, furthermore, wasn't binding on the provinces.
It is still possible for our rights to be overridden to an Act of
Parliament: Our Constitution contains a so-called "Notwithstanding
Clause" which explicitly allows governments (federal and provincial)
to override the Charter. The text of this clause follows.
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly
declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case
may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate
notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or section 7
to 15 of this Charter.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a
declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such
operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter
referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have
effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier
date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact
a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of re-enactment made under
subsection (4).
A lot of us think of the Notwithstanding Clause as a bit of an
embarrassment. It was a necessary political compromise in 1982 (Alberta
wouldn't have signed without it) but it was never a good idea. Its
application comes with sufficient negative publicity (guaranteed to
resurface every five years by the sunset clause) that it is not used
lightly, but the potential for abuse exists and is a constant temptation
to our governments. As far as I know, only the governments of Quebec
and Alberta have applied it so far.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Swag Valance
>is not racist. Nazism is not a race.
No, but it is a political belief. Is it any more just then to cry
"Social Democrats out of France!" or "Libertarians out of the U.S.!"?
When does it become okay to claim that someone does not belong in your
neighborhood? If not by race, how about religion -- "Moslems out of
Ottawa!"? Or perhaps something sillier like "Vegetarians out of Ottawa!"?
What you are advocating is excommunicating people whose values or opinions
you do not agree with. Now if the Nazis do something to violate another's
constitutional rights, they should be penalized fully under the law for
such crimes. If you disagree with someone's political beliefs or opinions,
it is your right to disagree -- but disagreement is one thing and an attitude
to run out of town somebody with whom you disagree with is another thing.
See the difference?
> People CHOSE to be follow racist, facist
>movements. People do not chose their skin color or their sexual orientation
>and should not be discriminated against on that basis. That being said,
>the Heritage Front has a right to state their case, and I have a right to
>ignore them, or better yet, demonstrate against them.
Right -- demonstration is one thing, but saying "Get out of our neighborhoods!
We don't want people with your political views living around here!" is
another thing. I am in no way a Nazi supporter (that's an understatement!),
but when you cross the border between demonstration and disagreement to
an attitude of "Let's run these people out of town!", you are just as
guilty as the Nazis at doing what they do.
I guess I just don't think that people should not have the right to live where
they want to because of their opinions or political beliefs -- that's
what oppressive countries like China are for. Everyone has a right to
an opinion, as despicable as it may be, and I guess I don't see opinions
or political beliefs as sufficient grounds for advocating the excommunication
of people from where you live. I don't really see ANY sufficient grounds
to do that in fact, but then -- these are just my opinions too.
Chris O'Donovan
fl...@dgp.toronto.edu writes:
>WILL ALL YOU FUCKING AMERICANS LISTEN?
>THIS DEMONSTRATION IS TAKING PLACE IN CANADA, NOT IN YOUR STUPID COUNTRY.
>We have our own constitution, thank you very much.
>
>Shit! Why can't Americans realize that the whole world is not composed of
>Americans?
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
death your right to say it.
- Voltaire
The Nazis are a small minority who want attention.
The best response, IMHO, would be to hold an anti-racism/sexism/any-ism rally
with no reference made to the Nazis, similar to those held recently in
Germany. If the turn-out is orders of magnitude larger than that at the Nazi
rally, they will look like the ridiculous minority they are.
BTW, I welcome an american's opinions about our country, and I'll defend their
right to express them. The original post from an american made a valid point:
their constitution, while not without its faults, is in many ways superior to
ours.
While many americans _are_ arrogant, don't paint them all with the same brush.
Take the measure of each person as an individual, on their own merits.
Don't judge a group by the actions of a few.
-Archie Bunker
Luck,
Chris O'Donovan
Robert Osborne
# >Remember, the Constitution didn't grant any rights; it
# >just stated what rights ARE ALREADY POSSESSED BY THE PEOPLE.
#
# OUR constitution DOES grant rights.
Paul was pointing out that the US constitution recognizes rights while
"OUR" constitution grants rights. The difference is much more than
semantical.
--
Robert A. Osborne ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or rob...@isgtec.com
Ian Clysdale
In a previous article, odon...@physun.mcmaster.ca (Chris O'Donovan) says:
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
> death your right to say it.
> - Voltaire
However, I will not defend anywhere near death your right to
come around to my town, try to recruit people, and send them off down south
to train them in guerilla warfare, making cheap printing presses out of
parts to print off hate literature, and giving them weapons.
The degree of the Heritage Front hasn't been mentioned yet in
anything. When the HF came to Ottawa from Toronto, they brought with them
a crate of illegal submachineguns.
They're welcome to their opinions, but are they welcome to carry
out acts like this without interference? I think not! Is there a
difference at all between what the Camp Davidians were carrying out at
Waco and what the Heritage Front is carrying out here? Only that, to
me at least, the Heritage Front's views and beliefs are
considerably more repulsive.
-Ian!
--
Ian Clysdale: | "I have spread my dreams under your
FreeNet Moron, Prophet of Bob, | feet; tread softly, for you tread
Student; Bell High, and: | upon my dreams..."
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca | -William Butler Yeats
Mike Richardson
>In article <ZNF74B...@balsam.pinetree.org>, co...@balsam.pinetree.org (Darin Cowan) writes:
>|>
>|> Very true. I tend to get upset when I see legal action taken against groups
>|> who voice their opinions. Protesting against HF is reasonable... Prosecuting
>|> them for the Orwellian ThoughtCrime of "promoting hatred" is over the line
>|> though, and I hope thing don't progress to that.
>
> I don't have my copy of the Canadian Criminal Code with me right now, but
>I'm quite sure there are provisions to take legal action against a group under
>Canadian genocide laws. I'm not completely familiar with the agenda
That very well might be the case, but I think that several people
(including me) that are planning on showing up, feel that free speech
is important, and that the only way to `erase' unwelcome ideas is to
debate them openly, that is... to excersize your right to free speech.
Paolucci Paul
Well, just because it is difficult means nothing. Go and look
up the definition of rights: they cannot be granted; they are possessed.
The state did not "grant" me anything. Those things that can be granted
are "privileges", not rights. Rights are property. NO CONSTITUTION GRANTS
RIGHTS. You are misinformed.
> For the information of the Americans in the audience, we
>previously had a Bill of Rights (introduced in the 1950s), but since
>this was an ordinary piece of legislation, it could be overridden by an
>Act of Parliament and, furthermore, wasn't binding on the provinces.
> It is still possible for our rights to be overridden to an Act of
>Parliament: Our Constitution contains a so-called "Notwithstanding
>Clause" which explicitly allows governments (federal and provincial)
>to override the Charter. The text of this clause follows.
>
[text deleted for brevity]
Well, again. Then these are not rights. No document can take
away my rights (or yours) no matter where you live. This legal hocus
pocus that is being reffered to (although I searched the entire text
for the word "grant" and did not find it) is meaningless to this
discussion. Just because governments DO infringe upon those rights
does not mean they are granted. Rights are possessed. Privelges are
granted. Look it up.
> A lot of us think of the Notwithstanding Clause as a bit of an
>embarrassment. It was a necessary political compromise in 1982 (Alberta
>wouldn't have signed without it) but it was never a good idea. Its
>application comes with sufficient negative publicity (guaranteed to
>resurface every five years by the sunset clause) that it is not used
>lightly, but the potential for abuse exists and is a constant temptation
>to our governments. As far as I know, only the governments of Quebec
>and Alberta have applied it so far.
>
> Marc R. Roussel
> mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
The notwithstanding clause has little bearing on this debate. One
must define the terms that one is using before any meaningful conclusions
can be obtained. This has not been done yet.
As for the claim that "American this or that has little bearing on
the situation here in Canada", this is a smoke screen. If the debate has
validity, then it has validity everywhere. The statements about the U.S.A.
are being used for example and these are principles that are applicable
to all free people. If the Canadians that are screaming that this is a
Canadian issue do not realize this, I ask that they take a moment and
think a bit further. The survial of the free world is incumbent on all
free peoples conversing and maintaining their freedom against the
continued onslaught against ALL THE EARTH'S PEOPLES' RIGHTS. No land
or people are free as long as rights are infringed upon by oppressive
governments and policies.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBLAVRPjAsUV8MXTRTAQHMGAP+JwiTDxEu+mtVoqyfGDuGBElpOS2UWAuT
eLMeRrsvaGe2J0klG7RSOjM5Uu30w4LD/JWPCzHgiLvdQ5p3jwxs065n8dhFh5gG
JgycXwI9rqXdU9djLflznHPWwrgly30ae/RlHKDZha6dnts/TGmQP1kBm8N+kPvy
Fc3pYzSFd4s=
=evOn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paolucci Paul
WOW! Where to even begin...
This article contained so many references to repugnent thoughts
that it was not even clear if a response is warranted, but... oh, well!
In article <C7pI8...@freenet.carleton.ca> ac...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Ian Clysdale) writes:
>
>In a previous article, odon...@physun.mcmaster.ca (Chris O'Donovan) says:
>
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
>> death your right to say it.
>> - Voltaire
>
> However, I will not defend anywhere near death your right to
>come around to my town, try to recruit people, and send them off down south
>to train them in guerilla warfare, making cheap printing presses out of
>parts to print off hate literature, and giving them weapons.
So only people with the correct and just lines of thought are
to be allowed to move to "your town"?! Who is to decide this correctness
of thought? You do not sound like you wish to defend ANY thought save
for your own.
Is their a law against "training in guerilla warfare? Is their a
law against using the presses that they have legally obtained? Is there
a law against "recruiting people"? Is there a law against "giving
people weapons"? Please privide CITES if so.
I will also defend your right to say what *you* think even though
it is infantile.
> The degree of the Heritage Front hasn't been mentioned yet in
>anything. When the HF came to Ottawa from Toronto, they brought with them
>a crate of illegal submachineguns.
You are lumping several things together. You say "HF _coming_
to such and such..." Coming means:
1) People miving to live in your area
2) People (after having moved) demostrating or holding rallies
3) People (after having moved) performing illegal acts
Now, 1 must be allowed. Are we to decide what people can think
in certain places?
Also, 2 must be allowed. Are we to decide who can and can't hold
a rally? Remember, your anti-HF rally is more discriminitory than the
rally they are holding. You wish to say "You can't be here because of
this and that thoughts." Who will decide what thoughts are to be "OK"?
The government, that bastion of competence and fairness? Your people who
are obviously biased?
Now, 3 is a different matter... If someone is smuggling, then get
them on that. If someone is printing "hate literature" with stolen presses,
then get them of stolen presses. If they are putting their opinions on
paper and distributing it, then distribute your own. If their ideas are
so repugnent, as you say, then it should be EASY to refute.
> They're welcome to their opinions, but are they welcome to carry
>out acts like this without interference? I think not!
Doesn't sound like you are welcoming them to their opinions. Sounds
like you are saying "you are welcome here if you think like I do..." What
gives you the right to interfere with the peaceful assembly of folks with
different opinions than yours? If they are being violent, then that is
another matter, but that is violence. period. It is not violence based
upon what they say. You are the one advocating violent actions and
illegal actions.
Is there a
>difference at all between what the Camp Davidians were carrying out at
>Waco and what the Heritage Front is carrying out here? Only that, to
>me at least, the Heritage Front's views and beliefs are
>considerably more repulsive.
You obviously know little of the Waco incident. They were peaceful
citizens going about their own business. You would have been a member of
the government forces that committed the slaughter witht he attitudes that
you are espousing. Please grow up and learn what it means to have free
speech and what rights people have. You are being a pre-action government
appologist and are showing the exact attitudes that allowed the Nazi's
to rise to power in Germany.
I doubt that you will really support your statements if you stop and
think some more instead of towing your mommies...er... governments ideas
of what is "right speech" and what is "wrong speech".
Again, if people, HF or not, do illegal acts, then go after them. If
they are trying to spread their ideas, then let them be or compete with them
using your own. I suspect you may be closer in thoughts than you'd like to
admit.
PLEASE THINK BEFORE YOU POST!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBLAVftzAsUV8MXTRTAQHBqQP/e2S9489sw1BG0qWDceN2+JEFdOgOB/cB
Pnl2VmFlvWVeqpImqXdd6gTOOTbdXp+tnUUkbSATuQJ68fCX29Fb5oV76PCKG0d+
ztAtUv0QpO2fA/D5uq3h2qdoqQPgysbUQnbvUsHMYAu8VV83/daAuK3vx2R8jocK
LxXz9w+AqDM=
=LTV4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Richardson
> Is the object of the protest to raise awareness of racism
>and homophobia in Canada (HF unfortunately does not have the
>cornerstone on this type of institutionalize violence), or is
>it to simply stop a branch of the HF from forming a stronghold
>in Ottawa.
Mike, I suggest that you start at the beginning of the thread.
It would tell you that it was later.
> The HF thrive on fear and anger.. The skinheads that have
>been mentioned are not alien life forms but also people, probably
>amongst the most disempowered (this is a controvercial term,
Most of the people that I've met are simply angry at the system
because they feel they got a rotten deal. A lot of them would *like*
you to believe that they are disempowered. They'd like you to believe
that it wasn't something that they did, but rather it was the system
that made them what they are.
Mostly, they are being used by someone, and mostly it is to further
that person's ego. Yeah, sure.. a lot of them can recite Das Capital
by heart. I haven't met many punks that really understood it. I
haven't met many International Socialists that got much beyond the
`they are exploiting me - time for revolution' and gotten to the `how
to we build a viable society?' part. This is not a statement for or
against Marxism, but my observations.
(Punk's under a communist regime, assuming it allowed them to exist,
would likely sound quite similar to an NRA member)
> -Hold a protest the day before the HF gathering, if the
> participants of the demonstration aren't that committed
That would be tomorrow at this stage. Holding a protest on a Friday
wouldn't be too successfull.
> -Chant non-violence and anti-racism statements outside the
> building or inside (being aware that this is illegal and
This isn't a building. They are *protesting* on the hill.
> They are going to attack us.. And we have to be organized
>and committed enough not to strike them back..
Yup. This is, I think, the essence of it.
Darin Cowan
> All right. Here is the ultimate strategy:
>
> I'll bring my camera, along with a very powerful electronic flash, with
> fast film, to catch every single one of them faces with their arm raised
> high in their salute. What do you all say? Are these individuals cowardly
> enough to not want to get on a picture? If we cannot catch them doing the
> salute, at least catch them coming out of the meeting. We do have freedom
> of association here in Canada, and those associations can indeed be private
> ones, where membership lists as well as the meetings themselves (obviously)
> are held in private. But we know what group is meeting in there, and we
> intend to find out who hangs out with those groups via perfectly legal means.
And what do you intend to do with the information once you've found out
who hangs out with those groups? Use it against them in an attempt to
persecute them into submitting to your view of the world?
Seig Hiel and pass the swastikas please... you sound as bad as them.
Pugwash -- Michael Gifford
I have been following this thread very closely since it
began.. Primarily because I had already been dealing with the HF
moving into Ottawa before it poped up onto the newsgroup..
I think that the protest should be trying to deal with the
issue of racism and homophobia in society aswell as the HF moving into
Ottawa.. If we lived in a truely equal society here in Ottawa, say
one under an effective democracy of empowered people, the HF would
have no chance to propagate their racist thoughts.. Or if they did,
it wouldn't be seen as a threat because everyone could see it for
being the BS that it is..
The ideas that I proposed were possible alternative
actions.. It would have been difficult at best to initiate a truely
non-violent protest in say under two weeks.. Particularly because
there are so few people trained in non-violence..
The protest as such is calling for support much like the May
15th Rally did.. Anyone who opposes these Nazi's come and show up for
the march.. That it is a march just like any other march.. But it
isn't.. The organizers expect violence to erupt and I think that some
are interested in initiating violence against the HF..
If Ottawa is going to construct a long term campaign to keep
the HF out of here, then it will have to be empowering for the people
within it.. Bringing people to a protest, telling them that it will
be a peaceful rally against the white supremasists, when they know
full well that there is a really good chance that they will be
attacked, is very disempowering.. And it won't matter if you boost
your newspaper sales..
If this were going to be a non-violent protest you would
need quite a few trained and identifyable peace keepers, some
structure for decision making (such as afinity groups of 6-12 people
who can use concensus to make decisions).. A coordinator, a media
spokesperson (because the media will want to interview a lot of people
and will pick out the most idiotic quotes to warp their stories with,
rather than being forced with the point of the interview).. You also
need a lot of trained protesters who are willing to take unjust
suffering.. Who are willing and trained to be attacked without
fighting in self-defence.. And furthermore, you will need a lot of
people who haven't had time for the training to stand back and give
moral support..
You have to be ready for the possiblity of people breaking
from the ranks and running to attack the HF folks.. You will also
need support for those that are attacked (first aid)..
If it gets violent and we start attacking them, we have lost
all control.. They expect us to attack them.. And they are ready for
it.. They probably want us to attack them and may very well go to
lengths to promote it.. But as soon as we have doen that we are in
their battle field, right where they want us to be..
As far as supressing free speach.. Non-violent action is in
its very essence democratic.. They are actions which force
governemnts and the general public to deal with the issue.. It is
posessing the humility to believe that the general population has to
decide what is right and wrong, what they will accept and not, rather
than an elite group of people who are isolated from the commoners..
Either through education or class or race.. Non-violence does not
impose itself and force people to believe it as the truth.. but it
does force people to question by demonstrating courage and an
incredible ammount of conviction..
I would also like to say that from what I had heard of the
protest, the final destination was not the Hill, but rather the
meeting place that the HF have staged their benefit.. The HF have not
yet announced where they are planning to hold it, for fear of having
it blockaided.. But hey.. What a wonderful way to stop the racist
concert that they are planning.. Find out where they want to hold it
and just block the doors so that no one can get it.. but again that
would take a considerable ammount of planning and preparation for
quite a few individuals..
I hope that this has clarified some things..
mike..
Rich Wales
granted, acknowledged, or whatever in the US and/or Canadian constitu-
tions:
Although many of the US founding fathers felt that various rights were
inherent and therefore did not need to be specifically listed in the US
Constitution, many other people didn't buy this argument. Several of
the states actually refused to ratify the Constitution until a promise
was made that a "Bill of Rights" would soon be added to make the rights
in question explicit.
So, even 200 years ago, quite a few Americans were less than convinced
by the "already possessed by the people" argument and wanted something
more tangible.
I think a good argument can be made that the Canadian Charter arose out
of similar feelings. It's not as if Canadians were underlings of a
brutal dictatorship until 1982, when their repressive government finally
condescended to "grant" to its enslaved subjects "rights" and "freedoms"
that had never existed before. It would be far more accurate to say
that these basic rights, for the most part, had already been assumed by
most people for a long time, but earlier legal attempts to ensure these
rights (e.g., the Canadian Bill of Rights) were perceived as inadequate.
So, at the risk of offending the adherents of certain political and/or
philosophical views, I would suggest that this whole line of argument is
largely meaningless in practice.
-- Rich Wales (an American living in Canada)
--
Rich Wales <ri...@mks.com> // Mortice Kern Systems Inc. (MKS)
35 King St. N. // Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 2W9 // +1 (519) 884-2251
Marc Roussel
paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
>Go and look
>up the definition of rights: they cannot be granted; they are possessed.
>The state did not "grant" me anything. Those things that can be granted
>are "privileges", not rights. Rights are property. NO CONSTITUTION GRANTS
>RIGHTS. You are misinformed.
The fact that these "rights" are a modern invention has no bearing
on this argument, of course. Human "rights" are only that because of a
modern concensus in a subset of countries rich enough to be able to
afford them and powerful enough to be able to create appropriate myths
to accompany them.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Jim Mercer
> And if you don't want Americans to comment on this stuff, why not post it on
> an all-Canadian news net?
i don't think the debate was over amerikan comment, but more about the way
amerikans (more than any other group i've seen on the net) assume the article
was posted within the Untied states of Amerika.
we, posters of non-amerikan origin, tend to look at the newsgroups, and From:
lines to determine the geo-political context of the article.
this may be out of national insecurity, or just plain politeness, but it is
evident, especially with "constitutional" context, that amerikans tend to
assume amerikan law/rights apply.
hmmm, come to think of it, is there an all-amerikan news group, or do you-all
assume that all groups are amerikan?
--
[ Jim Mercer Reptilian Research me...@iguana.reptiles.org +1 416 506-0654 ]
[ "I am pro-military. I am not pro-war. There is a big difference" ]
[ -- Louise Mandrell (Toronto Sun) ]
Turmoil
>In article <27MAY199...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, ba...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Brian Amer (Sverdrup)) writes:
>> And if you don't want Americans to comment on this stuff, why not post it on
>> an all-Canadian news net?
>i don't think the debate was over amerikan comment, but more about the way
>amerikans (more than any other group i've seen on the net) assume the article
>was posted within the Untied states of Amerika.
>we, posters of non-amerikan origin, tend to look at the newsgroups, and From:
>lines to determine the geo-political context of the article.
>this may be out of national insecurity, or just plain politeness, but it is
>evident, especially with "constitutional" context, that amerikans tend to
>assume amerikan law/rights apply.
>hmmm, come to think of it, is there an all-amerikan news group, or do you-all
>assume that all groups are amerikan?
Hmmmmm. I always thought AmeriKKKan was spelled with 3 K's...
Craig Shaver
>In article <27MAY199...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, ba...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Brian Amer (Sverdrup)) writes:
>> And if you don't want Americans to comment on this stuff, why not post it on
>> an all-Canadian news net?
>
>
>hmmm, come to think of it, is there an all-amerikan news group, or do you-all
>assume that all groups are amerikan?
>
Canada? Where is it? What is it? Is it important?
--
Craig Shaver (cr...@cwsix22.progroup.com) (415)390-0654
Productivity Group POB 60458 Sunnyvale, CA 94088
Jessica Cohen
In a previous article, my...@bigbunny.isis.org (Michael Hui) says:
>be associated with those groups, simply having your own sign with your
>own unique message will actually increase your chance of getting a two
>second video clip on the local TV news show. The TV news producers are
Oh, is THAT what the point of demonstrating was then?
>already getting bored with the same message put out by the usual
>groups, so the onus is actually on the individual protester to be more
>creative.
Okay, for cheers then:
Hey Hey! Ho! Ho! Nazi scum go tour the Bermuda Triangle!
Well, it is awkward to say , but it is perhaps more socially acceptable
than the other one I had
Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Heritage Front form a suicide pact!
>See you out there!
Of course having no idea who you are , hopefully I did "see" you out there.
On a note on the discussion of demonstration vs. antiracist hate tactics,
there was a certain irony to one of the actions taken during the rally
before we marched to where the Heritage Front was meeting;
A holocaust denial pamphelt was being distributed, the person currently
speaking read it out loud to our confirmation that it was Bull***t,
and threw it in the trash, which is where it most unquestionably belonged.
What I am taking issue with is the several people yelling "burn it"
and the person who did.
Burning books, was a method Hitler used to limit intellectual thought in
his version of society, the perfect aryan would obey unquestionably,
without thought or philosophy.
It disturbs me that demonstrating against hatred, so many people would use
hate as their chief weapon.
Throwing a piece of rubbish pamphlet garbage, etc. in the trash can states
that what this person says is stupid, and we , as a <hopefully!> civilized
society know better.
Burning something demonstrates fear, and smacks a perfect parrelell of
Hitler's methods in pre-Nazi, and Nazi europe.
But then, wouldn't it be ironic if censorship was teh only way to fight
this hatred and fear.
Or perhaps we should send out the firetrucks now, to burn .
aa...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jessica Cohen)
Byline service temporarily out of order
Simon DUNSTALL
Not really following any thread of the arguments, but anyway,
imagine the reaction, if say, a conference of money launderers was held.
there'd be people jumping all over the place
'we can't let them get away with that'
this's all hypothetical of course,
but modern society condemns the 'evil' of crime - the evil of
stealing money from others in particular.
crime does kill innocent people
but nowhere near the millions that are killed through racism etc...
just shows what interests modern society. not fighting racism.
'we're not racist'
more like we think we are immune to being on the recieving end of
racism,
but someone possibly stealing our money? no way!
s*
Ian Clysdale
In a previous article, paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) says:
I think that we have a massive communications problem here; either
you didn't understand what I was trying to say, or I didn't say it
properly, and I'm not sure which. That was written rather quickly, so
the odds are equal either way. I'll try to elaborate on that more, because
I think from what I've read of yours we DO essentially agree on many
points; you just don't have all the background on the situation here
on Ottawa, and I didn't succeed in getting enough across.
> So only people with the correct and just lines of thought are
>to be allowed to move to "your town"?! Who is to decide this correctness
>of thought? You do not sound like you wish to defend ANY thought save
>for your own.
Anybody with thought that doesn't hurt anyone else is welcome
in my twon. Anybody who can come and set up making the downtown a
rather unenjoyable place to walk through when they're around, shouting
slogans that show that they don't really understand the basis or the
culture of Canada is NOT someone that I want in my town. This is NOT
really being like that: they have the choice to be obnoxious boors
or not.
> Is their a law against "training in guerilla warfare? Is their a
>law against using the presses that they have legally obtained? Is there
>a law against "recruiting people"? Is there a law against "giving
>people weapons"? Please privide CITES if so.
Well, given that the weapons that they are given are illegal
to possess in Canada under Canadian law, YES. Laws against training in
guerilla warfare, no. But we look down to the States, and we see the
state of a lot of the cities there. I for one don't want Ottawa to
become like that. I think that we have to keep a tolerant Canada to
avoid many of the American problems.
> Now, 1 must be allowed. Are we to decide what people can think
>in certain places?
Sure. If they're just living here with their views, and those
views are not hurting anybody, than I for one have no problem with them
living here. But they're not just living here and not hurting anybody.
> Also, 2 must be allowed. Are we to decide who can and can't hold
>a rally? Remember, your anti-HF rally is more discriminitory than the
>rally they are holding. You wish to say "You can't be here because of
>this and that thoughts." Who will decide what thoughts are to be "OK"?
>The government, that bastion of competence and fairness? Your people who
>are obviously biased?
Really? Which is worse: saying "We don't want you here because
you're not like us." or saying "We don't want you here because your ideas
are repugnant, you've got a high chance of raising our crime rate, and
Ottawa does not support your actions?" At least to me, the first one is
FAR more objectionable than the second one. If we disagree there, then
we have a basic disagreement in viewpoint on the whole matter and further
argument is useless. Otherwise, just think about it. As for what thoughts
are OK: Thoughts that DON'T HURT OTHER PEOPLE. I'm welcome to think that
the Earth is flat if I want, and nobody will stop me. I may well be wrong,
but that belief doesn't hurt anybody. However, if I believe that we should
go out and beat up Jews, Blacks, and anyone else who isn't like us, then that
is something that is purely unacceptable, at least as far as I see it.
> Now, 3 is a different matter... If someone is smuggling, then get
>them on that. If someone is printing "hate literature" with stolen presses,
>then get them of stolen presses. If they are putting their opinions on
>paper and distributing it, then distribute your own. If their ideas are
>so repugnent, as you say, then it should be EASY to refute.
That's being done. And it's not merely even stolen presses, at
least in Canada hate literature in and of itself is a criminal offense.
This goes back to the idea of thoughts NOT HURTING OTHER PEOPLE, which
is basically the crux of my argument. However, the fact is that while
they are here, they are causing problems. As Michael Hui so brilliantly
put it, the New World has no place for Racism.
> You obviously know little of the Waco incident. They were peaceful
>citizens going about their own business. You would have been a member of
>the government forces that committed the slaughter witht he attitudes that
>you are espousing. Please grow up and learn what it means to have free
>speech and what rights people have. You are being a pre-action government
>appologist and are showing the exact attitudes that allowed the Nazi's
>to rise to power in Germany.
This one I'll admit is my fault for using a bad example. I
basically supported the right of the Camp Davidians to live in Waco.
If you want I can send you stuff I wrote up for class projects and
the like on Waco. I scared teachers and the like because I fought the
government line on that. I used Waco as an example because it's an
experience everyone knows of and MOST people agreed with the government
on that. And it's funny how the people who will support the government
most on subjects such as Waco are all too often the ones who'll go on about
the democratic right to free speech. That WAS a bad example that I used
because I couldn't think of a better one off the top of my head.
The difference between Camp David and the Heritage Front is
the matter of violence and violence in ideals that has been brought
up over and over and over again. All that I've read about the
Camp Davidians gives me the impression that David Korresh was
indulging in to many recreational pharmaceuticals, but his ideas
didn't hurt anybody else, and I DID support his right to go there,
and I DID question the governments actions in Waco. The Heritage
Front's ideals on the other hand are openly racist. We just have
to look at Los Angeles to see the problems that racism can create. Or
maybe we can just look at Auschwitz.
David F. Skoll
paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
> So only people with the correct and just lines of thought are
>to be allowed to move to "your town"?! Who is to decide this correctness
>of thought? You do not sound like you wish to defend ANY thought save
>for your own.
It's not what people think that bothers me, it's what they DO. The
Heritage Front is a violent group led by a violent leader. Here's
a report on the meeting last night:
------------------------------------------------------------
BLOODY CLASH MARKS NEO-NAZI CONCERT
By Scot Magnish, Ottawa Sun
Neo-Nazis and anti-fascists fought a pitched battle downtown
last night that left at least a half dozen people injured after
white supremacists staged a racist rock concert.
The melee began about 10:30pm after 60 neo-Nazis attempted to
sneak out of the Boys and Girls Club on Nepean St., where
police had held hundreds of anti-racist protesters at bay
for 3-1/2 hours.
The concert ended when police shut off the power to the stage
and ordered the beer-drinking skinheads out of the building.
When the protesters out front saw the group leaving, some chased
them and forced a showdown in the middle of O'Connor St., where
bat-wielding skinheads pummelled the anti-racists.
With police between them, the two sides marched to Parliament Hill
where Wolfgang Droege, head of the Heritage Front, told the neo-Nazis:
"This will be ours one day."
As they left the Hill and marched east on Wellington St., the two
sides hurled rocks and bottles at one another over the heads of
police.
In front of the Chateau Laurier, the two sides again began brawling.
One girl was kicked in the face by a neo-Nazi as she lay on the road,
and another anti-racist was taken to hospital with injuries.
Police arrested one of the skinheads before the two sides finally
dispersed.
FACTS ABOUT THE HERITAGE FRONT
- The Heritage Front is a Toronto-based neo-Nazi group which has
ties across the country
- Its leader, Wolfgang Droege, is a former Klansman and mercenary
who has served time for drug and weapons offences
- The group claims a local membership of more than 100
- The Front sees itself as an umbrella group for a host of
smaller white supremacist groups, including the KKK in Canada,
skinhead gangs, and right-wing activists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the issue is not freedom of speech when we shout
"Nazis out of Ottawa." The Heritage Front, by coming armed
with bats and using them, has shown itself to be a violent
group not interested in democracy or discussion. Its leader has
a history of violence and crime. So, damn right I want them
out of Ottawa -- and turning it into a "Freedom of Speech" issue
is simply twisting the rules of democracy to play into the
hands of thugs.
I don't condone the actions of the protesters, but by coming
armed, the HF members were clearly ready for a fight and knew
they would provoke one.
> Is their a law against "training in guerilla warfare?
Canada has a law against Canadian citizens fighting in the military
of other countries - in other words, a law against mercenary activity.
According to the Ottawa Sun, Droege has broken that law.
> Is their a
>law against using the presses that they have legally obtained?
No, but there is a law against bashing prone women with baseball bats.
Turning this into a "Free Speech" issue is just what the Nazi thugs
want. In 1933, they subverted democratic institutions to take over.
60 years later, they still use the same tactics.
--
David F. Skoll
Michael Hui
>Heritage Front is a violent group led by a violent leader. Here's
>a report on the meeting last night:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>BLOODY CLASH MARKS NEO-NAZI CONCERT
>
>By Scot Magnish, Ottawa Sun
I highly recommend that you also read the Ottawa Citizen's front page story
on this same event. The Ottawa Sun has been reduced to giving their paper
away at IGA supermarkets (I got a free one this morning at Lincoln Heights).
Their reporting is known to be biased, poorly written, sensational, and
most of the time, especially when the story deals with labour unions,
ultra-right wing. If you want a substantive account of my disagreement with
the Ottawa Sun's story you so patiently typed in above, read my post in
the Ottawa Freenet's general discussion newsgroup.
--
Michael M.Y. Hui Ottawa Ontario Canada ~{许明恩~}
work: my...@bnr.ca play: my...@bigbunny.isis.org
Michael Hui
just as criminal as those who actually do the deeds. Mafia bosses are
held just as responsible as the thugs who actually do the murdering.
If the Heritage Front organizes violence from the top down, then the
whole organization is criminal.
Surely, you all can separate the above from clause 2 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, reproduced in its entirety below:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
For those unfamiliar with Canadian constitutional law, the above was
passed as the Constitutional Act, 1982, which is actually Schedule B
of the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.). Clause 2 reproduced above is the only
clause under the section called Fundamental Freedoms. All other clauses
deal with legal matters not related to personal freedoms, like:
democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights, etc.
Paolucci Paul
In article <931511...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> simo...@ecr.mu.oz.au (Simon DUNSTALL) writes:
>imagine the reaction, if say, a conference of money launderers was held.
>there'd be people jumping all over the place
>'we can't let them get away with that'
Well two things JUMP OUT here.
1) Money laundering is ILLEGAL. Racsism is NOT. How can it be
illegal for someone to hold an opinion? Shades of 1984 again.
2) No, people would not be saying "We can't let..." People
can meet and discuss whatever they want (or should be...). If they had a
group getting together to LAUNDER money, not TALK ABOUT LAUNDERING
money, then that would be different.
>this's all hypothetical of course,
>but modern society condemns the 'evil' of crime - the evil of
>stealing money from others in particular.
>crime does kill innocent people
>but nowhere near the millions that are killed through racism etc...
>just shows what interests modern society. not fighting racism.
>'we're not racist'
>more like we think we are immune to being on the recieving end of
>racism,
>but someone possibly stealing our money? no way!
No one has ever been killed by racsism. They have been killed
by people killing people. The motivations of the people are of little
concern to the action. Most of the supposedly racially motivated crimes
are smoke-screens for economic reasons or simple power grabs. Racsism
is just an excuse.
Racsism is just a front for other ideas. It is an attitude, a
thought. Thoughts, opinions, and attitudes never kill; actions do.
When you let racsist assemble and speak, they show themselves to be
what they are. Even the Nazi's had legitimate points about social
and economic problems. The problem was that they had the wrong causes
for these problems. It was not the jews, but the screwed up policies
of the winners of WWI that caused the bad economy. If these problems
had been addressed, then they would never have come to power. Facsist
breed in the shadows and feed on legitimate problems that the status
quo says do not exists (LIKE TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS IN CANADA AND
THE US!). As long as they are forced to meet in secret and the status
quo says the problems that they raise DO NOT EXIST, then they are
dangerous. In a republic where the government is not being oppressive
(no such place exists today that I am aware of!), the facsists have
NO CHANCE and NO MEMBERSHIP. Canada (and to a lessor extent, the US
due to its FREEDOM OF SPEECH!) are just asking for fascists.
PREDICTION: Facsists will become a larger and larger force
in Canada as long as they are repressed and freedoms are curtailed.
You are headed for a BIG PROBLEM, guys. No amount of military or
police is gonna help you on this score. Only opening your nation
up to REAL freedoms will. It is carved in stone and only a matter
of time.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBLAnOpDAsUV8MXTRTAQHjVwP/Z7EG2TjR6N+9CHITY3FKXsi1yB10tfM1
sfYwThXxDR0BUA5PQ9m0xSpNCjZOMP4mnJhq6jbVnKv9MMLKDBauVSghNDTCGpbV
UefIWS79IIr2+cytRZdCyim25TNHYIPj9EcBIHGp+3UKfWtQLZyaFAM+kOE/kPRM
gvmxdZTSXvQ=
=K00b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paolucci Paul
<C7vA...@freenet.carleton.ca> ac...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Ian Clysdale):
>In a previous article, paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) says:
>> So only people with the correct and just lines of thought are
>>to be allowed to move to "your town"?! Who is to decide this correctness
>>of thought? You do not sound like you wish to defend ANY thought save
>>for your own.
> Anybody with thought that doesn't hurt anyone else is welcome
>in my twon.
How can THOUGHT hurt ANYONE. Only ACTIONS hurt anyone.
shouting
>slogans that show that they don't really understand the basis or the
>culture of Canada is NOT someone that I want in my town. This is NOT
>really being like that: they have the choice to be obnoxious boors
>or not.
Since when is it "YOUR town"? Why are YOUR thought sny more valid
that anyone elses? Who gets to decide? THE GOVERNMENT?!
>> Is their a law against "training in guerilla warfare? Is their a
>>law against using the presses that they have legally obtained? Is there
>>a law against "recruiting people"? Is there a law against "giving
>>people weapons"? Please privide CITES if so.
> Well, given that the weapons that they are given are illegal
>to possess in Canada under Canadian law, YES. Laws against training in
>guerilla warfare, no. But we look down to the States, and we see the
>state of a lot of the cities there. I for one don't want Ottawa to
>become like that. I think that we have to keep a tolerant Canada to
>avoid many of the American problems.
Doesn't sound TOLERANT AT ALL! If they are committing crimes, get
them on those CRIMES, not on thoughts... Do you NOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
>> Now, 1 must be allowed. Are we to decide what people can think
>>in certain places?
> Sure. If they're just living here with their views, and those
>views are not hurting anybody, than I for one have no problem with them
>living here. But they're not just living here and not hurting anybody.
What are they doing? Are they killing et al? Then get them on THAT.
>> Also, 2 must be allowed. Are we to decide who can and can't hold
>>a rally? Remember, your anti-HF rally is more discriminitory than the
>>rally they are holding. You wish to say "You can't be here because of
>>this and that thoughts." Who will decide what thoughts are to be "OK"?
>>The government, that bastion of competence and fairness? Your people who
>>are obviously biased?
> Really? Which is worse: saying "We don't want you here because
>you're not like us." or saying "We don't want you here because your ideas
>are repugnant, you've got a high chance of raising our crime rate, and
>Ottawa does not support your actions?"
Both suck!
At least to me, the first one is
>FAR more objectionable than the second one. If we disagree there, then
>we have a basic disagreement in viewpoint on the whole matter and further
>argument is useless. Otherwise, just think about it. As for what thoughts
>are OK: Thoughts that DON'T HURT OTHER PEOPLE. I'm welcome to think that
>the Earth is flat if I want, and nobody will stop me. I may well be wrong,
>but that belief doesn't hurt anybody. However, if I believe that we should
>go out and beat up Jews, Blacks, and anyone else who isn't like us, then that
>is something that is purely unacceptable, at least as far as I see it.
You can BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU WANT! You cannot act on ANYTHING that
hurts another. Again, THOUGHTS ARE YOUR OWN BUSINESS!
>> Now, 3 is a different matter... If someone is smuggling, then get
>>them on that. If someone is printing "hate literature" with stolen presses,
>>then get them of stolen presses. If they are putting their opinions on
>>paper and distributing it, then distribute your own. If their ideas are
>>so repugnent, as you say, then it should be EASY to refute.
> That's being done. And it's not merely even stolen presses, at
>least in Canada hate literature in and of itself is a criminal offense.
THAT is a major flaw. No literature hurts anyone. THINK ABOUT
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING! ("Welcome to 1984 ... er ... 1994!")
>This goes back to the idea of thoughts NOT HURTING OTHER PEOPLE, which
>is basically the crux of my argument. However, the fact is that while
>they are here, they are causing problems. As Michael Hui so brilliantly
>put it, the New World has no place for Racism.
Oh, great. Now you are a NWO supporter. Yes, we disagree. You had
better think again.
>> You obviously know little of the Waco incident. They were peaceful
>>citizens going about their own business. You would have been a member of
>>the government forces that committed the slaughter witht he attitudes that
>>you are espousing. Please grow up and learn what it means to have free
>>speech and what rights people have. You are being a pre-action government
>>appologist and are showing the exact attitudes that allowed the Nazi's
>>to rise to power in Germany.
> This one I'll admit is my fault for using a bad example. I
>basically supported the right of the Camp Davidians to live in Waco.
>If you want I can send you stuff I wrote up for class projects and
>the like on Waco. I scared teachers and the like because I fought the
>government line on that. I used Waco as an example because it's an
>experience everyone knows of and MOST people agreed with the government
>on that. And it's funny how the people who will support the government
>most on subjects such as Waco are all too often the ones who'll go on about
>the democratic right to free speech. That WAS a bad example that I used
>because I couldn't think of a better one off the top of my head.
> The difference between Camp David and the Heritage Front is
>the matter of violence and violence in ideals that has been brought
>up over and over and over again.
There is a HUGE difference between violence and violence in ideals.
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!
All that I've read about the
>Camp Davidians gives me the impression that David Korresh was
>indulging in to many recreational pharmaceuticals, but his ideas
>didn't hurt anybody else, and I DID support his right to go there,
>and I DID question the governments actions in Waco. The Heritage
>Front's ideals on the other hand are openly racist. We just have
>to look at Los Angeles to see the problems that racism can create. Or
>maybe we can just look at Auschwitz.
Do you really know what the Heritage Front is saying? If so, how?
How would one ever know? THEIR LITERATURE! What happens if you disallow
them to write? Then they will not be exposed. They will propogate in secret
and will have a LEGITIMATE GREIVENCE, i.e. being oppressed.
You are being as biggoted as the ones you condemn. Who is to say
that they are wrong and you are right? They disagree. I do not support
their agenda from what I know of it, but I do support their RIGHT to think
WHATEVER THEY WANT! Again, Welcome to 1984 and the ThoughtPolice. Think
about how you would feel if the government said, "Here are the things that
you can think and say: [List of Government Approved Ideas]". Do you support
this? You SAY you do, but I think you do not.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBLAnTYzAsUV8MXTRTAQGA5QP+PhYVEzlFrpCuP3Yr/VF53PXmXtWNrk6M
WC2lv88D43cX+wdH84dhTBhHOjPWSJqBbxkl9hXp8196JpPc5a0Ar085oLxPeByY
PBJMsnYybxHWy4s70Ef9pPFOCP1A0Z0CtWIwlEOjefPqR+x6zLkktYciKNFobJ3D
ZpkF5Dx6/fI=
=L7GL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marc Thibault
> Paul Paolucci's suggestion of keeping silent therefore reduces opposition to
> the opinion espoused by the Heritage Front, and cannot but help its adoption
> as a potential mainline opinion of society at large.
No one has suggested keeping silent. It wouldn't work anyway.
The anti-nazi, holocaust orthodoxy conservation voice is loud and
effective in Canada. The point, however, is that the
appropriate response to these nuts is to keep a rational
counter-argument alive, not to try to silence them by
violence or group tantrums, however well-intentioned.
I worry when vigilante parties form to suppress an unpopular
opinion. My opinions aren't all popular and I wonder when
they'll come for me. I'm particularly concerned when I see
that popular opinion is largely molded by a small number of
people who don't seem to me to be much saner than the nazis -
just a little less threatening in the short term.
It's especially sad when organisations dedicated to individual
freedom and a more open society lend their names to this kind
of oppression.
Cheers,
Marc
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm Huguenot, Acadien, Quebecois, Irish and Micmac. My people
have been stepped on by just about everybody. Does this give
me the moral high ground?
Marc Thibault
Something to think about while Michael is taking pictures
(lord only knows what he plans to do with them, but it does
sound ominous). I have no idea what conclusions to draw, but
I'm sure somebody else will:
Caucasians in the developed countries seem to be the only ones
concerned about _their_own_ racism. Other groups in developed
countries are concerned about white racism, not their own. In
any other part of the world, the ordinary person is
(a) a raving racist
(b) proud of it
(c) doing everything possible to wipe out anyone with
the wrong religion, different language or
different colored shoes (or doing everything possible
to avoid being wiped out).
There must be a message in there somewhere, but it escapes me.
Paolucci Paul
In article <1993May31.0...@bmerh85.bnr.ca> my...@bigbunny.isis.org (Michael Hui) writes:
>Surely, you all can separate the above from clause 2 of the Canadian
>Charter of Rights and Freedoms, reproduced in its entirety below:
>
> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
> freedom of the press and other media of communication;
> (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
> (d) freedom of association.
>
>For those unfamiliar with Canadian constitutional law, the above was
>passed as the Constitutional Act, 1982, which is actually Schedule B
>of the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.). Clause 2 reproduced above is the only
>clause under the section called Fundamental Freedoms. All other clauses
>deal with legal matters not related to personal freedoms, like:
>democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights, etc.
You neglected to post the section from the Charter that says that
the state has the right to limit these freedoms as the need arises. Another
poster typed that section in a previous message. This has little meaning
when there are "Hate Literature" laws. This is nothing more than a smoke
screen to cover the fact that the government can declare anything it
wants to be "H.L." as well as in other areas. That sweater has been pulled
down to your waist...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBLAnVATAsUV8MXTRTAQGvtwQAiuiR+B8csqdJuGvG32+Dii/kjTVrPNjP
liGJe5ZBL9wMFVlTC6BRggJq4QaRx00/0VPX6WJ/qugMiaKZNhKzNKHxzI5cGGlT
UosPsiloxTDSvAc2PDPqo3b6CzkF68uLPySPrc+5Z2ZDj6KI6d/SDHKE/9zSbhGt
lwrUZ1Hjfs4=
=tJIg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David F. Skoll
paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
> No one has ever been killed by racsism. They have been killed
>by people killing people. The motivations of the people are of little
>concern to the action.
Not true. Are you saying that without the motivating power of racism
and supremacy, the Germans would have murdered 6 million Jews and
6 million non-Jews *anyway*?
Having lived in an extremely racist society (South Africa), I've seen
first-hand the destructiveness of racism. I've seen someone pull a
gun on a black man, knowing he could shoot him and get away with it.
Do you suppose that in a less racist society he would get away with it?
I've seen "mixed-race" kids rejected by both blacks and whites, who
end up in misery because of racist attitudes. I've seen police harrassing
blacks for no reason. I've seen my own *cousins* spit at a blind black
man -- because he was black.
Your assertion that racism doesn't kill is utter bullshit. It is one of
the major causes of misery in the world today.
> Racsism is just a front for other ideas. It is an attitude, a
>thought. Thoughts, opinions, and attitudes never kill; actions do.
Thoughts, opinions and attitudes inevitably lead to action - how could
they not? If you honestly believe, for example, that murder is wrong,
you act on this belief. You don't just sit quietly and hold your
thoughts to yourself.
--
David F. Skoll
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
be under the impression that the general public, the press, and the government
are predisposed to like racists and Nazis. If there is ANY idealogical
group which is universally despised outside the tiny clique of members, it
is white supremicists. If think folks like that are disgusting scum, but
I also know that there are very few of them, and that all this attention you
are trying to lavish on them is going to do more harm than good.
I just had a thought. Maybe the reason for all of this is that the
"International Socialists" realize that the Nazis are the only group
which is more generally despised than they are, and that's why they want
to make a big deal of this. It allows them to to be on the right side
for once.
--Brian
Turmoil
a violent threat. I wish that things in Ottawa had not been so one
sided. It's time to kick some Nazi ass. We send 'em running anytime they
try to go public in the Seattle area. Keep all Nazi's scared and hiding.
Have A Nice Day tur...@halcyon.com
Ted Grusec
>I don't think it's a matter of disalowing speech. These Nazis are clearly
>a violent threat. I wish that things in Ottawa had not been so one
>sided. It's time to kick some Nazi ass. We send 'em running anytime they
>try to go public in the Seattle area. Keep all Nazi's scared and hiding.
>
"Kicking ass" is what "Nazis" have been famous for. Why do you want
anyone "scared and hiding"? Let's have them relaxed and visible so we
can talk publicly and keep our eyes on them.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Grusec - Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Ont., Canada
Internet: ted.g...@crc.doc.ca - (613) 998 2762 - Fax (613) 993 8657
Stephen Watson
>I don't think it's a matter of disalowing speech. These Nazis are clearly
>a violent threat. I wish that things in Ottawa had not been so one
>sided. It's time to kick some Nazi ass. We send 'em running anytime they
>try to go public in the Seattle area. Keep all Nazi's scared and hiding.
Gee, Turmoil, after your reaction to McElwaine's net.defenestration, I
thought you were a no-holds-barred, at-any-cost, free-speecher.
>Have A Nice Day tur...@halcyon.com
I like your new .sig better than the old one.
(Note: Newsgroups line trimmed AGAIN. We don't need this in BOTH local
.events AND local .general groups. And I'm sure the alternative.musicians
are getting really sick of this by now.)
Oh yes, and the obligatory McE take-off:
ARTificial IN-semination I$ covered BY ohip, BUT its NOT A$ much FUN.
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. wat...@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
| this->opinion = My.opinion; assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion); |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn
Wayne Hayes
> No one has ever been killed by racsism.
Are you telling me that slavery in the US, a very extreme form of
racism, didn't kill any blacks? That's as much bullshit as the NRA
saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Sure it's not the
gun's *fault* that someone got shot, but letting people have the means
to easily kill means more people will get killed, simply because you
can inflict more harm with less effort.
> They have been killed
>by people killing people. The motivations of the people are of little
>concern to the action.
Similar to the NRA example, racism is the *power* behind many nasty
actions, including many killings. Racism, sexism, ageism,
choose-your-favourite -ism, they are all causes of ill-will. The
motivations are *very* important, because without the motivations the
actions wouldn't happen.
--
If the Earth is the size of a pea in New York, then the Sun is a beachball 50m
away, Pluto is 4km away, and the next nearest star is in Tokyo. Now shrink
Pluto's orbit into a coffee cup; then our Milky Way Galaxy fills North America.
Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wa...@csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
Turmoil
The reason is because of the violence that follows them wherever they go.
Sometimes the only answer is to PROTECT YOURSELF. or would you just let
these bully beat on women who are protesting againt hate???
I would not.
I know that when we protest Nazi actions, the Nazis are prepared for
violence. I believe in being prepared to counteract that violence in a
very real way...
Everyone has a right to say whatever they want. If they spew that hate
crap around me I will be sure and let them know what I think about it. If
they react with violence, I will try to insure that I "kick butt". Beats
the hell out of getting your but kicked.
Do It!
Rosemary Anne Waigh
>[...] If you want a substantive account of my disagreement with
>the Ottawa Sun's story you so patiently typed in above, read my post in
>the Ottawa Freenet's general discussion newsgroup.
Could you please post it in ont.general too? Not all of us have
access to Ottawa Freenet.
Thanks,
Ro
--
Rosemary Anne Waigh Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rw...@cdf.utoronto.ca University of Toronto
"Five percent of the people in the world consume one-third of its resources...
and produce almost half the non-organic waste...those people are us." Adbusters
Paolucci Paul
Here, here. While I mostly agree with Turmoil (great name BTW),
I have to state that this position is way off base. They breed in the
shadows while hiding and they are not scared, just more determined and
rightly so as they are being discriminated against. We must protect
the rights of ALL people, not the PC or whatever ones. Ideas and
opinions are property of the holder. We cannot discriminate based upon
them or we will be doing the same thing that we "hate".
Michael Hui
>In article <1993May31....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> my...@bigbunny.isis.org (Michael Hui) writes:
>>[...] If you want a substantive account of my disagreement with
>>the Ottawa Sun's story you so patiently typed in above, read my post in
>>the Ottawa Freenet's general discussion newsgroup.
>
>Could you please post it in ont.general too? Not all of us have
>access to Ottawa Freenet.
All right, Mrs. Waigh, here it is:
Here we have a classic case study suitable for a junior level journalism
course. Scot Magnish wrote a short piece on last night's protest against
the neo-Nazi group, published on page four of the Ottawa Sun today. I find
the following classical errors quite amusing:
The story began when the juicy bits started, at 10:30 pm, almost completely
ignoring the protest that had started at 6:30 pm, which was no where near
the Boys and Girls Club, the neo-Nazi's location for their concert.
One short paragraph in the middle of the story mentioned what went on prior
to 10:30 pm, thus: "Earlier in the night, more than 700 protesters had
besieged the Boys and Girls club trying to get at the neo-Nazis inside."
Absolutely no mention was made of what happened between 6:30 pm and 9:00 pm
anywhere in the story. I believe there was a protest during that time?
The story concentrated on the fight between the protesting crowd and the
police, thus: "About 15 police officers in regular uniform, some of them
from the bicycle patrol, were pelted with rocks, bottles and eggs as they
fought to keep the crowd at bay about 9:00 pm." Reading the story, one gets
the impression that the situation was unchanged, the location unchanged,
all night until the neo-Nazi group left the building.
The paper was given out for free today at the IGA Lincoln Heights Galleria
by an IGA employee within the IGA supermarket's premises. The mind boggles
at the business connection there.
Darin Cowan
> Canada has a law against Canadian citizens fighting in the military
> of other countries - in other words, a law against mercenary activity.
> According to the Ottawa Sun, Droege has broken that law.
>
Beg your pardon? can you provide the reference? My father was in the US
Army, and remained Canadian the whole time. Friends of mine who were and/or
still are Canadian citizens have served with the British, American, and
New Zealand militaries.
The Canadian military allows people who are not citizens to be serving members.
Starting your OWN army *MAY* be illegal, but I can't really find a reference
in my copy of the criminal code.
--
Darin Cowan - co...@balsam.pinetree.org | I just try to make people's
VE3 OIJ | lives a little more surreal
Darin Cowan
> I highly recommend that you also read the Ottawa Citizen's front page story
> on this same event. The Ottawa Sun has been reduced to giving their paper
> away at IGA supermarkets (I got a free one this morning at Lincoln Heights).
> Their reporting is known to be biased, poorly written, sensational, and
> most of the time, especially when the story deals with labour unions,
> ultra-right wing. If you want a substantive account of my disagreement with
> the Ottawa Sun's story you so patiently typed in above, read my post in
> the Ottawa Freenet's general discussion newsgroup.
On the other hand, the Citizen has a distasteful left-wing bias that cheapens
the whole paper. Read both papers and average the two out and you might
get close to the truth.
Marc Thibault
> This is not the slightest bit hypocritical. The statement "Nazis out of Otta
> is not racist. Nazism is not a race. People CHOSE to be follow racist, faci
> movements. People do not chose their skin color or their sexual orientation
> and should not be discriminated against on that basis.
They _do_ choose their religions, however, and their
occupations, their causes, the places they live and their
hobbies and recreations. So it is OK to discriminate against
Adventists, textile workers, eco-freaks (though this might be
better classed as religion), the entire population of Kanata,
joggers, and people in power boats.
Boy! That takes a load off of my mind!
Marc Thibault
> I agree with your conclusion but the reasoning seems flawed..
That _would_ suggest that the conclusion is flawed, unless you
can come up with a better rationale. Of course, that's the
root of the problem: the conclusion is immutable and
everything else is an attempt to explain it.
Michael Hui
>On the other hand, the Citizen has a distasteful left-wing bias that cheapens
>the whole paper. Read both papers and average the two out and you might
>get close to the truth.
The Citizen's articles do make you think a bit before jumping to your
conclusion, thus making the paper "hard to read."
The Sun's articles are much simpler, uses prose identical to street
conversation favored by the stereotypical bacon-frying beer-belching
Canadian couch potatoe (new spelling), thus are "easier to read."
Sadly, if the paper's opinion conform to the ruling party's propaganda,
and presents it in a simplistic way, it's very easy to digest, thus
making it "easy to read."
Take your pick. It's your life. It's your vote. It's your money.
Are you better now than you were eight years ago?
David F. Skoll
Cowan) writes:
>d...@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
>> Canada has a law against Canadian citizens fighting in the military
>> of other countries - in other words, a law against mercenary activity.
>> According to the Ottawa Sun, Droege has broken that law.
>Beg your pardon? can you provide the reference? My father was in the US
>Army, and remained Canadian the whole time. Friends of mine who were and/or
>still are Canadian citizens have served with the British, American, and
>New Zealand militaries.
My mistake. I was told this by a friend - I assumed he knew what he was
talking about.
I suspect (but I'm not sure) that mercenary activity may be illegal.
Anyone from can.legal?
--
David F. Skoll
David F. Skoll
In <1993Jun1.0...@bmerh85.bnr.ca> my...@bigbunny.isis.org
(Michael Hui) writes:
>Here we have a classic case study suitable for a junior level journalism
>course. Scot Magnish wrote a short piece on last night's protest against
>the neo-Nazi group, published on page four of the Ottawa Sun today. I find
>the following classical errors quite amusing:
> The story began when the juicy bits started, at 10:30 pm, almost completely
> ignoring the protest that had started at 6:30 pm, which was no where near
> the Boys and Girls Club, the neo-Nazi's location for their concert.
The story was stricyly about the "melee", which did start around
10:30pm. It's true that the protest was barely mentioned, but the
article was only about the clash afterwards.
> The story concentrated on the fight between the protesting crowd and the
> police, thus: "About 15 police officers in regular uniform, some of them
> from the bicycle patrol, were pelted with rocks, bottles and eggs as they
> fought to keep the crowd at bay about 9:00 pm." Reading the story, one gets
> the impression that the situation was unchanged, the location unchanged,
> all night until the neo-Nazi group left the building.
The Sun is sensational. But its level of journalism is no worse than
our other rag -- and at least it isn't pretentious like the Citizen.
(Plus, it has a much better TV guide! :-))
--
David F. Skoll
Pugwash -- Michael Gifford
ways of causing any substantial change to the problems of racism and
skin-heads in Ottawa.. And so far this thread has been unable to look
at this issue with any degree of seriousness..
Violence is nieve..
If you think it is going to cause any real positive change in this
society you are dead wrong..
In <1udpse$7...@nwfocus.wa.com> tur...@halcyon.com (Turmoil) writes:
>The reason is because of the violence that follows them wherever they
go.
>Sometimes the only answer is to PROTECT YOURSELF. or would you just
let
>these bully beat on women who are protesting againt hate???
Let's be frank her Turmoil.. There were a few people within a crowd
of 600-700 people who were advocating violence.. It was within that
small group of perhaps 50 people at the most, that the Nazi's (from
what I understand) attacked and beat up on several of the protesters..
But what the hell do you expect when 50 people follow 200 Nazi's late
into the night? They were looking for conflict and they found it..
Many of my friends were amongst the other 650 odd people, who came
thinking that it would be a peaceful protest.. Came thinking that
ultimately they and often their children would be safe.. Most of the
people came thinking that their greatest enemy to their personal
safety would be the Nazi's themselves.. Unfortunately because of the
lies and lack of structure or discipline more people were more
endangered by their fellow protesters than by the Nazi's..
>I would not.
That's great.. The question is would you be leading this violent
confrontation of unarmed, untrained and unprepared protesters to the
Nazi's with their lead pipes, knives and experience or would you just
run after them yourself.. To the best of my knowledge the woman who
was attacked knew full well what she was getting herself into.. Maybe
this smaller group of 50 protesters thought that they could actually
fend off a group of 200 Nazi's.. Who knows.. But it appears that
they are wrong..
>I know that when we protest Nazi actions, the Nazis are prepared for
>violence. I believe in being prepared to counteract that violence in
a
>very real way...
This will be terrific for the media.. The news will be getting better
ratings than will hockey night in Canada.. Great.. Beating the shit
out of skinheads isn't going to do anything.. At the very best it
will force them out of the cities into smaller rural communities..
Big f*%king victory..
The protesters were using fire crackers, paint, eggs, rocks, boots,
shouting
violent slogans, ext.. Nice..
Do you actually think that you will be able to get enough people
trained effectively in the use fo violence to counteract the HF..
What are you going to do? Set up a training camp in the use of
martial arts, lead pipes or staffs, or perhaps guns? Great.. But I
don't want it here in Ottawa..
>Everyone has a right to say whatever they want. If they spew that
hate
>crap around me I will be sure and let them know what I think about
it. If
>they react with violence, I will try to insure that I "kick butt".
Beats
>the hell out of getting your but kicked.
The problem is that you would be getting yourself into a position
where you expect violence.. Sure, let them know that racism and
homophobia will not be tolerated.. But you are walking a really fine
line here, because it looks a hell of a lot like you want a fight..
That isn't self defence..
If something goes wrong and you have miscalcualted your position, and
you are attacked.. Sure you will probably do everything in your power
to defend yourslef.. But if you enter a position where you expect to
be attacked, you can't quite claim the same level of innocence..
Violence is about resourcelessness, not about power..
>Do It!
Great! At what is understood as a non-violent protest just go ahead
and threaten everyone elses safety by trying to satisfy your own anger
by using violence.. Thanks alot.. I am sure that everyone will
thankyou for it.. Get real.. You sure as hell won't be the hero that
you think you are..
The problems that happened at the protest happened because of people
like you.. I am really glad that you weren't there.. Otherwise
perhaps one of my friends would have been injured by one of your
actions..
Mike..
Madman
my own comments to Michael Hui's critique below.
|> The story began when the juicy bits started, at 10:30 pm, almost completely
|> ignoring the protest that had started at 6:30 pm, which was no where near
|> the Boys and Girls Club, the neo-Nazi's location for their concert.
|>
|> One short paragraph in the middle of the story mentioned what went on prior
|> to 10:30 pm, thus: "Earlier in the night, more than 700 protesters had
|> besieged the Boys and Girls club trying to get at the neo-Nazis inside."
The 700 protesters were not trying to get at the Neo-Nazis. The crowd was split
between about 500-600 who were not interested in confrontation, and 100 who
were.
|> Absolutely no mention was made of what happened between 6:30 pm and 9:00 pm
|> anywhere in the story. I believe there was a protest during that time?
|>
|> The story concentrated on the fight between the protesting crowd and the
|> police, thus: "About 15 police officers in regular uniform, some of them
|> from the bicycle patrol, were pelted with rocks, bottles and eggs as they
|> fought to keep the crowd at bay about 9:00 pm." Reading the story, one gets
This is wrong. I was right on the front line, acting as a marshal between
the demo and the cops. I saw eggs thrown, and one bottle, but no rocks. He
also makes reference to "cherry bombs" in such a way as to create the
impression that bombs were being thrown all over the place by the entire
crowd. In fact, one person threw a total of 3 firecrackers. He was angrily
denounced by members of the "seething mob" of protesters.
|> the impression that the situation was unchanged, the location unchanged,
|> all night until the neo-Nazi group left the building.
|>
The Sun also says that "cops were forced to use pepper spray." This is also
false. One cop panicked while the crowd was surging a bit, and used pepper
spray on the line of marshals who were trying to hold the crowd back. (Typical
cop justice. Incidentally, I was amused to read that a cop also got the spray.
Serves him right.)
The Sun also writes that the battle left "Nazis bloodied, and protesters
bruised." The real situation was vice versa. The Nazis kicked a few protesters
heads in. Then the Sun writes that two people were arrested, and one charged
with assault, failing to mention that NO NAZIS WERE ARRESTED OR CHARGED.
Finally, from reading both the sun and the Citizen, one could get the
impression that there was no marshalling at the rally. In fact, there were
60 marshals who held the line between the demo and the cops for hours, then
successfully moved the demo back, and led it away down Bronson Street, long
before the violence began.
The rally was a success. The Nazis' gig was wrecked, and they had to cower
behind the cops for 4 hours. It is unfortunate that some protesters did not
understand that fighting the Nazis physically is only worthwhile when you
are guaranteed to win. We are not yet at that stage, but when we are, we
will smash them.
-- Madman
Crispin Cowan
>In article <XN1F5B...@balsam.pinetree.org> co...@balsam.pinetree.org (Darin Cowan) writes:
>>On the other hand, the Citizen has a distasteful left-wing bias that cheapens
>>the whole paper. Read both papers and average the two out and you might
>>get close to the truth.
>
>The Citizen's articles do make you think a bit before jumping to your
>conclusion, thus making the paper "hard to read."
>The Sun's articles are much simpler, uses prose identical to street
So read the Globe.
> Are you better now than you were eight years ago?
Yes, absolutely. The Tory government is unpopular because they've don
responsible things instead of bread and circuses. The GST didn't bring
them any benefit, just a lot of grief. It was for the good of the
country. Try to imagine a complicit or corrupt motivation for bringing
in such an unpopular tax.
Crispin
-----
Crispin Cowan, CS grad student, University of Western Ontario
Phyz-mail: Middlesex College, MC28-C, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7
E-mail: cri...@csd.uwo.ca Voice: 519-661-3342
"If you see a skier, turn. Trees too." Burton rendition of the
Skier's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Snowboarder's Responsibility Code
Darin Cowan
>
>Are you telling me that slavery in the US, a very extreme form of
>racism, didn't kill any blacks? That's as much bullshit as the NRA
>saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Sure it's not the
>gun's *fault* that someone got shot, but letting people have the means
>to easily kill means more people will get killed, simply because you
>can inflict more harm with less effort.
>
>actions, including many killings. Racism, sexism, ageism,
>choose-your-favourite -ism, they are all causes of ill-will. The
>motivations are *very* important, because without the motivations the
>actions wouldn't happen.
But, in Canada more people are killed by knives and blunt instruments, by
a ratio of nearly 2:1 over guns. In the US, more people are killed by guns
but do you think the carnage would stop without guns?
Not bloody likely. People will beat each other to death with toasters if
that's all that's left. The fact that there are murders in all countries
despite varying firearms regulation invalidates the claim that making it easy
to kill with guns means that more people will do it. The reason there are so
many murders in the US is because there is a social rot that is affecting
the whole country. The killings are a symptom, and guns are an insignificant
part of that. Same thing in this country, just on a smaller scale.
Cars kill more people than all the guns everywhere. Guns don't kill people,
and neither do cars. Idiots kill people with whatever is available, for
whatever reason and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it other than
lock the person up after the fact.
Jim Charters
>
>Canada has a law against Canadian citizens fighting in the military
>of other countries - in other words, a law against mercenary activity.
Not at all. The only time you could get into legal trouble (not to
mention the possibility of death or dismemberment :-) ) is if you are
a Canadian citizen serving in the armed services of a country that
Canada is at war with. It is still called high treason, and the
punishment can be very severe.....
--
#include <standard_disclaimer>
Jim Charters
Geophysicist & Chief Computer Flunkey / University of Toronto Geology
Toronto / Ont. / CANADA / M5S 3B1 / char...@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca
Darin Cowan
> In article <XN1F5B...@balsam.pinetree.org> co...@balsam.pinetree.org (Dari
> >On the other hand, the Citizen has a distasteful left-wing bias that cheapen
> >the whole paper. Read both papers and average the two out and you might
> >get close to the truth.
>
> The Citizen's articles do make you think a bit before jumping to your
> conclusion, thus making the paper "hard to read."
>
> The Sun's articles are much simpler, uses prose identical to street
> conversation favored by the stereotypical bacon-frying beer-belching
> Canadian couch potatoe (new spelling), thus are "easier to read."
Sometimes the Citizen articles make you think... harder to read, but at
least informative. SOme of the columnists are wayyyyyy out there though
and don't seem to think before they write - reducing the need to think
while reading.
I find Michel Gratton of teh Sun to be the most offensive columnist
though, followed by the Citizen editorial page, the "Doktor Kulture" guy
and Janice Kennedy tied for third.
You want to read a real rag, pick up the Victoria Times-Communist, er
Columnist.
Darin Cowan
> Anyone from can.legal?
>
Canada for "crimes" committed abroad. I would be curious to find out how
that is handled... With any luck an enlightened individual from
can.legal will fill us in.
James Strober
In article <1993Jun1.1...@julian.uwo.ca>, cri...@csd.uwo.ca (Crispin Cowan) writes:
|> In article <1993Jun1.1...@bmerh85.bnr.ca> my...@bigbunny.isis.org (Michael Hui) writes:
|>
|> > Are you better now than you were eight years ago?
|> Yes, absolutely. The Tory government is unpopular because they've don
|> responsible things instead of bread and circuses. The GST didn't bring
|> them any benefit, just a lot of grief. It was for the good of the
|> country. Try to imagine a complicit or corrupt motivation for bringing
|> in such an unpopular tax.
Is being non-corrupt and without complicity your only criteria to define a responsible
government ?
If so, my but your standards are low.
Personally, I also expect some degree of competence and fiscal responsibility.
|>
|> Crispin
|> -----
|> Crispin Cowan, CS grad student, University of Western Ontario
|> Phyz-mail: Middlesex College, MC28-C, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7
|> E-mail: cri...@csd.uwo.ca Voice: 519-661-3342
|> "If you see a skier, turn. Trees too." Burton rendition of the
|> Skier's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Snowboarder's Responsibility Code
--
=============================================================================
James P. Strober
=============================================================================
Evan Leibovitch
thread long ago ceased to be an event announcement. ]
In article <1993May27.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
gshe...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Swag Valance) writes:
>No, but it is a political belief. Is it any more just then to cry
>"Social Democrats out of France!" or "Libertarians out of the U.S.!"?
Or, more appropriately, "Communists out of the U.S." Do you really mean to
tell me you've never heard that?
We're not *that* far out of the Sixties, when the term "America -- Love it
or Leave it" echoed the sentiment of many, that critical political beliefs
were certainly unwelcome, and their adherants should get out.
We're many decades out of the McCarthy era, yet people can still be denied
entry to the U.S., even for a visit or a speaking engagement, based on their
political beliefs.
Apparently Americans have the right to free speech, but (at least some)
foreigners don't. This flies in the face of the claim that the U.S.
Constitution declares freedom of speech to be an inherant right of man.
If it's inherant, why don't non-Americans have it?
How fine a line do you draw between "get out" and "don't come in"?
>When does it become okay to claim that someone does not belong in your
>neighborhood? If not by race, how about religion -- "Moslems out of
>Ottawa!"? Or perhaps something sillier like "Vegetarians out of Ottawa!"?
>[...]
>What you are advocating is excommunicating people whose values or opinions
>you do not agree with.
Protests like this happen all the time, on both sides of the border. Try
to put an AIDS hospice, or a John Howard Society half-way house, or a
mosque, or an abortion clinic, or some such into certain communities and
see what happens. Under the guise of zoning (or other seemingly innocent)
bylaws, such excommunication happens all the time.
While this is nothing for Canada to be proud of, let's not get into a
delusion that the U.S. does not practise similar exclusionary tactics.
I was recently involved in a meeting which described attempts to make
the school board in Amherst, NY a litle more tolerant of non-Christians
by (for instance) getting schools to tone down their Christmas programs.
Putting aside church/state issues, I was amazed at the reaction of those
who opposed the move, saying that the U.S. is a Christian country, and
people of other religions should accept that or get out. This was just
last year, and this attitude apparently still carries a significant amount
of political weight.
>Now if the Nazis do something to violate another's
>constitutional rights, they should be penalized fully under the law for
>such crimes.
The Nazis advocate, quite clearly, the denial of "constitutional rights"
to significant parts of the population. That is their platform. The
details vary from splinter group to splinter group, but their aim is to
re-establish the dominance of the white race through political means.
Barring that, some are openly advocating a "race war".
>Right -- demonstration is one thing, but saying "Get out of our neighborhoods!
>We don't want people with your political views living around here!" is
>another thing.
Sorry, but I think many people would have a gut reaction, that you'd
prefer not to live next door to someone who has proclaimed puclicly that
he wants you dead. Call it instinct, I dunno.
It's a strange irony, that you're advocating the rights of a group that would
instantly revoke most such universal rights if they had the power to do so.
("Hmm. Sherman. Sounds Jewish. Yup, you're with them...")
>I guess I just don't think that people should not have the right to live where
>they want to because of their opinions or political beliefs -- that's
>what oppressive countries like China are for.
All I can remember is that (it seems like ancient) march of Nazis
through a Chicago suburb of Skokie(sp?), an area that was known for a
high Jewish population, and a high number of concentration camp
survivers. It was at that time that I challenged in my own mind whether
freedom of speech really should, in all cases, override the freedom of
people not to be forced to listen. Maybe the Ottawa rally isn't "being
forced to listen", but certainly Skokie was.
Do you not find it hypocritical that foreign communists can still be
denied entry into the U.S., but that the residents of Skokie could do
nothing to prevent Nazis from outside the community to collect in their
backyards?
I'm happy that so many of you are comfortable with such a cut-and-dry
hierarchy of rights (ie, free speech *always* overrides democratic will).
I haven't been able to see the issue as being that tidy for a long time.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
ev...@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
The simple truth is that the truth is never simple -- Linda Ellerbee
Rosemary Anne Waigh
>It is unfortunate that some protesters did not
>understand that fighting the Nazis physically is only worthwhile when you
>are guaranteed to win. We are not yet at that stage, but when we are, we
>will smash them.
Is fighting the Nazis physically* ever worthwhile? What would be the
point? It seems to me hypocritical for the side which (I thought)
advocates harmony among all people to use violence.
I am reminded of two studies described in _The_Compassionate_Beast:_The_
_Scientific_Inquiry_Into_Human_Altruism_, by Morton Hunt. Samuel Oliner
compared people who had helped to rescue Jews from the Nazis to people
who didn't. His findings:
"Just as many rescuers as nonrescuers were disciplined by their
parents for bad behavior--but the parents of rescuers depended
significantly less on physical punishment and significantly more
on reasoning or explaining than the parents of nonrescuers did.
The difference is great enough to make us 99.9 percent confident
of that finding. That's confident!"
A study by Martin Hoffman and Herbert Saltzstein, concerning child-rearing
methods, found
"Power assertion and love withdrawal often produced the desired
behavior but not character change. The children complied reluctantly
and with anger, anxiety, or guilt, but without internalizing the
parents' (and thus society's) norms. Induction [explaining how the
child's actions would make the other person feel], on the other hand,
especially by warm and loving parents, not only yielded the desired
behavior but an awareness of others' feelings and needs, and began the
internalizing of the parents' and society's standards."
Let's continue to fight unjust philosophies, such as that espoused by
the Heritage Front, with reasoned explanations rather than brutality.
Ro
*I'm not including self-defence here.
Rosemary Anne Waigh
>In article <1993May31....@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wa...@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:
>>
>>That's as much bullshit as the NRA
>>saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Sure it's not the
>>gun's *fault* that someone got shot, but letting people have the means
>>to easily kill means more people will get killed, simply because you
>>can inflict more harm with less effort.
>
>a ratio of nearly 2:1 over guns. In the US, more people are killed by guns
>but do you think the carnage would stop without guns?
>
>Not bloody likely. People will beat each other to death with toasters if
>that's all that's left. The fact that there are murders in all countries
>despite varying firearms regulation invalidates the claim that making it easy
>to kill with guns means that more people will do it.
No it doesn't. I don't think anyone has claimed that controlling guns
eliminates violence, just that it reduces the danger.
It is easier to kill in a moment of passion if you're armed with a gun
than if you're armed with a toaster. (Not that I've tried either :-) ).
Wayne Hayes
>But, in Canada more people are killed by knives and blunt instruments, by
>a ratio of nearly 2:1 over guns. In the US, more people are killed by guns
>but do you think the carnage would stop without guns?
Many, many years ago I saw an advertisement from a US citizens group
in some US magazine. It had a cut-out of the American flag in the shape
of a pistol, and text that went something like this:
"In America last year, 20,217 people were killed by hand-held guns.
200 in Britain
100 in Canada
78 in Australia
23 in Sweden
[ similar statistics for a few more lines]
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!"
Although I just made up those numbers, the original numbers were just as
startling. I am certain the US number was twenty-thousand something, and
the rest were below 1000. Obviously the citizen's group were employing
sarcasm in an effort to lobby for more gun control in the US.
The point is that when you make lethal weapons easy to acquire, people
die more often by those weapons. It's as simple as that.
>Cars kill more people than all the guns everywhere. Guns don't kill people,
>and neither do cars. Idiots kill people with whatever is available, for
>whatever reason
So what? Heart disease kills far more people than cars. Does that mean we
shouldn't try to make roads safer for drivers, bikers, pedestrians, etc? You're
appealing to reasoning saying "There are greater evils, so we can ignore
this one." I don't buy that reasoning, and neither does society. Otherwise
murder (or whatever crime you think is the worst crime possible) would be
the only punishable crime. Pick-pocteting is still a crime, even though it
pales completely as compared to murder.
>and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it other than
>lock the person up after the fact.
Maybe in some cases, but not when there such a simple solution as making
it harder to acquire a gun.
Chris Lewis
>I'm happy that so many of you are comfortable with such a cut-and-dry
>hierarchy of rights (ie, free speech *always* overrides democratic will).
>I haven't been able to see the issue as being that tidy for a long time.
Neither does the US Supreme Court, which has repeatedly upheld that certain
types of speech are not protected by the constitution. Such as hate
or "violent overthrow" speech with "clear and present danger" to society,
child porn, and certain other extreme forms of pornography.
--
Chris Lewis; cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Paolucci Paul
(probably the ones that the poster is alluding to) posted here almost like
this just recently? Can someone straighten this discussion out? These figures
are TOTALLY bogus!
In article <1993Jun1.2...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wa...@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:
>dco...@manitou.cse.dnd.ca (Darin Cowan) writes:
>>But, in Canada more people are killed by knives and blunt instruments, by
>>a ratio of nearly 2:1 over guns. In the US, more people are killed by guns
>>but do you think the carnage would stop without guns?
>
>Many, many years ago I saw an advertisement from a US citizens group
>in some US magazine. It had a cut-out of the American flag in the shape
>of a pistol, and text that went something like this:
>
> "In America last year, 20,217 people were killed by hand-held guns.
>
> 200 in Britain
> 100 in Canada
> 78 in Australia
> 23 in Sweden
> [ similar statistics for a few more lines]
>
> GOD BLESS AMERICA!!"
>
>Although I just made up those numbers, the original numbers were just as
>startling.
Yes, they were startling, but WRONG. The statistic is not what you
are quoting, but the numbers may be right for ANOTHER DATA POINT.
I am certain the US number was twenty-thousand something, and
>the rest were below 1000. Obviously the citizen's group were employing
>sarcasm in an effort to lobby for more gun control in the US.
>
>The point is that when you make lethal weapons easy to acquire, people
>die more often by those weapons. It's as simple as that.
>
>>Cars kill more people than all the guns everywhere. Guns don't kill people,
>>and neither do cars. Idiots kill people with whatever is available, for
>>whatever reason
>
>So what? Heart disease kills far more people than cars. Does that mean we
>shouldn't try to make roads safer for drivers, bikers, pedestrians, etc?
How would you make the streets safer? By getting rid of cars?! Or
by teaching people HOW TO DRIVE BETTER AND SAFER (guns classes?!)?!
You're
>appealing to reasoning saying "There are greater evils, so we can ignore
>this one."
Who is trying to ignore it? You are saying that the alternative to
ignoring it is to get rid of guns... not the same thing.
I don't buy that reasoning, and neither does society. Otherwise
>murder (or whatever crime you think is the worst crime possible) would be
>the only punishable crime. Pick-pocteting is still a crime, even though it
>pales completely as compared to murder.
WHAT are you saying here?
>>and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it other than
>>lock the person up after the fact.
>
>Maybe in some cases, but not when there such a simple solution as making
>it harder to acquire a gun.
NAME ONE STUDY IN WHICH GUN CONTROL HAS BEEN SHOWN TO REDUCE CRIME...
(Hint: You can't.) The guns are not the problem. The rotting and decaying
societies of the West are the problem. Yeah, sure... England has no more
violent crime since the guns were banned... (Hint: Violent crime is GOING UP
in England!)
>--
>If the Earth is the size of a pea in New York, then the Sun is a beachball 50m
>away, Pluto is 4km away, and the next nearest star is in Tokyo. Now shrink
>Pluto's orbit into a coffee cup; then our Milky Way Galaxy fills North America.
>Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wa...@csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
Nifty perspective. Thanks for putting that in your .sig.
T.P.G.ers; HELP!
Darin Cowan
> Cars kill more people than all the guns everywhere. Guns don't kill people,
> and neither do cars.
Now that was grammatical genius... I suppose I should re-read these before I
hit the send key... oh well, the meaning is obvious even if the English
leaves much to be desired.
Stephen Watson
>T.P.G.ers; HELP!
By all means, argue it out, but before the flames get well started
*PLEASE* remove ott.events from the Newsgroups line!!!!! (as I have
done above)
And also, keep in mind this is still cross-posted to ott.general and
ont.general. So if your comments relate primarily to US law and the
precious whatever-amendment-it-is, once again, PLEASE limit postings
appropriately! We don't allow many guns in this country, and most of
us seem to like it that way. So kindly keep in mind that, whatever
justifications you may have for the way things are/ought to be done in
the US of A, other countries have made different choices, and seem to
be reasonably happy with then.
And that, I hope, is my one and only contribution to this thread!
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. wat...@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
| this->opinion = My.opinion; assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion); |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn
Evan Leibovitch
paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
>So only people with the correct and just lines of thought are
>to be allowed to move to "your town"?!
That is certainly what white supremacists advocate. What do you think
cross burnings were?
Think that's ancient history? Look at the opposition raised in communities
when confronted with proposals for, say, adult bookstores.
Adult material is legal to purchase. If there wasn't a demand, the store
couldn't survive in a free market. So what's the objection? Opposition
to the "kind" of clientele such stores attract -- clientele whose only
difference from the population at large is their attitude towards sex.
Yet the community movements to run these stores out of town are
persistent and sometimes successful.
Or maybe you haven't heard of that kid in Florida who received AIDS
through a blood transfusion, then was kicked out of school and his
family pressured to move away?
Seen the movie "First Blood"? :-)
>Who is to decide this correctness
>of thought? You do not sound like you wish to defend ANY thought save
>for your own.
I will defend any opinion that does not advocate taking away my right to
defend opinions. :-)
>Is there
>a law against "recruiting people"?
Depending on context, yes.
Most communities have laws against solicitation for the purposes of
prostitution. Hookers and johns can be arrested, not for committing the
act of sex-for-pay, but just by meeting each other.
The owner of a property may disallow some groups and allow others on
their grounds for the purpose of solicitation for any purpose.
It is against the law to "recruit" someone to commit a crime, even if
that crime is not committed. Conspiracy laws, I believe they're called.
>Is there a law against "giving
>people weapons"?
In Canada (and many other countries) certainly.
I believe that in the U.S., to own a handgun legally (even if it is
given to you) you must be approriatly licensed.
> 1) People miving to live in your area
> 2) People (after having moved) demostrating or holding rallies
> 3) People (after having moved) performing illegal acts
>Now, 1 must be allowed. Are we to decide what people can think
>in certain places?
So have you pressured your government to make it illegal for communities
to use zoning bylaws to keep out gays, ex-cons, adult movies, etc.?
>Also, 2 must be allowed. Are we to decide who can and can't hold
>a rally?
I believe that most communities are entitled to require permits for
rallies, a power which gives these communities the ability to manipulate
the permits to their advantage.
>Remember, your anti-HF rally is more discriminitory than the
>rally they are holding. "You wish to say "You can't be here because of
>this and that thoughts." Who will decide what thoughts are to be "OK"?
The HF advocates that large segments of the population have no right to
exist (in Canada), that *we* can't be here because of this or that
religion or country of origin or beliefs or skin colour or whatever.
You can try to talk a white supremacist into changing their beliefs, and
thus no longer subject to your objections.
The HF's criteria, based on ancestry, can never be changed. There is
nothing blacks can do that would make them acceptable to the white
supremacist's political vision.
>Who will decide what thoughts are to be "OK"?
According to the HF, the white race will decide. Most of these groups
have very clear, and sometimes complex, formulae regarding who is
entitled to call themselves "white". (All those cross-breeds running
around now, don'tcha know?)
>> They're welcome to their opinions, but are they welcome to carry
>>out acts like this without interference? I think not!
> Doesn't sound like you are welcoming them to their opinions.
You haven't seen the scenes around abortion clinic these days. Operation
Rescue has turned the act of interfering with someone's opinions, into an
art form. Killing a doctor was the most radical action, but the ongoing
"moderate" campaign of harassment and stalking victimizes great numbers
of people.
(I do *not* want to get into the abortion debate, but it is necessary to
point out that the activity of interfering with someone's opinions, in a
manner far more virulent than the anti-HF rally, takes place daily around
the continent. The abortion reference here is but one example.)
Evan Leibovitch
paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
>THAT is a major flaw. No literature hurts anyone.
I really can't believe that anyone with even an elementary knowledge of
history can say this.
Mein Kampf was used as the justification for the slaughter of millions
in the Holocaust.
Parts of the Bible and the Quran have been taken out of context as
the pretext of horrible wars and crusades.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been used by religious leaders
and governments to paint a whole race of people, merely based on their
ancestry, as evil.
There are certainly many other examples which don't come to mind right
away.
The pages do not do the deed, but they give believers the moral
conviction, rationale, and sometimes even the tactics, to do it.
"No literature hurts anyone." is for philosophy courses. In the real
world, literature has been the source of much suffering of this planet.
That does not mean I advocate banning of literature. But please don't
pretend that literature is harmless.
Swag Valance
> thread long ago ceased to be an event announcement. ]
>
>In article <1993May27.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
> gshe...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Swag Valance) writes:
>
>>No, but it is a political belief. Is it any more just then to cry
>>"Social Democrats out of France!" or "Libertarians out of the U.S.!"?
>
>Or, more appropriately, "Communists out of the U.S." Do you really mean to
>tell me you've never heard that?
Of course not, though I do not see your point of mentioning this in this
context. Are you implying that saying "Communists out of the U.S." or
McCarthyism is somehow just?
>We're many decades out of the McCarthy era, yet people can still be denied
>entry to the U.S., even for a visit or a speaking engagement, based on their
>political beliefs.
So this makes it correct and just? I don't understand your point. Are
you advocating banishing people from your neighborhood or country whose
political beliefs do not suit your tastes or liking?
>Apparently Americans have the right to free speech, but (at least some)
>foreigners don't. This flies in the face of the claim that the U.S.
>Constitution declares freedom of speech to be an inherant right of man.
>If it's inherant, why don't non-Americans have it?
What the heck does any of my post have to do with Americans anyway?
I think you completely missed the subject, as it wasnt about any nation
at all.
>>When does it become okay to claim that someone does not belong in your
>>neighborhood? If not by race, how about religion -- "Moslems out of
>>Ottawa!"? Or perhaps something sillier like "Vegetarians out of Ottawa!"?
>>[...]
>>What you are advocating is excommunicating people whose values or opinions
>>you do not agree with.
>
>Protests like this happen all the time, on both sides of the border. Try
>to put an AIDS hospice, or a John Howard Society half-way house, or a
>mosque, or an abortion clinic, or some such into certain communities and
>see what happens. Under the guise of zoning (or other seemingly innocent)
>bylaws, such excommunication happens all the time.
So therefore we should not only condone it, but impose it ourselves? Is
this form of NIMBY-ism a model by which we should all drive out anyone
we don't like or approve of from our neighborhoods or countries?
>
>While this is nothing for Canada to be proud of, let's not get into a
>delusion that the U.S. does not practise similar exclusionary tactics.
I think you totally misread my post, it had nothing to do with some
"U.S. is better than Canada" thing you seem to be implying here. It
was not about countries at all, but about the ethics of someone who shouts
"xxxxx out of yyyyy!" or "xxxxx is not welcome here!" -- whether here is
the corner of 4th and Maple, planet earth, the Milky Way galaxy, whatever.
>
>I was recently involved in a meeting which described attempts to make
>the school board in Amherst, NY a litle more tolerant of non-Christians
>by (for instance) getting schools to tone down their Christmas programs.
>Putting aside church/state issues, I was amazed at the reaction of those
>who opposed the move, saying that the U.S. is a Christian country, and
>people of other religions should accept that or get out. This was just
>last year, and this attitude apparently still carries a significant amount
>of political weight.
So is this right? Relevance, please.
>
>>Now if the Nazis do something to violate another's
>>constitutional rights, they should be penalized fully under the law for
>>such crimes.
>
>The Nazis advocate, quite clearly, the denial of "constitutional rights"
>to significant parts of the population. That is their platform. The
>details vary from splinter group to splinter group, but their aim is to
>re-establish the dominance of the white race through political means.
But does that mean the rest of us are idiotic lemmings who say, "Hmmm -
those Nazi's say that these people shouldn't have constitutional rights --
OK". Give the populace a little more credit than that. If I had a platform
that I wanted to abolish the constitutional rights of left-handed plummers,
taht is my right to be so ignorant. that doesn't mean anybody has to listen
to me or take me seriously.
>
>>Right -- demonstration is one thing, but saying "Get out of our neighborhoods!
>>We don't want people with your political views living around here!" is
>>another thing.
>
>Sorry, but I think many people would have a gut reaction, that you'd
>prefer not to live next door to someone who has proclaimed puclicly that
>he wants you dead. Call it instinct, I dunno.
I would agree with that. But does that entitle me to be ethically right
in advocating running somebody out of town because they don't like me?
Be serious. I mean, isn't this the same thing the Nazis are guilty of?
>
>It's a strange irony, that you're advocating the rights of a group that would
>instantly revoke most such universal rights if they had the power to do so.
>("Hmm. Sherman. Sounds Jewish. Yup, you're with them...")
So since these people have it in their interest to revoke rights of others,
that entitles me to deny them their rights, right? If anything, THAT'S the
irony. If we MUST address the subject of U.S. constitutional rights,
how about this for a revision to big Bill: "We hold these
truths to be self evident -- that all men are created equal. Except for
those who think that we aren't all equal, they aren't equal with the rest
of us."
Let's see, Bob X hates lawyers, and if he had it in his power -- he would
have them all lose their jobs and live in squalor. That's it -- Bob X is
a subversive enemy of the state, let's run him out of town or lock him up.
>
>>I guess I just don't think that people should not have the right to live where
>>they want to because of their opinions or political beliefs -- that's
>>what oppressive countries like China are for.
>
>All I can remember is that (it seems like ancient) march of Nazis
>through a Chicago suburb of Skokie(sp?), an area that was known for a
>high Jewish population, and a high number of concentration camp
>survivers. It was at that time that I challenged in my own mind whether
>freedom of speech really should, in all cases, override the freedom of
>people not to be forced to listen. Maybe the Ottawa rally isn't "being
>forced to listen", but certainly Skokie was.
Forced to listen? What do you mean? This isn't "A Clockwork Orange"!
"Freedom of not being forced to listen" -- this is the most comical euphamism
I have ever heard for describing the denial of freedom of speech.
You can't be serious, are you? My freedom of not to be forced to listen
says that I should not have to hear traffic near my house, jet planes
flying overhead, and the baby crying next door. Unless the people of Skokie
were chained to the sidewalks with neck-collars on, something tells me they
weren't forced to listen. I had to go to classes at U of I in Chicago
where every Israeli independence day the Jewish and Palestinian students would
line up and make a narrow pathway that students would have to walk through to
get to some classes (a pathway helped made availiable by 75 Chicago cops in
riot gear) -- I was forced to listen to their bantering more than anybody
in Skokie had to. Should that mean that Palestinian and Israeli students
should be forced to stay home that day?
>
>Do you not find it hypocritical that foreign communists can still be
>denied entry into the U.S., but that the residents of Skokie could do
>nothing to prevent Nazis from outside the community to collect in their
>backyards?
Yes. I see no justifiable reason that communists should be prevented
from entering this country.
>
>I'm happy that so many of you
Whaoh! Question from the balcony! Who's "you"? I mean, is there some
kind of club or ethnic group I belong to that I don't know about?
> are comfortable with such a cut-and-dry
>hierarchy of rights (ie, free speech *always* overrides democratic will).
>I haven't been able to see the issue as being that tidy for a long time.
"Yeah, say something I don't like -- believe in politics I don't like -- and
I will justifiably send your butt up a river without a paddle."
-- a new motto for a better world
--
greg | "You want a mystery? Pick up your phone book ...
gshe...@nyx.cs.du.edu | and tell me what are all these people doing living
yeah, "PEACE" this | around here?" -- Howe Gelb
Darin Cowan
> Many, many years ago I saw an advertisement from a US citizens group
> in some US magazine. It had a cut-out of the American flag in the shape
> of a pistol, and text that went something like this:
Actually, the murder rate in the US is about 4x ours per-capita. If you
look at comparable sized cities though, it's actually comparable. New
York, Detroit, LA and Washington make up a lot of the difference. The
PROBLEM is overcrowding in big cities, not people owning guns.
> The point is that when you make lethal weapons easy to acquire, people
> die more often by those weapons. It's as simple as that.
Actually, illegally obtained weapons seem to be involved in far more
crimes than legally obtained weapons (firearms). Knives and blunt
instruments are still used more than guns. It's as simple as that.
> >Cars kill more people than all the guns everywhere. Guns don't kill people,
> >and neither do cars. Idiots kill people with whatever is available, for
> >whatever reason
>
> So what? Heart disease kills far more people than cars. Does that mean we
> shouldn't try to make roads safer for drivers, bikers, pedestrians, etc? You
> appealing to reasoning saying "There are greater evils, so we can ignore
> this one." I don't buy that reasoning, and neither does society. Otherwise
> murder (or whatever crime you think is the worst crime possible) would be
> the only punishable crime. Pick-pocteting is still a crime, even though it
> pales completely as compared to murder.
>
What it means is: If we are trying to save lives and protect society
from deaths, we should concentrate the effort where it is most likely to
have significant impact. Saving the 100 or so people who are shot in
Canada each year is a drop in the bucket when compared to the 25,000
people who will die automobile related deaths this year, the 50,000 who
will die from heart disease, etc., etc...
A crime is a crime and should be punished, but outlawing guns has been
shown not to prevent crime, not to reduce murder rates or anything else.
DO you really believe that if every firearms in the US was slagged
tomorrow that their society would just magically transform itself into a
Norman Rockwell-like picture perfect society?
>
> Maybe in some cases, but not when there such a simple solution as making
> it harder to acquire a gun.
>
> --
Harder to acquire, maybe. I would like to see REALISTIC gun control...
for example, most rifles and shotguns still need not be registered - yet
they are the most used weapons in crime (this info is available in the
statscan reports and RCMP reports at the library). Maybe have gun owners
take out liability insurance, obligatory safety courses etc... These
things lead to responsible gun ownership. Banning guns serves no purpose
other than to take guns from otherwise law abiding citizens while
allowing criminals to continue doing whatever they like.
Paolucci Paul
>In article <1993May28....@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
> paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
>
>>So only people with the correct and just lines of thought are
>>to be allowed to move to "your town"?!
>That is certainly what white supremacists advocate. What do you think
>cross burnings were?
So let me get this straight... You mean that since they are doing
that kind of thing, then it is ok for you to do it?
That is exactly the problem with them: They want to discriminate...
Doesn't that mean the discrimintation is wrong? If so, then why are you
trying to discriminate against them?...? Seems like you are what you hate...
or at least partly, since the big thing that you are saying is that they
will try and take away rights like free speech or anybody living where they
want to, etc. That is why we musn't do what we don't want them to do...
>>Who is to decide this correctness
>>of thought? You do not sound like you wish to defend ANY thought save
>>for your own.
>
>I will defend any opinion that does not advocate taking away my right to
>defend opinions. :-)
This is precisely what you are proposing; taking away the rights
of some group, in this case, the HF.
>So have you pressured your government to make it illegal for communities
>to use zoning bylaws to keep out gays, ex-cons, adult movies, etc.?
That is exactly the opposite of what I mean. I am pressing them NOT
to do this very sort of thing on any level.
>I believe that most communities are entitled to require permits for
>rallies, a power which gives these communities the ability to manipulate
>the permits to their advantage.
These permits are supposed to be only for convenience and "safety".
People have an innate right to get together and talk about anything they
want. WOuld you like to take this right away from "some groups"?
>You can try to talk a white supremacist into changing their beliefs, and
>thus no longer subject to your objections.
WHy is it your right to tell him what to think or feel?
>>Who will decide what thoughts are to be "OK"?
>
>According to the HF, the white race will decide. Most of these groups
>have very clear, and sometimes complex, formulae regarding who is
>entitled to call themselves "white". (All those cross-breeds running
>around now, don'tcha know?)
Well, Canada is certainly white, and Canada is deciding this an
that... sounds like their prediction IS ALREADY TRUE. You are using the
very same ideas to silence them that you say you despise.
I suggest you rethink this position and adopt one more amiable to
inherent rights in EVERYBODY.
Andy Brownbill
>
> Well, Canada is certainly white, and Canada is deciding this an
>that... sounds like their prediction IS ALREADY TRUE. You are using the
>very same ideas to silence them that you say you despise.
>
Well, Canada itself might be mostly white in the winter, but when the snow
melts I imagine that you'd see brown and green tones if you looked at it
from high enough. Also, there are a blue lakes, and grey cities.
Kai S Ng
: In article <C7y9M...@telly.on.ca> ev...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
: >In article <1993May27.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
: > gshe...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Swag Valance) writes:
: >
: >>No, but it is a political belief. Is it any more just then to cry
: >>"Social Democrats out of France!" or "Libertarians out of the U.S.!"?
: >
: >Or, more appropriately, "Communists out of the U.S." Do you really mean to
: >tell me you've never heard that?
:
: Of course not, though I do not see your point of mentioning this in this
: context. Are you implying that saying "Communists out of the U.S." or
: McCarthyism is somehow just?
How does it compare to "Drug dealer out of the U.S."?
..Kai
David F. Skoll
Ng) writes:
>How does it compare to "Drug dealer out of the U.S."?
It's funny - the U.S. undertook an expensive and destructive invasion
just to get one alleged drug dealer into the U.S.
:-)
--
David F. Skoll
Swag Valance
>How does it compare to "Drug dealer out of the U.S."?
It doesn't. If there is evidence of illegal activity (such as drug dealing),
it's about "drug dealer goes to jail" -- just as if any Nazi or whoever
does any illegal activity. But to advocate excommunicating a person
because of their beliefs, NOT for any illegal actions, is a whole different
story.
Swag Valance
>In article <1993May31.0...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
> paol...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
>
>>THAT is a major flaw. No literature hurts anyone.
>
>I really can't believe that anyone with even an elementary knowledge of
>history can say this.
>
>Mein Kampf was used as the justification for the slaughter of millions
>in the Holocaust.
>
>Parts of the Bible and the Quran have been taken out of context as
>the pretext of horrible wars and crusades.
>
>The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been used by religious leaders
>and governments to paint a whole race of people, merely based on their
>ancestry, as evil.
>
>There are certainly many other examples which don't come to mind right
>away.
>
>The pages do not do the deed, but they give believers the moral
>conviction, rationale, and sometimes even the tactics, to do it.
>
>"No literature hurts anyone." is for philosophy courses. In the real
>world, literature has been the source of much suffering of this planet.
>
>That does not mean I advocate banning of literature. But please don't
>pretend that literature is harmless.
Your point is well taken, but on principle I still have to disagree.
A basic tenet of the subjectivism of human beings is that any "ism" is
only as good as the person who believes in it. Furthermore, any literature
is not inherently "evil" -- what makes it evil are the people who act on
it, and a further step back -- the people who believe it. If no one takes
it seriously, if there's no one to pay attention to it, if there is no one
to act on it -- it is harmless.
I understand your point, just that I think you are mixing concepts of
"means" with "causes" to a vague extent.