Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Red Fascists Riot in Vancouver

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Orest Slepokura

unread,
Oct 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/2/99
to

Red Fascists Riot in Vancouver

In Vancouver, B.C., the night of Thursday, Sept. 30, was a night to
remember as far as the suppression of free speech in Canada is
concerned, and no doubt an augur of things to come. It saw a violent,
organized disruption of a public meeting in the Vancouver Public Library
by communists (who brandished their placards) and their supporters, some
of whom belonged to special interest groups like the Canadian Jewish
Congress.

The occasion was a meeting laid on by lawyer Doug Christie and the
Canadian Free Speech League to raise money for Doug Collins's challenge
to British Columbia's misnamed human rights law. Mr. Collins , who was
the featured speaker, has been a victim of that law on account of
columns he wrote for the North Shore News.

The scene was one of utter chaos, reminiscent of what went on in Nazi
Germany. Over twenty police and security guards were on hand but they
could not contain the rioters, who broke through the police lines and
tried to break down the doors of the hall in which Mr. Collins was
attempting to speak. Several rioters were removed in a police paddy
wagon, and at least one arrest was made. The noise was excruciating and
fire alarms were set off.

Many people who wanted to hear the speech were unable to get into the
library, and a "minority" protester kept screaming and shouting for the
whole of the time that Doug and Mr. Christie were speaking. Collins told
him he was a great advertisement for multiculturalism. The man's obvious
aim was to provoke the audience to violence. He didn't succeed, but as
the speaker said later he could not refrain from calling him a few names,
of which "ignorant lunatic" was the most printable.

Typically, the media referred to the Free Speech League in disparaging
terms, with quotes from the Communists. One TV station opened its 11
p.m. broadcast with a reference to "Holocaust-denier Doug Collins,"
which is a lie, although Mr. Collins questions the six million story.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation gleefully quoted a protester as
saying that public premises should not be used by "racists and right
wingers" and that Collins and Christie would be dogged by protests like
this wherever they appeared.

Mr. Collins's speech - which he insisted on delivering in spite of the
din - had nothing to do with racism. The title of the address was "The
NDP's attack on Free Speech." (For those not familiar with the situation
in British Columbia, the New Democratic Party socialist government has
passed misnamed "human rights" laws that have specifically removed the
right to free speech. Something that does not seem to worry many in the
media.)

Mr. Collins has twice been hauled before rights tribunals for columns
he has written. The one that really got to his critics was headed
"Hollywood Propaganda" and dealt with the movie Schindler's List, which
he dubbed Swindler's List. Subsequently, a complaint to the Thought
Police was laid by the Canadian Jewish Congress.

After going over the media coverage of the library outrage, Mr. Collins
said it was no wonder people were turning more and more to the Internet
to find out what is going on.

For that reason he has provided us with the main points of what he had
to say - to the extent that he was allowed to make them. Typically, not
a word of his speech was reported in the mainstream media. The Vancouver
Sun has not even mentioned the riot , but one can imagine the
international media furore there would have been if right wingers had
tried to stop a leftist or a Jewish Congress meeting.

Here is Mr. Collins"s report:

I said there was a lot of talk about hate groups these days, and that
the law-abiding Free Speech League has been described that way. But if
anyone wanted to see hate in action, they had only to be present tonight
in the Vancouver Public Library.

I described the rioters as B.C. Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh's shock
troops - Red Fascists whose aim was to terrify people into staying away
from the library.

Why the A.G.'s shock troops? Because the chief organizer of this riot
was Alan Dutton of CAERS, the Canadian Anti-Racism and Research Society,
which should more properly be called the Anti-Free Speech League. Dutton
is a communist and receives government grants through the
Multiculturalism and Immigration Community Liaison Branch of about
$100,000 a year, a unit controlled by Dosanjh. So far this year, Dutton
has been given $92,000. Last year it was about $99,000. In the three
years up to 1996 he got $741,000 from all government sources, federal as
well as provincial. I said it was disgraceful that taxpayers should be
forced to subsidize such a man, for this was not the first time he had
prevented people from speaking. He even boasts about it.

Dutton does physically what the NDP government does by other means. It
was interesting, I said, that while Dutton directs his Red Fascists, the
Attorney General is trying to quash my application for a judicial review
of the Human Rights Code, which in effect is an appeal designed to render
ultra vires a law that totalitarians would approve of. Dutton and Dosanjh
move in symbiotic tandem.

The Code is a blatant attempt to censor free speech and a free press,
and has been described as such by the B.C. Press Council, whose counsel
has stated that the law "is an attempt to stifle speech that is not
criminal". I showed the audience a front page newspaper headline of June
24, 1993, which read: "B.C. ends free speech guarantee."

Other points:

•In a tribunal hearing, the truth is no defence.

•There is no appeal within the framework of the Act. All that a victim
of this legislation can do, is to apply to the courts for a judicial review,
which is expensive.

• Artistic and academic work is no defence.

•The tribunal's adjudicator is judge, jury and prosecutor.

•Complainants get legal aid, no matter how wealthy they are. If Bill
Gates were to make a complaint, he could get legal aid. The target of
the complaint does not, unless is he is a pauper. The North Shore News
was forced to spend $203,000 defending me in my first tribunal, and it
was money down the drain even though I was acquitted of spreading
hatred. The verdict might have been different, but the adjudicator knew
quite well that a guilty verdict would have led to a judicial review in
which it would be shown that the B.C. law is unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, she took the opportunity of describing the Hollywood
Propaganda column as "mean-spirited" and "anti-Semitic" (but obviously
not anti-Semitic enough to warrant a guilty verdict).

To repeat, costs are not recoverable. which means that newspaper
publishers are not lightly going to risk having complaints laid against
their writers.

I told the audience that the law is a Heresy Act and a Censorship Law.
It states: “No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
published issued or displayed any statement or publication, notice,
sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that “indicates
discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a
group or class of persons, or is likely to expose a person or a group
of persons to hatred or contempt:

No proof of actual harm is necessary. "Likely" is good enough. It is
clear that anyone who tells a Newfie joke could be hauled before a
tribunal for exposing Newfoundlanders to "hatred or contempt".

As stated, I have been named before two tribunals. I refused to appear
before the second one, however, describing it as a kangaroo court.

The complaint in the second case was lodged by Harry Abrams of the
Victoria branch of B'Nai Brith. It involved four columns, including
"Hollywood Propaganda", which had been dismissed by the previous
tribunal. Clearly, the rights maniacs have never heard of something
called double jeopardy.

The adjudicator fined the North Shore News and me $2,000, ordered the
newspaper to print his reasons for judgment (which no ordinary court
could do, and is a direct interference with freedom of the press ) and
instructed me not to write anything that might annoy Jews in future,
which amounts to prior restraint. As I told the audience - those who
managed to get past the leftist lunatics, that is, - I have marched on
regardless.

Interestingly, he in effect admitted that the columns were not hate
literature.

"Individually, the columns do not express hatred or contempt., but
collectively they do."

I described that as a neat piece of politically correct alchemy.

As I told the audience, I have marched on regardless.

To the accompaniment of an incredible din, I read out part of the Press
Council statement on the decision made by the second tribunal.

“The B.C. Press Council Wednesday issued a statement deploring the
decision of the Human Rights Tribunal in the Doug Collins case, saying
it appears to be the first time in Canadian history that a
government-appointed tribunal such as this has convicted a newspaper and
its columnist of violating content standards set by a legislature.

“The Council maintains the position it has held since 1993, namely that
the speech restriction in the revised code are an unjustified violation
of the principle of freedom of the press.”

The Press Council has also stated that the B.C. Human Rights Code is
the most significant legislative infringement of press freedom in the
history of B.C., and that nothing like it has been seen since the
Province entered Confederation in 1871.

The Hollywood Propaganda column did not say that the Holocaust as such
was propaganda. It referred to the fact that "Schindler's List" must
have been the 555th. movie or TV feature on the same subject - a never
ending stream - and that I was tired of hate literature in the form of
films.

After the Canadian Jewish Congress had stated it was pondering legal
action against me, I wrote a second column in which I said that I too
was pondering, but not pandering. And certainly not to the CJC.

I pointed out, too, that if I had been writing hate literature I would
have been prosecuted under the federal hate laws, which makes such stuff
a criminal offence.

Why the speech-restricting Code? Here I turned to the statement by the
Human Rights Commission lawyer at the first tribunal, who declared: "The
criminal standard of proof (under the federal hate laws) makes enforcement
of the hate laws difficult." In other words, they need
their own, catch-all (and unconstitutional) law .

Cabinet minister Corky Evans said, "we need this law because the courts
don't always do what we want them to do."

Mike Harcourt, who was premier when the Rights Act was changed to
eliminate the free speech guarantee, stated:

"We can have liberty as long as it doesn't offend anyone!"

Compare such rubbish, I said, with statements make by Americans
defending the speech-guaranteeing First Amendment:

Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Freedom of speech involves the right to think
the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the
unchallengeable."

Judge Robert Warren: "The suppression of speech, even where it has
little value and great costs, amounts to government thought control."

What is free speech? As George Orwell told his critics in the 1940s:

"Free speech is my right to say what you don't want to hear."

There was more , but it will probably have to wait for a book. The
fight will go on, I said, and we must win. If we don't, say goodbye to
whatever remains of free speech in the True North.

My E-Mail address is Douglas...@bc.sympatico.ca And if you want
my book _Here We Go Again!,_ which contains 100 columns including the
offending ones and many others like them, get in touch with me and I
will give you the requisite address. The book costs $18.95 post paid. <end>

--
************************************************************
* "What sort of truth is it that needs protection?" *
* Auberon Waugh - The London Daily Telegraph - May 9, 1992 *
************************************************************

David Balke

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
I think that while there are points to your position that you must recognize
that we are NOT in the US. Canada does not guarantee liberty but rather
license. You are allowed to do things is the accepted cultural model. You
do not have the right to hurt me in anyway. I'm not very familiar with the
details here and condemn any undo breach of the constitution but do favour
limitation of improper propaganda. I don't think that anyone has the right
to say absolutely anything they want to. I hear enough Anti-semitic
theories in private circles that I don't want to hear that drivel in the
press as well and I think there are many circumstances where authors must be
held accountable even when they don't expressly say -" Shoot that kike over
there, he's ruined your blue-eyed European life"

Good luck with your challenge if the situation is as dire as you say. One
of the reasons it's nice to live in Canada though is the fact we don't have
to listen to pig headed protofascists. Using the term Red fascists maynot
be to your benefit as many would feel you're speaking non-sense.

ChefDave

Orest Slepokura

unread,
Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99
to
In article <FJ77t...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca>, "David Balke"
<bal...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0

ChefDave (to repeat one line) wrote:

> Good luck with your challenge if the situation is as dire as you say.

Thanks.

As for the term "Red fascists," I find it being used more often up here in the
"true north strong and (only sometimes) free." The article (copied below)
which appeared in the latest issue of _Alberta Report_ (a sister
publication of _B.C. Report_) makes an unabashed use of the term.

-Orest Slepokura

FYI:

ECLECTICA | Kevin Michael Grace (kmg...@home.com)

Alberta Report (a...@incentre.net) | October 11, 1999

UJJAL'S STORM TROOPERS

When is a riot not a riot? When it happens in Vancouver and its target is
"extremists." On September 30 a mob of 100 multicultural activists
attempted to prevent retired journalist Doug Collins and his lawyer Doug
Christie from addressing a meeting at the main branch of the Vancouver
Public
Library. Not so ironically, the subject of the meeting was the NDP
govemment's suppression of free speech.

The mob broke through two barricades, injuring policemen; one arrest was
made. It attempted to drown out Mr. Collins; those v/ho wanted to hear him
were either prevented from entering or thought better of it when confronted
with the violence. The _Vancouver_Sun_ did not deign to report the fracas;
the Vancouver _Province_ treated it as comedy: "Put Dougs Collins and
Christie inside a library and I00-odd protesters outside. and you get
enough noise to defeat a battalion of shushing librarians." How droll.

Left unreported was that the riot was fomented by professional "anti-racist"
and Communist Allan Dutton; and thus Vancouver's finest had been assaulted
by thugs subsidized by B.C.'s chief law enforcement officer, Attorney
General Ujjal Dusanjh, Mr. Dutton, who vowed to CBC Radio he would continue to
oppose with force what the _Province_ derisively calls "free speech"
meetings (again, sarcastic quotation marks in the original), has for
several years received approximately $100,000 annually from Mr. Dosanih's
Multiculturalism and Immigration Community Liaison Branch.

Mr. Dosanjh, a professional anti-tacist himself, is likely to be chosen the
next premier of B.C., despite his professed diffidence. He claims the rough
and tumble of NDP politics offends his sensitive nature, but anyone who
funds red fascists has nothing to learn about playing hardball.


WHEN SACRILEGE IS SACRED

All the usual suspects--Susan Sarandon, Kurt Vonnegut,Norman Mailer, Joan
Didion, William Styron, E.L. Doctorow, Rob Reiner, Arthur Miller, Terence
McNally, Susan Sontag, etc.--have rushed to the defence of an exhibition of
obscene art at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. "Sensation: Young British
Artists from the Saatchi Collection," has been described as "sick" by New
York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who has pulled city funding from the
museum. As Tony Snow reports in an October I column
(wwwjewishworldreviewcom/tony/snow.html), "The show features the work of
young Britons, 'Including at Chris Ofili, creator of a work titled, The
Holy Virgin Mary. The painting depicts the Holy Mother in unusual straits.
A lacquered clump of elephant dung decorates her left breast, and a
veritable snowfall of pornography--mostly, pictures of women's private
partts--fills the air around her."

The literati have made the predictable (and absurd) charge that Mr. Giuliani
has trampled on Mr. Ofili's First Amendment rights, never more sacred than
when somone is defiling the sacred. Mr. Giuliani's supporters, however,
prefer not to address the issue of anti-Christian bigotry directly; they
would rather play the "What if" game. Mr. Snow is one of many pundits who
has invoked the holy memory of The Man Who Dared to Dream: "If someone were
to replace the Virgin Mother in the painting with Martin Luther King Jr.,
Janet Reno would be drawing up a hate-crimes indictment." This is
patronizing and offensive. Do they really mean to suggest that American
blacks have substituted worship of Our Lord with the idolatry of a tribal
fetish, Dr King? Or are they suggesting only that blacks are too stupid to
understand blasphemy?


FEET OF CLAY

In any event, "Dr." King is not worthy of veneration. He was a cheat whose
Boston University doctoral thesis was almost wholly plagiarized, an orgiast
and no mean blasphemer himself. As proof of the latter, the Council of
Conservative Citizens website (www.cofcc.org) quotes from the January 19,
1998, _Newsweek_: "January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King
Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme
Court, listening as lawyers argued _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan_, a
landmark case rising out of King's crusade against segregation in Alabama
... That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI
bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of
glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries
of "I'm ----ing for God" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" Some hero!


PURPLE HAZE

Mr. Dosanjh's likely rival for the NDP leadership, professional turncoat
Gordon Wilson, is another who has wrapped himself in Dr. King's mantle.
His claims to have been present (at the age of 13) at the martyr's 1963 "I
have a dream" speech in Washington and (again as a boy) to have comforted a
Kenyan woman as she died in his arms, have made him a laughingstock. Mr.
Wilson also claims (like every other boomer) to have been at Woodstock. His
whoppers suggest he foolishly ignored the famous warning to "stay away from
the brown acid." <end>

Neil

unread,
Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99
to
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Orest Slepokura wrote:

> All the usual suspects--Susan Sarandon, Kurt Vonnegut,Norman Mailer, Joan
> Didion, William Styron, E.L. Doctorow, Rob Reiner, Arthur Miller, Terence
> McNally, Susan Sontag, etc.--have rushed to the defence of an exhibition of
> obscene art at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. "Sensation: Young British Artists
> from the Saatchi Collection," has been described as "sick" by New York City
> Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who has pulled city funding from the museum.

A pity that. I always had great faith in Giuliani, as a statesman and lawyer.
I have no doubt whatsoever that he knows what he is doing goes counter to all
his instincts as a lawyer and a supporter of basic constitutional principles,
particularly the 1st Amendment. He is simply not stupid enough to actually
believe he should be threatening to pull funding from this museum because of
the content of its art. Unfortunately, that only lowers my image of him,
because this means he is deliberately ignoring his true feelings in order to
play to the vote-carrying audience he wishes to pander to. In other words,
he's just like everyone else.

-N


Orest Slepokura

unread,
Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99
to
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.991008...@email1.asu.edu>, Neil
<ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Orest Slepokura wrote:
>

> > All the usual suspects--Susan Sarandon, Kurt Vonnegut,Norman Mailer, Joan
> > Didion, William Styron, E.L. Doctorow, Rob Reiner, Arthur Miller, Terence
> > McNally, Susan Sontag, etc.--have rushed to the defence of an exhibition of
> > obscene art at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. "Sensation: Young British Artists
> > from the Saatchi Collection," has been described as "sick" by New York City
> > Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who has pulled city funding from the museum.
>

> A pity that. I always had great faith in Giuliani, as a statesman and lawyer.
> I have no doubt whatsoever that he knows what he is doing goes counter to all
> his instincts as a lawyer and a supporter of basic constitutional principles,
> particularly the 1st Amendment. He is simply not stupid enough to actually
> believe he should be threatening to pull funding from this museum because of
> the content of its art. Unfortunately, that only lowers my image of him,
> because this means he is deliberately ignoring his true feelings in order to
> play to the vote-carrying audience he wishes to pander to. In other words,
> he's just like everyone else.
>
> -N

0=0=0=0=0=0

Neil,

I agree with you about New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. He is an opportunist in
this issue. Politicians are usually like that, looking for some advantage. It
is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
hypocritical.

Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
wrecks aren't funny any
more.

IOW, it would be in extremely poor taste (Cleese felt) to run the sketch--this
from a comedy troupe that virtually specialized in outrageously poor taste. I
doubt, however, artists and entertainers, writers and intellectuals on either
side of the Big Pond will rush to protest Cleese's act of self-censorship. No.
They'll "understand" the need for "sensitivity" in the matter.

As for the Sensation Collection--with its sacreligious art--being displayed at a
museum in Brooklyn, it comes but a few weeks after a nutzi in the American
South killed, wounded and terrorized hundreds of worshippers in a Baptist
Church. But, "So what," eh?--even if the by-product is anything but
enlightenment wrought by an aesthetic experience through the medium of
art.

Camille Paglia [Slate, October 6, 1999]:

http://www.salon1999.com/people/col/pagl/1999/10/06/sensate/print.html

<quote>
That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction
about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris
Ofili's dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice. The Brooklyn
show has fomented hatreds in this country -- as witnessed by the placard of
a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a
demonstrator outside the museum on opening day. Is this the destructive train
of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?"
<end-quote>

-Orest Slepokura

Michel Catudal

unread,
Oct 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/9/99
to
Orest Slepokura wrote:
>
> <quote>
> That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction
> about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris
> Ofili's dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice. The Brooklyn
> show has fomented hatreds in this country -- as witnessed by the placard of
> a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a
> demonstrator outside the museum on opening day. Is this the destructive train
> of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?"
> <end-quote>
>
> -Orest Slepokura
>

No doubt about that, it is obviously racist but one of the basis of freedom is to
be able to express his or her opinion no matter how obnoxious they are. If art
is the way it is today it is because it reflects the way society is or claims to
be. Denying the existence of the problem isn't going to solve it. Action must be
taken to educate the adults and children about family values and respect for other
humans. This had to be done in the schooling system and on the medias.

I have a question for Neil,

Do you know if the law that prohibits swearing in front of women and children in Michigan
is currently being challenged by the ACLU? Here you can do jail time if caught swearing
in front of a woman or a child. Swearing using obsenities that is. Actually the law goes
farther as it only has be heard by a woman or child.

It is rarely enforced but has been not long ago, a man from downstate was on vacation
up north and got to swear a bit, bad luck in fishing perhaps. Some lady with virgin ears
over heard him and complained and a cop arrested the man. He was then charged under the
law. He has lost his case, I was told that the ACLU was to appeal.

--
Tanné du plantage avec Ti-Mou?
C'est l'temps d'essayer Linux
http://www.netonecom.net/~bbcat/
We have software, food, music, news, search,
history, electronics and genealogy pages.

John Carrick

unread,
Oct 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/11/99
to
> Using the term Red fascists may not be to your benefit as many would feel you're speaking non-sense.

Well, certainly, "Red fascist" is an oxymoron.

It makes as much sense as "dry water".

For most of us "red" denotes far-left extremism.
For most of us "fascist" denotes far-right extremism.

Your correspondent's error is to confuse ideology with methodology.

What he *has* correct is the understanding that totalitarian *methods*
are equally available to both the extreme right and the extreme left.

What he ignores is that the same brutality is used by the right and
the left *to achieve different ends*.

If you died at the hands of Hitler or Stalin, or of Pinocher or Mao,
you were still a victim.

But right-wing and left-wing regimes kill different sorts of people
for very different reasons. In general right-wingers go after
minorities and people of conscience. Left-wingers go after those who
possess power and wealth.

Those who see no difference between Hitler and Stalin, because both
were mass murderers. must also see no difference between a homicidal
rapist and a murderous bank robber.

I repeat, people do the same things for quite different reasons.

Michael

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to
John Carrick wrote:
>
> > Using the term Red fascists may not be to your benefit as many would feel you're speaking non-sense.
>
> Well, certainly, "Red fascist" is an oxymoron.
>
> It makes as much sense as "dry water".
>
> For most of us "red" denotes far-left extremism.
> For most of us "fascist" denotes far-right extremism.
>
> Your correspondent's error is to confuse ideology with methodology.
>
> What he *has* correct is the understanding that totalitarian *methods*
> are equally available to both the extreme right and the extreme left.
>
> What he ignores is that the same brutality is used by the right and
> the left *to achieve different ends*.
>
> If you died at the hands of Hitler or Stalin, or of Pinocher or Mao,
> you were still a victim.
>
> But right-wing and left-wing regimes kill different sorts of people
> for very different reasons. In general right-wingers go after
> minorities and people of conscience. Left-wingers go after those who
> possess power and wealth.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Left-wingers go after people with opinions they disagree
with. Nobody in Communist Russia was allowed to criticize the government
and get away with it. Not like in the US where people are allowed to say
whatever they want.


>
> Those who see no difference between Hitler and Stalin, because both
> were mass murderers. must also see no difference between a homicidal
> rapist and a murderous bank robber.

You are a very sick person to conceive of such a demented analogy.


>
> I repeat, people do the same things for quite different reasons.

And you clearly think that when leftists kill people they have a good
reason.

Michael

John Carrick

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to

>> What he *has* correct is the understanding that totalitarian *methods*
>> are equally available to both the extreme right and the extreme left.
>>
>> What he ignores is that the same brutality is used by the right and
>> the left *to achieve different ends*.
>>
>> If you died at the hands of Hitler or Stalin, or of Pinocher or Mao,
>> you were still a victim.
>>
>> But right-wing and left-wing regimes kill different sorts of people
>> for very different reasons. In general right-wingers go after
>> minorities and people of conscience. Left-wingers go after those who
>> possess power and wealth.
>
> Bzzzt. Wrong.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about, when you tell me
I am wrong.

I don't make it a habit to be wrong about anything that I have given
careful thought to.

And I am not wrong this time.

> Left-wingers go after people with opinions they disagree with.

That is sheer stupidity. You are making the same mistake made by the
original poster. *****BOTH***** left-wing and right-wing ideologues
attack those that they don't agree with. And *****BOTH*****, when
they are in power, have been known to exterminate those who oppose
them.

It is sheer stupidity for anyone to suggest that either the left or
the right has had a monopoly on stifling dissent and murdering
opponents. There are numerous examples in this century on both sides
of the ledger.

>Nobody in Communist Russia was allowed to criticize the government
>and get away with it.

I see, whereas in Hitler's Germany.................?
........in Mussolini's Italy........?
........in Franco's Spain.........?
........in Salazar's Portugal....?
........in Batista's Cuba.........?
........in Duvalier's Haiti........?
........in Pinochet's Chile......?

These were all totalitarian ***Right-wing*** regimes, where
extermination of left-wing opponents was ruthlessly pursued.
(And there are dozen's of other less well-known examples.)

>Not like in the US where people are allowed to say
>whatever they want.

Fortunately, people in most of the countries in the world enjoy
considerable freedom of speech, and in many cases speech is at least
as free as it is in the U.S. Freedom of speech, of the press, and of
association were not invented in the United States.

>> Those who see no difference between Hitler and Stalin, because both
>> were mass murderers. must also see no difference between a homicidal
>> rapist and a murderous bank robber.
>
> You are a very sick person to conceive of such a demented analogy.

Fuck off! Only a moron calls people "sick", because he doesn't like
their politics. The analogy is appropriate.

>> I repeat, people do the same things for quite different reasons.
>
> And you clearly think that when leftists kill people they have a good
>reason.

Well, of course when leftists kill people, they have reasons for doing
so. And they must consider them good reasons.

And, of course when rightists kill people, they too have reasons for
doing so, And they must consider then good reasons.

Open you bloody eyes to the fact that people at both political
extremes have committed mass murder in order to take and keep power.

Your notion that only those on the left have blood on their hands is
childish and ignorant.

John Carrick

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to

>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
>hypocritical.

>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
>wrecks aren't funny any more.

You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.

It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.

*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***

But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.

Try listening to jokes about dying parents when your mother is on her
deathbed.

John Carrick

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to

A suggestion: Unless you are good at handling being contradicted, ypu
should delete this post without reading it.)

>> That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction
>> about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris
>> Ofili's dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice.

Not courage? Not independence? Not a willingness to look at things
differently?

>>The Brooklyn show has fomented hatreds in this country -- as witnessed by the placard of
>> a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a
>> demonstrator outside the museum on opening day.

Er......no. Any individual who would paint and display such a placard
was obviously deranged long before he or she heard about the show or
the "Madonna" painting. The controversy merely provided a platform
for the expression of that person's religious hatred.

>>Is this the destructive train of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?"

Challenging orthodoxies is one of the responsibilities of artists. I
would have thought that everyone of even moderate intellect would
know that.

>No doubt about that, it is obviously racist but one of the basis of freedom is to
>be able to express his or her opinion no matter how obnoxious they are.

Do you always use the term, "racist", so carelessly? Roman Catholics
and Jews don't belong to different "races", according to any meaning
of the term that I know. They are two distinct *religious* groups.

>If art is the way it is today it is because it reflects the way society is or claims to
>be.

Not at all. Artists have the task of moving society in new directions
by questioning orthodoxies. Any artist who merely reflected
widespread social values would be a hack.

> Denying the existence of the problem isn't going to solve it. Action must be
>taken to educate the adults and children about family values and respect for other
>humans. This had to be done in the schooling system and on the medias.

What you are talking about is not education. It is, in fact, its
opposite, indoctrination. True education must have as its goal the
opening up of the human mind to a wide range of possibilities, all of
them different, and all of them worthwhile.

(Parochial schools know nothing of this, of course. Racism, sexism,
classism, homophobia, and a whole host of other societal ills have
their origins in indoctrination, much of it religious.)

At any rate, it is easy to understand the upset that Catholics feel,
when confronted by a work of art, that satirizes their near-deity,
Mary.

We are all most vulnerable to attacks upon those of our our beliefs
that have the shakiest foundations. The majority of adherants to the
Christian religion, including Roman Catholics, are aware at some
deeper level of their consciousness, that many of their belifs are
quite irrational.

When the Pope reminded Catholics this summer that neither heaven nor
hell is to be considered a *physical* place, he was attempting to
introduce a higher level of rationality into their belief structure.
It seems that his remarks have disappeared withouy a ripple. People
continue to talk about their departed loved ones "looking down on them
from on high". Most people continue to deal with their mortality by
simply denying it.

It is in their insecurity, that New York Catholics, including their
mayor, rose up in "righteous wrath", when they found one of their most
precious icons being subjected to ridicule.

Like many other Catholics, Mayor Giulliani, was, I am sure, offended
by the painting/collage. The suggestion that his motives for
attacking the directors of the Brooklyn Museum of art for mounting
the exhibit of contemporary Britsh art, were purely political is
foolish.

There is no reason to believe that he was not reacting defensively
toward a work of art which challenged one of his dearest beliefs ...a
belief which is vulnerable, because it has no rational foundation.

Orest Slepokura

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to
In article <3803da23...@news.psi.ca>, crs...@inforamp.net (John
Carrick) wrote:

>
> >It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
> >different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> >hypocritical.
>
> >Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> >Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> >comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> >televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> >this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> >wrecks aren't funny any more.
>
> You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.

0=0=0=0

Small point.

I've seen the Monty Python crew poke fun at various tragedies, including
the sketch of two locomotives colliding head-on.

Sensitivity that chooses when and where to be "sensitive" and otherwise does
its level best to trample on people's sensitivities is not being
sensitive, but simply political.

To be "sensitive" on Tuesday and Thursday, but meanly insensitive on
Monday and Friday, is simply PR politics, little more.

-Orest Slepokura

0=0=0=0

>
> It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
> program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
>
> *Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
>
> But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
>
> Try listening to jokes about dying parents when your mother is on her
> deathbed.

--

Michael

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to
John Carrick wrote:

<snip>

> Your notion that only those on the left have blood on their hands is
> childish and ignorant.

I don't have that notion. What I said was that the leftists one
normally sees, i.e. in North America, seem to be rather intolerant of
freedom of expression (unless, of course, it's pornographic, in which
case they'll fight to the death to defend it).

Michael

Michael

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to
James Goneaux wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:56:34 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)

> wrote:
>
> >
> >>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
> >>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> >>hypocritical.
> >
> >>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> >>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> >>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> >>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> >>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> >>wrecks aren't funny any more.
> >
> >You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
> >
> >It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
> >program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
> >
> >*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
> >
> >But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> >certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
>
> Timing in comedy is everything...
>
In that case, given that the human population of the planet just
reached six billion, the timing of the exhibition of the elephant-dung
renderings of RC icons at the Brooklyn Museum probably makes it
hilarious, given that dung is all that will remain of the elephants
after a few more years of RC pro-overpopulation propaganda.

Michael

Michel Catudal

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to
John Carrick wrote:
>
> >No doubt about that, it is obviously racist but one of the basis of freedom is to
> >be able to express his or her opinion no matter how obnoxious they are.
>
> Do you always use the term, "racist", so carelessly? Roman Catholics
> and Jews don't belong to different "races", according to any meaning
> of the term that I know. They are two distinct *religious* groups.
>

Racist as used today applies to ethnic groups as well as races. Call as you wish
when dealing with Jews or other people, the fact remains that the behavior of the
morons involved is similar, they hate people who aren't like them or don't appear
to be like them by their looks, language or way of life.

> >If art is the way it is today it is because it reflects the way society is or claims to
> >be.
>
> Not at all. Artists have the task of moving society in new directions
> by questioning orthodoxies. Any artist who merely reflected
> widespread social values would be a hack.
>

Makers of those so called pieces of art have little to no influence on people.



> > Denying the existence of the problem isn't going to solve it. Action must be
> >taken to educate the adults and children about family values and respect for other
> >humans. This had to be done in the schooling system and on the medias.
>
> What you are talking about is not education. It is, in fact, its
> opposite, indoctrination. True education must have as its goal the
> opening up of the human mind to a wide range of possibilities, all of
> them different, and all of them worthwhile.
>

Not indoctrination, you educate your children so they know that it is irrelevant
what other humans look or sound like. You will find out that most racists have racists
parents or friends.

> (Parochial schools know nothing of this, of course. Racism, sexism,
> classism, homophobia, and a whole host of other societal ills have
> their origins in indoctrination, much of it religious.)
>

Fundy schools often teach the kids to hate "non christians". To them "non christians" are
those not belonging to their flock.

> At any rate, it is easy to understand the upset that Catholics feel,
> when confronted by a work of art, that satirizes their near-deity,
> Mary.
>

I'm catholic and I don't give a rat's ass.

> We are all most vulnerable to attacks upon those of our our beliefs
> that have the shakiest foundations. The majority of adherants to the
> Christian religion, including Roman Catholics, are aware at some
> deeper level of their consciousness, that many of their belifs are
> quite irrational.
>

Yeah right! Christians believe the contrary.

> When the Pope reminded Catholics this summer that neither heaven nor
> hell is to be considered a *physical* place, he was attempting to
> introduce a higher level of rationality into their belief structure.
> It seems that his remarks have disappeared withouy a ripple. People
> continue to talk about their departed loved ones "looking down on them
> from on high". Most people continue to deal with their mortality by
> simply denying it.
>

It is probably easier to deal with the issue this way.

> It is in their insecurity, that New York Catholics, including their
> mayor, rose up in "righteous wrath", when they found one of their most
> precious icons being subjected to ridicule.
>

The mayor is just playing politics. Fundies tend to vote more than normal people
so a politicians must suck up to them.



> Like many other Catholics, Mayor Giulliani, was, I am sure, offended
> by the painting/collage. The suggestion that his motives for
> attacking the directors of the Brooklyn Museum of art for mounting
> the exhibit of contemporary Britsh art, were purely political is
> foolish.
>

Not really, most of today's catholic in the USA are christian by their parents, they
do not practice religion as much as you may think. Most of the catholics that I know
only go to church for baptisms, marriages and funerals. There are fanatic among
catholics but most of the fundies aren't catholic. You are at least 30-40 years
behind.



> There is no reason to believe that he was not reacting defensively
> toward a work of art which challenged one of his dearest beliefs ...a
> belief which is vulnerable, because it has no rational foundation.

Not really for that reason. Fundies see religion as a major part of their lives,
very often more important than their own family. Hitting on their deities
is a major insult.

Michael

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to
John Carrick wrote:
>
> A suggestion: Unless you are good at handling being contradicted, ypu
> should delete this post without reading it.)
>
> >> That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction
> >> about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris
> >> Ofili's dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice.
>
> Not courage? Not independence? Not a willingness to look at things
> differently?
>
> >>The Brooklyn show has fomented hatreds in this country -- as witnessed by the placard of
> >> a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a
> >> demonstrator outside the museum on opening day.
>
> Er......no. Any individual who would paint and display such a placard
> was obviously deranged long before he or she heard about the show or
> the "Madonna" painting. The controversy merely provided a platform
> for the expression of that person's religious hatred.

Do you have any idea how stupid you have just made yourself look? There
is no difference whatsoever in the hate-propaganda in either case, other
than perhaps the fact that the exhibit was the initial hate statement,
whereas the other hate statements were merely reactions. You carry
doublethink to new levels.


>
> >>Is this the destructive train of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?"
>
> Challenging orthodoxies is one of the responsibilities of artists. I
> would have thought that everyone of even moderate intellect would
> know that.

But only Christian orthodoxies can be challenged in our so-called
"free" society. Challenging any other orthodoxy is considered a "hate
crime" punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Are you so dull that you
cannot see the glaring double-standard operating here? There should be a
level playing field, and any fair-minded person can see that. If spewing
hatred against one identifiable group is accepted, then all hate
propaganda must be accepted, but if hate propaganda is deemed
UNacceptable, then ALL identifiable groups (including Christians) must
be protected from these vicious hate-mongerers.

> >No doubt about that, it is obviously racist but one of the basis of freedom is to
> >be able to express his or her opinion no matter how obnoxious they are.
>
> Do you always use the term, "racist", so carelessly? Roman Catholics
> and Jews don't belong to different "races", according to any meaning
> of the term that I know. They are two distinct *religious* groups.
>

> >If art is the way it is today it is because it reflects the way society is or claims to
> >be.
>
> Not at all. Artists have the task of moving society in new directions
> by questioning orthodoxies. Any artist who merely reflected
> widespread social values would be a hack.

Then by your definition, the only real artists are in jail.

> > Denying the existence of the problem isn't going to solve it. Action must be
> >taken to educate the adults and children about family values and respect for other
> >humans. This had to be done in the schooling system and on the medias.
>
> What you are talking about is not education. It is, in fact, its
> opposite, indoctrination. True education must have as its goal the
> opening up of the human mind to a wide range of possibilities, all of
> them different, and all of them worthwhile.
>

> (Parochial schools know nothing of this, of course. Racism, sexism,
> classism, homophobia, and a whole host of other societal ills have
> their origins in indoctrination, much of it religious.)

And much of it leftist. It is leftists who rushed to defend Eli
Hanger's kiddie porn exhibit in which children were portrayed in
degrading and perverted ways, and it is leftists like yourself that rush
to defend hate crimes against an identifiable religious group. And, in
fact, your own statements would be land you in jail if they were
directed against any other group other than Christians.

> At any rate, it is easy to understand the upset that Catholics feel,
> when confronted by a work of art, that satirizes their near-deity,
> Mary.
>

> We are all most vulnerable to attacks upon those of our our beliefs
> that have the shakiest foundations. The majority of adherants to the
> Christian religion, including Roman Catholics, are aware at some
> deeper level of their consciousness, that many of their belifs are
> quite irrational.

Speaking of irrationality, take a look at the "personal ads" in that
Toronto leftist rag, "Now." In fact, take a look at their political
commentary if you want to see irrationality at its best.

> When the Pope reminded Catholics this summer that neither heaven nor
> hell is to be considered a *physical* place, he was attempting to
> introduce a higher level of rationality into their belief structure.
> It seems that his remarks have disappeared withouy a ripple. People
> continue to talk about their departed loved ones "looking down on them
> from on high". Most people continue to deal with their mortality by
> simply denying it.

Whereas leftists like yourself and the Brooklyn hate-mongerers deal
with it scatalogically.

> It is in their insecurity, that New York Catholics, including their
> mayor, rose up in "righteous wrath", when they found one of their most
> precious icons being subjected to ridicule.

> Like many other Catholics, Mayor Giulliani, was, I am sure, offended


> by the painting/collage. The suggestion that his motives for
> attacking the directors of the Brooklyn Museum of art for mounting
> the exhibit of contemporary Britsh art, were purely political is
> foolish.

> There is no reason to believe that he was not reacting defensively


> toward a work of art which challenged one of his dearest beliefs ...a
> belief which is vulnerable, because it has no rational foundation.

You silly sophomoric nitwit. Giulliani was not suggesting that those
hate-mongering leftist scatophiles be fined or imprisoned. He was merely
expressing the widely held view that taxpayers' money should not be used
to subsidize hate propaganda against an identifiable group. He would
have reacted the same way if the the victims had been members of any
other group. If the KKK had put up a similarly bigotted "art" exhibit,
with a different group as victims, reasonable people would have
condemned it the same way they condemn the Brooklyn exhibit. However, I
doubt very much that the crazies on the left would have rushed to defend
public funding of KKK hate-"art" as vigorously as they defend the public
funding of anti-Catholic hate-"art".
Everybody sees through this double standard. Nobody is being fooled by
it. You must either be really stupid, or just so crazed by your
ideological madness that you are blinded to the reality. You've never
read Orwell, have you?

Michael

Neil

unread,
Oct 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/12/99
to
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:

> I don't have that notion. What I said was that the leftists one
> normally sees, i.e. in North America, seem to be rather intolerant of
> freedom of expression (unless, of course, it's pornographic, in which
> case they'll fight to the death to defend it).

United States Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, the most powerful
conservative right-winger in North America today, is the single greatest enemy
the First Amendment has seen since Joseph McCarthy.

-N


E. Barry Bruyea

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:43:06 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
wrote:

>
>
>A suggestion: Unless you are good at handling being contradicted, ypu
>should delete this post without reading it.)
>
>>> That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction
>>> about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris
>>> Ofili's dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice.
>
>Not courage? Not independence? Not a willingness to look at things
>differently?
>
>>>The Brooklyn show has fomented hatreds in this country -- as witnessed by the placard of
>>> a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a
>>> demonstrator outside the museum on opening day.
>
>Er......no. Any individual who would paint and display such a placard
>was obviously deranged long before he or she heard about the show or
>the "Madonna" painting. The controversy merely provided a platform
>for the expression of that person's religious hatred.
>

>>>Is this the destructive train of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?"
>
>Challenging orthodoxies is one of the responsibilities of artists. I
>would have thought that everyone of even moderate intellect would
>know that.
>

>>No doubt about that, it is obviously racist but one of the basis of freedom is to
>>be able to express his or her opinion no matter how obnoxious they are.
>
>Do you always use the term, "racist", so carelessly? Roman Catholics
>and Jews don't belong to different "races", according to any meaning
>of the term that I know. They are two distinct *religious* groups.
>
>>If art is the way it is today it is because it reflects the way society is or claims to
>>be.
>
>Not at all. Artists have the task of moving society in new directions
>by questioning orthodoxies. Any artist who merely reflected
>widespread social values would be a hack.
>

>> Denying the existence of the problem isn't going to solve it. Action must be
>>taken to educate the adults and children about family values and respect for other
>>humans. This had to be done in the schooling system and on the medias.
>
>What you are talking about is not education. It is, in fact, its
>opposite, indoctrination. True education must have as its goal the
>opening up of the human mind to a wide range of possibilities, all of
>them different, and all of them worthwhile.
>
>(Parochial schools know nothing of this, of course. Racism, sexism,
>classism, homophobia, and a whole host of other societal ills have
>their origins in indoctrination, much of it religious.)
>

>At any rate, it is easy to understand the upset that Catholics feel,
>when confronted by a work of art, that satirizes their near-deity,
>Mary.
>
>We are all most vulnerable to attacks upon those of our our beliefs
>that have the shakiest foundations. The majority of adherants to the
>Christian religion, including Roman Catholics, are aware at some
>deeper level of their consciousness, that many of their belifs are
>quite irrational.
>

>When the Pope reminded Catholics this summer that neither heaven nor
>hell is to be considered a *physical* place, he was attempting to
>introduce a higher level of rationality into their belief structure.
>It seems that his remarks have disappeared withouy a ripple. People
>continue to talk about their departed loved ones "looking down on them
>from on high". Most people continue to deal with their mortality by
>simply denying it.
>

>It is in their insecurity, that New York Catholics, including their
>mayor, rose up in "righteous wrath", when they found one of their most
>precious icons being subjected to ridicule.
>
>Like many other Catholics, Mayor Giulliani, was, I am sure, offended
>by the painting/collage. The suggestion that his motives for
>attacking the directors of the Brooklyn Museum of art for mounting
>the exhibit of contemporary Britsh art, were purely political is
>foolish.
>
>There is no reason to believe that he was not reacting defensively
>toward a work of art which challenged one of his dearest beliefs ...a
>belief which is vulnerable, because it has no rational foundation.


Carrick and rationality has got to be the ulitmate oxymoron.

Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca

E. Barry Bruyea

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to


It is clear that there is no way to cut and paste Carrick's post into
a thread entitled, "Brooklyn Museum of Art criticized For Displaying
Mohamed Covered In Elephant Dung." But he is certainly not alone in
his hypocrisy as has been shown many during the term of this
discussion. But then its not lilely any artist or museum would
display any symbolic art denigrating Islam, as they would fear the
death sentence that would immediately drop from above.


Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca

E. Barry Bruyea

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to

Close, but no cigar. The advocates of Political Correctness are
presently holding the title and they tend to tilt to the left.


>

Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca

E. Barry Bruyea

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:56:34 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
wrote:

>

>>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
>>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
>>hypocritical.
>
>>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
>>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
>>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
>>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
>>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
>>wrecks aren't funny any more.
>
>You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
>
>It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
>program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
>
>*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
>
>But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
>certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
>

>Try listening to jokes about dying parents when your mother is on her
>deathbed.


Or looking at a shit covered portrait of the Virgin Mary when you are
a devout Catholic.


Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca

Neil

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to

Please give me an example of these supposed "advocates of Political
Correctness" actually and in fact waging war against the First Amendment the
way Chief Justice Rehnquist has.

I'm not talking about silly rhetoric about ebonics and hyphenated Americans or
Canadians. I'm talking about actual, substantive assaults on the First
Amendment, and the general notion of free speech. I.e., the Government
influencing or restricting what kind of things we the people express as
opinions.

-N


john ramsay

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
Michael wrote:

>
> James Goneaux wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:56:34 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
> > >>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> > >>hypocritical.
> > >
> > >>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> > >>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> > >>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> > >>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> > >>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> > >>wrecks aren't funny any more.
> > >
> > >You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
> > >
> > >It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
> > >program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
> > >
> > >*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
> > >
> > >But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> > >certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
> >
> > Timing in comedy is everything...
> >
> In that case, given that the human population of the planet just
> reached six billion, the timing of the exhibition of the elephant-dung
> renderings of RC icons at the Brooklyn Museum probably makes it
> hilarious, given that dung is all that will remain of the elephants
> after a few more years of RC pro-overpopulation propaganda.
>
> Michael

Hi Michael, sounds like the artist achieved his purpose. He certainly
got you to make your statement above about overpopulation by humans
versus underpopulation by animals.


Aulne

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.99101...@email2.asu.edu>,
Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:

You make a good show asking for examples.

You're a total moron at providing any.

You stand tall sorting between silly and serious rhetoric.

You limp when it comes to actual substance.


Alain


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

John Carrick

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to

>> >It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
>> >different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
>> >hypocritical.
>>
>> >Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
>> >Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
>> >comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
>> >televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
>> >this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
>> >wrecks aren't funny any more.
>>
>> You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
>
>0=0=0=0
>
>Small point.

Yes, *quite* a small one, it turns out.

>I've seen the Monty Python crew poke fun at various tragedies, including
>the sketch of two locomotives colliding head-on.
>
>Sensitivity that chooses when and where to be "sensitive" and otherwise does
>its level best to trample on people's sensitivities is not being
>sensitive, but simply political.
>
>To be "sensitive" on Tuesday and Thursday, but meanly insensitive on
>Monday and Friday, is simply PR politics, little more.

You are completely mistaken.

There is an old expression: "Circumstances alter cases."

What it means is that something that is appropriate for one time and
place, may be inappropriate for another.

If someone's father had just taken his own life, you would refrain
from telling him a joke about suicide, although it might be
considered quite amusing and be well-received in other circumstances.

Having concern for the feelings of others is not merely political. It
is demonstrating one's humanity and decency. It is treating others as
we would wish them to treat us.

By the way, I have found that often the people who complain the
loudest about "political correctness" are those who want to be able to
use terms such as "nigger", "fag", "Jewboy", etc. as freely as they
wish. At the same time, the are enraged, when someone makes *them*
the subject of a racial or religious slur. This is having a double
standard, and is immature and unacceptable.

Tell me, please. Are you someone for who nothing is a problem so long
as it is happening to someone else? That would make you some sort of
conservative, wouldn't it?

John Carrick

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to

>> I don't have that notion. What I said was that the leftists one
>> normally sees, i.e. in North America, seem to be rather intolerant of
>> freedom of expression (unless, of course, it's pornographic, in which
>> case they'll fight to the death to defend it).
>
>United States Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, the most powerful
>conservative right-winger in North America today, is the single greatest enemy
>the First Amendment has seen since Joseph McCarthy.

Neil: I am surprised that you would attempt to carry on a dialogue
with someone as dim-witted.ignorant, opinionated, and self-interested
as this person.

Do you do so as an act of charity?


Hali

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
"E. Barry Bruyea" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:56:34 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
> >>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> >>hypocritical.
> >
> >>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> >>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> >>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> >>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> >>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> >>wrecks aren't funny any more.
> >
> >You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
> >
> >It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
> >program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
> >
> >*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
> >
> >But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> >certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
> >
> >Try listening to jokes about dying parents when your mother is on her
> >deathbed.
>
> Or looking at a shit covered portrait of the Virgin Mary when you are
> a devout Catholic.
>
I really don't understand how people who would be offended at the
desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic
religious symbol.

> Barry Bruyea
> si...@sympatico.ca

--
Hali

(Aimer un ennemi est encore le meilleur moyen de s'en débarrasser)

Hali

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
John Carrick wrote:

> Neil: I am surprised that you would attempt to carry on a dialogue
> with someone as dim-witted.ignorant, opinionated, and self-interested
> as this person.
>

Moi aussi. Ne reponds pas a l'anti-Catholique.

> Do you do so as an act of charity?

E. Barry Bruyea

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:58:05 -0700, Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
>
>> I really don't understand how people who would be offended at the
>> desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
>> refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic religious
>> symbol.
>

>Desecration of non-Christian symbols occurs on a regular basis in this
>society. Unlike Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, however, there is an enormous
>political bonus to be won in being the hero fighting the infidels in question.
>
>I hate to say it, but Jesse Ventura was right.
>
>-N


And your proof of this is?
>

Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca

Neil

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to

Neil

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:

> Moi aussi. Ne reponds pas a l'anti-Catholique.

Oui.

Je suis aussi anti-juif, anti-musulman, anti-boudhist, anti-athee, et
anti-religion. Je suis un raciste et fasciste en tous egards.

Et maintenant, tu l'as 'en papier' comme evidence pour tes propres documents.

Enjoy!

-N

p.s. C'est a vous de comprendre les raisons pour lesquelles je peux dire des
choses tellement horribles sans m'inquieter et me facher meme pour un instant.


Neil

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, E. Barry Bruyea wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:58:05 -0700, Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
>

> >On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
> >

> And your proof of this is?

Proof of what?

Rudolph is a brilliant lawyer, well-versed in the First Amendment and only a
moderate conservative. He's no Beatty, but he's no Strom Thurmond either. I
don't believe for one second that he is following his true instincts in
attacking the museum's funding because of his disagreement with its artistic
content. Neither is it mere coincidence that he happens to be running for
Senate in what is going to be one of the most interesting, hotly-contested
elections of the year. Like Hillary's confused pandering to the Puerto Rican
vote, he's simply playing the political game.

-N


Hali

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
Neil wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
>
> > Moi aussi. Ne reponds pas a l'anti-Catholique.
>
> Oui.
>
> Je suis aussi anti-juif, anti-musulman, anti-boudhist, anti-athee, et
> anti-religion. Je suis un raciste et fasciste en tous egards.
>
Ah, vraiment? mais je parlais *a* toi, pas *de* toi!

> Et maintenant, tu l'as 'en papier' comme evidence pour tes propres documents.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> -N
>
> p.s. C'est a vous de comprendre les raisons pour lesquelles je peux dire des
> choses tellement horribles sans m'inquieter et me facher meme pour un instant.

passe ke c l'internet pi tu t'en calisse de ce kon pense de toé....

Michael

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
Neil wrote:

>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
>
> > I don't have that notion. What I said was that the leftists one
> > normally sees, i.e. in North America, seem to be rather intolerant of
> > freedom of expression (unless, of course, it's pornographic, in which
> > case they'll fight to the death to defend it).
>
> United States Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, the most powerful
> conservative right-winger in North America today, is the single greatest enemy
> the First Amendment has seen since Joseph McCarthy.
>

The fact that he's the only one you've been permitted to hear about
proves my point.

Michael

Michael

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
john ramsay wrote:
>
> Michael wrote:

> >
> > James Goneaux wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:56:34 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
> > > >>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> > > >>hypocritical.
> > > >
> > > >>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> > > >>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> > > >>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> > > >>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> > > >>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> > > >>wrecks aren't funny any more.
> > > >
> > > >You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
> > > >
> > > >It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
> > > >program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
> > > >
> > > >*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
> > > >
> > > >But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> > > >certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
> > >
> > > Timing in comedy is everything...
> > >
> > In that case, given that the human population of the planet just
> > reached six billion, the timing of the exhibition of the elephant-dung
> > renderings of RC icons at the Brooklyn Museum probably makes it
> > hilarious, given that dung is all that will remain of the elephants
> > after a few more years of RC pro-overpopulation propaganda.
> >
>
> Hi Michael, sounds like the artist achieved his purpose. He certainly
> got you to make your statement above about overpopulation by humans
> versus underpopulation by animals.

I've never said that the exhibit should be closed down at all, any more
than I've said that porno shops should be closed down. But neither
should be subsidized by taxpayers.

Michael

Michael

unread,
Oct 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/13/99
to
Neil wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
>
> > I really don't understand how people who would be offended at the
> > desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
> > refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic religious
> > symbol.
>
> Desecration of non-Christian symbols occurs on a regular basis in this
> society. Unlike Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, however, there is an enormous
> political bonus to be won in being the hero fighting the infidels in question.
>
> I hate to say it, but Jesse Ventura was right.
>
...when he said what? "I'm going to hammer you Valentine"?

Michael

Hali

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
Neil wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:58:05 -0700, Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
> > >
> > >> I really don't understand how people who would be offended at the
> > >> desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
> > >> refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic religious
> > >> symbol.
> > >
> > >Desecration of non-Christian symbols occurs on a regular basis in this
> > >society. Unlike Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, however, there is an enormous
> > >political bonus to be won in being the hero fighting the infidels in question.
> > >
> > >I hate to say it, but Jesse Ventura was right.
> >
> >
> > And your proof of this is?
>
> Proof of what?
>
> Rudolph is a brilliant lawyer, well-versed in the First Amendment and only a
> moderate conservative. He's no Beatty, but he's no Strom Thurmond either. I
> don't believe for one second that he is following his true instincts in
> attacking the museum's funding because of his disagreement with its artistic
> content.

I disagree. Giuliani might be moderate for a Republican, but he is also
a Roman Catholic, a political bully, and a bit of a megalomaniac. When
he decides he wants something done his way, he gets it. Period.

> Neither is it mere coincidence that he happens to be running for
> Senate in what is going to be one of the most interesting, hotly-contested
> elections of the year. Like Hillary's confused pandering to the Puerto Rican
> vote, he's simply playing the political game.
>
> -N

The people upstate must be having fits: the mayor of NYC running
against a liberal feminist democrat :) Either one of them would be
better than D'Amato was; neither will be as good as Moynihan was.

Neil

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to

What in God's name are you talking about?

-N


Neil

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:

> Neil wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
> >
> > > I really don't understand how people who would be offended at the
> > > desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
> > > refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic religious
> > > symbol.
> >
> > Desecration of non-Christian symbols occurs on a regular basis in this
> > society. Unlike Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, however, there is an enormous
> > political bonus to be won in being the hero fighting the infidels in question.
> >
> > I hate to say it, but Jesse Ventura was right.
> >

> ...when he said what? "I'm going to hammer you Valentine"?

When he said "Members of organized religions are weak-minded."

He later qualified this in an interview with 20/20 to mean "some" members of
organized religions are weak-minded. In either case, he was speaking in
reference to the NYC controversy and the desire of certain pig-headed people
to have the _government_ legislate what they shall see or not see as a
solution to their being offended, rather than their own brains.

-N


Neil

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:

> I've never said that the exhibit should be closed down at all, any
> more than I've said that porno shops should be closed down. But neither
> should be subsidized by taxpayers.

Art museums are not comparable to porno shops. And museums should be
subsidized by taxpayers, because we are not a soulless, mindless, empty
nation. If you don't like the content of a certain art exhibit, STAY AT HOME
and stick to watching your privatized non-subsidized television garbage.

-N


john ramsay

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99
to
> I've never said that the exhibit should be closed down at all, any more
> than I've said that porno shops should be closed down. But neither
> should be subsidized by taxpayers.
>
> Michael

Hi Michael, but Giuliani is attempting to do just that. Close not only
the exhibit but close the museum.
And in case you didn't notice, he's not doing it for savoury reasons.
He's running for the U.S. Senate against Hillary Clinton. He needs all
the right-wing votes he can get.
But, as in most cases of censorship, it tends to backfire. Thousands
more people are taking in the exhibit than would have.
And the most cogent comment on the case was from a British art critic
who said on PBS radio the week before last that Giuliani was giving
undeserved recognition to a mediocre artist.
BTW, the case may go all the way to the Supreme Court, using
taxpayer's money.

Neil

unread,
Oct 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/14/99