radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (10/23/85)
Commenting on a recent posting arguing against hate literature laws:
I agree completely. Laws against hate literature are definitely an
unjustifiable infringement of free speech, both in theory and in
practice.
I was a student of Mr. Keegstra in 1973 and 1974. I can state from
personal knowledge that he NEVER advocated violence against anyone at that
time (except, I think, that he advocatd the death penalty for murder). From
reports that I have heard and read, his views do not seem to have
fundamentally changed since then, though they do seem to have gotten
more crackpotty.
In any case, I am ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that whatever he said, he
believed. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has encountered
the crackpot psychology.
In particular, Mr. Keegstra IS NOT A RACIST. I have every reason to
believe that any Jew who converted to his brand of Christianity would
be welcomed by him with open arms. He may well be a "culturalist" or
whatever the term is - he doesn't like the religous, ethnic, or whatever
attributes of Jewish culture. Do we really wish to make this illegal?
Would that mean opposing cannablism by New Guinea tribesman is hate
literature?
By my (non-expert) understanding of the hate literature law, Keegstra should
not have been convicted. If this mis-carraige of justice can occur in a
case which isn't really of vast public concern, just think of the abuses
that could occur in time of crisis when the issues are heated.
Radford Neal