brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/11/85)
It's not hard to get any minister to tell you that the new testament says: 1) All men are sinners, and thus damned. 2) Only those who believe in Christ may be redeemed. Now it seems to me that this book is saying that all Jews are damned and deserve to burn forever in eternal torment, or at the very least don't deserve to meet the one they believe to be their creator. Let's ban this book before it makes any other nasty remarks about identifiable groups! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
chris@aquila.UUCP (chris) (04/12/85)
No, no, Brad, you got it all wrong! Chris Lewis just wants to PURGE (that is, re-write, or revise) the bible! Except for a few historical archival copies, in the name of fairness, of course! Of course, such a purged bible would be seen by some as a revision of historical facts. Perhaps it would be considered 'false' news, and criminal proceedings begun against the instigators. We could even exile those revisionists, to remove the blight from our society! In case you haven't noticed, the above is written with tongue firmly in cheek. [ :-) , in netland. ] Chris Retterath.
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (04/12/85)
Yes, that is one of the examples I was referring to. The book should
either be purged of such racist/intolerant remarks, or banned outright.
Considering the hatred and atrocities that that book has incited, it's
about time. There are other, more explicit, intolerant remarks in other
places. There are lots of similar items that could be removed too.
The Talmud and Koran aren't any better. [ Boy-oh-boy are I gonna get
flamed for that! ]
Whoops, I'm getting a little nasty in my old age. Maybe we could look
at this in another way:
We either make the assumption that people are not competent w.r.t.
critically examining incoming information (eg: people are unable to
interpret/self censor published material) and should be protected
from them (censoring/banning Zundel's works, Keegstra's works,
the Bible, Talmud, Koran and what-have-you), otherwise they
will start hating/killing/discriminating,
OR,
We assume that people *can* critically examine incoming information
and *not* respond with inappropriate actions.
The way I see it, we are being inconsistent in our treatment of the
traditional establishment (or large lobby groups) works (Bible etc.) and
that of the smaller groups. The only difference between the Bible and
Keegstra in this respect is "which group supports it". Whenever you
point at a section of the Bible and say "This section promotes racial
intolerance", you get the reply "But people don't really follow that part
too closely/literally" or "it is there because of historical significance".
But, some people do take it seriously (Hitler, fundamentalists etc.
all took/take particular sections very literally (or use them to
justify certain actions)).
We need a little of both worlds. There are people totally incapable
of thinking for themselves and who will incite themselves to hatred
by reading the most ridiculous assertions from people trying to take
advantage or who are psychopathic themselves. What we need is some
way of eliminating the more virulent examples of demonstrably-false
material. Even if this means purging parts of the Bible from the
mainstream of religous teaching of the public, I guess I have to be
for it. Libel/slander laws are one way already instituted to protect
individuals and they work reasonably well. They should be extended
to protect groups as well.
If we ban things, we have to be ready for the consequences:
1) Do you ever wonder why Shirley Temple movies aren't shown
very much anymore?
2) Ying Hope tried to get "The Nutcracker" censored. (He
may succeed next time)
there are many more.
I personally will greatly miss the above examples. I want my children
to be able to see them. And, with a little guidance from me and my
wife, they will be lessons in tolerance/history along with sheer
entertainment rather than (vaguely tending to) teach racism. The
Bible is a lot more explicit in it's intolerance than a Shirley
Temple movie (the latter is more a representation of the
thinking/situation of the time without comment either pro- or con-.
That wasn't the topic of the movie! The Bible is explicit in promoting
intolerance). Normally we cannot touch the Bible, Koran, Talmud etc.
due to "Religious Freedom". It's a lousey excuse. What about the
people wanting to smoke pot for religous rites? We banned the latter
didn't we?
[ BTW: I find it hard to understand how Zundel actually got convicted.
I think that Zundel *did* believe the trash that he was publishing.
WW II (and everything that goes along with it) place a colossal guilt-load
on many Germans. There are several possible responses: "ignore it",
"accept it", and "deny it". Zundel was just an extreme case of the
latter reaction - probably a psychopathic personality whose extreme denial
(when running into continous counter beliefs) turned into a belief
in "conspiracies" (the classic invincible force meeting the immovable
object). I actually feel a little sorry for him - too bad he wasn't
born non-German. I still hope they deport him. ]
--
Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd.
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321fred@mnetor.UUCP (04/12/85)
> I think that Zundel *did* believe the trash that he was publishing. > WW II (and everything that goes along with it) place a colossal guilt-load > on many Germans. There are several possible responses: "ignore it", > "accept it", and "deny it". Zundel was just an extreme case of the > latter reaction - > -- > Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. > UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis > BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321 We may never know for sure, but I would not be surprised if Zundel *did not* believe what he has said for the simple reason that he is supposed to have a book coming out on the subject. If this is so, he has just recieved a publicity campaign worth millions of dollars. Call me cynical, (and a poor speller?), but for my two bits, I think he's just out for a best seller. At the general level, I believe, (as you do, I'm sure), that we cannot legislate against hatred. This falls under the category of free thought. As far as inciting hatred goes, there appears to be two categories; - using the truth to that end, and - using untruths to that end. It seems to me that we cannot ban the truth for any reason. As far as using lies to incite hatred, this we must oppose with vigor! Otherwise we leave ourselves open for another group like the Nazis to take over. However, can we in good faith take away the principle of the accussed being innocent until proven guilty? The answer I would give is, "no". There seems to be just too much chance of innocent questioning being interpreted wrongly. How can we tell that the accused intended to incite hatred? We are not mind readers. And if we convict someone who had no intent, have we not defeated the right of free speech? True, it is difficult to obtain a conviction in most such cases, but as in general, we must have certain safeguards to prevent conviction of the innocent. Cheers, Fred Williams
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (04/12/85)
> However, can we in good faith take away the principle of the > accussed being innocent until proven guilty? The answer I would > give is, "no". There seems to be just too much chance of > innocent questioning being interpreted wrongly. How can we tell > that the accused intended to incite hatred? We are not mind > readers. And if we convict someone who had no intent, have we > not defeated the right of free speech? True, it is difficult to > obtain a conviction in most such cases, but as in general, we > must have certain safeguards to prevent conviction of the innocent. > > Cheers, Fred Williams Yup, I agree with most of what you said, only a minor disagreement with the last paragraph (as I have included here). The paragraph seems to imply that you think that in a suit for libel/slander that the onus of proof should be on the plaintiff. Right? (or were you just refering to criminal charges?) That means that if I am accused of murder by someone, that in a suit of libel/slander I should have to prove that I didn't? Yech! I hope not! The whole point of the libel/slander laws is to protect individuals from unfounded accusations. (As the criminal law does by making the Crown *prove* it's assertions). If we make the libel/slander laws work for groups, then we have the situation where the group defamed does *not* have to prove the allegations false (because they are the ones accused), the defamer has to prove them true. Therefore, if we extend the libel/slander laws to apply to groups, then the "accused" *is* protected by the "onus of proof", the "accuser" isn't. The only difference is that the accused brings the suit, not the accuser (as it is in criminal cases) Right? -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (04/12/85)
In article <10@aquila.UUCP> chris@aquila.UUCP (chris) writes: >No, no, Brad, you got it all wrong! Chris Lewis just wants to PURGE >(that is, re-write, or revise) the bible! Except for a few historical >archival copies, in the name of fairness, of course! > Chris Retterath. No, No, Chris [BTW, long time no see!], you got it all wrong! I don't WANT to purge the Bible. But in fairness (legal fairness that is) to those other people we are trying to prevent spreading virulent lies, we'll probably HAVE to. We've already purged some of Shirley Temple's movies, Uncle Tom's cabin etc. Besides the Bible has been rewritten so many times over history one more time wouldn't hurt! [ Please replace the word "Bible" with any other religious tract that you can think of ] -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
wjr@utcs.UUCP (William Rucklidge) (04/12/85)
> > We either make the assumption that people are not competent w.r.t. > critically examining incoming information (eg: people are unable to > interpret/self censor published material) and should be protected > from them (censoring/banning Zundel's works, Keegstra's works, > the Bible, Talmud, Koran and what-have-you), otherwise they > will start hating/killing/discriminating, > > OR, > > We assume that people *can* critically examine incoming information > and *not* respond with inappropriate actions. Unfortunately, in Keegstra's case, the people he was exposing were not able to critically examine this information: as their teacher, he was presumably viewed as a source of knowledge and, as the testimony of some of the students seems to indicate, the beliefs he was spreading were accepted by the students. This was, of course, reinforced by the necessity that they do assignments about the Jewish conspiracy etc., and the fact that they received better marks for agreeing with him. > Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. > UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis > BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321 -- William Rucklidge University of Toronto Computing Services {decvax,ihnp4,utcsrgv,{allegra,linus}!utzoo}!utcs!wjr GISO - Garbage In, Serendipity Out. This message brought to you with the aid of the Poslfit Committee.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (04/15/85)
In article <582@utcs.UUCP> wjr@utcs.UUCP (William Rucklidge) writes: > Unfortunately, in Keegstra's case, the people he was exposing were >not able to critically examine this information: as their teacher, he was >presumably viewed as a source of knowledge and, as the testimony of some >of the students seems to indicate, the beliefs he was spreading were accepted >by the students. This was, of course, reinforced by the necessity that they >do assignments about the Jewish conspiracy etc., and the fact that they >received better marks for agreeing with him. No doubt about it; it was totally correct for Keegstra to lose his job for pushing his biases/prejudices/philosophy on his students. Whether he should go to jail for it is another question altogether. J.B. Robinson
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/15/85)
No doubt about it; it was totally correct for Keegstra to lose his job for pushing his biases/prejudices/philosophy on his students. Whether he should go to jail for it is another question altogether. J.B. Robinson Why are we firing him -- keep that clear. It had better not be because his philosophy is different - or else no separatists, anarchists or what have you will be free to teach in schools. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (04/15/85)
In article <414@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: || However, can we in good faith take away the principle of the ||accussed being innocent until proven guilty? The answer I would ||give is, "no". There seems to be just too much chance of ||innocent questioning being interpreted wrongly. How can we tell ||that the accused intended to incite hatred? We are not mind ||readers. And if we convict someone who had no intent, have we ||not defeated the right of free speech? That's why we have the jury system. In the Zundel case, a jury of 12 ordinary men and women were convinced, UNANIMOUSLY, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zundel knew what he published was false. I think that says it all. Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave