The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/nyms/pkolding/1996/kolding.0696


From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  1 20:12:59 PDT 1996
Article: 48831 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 14:32:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <4opk9o$dqb@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mt00d$q73@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n1ajl$in6@news.agt.net> <4n7kua$1i7@news2.cts.com> <4nd6hr$csa@knot.queensu.ca> <4njvmb$378@news3.cts.com> <4o4jjm$lt9@archangel.terraport.net> <4o8ne5$dki@news2.cts.com> <4oaq5s$b7g@knot.queensu.ca> <4o <4om87r$f2j@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>l8gc$788@news3.cts.com>:
>Organization: Department of Economics
>Distribution: 

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>: >(1) It is not ethical to do so.  People should be judged by morally 
>: >relevant traits -- i.e., an employee should be judged by the quality of 
>: >work that employee does, not on that employee's gender, race, 
>: >orientation, physical appearance, and so on. 

>: It seems to me that being an "employee" is not any sort of credential
>: for suspending moral judgements. On the contrary, it seems to me the
>: height of unethical behaviour to deny people this right on such
>: specious reasoning. 


>To assume that you merely left your sentence ambiguous would be overly 
>generous.  I should, in fact, also point out that it is the EMPLOYER not 
>discriminating against the employee on what I call 'morally irrelevant 
>traits'.  

I don't know what is confusing you. There is nothing sacrosanct about
being an employee. Because someone is an employee is no reason people
should not be allowed to exercise moral judgements with respect to
their acts and views. People seem to suffer no moral confusion when
they boycott and advocate sanctions against businesses they feel have
offended their morality. 

> As to suspending of moral judgements, do recall the cliche 
>phrase that I have put in other posts in reply to some of yours: the 
>right to your first ends at the point where the right to my nose begins.  
>One does not have, in democratic society, the right to impose harm 
>directly upon another (punishment/sanction being acceptable if done under 
>due process) -- see Mill, J.S. _On Liberty_ for a defining essay on this 
>concept.  To discriminate for morally irrelevant reasons is to harm 
>another directly.

Deciding someone else's moral reasons are "irrelevant" and forcing him
to abandon them is the harm, not his acting on them.


>: I don't see why people must accede to democratic judgement in their
>: private relationships and associations. In fact, it is absurd.

>I see.  If I privately decide to kill you, and not involve anyone else, 
>that is acceptable (in fact, to try to prevent same is absurd)?  After 
>all, the relationship that we would have (short that it may be) would be 
>entirely private.

The argument I was responding to was your view that individuals who
acted on the basis of their own moral judgements were undemocratic and
assumed a political power greater than their due. Perhaps I stated it
badly, or perhaps you are deliberately ignoring the central point of
the whole argument: People have private lives and within them act upon
their own moral judgements. They make their own judgements on
virtually every matter, and disassociate themselves from people they
dislike, for their own private and autonomous reasons. My point was
simply that operating a private business is as much a part of a
person's private life as is working for a private business. No part of
a business requires people to condone the sexual activities or
political views of anyone, yet you and the government are suggesting
that people should be prosecuted if they fail to do so, even if doing
so contravenes their own closely-held moral or religious views. The
view that the government should decide what is "morally irrelevant"
and who people should associate with, on pain of law, is outrageous,
and the view that people's private associations should have to be
submitted to a democratic show of hands by a bunch of strangers is
ridiculous.



>: >Mr. Kolding, you seem to be constantly re-defining 'independent 
>: >verification' without giving any due motivation for its use (besides, 
>: >perhaps, a desire to deliberately mislead).

>: I'm afraid I haven't defined "independently unverifiable" except by
>: using the term. The phrase seems simple enough to understand,
>: notwithstanding your difficulties, and I suspect even the dullest
>: reader can grasp its meaning.

>Your use of the term has been inconsistent, and hence my frustration 
>regarding your unwillingness to define it.  However, if it can be agreed 
>that I am NOT the dullest reader -- and therefore am unable to grasp its 
>meaning -- my request for clarification is not so surprising.

>: I also pointed out in my response that someone claiming he had been
>: discriminated against on the basis of his religion, because he was
>: denied the right to bring a dagger to school or work, would have to
>: establish---independent of his own declaration---that he was a Sikh.
>: That was what I was refering to---the ability of independent
>: verification with respect to religion. This is something not possible
>: when we address sexual orientation. But, of course, I've said this
>: before and you repeatedly---and conveniently---ignore it.

>I would suggest that you consider a remedial English course.  Perhaps at 
>Kindergarten level, since they actually teach reading at about that point 
>and this is where your problem seems to be.
>	I responded on multiple occasions to this point by noting, very 
>plainly, that it is not necessary for a person to prove that he or she 
>was a member of the category under which discrimination was alleged to 
>occur.  All that must be shown is that there is reasonable evidence that 
>the discriminating party believed that the complainant was a member of 
>the particular group.
>	For instance, I have repeated the following example.  Say, for 
>instance, I show up to a job wearing a gay pride rainbow ribbon.  Perhaps 
>I even make comments regarding an upcoming gay pride parade or regarding 
>the murders in Toronto (of which two victims were gay).  On the basis of 
>that information, let us assume that my hypothetical employer fires me.  
>In that case, the employer has discriminated against me (in 8 provinces 
>and in any job under federal jurisdiction) under the basis of sexual 
>orientation.  All I must show is that the balance of proof indicates that 
>the employer (1) believed I was gay and (2) fired me for that reason.  My 
>actual sexual orientation is irrelevant.  Under the circumstances, I 
>would thus be a straight using the protection given to all persons under 
>the human rights act in the respective jurisdictions where it holds.
>	It is not necessary for anyone to independently verify my 
>orientation.  In this case, proving that I am gay would be a tad 
>difficult for me to do since reality is somewhat of a different story. 
>	Although this example has been used for sexual orientation, it 
>need not be restricted to it.  I could be discriminated against on the 
>basis of any religion regardless of my religious affiliation.  Not all 
>Cohens need be Jewish, but it is entirely likely that someone, upon 
>seeing that name, will assume that the bearer of it is Jewish.  Even if 
>the victim of that discrimination is not Jewish, he or she can proceed 
>with a discrimination complaint.

You once again show your limitless capacity to veer away from the
point. Repeating the very simple and straightforward example I used
before: If one attempts to claim discrimination on the grounds of your
Sikh religion when the authorities at your school stop you from
carrying a dagger, you will be obliged to independently verify that
you are a Sikh.

>: In other words, as I've been saying since the commencement of this
>: discussion some weeks ago, and upon which I originally entered it,
>: people will have to publically condone or approve all sexual acts, or
>: risk prosecution. 

>That is categorically incorrect.  Please note, after you have taken your 
>remedial English course, that I merely put up caveats.  Public statements 
>of any sort are neither compelled nor prevented -- hate propaganda is as 
>are a few other exceptions.  However, although it can be duly presumed 
>that you have, in this public venue, stated your disapproval of 
>gay/lesbian acts, you would not be liable under any basis for the 
>statements that you have made (even ignoring the general difficulties in 
>filing suits or criminal proceedings against 'net users).

I don't believe I've publically disapproved of any particular
gay/lesbian act, except perhaps those posts declaring that sexual
orientation is the basis of marriage. 






From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  1 20:13:00 PDT 1996
Article: 48832 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 14:29:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <4opk3v$dqb@news3.cts.com>
References: <132612.13796.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4o03gd$1lj@news2.cts.com> <4o7d4l$45q@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4oel1t$884@news3.cts.com> <4og4pf$kmu@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ol8h9$788@news3.cts.com> <4olp72$bvj@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:


>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>>>> No more than I can prove that I like mangos and dislike spinach.
>> 
>>>	Fine. Unless you can prove to me that you like mangos, you will
>>>lose your job, and get beaten up by five guys.
>> 
>> Well, since I don't work for you, I doubt you can make good on your
>> first proposal,

>	It's a thought experiment. Unless you can prove you are straight,
>you've lost your job. It happened to a few US forces people.

If an employer demands proof of something, presumably he must supply
the standard of proof at some point. If the argument is made that a
"lack" of some social attribute---a wife, a girlfriend, a tendency to
foam at the mouth upon seeing Claudia Schiffer, for example---is the
standard, then it is not sexual orientation that has to be proved, but
something else. Sexual orientation cannot be proved one way or the
other. Only *acts* and *views* can be offered for interpretation.

>> and as to your second---there is little difference
>> between getting beaten up for one's pocket change, or one's unwanted
>> attentions to wives not your own, or your sexual orientation. There
>> are already plenty of laws against assaults, and the inclusion of
>> sexual orientation provides no more protection.

>There is a TREMENDOUS amount of difference. 
>What is the difference between burning an unnocupied church and
>burning a pile of wood? Chemically, it is very much the same material. 
>What is the difference between me exposing myself to my
>girlfreind and exposing myself to the pope? 
>What is the difference of me taking the keys to my parents car
>without their consent and taking the keys to your car without your
>consent? 
>What is the dfference between beating someone at random and
>beating someone based on a charecteristic?
>	
>Here is the simple answer: Terrorism. 
>Burning a church sends a message to the churchgoers. It is just as
>illegal to set fire to a church as it is to set fire to a pile of wood on
>someone else's property. 
>Exposing ones self to the pope is just as unwanted as exposing
>myself to my girlfreind. It sends a very strange message to the pope, and
>much of the civilized world. 
>Beating someone because they are gay, black, white, jewish,
>disabled, liberal, skinhead, or anything else is a form of terrorism. 
> 

And getting assaulted because you have just received your Old Age
pension or welfare cheque isn't?  


>>>	It's called Conspiracy, it's in the criminal code.
>> 
>> One must conspire to commit some crime, though. I'm asking you to tell
>> us whether hanging a sign in a workplace denouncing homosexual acts is
>> now to be a crime.

>	You are twisting my words again. It is illegal to act upon
>statements that gays should be killed, and it is illegal to spread these
>statements. You can state an opinion as long as it is not hateful or
>slanderous. 

I'm not twisting any of your words. I simply asked a question which I
have asked others before, and received the same evasive non-answer.

>>>	As long as it doesn't offend anyone or cause trouble, yes.
>> 
>> So, according to you, freedom of speech is now to be subject to the
>> approval of others before it will be allowed?

>	It ALWAYS has been.

If you think that, you have no conception of what freedom of speech
is.


>>>	Now you know i feel when you don't make sense!
>> 
>> It makes sense, you just don't understand it. An example in a racial
>> case would be an employer or supervisor who expressed opinions that
>> many African countries were unstable and had corrupt governments. The
>> facts of the opinion are perfectly true,

>	They are not perfectly true, you are very dishonest in trying to
>drag this discussion off on a tangent. 

Please remember that my response to your post was offered because you
claimed not to understand what I meant when I referred to tangential
views.

>> under this provision. And this simply means, as I have proposed from
>> the beginning, that employers will now be obliged to publically
>> condone or approve *any* sexual acts, for fear of being prosecuted.

>	Maybe they should keep sexuality out of the workplace all
>together, the way it's been for the past 50 years or so?

Why stop there? If one is to be prosecuted for expressing incorrect
sexual opinions, how about political opinions? Or for expressing any
opinion whatever, if it doesn't have a direct business application? 

Speech is a *fundamental freedom*, as defined by the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. The government has no business telling people that their
fundamental freedoms are to be suspended if they wish to eat.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  1 20:13:01 PDT 1996
Article: 48833 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: B.C. needs proportional representation.
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 14:30:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4opk6m$dqb@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4ohi40$a0b@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <31AC9746.47CB@starvision.com> <4ol8h6$788@news3.cts.com> <4on76a$88k@fountain.mindlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:3628 can.politics:48833

"D. Rodney Smelser"  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:
>>Willington Wong  wrote:
>>
>>>The NDP got lucky this time by winning many close races, but it could have gone 
>>>either way.  If anything, it sends a strong message to the NDP that their 
>>>support is not what it used to be in 1991, and that they'd better listen to 
>>>*all* the people in BC.  And I'm sure this popular vote embarrasment will haunt 
>>>them for the next 4 years.


>Listen to *all* the people in BC, eh?  I am just thinking out loud here, 
>but if the Liberals had won a majority govt do you suppose they would 
>have listened to union members in matters of labour legislation?  Would 
>they have listened to poor people in matters of welfare policy?  Or would 
>they instead have listened to the people on the North Shore and the West 
>Side who gave their MLAs majorities of 10 to 15 thousand votes?  You 
>know, the people whose homes are worth well over $500 thousand each and 
>who were mad as hell that Glen Clark had once proposed, for all of two or 
>three days, that they should pay additional taxes on these wealth stocks?


>>I haven't seen the vote totals, but I suspect that the vote split
>>between the Liberals and PDA probably gave the election to the NDP. 
>>

>As you know, many PDA supporters were more likely soft NDP than soft 
>Liberal.

Not in this election.






From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  1 20:13:02 PDT 1996
Article: 48834 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news3.agis.net!agis!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: B.C. needs proportional representation.
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 14:28:58 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4opk39$dqb@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4ohi40$a0b@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <31AC9746.47CB@starvision.com> <4ol8h6$788@news3.cts.com> <4olh5u$8rv@cheshire.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:3630 can.politics:48834

buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) wrote:

>In article <4ol8h6$788@news3.cts.com>, Peter Kolding  wrote:
>>I haven't seen the vote totals, but I suspect that the vote split
>>between the Liberals and PDA probably gave the election to the NDP. 

> Well, this thread is about how the lack of proportional
> representation means that the vote totals didn't decide the
> elections, it was the votes by riding that did it (more
> specifically, overkill in some Liberal ridings while
> the NDP votes led to narrower -- but quite sufficient --
> victories in many other ridings).
> 

I was slipshod in my writing. I was referring to the vote totals
within each riding. 

...[some deleted]...

> 
> I think the likely result of the vote we just had, with
> proportional representation, would have been a few months of
> an uneasy coalition and then another election.

I like the idea of more elections, more frequently, but I would prefer
if there were independent rules applied with respect to when they
occur. In the case of the NDP we have seen the premier of a completely
corrupt party refuse to hold elections, but rather put them off for as
long as he can and then resign---even though he personally had nothing
to do with scandal. What I would like to see is a yearly referendum
giving the people a chance to call for new elections, perhaps held
within a week of each year's budget speech, or on some fixed date. The
results would be tabulated in two ways---by total vote and by riding.
If the total vote was for new elections then an election must take
place within, say, 6 weeks. If the total vote was against new
elections, then new elections, within 6 weeks, would only be held in
those ridings that voted for elections.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun  3 10:01:05 PDT 1996
Article: 49160 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC GAG LAW POSTS - NCC RESPONDS
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:34:03 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4ouij2$qve@news3.cts.com>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49160 bc.politics:3775

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article
>,
>"David E. Somerville"  wrote:

>>         NATIONAL CITIZENS' COALITION PRESIDENT DAVID SOMERVILLE
>> 
>>                 RESPONDS TO BC ELECTION GAG LAW POSTINGS
>> 
>> 
>>      I started this thread and have found the postings over the
>> 
>> past several weeks quite educational, even the postings which
>> 
>> displayed intolerance, ignorance or malice. . . 

>I notice you did not respond in the bc.politics newsgroup, and you have
>not responded to requests to list donors and corporate sponsors. 

>Please list your donors, past and present, so Canadians can judge whether
>you are the National "Citizens'" Coalition, or just a front for the
>corporations and the wealthy. 

Why should a private organisation, officially reduced to the
undemocratic and censored status of a "third party", be obliged to
release the names of private citizens that associate with it? 

By the way, I don't see anyone posting the names and addresses of
every NDP member on this forum. Perhaps you could oblige us, Steve?
After all, they are members of a legally privileged organisation,
whose lackeys actually write the laws, much less simply express
opinions. 



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun  3 17:06:52 PDT 1996
Article: 49237 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: C-33 comments
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:34:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4ouijh$qve@news3.cts.com>
References: <4oobfv$799@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

mike keenan  wrote:



>On 1 Jun 1996, Steven Meece wrote:

>> "Do homosexuals only want protection from discrimination? Or, with
>> protection from discrimination, could they also want protection from
>> public scrutiny, from public criticism, and perhaps from public
>> accountability?"
>> 	Sharon Hayes, Reform Port Moody-Coquitlam
>>
>The same could be said of anyone who is protected from discrimination. 
>Besides, Bill C-33 could be used to protect *heterosexuals* from 
>discrimination as well. It has been claimed, for example, that the 
>British TV industry is dominated by gay men and that heterosexuals have a 
>harder time getting promotions. I must admit that I don't know if this is 
>true, or if it is applicable to any industry in Canada, but it is 
>certainly plausible. And in such a case, heterosexuals would have 
>protection under Bill C-33.
> 

I suggest heterosexuals will receive the same sort of protection under
human rights law as non-disabled white males do presently, unless they
can claim membership in anotherlegally-designated disadvantaged group.






From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun  3 17:06:53 PDT 1996
Article: 49238 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:34:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4ouijf$qve@news3.cts.com>
References: <4ol8gc$788@news3.cts.com> <833543156.4088snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

jkodish@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:

>In article <4ol8gc$788@news3.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com writes:
>>
>>It seems to me that being an "employee" is not any sort of credential
>>for suspending moral judgements. On the contrary, it seems to me the
>>height of unethical behaviour to deny people this right on such
>>specious reasoning. 
>>

>Sounds like a perfect argument in support of equal rights for gays.

I'm glad to see that you now support my view that people should be
allowed to associate with whom they wish, based upon the moral
judgements they make with respect to people's views and activities





From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun  3 17:06:54 PDT 1996
Article: 49239 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:34:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4ouijd$qve@news3.cts.com>
References: <4ol8h2$788@news3.cts.com> <833543084.4087snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

jkodish@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:

>In article <4ol8h2$788@news3.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com writes:
>>
>>jkodish@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:
>>
>>I agree. Too bad the government doesn't.
>>

>THe government believes that it is not business' right any more than the
>State's to pry into our personal lives.

What rubbish. How is the legal prohibition of the right to choose whom
you associate with not unmitigated government interference?



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun  3 17:06:54 PDT 1996
Article: 49240 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: B.C. needs proportional representation.
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:34:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4ouijb$qve@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4ohi40$a0b@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <31AC9746.47CB@starvision.com> <4ol8h6$788@news3.cts.com> <4on76a$88k@fountain.mindlink.net> <4opk6m$dqb@news3.cts.com> <1996Jun1.083343@malad1.mala.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:3808 can.politics:49240

dunnett@mala.bc.ca (Malcolm Dunnett) wrote:

>In article <4opk6m$dqb@news3.cts.com>,
>    pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) writes:

>>>>I haven't seen the vote totals, but I suspect that the vote split
>>>>between the Liberals and PDA probably gave the election to the NDP. 
>>>>
>> 
>>>As you know, many PDA supporters were more likely soft NDP than soft 
>>>Liberal.
>> 
>> Not in this election.
>> 

>   On what do you base this pronouncement?

>   Being a "soft NDP supporter" who voted for the PDA (and who would
>not consider voting for a Liberal party led by Gordon Campbell) and having
>spoken to others who felt the same I can assure you from first hand knowledge
>that some of the PDA support did come from people who otherwise would have
>voted for the NDP.

I base it on the presumption that someone who is a nominal NDP
supporter, but can't bring himself to vote for the NDP, sees something
wrong with the NDP. The PDA was the party of Liberal malcontents in
the election, not NDP malcontents. The NDP, from the vote figures I've
seen, maintained their usual proportion of the popular vote.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun  3 17:06:55 PDT 1996
Article: 49241 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:34:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <4ouij7$qve@news3.cts.com>
References: <172150.13996.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca>  <31a12216.4251167@news>  <31A20F79.1621@fox.nstn.ca> <31b036b8.54641544@news3.idirect.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

bydesign@idirect.com (Dave Prichard) wrote:

>JMD  wrote:


>>-------------------------------
>>The members of the National Citizens" Coalition espouse their beliefs 
>>publicly and those beliefs are open to debate, this thread being a case 
>>in point.
>>
>>You are welcome to debate issues with the NCC and with individual members 
>>such as me but the membership list is none of your business. The NCC 
>>exists to stimulate debate and promote a conservative agenda. It is not a 
>>political party and it does not run candidates. The NCC does not have 
>>charitable status and it receives no government hand-outs. I don't know 
>>if there is corporate money flowing to the NCC and I don't care. Heck, I 
>>don't even know who other members are.  Some conspiracy, huh?
>>
>>Thankfully like-minded, law-abiding people can still assemble freely in 
>>Canada without having to divulge that fact to some state authority.  The 
>>corollary of this freedom is that the NCC and any other organization 
>>(left or right) must be free to express its views publicly at any time.  
>>Freedom of speech is a birthright.  It is not something bestowed by 
>>government. Sadly, the historical record shows that governments are all 
>>too eager to take it away.
>> 
>>Your view that the NCC must be gagged at election time portrays the worst 
>>sort of elitism, Steve.  You seem to think that the views of the NCC are 
>>dangerous because people are gullible and can be conned into voting for 
>>an agenda that is contrary to their own interests.  I think you will find 
>>that NCC members have far more faith in democracy and the intelligience 
>>of the electorate than you do.
>>
>>John D.


>  You miss the point John. the objection is not that they express their
>views but rather that they are an organized body who's sole purpose is to
>influnce political events. As such they are no longer merely an assembly of
>citizens, and a defacto political body with a conservative agenda.

I'm afraid "an assembly of citizens" is precisely what they are. It is
outrageous that people expect them to submit their membership list to
government or state functionaries.


> They are quite free to express their views, the question is are members
>circumventing contribution guidelines by contributing under personal and\or
>corporate persona and then again under the NCC. Such practises are
>objectionable by any organization.

If that is the question then it is patently unnecessary to require the
NCC or any private group to release their membership lists. The
government need only release the membership lists of the political
parties to the police, and then instruct them to investigate each
person's political and financial dealings. Is that what you want? It
would seem so, since you have no problem applying this standard to
"third parties" with no official standing whatever.

> The core of democracy is it's openess. If the NCC declines to inform about
>it's members, do they have something to hide?

The core of democracy is free political association. However, if you
want "openness", I suggest you post the name and address of every NDP
member in this forum. Surely the NDP is "an organized body who's sole
purpose is to influence political events", and as such should not
object to such a requirement, seeing as they actually make laws rather
than simply express opinions.





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 12:10:44 PDT 1996
Article: 49445 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!uniserve!news.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!news.inc.net!trellis.wwnet.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: B.C. needs proportional representation.
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:37:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4p49ip$lce@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4ohi40$a0b@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <31AC9746.47CB@starvision.com> <4ol8h6$788@news3.cts.com> <4on76a$88k@fountain.mindlink.net> <4opk6m$dqb@news3.cts.com> <1996Jun1.083343@malad1.mala.bc.ca <4p03ue$79i@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:3869 can.politics:49445

stuartm@unixg.ubc.ca (cameron stuart mcdiarmid) wrote:

>> <4ouijb$qve@news3.cts.com>:
>Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
>Distribution: 

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: The PDA was the party of Liberal malcontents in the election, not NDP 
>: malcontents.

>Maybe that was because they couldn't recognize the party they supported 
>in 1991 for how far right it had shifted under Campbell.  I voted PDA, 
>and I was more likely to vote NDP (although not for their exemplary 
>behaviour or honourable practices :) ) than Liberal.   

Which seems to confirm that the PDA drew its greatest support from
Liberal malcontents, rather than people such as yourself. An NDP
supporter doesn't vote for the PDA because the Liberals have gone too
far right, but because of problems with the NDP. And since the NDP
maintained its historic proportion of the popular vote, the bulk of
PDA support must have come from disaffected Liberal voters.




From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 12:10:45 PDT 1996
Article: 49446 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.fibr.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC GAG LAW POSTS - NCC RESPONDS
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:41:37 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4p49rc$lce@news3.cts.com>
References:     
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49446 bc.politics:3870

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article
>,
>"David E. Somerville"  wrote:

>> On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Steve Ranta wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> > Apparently, when the National Citizens' coalition changed into an
>> > organisation in the mid-1970s, Alan Brown launched it with money raised
>> > from an appeal to one thousand wealthy Canadians for donations.
>> 
>>         That's COLIN Brown and these patriotic Canadians donated $100
>> each.

>So we've established that much of the seed money for the National
>Citizens' Coalition came from 1,000 of the wealthiest Canadians.

No, it seems that there were no large donations, corporate or
otherwise, which is the opposite of what you have repeatedly claimed,
and which people have asked you to substantiate.

What has been established is not what the source of funding of the NCC
was, but that you have been lying. 






From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 15:17:34 PDT 1996
Article: 49495 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.fibr.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Hate Material will NOT BE Tolerated!
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:37:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4p49ju$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <3198F740.2AC4@compusmart.ab.ca> <4ns29k$krc@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca> <4nt2qn$avi@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4nu9a1$s00@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4nug3c$bgu@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4o2k7u$c4i@news2.cts.com> <4obn13$aap@yendi.mdd.comm.mot.com> <4ol8h4$788@news3.cts.com> <4ovg71$7l8@yendi.mdd.comm.mot.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

campbell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Duncan Campbell) wrote:

>By the strength of your arguements I must assume all of our women have
>become NAZIs.  I guess there is no God either.
> 
>Nonetheless, we (us Canadians) fought a bloody war against the NAZIs
>and I have yet to see a blood-crazed female mob smashing in
>indows of all-male businesses (England is the only place I can 
>even imagine this happening, and only then by conjunction 
>of Moon and Mad Cow Disease D).
> 
>For the government to sponsor a bunch of loud women to make some outrageous
>pronouncements is silly, and possibly politically inept.  Government
>sponsorship of people who avowedly espouse principles and defend the actions 
>of one of the great criminal gangs of human history would at the       
>very least require a failure of confidence and permanent resignation 
>from public life of the parties in government.

As usual, either from cowardice or stupidity, people refuse to address
the actual point at issue, i.e., the behaviour of GOVERNMENT. And I
repeat, would your views be the same if the Government sponsored an
"Aryan" conference, had a Minister attend, paid for a neo-Nazi to make
a speech advocating the mass murder of Jewish abusers, and then,
when questioned by the Press, responded that "people should
understand"? 

The only difference in the behaviour of the former government was that
the conference was for feminists, with no "males" permitted to attend
(not even male reporters), and that the speech advocated the mass
murder of men, rather than Jews. 



.....{P.S. I wonder if you would look into your e-mail facilities. You
have copied your responses to my postings to me by e-mail, but your
return e-mail address is non-functional. I get a great deal of e-mail
and would 1) prefer not getting copies of newsgroup posts, and 2) have
the opportunity to respond via e-mail to people who decide to use it
to correspond with me.}......




From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 15:17:36 PDT 1996
Article: 49497 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.fibr.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:41:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <4p49qr$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com> <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nmeoq$mn0@loki.tor.hookup.net> <319F174B.448C@crosslink.net> <4nngju$ceq@cheshire.ucs.ubc.ca> <4nnk3q$jat@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>  <4o421r$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o67ba$jdg@apollo.isisnet.com> <4oap4s$cu0@news2.cts.com> <4ogvao$qga@apollo.isisnet.com> <4ol8hc$788@news3.cts.com> <4orkbi$9f@apollo.isisnet.com> <4p1i87$p8a@news3.cts.com> <4p1nj4$ns5@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:


>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>>>See how stupid that sounds?
>> 
>> It does sound remarkably stupid, but I didn't say it, you did. I have
>> also pointed out on more than one occasion that sexual orientation is
>> no bar to marriage. You are therefore *not* interested in marriage,
>> but simply want special recognition and legal status on the sole basis
>> that you sleep with men.

>	And you want special legal status on the basis that you have
>children. IE should a gay couple with no kids pay taxes to the school
>system? Gays don't have kids, isn't that a heterosexual thing?

Single people don't have kids, nor those born sterile, nor those who
take religious vows of chastity. They all pay taxes, notwithstanding
the arguable pointlessness and injustice of school taxation rules as
they are presently exercised. I would also point out, as I have
repeatedly in the past, that the "special legal status" of marriage is
not confined to those who actually have children, and that sexual
orientation is no bar to getting married. 


>>>Why not?  Of course they are equivalent.
>> 
>>>Spouse, whether a man or a woman (say no kids in either case) is entitled to 
>>>your spousal benifits that your government or employer provides.
>> 
>> Excuse me, but marriage is not about tax breaks provided by government
>> and employers. IBM Canada gets tax breaks and I suggest that it is not
>> married, and receiving or being qualified to receive them does not
>> make them so. Marriage is not defined by sexual orientation or sexual
>> activities, either. Sexual escapades---of whatever stripe---have no
>> bearing on the familial bloodlines that are maintained by the children
>> born in wedlock.

>The primary purpose of weddings was not to produce children.

The primary purpose of marriage is as I have outlined. That people
choose to give the emotional or financial, but necessarily subservient
accoutrements of marriage, a greater precedence and importance than 
the central reason for the institution is not an argument against that
reason. It may be an excellent reason why so many marriages fail,
however. 


>>>It has nothing to do with the production of kids.  
>> 
>> 
>> The basis of formal marriage is the maintenance of family bloodlines.
>> That is the primary purpose of the institution, notwithstanding the
>> other things that find a harbour there.

>	You are dead wrong, 100 percent. Marriage was rare in Europe
>throughout much of it's history. Marriage was a means of uniting two
>powerful families. Children were born to mostly unwed parents throughout
>most of humankind's existance. 

I'm afraid it is you who are wrong. There is no society known to
history where marriage---in one form or another---has not been
widespread and recognised by law or custom. In all cases, the central
reason for marriage has been the maintenance of family bloodlines.
Like another poster, you confuse the different reasons used to justify
maintaining family bloodlines, with the purpose of marriage. Formal
marriage is how family bloodlines are maintained. The reasons that the
maintenance of family bloodlines are important vary from society to
society, culture to culture, family to family. 

>	I'm not sure at what point marriage spread into the general
>population, but it was not common among the poor, only the rich and noble
>people. 

You are badly educated. Even the Druids of Caesar's time had elaborate
kinship through marriage rules. The limitations to marriage in history
have been of a par with those of today:  They were geared to the
ability of the persons involved to maintain family bloodlines. In the
past, the restrictions and conditions were far harder---not because of
class, religion or law---but because the families themselves took an
active and authoritative part in allowing or prohibiting the marriages
of family members.


...[some deleted]...

>> Marriage is an institution for the
>> extension of familial bloodlines, with all the political and social
>> consequences that that produces. 

>It has NOTHING to do with children, thank you for admitting that. 

It has everything to do with children. Family bloodlines are not
maintained except by the production of children within wedlock. The
CHILDREN become new members of the two families formally represented
by the wedded parents. THEY are the ones who actual extend and
maintain family bloodlines. Producing a child out of wedlock does not
extend *family* bloodlines, it simply passes on a genetic relationship
with humanity. 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 15:17:37 PDT 1996
Article: 49499 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.fibr.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:41:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4p49q9$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mt00d$q73@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n1ajl$in6@news.agt.net> <4n7kua$1i7@news2.cts.com> <4nd6hr$csa@knot.queensu.ca> <4njvmb$378@news3.cts.com> <4o4jjm$lt9@archangel.terraport.net> <4o8ne5$dki@news2.cts.com> <4oaq5s$b7g@knot.queensu.ca> <4ol8gc$788@news3.cts.com> <4oriub$9f@apollo.isisnet.com> <4p1i7s$p8a@news3.cts.com> <4p1n4k$nn8@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:


>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> 
>> I don't think you quite understand: People are supposed to have a
>> right to express opinions opposing activities and views they don't
>> care for. By the very Charter it continually refers to, the government
>> is not supposed to be allowed to pass laws that deny people the right
>> to express their opinions. 

>	There is a point where expressing opinions has to become illegal,
>that's in the charter of rights as well. I have the right to be protected
>from your opinion. 

>	As the saying goes "Your right to swing your arm ends where my
>nose begins". The last time i used that line you conviently failed to
>answer that post. Answer it now, please. What limits would you put on
>expressing an opinion?

I really think you do not understand what you are talking about. The
saying "Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins" is
advocacy in support of total freedom of speech, not its limitation. It
is advocating that people may say whatever they wish with the only
limitation upon discourse being physical attack. As for my own views,
I am not an absolutist or libertarian when it comes to free speech. In
time of declared war, I could understand some government limitations
on speech. In contracts between people, I could understand mutually
agreed upon limitations of free speech. In cases of libel and slander,
I subscribe to the narrow and traditional view that only
persons---rather than "groups"---can suffer from attacks on
reputation, and I think that repuation should be considered a very
hardy flower, capable of damage only by the most egregious and
exceptional attacks. I have no problem with copyright protections, but
reject all government attempts to institute and act upon presumptions
of copyright infringement on a "group" basis---such as is now common
in most western democracies. Government censorship, and any limitation
of speech with respect to elections and such like, I consider outright
state criminality if there are even nominal constituional guarantees
existing with respect to free speech for the citizenry.




From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:07:48 PDT 1996
Article: 79231 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Questions "Grosvenor" won't answer (Round 1)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:40:32 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <4p49pd$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <4p06mk$pgk@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:79231 can.politics:49541

kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>Archive/File: people/g/grosvenor.william/gruber-10q
>Last-Modified: 1996/06/03

>Mr. "Grosvenor," 

>It would be unfair to label you as either a liar or
>an irrational hater of Jews without offering you the
>opportunity to explain the distortions and errors noted below.

>As I am certain you are a busy chap, I will republish these
>questions on a regular basis, in order to provide you with
>ample time to deal with the issues raised. I will also add to
>them, in the event you continue to publish similarly
>misleading material.

>Question 1
>----------

>   On May 13, 1996, you made the statment:

>      "Mind you,they do support the Jew Morgentaler and his murder 
>      of unborn babies at his abortionariums." (Grosvenor,
>      Jews for Faggots)

>   Question 1 is a two-parter:

>   1. What proof do you offer that this doctor is Jewish?
>   2. What difference would it make if he were?

As much as I know how you like concentrating on the peripheries,
rather than addressing the point, perhaps you won't mind confirming or
denying the obvious point the nitwit Grosvenor, in his foul way, was
alleging: That the CJC supported the abortion views and activities of
Morgentaler, as well as the recent homosexual rights legislation
introduced in Parliament.


>Question 2
>----------

>   In May of 1996, you, Sir, made the following statements:

>      "In Alberta Canada Senator Ghitter,together with Bnai Brith 
>      and other jewish groups are openly supporting special rights 
>      for faggots and for more powers for the socalled human 
>      rights commission." (Grosvenor, Jews for Faggots)

>   and...

>      "If you feel that faggots should not get special rights 
>      at the expense of your dollars and those of all normal humans, 
>      then join AFL - ANTI-FAGGOT LEAGUE." (Grosvenor, Support AFL)

>   and...

>      "I feel that they should NOT GET SPECIAL RIGHTS,even if the 
>      faggot loving   Canadian government wants to give them."
>      (Grosvenor, Faggots Spread)

>   and...

>      "Here in Alberta Senator Ghitter and the Bnai Brith are 
>      supporting the faggots and lesbians. The groups want the Alberta 
>      government to give special rights to the perverts,presumably as 
>      one more attempt to destroy the traditional family."
>      (Grosvenor, Why Are Jews)

>   The question, Mr. "Grosvenor," is why you have lied about
>   B'nai Brith and others, who have not called upon the
>   government to "give special rights" to gays and/or
>   lesbians? 

Let us not be too arch, McVay. A lot of people consider the imposition
of "sexual orientation" protection as tantamount to granting special
rights, and I daresay most of them do not share Grosvenor's views
on either homosexuals or Jews. Has or has not the B'nai Brith, and the
other organisations referred to in this discussion, publically
supported the recently passed legislation, and advocated the
stengthening of the power and scope of human rights commissions in
Canada?

>Question 3
>----------

>On May 30, 1996, you posted the following article to an
>Internet topical discussion group:

>      "Canadian news media report that the subject of the KOSHER 
>      TAX is again under investigation by Revenue Canada Taxation.

>      "The story on the business page, states that many manufacturers, 
>      such as for Saran Wrap, sanka Coffee,Mr.Clean, etc. must pay 
>      extra fees to rabbis to have their products declared kosher.

>      "This extra cost is then passed on to every customer.

>      "Some people have been trying to claim the extra $300 per person 
>      per year as a so-called charitable donation on their tax returns. 
>      The tax department has disallowed this fraud, since no willing 
>      charitable donation was given, nor a receipt provided.

>      "Apparently some non-Jews tried to claim this,and are now very 
>      angry at being disallowed. To add insult to injury, they had no 
>      choice in the costs of their purchases, since the extra costs 
>      paid to the rabbis is buried in the total costs."
>      (Grosvenor, Kosher Tax)

>Here is the ACTUAL text of the article you cited:

>      "Tall tax tale isn't kosher"

>      "Kosher Question: Can I claim a $300 kosher tax deduction for 
>      buying Saran Wrap, Mr. Clean, Sanka and other products that 
>      have been blessed by rabbis and identified by secret symbols?

>      "Answer: No. This old and vicious rumour is based on anti-Semitic 
>      scapegoating that tries to blame Jews for higher prices - to pay 
>      the rabbis - then claims Jews are the only ones who know the 
>      secret symbols and claim the kosher deduction. It's all false." 
>      (Chalmers, Ron. Edmonton Journal, Business section, "Money 
>      Matters," front page, May 29, 1996)

>   The question, of course, is why you misrepresented (to be
>   kind) the contents of this article?

Surely this is a rhetorical question? Grosvenor is an anti-semite and
a profound nincompoop. That is why he does the things he does.







From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:15:42 PDT 1996
Article: 49533 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:37:59 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4p49kj$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <1996May31.214951.23162@wpg.ramp.net> <4onu18$c9@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ov6da$at8@nic.ott.hookup.net> <4ovp5l$5gi@freenet-news.carleton.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

bw201@torfree.net (Bob Levitt) wrote:

>Bill Stuart (ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:

>: Brian Graham (GrahamB@psac.com) writes:
>: > 
>: > No. It means that a minority gets the job.

>: 	It means the chance of a minority getting a job depends on how
>: many minorities you can get applying for that position. If it's over the
>: percentage of that minority group in a given area, then the chances are
>: equal. 

>: --
>: Acceptable amounts in Canadian drinking water: Cyanide: 0.2 mg/l   Uranium:
>: 0.1 mg/l  Mercury: 0.001 mg/l   Dioxin:  15 pg/l

>Employment equity is about bringing affirmative action programs in the 
>hiring, training, promotion and retention of the "designated groups"
>to meet quotas ("numerical targets") so that their proportions in all
>levels and areas of the covered companies or government ministries, 
>departments, directorates, etc., of these "designated groups" at least 
>match their proportions in the population.  If the non-designated groups
>are under-represented, that is not against Employment Equity regulations.

Not only that. It is against the law to have an affirmative action
program for people who are not members of a legally-designated group,
as such a program would discriminate against those who are members of
one of those groups. This is why white female dominated public
employment areas, such as teaching and nursing, have remained that way
after decades of AA, even though AA is purportedly dedicated to
"equality" and "representation based on the make-up of the
population". It also should give people an injsight as to why both
these groups have no problem with the concept of EE, and actively
support it. It's not as if it will ever apply to them.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:15:44 PDT 1996
Article: 49534 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:39:34 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4p49nh$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <1996May31.214951.23162@wpg.ramp.net> <4onu18$c9@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ov6da$at8@nic.ott.hookup.net> <4ovp5l$5gi@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:


>Brian Graham (GrahamB@psac.com) writes:
>> 
>> No. It means that a minority gets the job.

>	It means the chance of a minority getting a job depends on how
>many minorities you can get applying for that position. If it's over the
>percentage of that minority group in a given area, then the chances are
>equal. 

I don't know what law you are referring to when you make these
observations, but it isn't Canadian in origin. AA in Canada has no
regard whatever for the number of minorities that apply for jobs, but
rather their proportion in the general popualtion. AA laws have no
regard for the percentage of applicants that are minorities, but
rather the proportion that are already employed, and their position
within the company doing the hiring. If 50 exceptionally qualified
white men apply for a job and one  minimumly qualified minority
applies, and an AA program is in effect, the minority gets the job.





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:15:45 PDT 1996
Article: 49535 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:39:56 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <4p49o8$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <1996May31.214951.23162@wpg.ramp.net> <4ov662$at8@nic.ott.hookup.net> <4ovoum$5dn@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:


>Brian Graham (GrahamB@psac.com) writes:
>> The manner in which EQUAL RIGHTS is being implemented is sickening.
>> The theory is to prevent discrimination. IN FACT IT LEGISLATES IT.
>> 
>> Two candidates write an exam for a job to indicate knowledge/skill
>> level. Pass mark is 50%. Let's say, for example, that a white male
>> scored 95%. Lets say the minority (pick any, including female) scores
>> a whopping 50%. Guess who gets the job. THE MINORITY!!  WHY??

>	This is somewhat innacurate.

>	Here's how it works.

>	Lets say we have 100 people, 95 of them are white males and five
>are black males. They can hire ten people. Because the demographics of
>that area show that ten percent of the population is black, one of the
>five has to get a position. 

>	If 95 black males and 5 white males applied, all the white males
>would get jobs. 

Why do you keep on spouting this blatant misinformation? AA cannot be
applied in favour of white males, nor against blacks, by law.
Non-disabled white males are not members of a designated disadvantaged
group, and thus hiring them on the basis of their race and sex is
discrimination on the basis of race and sex. Furthermore, since blacks
are members of a legally-designated disadvantaged group, no AA program
can be adopted that impairs their opportunities for employment. If 10
positions are open and there are 100 applicants---95 white men and 5
black----there is no certainly at all that any whites will be hired,
no matter what their qualifications. On the other hand, if all the
blacks meet at least the minimum standard, all of them will be hired.
The standard is not the proportion of black applicants, but the
proportion of blacks in the population and employed by the company.
The proportion of whites in the population and in the company is
IRRELEVANT. Even if the company hadn't a single white man in its
employ, blacks would be hired under AA if their group proportions
demanded it.






From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:15:46 PDT 1996
Article: 49536 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:40:48 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4p49ps$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <132612.13796.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4o03gd$1lj@news2.cts.com> <4o7d4l$45q@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4oel1t$884@news3.cts.com> <4og4pf$kmu@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ol8h9$788@news3.cts.com> <4olp72$bvj@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4opk3v$dqb@news3.cts.com> <4or4st$q5u@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4p1i7p$p8a@news3.cts.com> <4p1mvj$nlt@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:


>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:
>>>> something else. Sexual orientation cannot be proved one way or the
>>>> other. Only *acts* and *views* can be offered for interpretation.
>> 
>>>THAT'S THE POINT! You can't prove it! You are now an honorary
>>>homosexual. If this were 3 am and i was a gaybasher you would be dead. 
>>>*Acts* can be INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY. Because you use long words
>>>and like philosophy, you are obviously a homosexual. Also note the
>>>internalized homophobia. Yep, you're gay. Can you prove otherwise? 
>>> 
>> 
>> Please note that you have just proved my point. You have shown how it
>> is not a person's sexual orientation that people will discriminate
>> against, but *views* and *activities*. 

>	REASONABLE views and activities! Think about it, i've just killed
>you because you use long words. Is that reasonable?

It is no more or less reasonable than if you had killed me to steal my
wallet. Under this legislation, however, people will be obliged to
condone or approve all sexual activities, for fear of prosecution on
the basis that publically disapproving of some act will be construed
as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation---is that
reasonable?

>	I hope you or someone you know gets gaybashed, that seems to be
>the only way to get through to you people, if it actually happens to you. 
>	Getting upset because two guys are doing it in front of you is a
>reasonable reason to discriminate. Using long words or "Dressing faggy" is
>not. 

I think you should curb your arrogance in future. You have no idea of
my experience of being on the receiving end of bigotry-driven
violence, and I'll wager it is considerably more extensive than your
own.
 
>> In your example, you
>> discriminate against people who use long words and like philosophy. If
>> this case was brought to a Human Rights tribunal the problem would
>> reveal itself immediately: If using long words and liking philosophy
>> does not prove sexual orientation, what views and activities do?

>	None proves it. Discrimination is not based on the ruling of a
>court system.

Then I don't quite understand why you support legislation that says
discrimination is precisely that.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:15:46 PDT 1996
Article: 49537 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC GAG LAW POSTS - NCC RESPONDS
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:41:57 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4p49s0$lce@news3.cts.com>
References:   <4ouij2$qve@news3.cts.com>  <4p1i99$p8a@news3.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49537 bc.politics:3901

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article <4p1i99$p8a@news3.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:

>> sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>> 
>> >2. A list of donors, just as federal political parties are required to
>> >send to Elections Canada. 
>> 
>> But we're all waiting for you to post the names and addresses of the
>> NDP membership, Steve. When are you going to do it?

>I don't think it is appropriate for political parties to make public their
>membership lists. 

>However, I do think political parties should make public their donors, and
>their board of directors. 

>This is all I am asking the National Citizens' Coalition to do. 

Every member of the NCC is a donor. This means that you are demanding
private organisations, who rely upon the private membership fees of
their members for existence, release the names and addresses of their
members. Yet, when it comes to privileged organisations that actually
hold public office and pass the laws these private organisations are
obliged to obey, you feel it is "inappropriate" that we should know
who these people are.

Post the names and addresses of the NDP membership, Ranta.




From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:15:47 PDT 1996
Article: 49538 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: Ranta making unsubstantiated accusations
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:42:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <4p49te$lce@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4ov04j$au3@news.istar.ca>  <945_9606040330@rational.vaxxine.com> <4p1ro3$t6p@thoth.portal.ca> <96a_9606042300@rational.vaxxine.com> <4p32u0$ho@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49538 bc.politics:3902

suture@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:

>2-100-1!Lazarus.Long@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:

>>suture@portal.ca pontificated in a message to All:

>>sp> From: suture@portal.ca (Mark Mushet)
>>sp> Subject: Re: Ranta making unsubstantiated accusations
>>sp> Organization: Suture Productions

>>sp> 2-100-1!Lazarus.Long@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote: 

>>>sranta@macwest.org while continuing to make unsupported
>>>allegations, pontificated in a message to All:

>>>sm> You appear to be misrepresenting my request for information.  

>>>sm> I want to know if corporations donate significant amounts of money
>>>sm> to the National 'Citizens' Coalition, and if average 'citizens' are
>>>sm> in control of the organisation. 

>>>    You keep ignoring that the onus of proof lies with the
>>>    accuser. If you have any proof...isn't it time you showed it?

>>sp> What's the big deal? He's just asking for information regarding the
>>sp> degree of corporate sponsorship of a prominent "citizens" lobby
>>sp> group. It's a fair question from a concerned citizen. Or do you
>>sp> prefer that we should just take every such group at their word and
>>sp> not ask pointed questions?

>>  If you were paying attention..you would have noticed that he
>>  wasn't "just" requesting information. He stated that the NCC was
>>  a front for the Corporate world, and demanded they prove that
>>  they were not. It was only in this post that he modified his
>>  demand.

>First, do not EVER credit Suture Productions for remarks made by me on
>this newsgroup. Secondly, it is quite obvious that Steve has clarified
>his intent, so stop harping.

Well, well, well....it seems that revealing the corporate connections
of NDPers, as opposed to NCC members, has really touched a guilty,
fearful nerve. 





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:15:48 PDT 1996
Article: 49539 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Ont. Conservative Compassion
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:43:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4p49u7$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <31b05496.11426851@news.vianet.on.ca> <4otehg$2b44@news.gate.net> <4oumqt$eri@kryten.awinc.com> <4ovo3s$2bmi@news.gate.net> <4p0ps5$ibm@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

smeece@chat.carleton.ca (Steven Meece) wrote:

>Peter Wojnar (pwojnar@gate.net) wrote:

>> >Oh boy... another informed statement.  Workers' Comp is NOT a 
>> >government program.
>>
>> Worker's Comp is a program running under very rigid government
>> regulation. It is a heavily government legislated program.

>So is McDonald's. 

>> >Workers' Comp is funded by the assessments
>> >against employers - which is determined on an industry rating in
>> >combination with their own accident and safety records.
>>
>> Essentially "taxes" against employers.

>Essentially a safeguard for employers, because in exchange for Worker's
>Comp benefits, the employees give up their right to sue for further damages.

>You can rest assured Walter, this isn't another sneaking socialist
>programme -- the bosses win! They win! It's good for them!

Can they opt out of the program if they don't think it's good for
them?



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:15:48 PDT 1996
Article: 49540 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Ont. Conservative Compassion
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:43:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4p49uk$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <31b05496.11426851@news.vianet.on.ca> <4otehg$2b44@news.gate.net> <31b25999.24977473@nntp.netcruiser> <4ovp1t$vrg@news.gate.net> <31b398b2.24438823@nntp.netcruiser> <4p2dfb$1r5a@news.gate.net> <31b4b347.8408578@nntp.netcruiser>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

cbo@netcom.ca (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) wrote:

>Working in a dead-end, boring, tiring, and stressful job bossed around 
>by people interested in primarily in their own personal profit first and
>foremost, with constant fear that one might be out of work the next day 
>and have no where to turn, is not my idea of "wealth" even if it enables 
>me to buy a few extra little baubles at the end of the day, which for very
>many in these "generated jobs" it doesn't really, anyway. 

The essence of the above view seems to be that you object to people
being interested in their own personal profit, rather than yours. 





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:15:49 PDT 1996
Article: 49541 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Questions "Grosvenor" won't answer (Round 1)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:40:32 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <4p49pd$lce@news3.cts.com>
References: <4p06mk$pgk@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:79231 can.politics:49541

kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>Archive/File: people/g/grosvenor.william/gruber-10q
>Last-Modified: 1996/06/03

>Mr. "Grosvenor," 

>It would be unfair to label you as either a liar or
>an irrational hater of Jews without offering you the
>opportunity to explain the distortions and errors noted below.

>As I am certain you are a busy chap, I will republish these
>questions on a regular basis, in order to provide you with
>ample time to deal with the issues raised. I will also add to
>them, in the event you continue to publish similarly
>misleading material.

>Question 1
>----------

>   On May 13, 1996, you made the statment:

>      "Mind you,they do support the Jew Morgentaler and his murder 
>      of unborn babies at his abortionariums." (Grosvenor,
>      Jews for Faggots)

>   Question 1 is a two-parter:

>   1. What proof do you offer that this doctor is Jewish?
>   2. What difference would it make if he were?

As much as I know how you like concentrating on the peripheries,
rather than addressing the point, perhaps you won't mind confirming or
denying the obvious point the nitwit Grosvenor, in his foul way, was
alleging: That the CJC supported the abortion views and activities of
Morgentaler, as well as the recent homosexual rights legislation
introduced in Parliament.


>Question 2
>----------

>   In May of 1996, you, Sir, made the following statements:

>      "In Alberta Canada Senator Ghitter,together with Bnai Brith 
>      and other jewish groups are openly supporting special rights 
>      for faggots and for more powers for the socalled human 
>      rights commission." (Grosvenor, Jews for Faggots)

>   and...

>      "If you feel that faggots should not get special rights 
>      at the expense of your dollars and those of all normal humans, 
>      then join AFL - ANTI-FAGGOT LEAGUE." (Grosvenor, Support AFL)

>   and...

>      "I feel that they should NOT GET SPECIAL RIGHTS,even if the 
>      faggot loving   Canadian government wants to give them."
>      (Grosvenor, Faggots Spread)

>   and...

>      "Here in Alberta Senator Ghitter and the Bnai Brith are 
>      supporting the faggots and lesbians. The groups want the Alberta 
>      government to give special rights to the perverts,presumably as 
>      one more attempt to destroy the traditional family."
>      (Grosvenor, Why Are Jews)

>   The question, Mr. "Grosvenor," is why you have lied about
>   B'nai Brith and others, who have not called upon the
>   government to "give special rights" to gays and/or
>   lesbians? 

Let us not be too arch, McVay. A lot of people consider the imposition
of "sexual orientation" protection as tantamount to granting special
rights, and I daresay most of them do not share Grosvenor's views
on either homosexuals or Jews. Has or has not the B'nai Brith, and the
other organisations referred to in this discussion, publically
supported the recently passed legislation, and advocated the
stengthening of the power and scope of human rights commissions in
Canada?

>Question 3
>----------

>On May 30, 1996, you posted the following article to an
>Internet topical discussion group:

>      "Canadian news media report that the subject of the KOSHER 
>      TAX is again under investigation by Revenue Canada Taxation.

>      "The story on the business page, states that many manufacturers, 
>      such as for Saran Wrap, sanka Coffee,Mr.Clean, etc. must pay 
>      extra fees to rabbis to have their products declared kosher.

>      "This extra cost is then passed on to every customer.

>      "Some people have been trying to claim the extra $300 per person 
>      per year as a so-called charitable donation on their tax returns. 
>      The tax department has disallowed this fraud, since no willing 
>      charitable donation was given, nor a receipt provided.

>      "Apparently some non-Jews tried to claim this,and are now very 
>      angry at being disallowed. To add insult to injury, they had no 
>      choice in the costs of their purchases, since the extra costs 
>      paid to the rabbis is buried in the total costs."
>      (Grosvenor, Kosher Tax)

>Here is the ACTUAL text of the article you cited:

>      "Tall tax tale isn't kosher"

>      "Kosher Question: Can I claim a $300 kosher tax deduction for 
>      buying Saran Wrap, Mr. Clean, Sanka and other products that 
>      have been blessed by rabbis and identified by secret symbols?

>      "Answer: No. This old and vicious rumour is based on anti-Semitic 
>      scapegoating that tries to blame Jews for higher prices - to pay 
>      the rabbis - then claims Jews are the only ones who know the 
>      secret symbols and claim the kosher deduction. It's all false." 
>      (Chalmers, Ron. Edmonton Journal, Business section, "Money 
>      Matters," front page, May 29, 1996)

>   The question, of course, is why you misrepresented (to be
>   kind) the contents of this article?

Surely this is a rhetorical question? Grosvenor is an anti-semite and
a profound nincompoop. That is why he does the things he does.







From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 19:15:50 PDT 1996
Article: 49542 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: B.C. is lucky Liberal 'crooks' weren't elected
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:39:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <4p49mv$lce@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4p1ll2$kit@sandy.max-net.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:3904 can.politics:49542

Stacey Cherwonak  wrote:

>Yeah, we're so much better off now that we have a group in power who ran a 
>kickback scheme to rip off charities (read: kids and the disabled).

That's not the problem. The problem is that they received some 39% of
the vote. Almost 4 in 10 BC voters have no problem with these sort of
people governing them. 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Jun  5 21:17:47 PDT 1996
Article: 49564 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news2.acs.oakland.edu!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 14:46:32 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <4p1i87$p8a@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com> <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nmeoq$mn0@loki.tor.hookup.net> <319F174B.448C@crosslink.net> <4nngju$ceq@cheshire.ucs.ubc.ca> <4nnk3q$jat@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>  <4o421r$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o67ba$jdg@apollo.isisnet.com> <4oap4s$cu0@news2.cts.com> <4ogvao$qga@apollo.isisnet.com> <4ol8hc$788@news3.cts.com> <4orkbi$9f@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

kevboy@ra.isisnet.com (KevBoy) wrote:

>In article <4ol8hc$788@news3.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:
>> What you want, on the
>>other hand,  is special recognition and legal privilege simply because
>>you have sex with men.

>What you want, is special recognition and legal priviledge simply because you 
>have sex with women.

>See how stupid that sounds?

It does sound remarkably stupid, but I didn't say it, you did. I have
also pointed out on more than one occasion that sexual orientation is
no bar to marriage. You are therefore *not* interested in marriage,
but simply want special recognition and legal status on the sole basis
that you sleep with men.


...[some deleted]...


>>Please understand----I do not doubt, nor question at all, the ability
>>of people to form loving, trusting lifelong relationships, regardless
>>of sex or sexual orientation.  What I question is the view that the
>>presence of such a relationship is the equivalent, but for legal
>>recognition, of marriage.

>Why not?  Of course they are equivalent.

>Spouse, whether a man or a woman (say no kids in either case) is entitled to 
>your spousal benifits that your government or employer provides.

Excuse me, but marriage is not about tax breaks provided by government
and employers. IBM Canada gets tax breaks and I suggest that it is not
married, and receiving or being qualified to receive them does not
make them so. Marriage is not defined by sexual orientation or sexual
activities, either. Sexual escapades---of whatever stripe---have no
bearing on the familial bloodlines that are maintained by the children
born in wedlock.


>Right now, my male S.O. has no grabs at my spousal dental plans or 
>corporate party invitations, or vacation benifits that my employer 
>provides if he was a woman.

I suggest your employer provides these benefits to the *married*, not
on the basis of sex. If you wish benefits accruing to the married I
suggest you marry someone of the opposite sex, or you prevail upon
your employer to award these benefits on the basis of a named
beneficiary. I have no objection to employers making whatever
compensation deals they want, and I have little opposition to the
government making the same sort of "named beneficiary" rule when it
comes to their taxation rules. What I object to is the contention that
marriage is simply a relationship based on sexual orientation, and
that sexual cohabitation (homosexual or heterosexual) is equivalent to
formal marriage.


>It has nothing to do with the production of kids.  


The basis of formal marriage is the maintenance of family bloodlines.
That is the primary purpose of the institution, notwithstanding the
other things that find a harbour there.

>Man and a woman.  Man and a man.  woman and a woman.
>If all bonded in relationship as *or like* what is called a "marraige"
>then spouse is entitled to the recognition.

>You take a very very narrow view of what gays are asking for when
> it comes to being joined in a legal coupleship, and gaining spousal 
>recognition after being joined in such a way.

I don't take a narrow view----I simply refuse to say black is white,
and wander along with nitwits who maintain that sexual cohabitation is
the basis, purpose and definition of marriage. It isn't. It never has
been. And I understand *perfectly* the self-delusion and dishonest
arguments that must flow from those who think sexual orientation is
the basis, purpose and definition of marriage. 

>Like the very first line at the top of this post, it reflects the narrowness 
>of your brain in these matters.   Open your eyes... it doesn't even have 
>anything to do with you even SLEEP WITH THE SPOUSE OR NOT !!!!

>My male S.O. and I could be celibate for chrissakes, for example, and if we 
>are joined in this "legal bond for life"  (I won't use the word marraige) thus 
>becoming spouse, we are both entitled to be recognized as such! 

>Same as a married straight couple (also whether they have sex or not).

First you say that what you want is a "legal bond for life", and not
use the word "marriage", and then you say that this would be the
equivalent of marriage. That is precisely what I oppose. Whatever
"legal bond for life" you undertake, and whatever its provisions in
terms of law, passion or spirituality, it will not be a *marriage* and
I reject the contention that it is. Marriage is an institution for the
extension of familial bloodlines, with all the political and social
consequences that that produces. 



From pkolding@cts.com Thu Jun  6 09:23:45 PDT 1996
Article: 49686 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news2.acs.oakland.edu!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 14:46:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4p1i7p$p8a@news3.cts.com>
References: <132612.13796.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4o03gd$1lj@news2.cts.com> <4o7d4l$45q@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4oel1t$884@news3.cts.com> <4og4pf$kmu@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ol8h9$788@news3.cts.com> <4olp72$bvj@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4opk3v$dqb@news3.cts.com> <4or4st$q5u@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:


>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:
>>>	It's a thought experiment. Unless you can prove you are straight,
>>>you've lost your job. It happened to a few US forces people.
>> 
>> If an employer demands proof of something, presumably he must supply
>> the standard of proof at some point. If the argument is made that a
>> "lack" of some social attribute---a wife, a girlfriend, a tendency to
>> foam at the mouth upon seeing Claudia Schiffer, for example---is the
>> standard, then it is not sexual orientation that has to be proved, but
>> something else. Sexual orientation cannot be proved one way or the
>> other. Only *acts* and *views* can be offered for interpretation.

>THAT'S THE POINT! You can't prove it! You are now an honorary
>homosexual. If this were 3 am and i was a gaybasher you would be dead. 
>*Acts* can be INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY. Because you use long words
>and like philosophy, you are obviously a homosexual. Also note the
>internalized homophobia. Yep, you're gay. Can you prove otherwise? 
> 

Please note that you have just proved my point. You have shown how it
is not a person's sexual orientation that people will discriminate
against, but *views* and *activities*.  In your example, you
discriminate against people who use long words and like philosophy. If
this case was brought to a Human Rights tribunal the problem would
reveal itself immediately: If using long words and liking philosophy
does not prove sexual orientation, what views and activities do?
And if using long words and liking philosophy does indicate sexual
orientation, then the opposing or the demeaning of philosophy or long
words would be illegal, and subject the miscreants to prosecution.





From pkolding@cts.com Thu Jun  6 09:23:46 PDT 1996
Article: 49687 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news2.acs.oakland.edu!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 14:46:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4p1i7s$p8a@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mt00d$q73@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n1ajl$in6@news.agt.net> <4n7kua$1i7@news2.cts.com> <4nd6hr$csa@knot.queensu.ca> <4njvmb$378@news3.cts.com> <4o4jjm$lt9@archangel.terraport.net> <4o8ne5$dki@news2.cts.com> <4oaq5s$b7g@knot.queensu.ca> <4ol8gc$788@news3.cts.com> <4oriub$9f@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

kevboy@ra.isisnet.com (KevBoy) wrote:

>In article <4ol8gc$788@news3.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:
>>In other words, as I've been saying since the commencement of this
>>discussion some weeks ago, and upon which I originally entered it,
>>people will have to publically condone or approve all sexual acts, or
>>risk prosecution. 

>GREAT!   Who would not want this?   Answer:  het people

>Get the hell OVER IT !!!!

I don't think you quite understand: People are supposed to have a
right to express opinions opposing activities and views they don't
care for. By the very Charter it continually refers to, the government
is not supposed to be allowed to pass laws that deny people the right
to express their opinions. 






From pkolding@cts.com Thu Jun  6 09:23:47 PDT 1996
Article: 49688 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news2.acs.oakland.edu!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Marriage
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 14:46:41 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <4p1i8f$p8a@news3.cts.com>
References: <31907E7F.5E3E@compusmart.ab.ca> <4n544r$b29@archangel.terraport.net> <4nd2a1$ebm@archangel.terraport.net> <4nqek8$tr6@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>  <4nvsnb$bea@news1.io.org>  <4o8nd8$dki@news2.cts.com> <4o9tiv$nqh@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ol8gj$788@news3.cts.com> <4os9so$87n@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

rkrasich@access.awinc.com (Robin Krasichynski) wrote:

>On Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:05 GMT Peter Kolding said ...
>>I'm afraid human reproduction demands this "discrimination".

>Human reproduction DOES NOT require marriage.  Marriage
>IS NOT necessary for the extension of bloodlines.

I did not say it is necessary for the extension of bloodlines. I said
it is necessary for the extension of *family* bloodlines.

>Marriage is a legal fiction (read contract) which imposes
>certain duties and responsibilities on the parties.  

And those duties and responsibilities are undertaken to effect some
end. The sole purpose of marriage is to maintain family bloodlines
through the bearing of children within the marriage. The purposes and
activities that accompany marriage--either usefully or in opposition
to this central purpose of the instituion---are irrelevant. People may
marry for as various a number of personal reasons as people drive
cars. But the purposes of cars and marriage are distinct from these
reasons. A car will not solve mathematical problems or divine the
meaning of religious tracts---even if mathematicians and parsons find
great utility in the deduction of car expenses in their efforts to do
so. Similarly, a marriage does not make two homosexuals a married
couple, even if they find great utility in the employer's pension
benefits that may follow from the pretense.


>However, in this day and age, the legal responsibility for
>carrying for your genetic children is not connected to
>marriage - paternity and maternity can be proven in other
>ways other than a marriage license - which was never a
>very reliable method for proving genetic relation.

You persist in equating the mere breeding of children to be equivalent
to maintraining the family line. It is not. Children born out of
wedlock do not maintain *family* bloodlines, they merely maintain a
genetic relationship---which is shared by everyone on earth to some
extent. It is not the *genetic* relationship alone that is at issue,
but the genetic relationship within the *family*.


>The point of marriage and the contract was to do as 
>much as possible to make sure that property, if passed
>through the male line (since women couldn't own property),
>had the appearance of going
>to a blood relation.   Marriage, legally, has to do with
>property - not procreation.

I have no problem with people's different interpretations on the
purpose of maintaining family bloodlines, and I have deliberately
avoided devolving upon that subject. Marriage, however, is about the
maintenance of family bloodlines, and not about property. The legal,
social, religious and political purpose of maintaining family
bloodlines is a vast subject, and touches upon virtually every
important aspect of all societies known to history, IMHO.






From pkolding@cts.com Thu Jun  6 09:23:48 PDT 1996
Article: 49689 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news2.acs.oakland.edu!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario holiday law violates Charter
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 14:47:33 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4p1ia1$p8a@news3.cts.com>
References: <1996Jun2.065226.23326@wpg.ramp.net> <4ouslv$quh@wpg-01.escape.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

admiral@escape.ca (The Bathtub Admiral) wrote:

>Joe Lockhart  in message
><1996Jun2.065226.23326@wpg.ramp.net>
>authored yet another beauty when he wrote:

>>Ontario court says holiday law violates Charter
>>Saturday June 1, 1996 Winnipeg Free Press

>

>>"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted
>>after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with
>>many sorrows."   1 Timothy 6:10

>Your writing immediately brought to mind another reference in Paul's
>second epistle to Timothy:

>"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
>ungodliness" 2 Timothy 2:16

>Nuff said.

Agreed. It is certainly a dangerous game for someone who publically
goes by the name "The Bathtub Admiral" to remark too often on the
"vain babblings" of others. :-)



From pkolding@cts.com Thu Jun  6 19:50:22 PDT 1996
Article: 46584 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,wpg.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.jobs,bc.general,bc.jobs,qc.general,qc.jobs,ont.general,ont.jobs,ab.general,ab.jobs,wpg.jobs,nf.general,ns.general,alt.discrimination,can.general
Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:58:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4p7d9j$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <063333Z06061996@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49830 soc.culture.canada:89497 can.jobs:14799 bc.general:46584 bc.jobs:1084 qc.general:7199 ont.general:41992 ont.jobs:5058 ab.general:9991 alt.discrimination:48098 can.general:79352

an620286@anon.penet.fi wrote:




>               WHAT'S IN IT FOR WHITE MEN?
> 
>               from the Winter 1995 edition of
>               EE PROS - A free newsletter from your Employment Equity
>                         Professionals
> 
>               by Jane Garthson a member of the Board and Executive
>               of the Toronto Employment Equity Practitioners'
>               Association (TEEPA)
> 

This is like reading a pamphlet on the advantages Nazism offer Jews,
as written by Goebbels. Jane Garthson is nothing but a criminal thug.



From pkolding@cts.com Thu Jun  6 19:51:16 PDT 1996
Article: 79352 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,wpg.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.jobs,bc.general,bc.jobs,qc.general,qc.jobs,ont.general,ont.jobs,ab.general,ab.jobs,wpg.jobs,nf.general,ns.general,alt.discrimination,can.general
Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:58:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4p7d9j$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <063333Z06061996@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49830 soc.culture.canada:89497 can.jobs:14799 bc.general:46584 bc.jobs:1084 qc.general:7199 ont.general:41992 ont.jobs:5058 ab.general:9991 alt.discrimination:48098 can.general:79352

an620286@anon.penet.fi wrote:




>               WHAT'S IN IT FOR WHITE MEN?
> 
>               from the Winter 1995 edition of
>               EE PROS - A free newsletter from your Employment Equity
>                         Professionals
> 
>               by Jane Garthson a member of the Board and Executive
>               of the Toronto Employment Equity Practitioners'
>               Association (TEEPA)
> 

This is like reading a pamphlet on the advantages Nazism offer Jews,
as written by Goebbels. Jane Garthson is nothing but a criminal thug.



From pkolding@cts.com Thu Jun  6 19:55:22 PDT 1996
Article: 49830 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,wpg.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.jobs,bc.general,bc.jobs,qc.general,qc.jobs,ont.general,ont.jobs,ab.general,ab.jobs,wpg.jobs,nf.general,ns.general,alt.discrimination,can.general
Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:58:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4p7d9j$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <063333Z06061996@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49830 soc.culture.canada:89497 can.jobs:14799 bc.general:46584 bc.jobs:1084 qc.general:7199 ont.general:41992 ont.jobs:5058 ab.general:9991 alt.discrimination:48098 can.general:79352

an620286@anon.penet.fi wrote:




>               WHAT'S IN IT FOR WHITE MEN?
> 
>               from the Winter 1995 edition of
>               EE PROS - A free newsletter from your Employment Equity
>                         Professionals
> 
>               by Jane Garthson a member of the Board and Executive
>               of the Toronto Employment Equity Practitioners'
>               Association (TEEPA)
> 

This is like reading a pamphlet on the advantages Nazism offer Jews,
as written by Goebbels. Jane Garthson is nothing but a criminal thug.



From pkolding@cts.com Thu Jun  6 19:55:23 PDT 1996
Article: 49846 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: Kolding's unsubstantiated claim!
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:55:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <4p7d32$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4ov04j$au3@news.istar.ca>  <945_9606040330@rational.vaxxine.com> <4p1ro3$t6p@thoth.portal.ca> <96a_9606042300@rational.vaxxine.com> <4p32u0$ho@thoth.portal.ca> <4p49te$lce@news3.cts.com> <4p4dii$t11@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49846 bc.politics:4030

suture@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:

>>suture@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:

>>>First, do not EVER credit Suture Productions for remarks made by me on
>>>this newsgroup. Secondly, it is quite obvious that Steve has clarified
>>>his intent, so stop harping.

>>Well, well, well....it seems that revealing the corporate connections
>>of NDPers, as opposed to NCC members, has really touched a guilty,
>>fearful nerve. 

>You idiot, Kolding. First, I have never been a member of ANY political
>party (nor will I ever be). Secondly, Suture is NOT a corporation. I
>knew Laz was setting this up, but I didn't really think anyone would
>try and make it stick.  

>Now, did you want to try and substantiate your accusations? In case
>you need clarification:

>You have told the world that I am an NDPer and that I have "corporate
>connections" to a "corporation" called Suture Productions.

>I am telling you that neither is the case. Care to prove otherwise? 

>And yes I understand the parallels between your accusations and what
>you believe Ranta's to be. However, I have acknowledged that his
>accusations may have been unfair and unfounded as I came into that
>thread after he had clarified. So don't even bother mentioning it.

The Ranta Formula demands that I insist you prove, by posting the
names and addresses of the NDP membership, that you are not a member
of the NDP. And as to your corporate connections, the Ranta Protocol
insists that you provide proof of your non-connection, and not that I
provide substantiation of the obvious.

Ranta Rules!



From pkolding@cts.com Thu Jun  6 19:55:24 PDT 1996
Article: 49847 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!bofh.dot!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: B.C. is lucky Liberal 'crooks' weren't elected
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:56:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <4p7d4k$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4p1ll2$kit@sandy.max-net.com> <4p49mv$lce@news3.cts.com> <4p4sst$9k5@fountain.mindlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:4032 can.politics:49847

"D. Rodney Smelser"  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:
>>Stacey Cherwonak  wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, we're so much better off now that we have a group in power who ran a 
>>>kickback scheme to rip off charities (read: kids and the disabled).
>>
>>That's not the problem. The problem is that they received some 39% of
>>the vote. Almost 4 in 10 BC voters have no problem with these sort of
>>people governing them. 
>>

>Time to wake up Peter.  One of the reasons the NDP popular vote was so 
>weak was because of the embarassing revelations concerning Nanaimo 
>Commonwealth, the Hydro matters, and so forth.  A press corps that hated 
>the NDP pushed these items for all they were worth and then some.

Yet 40% of the voters were prepared to overlook these frankly criminal
activities by their government. I think it reveals that the problem of
political corruption in Canada has now made its predictable descent.
Long term political corruption by the elite inevitably produces a
corrupt electorate.

...[some deleted]...

>I voted NDP in spite of these things because I didn't want an anti-labour 
>govt, and because I wanted Forest Renewal BC and the associated land 
>use and logging practice rules to keep on going.  And because I am a life 
>long member of the party. 

I don't particularly have a problem with the variety of reasons people
vote as they do. I have a problem with the parties themselves. But why
people think a party that has stolen from charity and involves itself
in corporate offshore tax havens---while simultaneously claiming it is
the champion of the poor and the foe of the rich---will treat any
other promise it makes with any fidelity is what I find amusing. The
only explanation I can see is that the NDP's government's political
and moral outlook and activities mirror that of the electorate. In
short, it's all right to steal money from old ladies---just so long as
one's own interests aren't affected. 

>But this was the first provincial or federal 
>election in more than 25 years where I did not work on the campaign and 
>did not even have a yard sign up.  The constant drip, drip, drip, of four 
>and a half years of the Pollard Factor was just too much.  I couldn't 
>take the embarassment of being associated with that kind of 
>counterproductive political ineptitude.

But that didn't stop you voting for it, and which, in the final
analysis, is the only kind of association a political party wants from
a voter.








From pkolding@cts.com Thu Jun  6 19:55:24 PDT 1996
Article: 49848 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!uniserve!news.sol.net!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC GAG LAW POSTS - NCC RESPONDS
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:56:20 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <4p7d57$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References:   <4ouij2$qve@news3.cts.com>  <4p1i99$p8a@news3.cts.com>  <4p49s0$lce@news3.cts.com> <4p576i$j5p@fountain.mindlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49848 bc.politics:4033

"D. Rodney Smelser"  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:
>>sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4p1i99$p8a@news3.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:
>>
>>>> sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> >2. A list of donors, just as federal political parties are required to
>>>> >send to Elections Canada. 
>>>> 
>>>> But we're all waiting for you to post the names and addresses of the
>>>> NDP membership, Steve. When are you going to do it?
>>
>>>I don't think it is appropriate for political parties to make public their
>>>membership lists. 
>>
>>>However, I do think political parties should make public their donors, and
>>>their board of directors. 
>>
>>>This is all I am asking the National Citizens' Coalition to do. 
>>
>>Every member of the NCC is a donor. This means that you are demanding
>>private organisations, who rely upon the private membership fees of
>>their members for existence, release the names and addresses of their
>>members. Yet, when it comes to privileged organisations that actually
>>hold public office and pass the laws these private organisations are
>>obliged to obey, you feel it is "inappropriate" that we should know
>>who these people are.
>>
>>Post the names and addresses of the NDP membership, Ranta.
>>

>Suppose Steve had such a list and did post it?  What would the next move 
>be?  Intimidation and harassment, similar to that to which Reform 
>candidate Grewal was subjected?  Just thinking out loud.

Yet later in this post you say " Why can't an active, vociferous
interest/lobby group such as the NCC publish its complete donor list?"
What would the next move be, Rod? Intimidation and harassment by the
NDP government and its paid thugs? Just thinking out loud. 


>BTW Peter, are you one of the member/donors of the National Criminals' 
>Coalition as well as a supporter of Coalition politics in BC?

Wouldn't you like to know. :)


>As you know, Peter, donors to registered federal parties who give over 
>$100 per year have their identities disclosed in annual statements.  And 
>those who give to BC provincial parties in amounts of $250 or more are 
>also disclosed.  Why can't an active, vociferous interest/lobby group 
>such as the NCC publish its complete donor list?  Would it read too much 
>like Who's Who in Canada, or more like a list of the graduates of Upper 
>Canada College?

Why should private associations be obliged to publish their membership
lists because the government disapporves of their opinions? As I've
said before----post the membership list of the NDP. To quote your own
outlook: Why shouldn't an active, vociferous lobby group whose members
actually run the government, not publish its membership list?




From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 09:38:14 PDT 1996
Article: 49875 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action = Racism!!!
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:57:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4p7d77$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4ol28n$1m0@news12.erols.com> <31AE2D53.7331@worldnet.att.net> <4onihe$tbu@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <4oofif$26m2@CT1.SNET.Net> <4ot6ds$9q3@skipper.netrail.net> <31B49BB6.22625AAB@mars.superlink.net> <4p3u75$bas@news.monmouth.com> <4p4571$bii@hearst.cac.psu.edu> <4p571f$jet@news.tiac.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

rafeb@tiac.net (Rafe B.) wrote:

>Tell you what: when you can prove that workplace
>discrimination has ended, and that Blacks, women
>and minorities earn at the same rate (for the same
>work) as white males, I'll be _all for_ the ending
>of affirmative action.

There is no difference in wage rates among these groups, there is a
difference in total wages earned. This is not related to
discriminatory hiring or pay practices, but to marital status. The
highest paid group are single females, the lowest single males.

I suggest you look more closely at the facts, you racist, sexist
bigot.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 09:38:15 PDT 1996
Article: 49876 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:56:58 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <4p7d6c$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mt00d$q73@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n1ajl$in6@news.agt.net> <4n7kua$1i7@news2.cts.com> <4nd6hr$csa@knot.queensu.ca> <4njvmb$378@news3.cts.com> <4o4jjm$lt9@archangel.terraport.net> <4o8ne5$dki@news2.cts.com> <4oaq5s$b7g@knot.queensu.ca> <4ol8gc$788@news3.cts.com> <4oriub$9f@apollo.isisnet.com> <4p1i7s$p8a@news3.cts.com> <4p1n4k$nn8@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4p49q9$lce@news3.cts.com> <31B5FFEA.3538@bnr.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

"Rene S. Hollan"  wrote:

>As a libertarian, I take interest in the following:

>Peter Kolding wrote:
>> As for my own views,
>> I am not an absolutist or libertarian when it comes to free speech.

>Fair enough. There's time to change :-)

>> In
>> time of declared war, I could understand some government limitations
>> on speech.

>Why? Property rights and secrecy clauses in contracts are sufficient to
>protect the interests of national security.

In time of war I think the government should have the power to
prevent, rather than merely react to, the publication of information
of value to the enemy. I'm not setting the terms and limitations of
the exercise of this power, I am merely saying that this type of
limitation on free speech, under this sort of circumstance, is not one
I have a conceptual objection to.  


>> In contracts between people, I could understand mutually
>> agreed upon limitations of free speech.

>But these are consentual, and not limitations: there's forced agreement
>to the terms of the contract by either party.

I have never subscribed to the view that because something is
consented to, it is necessarily the fair or preferred thing for both
parties. A business or labour monopoly, for example, results in far
different terms of "consent"---in all matters---than that reached in a
competitive system.

>> In cases of libel and slander,
>> I subscribe to the narrow and traditional view that only
>> persons---rather than "groups"---can suffer from attacks on
>> reputation, and I think that repuation should be considered a very
>> hardy flower, capable of damage only by the most egregious and
>> exceptional attacks.

>The usual libertarian position is that slander and libel are special
>cases of fraud: the misrepresentation of another's "character".

>The case of not crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is none
>(which you do not raise) is not a "reasonable" restriction on free
>speech (but often cited as one, so I address it). Rather it is an
>interferance in the contract between the theatre owner and his customers
>to enjoy a presentation free from disturbances.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is perfectly alright so far as
I'm concerned. In fact, I once attended an amateur production where
each member of the cast made his first entrance that way. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 09:38:16 PDT 1996
Article: 49877 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Hate Material will NOT BE Tolerated!
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:57:46 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <4p7d7u$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <3198F740.2AC4@compusmart.ab.ca> <4ns29k$krc@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca> <4nt2qn$avi@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4nu9a1$s00@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4nug3c$bgu@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4o2k7u$c4i@news2.cts.com> <4obn13$aap@yendi.mdd.comm.mot.com> <4ol8h4$788@news3.cts.com> <4ovg71$7l8@yendi.mdd.comm.mot.com> <4p49ju$lce@news3.cts.com> <4p61s9$esv@yendi.mdd.comm.mot.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

campbell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Duncan Campbell) wrote:

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: campbell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Duncan Campbell) wrote:

>: >By the strength of your arguements I must assume all of our women have
>: >become NAZIs.  I guess there is no God either.
>: > 
>: >Nonetheless, we (us Canadians) fought a bloody war against the NAZIs
>: >and I have yet to see a blood-crazed female mob smashing in
>: >indows of all-male businesses (England is the only place I can 
>: >even imagine this happening, and only then by conjunction 
>: >of Moon and Mad Cow Disease D).
>: > 
>: >For the government to sponsor a bunch of loud women to make some outrageous
>: >pronouncements is silly, and possibly politically inept.  Government
>: >sponsorship of people who avowedly espouse principles and defend the actions 
>: >of one of the great criminal gangs of human history would at the       
>: >very least require a failure of confidence and permanent resignation 
>: >from public life of the parties in government.

>: As usual, either from cowardice or stupidity, people refuse to address
>: the actual point at issue, i.e., the behaviour of GOVERNMENT. And I

>Yer full of $#!T, Peter.  I *AM* pretty explicit here that I do not
>regard these things to be related.  Nazism is a known Criminal Deviancy,
>that has already resulted in the murder of many tens of millions in this
>century.  Feminists hardly have this record. 

What an appalling apologist for evil you are. The Nazi party, its
theory and methods, existed way before they started wholesale
exterminations of people. It is precisely because the feminist theory
and methods with respect to sex and men mirrors that of the Nazis with
respect to race and Jews that I continue to harp on this subject.

>What they advocate here
>is that Karla should have killed Paul herself, after Tammy, and spared
>the rest of us another monster.  

The Minister directly responsible for Karla's sweet deal was the
feminist advocate, Attorney General Boyd.  

>There are moral decisions which individual humans must take which are
>beyond the scope of Law, but for which the Law must still hold them
>accountable.  

>Nazis, on the other hand, advocate mass murder on racial/national grounds
>and have a Proven Track Record for getting on with this agenda.  

Feminists now have a track record---supported by government---of
advocating mass murder of men on sex grounds. They also have a track
record----implemented by government----of advocating social, political
and economic discrimination against men on the basis of their sex.
There is no fundamental difference between the official Nazis views,
theories and proposals with respect to Jews, and those of organised
feminists towards men.

>: repeat, would your views be the same if the Government sponsored an
>: "Aryan" conference, had a Minister attend, paid for a neo-Nazi to make
>: a speech advocating the mass murder of Jewish abusers, and then,
>: when questioned by the Press, responded that "people should
>: understand"? 

>I repeat myself.  NO.  My views of these things are NOT THE SAME.  

>: The only difference in the behaviour of the former government was that
>: the conference was for feminists, with no "males" permitted to attend
>: (not even male reporters), and that the speech advocated the mass
>: murder of men, rather than Jews. 

>No no no.  The difference is the afore-mentioned track record for
>apocalyptic race-war.  

I see. The difference is not one of theory or intent, but of
accomplishment. The feminists of today are identical to Nazis of 1930,
in other words, and you find that perfectly okay.


...[some deleted]...

>: .....{P.S. I wonder if you would look into your e-mail facilities. You
>: have copied your responses to my postings to me by e-mail, but your
>: return e-mail address is non-functional. I get a great deal of e-mail
>: and would 1) prefer not getting copies of newsgroup posts, and 2) have
>: the opportunity to respond via e-mail to people who decide to use it
>: to correspond with me.}......

>The mail I sent you was not posted.  One was a jibe at some  
>display of illiteracy (not spelling) by yourself.  The others
>offered more harshly worded versions of my posts, before the
>actual post.

>I supposed to spare you the flame but make the point, nonetheless.

I received your e-mail, and attempted to respond to your various
concerns, but your e-mail address is non-functional. Fix it, or
confine your posts to the newsgroup. I have no interest in reading
twice what I shall be responding to once.


>Frankly, Peter, I think you must have a *personal* axe to grind on
>this one.  Which Minister for Which Government are we talking about
>here?

Mary Collins. And I have no more personal axe to grind than a Jew does
against anti-semites, or a lover of liberty does against oppression.

>Like mebbe one which is very much out of Vogue at the moment?
>So how come you don't mention any of these things?  Mebbe because 
>that might discredit your pet paranioa?  Or mebbe it isn't a paranioa
>after all, and you've been beating your woman or worse, and your
>a-feared that if we don't promise to slap her in irons for the rest
>of her days, that she'll just do what she needs to.

You've stopped taking the medicine, haven't you?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 09:38:16 PDT 1996
Article: 49913 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:55:48 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4p7d46$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <172150.13996.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca>  <31a12216.4251167@news>  <31A20F79.1621@fox.nstn.ca> <31b036b8.54641544@news3.idirect.com> <4ouij7$qve@news3.cts.com> <4p4huh$1t5q@elmo.cadvision.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

slawrenc@cadvision.com (Steven Lawrence) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:

>>I'm afraid "an assembly of citizens" is precisely what they are. It is
>>outrageous that people expect them to submit their membership list to
>>government or state functionaries.

>Parliament and provincial legislatures are "assembly of citizens". The
>NCC is a pressure group in existance for the benefit of their members,
>probably 1/2 of on percent of the most privileged members of society.

Parliament and provincial legislatures are assemblies of
representatives.  The NCC is an assembly of citizens. NACSOW is a
pressure group. Under the widest interpretation, only NACSOW could not
be called an assembly of citizens, since I understand its leader is
not actually a citizen of Canada.

>They enjoy the role of being outside throwing bricks at those who
>openly propose policies to the electoratre. That way they cannot be
>held accountable for the failure of what they espouse.

The government is the only one accountable for the failure of
government policies and actions.

>Next time they just change their aim and blame a "socialist 
>conspiracy" or some other nonsense for their failure. These 
>people are cranks and have no business promoting their stupidity
>during an election campaign. 

Why? What's the point of elections if only party members are allowed
to speak?








From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 09:38:17 PDT 1996
Article: 49914 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: ANOTHER OUTRAGE IN SINGAPORE
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:56:30 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <4p7d5g$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References:   <01bb530f.ad740fa0$6e32bace@jeff.econnect.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

pilgrim@hempbc.com (Dr. Feelgood) wrote:

>In article <01bb530f.ad740fa0$6e32bace@jeff.econnect.ca>, "J Breukelman"
> wrote:

>>> pilgrim@hempbc.com (Dr. Feelgood) wrote in article
>>...
>>> This is a corrected repost of article posted June 4.
>>> 
>>> In article ,
>>> pilgrim@hempbc.com (Earl Cottle) wrote:
>>> 
>>> >SINGAPORE (AP) - A Canadian arrested on drug smuggling charges was
>>ordered
>>> >yesterday to stand trial June 21 on charges thata carry a mandatory
>>death
>>> >penalty if he is convicted.
>>> >   Ronald Wilson McCulloch, 43, was among 25 people arrested Feb. ( by
>>> >Singaporean and Malaysian police, who said they seized 33.4 kilograms
>>of
>>> >marijuana.
>>> >   McCulloch faces two marijuana trafficking charges, both of which
>>carry
>>> >a mandatory death sentence on conviction.
>>> >  He is also charges with possesing marijuana mixture and consuming a
>>> >controlled drug, which are punishable by a fine or jail sentence.
>>Eoight
>>> >kilograms of marijuana allegedly found in house.
>>> >  If convicted, McCulloch could become the second westerner executed
>>for
>>> >If anyone knows the mailing address of the Singapore Minister of
>>Justice
>>> >or Prime Minister, please post or email it to me so I and everybody can
>>> write him and let him know what we think about this.
>>> 
>>> pilgrim@hempbc.com
>>> 
>>
>>I don't see what the "Outrage" is.  If he's guilty, they have every right
>>to punish him.  Just because he's a Canadian doesn't mean he break their
>>laws with impunity.  What he is charged with, and what his punishment is,
>>isn't really relevant.
>>
>>
>>Jeff Breukelman.

>This is MURDER, you two! You are supporting murder by the state. It's just
>as much murder as if a private  citizen executed a person for marijuana.
>Except that it's much worse because the state is supposed to protect us
>from murder, when the State executes anyone who doesn't deserve it,  the
>law becomes the criminal. That poor man in Singapore doesn't even deserve
>a $5 fine.

There are a lot of assumptions in the above, but the worst is the one
that territorial sovereignty has no meaning. It is a standard that
invites reciprocity, and is the basis of almost all violence between
nations. Try and accept that some cultures have completely different
views with respect to criminal behaviour, and are far more concerned
with obedience to law  and legally-constituted authority, than in
working out abstract notions of whether a law is "right". 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 09:38:18 PDT 1996
Article: 49916 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:57:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4p7d6l$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <1996May31.214951.23162@wpg.ramp.net> <4onu18$c9@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ov6da$at8@nic.ott.hookup.net> <4ovp5l$5gi@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4p49nh$lce@news3.cts.com> <4p55uk$1ji@thor.atcon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

willie@atcon.com (John) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:

>>ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:


>>>Brian Graham (GrahamB@psac.com) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> No. It means that a minority gets the job.

>>>	It means the chance of a minority getting a job depends on how
>>>many minorities you can get applying for that position. If it's over the
>>>percentage of that minority group in a given area, then the chances are
>>>equal. 

>>I don't know what law you are referring to when you make these
>>observations, but it isn't Canadian in origin. AA in Canada has no
>>regard whatever for the number of minorities that apply for jobs, but
>>rather their proportion in the general popualtion. AA laws have no
>>regard for the percentage of applicants that are minorities, but
>>rather the proportion that are already employed, and their position
>>within the company doing the hiring. If 50 exceptionally qualified
>>white men apply for a job and one  minimumly qualified minority
>>applies, and an AA program is in effect, the minority gets the job.

>Bullpoop, unsubstantuated statements are very easy to make.

As you've just proven. I've been dealing with these issues since 1982,
and for four years it was part of my full-time professional employment
to do so. The AA laws and their application are not a matter of
dispute anywhere where the people involved have actually read the
laws.







From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 09:38:19 PDT 1996
Article: 49926 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!apollo.isisnet.com!uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news2.acs.oakland.edu!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC GAG LAW POSTS - NCC RESPONDS
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 14:47:09 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4p1i99$p8a@news3.cts.com>
References:   <4ouij2$qve@news3.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49926 bc.politics:4047

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>2. A list of donors, just as federal political parties are required to
>send to Elections Canada. 

But we're all waiting for you to post the names and addresses of the
NDP membership, Steve. When are you going to do it?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 09:38:19 PDT 1996
Article: 49940 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:55:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4p7d3l$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <1996May31.214951.23162@wpg.ramp.net> <4ov662$at8@nic.ott.hookup.net> <4ovoum$5dn@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4p49o8$lce@news3.cts.com> <4p4h1l$lnk@nic.ott.hookup.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

GrahamB@psac.com (Brian Graham) wrote:

>In article <4p49o8$lce@news3.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) says:

>>Non-disabled white males are not members of a designated disadvantaged
>>group, and thus hiring them on the basis of their race and sex is
>>discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

>EXACTLY CORRECT. Yet this is the law.

> Furthermore, since blacks
>>are members of a legally-designated disadvantaged group, no AA program
>>can be adopted that impairs their opportunities for employment.

>No, special measures are taken to guarantee their employment.

I'm afraid that it is deeper than that. The Charter concerns itself
with the improvement of the "conditions" of people in the designated
groups. This means that no change to employment policies or other
social programs, AA included, can be allowed if it means a change for
the worse in the conditions, even if those conditions are those of
privilege and advantage, of anyone in a designated group. It means, in
effect, that AA is permanent and can never be repealed.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 09:38:20 PDT 1996
Article: 49941 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!news.sol.net!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: carleton.talk.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: C-33 comments
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:58:13 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4p7d8m$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <4oobfv$799@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4p5obt$391o@elmo.cadvision.com> <4p63bk$sd7@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

smeece@chat.carleton.ca (Steven Meece) wrote:

>Derek Nalecki (naleckid@cadvision.com) wrote:

>> >> "If we want to look at what homosexuality and permissiveness has done to
>> >> some countries, let us look at Africa and the problems it has run into."
>> >>       Jake Hoeppner, Reform Lisgar-Marquette
>> >>
>> >The problems of Africa have very little to do with homosexuality as far 
>> >as I can see. Nearly all of the HIV transmission there is heterosexual, 
>> >while the other problems are economically driven. 
>>
>> 30 years of socialism.

>General Abacha would be surprised to hear that. So would Kenneth Kaunda,
>JJ Rawlings, Daniel Malan and Laurent Gbagbo.

>Sure thing. Poor abable land, overpopulation, desertification, lack of
>minerals (with the exception of the southern tip) or petroleum (with the
>exception of Nigeria), tribal conflicts, imperialism, 500 years of racism
>resulting in 100 million (est.) kidnappings and murders have nothing to do
>with it: Blame it on 30 years of socialism in Tanzania. Until 1966 Africa
>was a paradise on earth.

Well, if socialism was adopted to solve all these problems, and it has
failed, the present problems must either be the fault of socialist
failures or socialism itself. Socialism means full control of society
and its productive resources---does it not?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 09:38:21 PDT 1996
Article: 49942 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: B.C. needs proportional representation.
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:56:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4p7d5o$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4ohi40$a0b@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <31AC9746.47CB@starvision.com> <4ol8h6$788@news3.cts.com> <4on76a$88k@fountain.mindlink.net> <4opk6m$dqb@news3.cts.com> <1996Jun1.083343@malad1.mala.bc.ca <4p03ue$79i@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4p49ip$lce@news3.cts.com> <4p4q3t$me0@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

cn612@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil Fernyhough) wrote:


>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> 
>> Which seems to confirm that the PDA drew its greatest support from
>> Liberal malcontents, rather than people such as yourself. An NDP
>> supporter doesn't vote for the PDA because the Liberals have gone too
>> far right, but because of problems with the NDP. And since the NDP
>> maintained its historic proportion of the popular vote, the bulk of
>> PDA support must have come from disaffected Liberal voters.

>So which is it?  First you say that the PDA supporters are rejecting the
>NDP, then you say that they're rejecting the Liberals.  

No, I said---for the third time now---that the NDP retained its
historic popular vote---so the argument that it was disaffected NDPers
who voted PDA is not correct. 

>What you seem to be saying is in SUPPORT of the proposition 
>that PDA voters found that the Liberals had skittered too far to 
>the right.  

I definitely think the PDA got the bulk of its support from
disaffected Liberals, but their reasons, I suspect, have nothing to do
with political platforms. I think such splits are almost always
propelled by personalities and power-sharing disagreements.


>This would seem to be borne
>out by the number of Socred retreads who were running under the Liberal
>banner in the latest election, as well as Campbell's insistence that
>Reformers could find a home in the Liberal tent.  Can you imagine David
>Peterson, Jean Chretien, or Pierre Trudeau saying that Liberalism and
>Reformism are perfectly compatible?

I can easily imagine them saying such things.  If they thought it
would get them votes or the approval of SIG's they would shout it from
the rooftops. They are exactly the sort of people for whom words have
no intrinsic meaning, and are but tools to carve their political
masterpieces.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 14:45:40 PDT 1996
Article: 48098 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,wpg.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.jobs,bc.general,bc.jobs,qc.general,qc.jobs,ont.general,ont.jobs,ab.general,ab.jobs,wpg.jobs,nf.general,ns.general,alt.discrimination,can.general
Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:58:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4p7d9j$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <063333Z06061996@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49830 soc.culture.canada:89497 can.jobs:14799 bc.general:46584 bc.jobs:1084 qc.general:7199 ont.general:41992 ont.jobs:5058 ab.general:9991 alt.discrimination:48098 can.general:79352

an620286@anon.penet.fi wrote:




>               WHAT'S IN IT FOR WHITE MEN?
> 
>               from the Winter 1995 edition of
>               EE PROS - A free newsletter from your Employment Equity
>                         Professionals
> 
>               by Jane Garthson a member of the Board and Executive
>               of the Toronto Employment Equity Practitioners'
>               Association (TEEPA)
> 

This is like reading a pamphlet on the advantages Nazism offer Jews,
as written by Goebbels. Jane Garthson is nothing but a criminal thug.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Jun  7 19:23:55 PDT 1996
Article: 89497 of soc.culture.canada
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,wpg.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.jobs,bc.general,bc.jobs,qc.general,qc.jobs,ont.general,ont.jobs,ab.general,ab.jobs,wpg.jobs,nf.general,ns.general,alt.discrimination,can.general
Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 19:58:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4p7d9j$k5m@news3.cts.com>
References: <063333Z06061996@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:49830 soc.culture.canada:89497 can.jobs:14799 bc.general:46584 bc.jobs:1084 qc.general:7199 ont.general:41992 ont.jobs:5058 ab.general:9991 alt.discrimination:48098 can.general:79352

an620286@anon.penet.fi wrote:




>               WHAT'S IN IT FOR WHITE MEN?
> 
>               from the Winter 1995 edition of
>               EE PROS - A free newsletter from your Employment Equity
>                         Professionals
> 
>               by Jane Garthson a member of the Board and Executive
>               of the Toronto Employment Equity Practitioners'
>               Association (TEEPA)
> 

This is like reading a pamphlet on the advantages Nazism offer Jews,
as written by Goebbels. Jane Garthson is nothing but a criminal thug.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  8 16:37:43 PDT 1996
Article: 50398 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: NCC's Alberta court victory - massive spending on the way?
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:04:16 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4pc89v$n6@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References:  <4p7e08$iq3@viking.mpr.ca> <4p8rop$68p@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:50398 bc.politics:4188

smeece@chat.carleton.ca (Steven Meece) wrote:

>P. Allen Larsen (larsen@mpr.ca) wrote:

>> >Interestingly, the National Citizens' Coalition has just won a decision in
>> >Alberta against laws which limit third-party advertising during elections.
>>
>> I like to look at this decision as the individual rights of the citizens of
>> Canada being upheld.

>Sure does. Now I have the right to spend $60,000 and put a full-page
>advertisement in the Toronto Star telling people why they should not vote for
>Mr X.

>Thanks. You know the grass roots and the common man was chomping at the bit
>for that one.

Canada has in recent years produced two completely new and powerful
federal parties---both formed in the face of the gigantic political
inertia of the PC's, Liberals and NDP, and both are products of grass
roots activism. 

Whatever one thinks of the policies or personalities involved with
Reform or the Bloc, the conception that independent citizens cannot
possibly manage to raise a trifling sum such as $60,000 is the view of
a LOSER.





From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  8 16:37:45 PDT 1996
Article: 50401 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Why All This Dumping On Reform And The NCC?
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:11:07 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4pc8mp$pa@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4p9sjk$39@news.interlog.com> <23656.15896.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:4193 can.politics:50401

sjenuth@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca (Stephen Jenuth) wrote:

>In <4p9sjk$39@news.interlog.com> Georges Skorpios  writes:

>>Also you have no doubt heard
>>that the election gag law, supported by Liberals, NDP and Red Tories
>>in Ottawa (the Family Compact) has just been ruled unconstitutional. 
>>Perhaps there is grounds now for declaring the recent BC election
>>invalid as the NDP had, I believe, passed its own fascist-like
>>gag rule in that province in order to help it win the recent
>>election.

>No doubt the next election will include a lot of ads put
>up by big business (and their surrogates), labour unions,
>and a host of single issue special interest groups from
>the left and the right.

Which would be a giant step away from what has been going on in Canada
for decades, where all these groups and powers have been operating in
backrooms as a shadow government, their arguments and agenda a private
matter between themselves and the Minister responsible.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  8 16:37:46 PDT 1996
Article: 50402 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Population Time Bomb Crisis
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:11:03 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4pc8ml$pa@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4mijdf$2am@steel.interlog.com> <4mjkss$4io@lace.colorado.edu> <4mnigd$21a@steel.interlog.com> <4mnt9i$f60@lace.colorado.edu> <319E6BDE.2874@infinet.com> <4nsfir$kk8@news1.sympatico.ca> <31AB42B9.52A0@annex.com> <4oj2ci$3l2@usenet10.interramp. <4p7qdq$g8f@earth.njcc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:4196 can.politics:50402

nahay@pluto.njcc.com (John Nahay) wrote:


>I strongly support tough laws against reproduction, in our country and 
>abroad.  These laws should ideally focus on the males.  Getting a 
>vasectomy (which I have done) is certainly trillions times less painful 
>and traumatic than getting women to get tubes tied or have abortions.

I'm pretty confident that anything done to someone else is going to
prove less painful than when it's done to yourself. May I also remind
you that "males" don't produce children. You may undergo a thousand
vasectomies, John, and I guarantee you will not produce any fewer
children than you would otherwise. 




From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  8 16:37:47 PDT 1996
Article: 50403 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: WHY SO QUICK TO DEPORT THOSE 2 RUSSIAN SPIES?
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:10:50 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <4pc8m9$pa@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

cakes@io.org (cakes) wrote:
_____________________________________
I don't understand the fuss that's been made over our current Boris
andNatasha.  First they didn't wanna go back to Mother Russia, fine --
media hawk Clayton Ruby swings in to the rescue on the constitutional
chandelier and takes their case.  OK.  Boris and Natasha realize that
they'll likely have to spend years in some fed can before their case
even gets heard in court (or inquiry or whatever) so they say to hell
with it, send us home. Fine.  What's the problem.
Do you really think that Canada is being targetted by many deep cover
Russian spies?  Come on.  All the Lamberts were supposed to do is
infiltrate "democratic institutions" and file info back to Moscow.
The Russkis probably could've done this openly but it's more fun to do
it with folks working in the intelligence community.  After all, these
highly trained spies have to do something to earn their keep, right?
Now Boris can tell the NKVR all about Black's latest photo finishing
process and Natasha can talk about what it's like to work in a bank
and play with lots of other people's money.  Anybody can have
identi-call if they want it -- just like big-time spies from the
1960s.  Some threat to national security. Maybe Boris and Natasha
infiltrated the Progressive (?) Conservative
party?  Think they were members?  Maybe they will bring back to Russia
a restructuring plan to convert the Gumm stores into Wal-Marts?  Maybe
they'll suggest that the Moscow Mcdogfood's give away prizes to
encourage sales, you know, like "Buy a Big Muck and get a free bar of
soap."  Red horde and Canadian-Russki conspiracy theories are a laugh.
Maybe these two were dumped here six years ago so they could watch and
see how we deal with the separatists in Quebec.  Don't be surprised if
the Kremlin (or is it the Russian parliament now?) organizes big,
expensive unity rallies in the next former Soviet state that decides
to declare its independence.
If CSIS had decided to keep Boris and Natasha for a year or two there
would've been a big hue and cry and CSIS would come under pressure to
reveal just what went on between themselves and B & N.  CSIS didn't
want that.  I suspect CSIS still engages in spying for the sake of
spying andsecrecy goes hand in hand even with pointless espionage.
It's all a game eh.  These folks don't wanna lose their jobs any more
than you do so they have to continue playing the game.  Also,
governments don't believe information they receive unless they've paid
for the information -- even if that info is readily available.  Why do
you think governments all over the world spend so much money on
studies and commissions -- and spying?
   Canada has got to be a real low-end posting for newby spies.  Think
about it.  Years ago the Russians put down the Iron Curtain.  What did
we do? -- roll out the red carpet.  Anybody can access info through
the Freedom of Info Act.  Why bother to learn to mask accents or
cultural backgrounds? -- Canadians love folks from foreign countries.
A spy gets off an Aeroflot jet, walks to a nearby government office
and gets an interest free loan so he or she can set up shop in the
country.  Need a birth certificate to flesh out your new identity?
Line up for four hours and bingo, you got one.  What's a four hour
wait to a budding young spy?   What did Boris and Natasha do that
threatened Canada's national security?  Pass some readily available
information on to another country? -- big deal.
____________________________________________


A very good bit of disinformation. 



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  8 16:37:48 PDT 1996
Article: 50404 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action = Racism!!! - reply
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:11:09 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4pc8mr$pa@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4p755j$sj1@news1.halcyon.com> <31b72215.581930@news.concentric.net> <4p7jem$icu@news8.erols.com> <4p9baq$nol@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

onesong@ix.netcom.com(Marcus S. Robinson, D.C.H. ) wrote:

>In <4p7jem$icu@news8.erols.com> Elaine Pitzer 
>writes: 
>>
>>Affirmative action makes decisions based on the color of someones
>>skin.  That is what racism is all about. 

>No.  This is not wholly correct.  Racism is about using the color of
>someone skin as that target of hatred, bigotry, oppression, with the
>expressed intention of harm, pysical or otherwise, to the one so
>victimized.  Affirmative Action does none of the above.

But this is just bigotry itself. Denying someone rights because of the
color of his skin or the nature of his genitals IS oppression. It DOES
harm. It IS a product of bigotry.




From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  8 16:37:49 PDT 1996
Article: 50405 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Ernst Zundel: Canadian Coward, Liar, and Fraud.
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:11:11 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <4pc8mu$pa@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <1996006070826.AAB8294@infinity.c2.org> <4pb23p$2uu@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>Ingrid pimps for the coward she adores:

>>Here is what Ernst tells his supporters as he is preparing to fend off the
>>most vicious assault so far on his work and his life:

>>"To my friends around the world!

>>This promises to be a long, hot and tiring as well as expensive summer for
>>me in Canada, but I am undeterred-for as never before, the Revisionist
>>cause is making stupendous global headlines.

>>I have always been honest with you, and I want you to share with me what's
>>happening.  I want us to band together as never before, and I want you to
>>understand how serious the situation is for our cause and for me, but also
>>that there is comfort and strength in unity.

>Strange, in the midst of all this "honesty," that Ernst hasn't
>come clean about the outright lies he peddles (For money, of
>course - with Ernst Zundel, it is ALWAYS about money.) with
>regard to such things as "Das Lachout Dokument," the Samisdat Verlag 
>videotape that pimps for a notorious European forger who tells lies 
>for a living... I've asked Ingrid, and Ernst Zundel, about this 
>videotape many, many times, but Ernst Zundel and the IngridClone 
>don't seem to want to discuss it.

>[http://www.almanac.bc.ca/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/]

>Funny, that. You'd think that when someone calls you an
>outright liar, and a fraud, that you'd want to comment... or sue
>Ken McVay for libel.... but ol' Uncle Ernst knows precisely
>what would happen if he was foolish enough to do something
>like that, so he keeps his dishonest mouth firmly shut. Why am
>I not surprised?

>Hey, Mr. Zundel! Here I am! A Canadian! Calling you - YOU,
>Ernst Zundel - a LIAR and a FRAUD. Sue me, Bucky. Go ahead -
>make my bloody day. Go for it, Ernie, please.

>...And doing it from a Canadian system. Gee, Ernst... why don't
>you have Mr. Christie try and shut me up? Unlike you, I have
>the balls to say my piece right here in Canada - you, of
>course, a Noble Aryan Hero, seem to have a need to hide south
>of the border. Why is no-one surprised, Uncle Ernst? 

>Hey, bucky, I've been calling you a liar, a fraud, and a phony 
>for more than a year, and you just sit there in silence.

>Could it be that you ARE a liar and a fraud, Mr. Zundel?

>Could it be that you KNOW Lachout is a fraud and a forger?

>Could it be that you KNOW your Samisdat material lies about Krakowsky?

>Is THAT your problem Mr. Zundel? Is THAT what your "honesty" is really worth?

>You're pathetic, Mr. Zundel, really you are.

>Have a nice trip back to Berlin, bucky. We won't miss you
>- not even a little bit. Have a bloody delightful trip.

So much for the sworn defender of a person's right to free speech.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  8 16:37:49 PDT 1996
Article: 50407 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Why All This Dumping On Reform And The NCC?
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:30:59 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4pc9s1$10i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4p9sjk$39@news.interlog.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:4197 can.politics:50407

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article <4p9sjk$39@news.interlog.com>, Georges Skorpios
> wrote:

>. . .  So
>> for you liberals on the Net, it is none of your fucking 
>> business what corporations contribute to the NCC or how much
>> these corporations contribute. . . . 

>So why don't they change their name to the "National Corporations
>Coalition" and stop trying to mislead Canadians?

>Next, the Reform Party should change its name to the "New Party of Big
>Business (In a Phoney Populist Disguise)".

If we are to adopt this new Ranta Dictum, shouldn't the NDP change its
name to the National Socialist Party?



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  8 16:37:50 PDT 1996
Article: 50419 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action = Racism!!! - reply
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:30:58 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4pc9rv$10i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4p9s6v$djh@news1.halcyon.com> <4pau28$h5@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

onesong@ix.netcom.com(Marcus S. Robinson, D.C.H. ) wrote:

>Don't you think you are being a  little melodramatic here. While it si
>true that denying employment and promotions based solely on the color
>one's skin is wrong, you can hardly prove this is happening in large
>numbers.  Where ever this happens, it is clearly wrong.  However, if
>the choice is between two equally qualified people, then Affirmative
>Action seeks to have the minority get the opportunity. 

AA is not about choosing between "equally qualified" people, but
choosing the best qualified person from a legally-designated
disadvantaged group. I wish people would actually read the laws. 50
non-disabled white men, no matter how superior their qualifications
may be, will not get a job that a DGM (disadvantaged group member) is
even minimumly-qualified for if an AA hiring program is in place. In
addition, an AA program cannot be put in place for non-disabled white
men, regardless of the make-up of a company's staff.






From pkolding@cts.com Sat Jun  8 16:37:51 PDT 1996
Article: 50420 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,wpg.politics
Subject: Re: For the Canadian Jewish Congress - RE: Letter to the Editor
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:31:01 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4pc9s3$10i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <1996May22.073634.26435@wpg.ramp.net> <4nv5hn$s2f@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4o8lf5$ibq@wpg-01.escape.ca>  <1996May29.052325.7548@wpg.ramp.net> <31b91eb3.269995976@news.cyberspc.mb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

wagner@cyberspc.mb.ca (Grant Wagner) wrote:

>On Wed, 29 May 1996 05:23:25 GMT, Joe Lockhart 
>wrote:

>>If Lester wants to edit my post he has the right.
>>After all.. to keep it in its full form would mean
>>he might agree with freedom of speech.
>>
>>But, like most liberals and leftest scum, his
>>type crys for freedom of speech for him.
>>But not for others..
>>
>>How typical...
>>
>>The ECDL

>And its typical of people like yourself to make broad generalizations
>about other people without even knowing them (hmmm, maybe I should
>rephrase that).

>Your blatant intolerance of others scares the hell out of me, and
>makes me afraid for the future of the human race.

>Unfortunately, there are more poor, uneducated white people who feel
>that their own failures are someone else's problem joining your ranks
>everyday.

What's the point of being educated when you will be denied a job and
advancement because you are white? From what I can see, the leaders of
these white power groups are not stupid at all. They see perfectly
well that it is the policies of the government that secure them the
bulk of their membership, and introduce their hate-filled ideological
slant simply as butter on the bread of injustice.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Jun  9 18:05:06 PDT 1996
Article: 50557 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Soviate style McVay Justice:  how to spot aryans
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:04:10 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4pc89o$n6@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4nus3o$flg@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <1996May31.223855.24833@wpg.ramp.net> <4ood7g$ffp@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4p3t13$5em@news.ios.com> <4p4kda$ffd@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4p511o$f0j@lal.interserv.net> <31B63953.959@unb.ca> <4p7j7p$hmu@hpscit.sc.hp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

beebe@scd.hp.com (Mike Beebe) wrote:

>Keith Morrison (t08o@unb.ca) wrote:
>: Ken Lewis wrote:
>: > 
>: > In article <4p4kda$ffd@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
>: > says...
>: > 
>: > >$100 from me, if you can.
>: > >$100 from Jamie McCarthy, if you can.
>: > >$200 from you, if you can't.
>: > >
>: > >Go ahead, make my day. Prove that I am "working hard to" stifle "free
>: > >speech in Canada."
>: > 
>: >  A bet as safe as this? I'll throw my $100 in too.

>: I'm in.

This is finally getting interesting. Would someone please state what
precisely has to be proved, what constitues proof, and who is to be
the judge?



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Jun  9 18:05:09 PDT 1996
Article: 50558 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-family hatred!
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:04:19 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <4pc8a4$n6@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4p7cn9$g7k@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4p7qap$nte@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-65.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ab608@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Neil  Fowler) wrote:

>Gerald H.Hall  wrote:

>> Anti-family hatred.
>> 
>> I see that the Vancouver Sun...  

>> Hate-filled statements such as the following coming right off the 
>> top of the editorial writer's head about Reform policies: "There are 
>> many in this prosperous, rising city attracted to the party's stance 
>> on debt and deficit, its belief in decentralization, its hard-line on
>> Quebec and its proposal for democratic reforms such as recall and 
>> referendum. But, this is a city whose pulse is its diverse people, 
>> (i.e. its homosexual community) many of whom are repelled by Reform's
>> implicit message that the only good Canadian is a straight, white, 
>> conservative Christian living in a traditional marriage." Typical 
>> Robinson anti-family, anti-Christian hatred.

>Having read your quote what is anti-family, anti-Christian about it. It
>says is plain words that many people in the city do not agree with
>reforms idea that only way to be a good Canadain is to be straight,
>white, conservative Christian living in atraditional marriage. 

And by saying this you reveal how propaganda works. The article did
not say that this was Reform's actual policy, but that was what it
MEANS. The Reform party is as "diverse" as any others with respect to
religion, ethnicity, sex and race (as if any of that means anything at
all). And it's view on human rights is the traditional liberal one:
one law for everyone. But the propagandist would have you believe that
such actual facts are not relevant, and that one should understand
that a diverse Reform Party is actually made up of "straight, white, 
conservative Christians living in a traditional marriage" and that
ideas that don't conform to that stereotypical image cannot be the
product of the Reform Party.  The propagandist, therefore, does not
operate by criticising the views of a Party, but by stereotyping the
members. It is then an easy matter to ask his readers to compare the
views of the Party to the stereotype he has created from whole cloth. 
We see this type of propaganda eveywhere in Canadian politics,
oafishly and transparently applied by Nazis and Socialists, and
arrogantly and confidently by the Establishment political parties and
their mouthpieces.

>I myself do not agree entirely with that. Many people are not Christian,
>does that make them bad canadains? Many people do not live in a
>traditional marriage, does that make then all bad Canadains? Many people
>are not white, does that make them bad Canadians? The answer to all is
>no. Reform however thinks differently, and many people thus disagree
>with reform for it. 

But Reform doesn't think differently. So far as I know the only
politician of note that has made such comments is Brian Mulroney, who
remarked that anyone who voted against the Charlottetown Accord was an
"enemy of Canada". But you didn't hear editorialists then say that the
PC Party's views implied, thereby, that the only good Canadian is a
straight, white, conservative Christian living in a traditional
marriage, did you?


...[some deleted]...


>> This is pure hatred directed against the thousands of Christians 
>> traditional families living in British Columbia who have been the 
>> backbone and the main stabilizing group in our society which is 
>> rapidly decaying because of social degeneracy. 

>What is pure hatred, saying that people do not agre with reform's idea
>that a good Canadian must be straight, white, Christian and in a
>traditional Marriage? That is a reform idea (and for most an idea) that
>is not true. Reform, not the newspaper is preaching discrimination. 

And here we see the final step. We started with an article that said
that Reform DID NOT say these things, and now we have you saying a few
paragraphs down that "This is a reform idea". It isn't---it is a
propagandist's idea that you---either out of stupidity or
partiality---have swallowed whole. You are a dupe.


>> Bill 33, the NDP hate law should be invoked here by some member of the
>> Reform party. This hatred against the traditional family has been propagated
>> by this newspaper for the past decade and is a clear case of spreading
>> "hatred" against a single group of people in our society. 

>Not usre what bill 33 in B.C. is, so I can not speculate. No one hates
>the traditional family, the fact is that family structure in this
>country is chnaging, to include a wide range of family situations.

>> Calling members of the federal liberal party such as Roseanne Skoke 
>> and Tom Wapple, "dinosaurs" and Bob Ringma and David Chatters 
>> "neanderthals" for denouncing homosexuality as immoral, has really 
>> gotten the degenerate, anti-fmaily editorial writers frothing at the 
>> mouth with hatred. 

>People view homosexuality as wrong, some don't. there are two sides to
>this complaint. however, one's sexual preference should have no bearing
>on defining a good Canadain. 

But it is the editorialists that have been declaiming on what is a
good Canadian, not the Reform Party. Dupes like you are simply being
led by the nose. 






From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun 10 09:07:33 PDT 1996
Article: 50820 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: NCC's Alberta court victory - massive spending on the way?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:07:47 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4pg012$d9i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References:  <4p7e08$iq3@viking.mpr.ca> <4p8rop$68p@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4pc89v$n6@news.snfc21.pacbell.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-63.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:50820 bc.politics:4327

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article <4pc89v$n6@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter
>Kolding) wrote:

>. . . 
>> 
>> Canada has in recent years produced two completely new and powerful
>> federal parties---both formed in the face of the gigantic political
>> inertia of the PC's, Liberals and NDP, and both are products of grass
>> roots activism.

>You might want to read any of the various histories of the Reform Party,
>all of which make it clear that Manning, Winspear, and Byfield started the
>party to take advantage of a vacuum caused by the collapse in the west of
>the Tories.

>The 'grassroots' activism of Reform is largely a myth.  While in some
>situations the party has been able to attract large members and
>volunteers, the party has been controlled from the start by Manning's
>agenda to create a new, pro-big business party to replace the Tories.  

You're dead wrong. The Reform Party's strength is due to the
ideological and practical concerns *of the grassroots*----Manning is
as much a victim of this as the Establishment parties. Manning doesn't
treat the members any differently than any of the other parties, but
he suffers constant upheaval and "wrongheadedness" that he is
powerless to control, precisely because the Party is a grassroots
organisation. And may I say that one cannot "take advantage of a
vacuum" unless one can actually fill it. After all, we didn't see the
NDP or the Greens or the National party or any of the others fill this
vacuum in the West. 




From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun 10 09:07:34 PDT 1996
Article: 50821 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Why All This Dumping On Reform And The NCC?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:07:51 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4pg016$d9i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4p9sjk$39@news.interlog.com>  <4pc9s1$10i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-63.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:4328 can.politics:50821

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article <4pc9s1$10i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter
>Kolding) wrote:


>. . . 
>> If we are to adopt this new Ranta Dictum, shouldn't the NDP change its
>> name to the National Socialist Party?

>That wouldn't be a bad idea, except that Hitler misnamed his party by
>including the word 'socialist'.  SInce then, "National Socialist Party"
>has a bad connotation. 

In other words, if a technically accurate title "has a bad
connotation" its all right not to adopt it----but only if you're the
NDP.






From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun 10 09:07:34 PDT 1996
Article: 50822 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Why All This Dumping On Reform And The NCC?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:07:53 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4pg018$d9i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4p9sjk$39@news.interlog.com> <4pci1c$a6@milo.vcn.bc.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-63.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:4329 can.politics:50822

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article <4pci1c$a6@milo.vcn.bc.ca>, sscott@vcn.bc.ca (Sheldon Scott) wrote:

>. . . 
>> Indeed, that gag law may have gotten the NDP elected.  Maybe more 
>> spending would have swayed the few thousand voters who held their nose 
>> and voted NDP (I'm not sure why they did that).
>> That BC gag law was indeed an important part of the NDP's reelection 
>> plan.  They sought to limit the spending of their opponents (who 
>> routinely outspend the NDP). . . .


>It's interesting that many of the arguments against the gag law seem to
>take one of these two forms:

>1. advertising doesn't influence voters, so it should be allowed, or

Advertising certainly influences voters---but then all opinion and the
manner in which it is relayed will influence people. Influence, my
dear Ranta, is a two-way street. In your case, for example,
"advertising" has influenced your opinion not to adopt any particular
position, but to oppose advertising.






From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun 10 09:07:35 PDT 1996
Article: 50823 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: B.C. HAS ELECTED A MARXIST GOVERNMENT
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:08:01 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4pg01f$d9i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4pci5c$mf5@news.interlog.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-63.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:4330 can.politics:50823

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article <4pci5c$mf5@news.interlog.com>, Georges Skorpios
> wrote:

>> B.C.'s income tax rates are the highest in the country and
>. . . 

>B.C.'s marginal tax rate on income up to $40,000 is the second lowest in
>the country, after Alberta. 

>However, B.C's marginal tax rate on income over $80,000 is indeed the
>highest among Canadian provinces. 

>To criticise B.C. income tax rate by calling it the 'highest in the
>country' reveals that the critic is only considering the point of view of
>higher income British Columbians. 

Actually, what this dispute reveals is that neither of you are
prepared to post the percentage of a person's income that is taken in
the form of some tax or obligatory government fee. 




From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun 10 09:07:36 PDT 1996
Article: 50824 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC GAG LAW POSTS - NCC RESPONDS
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:08:02 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4pg01h$d9i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References:   <4ouij2$qve@news3.cts.com>  <4p1i99$p8a@news3.cts.com>  <4p49s0$lce@news3.cts.com> <4p576i$j5p@fountain.mindlink.net> <4p7d57$k5m@news3.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-63.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:50824 bc.politics:4331

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article <4p7d57$k5m@news3.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:

>> Why should private associations be obliged to publish their membership
>> lists because the government disapporves of their opinions? . . . 

>They shouldn't.  But political lobby groups should publish the list of
>their donors. 

I didn't ask you what they should do, I'm asking you why they should
do these things. Every member of the NCC is a donor---that is the
dynamic of private political organisations. And you haven't addressed
the original question I posed, either: Why shouldn't the NDP publish
their membership list? This organisation, after all, actually WRITES
THE LAWS. The NCC doesn't do anything but propound its opinions---the
NDP, on the other hand, can get you arrested and thrown in jail. 






From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun 10 09:07:36 PDT 1996
Article: 50825 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!van.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,can.politics,bc.politics,ont.general
Subject: Re: NCC's Alberta court victory - massive spending on the way?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:08:04 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4pg01j$d9i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References:  <4p7e08$iq3@viking.mpr.ca> <4p8a44$iqc@mongol.sasknet.sk.ca> <4pa4ii$763@viking.mpr.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-63.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:50825 bc.politics:4332 ont.general:42363

wparker@torfree.net (Wil Parker) wrote:


>Al:    If the behaviour of many people cannot be influenced by
>advertising, why would pressure groups, political parties and the
>coporations spend such huge amounts of money to convince us to buy their 
>brand or vote for their candidate? 


>The NCC, Coca Cola, and Macdonald's Restaurants etc. know that there are
>millions of people who will buy their unhealthy products if they spend 
>enough money promoting it. 

But this doesn't meet the argument. If this is the justification for
the gag law then EVERYONE, and especially the actual organisations who
will hold power, the parties, should be gagged.

But that isn't what the gag law does. Instead, it gags voters who will
not hold power, while permitting advertising by the political parties.
As I proposed when this situation was first raised, if there is to be
a gag law it should be applied against the parties, not the
electorate.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun 10 09:07:37 PDT 1996
Article: 50943 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Ont. Conservative Compassion
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:07:55 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4pg01a$d9i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <31b05496.11426851@news.vianet.on.ca> <4otehg$2b44@news.gate.net> <4oumqt$eri@kryten.awinc.com> <4ovo3s$2bmi@news.gate.net> <4p0ps5$ibm@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4p49u7$lce@news3.cts.com> <4p7b49$30eg@elmo.cadvision.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-63.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

slawrenc@cadvision.com (Steven Lawrence) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:

>>smeece@chat.carleton.ca (Steven Meece) wrote:

>>>Peter Wojnar (pwojnar@gate.net) wrote:

>>>> >Oh boy... another informed statement.  Workers' Comp is NOT a 
>>>> >government program.
>>>>
>>>> Worker's Comp is a program running under very rigid government
>>>> regulation. It is a heavily government legislated program.

>>>So is McDonald's. 

>>>> >Workers' Comp is funded by the assessments
>>>> >against employers - which is determined on an industry rating in
>>>> >combination with their own accident and safety records.
>>>>
>>>> Essentially "taxes" against employers.

>>>Essentially a safeguard for employers, because in exchange for Worker's
>>>Comp benefits, the employees give up their right to sue for further damages.

>>>You can rest assured Walter, this isn't another sneaking socialist
>>>programme -- the bosses win! They win! It's good for them!

>>Can they opt out of the program if they don't think it's good for
>>them?

>The only employers who wish to opt out of WCB are fly by night
>operations with no assets to protect. These companies are precisely
>the reason that opting out is not allowed unless the company has its
>own program in place to provide compensation. Some large organizations
>do this within strict regulations. I suppose if they truly wish to opt
>out, relocation to Mexico is an option. 

So the argument is not that business wants it, but that if they don't
like it they can leave the country. Thanks for clearing up all this
ridiculous bafflegab about it being a voluntary, non-regulatory
program.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun 10 09:07:38 PDT 1996
Article: 50945 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Religion and homosexuality!
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:07:57 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <4pg01c$d9i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4p9qgt$nh9@milo.vcn.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-63.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

jerryhal@vcn.bc.ca (Gerald H.Hall) wrote:


>Religion and homosexuality.

>NEW KING JAMES BIBLE:
>	
>	Leviticus 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a man as with a
>	woman. It is an abomination. 23. Nor shall you mate with any
>	beast, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand
>	before a beast to mate with it. It is a perversion.

...[Other various texts and similar quotes deleted]...

While I think you have amply supplied indisputable evidence of
Biblical prohibitions against homosexual behaviour, like so many
others you refrain from revealing the penalties that the Bible also
obliges. In the case under discussion, for example, the penalty is
death.

This means, if one takes the fundamentalist, literal truth
point-of-view in determining sinful behaviour, one is also obliged to
support the same standard with respect to penalties.

Is it your opinion that homosexuals should be put to death, or are you
of the opinion that the message of the Bible is greater than the sum
and substance of its various parts?





















>--




From pkolding@cts.com Mon Jun 10 09:07:39 PDT 1996
Article: 50946 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!news.PBI.net!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Reform Party votes for gay marriage??   ;)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:07:59 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4pg01e$d9i@news.snfc21.pacbell.net>
References: <4pb6ke$1ht@scipio.cyberstore.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-117-63.sndg02.pacbell.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

janchr@netbistro.com (Jan Christiansen) wrote:

>The equality of all Canadians is now the official policy of the Reform 
>Party.  Preston Manning has said that the party opposes group rights and 
>that that is why they opposed the recent amendments to the Human Rights 
>Act. It follows that heterosexuals cannot have group rights that are 
>denied to homosexuals.  Therefore the Reform party has voted in favour of 
>spousal benefits and the rite of marriage for homosexuals - haven't 
>they???  Afterall, there is no reason why marriage and spousal benefits 
>should be reserved as a special right for heterosexuals as a group.  ;)

But marriage isn't reserved for heterosexuals. There is no bar to
marriage based on sexual orientation. 




Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.