The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/nyms/pkolding/1996/kolding.0396


From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 11:02:47 PST 1996
Article: 6569 of alt.society.civil-liberties
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:29:36 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <4ij3cm$lgm@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.censorship:73638 can.politics:35197 alt.society.civil-liberties:6569

Neil  wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Thank you for finally confirming the point I've been making all along.
>> He was arrested, jailed and criminalised on the sole basis of his
>> expressed political opinions. 

>Please explain the logic that leads you to conclude that claiming Jews are
>"treacherous, subversive, sadistic, money-loving, power hungry and child
>killers" are political opinions. 

What do think they are, medical opinions? Feminists have claimed men
to be rapists, murderers and child abusers and have managed to have
much of this philosphy adopted in a host of laws. And evidently many
people don't seem to see this as anything BUT political speech, more
often than not worthy of government funding to boot. By the way, the
same language is continually used by those who oppose the Nazis, as
well. Somehow, when it is used with respect to the powerful it ceases
to be political speech, but instead becomes a criminal offense. While
when it is directed against the unfavoured, it's political nature is
indisputable, and those who use it are awarded the Order of British
Columbia.

>> Had he made precisely the same claims
>> with respect to the poor, children or the sick he could not be charged
>> under the law (as these groups are evidently not worthy of
>> "protection") and the normal civil procedures would have been
>> instituted with respect to firing him with cause. 

>Did he make these claims about the poor, children, or the sick?

Exactly. Thank you for confirming the point. He made them about the
Jews, and thus is criminalised. Had he made them about the poor,
children, or the sick we would not be having this conversation, as he
would not have been arrested, jailed, charged and criminalised.


>> And if he had
>> expressed the same views with respect to "males" he probably wouldn't
>> have faced any sanction whatsoever.

>Did he express these views about males? 

What, precisely, are you attempting to convey? That hatred against
most groups is not actually "hatred", but, rather, protected political
speech and invulnerable to legal constraint? You really needn't
bother, as that is the point I am making.

>> I have no problem with your view that political opinions should be
>> controlled and vetted by government, and the standard for criminality
>> determined upon narrow grounds applicable only to those opinions
>> unpalatable to a few priviliged groups. I just maintain that this is
>> not a view that can be held up as one supporting anything but tyranny
>> and totalitarianism.

>Define "political opinion". Also give us your reasoning for believing that
>all political opinions, as defined by you, should be immune from any
>actions by the government or the people regardless of the harm it may
>inflict upon individuals. 

I'm afraid that the argument as to what constitues "political opinion"
is entirely irrelevant when the law turning it in to "hatred" depends
not on the content of the opinion, but upon the group to which it
refers. As I have said over and over: If some political opinion is to
be determined as constituting "the propagation of hatred", everyone
who is capable of being harmed by hatred should be protected from it.
If that is not the case, the law is not concerned with hatred at all,
but simply the criminalising of the unpopular opinions ranged against
the powerful.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 12:36:40 PST 1996
Article: 113032 of soc.culture.african.american
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: tor.general,can.politics,can.general,alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: RACISM:  Too many white firefighters in Toronto
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 00:09:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <4ifl7b$o9l@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hvead$qrb@news1.io.org> <4hvodl$d7g@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>  <4i4i4l$fh7@news3.cts.com> <4ia5ku$fmc@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:35045 can.general:72335 alt.discrimination:44567 soc.culture.african.american:113032

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>Jane_Garthson@magic.ca (B. Jane Garthson) wrote:

>[edit]

>>>Anyone who is at all familiar with the Toronto Fire Fighter situation
>>>would know that it has nothing to do with "isolated cases of racism".  It
>>>has everything to do with a group of white men who want their workplace to
>>>continue to consist solely of white men. 
>>
>>And you don't like white men and don't want them in the majority in
>>any organisation. Unfortunately, one never hears from cunts like you
>>when it comes to the Nursing field. Evidently racist white women's
>>workplaces, paid by government, are absolutely fine by you. And when
>>it comes to 99% of the prison cells being filled with men, that too is
>>not something that concerns seekers of "diversity" and fighters of
>>"sexism" like you.

>Gosh, what an oversight.  We're just going to have to create more
>opportunities and openings in prison cells for women.  How could
>this clear injustice have been allowed to go on for so long?

>>You're a fucking criminal. I hope the day comes when you're hanged in
>>the public square for your crimes. Lepine was right.



>This is absolutely fascinating.  PKolding is having a relatively
>civilised discourse on freedom on speech on another newsgroup, and 
>look what the cat dragged in here.  I'm going to archive this
>post, and the next time Kolding starts talking about "freedom
>of expression" and totalitarianism, I'll let his own words (there is
>no doubt now that this individual is a he) tell us all where he
>really stands on these issues.

>Supports something I've thought for a while.  Many racists and
>antisemites are also extremely sexist.

I see. I am now an anti-semite and a racist, simply because you don't
care for my opinion about the criminal Garthson. May I suggest you
enquire into Garthson's profession before you start making unfounded,
accusations: She is actively involved in supporting legal
discrimination against men on the basis of their sex, and I look
forward to the day she---and all others who legislate, enforce and
support AA----swing in the wind.

By the way, Marc Lepine was a hero.




From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 18:18:51 PST 1996
Article: 35268 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!news.his.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!chi-news.cic.net!news1.io.org!van-bc!uniserve!utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:28:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <4ij3ab$lgm@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ic0fh$koo@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41419 can.general:72464 can.politics:35268

rkrasich@awinc.com wrote:

>In article <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com says...
>>
>>So, please explain to all of us how the propagation of hatred towards
>>males or females can not possibly be worthy as a criminal offense, but
>>the propagation of hatred towards Jews can? Hath not a male eyes? hath
>>not a male hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
>>fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the
>>same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same
>>winter and summer as a Jew is? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if
>>you poison us, do we not die? 

>Part of it has to do with whether or not we can turn you off or 
>not have to listen, read or participate in your views.  I have seen
>your own posts threatening people and recommending violence against
>women.  Evidentally, you idea of hate only has to do with what other
>people spew, not what you spew yourself.  You have repeatedly recommended
>violence against women as a solution to disparities in treatment of men
>in Canadian society.  You don't even bother to look to the lawmakers for
>change, your recommendations were simply that individual men be violent
>with individual women.  

Your concluding sentence is misleading. My views with respect to EE
and the affirmative action culture are the result of years of dealing
with lawmakers in the political and legal spheres. The AA and
relationship laws that have been enacted and are now being enforced,
with constitutional backing, constitute crimes against humanity. The
governments that impose them are criminal organisations, worse than
any Mafia family or drug gang. The only thing these criminals
understand, just as their street brothers do, is violence. And it is
my firmly held belief that there will be no end to the slavery these
people have installed until organised violence is directed at them and
their agents, and that those who benefit from this slavery in their
everyday lives pay for it in their everyday lives.

However, my low regard for the various Canadian governments and their
lackeys is balanced somewhat by my contempt for the Canadian people as
a whole. They are, I find, kindred spirits to the Germans of the
Thirties. In short, they are not worth the trouble of fighting for.
And that is why I left Canada five years ago, rather than taking up
arms. Briefly: What victory would it be to free scum?

>You have praised Marc Lepine as a hero, and as a political martyr (sp?).

And I always shall. His is the perfect example of what should and must
happen when injustice is codified and enforced by the State. His only
mistake was to kill himself. The next man who takes his brave lead I
hope will rectify this, and go on to further actions. If you are
squeamish about Lepine, you should be squeamish about affirmative
action---for that is all he was practicing.

>However, since none of us is obligated to read your posts (mostly it is
>a character weakness, sort of like rubber-necking at an accident) - there
>what you have to say is merely an opinion.  If you were a teacher and
>were spouting such nonsense then you have a captive audience.  If you
>then require the students to write papers, supporting your views, and you
>are not clear that these are your opinions, then you should be removed
>from your position, because it is your job as a teacher to teach the
>curriculum.  If you want to launch a political battle, do it somewhere
>other than in the schools.

I agree completely, but none of this should make the expression of a
political opinion, inside or outside of a classroom, a criminal
offense. It is precisely my point that limitations on Keegstra's
expressing of political opinions is a matter of the curriculum and his
employment contract, and if we are to criminalise his poiltical
opinions then we should criminalise ALL unpleasant political opinions,
everywhere. The jails should therefore be stacked with feminists,
communists, Rush Limbaugh enthusiasts, Senators and MP's and virtually
every successful columnist in the land.

But no. The law is conveniently drafted, and even more conveniently
enforced, to apply only against those who spout political opinions not
in favour with powerful interest groups.

>>and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

>oooooh... we are sooooo scared.....

I'm sure Shakespeare has that effect on a lot of Canadians.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:04:00 PST 1996
Article: 27517 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:12:32 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4ilj8c$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6o8$1u62@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ibs3b$206@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ij39o$lgm@news2.cts.com> <4ik7pp$17t@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:377 alt.censorship:73818 alt.revisionism:27517 can.politics:35329 alt.society.civil-liberties:6601

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>Laura Finsten  wrote:

>[edit]

>>>Actually, what I find rather ironic in all this is that the vast majority
>>>of Holocaust deniers publicly disavow that their "revisionism" of the
>>>Holocaust is political.  Instead, they claim that their only interest is
>>>in "setting the historical record straight".  Yet PKolding is explicitly
>>>aligning Holocaust denial with political opinions.
>>
>>When someone is concerned with "setting the historical record
>>straight" you may be sure they are entering the political sphere. By
>>the way, what exactly constitutes a "Holocaust denier", and please
>>post quotes of mine that make me one. 

>I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier.  I said that you were
>explicitly aligning Holocaust denial with political opinions.  Whenever
>I or others have said that Keegstra was teaching Holocaust denial as
>history to high school students, you have leapt to his defence by
>claiming that he was charged and convicted for his political views.
>This is why I have said that you are aligning Holocaust denial with
>political opinions.

I'm afraid I am still at somewhat of a loss: Exactly what constitutes
a "Holocaust denier", and if this was what Keegstra was doing what has
it to do with propagating hatred? It seems to me you are dropping a
real bomb into this discussion: Keegstra's "Holocaust denial" is now
being linked with his propagating hatred, and thus we see that the
hate law that was overturned---spreading false news---is now being
surreptitiously applied to circumvent Keegstra's
Supreme-Court-acknowledged Charter right to free expression.






From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:04:02 PST 1996
Article: 27518 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:12:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:378 alt.censorship:73819 alt.revisionism:27518 can.politics:35330 alt.society.civil-liberties:6602

Neil  wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> And you seem to be unable to understand that the expression of one's
>> political views, and the existence of free speech,  is impossible if
>> others are to decide what that expression is to mean and criminalise
>> it simply because they don't care for its content. 

>Again, Kolding is relying on the argument that Keegstra's statements were
>political opinions. And again, I will ask him: what is the definition of a
>political opinion? Do the things Keegstra said about Jews fit under this
>description? 

Yes.

>> You have made this argument repeatedly, that somehow the "incitement
>> to hatred" is to be determined upon the content of people's speech. 

>You're suggesting that it is impossible to incite hatred, or even
>violence, through the use of speech? 

>> It
>> is a fatuous and absurd argument on its face though, because hatred
>> cannot be "incited" to any degree unwished for by the listeners. Have
>> the views of Keegstra and Zundel incited YOU to frothing malevolence
>> towards the Jews? Of course not. 
>[snip]

>I believe the reason Keegstra was taken to court was his attempts to
>incite hatred among students, who's minds are more impressionable than
>grown adults. It is reasonable to expect that Keegstra's influence on
>these students was strong enough to possibly cause some of them to become
>anti-Semitic. Otherwise, if the Court determined that simply saying
>hateful things about a race could incite violence and/or hatred, you would
>have been wanted by the Canadian feds a long time ago for your Marc Lepine
>statements. 

And this last proves once again that you are talking through your hat.
"Men" and "Females" are not an "identifiable group" towards which
hatred can be propagated, according to the very law you are arguing
about. But that I have revealed this elementary fact to you over and
over again, and it has yet to penetrate your wooden skull, is a
perfect illustration of another point I have raised over and over
again: Appeals to reason, logic, humanity or even the most elementary
liberal concepts of justice and equality are useless against those who
hold with the Affirmative Action Culture, and the governments that
legislate and enforce it. Only violence will serve, because violence
and the rule of might are the only things they both understand and are
prepared to yield to.

People on this newsgroup have often opposed my views because I do not
condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
with respect to defeating these criminals. In turn, I can only advise
them to follow what passes for "reason" from those who support these
criminal activities, and the complete impossibility of persuading
these people that "legal" discrimination against people on the basis
of their race and/or sex is not an "inconvenience" or "temporary
necessity" but a crime against humanity.

The root problem, as I see it, is that they confuse their intentions
with their actions, and honestly belive that ANY action undertaken
>from  "good" intentions is not simply morally correct, but morally
defensible. Thus the rationalising of evil acts as good ones is
completed with the mere conception of a pretty thought.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:38:27 PST 1996
Article: 15718 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,can.politics
Subject: Re: Jews are more important than the English?
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:11:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4ilj6m$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4fj0iu$etq@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4galpa$18b@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4gbjmj$d7g@news.agt.net> <4gek91$7a@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <1996Feb22.204054.17651@wpg.ramp.net>  <4gq521$9df@news2.cts.com> <4h37ud$20fm@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4h7uit$9ur@yendi.mdd.comm.mot.com> <4h9uqc$g4q@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hfhj3$7o4@news2.cts.com> <4hhvus$6v1@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hnf2d$2s3@news2.cts.com> <4hpk0l$ca7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ht0be$41r@news2.cts.com> <4hv293$9st@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i3a3u$18s@news3.cts.com> <4i424e$6qu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i8mml$72m@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:376 alt.politics.white-power:22237 alt.politics.nationalism.white:15718 can.politics:35325

igguldec@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) wrote:


>> >Are the circumstances under which your foreign, dead Englishmen met
>> >their deaths in any way comparable to this?
>> 
>> Let me thank you for confirming my point: You DO think dead, foreign
>> Jews are more important than dead, foreign Englishmen. So much,
>> therefore, for declarations regarding free political expression and
>> the idea that the hate laws have anything to do with propagating
>> "hatred".

>Obviously PKolding you have difficultry comprehending the English
>language. What the previous poster stated was that Jews were subjected to
>the Nuremberg laws regardless of how they identified themselves. Simply by
>being Jewish they were destroyed.

>> 
>> I'm sorry that I have given you the impression that I was implying
>> such a thing. I'm quite prepared to expressly and explicitly state
>> that any group that can have laws created that get people jailed for
>> expressing opinions they do not care for is far too powerful,
>> regardless of "proportionality." 

>So what then is to stop people from displaying horrific acts of hate? What
>if all of a sudden every minority group in this society who has been
>discriminated against and hated by white men suddenly began to go and burn
>pink triangles on the laws of our patriarchial oppressors. You would be
>the first screaming for protection for the poor persecuted white man.

Don't be absurd. I don't fear expressions of hate. If people want to
deface private property I'm quite prepared to see them prosecuted for
vandalism and required to pay damages and compensation. It is complete
nonsense that you imagine that white men who now are denied, by law,
>from  virtually every institution in society on the sole basis of their
sex, would somehow feel threatened by mere words. In fact, it is more
than mere nonsense---it is dangerously delusional.

>> I object to the hate laws on all sorts of grounds, chief among them
>> that one is supposed to be guaranteed the right to the free expression
>> of one's political views.

>Even if these views destroy someone else's property 
>or desecrate a cemetary?

"Views" don't destroy anything, except perhaps the complacency of
bigots, liars and tyrants.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:39:49 PST 1996
Article: 22237 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,can.politics
Subject: Re: Jews are more important than the English?
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:11:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4ilj6m$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4fj0iu$etq@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4galpa$18b@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4gbjmj$d7g@news.agt.net> <4gek91$7a@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <1996Feb22.204054.17651@wpg.ramp.net>  <4gq521$9df@news2.cts.com> <4h37ud$20fm@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4h7uit$9ur@yendi.mdd.comm.mot.com> <4h9uqc$g4q@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hfhj3$7o4@news2.cts.com> <4hhvus$6v1@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hnf2d$2s3@news2.cts.com> <4hpk0l$ca7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ht0be$41r@news2.cts.com> <4hv293$9st@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i3a3u$18s@news3.cts.com> <4i424e$6qu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i8mml$72m@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:376 alt.politics.white-power:22237 alt.politics.nationalism.white:15718 can.politics:35325

igguldec@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) wrote:


>> >Are the circumstances under which your foreign, dead Englishmen met
>> >their deaths in any way comparable to this?
>> 
>> Let me thank you for confirming my point: You DO think dead, foreign
>> Jews are more important than dead, foreign Englishmen. So much,
>> therefore, for declarations regarding free political expression and
>> the idea that the hate laws have anything to do with propagating
>> "hatred".

>Obviously PKolding you have difficultry comprehending the English
>language. What the previous poster stated was that Jews were subjected to
>the Nuremberg laws regardless of how they identified themselves. Simply by
>being Jewish they were destroyed.

>> 
>> I'm sorry that I have given you the impression that I was implying
>> such a thing. I'm quite prepared to expressly and explicitly state
>> that any group that can have laws created that get people jailed for
>> expressing opinions they do not care for is far too powerful,
>> regardless of "proportionality." 

>So what then is to stop people from displaying horrific acts of hate? What
>if all of a sudden every minority group in this society who has been
>discriminated against and hated by white men suddenly began to go and burn
>pink triangles on the laws of our patriarchial oppressors. You would be
>the first screaming for protection for the poor persecuted white man.

Don't be absurd. I don't fear expressions of hate. If people want to
deface private property I'm quite prepared to see them prosecuted for
vandalism and required to pay damages and compensation. It is complete
nonsense that you imagine that white men who now are denied, by law,
>from  virtually every institution in society on the sole basis of their
sex, would somehow feel threatened by mere words. In fact, it is more
than mere nonsense---it is dangerously delusional.

>> I object to the hate laws on all sorts of grounds, chief among them
>> that one is supposed to be guaranteed the right to the free expression
>> of one's political views.

>Even if these views destroy someone else's property 
>or desecrate a cemetary?

"Views" don't destroy anything, except perhaps the complacency of
bigots, liars and tyrants.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:49:08 PST 1996
Article: 376 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,can.politics
Subject: Re: Jews are more important than the English?
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:11:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4ilj6m$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4fj0iu$etq@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4galpa$18b@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4gbjmj$d7g@news.agt.net> <4gek91$7a@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <1996Feb22.204054.17651@wpg.ramp.net>  <4gq521$9df@news2.cts.com> <4h37ud$20fm@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4h7uit$9ur@yendi.mdd.comm.mot.com> <4h9uqc$g4q@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hfhj3$7o4@news2.cts.com> <4hhvus$6v1@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hnf2d$2s3@news2.cts.com> <4hpk0l$ca7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ht0be$41r@news2.cts.com> <4hv293$9st@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i3a3u$18s@news3.cts.com> <4i424e$6qu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i8mml$72m@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:376 alt.politics.white-power:22237 alt.politics.nationalism.white:15718 can.politics:35325

igguldec@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) wrote:


>> >Are the circumstances under which your foreign, dead Englishmen met
>> >their deaths in any way comparable to this?
>> 
>> Let me thank you for confirming my point: You DO think dead, foreign
>> Jews are more important than dead, foreign Englishmen. So much,
>> therefore, for declarations regarding free political expression and
>> the idea that the hate laws have anything to do with propagating
>> "hatred".

>Obviously PKolding you have difficultry comprehending the English
>language. What the previous poster stated was that Jews were subjected to
>the Nuremberg laws regardless of how they identified themselves. Simply by
>being Jewish they were destroyed.

>> 
>> I'm sorry that I have given you the impression that I was implying
>> such a thing. I'm quite prepared to expressly and explicitly state
>> that any group that can have laws created that get people jailed for
>> expressing opinions they do not care for is far too powerful,
>> regardless of "proportionality." 

>So what then is to stop people from displaying horrific acts of hate? What
>if all of a sudden every minority group in this society who has been
>discriminated against and hated by white men suddenly began to go and burn
>pink triangles on the laws of our patriarchial oppressors. You would be
>the first screaming for protection for the poor persecuted white man.

Don't be absurd. I don't fear expressions of hate. If people want to
deface private property I'm quite prepared to see them prosecuted for
vandalism and required to pay damages and compensation. It is complete
nonsense that you imagine that white men who now are denied, by law,
>from  virtually every institution in society on the sole basis of their
sex, would somehow feel threatened by mere words. In fact, it is more
than mere nonsense---it is dangerously delusional.

>> I object to the hate laws on all sorts of grounds, chief among them
>> that one is supposed to be guaranteed the right to the free expression
>> of one's political views.

>Even if these views destroy someone else's property 
>or desecrate a cemetary?

"Views" don't destroy anything, except perhaps the complacency of
bigots, liars and tyrants.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:51:54 PST 1996
Article: 41419 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!news.his.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!chi-news.cic.net!news1.io.org!van-bc!uniserve!utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:28:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <4ij3ab$lgm@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ic0fh$koo@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41419 can.general:72464 can.politics:35268

rkrasich@awinc.com wrote:

>In article <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com says...
>>
>>So, please explain to all of us how the propagation of hatred towards
>>males or females can not possibly be worthy as a criminal offense, but
>>the propagation of hatred towards Jews can? Hath not a male eyes? hath
>>not a male hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
>>fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the
>>same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same
>>winter and summer as a Jew is? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if
>>you poison us, do we not die? 

>Part of it has to do with whether or not we can turn you off or 
>not have to listen, read or participate in your views.  I have seen
>your own posts threatening people and recommending violence against
>women.  Evidentally, you idea of hate only has to do with what other
>people spew, not what you spew yourself.  You have repeatedly recommended
>violence against women as a solution to disparities in treatment of men
>in Canadian society.  You don't even bother to look to the lawmakers for
>change, your recommendations were simply that individual men be violent
>with individual women.  

Your concluding sentence is misleading. My views with respect to EE
and the affirmative action culture are the result of years of dealing
with lawmakers in the political and legal spheres. The AA and
relationship laws that have been enacted and are now being enforced,
with constitutional backing, constitute crimes against humanity. The
governments that impose them are criminal organisations, worse than
any Mafia family or drug gang. The only thing these criminals
understand, just as their street brothers do, is violence. And it is
my firmly held belief that there will be no end to the slavery these
people have installed until organised violence is directed at them and
their agents, and that those who benefit from this slavery in their
everyday lives pay for it in their everyday lives.

However, my low regard for the various Canadian governments and their
lackeys is balanced somewhat by my contempt for the Canadian people as
a whole. They are, I find, kindred spirits to the Germans of the
Thirties. In short, they are not worth the trouble of fighting for.
And that is why I left Canada five years ago, rather than taking up
arms. Briefly: What victory would it be to free scum?

>You have praised Marc Lepine as a hero, and as a political martyr (sp?).

And I always shall. His is the perfect example of what should and must
happen when injustice is codified and enforced by the State. His only
mistake was to kill himself. The next man who takes his brave lead I
hope will rectify this, and go on to further actions. If you are
squeamish about Lepine, you should be squeamish about affirmative
action---for that is all he was practicing.

>However, since none of us is obligated to read your posts (mostly it is
>a character weakness, sort of like rubber-necking at an accident) - there
>what you have to say is merely an opinion.  If you were a teacher and
>were spouting such nonsense then you have a captive audience.  If you
>then require the students to write papers, supporting your views, and you
>are not clear that these are your opinions, then you should be removed
>from your position, because it is your job as a teacher to teach the
>curriculum.  If you want to launch a political battle, do it somewhere
>other than in the schools.

I agree completely, but none of this should make the expression of a
political opinion, inside or outside of a classroom, a criminal
offense. It is precisely my point that limitations on Keegstra's
expressing of political opinions is a matter of the curriculum and his
employment contract, and if we are to criminalise his poiltical
opinions then we should criminalise ALL unpleasant political opinions,
everywhere. The jails should therefore be stacked with feminists,
communists, Rush Limbaugh enthusiasts, Senators and MP's and virtually
every successful columnist in the land.

But no. The law is conveniently drafted, and even more conveniently
enforced, to apply only against those who spout political opinions not
in favour with powerful interest groups.

>>and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

>oooooh... we are sooooo scared.....

I'm sure Shakespeare has that effect on a lot of Canadians.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:51:55 PST 1996
Article: 41456 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:12:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4ilj7e$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h8hf6$1bm8@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>  <4hlt01$9k0_002@watstar.uwaterloo.ca> <4hnhlt$fjo@berlin.infomatch.com>     <4htstm$bdg@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i06mn$pnj@news2.cts.com> <4i5i24$gp1@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i9vcr$o3t@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3e8$lgm@news2.cts.com> <4ik72i$kei@sanjuan.islandnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41456 ont.general:35769 can.general:72495 can.politics:35327 soc.culture.canada:83600

eds@islandnet.com (Ed Seedhouse) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>Neil  wrote:

>>>On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>>>> As I said, the above represents real racism. You do not even have to
>>>> struggle with some half-baked ideology, or to personalise the issue.
>>>> It is a pure visceral reaction of yours. For heaven's sake, man, what
>>>> kind of person but a racist would ever come up with the phrase "I
>>>> happen to like it better when there is a diversity of colour" when
>>>> they are referring to human beings?

>>>Explain how you find that statement to be "racist". 

>>If I have to explain, you are incapable of understanding.

>I.E. he can't explain.  And for good reason.

I can explain, but I far prefer leaving you with the legacy of your
own words. If you don't wish to be known as a racist, yet
simultaneously can't understand why people may consider you one, I
feel my job of revealing the noxiousness of your views and beliefs is
more than done.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:51:56 PST 1996
Article: 41457 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:12:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4ilj82$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hlt01$9k0_002@watstar.uwaterloo.ca> <4hnhlt$fjo@berlin.infomatch.com>     <4htstm$bdg@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i06mn$pnj@news2.cts.com> <4i5i24$gp1@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i9vcr$o3t@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3e8$lgm@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41457 ont.general:35770 can.general:72496 can.politics:35328 soc.culture.canada:83601

Neil  wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >Explain how you find that statement to be "racist". 
>> 
>> If I have to explain, you are incapable of understanding.

>If you are incapable of explaining (or don't want to explain), at least
>have the balls to admit it.

If you really wished me to explain the import of the racist statement
you refer to, why are you afraid to actually quote it? Obviously,
because you fear others might see it and come to conclusions
unconfortable to you. 

You are a natural censor, Neil, and have a great future in any
Canadian government.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:56:08 PST 1996
Article: 72494 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: 'Affirmative action' suspended in U.S....
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:11:59 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4ilj7a$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hv9ii$mds@news1.io.org> <4i1ktq$5gu@granite.sentex.net>  <4i74a1$rs8@granite.sentex.net> <4i91d5$17v@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> <4icfb2$5pj@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3c1$lgm@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:72494 can.politics:35326 soc.culture.canada:83599 soc.culture.african.american:113148

Neil  wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> How, what? The principles of AA, EE, etc., and those governing the
>> Nazi regime with respect to the control of individuals and society in
>> "group" terms are identical: The laws and conduct of government and
>> society is to adhere to principles relating to the make-up of
>> individuals according to arbitrarily-defined immutable characteristics
>> they may have.

>Why did the principles of AA and EE come into existence, according to you?

For exactly the same reasons the principles of Nazism came into
existence: There are many people who believe in treating people in
accordance to the value they place upon their immutable
characteristics.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:56:09 PST 1996
Article: 72495 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:12:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4ilj7e$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h8hf6$1bm8@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>  <4hlt01$9k0_002@watstar.uwaterloo.ca> <4hnhlt$fjo@berlin.infomatch.com>     <4htstm$bdg@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i06mn$pnj@news2.cts.com> <4i5i24$gp1@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i9vcr$o3t@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3e8$lgm@news2.cts.com> <4ik72i$kei@sanjuan.islandnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41456 ont.general:35769 can.general:72495 can.politics:35327 soc.culture.canada:83600

eds@islandnet.com (Ed Seedhouse) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>Neil  wrote:

>>>On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>>>> As I said, the above represents real racism. You do not even have to
>>>> struggle with some half-baked ideology, or to personalise the issue.
>>>> It is a pure visceral reaction of yours. For heaven's sake, man, what
>>>> kind of person but a racist would ever come up with the phrase "I
>>>> happen to like it better when there is a diversity of colour" when
>>>> they are referring to human beings?

>>>Explain how you find that statement to be "racist". 

>>If I have to explain, you are incapable of understanding.

>I.E. he can't explain.  And for good reason.

I can explain, but I far prefer leaving you with the legacy of your
own words. If you don't wish to be known as a racist, yet
simultaneously can't understand why people may consider you one, I
feel my job of revealing the noxiousness of your views and beliefs is
more than done.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:56:10 PST 1996
Article: 72496 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:12:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4ilj82$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hlt01$9k0_002@watstar.uwaterloo.ca> <4hnhlt$fjo@berlin.infomatch.com>     <4htstm$bdg@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i06mn$pnj@news2.cts.com> <4i5i24$gp1@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i9vcr$o3t@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3e8$lgm@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41457 ont.general:35770 can.general:72496 can.politics:35328 soc.culture.canada:83601

Neil  wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >Explain how you find that statement to be "racist". 
>> 
>> If I have to explain, you are incapable of understanding.

>If you are incapable of explaining (or don't want to explain), at least
>have the balls to admit it.

If you really wished me to explain the import of the racist statement
you refer to, why are you afraid to actually quote it? Obviously,
because you fear others might see it and come to conclusions
unconfortable to you. 

You are a natural censor, Neil, and have a great future in any
Canadian government.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:58:14 PST 1996
Article: 35326 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: 'Affirmative action' suspended in U.S....
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:11:59 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4ilj7a$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hv9ii$mds@news1.io.org> <4i1ktq$5gu@granite.sentex.net>  <4i74a1$rs8@granite.sentex.net> <4i91d5$17v@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> <4icfb2$5pj@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3c1$lgm@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:72494 can.politics:35326 soc.culture.canada:83599 soc.culture.african.american:113148

Neil  wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> How, what? The principles of AA, EE, etc., and those governing the
>> Nazi regime with respect to the control of individuals and society in
>> "group" terms are identical: The laws and conduct of government and
>> society is to adhere to principles relating to the make-up of
>> individuals according to arbitrarily-defined immutable characteristics
>> they may have.

>Why did the principles of AA and EE come into existence, according to you?

For exactly the same reasons the principles of Nazism came into
existence: There are many people who believe in treating people in
accordance to the value they place upon their immutable
characteristics.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:58:16 PST 1996
Article: 35327 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:12:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4ilj7e$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h8hf6$1bm8@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>  <4hlt01$9k0_002@watstar.uwaterloo.ca> <4hnhlt$fjo@berlin.infomatch.com>     <4htstm$bdg@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i06mn$pnj@news2.cts.com> <4i5i24$gp1@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i9vcr$o3t@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3e8$lgm@news2.cts.com> <4ik72i$kei@sanjuan.islandnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41456 ont.general:35769 can.general:72495 can.politics:35327 soc.culture.canada:83600

eds@islandnet.com (Ed Seedhouse) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>Neil  wrote:

>>>On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>>>> As I said, the above represents real racism. You do not even have to
>>>> struggle with some half-baked ideology, or to personalise the issue.
>>>> It is a pure visceral reaction of yours. For heaven's sake, man, what
>>>> kind of person but a racist would ever come up with the phrase "I
>>>> happen to like it better when there is a diversity of colour" when
>>>> they are referring to human beings?

>>>Explain how you find that statement to be "racist". 

>>If I have to explain, you are incapable of understanding.

>I.E. he can't explain.  And for good reason.

I can explain, but I far prefer leaving you with the legacy of your
own words. If you don't wish to be known as a racist, yet
simultaneously can't understand why people may consider you one, I
feel my job of revealing the noxiousness of your views and beliefs is
more than done.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon Mar 18 23:58:17 PST 1996
Article: 35328 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:12:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4ilj82$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hlt01$9k0_002@watstar.uwaterloo.ca> <4hnhlt$fjo@berlin.infomatch.com>     <4htstm$bdg@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i06mn$pnj@news2.cts.com> <4i5i24$gp1@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i9vcr$o3t@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3e8$lgm@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41457 ont.general:35770 can.general:72496 can.politics:35328 soc.culture.canada:83601

Neil  wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >Explain how you find that statement to be "racist". 
>> 
>> If I have to explain, you are incapable of understanding.

>If you are incapable of explaining (or don't want to explain), at least
>have the balls to admit it.

If you really wished me to explain the import of the racist statement
you refer to, why are you afraid to actually quote it? Obviously,
because you fear others might see it and come to conclusions
unconfortable to you. 

You are a natural censor, Neil, and have a great future in any
Canadian government.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Mar 19 06:13:00 PST 1996
Article: 41464 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra [long]
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:11:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <4ilj5k$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4icfau$5pj@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41464 can.general:72503 can.politics:35351

Neil  wrote:

>Neil wrote:
>> >If you would care to quote sub-section two, and then explain its relevance
>> >to the prosecution of Keegstra, I would greatly appreciate it. 

>Kolding:
>> It has no relevance whatever---you are the one who has brought,
>> inexplicably, Section 15 into the discussion and claims that the hate
>> law somehow follows from it. 

>It's not inexplicable at all. You are quoting Section 15(2) of the
>Charter, not I. I was referring to Section 15(1), which was highlighted by
>the Supreme Court of Canada as relevant to the question of whether or not
>Provision 319(2) of the Criminal Code was constitutional: 

>"The Charter commitment to equality as guaranteed in s. 15 enhances the
>objective of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code as it seeks to ensure the
>equality of all individuals in Canadian society." 

>Section 15's relevance to Keegstra, in other words, is its guarantee of
>equality, not the definition of who or what constitute members of a
>"disadvantaged group". 

This is truly a wonderful example of the Kafka-esque nature of the
current Canadian mindset. How can you post Section 15 and not actually
read it, Neil? The equality section is explict: To guarantee equality
"BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW". No unprejudiced mind, however dull, can
somehow justify that this section must therefore allow laws which
explicity DENY people equality before and under the law, because they
don't happen to be Jews or Blacks or Christian Scientists. Yet that is
what you and the Canadian judiciary are airily maintaining. The
Charter is supposed to be the highest law in the land, yet it is not
only being subverted and ignored---it is actually being used to
justify tyranny and totalitarianism. 

Honestly, Neil, this discussion is revealing you to be almost
pathological in your prejudice. If the term "propagation of hatred" in
the hate law was substituted by "killing" would you still maintain
that the Charter demands for "equality" were being observed, and that
the killing of Jews should be a criminal offense while the killing of
the poor should not?


>> >Your claim is false. Keegstra was not prosecuted for his beliefs regarding
>> >the Holocaust, he was prosecuted for his spreading hate against an
>> >identifiable group in Canada by referring to them as "child-killers" 
>> >among other things, and forcing his students to reproduce such
>> >descriptions of Jews on exams. 
>> 
>> This is getting pointless, Neil. I say that the Scots are child
>> killers. Now arrest me. 

>If you would like to embark on a major campaign throughout Canada,
>declaring that Scots are child-killers, among other things, and are unable
>to prove it to be true, or go even further than that and try and force
>feed such a statement to young students in a class you teach, then you can
>expect to be arrested and prosecuted under legal precedent set by R. v.
>Keegstra. 

Why, Neil? I have posted this opinion now on a worldwide newsgroup. I
repeat it: The Scots are child-killers. The reason I will not be
arrested and charged has nothing whatever to do with any application
that may be made with respect to the hate law, but simply that I am
not espousing an opinion that concerns any powerful interest group.
The hate laws are there to allow the government the power to suppress
unpopular political opinions, and for no other purpose.

>> If a country has gone to the trouble of making
>> freedom of political expression a part of the highest law in the land,
>> unamendable even by a majority vote in parliament, people should be
>> allowed to express their political beliefs, no matter how ludicrous.

>Stating that Scots or Jews are sadistic child-killers is not a political
>opinion. 

It is to those who beliive or intend it to be. Or are you now saying
that people are free to only express political opinions as defined by
the government?


>> WE seem to be able to do it---and I have very little regard for your
>> political views, and consider some of them to be the espousal of
>> hatred of a particularly contemptible type, and I'm sure you return
>> the favour in kind---but WE aren't arrested, and charged, and forced
>> from our jobs and jailed and fined by the government, are we?

>We aren't accusing each other of killing children, being sadistic or evil
>are we? Neither are we becoming teachers and forcing our students to
>reproduce such lies about each other on their exams and research papers. 

The expression of political opinion is supposed to be a *right* not a
privilege granted only so long as some government official approves of
it. People are allowed to express their political views inside or
outside a classroom. If an employer has a problem with his employee
that is a civil matter, not a criminal one.


[some deleted] 

>Perhaps these groups have not been specifically protected by a law in
>Canada's criminal code because there is no demand for one presently. You
>do realize that that is how the law works, correct? It attempts to address
>the actual needs of society. If hate crimes being committed against
>handicapped people begin to increase, and it's seen as a major problem,
>then you can rest assured that a law will be passed to deal with it. Or,
>perhaps, Section 319(2) or the definition of "identifiable groups" will be
>expanded to include differing categories of people, such as those in
>wheelchairs, those with shoe sizes larger than 15, etc., etc. 

I'm afraid you are again drifting off----the Equality section of the
Charter makes the process as you describe it above impossible. The
Parliament is not PERMITTED to make laws that do not subscribe to the
Charter. The Judiciary is not granted the authority to ignore the
Charter. READ the Equality section, Neil. It's all about equality
before and under the law---not the fraudulent tyranny that the Court
is imposing. 

>> Only expressing opinions objectionable to certain, specific, and
>> powerful interest groups is considered "hatred" and lands people in
>> jail.

>This is not true. If someone were to say the things Keegstra said about
>whatever ethnic group or religion you belong to in the same manner
>Keegstra did, I would be furious if the goverment refused to prosecute
>such an individual. 

>> >(1) "Men" are not considered an identifiable group under the criminal code. 
>> 
>> And this is your argument that therefore "hatred" can not be
>> propagated against them? 

>Not at all. Of course hatred can be propogated against men. Is it being
>done on a large scale? Is it resulting in demonstrable harm to the 15
>million men who live in Canada? Not as far as I know. 

What is the difference, since they cannot apply for the application of
the law regardless, you confounded nitwit!!!






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Mar 19 06:21:36 PST 1996
Article: 35352 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Zundel lies to supporters and press (was Re: "_I_ don'
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:11:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4ilj5s$1dt@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpk0l$ca7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hqei1$eeu@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4i06mb$pnj@news2.cts.com>  <4i3a4u$18s@news3.cts.com>  <4icfb0$5pj@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Neil  wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> The hate laws are in direct contradiction of everyone's rights. My
>> arguments simply address those points raised by the scum who support
>> these laws: If they support the concept of throwing people in jail on
>> the basis that they have expressed "hateful" opinions, why are not ALL
>> people protected by these laws?

>They are. Every human being in Canada is a member of an identifiable
>group, i.e., a member of a racial, religious group (although I don't know
>if atheism is considered a factor that determines whether or not someone
>is part of an identifiable group). Therefore, attacking someone on the
>basis of their race or religion on a large scale will be prosecuted in
>Canada. Such a law protects you as much as it protects me. 

Simply answer the question, now put to you for possibly the tenth
time: Why is hatred propagated against males, females, the poor, the
sick or the homeless not a criminal offense, but that propagated
against Jews and Blacks is? This is in direct contradiction to the
Equality section of the Charter, which guarantees EVERYONE equal
rights before and under the law. The sex crime laws had to be
redrafted to remove their arbitrary sex-based distinctions in order
that they conform with the Equality section, yet the hate law remains
completely discriminatory. 





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:13 PST 1996
Article: 27645 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!op.net!news.tcst.com!news.spectrum.titan.com!buffnet2.buffnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:27:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:412 alt.censorship:74086 alt.revisionism:27645 can.politics:35633 alt.society.civil-liberties:6668

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>Mr. Giwer's judgement was clouded, it seems.  He fails to understand the
>difference between free speech and incitement of hatred.

And you seem to be unable to understand that the expression of one's
political views, and the existence of free speech,  is impossible if
others are to decide what that expression is to mean and criminalise
it simply because they don't care for its content. 

You have made this argument repeatedly, that somehow the "incitement
to hatred" is to be determined upon the content of people's speech. It
is a fatuous and absurd argument on its face though, because hatred
cannot be "incited" to any degree unwished for by the listeners. Have
the views of Keegstra and Zundel incited YOU to frothing malevolence
towards the Jews? Of course not. But here you are saying that you and
the government are somehow a congress of special human beings, immune
>from  incitements not in accord with your own superior judgement, but
the rest of society, alas, is not so blessed and therefore people must
be jailed to protect the inferior masses.

Now let me say that you are quite welcome to this view, and there is
no particular argument I have ever launched against it. My objection
is that you and others couch these views in hypocritical
terms---saying that certain opinions are capable of "inciting
hatred"---when in fact you simply disagree with the views on the basis
of your political and social outlook. You believe in "free speech" in
so far as the exercise of such is limited to views you either agree
with or have no interest in. Those views you disagree with you measure
against this arbitrary ideological and political line you hold with
respect to the level of stupidity and dullness you accord the general
public.  





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:14 PST 1996
Article: 27646 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!op.net!news.tcst.com!news.spectrum.titan.com!buffnet2.buffnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:27:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4ij394$lgm@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com>  <4icqcv$td2@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:413 alt.censorship:74087 alt.revisionism:27646 can.politics:35634 alt.society.civil-liberties:6669

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:


>If Mr. Giwer were right, I would have the "right" to advocate the
>extermination of the Jews and my constitutional guarantee of free speech
>would prevent anyone from stopping me.  

Exactly. And why do you have a problem with that? You don't seem to
have a problem with the constitutional guarantee that allows you to
advocate people being fired, arrested and thrown in jail for
expressing opinions YOU don't care for, Mr. McFee.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:15 PST 1996
Article: 27712 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:27:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:427 alt.censorship:74157 alt.revisionism:27712 can.politics:35734 alt.society.civil-liberties:6691

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) said:


>>The political aspect of speech is that people disagree upon the meaning
>>and purpose of common things. There are some people who say Marc Lepine
>>was an evil monster, for instance, while I say he was a hero. Such
>>opinions do not somehow cease to be political expressions merely because a
>>majority, or a special interest group, dislikes one view or the other.

>So what it boils down to is that you say Marc Lepine, who cold bloodedly
>murdered 15 women in Montreal in 1989, is a hero?  Given that, why should
>anyone care what you say about anything else.  You are a bastard, sir.

My lineage is almost too lengthy and complete to suffer that last
definition, but thank you for beautifully illustrating the natural
tendency of so many to translate the simple expression of a political
opinion into evidence that the bearer holds some disagreeable and
immutable personal characteristic. Doubtless---if the principles that
are used to defend hate crimes legislation are to be believed----you
are now guilty of inciting hatred in the hearts of untold thousands. A
hatred, by the way, directed at people simply on the basis that their
parents failed to fill out the appropriate forms before they were
born. 







From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:16 PST 1996
Article: 27713 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:28:58 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:428 alt.censorship:74158 alt.revisionism:27713 can.politics:35736 alt.society.civil-liberties:6692

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:


>[edit]

>>... I do not
>>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>>with respect to defeating these criminals.

>Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
treated by the state.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:17 PST 1996
Article: 27972 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!news.us.world.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:50:49 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4j0700$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hnf2t$2s3@news2.cts.com> <4hvah6$12eu@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i3a37$18s@news3.cts.com> <4icqfr$39fs@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij397$lgm@news2.cts.com> <4iq7pp$1g2e@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:478 alt.censorship:74577 alt.revisionism:27972 can.politics:36187 alt.society.civil-liberties:6804

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <4ij397$lgm@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) said:

>>
>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:


>>>Interesting how those clearly unversed in the law claim to understand it. 
>>>Perhaps Mr. Kolding will read the numerous posts on this topic and revise
>>>his opinion.  Hopefully, he will also revise his opinion that it was just
>>>fine for the man who killed the 15 women in Montreal in 1989 to have done
>>>so.

>>Far more interesting is how Marc Lepine could not have been charged under
>>the same hate laws as Mr. Keegstra, if he merely advocated exterminating
>>females. This illustrates the point which you just can't meet, and defeats
>>all these sanctimonious arguments about the "propagation of hatred" being
>>the fulcrum upon which these laws rest.

>Mr. Lepine could have been charged if he had advocated extermination of
>women.  

'Women" are not among the identifiable groups covered by the
legislation. May I suggest you actually read the posts you make. It is
you, after all, who has posted the terms of this law.

>Perhaps if he had been charged with something like that, he would
>not have been out on the street to murder the women in Montreal.  Tell me:
>why are you so ready to defend him?  Do you agree with what he did?

Absolutely. His one mistake was to kill himself.





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:18 PST 1996
Article: 27973 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!news.us.world.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:51:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4j070s$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4irsr1$18@curly.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:479 alt.censorship:74578 alt.revisionism:27973 can.politics:36188 alt.society.civil-liberties:6805

libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: Laura Finsten  wrote:
>: >pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:


>: >[edit]

>: >>... I do not
>: >>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>: >>with respect to defeating these criminals.

>: >Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>: >murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

>: They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>: of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
>: support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>: deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>: affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>: upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>: treated by the state.

>Just so we're on the same page here, PKolding--do you also hold
>that African-Americans have the right to kill any white person
>who's personal wealth or social standing is based on being 
>descended from slave holders?

They certainly have the right to use violence if the government passes
legislation forbidding them access to virtually every institution of
society solely on the basis of their race. That, by the way, is what
the AA and relationship laws have done with respect to non-disabled
white males.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:18 PST 1996
Article: 28126 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:47:04 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4j2k3t$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ik5qc$ntr@curly.cc.emory.edu> <4iq7nv$1sfu@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4isequ$gae@curly.cc.emory.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:510 alt.censorship:74707 alt.revisionism:28126 can.politics:36310 alt.society.civil-liberties:6856

Neil  wrote:


>"Mr. Keegstra's teachings attributed various evil qualities to Jews. He
>thus described Jews to his pupils as 'treacherous', 'subversive',
>'sadistic', 'money-loving', 'power hungry" and 'child killers'.  He taught
>his classes that Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are
>responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution.
>According to Mr. Keegstra, Jews 'created the Holocaust to gain sympathy'
>and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be
>deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. Mr. Keegstra expected his
>students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams.  If they failed
>to do so, their marks suffered." 

>It's almost obscene to even try and claim that Keegstra's words were
>"political". If Keegstra was not clearly and undoubtedly trying to create
>an atmosphere of intense hatred against Jews, that could very easily lead
>to violence if such views were imposed on larger numbers of people, what
>exactly was he trying to do? 

It stuns me that you actually cannot understand that these views you
quote above are not *entirely* political in nature. What you are
objecting to is the *political message and presumed import* of such
views, according to your own subjective analysis and political
prejudices. What you are objecting to is the stage upon which these
views were propounded. What you are objecting to is that the students
were denied the education they, their parents and Keegstra's employers
had a right to expect under the terms of his employment contract. But
the right to free political expression applies inside and outside of a
classroom, and the government is spitting on the Charter to make laws
denying this. And the private civil employment contracts that people
enter into are civil matters, not criminal, and if there is some sort
of fraud or dereliction such a crime must be applicable to any and
all, and not entirely dependent upon the expression of certain
unpopular political views towards certain powerful groups.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:19 PST 1996
Article: 28127 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:47:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <4j2k50$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4iua8g$l21@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:511 alt.censorship:74708 alt.revisionism:28127 can.politics:36311 alt.society.civil-liberties:6857

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>Laura Finsten  wrote:
>>>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>[edit]

>>>>... I do not
>>>>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>>>>with respect to defeating these criminals.
>>
>>>Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>>>murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

>>They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>>of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
>>support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>>deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>>affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>>upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>>treated by the state.

>Not that I think that this would be cause for justifiable homicide.
>But (1) in Ontario, there are no gender quotas for admissions to
>colleges and universities, and I am fairly certain that there are
>no such quotas in other provinces either, including Quebec. 

Affirmative action and its technical variants are a matter of law, not
conjecture. I have gone over this at length in the past and would
simply suggest that you review Section 15 of the Charter of Rights,
and then consult the various employment equity and other affirmative
action laws, programs and activities demanded and enforced by the
government. The Charter gives the government the power to discriminate
against anyone, on the basis of any of the characteristics which
Section 15 (1) expressly prohibits discrimination upon, if they claim
they are doing so to "ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged
groups or individuals". Those "disadvantaged groups" are specifically
set out in legislation: Women, Aboriginal People, Visible Minorities
and the Disabled. Please note that this means that everybody in Canada
is a member, legally, of a disadvantaged group---except non-disabled
white males. This means, in turn, that no discriminatory laws are
possible against anyone but non-disabled white males---because they
would be counter to the Charter----while simultaneously no
discriminatory laws are possible for the benefit of non-disabled white
males (in Nursing, as an example) because they are not a
"disadvantaged group".

The governments of Canada deliberately, by law and constitutional
authority, discriminate against a single group of people solely on the
basis of their sex and colour. No alleged right or freedom can be used
to overturn such laws, because these laws explicitly deny all rights
and freedoms to non-disabled white males by Constitutional fiat.

The people that legislate, enforce and support these laws are
criminals thugs. They have created a criminal society with predictable
and unavoidable consequences. 

> So
>this suggests (2) that your "evidence" that Lepine's victims were
>taking advantage of an affirmative action programme is their very
>presence at the college.  Is this indeed what you are saying, Mr.
>Kolding, that any woman in college or university, or in a job that
>you think rightly belongs to a man, is there not on her own
>merits?  Are you saying that any woman who seeks higher education
>or professional employment deserves to be killed?

Why address such imponderables to me? The government doesn't seem to
have any problem with saying---and enforcing at the point of a gun---
that any non-disabled white male who seeks virtually any place in
society can be be denied solely on the basis of THEIR sex. As I
remarked before, if females wish to support, and choose to benefit
>from  crimes against humanity, they deserve what they will inevitably
get: The dark and violent affirmative action society,






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 24 15:01:20 PST 1996
Article: 28128 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:48:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <4j2k6b$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:512 alt.censorship:74710 alt.revisionism:28128 can.politics:36314 alt.society.civil-liberties:6858

Neil  wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Laura Finsten  wrote:
>> >Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>> >murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   
>> 
>> They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>> of men in general, and Lepine in particular.

>If a woman who benefitted from the same "legal oppression" you speak of,
>decided to hire you and give you employment, you would also be a
>beneficiary of the evil system you refer to.

I'm not surprised to see you reduced to this intellectual penury.
Doubtless you think the slaves of the Old South were also
"beneficiaries" of the evil system they laboured under. Presumably
those who protested this you would have recommended being charged
under whatever "hate" laws you could dig up.

...[some deleted]...

>> If females wish to
>> support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>> deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>> affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>> upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>> treated by the state.

>That this man claims to be a supporter of "free speech" is a joke. He has
>no concept of reality, no concept of justice. Where was the right to free
>speech for those women, Kolding? 

In exactly the same place as equality before and under the law is for
non-disabled white males. I find it ironic, and typical, that those
most enamoured with the legal enforcement of discrimination against
white males, based solely on their race and sex, should somehow find
the application of the principle by others "inconceivable" and
"unjust". 

Really, Neil, what is so inconceivably unreal and unjust about other
people applying precisely the same rules of political logic that you
and the government do?



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Mar 26 18:55:52 PST 1996
Article: 28325 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 06:39:37 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4j83eo$gq1@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com>  <4j58ih$nh9@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:564 alt.censorship:74940 alt.revisionism:28325 can.politics:36604 alt.society.civil-liberties:6941

Neil  wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> hce@magmacom.com (Howard Eisenberger) wrote:
>> >By what standard or charter or constitution is a political opinion
>> >immune from moral judgement when that opinion is the glorification
>> >of cold-blooded murder? 
>> 
>> On the standard that slaves are not morally responsible for *anything*
>> that happens in their masters' domain.

>And who are you a slave of, Kolding? 

Conscience and justice. And may I say that you are far overdue for a
similar submission.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:30 PST 1996
Article: 412 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!op.net!news.tcst.com!news.spectrum.titan.com!buffnet2.buffnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:27:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:412 alt.censorship:74086 alt.revisionism:27645 can.politics:35633 alt.society.civil-liberties:6668

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>Mr. Giwer's judgement was clouded, it seems.  He fails to understand the
>difference between free speech and incitement of hatred.

And you seem to be unable to understand that the expression of one's
political views, and the existence of free speech,  is impossible if
others are to decide what that expression is to mean and criminalise
it simply because they don't care for its content. 

You have made this argument repeatedly, that somehow the "incitement
to hatred" is to be determined upon the content of people's speech. It
is a fatuous and absurd argument on its face though, because hatred
cannot be "incited" to any degree unwished for by the listeners. Have
the views of Keegstra and Zundel incited YOU to frothing malevolence
towards the Jews? Of course not. But here you are saying that you and
the government are somehow a congress of special human beings, immune
>from  incitements not in accord with your own superior judgement, but
the rest of society, alas, is not so blessed and therefore people must
be jailed to protect the inferior masses.

Now let me say that you are quite welcome to this view, and there is
no particular argument I have ever launched against it. My objection
is that you and others couch these views in hypocritical
terms---saying that certain opinions are capable of "inciting
hatred"---when in fact you simply disagree with the views on the basis
of your political and social outlook. You believe in "free speech" in
so far as the exercise of such is limited to views you either agree
with or have no interest in. Those views you disagree with you measure
against this arbitrary ideological and political line you hold with
respect to the level of stupidity and dullness you accord the general
public.  





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:32 PST 1996
Article: 413 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!op.net!news.tcst.com!news.spectrum.titan.com!buffnet2.buffnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:27:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4ij394$lgm@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com>  <4icqcv$td2@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:413 alt.censorship:74087 alt.revisionism:27646 can.politics:35634 alt.society.civil-liberties:6669

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:


>If Mr. Giwer were right, I would have the "right" to advocate the
>extermination of the Jews and my constitutional guarantee of free speech
>would prevent anyone from stopping me.  

Exactly. And why do you have a problem with that? You don't seem to
have a problem with the constitutional guarantee that allows you to
advocate people being fired, arrested and thrown in jail for
expressing opinions YOU don't care for, Mr. McFee.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:33 PST 1996
Article: 427 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:27:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:427 alt.censorship:74157 alt.revisionism:27712 can.politics:35734 alt.society.civil-liberties:6691

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) said:


>>The political aspect of speech is that people disagree upon the meaning
>>and purpose of common things. There are some people who say Marc Lepine
>>was an evil monster, for instance, while I say he was a hero. Such
>>opinions do not somehow cease to be political expressions merely because a
>>majority, or a special interest group, dislikes one view or the other.

>So what it boils down to is that you say Marc Lepine, who cold bloodedly
>murdered 15 women in Montreal in 1989, is a hero?  Given that, why should
>anyone care what you say about anything else.  You are a bastard, sir.

My lineage is almost too lengthy and complete to suffer that last
definition, but thank you for beautifully illustrating the natural
tendency of so many to translate the simple expression of a political
opinion into evidence that the bearer holds some disagreeable and
immutable personal characteristic. Doubtless---if the principles that
are used to defend hate crimes legislation are to be believed----you
are now guilty of inciting hatred in the hearts of untold thousands. A
hatred, by the way, directed at people simply on the basis that their
parents failed to fill out the appropriate forms before they were
born. 







From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:33 PST 1996
Article: 428 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:28:58 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:428 alt.censorship:74158 alt.revisionism:27713 can.politics:35736 alt.society.civil-liberties:6692

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:


>[edit]

>>... I do not
>>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>>with respect to defeating these criminals.

>Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
treated by the state.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:34 PST 1996
Article: 478 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!news.us.world.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:50:49 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4j0700$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hnf2t$2s3@news2.cts.com> <4hvah6$12eu@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i3a37$18s@news3.cts.com> <4icqfr$39fs@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij397$lgm@news2.cts.com> <4iq7pp$1g2e@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:478 alt.censorship:74577 alt.revisionism:27972 can.politics:36187 alt.society.civil-liberties:6804

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <4ij397$lgm@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) said:

>>
>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:


>>>Interesting how those clearly unversed in the law claim to understand it. 
>>>Perhaps Mr. Kolding will read the numerous posts on this topic and revise
>>>his opinion.  Hopefully, he will also revise his opinion that it was just
>>>fine for the man who killed the 15 women in Montreal in 1989 to have done
>>>so.

>>Far more interesting is how Marc Lepine could not have been charged under
>>the same hate laws as Mr. Keegstra, if he merely advocated exterminating
>>females. This illustrates the point which you just can't meet, and defeats
>>all these sanctimonious arguments about the "propagation of hatred" being
>>the fulcrum upon which these laws rest.

>Mr. Lepine could have been charged if he had advocated extermination of
>women.  

'Women" are not among the identifiable groups covered by the
legislation. May I suggest you actually read the posts you make. It is
you, after all, who has posted the terms of this law.

>Perhaps if he had been charged with something like that, he would
>not have been out on the street to murder the women in Montreal.  Tell me:
>why are you so ready to defend him?  Do you agree with what he did?

Absolutely. His one mistake was to kill himself.





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:35 PST 1996
Article: 479 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!news.us.world.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:51:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4j070s$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4irsr1$18@curly.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:479 alt.censorship:74578 alt.revisionism:27973 can.politics:36188 alt.society.civil-liberties:6805

libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: Laura Finsten  wrote:
>: >pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:


>: >[edit]

>: >>... I do not
>: >>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>: >>with respect to defeating these criminals.

>: >Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>: >murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

>: They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>: of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
>: support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>: deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>: affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>: upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>: treated by the state.

>Just so we're on the same page here, PKolding--do you also hold
>that African-Americans have the right to kill any white person
>who's personal wealth or social standing is based on being 
>descended from slave holders?

They certainly have the right to use violence if the government passes
legislation forbidding them access to virtually every institution of
society solely on the basis of their race. That, by the way, is what
the AA and relationship laws have done with respect to non-disabled
white males.




From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:36 PST 1996
Article: 510 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:47:04 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4j2k3t$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ik5qc$ntr@curly.cc.emory.edu> <4iq7nv$1sfu@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4isequ$gae@curly.cc.emory.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:510 alt.censorship:74707 alt.revisionism:28126 can.politics:36310 alt.society.civil-liberties:6856

Neil  wrote:


>"Mr. Keegstra's teachings attributed various evil qualities to Jews. He
>thus described Jews to his pupils as 'treacherous', 'subversive',
>'sadistic', 'money-loving', 'power hungry" and 'child killers'.  He taught
>his classes that Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are
>responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution.
>According to Mr. Keegstra, Jews 'created the Holocaust to gain sympathy'
>and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be
>deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. Mr. Keegstra expected his
>students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams.  If they failed
>to do so, their marks suffered." 

>It's almost obscene to even try and claim that Keegstra's words were
>"political". If Keegstra was not clearly and undoubtedly trying to create
>an atmosphere of intense hatred against Jews, that could very easily lead
>to violence if such views were imposed on larger numbers of people, what
>exactly was he trying to do? 

It stuns me that you actually cannot understand that these views you
quote above are not *entirely* political in nature. What you are
objecting to is the *political message and presumed import* of such
views, according to your own subjective analysis and political
prejudices. What you are objecting to is the stage upon which these
views were propounded. What you are objecting to is that the students
were denied the education they, their parents and Keegstra's employers
had a right to expect under the terms of his employment contract. But
the right to free political expression applies inside and outside of a
classroom, and the government is spitting on the Charter to make laws
denying this. And the private civil employment contracts that people
enter into are civil matters, not criminal, and if there is some sort
of fraud or dereliction such a crime must be applicable to any and
all, and not entirely dependent upon the expression of certain
unpopular political views towards certain powerful groups.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:37 PST 1996
Article: 511 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:47:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <4j2k50$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4iua8g$l21@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:511 alt.censorship:74708 alt.revisionism:28127 can.politics:36311 alt.society.civil-liberties:6857

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>Laura Finsten  wrote:
>>>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>[edit]

>>>>... I do not
>>>>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>>>>with respect to defeating these criminals.
>>
>>>Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>>>murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

>>They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>>of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
>>support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>>deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>>affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>>upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>>treated by the state.

>Not that I think that this would be cause for justifiable homicide.
>But (1) in Ontario, there are no gender quotas for admissions to
>colleges and universities, and I am fairly certain that there are
>no such quotas in other provinces either, including Quebec. 

Affirmative action and its technical variants are a matter of law, not
conjecture. I have gone over this at length in the past and would
simply suggest that you review Section 15 of the Charter of Rights,
and then consult the various employment equity and other affirmative
action laws, programs and activities demanded and enforced by the
government. The Charter gives the government the power to discriminate
against anyone, on the basis of any of the characteristics which
Section 15 (1) expressly prohibits discrimination upon, if they claim
they are doing so to "ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged
groups or individuals". Those "disadvantaged groups" are specifically
set out in legislation: Women, Aboriginal People, Visible Minorities
and the Disabled. Please note that this means that everybody in Canada
is a member, legally, of a disadvantaged group---except non-disabled
white males. This means, in turn, that no discriminatory laws are
possible against anyone but non-disabled white males---because they
would be counter to the Charter----while simultaneously no
discriminatory laws are possible for the benefit of non-disabled white
males (in Nursing, as an example) because they are not a
"disadvantaged group".

The governments of Canada deliberately, by law and constitutional
authority, discriminate against a single group of people solely on the
basis of their sex and colour. No alleged right or freedom can be used
to overturn such laws, because these laws explicitly deny all rights
and freedoms to non-disabled white males by Constitutional fiat.

The people that legislate, enforce and support these laws are
criminals thugs. They have created a criminal society with predictable
and unavoidable consequences. 

> So
>this suggests (2) that your "evidence" that Lepine's victims were
>taking advantage of an affirmative action programme is their very
>presence at the college.  Is this indeed what you are saying, Mr.
>Kolding, that any woman in college or university, or in a job that
>you think rightly belongs to a man, is there not on her own
>merits?  Are you saying that any woman who seeks higher education
>or professional employment deserves to be killed?

Why address such imponderables to me? The government doesn't seem to
have any problem with saying---and enforcing at the point of a gun---
that any non-disabled white male who seeks virtually any place in
society can be be denied solely on the basis of THEIR sex. As I
remarked before, if females wish to support, and choose to benefit
>from  crimes against humanity, they deserve what they will inevitably
get: The dark and violent affirmative action society,






From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:37 PST 1996
Article: 512 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:48:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <4j2k6b$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:512 alt.censorship:74710 alt.revisionism:28128 can.politics:36314 alt.society.civil-liberties:6858

Neil  wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Laura Finsten  wrote:
>> >Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>> >murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   
>> 
>> They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>> of men in general, and Lepine in particular.

>If a woman who benefitted from the same "legal oppression" you speak of,
>decided to hire you and give you employment, you would also be a
>beneficiary of the evil system you refer to.

I'm not surprised to see you reduced to this intellectual penury.
Doubtless you think the slaves of the Old South were also
"beneficiaries" of the evil system they laboured under. Presumably
those who protested this you would have recommended being charged
under whatever "hate" laws you could dig up.

...[some deleted]...

>> If females wish to
>> support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>> deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>> affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>> upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>> treated by the state.

>That this man claims to be a supporter of "free speech" is a joke. He has
>no concept of reality, no concept of justice. Where was the right to free
>speech for those women, Kolding? 

In exactly the same place as equality before and under the law is for
non-disabled white males. I find it ironic, and typical, that those
most enamoured with the legal enforcement of discrimination against
white males, based solely on their race and sex, should somehow find
the application of the principle by others "inconceivable" and
"unjust". 

Really, Neil, what is so inconceivably unreal and unjust about other
people applying precisely the same rules of political logic that you
and the government do?



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:38 PST 1996
Article: 564 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 06:39:37 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4j83eo$gq1@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com>  <4j58ih$nh9@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:564 alt.censorship:74940 alt.revisionism:28325 can.politics:36604 alt.society.civil-liberties:6941

Neil  wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> hce@magmacom.com (Howard Eisenberger) wrote:
>> >By what standard or charter or constitution is a political opinion
>> >immune from moral judgement when that opinion is the glorification
>> >of cold-blooded murder? 
>> 
>> On the standard that slaves are not morally responsible for *anything*
>> that happens in their masters' domain.

>And who are you a slave of, Kolding? 

Conscience and justice. And may I say that you are far overdue for a
similar submission.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:39 PST 1996
Article: 596 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:33:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4jb91j$env@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ivlen$vfg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3dtu$dqq@news2.cts.com> <4j6sb3$ll7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:596 alt.censorship:75152 alt.revisionism:28537 can.politics:36786 alt.society.civil-liberties:6999

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>>>What were the good intentions behind Lepine murdering 15 innocent women?

>>The intentions of those who legislate, enforce and support affirmative
>>action I leave for those involved in those criminal activities to
>>explain. The result of those activities, however, is inevitable: Some
>>of the oppressed are going to fight back.

>Uh huh.  And because the Lepines of the world have such a problem with
>legislation like affirmative action on humanistic grounds, they take
>out fourteen young women whose only "crime" is to get an education.
>So much more sensible and reasonable than directing their psychopathic
>violence at the legislators, for example, and so much more effective
>than challenging the law.

Strange how the actions of a man who was denied, by law, the right to
equality before and under the law simply because of his race and sex
is termed as "psychopathic", while those taken by those who legislate,
enforce, support and deliberately benefit from such oppression are
seen as "reasonable" and "sensible". By any sane stahdard, it is the
latter group who are exhibiting real psychopathic behaviour.

 




From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:40 PST 1996
Article: 597 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:33:52 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <4jb92e$env@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.u <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4j1ba1$47su@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3ea9$dqq@news2.cts.com> <4j6vl2$ll7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:597 alt.censorship:75153 alt.revisionism:28538 can.politics:36787 alt.society.civil-liberties:7000

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>[edit]

>>> Do you say that Marc Lepine, who murdered 14 (I had the number 
>>>wrong) innocent women in Montreal in 1989 is a hero?

>>Under no circumstances. The hero Marc Lepine murdered no one, and the
>>females in question were not innocent. One can hardly be accused of
>>any crime under laws deliberately drafted to exclude you from their
>>protection; and you can hardly make claims of "innocence" when, on
>>occasion, the knifeblade of a slave is rammed through your back.

>So in your estimation, any able-bodied white male is entitled to kill
>anyone who is not an able-bodied white male? 

"Entitlement" is hardly the word. The problem is not one of sex or
race relations, but of political and social reality. If you are a
non-disabled white male you are, by law, explicitly denied equality
before and under the law whenever the government wants you to be, by
fiat. This is not a "choice", or an "opinion", but a matter of legal
fact, and entrenched in the Charter of Rights. The enemy is not
therefore defined by race or sex, but by their acts: If a person
legislates, enforces, supports or deliberately benefits from this
oppression they should not be surprised when the oppressed target them
in return. And the activities of the oppressed, when they are
explicitly denied legal rights, can not, sanely, be held accountable
to these same laws. 

>So you are arguing that
>when a law is unjust, drastic action is justifiable? 

No, all my arguments are made with respect to the Canadian status quo,
and the legal and social position of non-disabled white males within
it. If I thought that non-violent action would succeed, I would say
so. But I am personally aware that talk and reason, and appeals to
justice and conscience, have met with nothing but the legal
entrenchment of slavery. Violence is not simply the only policy, but
the inevitable one. The consequences of the law are and will be
violent, and that violence will be directed against the enemy by the
oppressed. There is nothing particularly original or suprising in this
analysis, as it simply follows invariable historical processes.


>That when social
>justice has not been forthcoming to an entire group of people, that
>draconian measures should be used to remedy the situation? 

"Social justice" is a meaningless term, and deliberately so I suspect.

I have tried to address my arguments to actual, irrefutable legal
practices in Canada, and have provided lengthy articles supporting
them.

>Would you
>argue that before 1918, women would have been justified in killing
>any and all men?  Or that before various laws were changed only 20
>years ago or so to finally make it possible for women to borrow money
>without a husband's or father's cosignature, women would have been
>justified in murdering any man they felt like killing?

If you are arguing that the position of females somehow justifies
entrenching a system of tacit slavery of non-disabled white men, I
suspect you will be hard-pressed to explain why not ALL men are so
treated. The activities and complaints of females in the year 1917 are
all very interesting, but I fail to see how present-day
nineteen-year-old, non-disabled white men can be said to have
contributed to them.




From pkolding@cts.com Wed Mar 27 06:56:40 PST 1996
Article: 598 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,can.politics
Subject: Re: Canadian Hate-Propaganda Law (was Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:34:05 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4jb92r$env@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4igk22$348@Networking.Stanford.EDU>  <4iq7j9$1tqs@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4iqc91$a37@elaine20.Stanford.EDU> <4j1b8n$1fc4@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3e8h$dqq@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:28539 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:598 can.politics:36788

Neil  wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>> >*That's* the kind of publicity these slugs crave, and that money can't buy. 
>> >It gets them into the public limelight and it's all paid for by others. 
>> >That is the publicity the lack of a prosecution will deny Zuendel.  And
>> >while I feel he is a candidate for conviction under the hate law, I agree
>> >not to prosecute him for these reasons.
>> 
>> Thank you for acknowledging publically that you agree with me that the
>> "law" is applied in Canada only on the basis of political advantage or
>> the status of those who would be involved. That a crime may or may not
>> have been committed is now entirely irrelevant.

>It is the prosecutor's duty and obligation to represent the interests of
>the Canadian people when making prosecutorial decisions. If he decides
>that prosecuting a certain case would cause more harm to society than not,
>you may label it a "political decision", but it is what the prosecutor is
>expected to do. It is why the role of prosecutor even exists. 

You are simply incorrect. A prosecutor's job in a modern liberal
democracy is to ensure the Rule of Law, NOT the selective prosecution
of crimes. When the prosecution of a criminal is seen to harm society,
it is the duty of the lawmakers to repeal the law, not maintain the
law and release the criminal. That Canada has sunk so deep in
corruption that corrupt practice is now held up as duty-bound
behaviour is typical of the pathology that has infected so many
Canadians nowadays.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Mar 29 16:59:30 PST 1996
Article: 28537 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:33:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4jb91j$env@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ivlen$vfg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3dtu$dqq@news2.cts.com> <4j6sb3$ll7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:596 alt.censorship:75152 alt.revisionism:28537 can.politics:36786 alt.society.civil-liberties:6999

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>>>What were the good intentions behind Lepine murdering 15 innocent women?

>>The intentions of those who legislate, enforce and support affirmative
>>action I leave for those involved in those criminal activities to
>>explain. The result of those activities, however, is inevitable: Some
>>of the oppressed are going to fight back.

>Uh huh.  And because the Lepines of the world have such a problem with
>legislation like affirmative action on humanistic grounds, they take
>out fourteen young women whose only "crime" is to get an education.
>So much more sensible and reasonable than directing their psychopathic
>violence at the legislators, for example, and so much more effective
>than challenging the law.

Strange how the actions of a man who was denied, by law, the right to
equality before and under the law simply because of his race and sex
is termed as "psychopathic", while those taken by those who legislate,
enforce, support and deliberately benefit from such oppression are
seen as "reasonable" and "sensible". By any sane stahdard, it is the
latter group who are exhibiting real psychopathic behaviour.

 




From pkolding@cts.com Fri Mar 29 16:59:32 PST 1996
Article: 28538 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:33:52 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <4jb92e$env@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.u <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4j1ba1$47su@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3ea9$dqq@news2.cts.com> <4j6vl2$ll7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:597 alt.censorship:75153 alt.revisionism:28538 can.politics:36787 alt.society.civil-liberties:7000

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>[edit]

>>> Do you say that Marc Lepine, who murdered 14 (I had the number 
>>>wrong) innocent women in Montreal in 1989 is a hero?

>>Under no circumstances. The hero Marc Lepine murdered no one, and the
>>females in question were not innocent. One can hardly be accused of
>>any crime under laws deliberately drafted to exclude you from their
>>protection; and you can hardly make claims of "innocence" when, on
>>occasion, the knifeblade of a slave is rammed through your back.

>So in your estimation, any able-bodied white male is entitled to kill
>anyone who is not an able-bodied white male? 

"Entitlement" is hardly the word. The problem is not one of sex or
race relations, but of political and social reality. If you are a
non-disabled white male you are, by law, explicitly denied equality
before and under the law whenever the government wants you to be, by
fiat. This is not a "choice", or an "opinion", but a matter of legal
fact, and entrenched in the Charter of Rights. The enemy is not
therefore defined by race or sex, but by their acts: If a person
legislates, enforces, supports or deliberately benefits from this
oppression they should not be surprised when the oppressed target them
in return. And the activities of the oppressed, when they are
explicitly denied legal rights, can not, sanely, be held accountable
to these same laws. 

>So you are arguing that
>when a law is unjust, drastic action is justifiable? 

No, all my arguments are made with respect to the Canadian status quo,
and the legal and social position of non-disabled white males within
it. If I thought that non-violent action would succeed, I would say
so. But I am personally aware that talk and reason, and appeals to
justice and conscience, have met with nothing but the legal
entrenchment of slavery. Violence is not simply the only policy, but
the inevitable one. The consequences of the law are and will be
violent, and that violence will be directed against the enemy by the
oppressed. There is nothing particularly original or suprising in this
analysis, as it simply follows invariable historical processes.


>That when social
>justice has not been forthcoming to an entire group of people, that
>draconian measures should be used to remedy the situation? 

"Social justice" is a meaningless term, and deliberately so I suspect.

I have tried to address my arguments to actual, irrefutable legal
practices in Canada, and have provided lengthy articles supporting
them.

>Would you
>argue that before 1918, women would have been justified in killing
>any and all men?  Or that before various laws were changed only 20
>years ago or so to finally make it possible for women to borrow money
>without a husband's or father's cosignature, women would have been
>justified in murdering any man they felt like killing?

If you are arguing that the position of females somehow justifies
entrenching a system of tacit slavery of non-disabled white men, I
suspect you will be hard-pressed to explain why not ALL men are so
treated. The activities and complaints of females in the year 1917 are
all very interesting, but I fail to see how present-day
nineteen-year-old, non-disabled white men can be said to have
contributed to them.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri Mar 29 16:59:33 PST 1996
Article: 28539 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,can.politics
Subject: Re: Canadian Hate-Propaganda Law (was Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:34:05 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4jb92r$env@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4igk22$348@Networking.Stanford.EDU>  <4iq7j9$1tqs@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4iqc91$a37@elaine20.Stanford.EDU> <4j1b8n$1fc4@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3e8h$dqq@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:28539 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:598 can.politics:36788

Neil  wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>> >*That's* the kind of publicity these slugs crave, and that money can't buy. 
>> >It gets them into the public limelight and it's all paid for by others. 
>> >That is the publicity the lack of a prosecution will deny Zuendel.  And
>> >while I feel he is a candidate for conviction under the hate law, I agree
>> >not to prosecute him for these reasons.
>> 
>> Thank you for acknowledging publically that you agree with me that the
>> "law" is applied in Canada only on the basis of political advantage or
>> the status of those who would be involved. That a crime may or may not
>> have been committed is now entirely irrelevant.

>It is the prosecutor's duty and obligation to represent the interests of
>the Canadian people when making prosecutorial decisions. If he decides
>that prosecuting a certain case would cause more harm to society than not,
>you may label it a "political decision", but it is what the prosecutor is
>expected to do. It is why the role of prosecutor even exists. 

You are simply incorrect. A prosecutor's job in a modern liberal
democracy is to ensure the Rule of Law, NOT the selective prosecution
of crimes. When the prosecution of a criminal is seen to harm society,
it is the duty of the lawmakers to repeal the law, not maintain the
law and release the criminal. That Canada has sunk so deep in
corruption that corrupt practice is now held up as duty-bound
behaviour is typical of the pathology that has infected so many
Canadians nowadays.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Mar 29 16:59:33 PST 1996
Article: 28702 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!apollo.isisnet.com!news2.interlog.com!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!uniserve!van-bc!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 12:07:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4j3dtu$dqq@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ivlen$vfg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:610 alt.censorship:75280 alt.revisionism:28702 can.politics:36917 alt.society.civil-liberties:7027

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>>The root problem, as I see it, is that they confuse their intentions with
>>their actions, and honestly belive that ANY action undertaken from "good"
>>intentions is not simply morally correct, but morally defensible. Thus the
>>rationalising of evil acts as good ones is completed with the mere
>>conception of a pretty thought.

>What were the good intentions behind Lepine murdering 15 innocent women?

The intentions of those who legislate, enforce and support affirmative
action I leave for those involved in those criminal activities to
explain. The result of those activities, however, is inevitable: Some
of the oppressed are going to fight back.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Mar 29 16:59:34 PST 1996
Article: 28752 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:27:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <4jdt2p$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4iua8g$l21@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4j2k50$t5m@news2.cts.com> <4j6lmj$d1a@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:611 alt.censorship:75321 alt.revisionism:28752 can.politics:36941 alt.society.civil-liberties:7036

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>Laura Finsten  wrote:

>>>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>>>Laura Finsten  wrote:
>>>>>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>[edit]

>>>>>>... I do not
>>>>>>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>>>>>>with respect to defeating these criminals.

>>>>>Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>>>>>murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

>>>>They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>>>>of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
>>>>support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>>>>deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>>>>affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>>>>upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>>>>treated by the state.

>>>Not that I think that this would be cause for justifiable homicide.
>>>But (1) in Ontario, there are no gender quotas for admissions to
>>>colleges and universities, and I am fairly certain that there are
>>>no such quotas in other provinces either, including Quebec. 

>>Affirmative action and its technical variants are a matter of law, not
>>conjecture. I have gone over this at length in the past and would
>>simply suggest that you review Section 15 of the Charter of Rights,
>>and then consult the various employment equity and other affirmative
>>action laws, programs and activities demanded and enforced by the
>>government. The Charter gives the government the power to discriminate
>>against anyone, on the basis of any of the characteristics which
>>Section 15 (1) expressly prohibits discrimination upon, if they claim
>>they are doing so to "ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged
>>groups or individuals". Those "disadvantaged groups" are specifically
>>set out in legislation: Women, Aboriginal People, Visible Minorities
>>and the Disabled. Please note that this means that everybody in Canada
>>is a member, legally, of a disadvantaged group---except non-disabled
>>white males. This means, in turn, that no discriminatory laws are
>>possible against anyone but non-disabled white males---because they
>>would be counter to the Charter----while simultaneously no
>>discriminatory laws are possible for the benefit of non-disabled white
>>males (in Nursing, as an example) because they are not a
>>"disadvantaged group".

>I notice that you failed to answer my question.  Because of the 
>existence of affirmative action, all women by definition are, in
>your sick mind, guilty of some crime against humanity? 

There seems little point to persist in this discussion if you
perpetually ignore the answers I supply you with. If a person
legislates, enforces, supports or deliberately benefits from the
legally-sanctioned oppression of non-disabled white men he, she or it
is guilty of crimes against humanity. What part of this very clear and
unambiguous statement---that I have posted over and over and over---do
you not understand?

>I take it
>your definition of humanity is limited to non-disabled white males.

>How simple life would be if past processes had no effect on the present.
>Personally, I have some difficulty with equal opportunity because of 
>the inherent contradiction it embodies.  But it must be viewed in
>recent historical context.

Then I suggest you view Lepine's actions in exactly the same light.

>I find your discussion interesting for a couple of reasons.  First,
>you seem to saying that group responsibility exists. 

I am not saying this thing---the law is. The Affirmative Action
Culture is not MY doing, but that of those who legislate, enforce,
support and deliberately benefit from the legal enforcement of "group
responsibility" against a single group: Non-disabled white males. My
views with respect to those who support these laws is simply that they
have nothing to complain about when the principle they support is
adopted and used against them.



...[much re-hash deleted]...

>White males are still the most employed, best paid and "most
>successful" group in North American society, by a long shot.  White
>males in Canada make nearly 150 percent of what women make.  They have
>far higher rates of full-time employment with benefits.  They are
>promoted faster and to higher levels within organisations than most
>women could ever hope to achieve.  Your view is reality is so twisted
>by your hatred of anyone who isn't a "white non-disabled male" that
>you really need psychiatric help.

All you are doing is rationalising evil. You are simply arguing that
white males should be discriminated on the basis of their sex and
race. It is the identical argument that the Nazis used with respect to
the "Jew-dominated" institutions of German society in the Thirties.
There were, indeed, a "disproportionate" number of Jews in high
positions in the Civil Service and other professions, but arguing that
therefore Jews should be legally denied access to equality before and
under the law on that basis is the product of a pathological ideology.

But, of course, all oppressors always exempt themselves from the
possibility that their forms of criminality and discrimination are in
any way comparable to other, indistinguishable examples. 

By the way, why do you defend discrimination against men on the basis
of "diversity" and proportional representation, but only on the basis
of privilege rather than oppression in society? I mean to say, if the
problem is that the population of the institutions of society must be
reflective of its  sexual and racial proportions, and that an
imbalance is somehow inherently "unjust", surely it is at the bottom
of society---where real oppression takes place---that such proportions
should be engineered, rather than at the top.

99% of prison cells are filled with men, Finsten. Why are you not
arguing for laws to be changed, therefore, so that 52% of them be
occupied in future by females, rather than the 1% that are occupied
now? If "systemic" discrimination is the cause and reason for the
enforcement of AA, surely this discrimination is most undeniably and
poisonously felt there.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Mar 29 16:59:35 PST 1996
Article: 28753 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:30:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4jdt7u$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com>  <4j58ih$nh9@news2.cts.com>  <4j83eo$gq1@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:612 alt.censorship:75323 alt.revisionism:28753 can.politics:36943 alt.society.civil-liberties:7038

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote: "On the standard that slaves are not
>morally responsible for *anything* that happens in their masters' domain." 

>And I asked: "And who are you a slave of, Kolding?"

>And Kolding responded: "Conscience and justice. And may I say that you are
>far overdue for a similar submission." 

>You are a slave of conscience and justice? How revolutionary of you. If
>your "masters" are conscience and justice, how does that justify the
>murder of innocent people, since they are _not_ your masters? 

Which "innocent" people are you referring to? Those who are denied, by
law, equality before and under the law solely on the basis of their
sex and race, or those who deliberately benefit from that oppression?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Mar 29 16:59:36 PST 1996
Article: 28979 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:09:25 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4jgjtj$hpq@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6o8$1u62@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ifl7v$o9l@news2.cts.com> <314B6C7E.1B30@itn.is>  <4ii21d$njc@wi.combase.com>  <3154cc87.17807687@news.dnai.com> <4j5i2f$pd1@wi.combase.com> <4j9p3k$53c@shiva.usa.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:624 alt.censorship:75481 alt.revisionism:28979 can.politics:37082 alt.society.civil-liberties:7071

hkatz@earth.usa.net (Harry Katz) wrote:

>In article <4j5i2f$pd1@wi.combase.com>,
>Matt Giwer (mgiwer@combase.com) the would-be cynic demonstrates
>extraordinary naivete:

>	You are whatever you want to be by self proclamation.
>	That is all tht is required.

>If that were so I would have ceased being Jewish long ago!

>It was not Jewish doctrine that convinced me that Jewishness is an
>ethnic, as opposed to religious, quality.  No, it was anti-Jewish
>racists who insist on branding Marx a Jew in spite of the total
>absence of any religious training, background, or inclination.

>It is said that the Nazis arrested people who did not even know they
>had any Jewish blood.  I cannot confirm this, but I can confirm that
>the Nazis did arrest converts to Christianity.  So, regardless of
>"self-proclamation," the reality is that I will be a Jew so long as
>others regard me as a Jew.

You might find the book "The Racial State, Germany 1933-1945", by
Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann (Cambridge University 1991)
useful in understanding the Nazis' methods of legally determining who
was "tainted" by Jewish blood. It even reproduces a diagram used by
the bureaucracy in their efforts to attain this end.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Mar 29 16:59:37 PST 1996
Article: 28980 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:10:53 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4jgk0c$hpq@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ivlen$vfg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3dtu$dqq@news2.cts.com> <4j6sb3$ll7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4jb91j$env@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:625 alt.censorship:75482 alt.revisionism:28980 can.politics:37083 alt.society.civil-liberties:7072

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>In article <4jb91j$env@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>> Laura Finsten  wrote:
>> 
>> >Uh huh.  And because the Lepines of the world have such a problem with
>> >legislation like affirmative action on humanistic grounds, they take
>> >out fourteen young women whose only "crime" is to get an education.
>> >So much more sensible and reasonable than directing their psychopathic
>> >violence at the legislators, for example, and so much more effective
>> >than challenging the law.
>> 
>> Strange how the actions of a man who was denied, by law, the right to
>> equality before and under the law simply because of his race and sex
>> is termed as "psychopathic", while those taken by those who legislate,
>> enforce, support and deliberately benefit from such oppression are
>> seen as "reasonable" and "sensible". By any sane stahdard, it is the
>> latter group who are exhibiting real psychopathic behaviour.

> 
>Mr. Kolding:
> 
>Please go back to your dictionary and read the definition of a
>"psychopath." I think you will find that it is perfectly appropriate for
>Mr. Lepine. Legislators, whatever their private lives, do not, as a group,
>fit that category. You may mnake up whatever definitions you like, but
>according to the accepted ones, you're incorrect.
> 
>However. When you skip ahead a little bit from "psychopath," don't miss
>the definition of "sociopath," because I believe there will be an
>illustration of PKolding as the classic definition.
> 

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to challenge the opinion of one who so
obviously has a deeply personal acquaintance with the term. However,
it seems to me the psychopath's most noticeable characteristic is her
complete lack of conscience, which is reflected by behaviours that
directly contravene the moral standards she parrots for public
consumption. In public, for example, the nascent psychopath is likely
to call for the equal treatment of people, and that no one should be
discriminated against on the basis of their sex or race. In private,
however, she argues for the unequal treatment of people and demands
this type of discrimination. She reveals herself to be a full-blown
psychopath, however, only when she ceases to change this behaviour
with respect to public and private utterances, and is found to be
declaring her unswerving principles for and against equality and for
and against discrimination simply on the basis of what the audience
requires. 



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 09:11:52 PST 1996
Article: 29176 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,can.politics
Subject: McFee Spins Out, Singh Critically Injured.
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:32:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4jirih$rr4@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4igk22$348@Networking.Stanford.EDU>  <4iq7j9$1tqs@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4iqc91$a37@elaine20.Stanford.EDU> <4j1b8n$1fc4@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3e8h$dqq@news2.cts.com>  <4jb92r$env@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:29176 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:639 can.politics:37226

Neil  wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >It is the prosecutor's duty and obligation to represent the interests of
>> >the Canadian people when making prosecutorial decisions. If he decides
>> >that prosecuting a certain case would cause more harm to society than not,
>> >you may label it a "political decision", but it is what the prosecutor is
>> >expected to do. It is why the role of prosecutor even exists. 
>> 
>> You are simply incorrect. A prosecutor's job in a modern liberal
>> democracy is to ensure the Rule of Law, NOT the selective prosecution
>> of crimes. When the prosecution of a criminal is seen to harm society,
>> it is the duty of the lawmakers to repeal the law, not maintain the
>> law and release the criminal.

>Where did you hear this? Or did you just pull it out of your ass? It seems
>like the latter to me. Canada's justice system functions on an adversial
>basis. Prosecutors represent the "people", the ones who have been harmed
>or threatened by the behavior of a criminal. It is their duty to prosecute
>defendants to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm beginning to think you have lost whatever slender thread of
rationality you might have had. First you say that a prosecutor should
selectively not prosecute cases "if he decides that prosecuting a
certain case would cause more harm to society than not, you may label
it a "political decision", but it is what the prosecutor is expected
to do." And now, even as this quote dangles at the top of your post,
you say "it is their duty to prosecute defendants to the fullest
extent of the law."

>Earlier, Kolding, who resides in San Diego, California, referred to Canada
>as a "shithole". Well, it's a good thing you left Canada then, isn't it
>Kolding? Why then are you so interested in Canadian affairs if (1) you
>left it and (2) it's a shithole? 

What difference can it possibly make to you? After all, it can hardly
have any bearing on any arguments made on a worldwide newsgroup.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 09:11:53 PST 1996
Article: 29197 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:33:40 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4jirl8$rr4@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jb8v5$env@news2.cts.com> <4jeb97$10su@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:643 alt.censorship:75626 alt.revisionism:29197 can.politics:37254 alt.society.civil-liberties:7100

ncrccjc@ibm.net (ncrccjc) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4j3dtu$dqq@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) said:
>>
>>>>
>>>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>The root problem, as I see it, is that they confuse their intentions with
>>>>>>their actions, and honestly belive that ANY action undertaken from "good"
>>>>>>intentions is not simply morally correct, but morally defensible. Thus
>>>the
>>>>>>rationalising of evil acts as good ones is completed with the mere
>>>>>>conception of a pretty thought.
>>
>>>>>What were the good intentions behind Lepine murdering 15 innocent women?
>>
>>>>The intentions of those who legislate, enforce and support affirmative
>>>>action I leave for those involved in those criminal activities to explain.
>>>>The result of those activities, however, is inevitable: Some of the
>>>>oppressed are going to fight back.
>>
>>>Stop this horsehit.  Lepine was as big as coward as you are.
>>
>>Which would make you almost super-colossal in that dubious category.

>ncrccjc responds:

>Marc Lepine murdered 15 young women in cold blood. Why would anyone
>in their right mind attempt to defend the actions of this evil person?


Canadian governments deliberately, in cold blood, discriminate against
non-disabled white men purely on the basis of their sex and race, and
have promulgated laws, armed bureaucrats, convened trials and built
prisons to enforce these acts. Why would anyone in their right mind
attempt to defend the actions of these evil governments and those who
support them?



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 09:11:54 PST 1996
Article: 29198 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:34:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4jegt2$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:644 alt.censorship:75627 alt.revisionism:29198 can.politics:37255 alt.society.civil-liberties:7101

libwca@larry.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: There seems little point to persist in this discussion if you
>: perpetually ignore the answers I supply you with. If a person
>: legislates, enforces, supports or deliberately benefits from the
>: legally-sanctioned oppression of non-disabled white men he, she or it
>: is guilty of crimes against humanity. What part of this very clear and
>: unambiguous statement---that I have posted over and over and over---do
>: you not understand?

>Fine.  And how did the coward Lepine determine that the fourteen
>unarmed women he gunned down were beneficiaries of affirmative
>action? 

Any female who attends a school with an affirmative action program
geared to discriminating against men in their favour of females, is
guilty of deliberately benefiting from oppression. I congratulate the
hero Lepine for his contribution to justice and equality.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 09:11:55 PST 1996
Article: 29199 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:34:33 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4jirms$rr4@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4jfnil$1t0m@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:645 alt.censorship:75628 alt.revisionism:29199 can.politics:37256 alt.society.civil-liberties:7102

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>>>Stop this horsehit.  Lepine was as big as coward as you are.

>>Which would make you almost super-colossal in that dubious category.

>I can look in the mirror and not see murdering filth staring back.  What do
>you see Kolding?

Someone who does not indulge in hallucinations.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 09:11:56 PST 1996
Article: 29247 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:49:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <4jlkfa$9sf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6o8$1u62@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ifl7v$o9l@news2.cts.com> <314B6C7E.1B30@itn.is>  <4ii21d$njc@wi.combase.com>  <3154cc87.17807687@news.dnai.com> <4j5i2f$pd1@wi.combase.com> <4j9p3k$53c@shiva.usa.net> <4jgjtj$hpq@news2.cts.com> <4jhh1r$34t@wi.combase.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:647 alt.censorship:75683 alt.revisionism:29247 can.politics:37292 alt.society.civil-liberties:7108

mgiwer@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>hkatz@earth.usa.net (Harry Katz) wrote:

>>>In article <4j5i2f$pd1@wi.combase.com>,
>>>Matt Giwer (mgiwer@combase.com) the would-be cynic demonstrates
>>>extraordinary naivete:

>>>	You are whatever you want to be by self proclamation.
>>>	That is all tht is required.

>>>If that were so I would have ceased being Jewish long ago!

>>>It was not Jewish doctrine that convinced me that Jewishness is an
>>>ethnic, as opposed to religious, quality.  No, it was anti-Jewish
>>>racists who insist on branding Marx a Jew in spite of the total
>>>absence of any religious training, background, or inclination.

>>>It is said that the Nazis arrested people who did not even know they
>>>had any Jewish blood.  I cannot confirm this, but I can confirm that
>>>the Nazis did arrest converts to Christianity.  So, regardless of
>>>"self-proclamation," the reality is that I will be a Jew so long as
>>>others regard me as a Jew.

>>You might find the book "The Racial State, Germany 1933-1945", by
>>Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann (Cambridge University 1991)
>>useful in understanding the Nazis' methods of legally determining who
>>was "tainted" by Jewish blood. It even reproduces a diagram used by
>>the bureaucracy in their efforts to attain this end.

>	Are you promoting this as a reference to determine who is a Jew?

The fellow said he was unable to confirm on what basis Nazis arrested
people with respect to race. Having read this newsgroup for some time
I am more than aware of the delusions people have with respect to the
subject.  By the way, the volume is a textbook for undergraduates and
is much in use in academe.

>It is a strange person who allows his enemies to provide his identity.

One's enemies are always up to something. That, after all, is what
makes them one's enemies.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 09:11:57 PST 1996
Article: 29248 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:49:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4jlkfd$9sf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6o8$1u62@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ifl7v$o9l@news2.cts.com> <314B6C7E.1B30@itn.is>  <4ii21d$njc@wi.combase.com>  <3154cc87.17807687@news.dnai.com> <4j5i2f$pd1@wi.combase.com> <4j9p3k$53c@shiva.usa.net> <4ja865$8gk@wi.combase.com> <4jbu08$ngr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4jcpsi$inm@wi.combase.com> <4jgqre$khb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:648 alt.censorship:75684 alt.revisionism:29248 can.politics:37293 alt.society.civil-liberties:7109

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>Since this example didn't work for you, let me try another one.  
>Marc Lepine shot and killed 14 women engineering students in a Montreal
>college because, apparently, feminists were in his demented mind 
>responsible for all his life's failures.  He ordered the male students
>out of the room, but he did not ask the women if they were feminists
>and await their answers before shooting them.  See if you can work your
>mind around a couple ideas again, using the examples of laws Nuremberg
>laws and of Marc Lepine: individual identity, group identity, 
>externally defined responsibility of feminists. 

I think this is a fine project. Those undertaking it should not forget
that the Nuremburg Laws were *government* actions, enforced by
bureaucrats, courts, policemen and prisons, and supported by those who
benefited from them.

The actions of Lepine against similar laws and forces seems to me
remarkably heroic.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 11:46:57 PST 1996
Article: 610 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!apollo.isisnet.com!news2.interlog.com!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!uniserve!van-bc!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 12:07:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4j3dtu$dqq@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ivlen$vfg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:610 alt.censorship:75280 alt.revisionism:28702 can.politics:36917 alt.society.civil-liberties:7027

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>>The root problem, as I see it, is that they confuse their intentions with
>>their actions, and honestly belive that ANY action undertaken from "good"
>>intentions is not simply morally correct, but morally defensible. Thus the
>>rationalising of evil acts as good ones is completed with the mere
>>conception of a pretty thought.

>What were the good intentions behind Lepine murdering 15 innocent women?

The intentions of those who legislate, enforce and support affirmative
action I leave for those involved in those criminal activities to
explain. The result of those activities, however, is inevitable: Some
of the oppressed are going to fight back.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 11:46:59 PST 1996
Article: 611 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:27:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <4jdt2p$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4iua8g$l21@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4j2k50$t5m@news2.cts.com> <4j6lmj$d1a@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:611 alt.censorship:75321 alt.revisionism:28752 can.politics:36941 alt.society.civil-liberties:7036

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>Laura Finsten  wrote:

>>>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>>>Laura Finsten  wrote:
>>>>>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>[edit]

>>>>>>... I do not
>>>>>>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>>>>>>with respect to defeating these criminals.

>>>>>Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>>>>>murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

>>>>They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>>>>of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
>>>>support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>>>>deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>>>>affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>>>>upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>>>>treated by the state.

>>>Not that I think that this would be cause for justifiable homicide.
>>>But (1) in Ontario, there are no gender quotas for admissions to
>>>colleges and universities, and I am fairly certain that there are
>>>no such quotas in other provinces either, including Quebec. 

>>Affirmative action and its technical variants are a matter of law, not
>>conjecture. I have gone over this at length in the past and would
>>simply suggest that you review Section 15 of the Charter of Rights,
>>and then consult the various employment equity and other affirmative
>>action laws, programs and activities demanded and enforced by the
>>government. The Charter gives the government the power to discriminate
>>against anyone, on the basis of any of the characteristics which
>>Section 15 (1) expressly prohibits discrimination upon, if they claim
>>they are doing so to "ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged
>>groups or individuals". Those "disadvantaged groups" are specifically
>>set out in legislation: Women, Aboriginal People, Visible Minorities
>>and the Disabled. Please note that this means that everybody in Canada
>>is a member, legally, of a disadvantaged group---except non-disabled
>>white males. This means, in turn, that no discriminatory laws are
>>possible against anyone but non-disabled white males---because they
>>would be counter to the Charter----while simultaneously no
>>discriminatory laws are possible for the benefit of non-disabled white
>>males (in Nursing, as an example) because they are not a
>>"disadvantaged group".

>I notice that you failed to answer my question.  Because of the 
>existence of affirmative action, all women by definition are, in
>your sick mind, guilty of some crime against humanity? 

There seems little point to persist in this discussion if you
perpetually ignore the answers I supply you with. If a person
legislates, enforces, supports or deliberately benefits from the
legally-sanctioned oppression of non-disabled white men he, she or it
is guilty of crimes against humanity. What part of this very clear and
unambiguous statement---that I have posted over and over and over---do
you not understand?

>I take it
>your definition of humanity is limited to non-disabled white males.

>How simple life would be if past processes had no effect on the present.
>Personally, I have some difficulty with equal opportunity because of 
>the inherent contradiction it embodies.  But it must be viewed in
>recent historical context.

Then I suggest you view Lepine's actions in exactly the same light.

>I find your discussion interesting for a couple of reasons.  First,
>you seem to saying that group responsibility exists. 

I am not saying this thing---the law is. The Affirmative Action
Culture is not MY doing, but that of those who legislate, enforce,
support and deliberately benefit from the legal enforcement of "group
responsibility" against a single group: Non-disabled white males. My
views with respect to those who support these laws is simply that they
have nothing to complain about when the principle they support is
adopted and used against them.



...[much re-hash deleted]...

>White males are still the most employed, best paid and "most
>successful" group in North American society, by a long shot.  White
>males in Canada make nearly 150 percent of what women make.  They have
>far higher rates of full-time employment with benefits.  They are
>promoted faster and to higher levels within organisations than most
>women could ever hope to achieve.  Your view is reality is so twisted
>by your hatred of anyone who isn't a "white non-disabled male" that
>you really need psychiatric help.

All you are doing is rationalising evil. You are simply arguing that
white males should be discriminated on the basis of their sex and
race. It is the identical argument that the Nazis used with respect to
the "Jew-dominated" institutions of German society in the Thirties.
There were, indeed, a "disproportionate" number of Jews in high
positions in the Civil Service and other professions, but arguing that
therefore Jews should be legally denied access to equality before and
under the law on that basis is the product of a pathological ideology.

But, of course, all oppressors always exempt themselves from the
possibility that their forms of criminality and discrimination are in
any way comparable to other, indistinguishable examples. 

By the way, why do you defend discrimination against men on the basis
of "diversity" and proportional representation, but only on the basis
of privilege rather than oppression in society? I mean to say, if the
problem is that the population of the institutions of society must be
reflective of its  sexual and racial proportions, and that an
imbalance is somehow inherently "unjust", surely it is at the bottom
of society---where real oppression takes place---that such proportions
should be engineered, rather than at the top.

99% of prison cells are filled with men, Finsten. Why are you not
arguing for laws to be changed, therefore, so that 52% of them be
occupied in future by females, rather than the 1% that are occupied
now? If "systemic" discrimination is the cause and reason for the
enforcement of AA, surely this discrimination is most undeniably and
poisonously felt there.





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 11:46:59 PST 1996
Article: 612 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:30:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4jdt7u$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com>  <4j58ih$nh9@news2.cts.com>  <4j83eo$gq1@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:612 alt.censorship:75323 alt.revisionism:28753 can.politics:36943 alt.society.civil-liberties:7038

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote: "On the standard that slaves are not
>morally responsible for *anything* that happens in their masters' domain." 

>And I asked: "And who are you a slave of, Kolding?"

>And Kolding responded: "Conscience and justice. And may I say that you are
>far overdue for a similar submission." 

>You are a slave of conscience and justice? How revolutionary of you. If
>your "masters" are conscience and justice, how does that justify the
>murder of innocent people, since they are _not_ your masters? 

Which "innocent" people are you referring to? Those who are denied, by
law, equality before and under the law solely on the basis of their
sex and race, or those who deliberately benefit from that oppression?



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 11:47:00 PST 1996
Article: 624 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:09:25 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4jgjtj$hpq@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6o8$1u62@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ifl7v$o9l@news2.cts.com> <314B6C7E.1B30@itn.is>  <4ii21d$njc@wi.combase.com>  <3154cc87.17807687@news.dnai.com> <4j5i2f$pd1@wi.combase.com> <4j9p3k$53c@shiva.usa.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:624 alt.censorship:75481 alt.revisionism:28979 can.politics:37082 alt.society.civil-liberties:7071

hkatz@earth.usa.net (Harry Katz) wrote:

>In article <4j5i2f$pd1@wi.combase.com>,
>Matt Giwer (mgiwer@combase.com) the would-be cynic demonstrates
>extraordinary naivete:

>	You are whatever you want to be by self proclamation.
>	That is all tht is required.

>If that were so I would have ceased being Jewish long ago!

>It was not Jewish doctrine that convinced me that Jewishness is an
>ethnic, as opposed to religious, quality.  No, it was anti-Jewish
>racists who insist on branding Marx a Jew in spite of the total
>absence of any religious training, background, or inclination.

>It is said that the Nazis arrested people who did not even know they
>had any Jewish blood.  I cannot confirm this, but I can confirm that
>the Nazis did arrest converts to Christianity.  So, regardless of
>"self-proclamation," the reality is that I will be a Jew so long as
>others regard me as a Jew.

You might find the book "The Racial State, Germany 1933-1945", by
Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann (Cambridge University 1991)
useful in understanding the Nazis' methods of legally determining who
was "tainted" by Jewish blood. It even reproduces a diagram used by
the bureaucracy in their efforts to attain this end.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 11:47:01 PST 1996
Article: 625 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:10:53 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4jgk0c$hpq@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ivlen$vfg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3dtu$dqq@news2.cts.com> <4j6sb3$ll7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4jb91j$env@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:625 alt.censorship:75482 alt.revisionism:28980 can.politics:37083 alt.society.civil-liberties:7072

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>In article <4jb91j$env@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>> Laura Finsten  wrote:
>> 
>> >Uh huh.  And because the Lepines of the world have such a problem with
>> >legislation like affirmative action on humanistic grounds, they take
>> >out fourteen young women whose only "crime" is to get an education.
>> >So much more sensible and reasonable than directing their psychopathic
>> >violence at the legislators, for example, and so much more effective
>> >than challenging the law.
>> 
>> Strange how the actions of a man who was denied, by law, the right to
>> equality before and under the law simply because of his race and sex
>> is termed as "psychopathic", while those taken by those who legislate,
>> enforce, support and deliberately benefit from such oppression are
>> seen as "reasonable" and "sensible". By any sane stahdard, it is the
>> latter group who are exhibiting real psychopathic behaviour.

> 
>Mr. Kolding:
> 
>Please go back to your dictionary and read the definition of a
>"psychopath." I think you will find that it is perfectly appropriate for
>Mr. Lepine. Legislators, whatever their private lives, do not, as a group,
>fit that category. You may mnake up whatever definitions you like, but
>according to the accepted ones, you're incorrect.
> 
>However. When you skip ahead a little bit from "psychopath," don't miss
>the definition of "sociopath," because I believe there will be an
>illustration of PKolding as the classic definition.
> 

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to challenge the opinion of one who so
obviously has a deeply personal acquaintance with the term. However,
it seems to me the psychopath's most noticeable characteristic is her
complete lack of conscience, which is reflected by behaviours that
directly contravene the moral standards she parrots for public
consumption. In public, for example, the nascent psychopath is likely
to call for the equal treatment of people, and that no one should be
discriminated against on the basis of their sex or race. In private,
however, she argues for the unequal treatment of people and demands
this type of discrimination. She reveals herself to be a full-blown
psychopath, however, only when she ceases to change this behaviour
with respect to public and private utterances, and is found to be
declaring her unswerving principles for and against equality and for
and against discrimination simply on the basis of what the audience
requires. 



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:40:24 PST 1996
Article: 41613 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:28:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4iqes6$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References:    <4htstm$bdg@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i06mn$pnj@news2.cts.com> <4i5i24$gp1@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i9vcr$o3t@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3e8$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj82$1dt@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41613 ont.general:35972 can.general:72716 can.politics:35735 soc.culture.canada:83812

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> You are a natural censor, Neil, and have a great future in any
>> Canadian government.

>He just called me a censor for clipping part of a post that anyone could
>easily access by skipping two posts back. HAHAHAHAHA!! Talk about a
>politically correct whiner. You just love those labels, doncha, Kolding? 

You are a natural censor, Neil. You are a fellow who seeks to have
ISP's  remove people's Internet access, simply because you don't care
for their views. You are the fellow who carbon-copies these requests
to "postmaster@fbi.com". This is not the sort of behaviour that
springs from someone struggling against a natural tendency for
allowing freedom of expression. 

But to get back to the point: You wish me to "explain" how a certain
unambiguously racist quote is racist, yet you fear to actually produce
the quote in question. And the reason is obvious: You know perfectly
well that it is self-explanatory, and self-illuminating as to its
import, and that everyone would see it. Thus, it must remain hidden. 

And I'm afraid that is the unfortunate downside to the life of a
censor, Neil. You really should get used to it.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:40:25 PST 1996
Article: 41824 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:51:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <4j0711$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41824 ont.general:36241 can.general:72953 can.politics:36184 soc.culture.canada:84114

Neil  wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> You are a natural censor, Neil.

>You are a natural politically correct hypocrite, Kolding. You don't like
>my opinion about something, so you scream out "censor!!!" How pathetic. 

I'm not screaming out anything. You are the fellow who insists that
some speech you don't care for should be subject to government and
legal repression. You complain of "hypocrisy", Neil, but what is more
hypocritical than someone who supports censorship objecting to being
called a censor?


>> You are a fellow who seeks to have
>> ISP's  remove people's Internet access, simply because you don't care
>> for their views. 

>Based on what? My complaining to a person's ISP? Do I not have the right
>to do that? 

You have a perfect right to be a censor, Neil.  

>> You are the fellow who carbon-copies these requests
>> to "postmaster@fbi.com". 

>I'm sure someone at the FBI was very interested in the comments you made
>about the use of violence to further your political goals. They're as
>aware as I am of the popularity of the Internet among freaks like
>yourself. Are you questioning my right to notify them? 

Not at all. Such activity earned you kook-of-the-month status, a
difficult acheivement given the competition on this newsgroup alone.
And I agree with you about the FBI's awareness of how many freaks
inhabit the Internet. After all, are they not inundated by bizarre
posts from you, Neil?

>> This is not the sort of behaviour that
>> springs from someone struggling against a natural tendency for
>> allowing freedom of expression. 

>You are the last person on EARTH to be preaching to others about
>"behavior" and your analysis of it. 

>> But to get back to the point: You wish me to "explain" how a certain
>> unambiguously racist quote is racist, yet you fear to actually produce
>> the quote in question. And the reason is obvious

>You're right, the reason is obvious. The quote you refer to was available
>to anyone who wanted to read it about 3 posts back. When writing
>follow-ups, I like to edit everything except the most relevant, recent
>material in the post I'm responding to. If I was really trying to "censor"
>the quote (if I wanted to censor it, why would I even mention it, you
>moron?), I would have used my God-like, FBI-manipulating, censorship
>powers to remove the quote-post in question altogether. 

If you didn't wish to censor it, why did you? And why do you continue
to do so? Simply post the racist quote you maintain is not racist. 






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:40:26 PST 1996
Article: 41829 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:51:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4j0716$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ic0fh$koo@kryten.awinc.com> <4ij3ab$lgm@news2.cts.com> <3150f79d.5695228@news.helix.net> <3151205a.16124332@news.helix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41829 can.general:72959 can.politics:36190

jyau@helix.net (Jerome Yau) wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:09:29 GMT, jyau@helix.net (Jerome Yau) wrote:

>>>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:28:21 GMT, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>>I agree completely, but none of this should make the expression of a
>>>political opinion, inside or outside of a classroom, a criminal
>>>offense. It is precisely my point that limitations on Keegstra's
>>>expressing of political opinions is a matter of the curriculum and his
>>>employment contract, and if we are to criminalise his poiltical
>>>opinions then we should criminalise ALL unpleasant political opinions,
>>>everywhere. The jails should therefore be stacked with feminists,
>>>communists, Rush Limbaugh enthusiasts, Senators and MP's and virtually
>>>every successful columnist in the land.

>Keegstra was not expressing any political opinions. He was trying to deny
>historical facts to his students and the case has nothing to do with freedom of
>speech. 

It has everything to do with freedom of speech, and the opinions
Keegstra expressed are already admitted by everyone to be his
sincerely held political views. If the expression of one's views is to
be limited, it must be through mutual agreement. In the case of
Keegstra, by way of his employment contract and the demands of the
curriculum. In other words, it is an entirely civil matter. The
government shouldn't be criminalising political opinions simply
because they find them inconvenient, and they destroy the legitimacy
of the law when they defend their actions on the basis that one may
"freely" express political opinions only in places and at times and
upon subjects that they decide, after the fact, or suffer criminal
sanctions.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:40:27 PST 1996
Article: 41887 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:45:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>  <4ifl6e$o9l@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41887 can.general:73017 can.politics:36319

Neil  wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> I was simply pointing out how your understanding of the law is flawed.
>> You keep on maintianing that the law is about the propagation of
>> "hatred" when it is about the suppression of unpopular political
>> opinion. I am reminded of those who thought the Nuremburg laws were
>> simply about the racial make-up of German institutions, when they were
>> really about the dispossession and destruction of Jews.

>Again, Kolding, you seem very willing to throw out declaratory statements
>("your understanding of the law is flawed", "the law... is about the
>suppression of the unpopular political opinion") without offering the
>slightest bit of evidence to back them up.

Alas, I offer endless "evidence", but you simply ignore anything said
that does not confirm your own views. You seem incapable of
independent thought, and examine the world as if it was designed to
your own plan. Variations to the blueprint, or outright omissions,
only inspire in you Orwellian doublethink.

>It's very easy to argue in this
>manner, but I'm afraid it really doesn't help you at all since no one, but
>yourself, buys it. 

It isn't that easy---You have almost no ability to make "declaratory"
statements not already approved of by government and the courts. In
fact, I'm quite sure you are not stimulated to form any opinion
whatsoever until your complacent, cow-like mentality is jostled. Then,
you charge in whatever direction the unusual sounds are emanating
from, shouting to one and all that they must be stopped, by criminal
proceedings if necessary.

>Why should they? The Nuremburg Laws are a convenient
>little analogy for you, but despite claiming that they are "similar" to
>Section 319, you haven't shown us HOW they are similar.  

I have made such comparisons many times, each time offering the
undeniable evidence. You just don't care to respond to arguments you
can't defeat.

>Neither have you
>offered to tell me HOW Section 319 is about "political opinions" (despite
>the fact that I've offered you many opportunities to explain your
>definition of what a political opinion is, and the many times I've asked
>you to explain how Keegstra's words of "subversive, sadistic
>child-killers" were political opinions). Neither have you bothered to
>explain HOW my knowledge of the law is "flawed". 

You are quite welcome to your fantasies, Neil, but you shouldn't make
them the basis of articles that can be refuted by the simple
resposting of previous, and lengthy, articles of your own. I have
defined what a political opinion is---you never have. Yet it is you
who wishes to incarcerate people on the basis of certain opinions that
are political when some say them, but not when others do. I have gone
to some length pointing out your flawed understanding of the law,
giving examples with respect to its declared principles and stated
intent, and its perverse application. Yet it passes by and over your
closed mind like most other arguments inconvenient to your passively
entrenched and utterly prejudiced views.


>By the way, everyone, since I have refused to quote every single reference
>in this post, since I hate messy posts and past quotes are easily
>accessible elsewhere, Kolding should, if he's consistent, whine about me
>being a censor now. [muffled laugh]

I have never "whined" about anything you do, Neil. You are a natural
censor. You see censorship as not only essential, but something to be
applied simply upon your own, private subjective terms of reference.
When you don't like some stranger's views you feel perfectly happy and
justified in trying to deny those views being expressed or heard by
anyone.

>> >Perhaps it does. I'm not a lawyer. All I know is that Section 319(2) of
>> >the criminal code of Canada protects all Canadians who are being attacked
>> >by hate crimes on the basis of their race, colour of skin, religion or
>> >ethnicity, and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. 
>> 
>> Why do you think merely stating the law is somehow an argument
>> supporting it?

>Are you implying that what you said just now is somehow an argument
>opposing it? 

I'm saying that you do not offer any arguments to justify this law
whatsoever. Quoting the terms of an indisputably prejudiced and
tryannous law is not an argument either in support or against. It is
not an argument of any sort whatsoever. I, on the other hand, have
addressed all my arguments upon what the terms mean, who they exclude,
the Charter provisions they contravene and their incompatibility with
the liberal, democratic spirit of the last 150 years. Naturally, you
cannot meet any of these arguments, because you have no conception of
independently assessing the actions and crimes of those in authority,
nor imagining that what is publically declared to be done with good
intentions could possibly be privately understood to be something
quite different.



>> 
>> >> Hath not a male eyes? hath
>> >> not a male hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
>> >> fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the
>> >> same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same
>> >> winter and summer as a Jew is? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if
>> >> you poison us, do we not die? 
>> 
>> >Look everybody. Kolding's a poet and doesn't even knowit! 
>> 
>> Confused by Shakespeare, Neil? I fear I am casting pearls before swine
>> in this discussion.

>Replace "male" with "female" and "Jew" with "man", then apply these words
>to the arguments you have made about Marc Lepine's slaughter of innocent
>women in Montreal. By the way, you should at least have the courtesy to
>cite your sources when quoting other people's work, Kolding. Or did you
>delete Shakespeare's name as an act of CENSORSHIP? 

If you are not aware of the author of one of the most famous quotes in
the English language, what possible use would it serve to provide you
with any sources, Neil? And by the way, did I or did I not actually
take the time and effort to point out that the quote was from
Shakespeare, when it became perfectly apparent that you were an
ill-educated clod?

>> The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene. Or has this masterpiece also now
>> fallen foul of the speech laws?

>I don't care if it's from the Bible. A threat is a threat. But then,
>you're not exactly known to be sincere in anything that you spout on the
>Internet, and probably elsewhere as well. 

Now you question my sincerity? The central point in all your
complaints regarding my posts can only be because they ARE sincere,
Neil, not otherwise. Or are you frothing at the mouth because I'm just
kidding you along?



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:40:28 PST 1996
Article: 42181 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!apollo.isisnet.com!news2.interlog.com!winternet.com!guitar.sound.net!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 12:12:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4j3e5s$dqq@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4j0711$hj2@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42181 ont.general:36604 can.general:73334 can.politics:36906 soc.culture.canada:84512

Neil  wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Not at all. Such activity earned you kook-of-the-month status, a
>> difficult acheivement given the competition on this newsgroup alone.

>All I have to say about this topic is: Kolding had me as kook-of-the-month
>one month, and Prime Minister Jean Chretien the next.  I'd say I'm in
>pretty good company. Thanks for the attention, Kolding. 

You're more than welcome. Censor's always have a leg-up when it comes
to kookiness. Just let me know when you, too, are reduced to
strangling people for what they say, and you can replace your current
hero in the league standings.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:40:29 PST 1996
Article: 42213 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!news.ccs.queensu.ca!kone!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:31:13 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <4jdta2$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>  <4ifl6e$o9l@news2.cts.com>  <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com> <4j8tdv$7op@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42213 can.general:73392 can.politics:36976

rkrasich@awinc.com wrote:

>In article <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com says...
>>

>>
>>I have never "whined" about anything you do, Neil. You are a natural
>>censor. You see censorship as not only essential, but something to be
>>applied simply upon your own, private subjective terms of reference.
>>When you don't like some stranger's views you feel perfectly happy and
>>justified in trying to deny those views being expressed or heard by
>>anyone.

>I would like to raise this question again, because I have either
>missed the answer or it hasn't been given.

>Given the fact that a coercive relationship exists between
>teacher and student, then Keegstra was not simply expressing
>his political opinions, he was enforcing them, marking and grading
>his students on their regurgitation of his political opinions.

The first point I note is that you understand that Keegstra was
expressing his political opinion. He is allowed to do that according
to the Charter, and he is allowed to do it inside or outside a
classroom. The second point I note is that you understand that
Keegstra was employed as a teacher, and therefore his activities,
including the speeches and tests he may propose, are subject---by
mutual agreement between he and his employers---to his employment
contract, an entirely civil matter.

>Given that the students did not have the opportunity to dispute his
>views except at the risk of their grades, given that they couldn't
>simply leave the room when he started express his "personal" opinions
>the coercive situation takes on a nature that is outside the issue of
>free speech.

This is entirely incorrect. The restraint on the activities of
students would be no different had Keegstra followed the curriculum
faultlessly. 

>Keegstra was certainly not allowing free speech to those in his
>classrooms whose sincerely held political beliefs were different from his.
>Or does Keegstra have the right to free speech without extending that
>same right to those who are around him?

Neither Keegstra nor the students are empowered to "extend" any rights
to anyone. The relationship between the two is classically "civil" in
nature, as he is not guilty of anything but breaking his employment
contract.

>Keegstra's defence was also interesting in that his first line of
>defence was not entitlement to free speech but that he was telling
>the truth.  There was clear intent on his part of make his students
>adhere to his political beliefs through abuse of the power inherent
>in the student/teacher relationship.  He was deliberately and systematically
>developing lesson plans, essays and examinations which forced these
>students to hold his beliefs, at least on paper.  

It is absurd to judge Keegstra's---or anyone's---defence against a
charge on the basis of the terms the law dictates as establishing
innocence. A defence under the law he was charged under was that he
was telling the factual truth. I, personally, have no doubt that
Keegstra sincerely believes his views to be factually true---but the
standard that one becomes a criminal if the Court disagrees with your
sincerely held beliefs is the government's convenient rule, not the
accused's.

>Keegstra's opinions are not criminal - his method of promulgating them
>was.

Then he should have been found not guilty under the law. There is no
difference between the "expression" of one's political opinions and
the "advocacy" of one's political opinions, except to the biased and
politically prejudiced.


 



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:40:30 PST 1996
Article: 42267 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:08:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4jgjrm$hpq@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>  <4ifl6e$o9l@news2.cts.com>  <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42267 can.general:73452 can.politics:37080

Neil  wrote:

>Now, to get back to that
>thing called "the issue", you tried to compare Section 319 to the
>Nuremburg Laws of Nazi Germany. Please demonstrate how. You haven't done
>so before, and if you can't do it at all, admit it. 

Please post a quote where I compared Section 319 to the Nuremburg Laws
of Nazi Germany. 

This is yet another example of the consequences of your illiteracy. As
I have posted before, you seem to be incapable of actually answering
any questions that you do not pose yourself. If you wish to engage
people in argument and discussion, you are going to have to learn to
address the actual arguments made rather than make things up and
attribute the conclusions you draw from your creations, as someone
else's views. What is irksome is that the newsgroup forum is ideally
suited to clarity and the easy posting of quotes, yet you take great
pains to avoid this. I know why you do this, but my chief objection is
that in your endeavours to avoid providing quotes that do not exist
you make things up about OTHER people's views.

...[the usual make-believe deleted]...

>> 
>> If you are not aware of the author of one of the most famous quotes in
>> the English language, what possible use would it serve to provide you
>> with any sources, Neil? And by the way, did I or did I not actually
>> take the time and effort to point out that the quote was from
>> Shakespeare, when it became perfectly apparent that you were an
>> ill-educated clod?

>I think "uneducated" would be a much better choice of words, Kolding. 

Cogently demonstrating, yet again, how ill-educated you really are.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:51:34 PST 1996
Article: 72716 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:28:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4iqes6$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References:    <4htstm$bdg@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i06mn$pnj@news2.cts.com> <4i5i24$gp1@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i9vcr$o3t@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3e8$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj82$1dt@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41613 ont.general:35972 can.general:72716 can.politics:35735 soc.culture.canada:83812

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> You are a natural censor, Neil, and have a great future in any
>> Canadian government.

>He just called me a censor for clipping part of a post that anyone could
>easily access by skipping two posts back. HAHAHAHAHA!! Talk about a
>politically correct whiner. You just love those labels, doncha, Kolding? 

You are a natural censor, Neil. You are a fellow who seeks to have
ISP's  remove people's Internet access, simply because you don't care
for their views. You are the fellow who carbon-copies these requests
to "postmaster@fbi.com". This is not the sort of behaviour that
springs from someone struggling against a natural tendency for
allowing freedom of expression. 

But to get back to the point: You wish me to "explain" how a certain
unambiguously racist quote is racist, yet you fear to actually produce
the quote in question. And the reason is obvious: You know perfectly
well that it is self-explanatory, and self-illuminating as to its
import, and that everyone would see it. Thus, it must remain hidden. 

And I'm afraid that is the unfortunate downside to the life of a
censor, Neil. You really should get used to it.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:51:36 PST 1996
Article: 72823 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!oleane!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: edm.general,ab.general,ab.politics,can.politics,can.general,alt.society.generation-x
Subject: Re: Sick nazi sends me hate mail
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:54:11 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4istnd$7re@news2.cts.com>
References: <826510746.3569snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4i5pbl$8to@tigger.planet.eon.net> <4i8mm4$72m@news2.cts.com> <4id7so$fo2@hermes.oanet.com> <4ij3eh$lgm@news2.cts.com> <4ino6r$2bn@hermes.oanet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ab.general:7981 can.politics:35926 can.general:72823 alt.society.generation-x:89748

fugi@oanet.com (Fugi Saito) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>>I hate to reiterate an old argument.  The list whether or not it is
>>>maintained is the property of a private citizen aka the ISP.  Just as
>>>a store owner, restauranteur, hotelier etc. has the right to permit or
>>>not to permit certain individuals to frequent his premises, so too the
>>>ISP has the same right to permit or not to permit certain individuals
>>>access to his or her dialups.  They need not justify the reasons for
>>>their discrimination. It is the same right that allows you to boot
>>>somebody out of your house for whatever reason you want.  You cannot
>>>argue for them something that you would not want for yourself.
>>
>>I challenge this interpretation of the various Canadian discrimination
>>laws. If a blacklist is maintained and people are prevented access or
>>service where the general public is permitted, the laws against
>>discrimination will apply and if the list is unbalanced with respect
>>to some certain group it will have to be proved NOT to be the result
>>of discrimination. Pleae do not interpret this as my support of such
>>laws, but your interpretation above is wrong.

>I would strongly suspect that you have not, do not, or did not do your
>homework.  Just because something is open to the General Public does
>not mean that it is public property.  As such you can discriminate for
>any number of reasons.  You can restrict people because of dress codes
>(suit and tie required) you can restrict because of age (no minors
>allowed) you can segregate washrooms, you can require ID, you can
>stock items that are gender specfic (ladies wear) and Mr. Big and Tall
>does not have to accomidate Mr. Short and Skinny.  In fact the list of
>allowed discriminatory activities far outstrips those which are not
>allowed (race, color, creed and in the case of employment, age) A
>merchant in a retail establishment has the right to refuse service by
>simply stating "We do not want your business, please leave".  If the
>person does not, they can be charged with trespassing.  An ISP can,
>for whatever reason, refuse an individual access to THEIR dialups.
>The key word being THEIR since the dialups are the property of the
>ISP.  Being open to the public does not automatically guarantee public
>access.  It is a privilidge, not a right.

But none of the above addresses the point: Under the various
anti-discrimination laws you may not, if you operate a business,
discriminate against people on the basis of ethnicity, race, sex, and
a host of other particulars. If a blacklist is created, and its
contents are "unbalanced" with respect to these criteria, it is the
responsibility of the blacklisters to prove that discrimination has
not occured.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:51:37 PST 1996
Article: 72953 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:51:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <4j0711$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41824 ont.general:36241 can.general:72953 can.politics:36184 soc.culture.canada:84114

Neil  wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> You are a natural censor, Neil.

>You are a natural politically correct hypocrite, Kolding. You don't like
>my opinion about something, so you scream out "censor!!!" How pathetic. 

I'm not screaming out anything. You are the fellow who insists that
some speech you don't care for should be subject to government and
legal repression. You complain of "hypocrisy", Neil, but what is more
hypocritical than someone who supports censorship objecting to being
called a censor?


>> You are a fellow who seeks to have
>> ISP's  remove people's Internet access, simply because you don't care
>> for their views. 

>Based on what? My complaining to a person's ISP? Do I not have the right
>to do that? 

You have a perfect right to be a censor, Neil.  

>> You are the fellow who carbon-copies these requests
>> to "postmaster@fbi.com". 

>I'm sure someone at the FBI was very interested in the comments you made
>about the use of violence to further your political goals. They're as
>aware as I am of the popularity of the Internet among freaks like
>yourself. Are you questioning my right to notify them? 

Not at all. Such activity earned you kook-of-the-month status, a
difficult acheivement given the competition on this newsgroup alone.
And I agree with you about the FBI's awareness of how many freaks
inhabit the Internet. After all, are they not inundated by bizarre
posts from you, Neil?

>> This is not the sort of behaviour that
>> springs from someone struggling against a natural tendency for
>> allowing freedom of expression. 

>You are the last person on EARTH to be preaching to others about
>"behavior" and your analysis of it. 

>> But to get back to the point: You wish me to "explain" how a certain
>> unambiguously racist quote is racist, yet you fear to actually produce
>> the quote in question. And the reason is obvious

>You're right, the reason is obvious. The quote you refer to was available
>to anyone who wanted to read it about 3 posts back. When writing
>follow-ups, I like to edit everything except the most relevant, recent
>material in the post I'm responding to. If I was really trying to "censor"
>the quote (if I wanted to censor it, why would I even mention it, you
>moron?), I would have used my God-like, FBI-manipulating, censorship
>powers to remove the quote-post in question altogether. 

If you didn't wish to censor it, why did you? And why do you continue
to do so? Simply post the racist quote you maintain is not racist. 






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:51:38 PST 1996
Article: 72959 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:51:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4j0716$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ic0fh$koo@kryten.awinc.com> <4ij3ab$lgm@news2.cts.com> <3150f79d.5695228@news.helix.net> <3151205a.16124332@news.helix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41829 can.general:72959 can.politics:36190

jyau@helix.net (Jerome Yau) wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:09:29 GMT, jyau@helix.net (Jerome Yau) wrote:

>>>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:28:21 GMT, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>>I agree completely, but none of this should make the expression of a
>>>political opinion, inside or outside of a classroom, a criminal
>>>offense. It is precisely my point that limitations on Keegstra's
>>>expressing of political opinions is a matter of the curriculum and his
>>>employment contract, and if we are to criminalise his poiltical
>>>opinions then we should criminalise ALL unpleasant political opinions,
>>>everywhere. The jails should therefore be stacked with feminists,
>>>communists, Rush Limbaugh enthusiasts, Senators and MP's and virtually
>>>every successful columnist in the land.

>Keegstra was not expressing any political opinions. He was trying to deny
>historical facts to his students and the case has nothing to do with freedom of
>speech. 

It has everything to do with freedom of speech, and the opinions
Keegstra expressed are already admitted by everyone to be his
sincerely held political views. If the expression of one's views is to
be limited, it must be through mutual agreement. In the case of
Keegstra, by way of his employment contract and the demands of the
curriculum. In other words, it is an entirely civil matter. The
government shouldn't be criminalising political opinions simply
because they find them inconvenient, and they destroy the legitimacy
of the law when they defend their actions on the basis that one may
"freely" express political opinions only in places and at times and
upon subjects that they decide, after the fact, or suffer criminal
sanctions.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:51:39 PST 1996
Article: 73017 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:45:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>  <4ifl6e$o9l@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41887 can.general:73017 can.politics:36319

Neil  wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> I was simply pointing out how your understanding of the law is flawed.
>> You keep on maintianing that the law is about the propagation of
>> "hatred" when it is about the suppression of unpopular political
>> opinion. I am reminded of those who thought the Nuremburg laws were
>> simply about the racial make-up of German institutions, when they were
>> really about the dispossession and destruction of Jews.

>Again, Kolding, you seem very willing to throw out declaratory statements
>("your understanding of the law is flawed", "the law... is about the
>suppression of the unpopular political opinion") without offering the
>slightest bit of evidence to back them up.

Alas, I offer endless "evidence", but you simply ignore anything said
that does not confirm your own views. You seem incapable of
independent thought, and examine the world as if it was designed to
your own plan. Variations to the blueprint, or outright omissions,
only inspire in you Orwellian doublethink.

>It's very easy to argue in this
>manner, but I'm afraid it really doesn't help you at all since no one, but
>yourself, buys it. 

It isn't that easy---You have almost no ability to make "declaratory"
statements not already approved of by government and the courts. In
fact, I'm quite sure you are not stimulated to form any opinion
whatsoever until your complacent, cow-like mentality is jostled. Then,
you charge in whatever direction the unusual sounds are emanating
from, shouting to one and all that they must be stopped, by criminal
proceedings if necessary.

>Why should they? The Nuremburg Laws are a convenient
>little analogy for you, but despite claiming that they are "similar" to
>Section 319, you haven't shown us HOW they are similar.  

I have made such comparisons many times, each time offering the
undeniable evidence. You just don't care to respond to arguments you
can't defeat.

>Neither have you
>offered to tell me HOW Section 319 is about "political opinions" (despite
>the fact that I've offered you many opportunities to explain your
>definition of what a political opinion is, and the many times I've asked
>you to explain how Keegstra's words of "subversive, sadistic
>child-killers" were political opinions). Neither have you bothered to
>explain HOW my knowledge of the law is "flawed". 

You are quite welcome to your fantasies, Neil, but you shouldn't make
them the basis of articles that can be refuted by the simple
resposting of previous, and lengthy, articles of your own. I have
defined what a political opinion is---you never have. Yet it is you
who wishes to incarcerate people on the basis of certain opinions that
are political when some say them, but not when others do. I have gone
to some length pointing out your flawed understanding of the law,
giving examples with respect to its declared principles and stated
intent, and its perverse application. Yet it passes by and over your
closed mind like most other arguments inconvenient to your passively
entrenched and utterly prejudiced views.


>By the way, everyone, since I have refused to quote every single reference
>in this post, since I hate messy posts and past quotes are easily
>accessible elsewhere, Kolding should, if he's consistent, whine about me
>being a censor now. [muffled laugh]

I have never "whined" about anything you do, Neil. You are a natural
censor. You see censorship as not only essential, but something to be
applied simply upon your own, private subjective terms of reference.
When you don't like some stranger's views you feel perfectly happy and
justified in trying to deny those views being expressed or heard by
anyone.

>> >Perhaps it does. I'm not a lawyer. All I know is that Section 319(2) of
>> >the criminal code of Canada protects all Canadians who are being attacked
>> >by hate crimes on the basis of their race, colour of skin, religion or
>> >ethnicity, and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. 
>> 
>> Why do you think merely stating the law is somehow an argument
>> supporting it?

>Are you implying that what you said just now is somehow an argument
>opposing it? 

I'm saying that you do not offer any arguments to justify this law
whatsoever. Quoting the terms of an indisputably prejudiced and
tryannous law is not an argument either in support or against. It is
not an argument of any sort whatsoever. I, on the other hand, have
addressed all my arguments upon what the terms mean, who they exclude,
the Charter provisions they contravene and their incompatibility with
the liberal, democratic spirit of the last 150 years. Naturally, you
cannot meet any of these arguments, because you have no conception of
independently assessing the actions and crimes of those in authority,
nor imagining that what is publically declared to be done with good
intentions could possibly be privately understood to be something
quite different.



>> 
>> >> Hath not a male eyes? hath
>> >> not a male hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
>> >> fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the
>> >> same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same
>> >> winter and summer as a Jew is? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if
>> >> you poison us, do we not die? 
>> 
>> >Look everybody. Kolding's a poet and doesn't even knowit! 
>> 
>> Confused by Shakespeare, Neil? I fear I am casting pearls before swine
>> in this discussion.

>Replace "male" with "female" and "Jew" with "man", then apply these words
>to the arguments you have made about Marc Lepine's slaughter of innocent
>women in Montreal. By the way, you should at least have the courtesy to
>cite your sources when quoting other people's work, Kolding. Or did you
>delete Shakespeare's name as an act of CENSORSHIP? 

If you are not aware of the author of one of the most famous quotes in
the English language, what possible use would it serve to provide you
with any sources, Neil? And by the way, did I or did I not actually
take the time and effort to point out that the quote was from
Shakespeare, when it became perfectly apparent that you were an
ill-educated clod?

>> The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene. Or has this masterpiece also now
>> fallen foul of the speech laws?

>I don't care if it's from the Bible. A threat is a threat. But then,
>you're not exactly known to be sincere in anything that you spout on the
>Internet, and probably elsewhere as well. 

Now you question my sincerity? The central point in all your
complaints regarding my posts can only be because they ARE sincere,
Neil, not otherwise. Or are you frothing at the mouth because I'm just
kidding you along?



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:51:40 PST 1996
Article: 73334 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!apollo.isisnet.com!news2.interlog.com!winternet.com!guitar.sound.net!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 12:12:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4j3e5s$dqq@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4j0711$hj2@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42181 ont.general:36604 can.general:73334 can.politics:36906 soc.culture.canada:84512

Neil  wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Not at all. Such activity earned you kook-of-the-month status, a
>> difficult acheivement given the competition on this newsgroup alone.

>All I have to say about this topic is: Kolding had me as kook-of-the-month
>one month, and Prime Minister Jean Chretien the next.  I'd say I'm in
>pretty good company. Thanks for the attention, Kolding. 

You're more than welcome. Censor's always have a leg-up when it comes
to kookiness. Just let me know when you, too, are reduced to
strangling people for what they say, and you can replace your current
hero in the league standings.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:51:41 PST 1996
Article: 73392 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!news.ccs.queensu.ca!kone!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:31:13 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <4jdta2$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>  <4ifl6e$o9l@news2.cts.com>  <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com> <4j8tdv$7op@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42213 can.general:73392 can.politics:36976

rkrasich@awinc.com wrote:

>In article <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com says...
>>

>>
>>I have never "whined" about anything you do, Neil. You are a natural
>>censor. You see censorship as not only essential, but something to be
>>applied simply upon your own, private subjective terms of reference.
>>When you don't like some stranger's views you feel perfectly happy and
>>justified in trying to deny those views being expressed or heard by
>>anyone.

>I would like to raise this question again, because I have either
>missed the answer or it hasn't been given.

>Given the fact that a coercive relationship exists between
>teacher and student, then Keegstra was not simply expressing
>his political opinions, he was enforcing them, marking and grading
>his students on their regurgitation of his political opinions.

The first point I note is that you understand that Keegstra was
expressing his political opinion. He is allowed to do that according
to the Charter, and he is allowed to do it inside or outside a
classroom. The second point I note is that you understand that
Keegstra was employed as a teacher, and therefore his activities,
including the speeches and tests he may propose, are subject---by
mutual agreement between he and his employers---to his employment
contract, an entirely civil matter.

>Given that the students did not have the opportunity to dispute his
>views except at the risk of their grades, given that they couldn't
>simply leave the room when he started express his "personal" opinions
>the coercive situation takes on a nature that is outside the issue of
>free speech.

This is entirely incorrect. The restraint on the activities of
students would be no different had Keegstra followed the curriculum
faultlessly. 

>Keegstra was certainly not allowing free speech to those in his
>classrooms whose sincerely held political beliefs were different from his.
>Or does Keegstra have the right to free speech without extending that
>same right to those who are around him?

Neither Keegstra nor the students are empowered to "extend" any rights
to anyone. The relationship between the two is classically "civil" in
nature, as he is not guilty of anything but breaking his employment
contract.

>Keegstra's defence was also interesting in that his first line of
>defence was not entitlement to free speech but that he was telling
>the truth.  There was clear intent on his part of make his students
>adhere to his political beliefs through abuse of the power inherent
>in the student/teacher relationship.  He was deliberately and systematically
>developing lesson plans, essays and examinations which forced these
>students to hold his beliefs, at least on paper.  

It is absurd to judge Keegstra's---or anyone's---defence against a
charge on the basis of the terms the law dictates as establishing
innocence. A defence under the law he was charged under was that he
was telling the factual truth. I, personally, have no doubt that
Keegstra sincerely believes his views to be factually true---but the
standard that one becomes a criminal if the Court disagrees with your
sincerely held beliefs is the government's convenient rule, not the
accused's.

>Keegstra's opinions are not criminal - his method of promulgating them
>was.

Then he should have been found not guilty under the law. There is no
difference between the "expression" of one's political opinions and
the "advocacy" of one's political opinions, except to the biased and
politically prejudiced.


 



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:51:42 PST 1996
Article: 73452 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:08:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4jgjrm$hpq@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>  <4ifl6e$o9l@news2.cts.com>  <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42267 can.general:73452 can.politics:37080

Neil  wrote:

>Now, to get back to that
>thing called "the issue", you tried to compare Section 319 to the
>Nuremburg Laws of Nazi Germany. Please demonstrate how. You haven't done
>so before, and if you can't do it at all, admit it. 

Please post a quote where I compared Section 319 to the Nuremburg Laws
of Nazi Germany. 

This is yet another example of the consequences of your illiteracy. As
I have posted before, you seem to be incapable of actually answering
any questions that you do not pose yourself. If you wish to engage
people in argument and discussion, you are going to have to learn to
address the actual arguments made rather than make things up and
attribute the conclusions you draw from your creations, as someone
else's views. What is irksome is that the newsgroup forum is ideally
suited to clarity and the easy posting of quotes, yet you take great
pains to avoid this. I know why you do this, but my chief objection is
that in your endeavours to avoid providing quotes that do not exist
you make things up about OTHER people's views.

...[the usual make-believe deleted]...

>> 
>> If you are not aware of the author of one of the most famous quotes in
>> the English language, what possible use would it serve to provide you
>> with any sources, Neil? And by the way, did I or did I not actually
>> take the time and effort to point out that the quote was from
>> Shakespeare, when it became perfectly apparent that you were an
>> ill-educated clod?

>I think "uneducated" would be a much better choice of words, Kolding. 

Cogently demonstrating, yet again, how ill-educated you really are.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 12:51:43 PST 1996
Article: 73592 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: earth.general,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.greens,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.activism,alt.censorship,soc.culture.usa,comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.bbs.first-class,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: APOLOGY from Toronto FreeNet. Account Remains Suspended(?)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:49:35 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4jlkfi$9sf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4jjbcv$8q5@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.usa:81534 alt.politics.greens:13190 alt.politics.libertarian:150927 alt.politics.usa.republican:173459 talk.politics.misc:351987 can.politics:37294 can.general:73592 soc.culture.canada:84822 alt.activism:37296 alt.censorship:75685 comp.sys.mac.comm:98829 alt.bbs.first-class:12449 sci.environment:49987 talk.environment:33388

bt142@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bob Allisat) wrote:



>          The following letter was sent by the Board of
>          Directors of the Toronto Free-Net to Bob Allisat


>- BEGIN QUOTE  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

>TFN freenet.toronto.on.ca

>March 26th, 1996

>Bob Allisat
>1164 College Street
>Toronto Canada
>M6M 1B6

>Dear Bob,

...[some deleted]...

>The Board wishes to make clear that it has not taken this step lightly.
>It is a strong supporter of freedom of expression, and does not cast
>itself in the role of the censor of material posted on or from the
>Free-net. However, when material is posted on or from the Free-Net
>that is in likely violation of Canadian criminal statutes, and that
>activity is brought to the attention of the Free-net Board, the Board
>is under legal duty to take appropriate action.

The above is a paragraph that should be noted by all Canadians, and
any others interested in how a national censorship system works in
practice. The vast majority of censorship under such a system takes
place completely outside of the "legal" arena, by design. Laws are
indeed passed, but the object of such laws is to turn people into
censors, not to actually bring charges that may not survive the test
of public opinion and thus threaten the system. Instead, the law is
used as a pretext, a weapon for special interest groups both inside
and outside of government to wield in private. By this means a
"complaint" becomes, in effect, a decree. A "suggestion" from police
becomes an order to censor people for their views. An "opinion" from
one source becomes "law", and an opinion from another a "crime". Note,
also, how the presumption of their guilt by association is
*established* by the very entities who simultaneously deny that they
are anything but neutral. And this is the ultimate alchemy of
institutional censorship: All the views allowed to be expressed must
become, irresistably, the views of those who do the censoring. 






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:35 PST 1996
Article: 35449 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!tribune.usask.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!hookup!news.ccs.queensu.ca!kone!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Zundel lies to supporters and press (was Re: "_I_ don'
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 00:08:35 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4ifl5q$o9l@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpk0l$ca7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hqei1$eeu@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4i06mb$pnj@news2.cts.com>  <4i3a4u$18s@news3.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >Name a single teacher who spread messages of hate against an identifiable
>> >group in Canada, and was not prosecuted for it. Just one. 
>> 
>> I have already revealed that I personally knew one teacher that
>> advocated the expropriation of incomes of people receiving more than
>> $100K, that NACSOW hired an infamous American feminist to deliver a
>> speech advocating the murder of men

>I clearly asked for examples of hatred being directed at identifiable
>groups. Under the legal definition of "identifiable group", people with
>incomes over $100,000 and males do not fit. 

Precisely proving my point. For the fourth---or is it the fifth time
time?---how is it that certain political opinions constitute a
criminal offense when they address one group, but identical opinions
addressing another are not? You are the fellow who has presented the
equality provisions of the Charter to support these hateful laws---why
are they not being applied?

>> , and that examples of "messages of
>> hatred" against a myriad of groups abound in Canada, and often emanate
>> from the very governments that are duty-bound to enforce the laws
>> against the "propagation of hatred" in the first place.

>But still no examples. 

Strange---I could of sworn I posted more than a few: Feminist
activists and NACSOW against men, the NDP and other left-wingers
against international businessmen, and virtually every government
department against those who oppose their empire-building. For
heaven's sake, it isn't so long ago that the former Prime Minister
called those who opposed the Charlottetown Accord  "Enemies of
Canada."  This last you will doubtless say is not the expression of
hatred, but simply a political opinion. One wonders, however, what
your reaction would be if he had called Jews "Enemies of Canada".
Personally, I have no doubt that you would call it "hatred" and be
joined by an overwhelming chorus of hypocrites demanding the full
force of the hate laws be applied. 

And that is the point. The hate laws are simply concerned with the
criminalising of speech unpopular to certain powerful interest groups.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:36 PST 1996
Article: 35633 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!op.net!news.tcst.com!news.spectrum.titan.com!buffnet2.buffnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:27:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:412 alt.censorship:74086 alt.revisionism:27645 can.politics:35633 alt.society.civil-liberties:6668

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>Mr. Giwer's judgement was clouded, it seems.  He fails to understand the
>difference between free speech and incitement of hatred.

And you seem to be unable to understand that the expression of one's
political views, and the existence of free speech,  is impossible if
others are to decide what that expression is to mean and criminalise
it simply because they don't care for its content. 

You have made this argument repeatedly, that somehow the "incitement
to hatred" is to be determined upon the content of people's speech. It
is a fatuous and absurd argument on its face though, because hatred
cannot be "incited" to any degree unwished for by the listeners. Have
the views of Keegstra and Zundel incited YOU to frothing malevolence
towards the Jews? Of course not. But here you are saying that you and
the government are somehow a congress of special human beings, immune
>from  incitements not in accord with your own superior judgement, but
the rest of society, alas, is not so blessed and therefore people must
be jailed to protect the inferior masses.

Now let me say that you are quite welcome to this view, and there is
no particular argument I have ever launched against it. My objection
is that you and others couch these views in hypocritical
terms---saying that certain opinions are capable of "inciting
hatred"---when in fact you simply disagree with the views on the basis
of your political and social outlook. You believe in "free speech" in
so far as the exercise of such is limited to views you either agree
with or have no interest in. Those views you disagree with you measure
against this arbitrary ideological and political line you hold with
respect to the level of stupidity and dullness you accord the general
public.  





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:37 PST 1996
Article: 35634 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!op.net!news.tcst.com!news.spectrum.titan.com!buffnet2.buffnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:27:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4ij394$lgm@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com>  <4icqcv$td2@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:413 alt.censorship:74087 alt.revisionism:27646 can.politics:35634 alt.society.civil-liberties:6669

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:


>If Mr. Giwer were right, I would have the "right" to advocate the
>extermination of the Jews and my constitutional guarantee of free speech
>would prevent anyone from stopping me.  

Exactly. And why do you have a problem with that? You don't seem to
have a problem with the constitutional guarantee that allows you to
advocate people being fired, arrested and thrown in jail for
expressing opinions YOU don't care for, Mr. McFee.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:38 PST 1996
Article: 35734 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:27:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:427 alt.censorship:74157 alt.revisionism:27712 can.politics:35734 alt.society.civil-liberties:6691

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) said:


>>The political aspect of speech is that people disagree upon the meaning
>>and purpose of common things. There are some people who say Marc Lepine
>>was an evil monster, for instance, while I say he was a hero. Such
>>opinions do not somehow cease to be political expressions merely because a
>>majority, or a special interest group, dislikes one view or the other.

>So what it boils down to is that you say Marc Lepine, who cold bloodedly
>murdered 15 women in Montreal in 1989, is a hero?  Given that, why should
>anyone care what you say about anything else.  You are a bastard, sir.

My lineage is almost too lengthy and complete to suffer that last
definition, but thank you for beautifully illustrating the natural
tendency of so many to translate the simple expression of a political
opinion into evidence that the bearer holds some disagreeable and
immutable personal characteristic. Doubtless---if the principles that
are used to defend hate crimes legislation are to be believed----you
are now guilty of inciting hatred in the hearts of untold thousands. A
hatred, by the way, directed at people simply on the basis that their
parents failed to fill out the appropriate forms before they were
born. 







From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:39 PST 1996
Article: 35735 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:28:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4iqes6$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References:    <4htstm$bdg@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i06mn$pnj@news2.cts.com> <4i5i24$gp1@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4i9vcr$o3t@news2.cts.com>  <4ij3e8$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj82$1dt@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41613 ont.general:35972 can.general:72716 can.politics:35735 soc.culture.canada:83812

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> You are a natural censor, Neil, and have a great future in any
>> Canadian government.

>He just called me a censor for clipping part of a post that anyone could
>easily access by skipping two posts back. HAHAHAHAHA!! Talk about a
>politically correct whiner. You just love those labels, doncha, Kolding? 

You are a natural censor, Neil. You are a fellow who seeks to have
ISP's  remove people's Internet access, simply because you don't care
for their views. You are the fellow who carbon-copies these requests
to "postmaster@fbi.com". This is not the sort of behaviour that
springs from someone struggling against a natural tendency for
allowing freedom of expression. 

But to get back to the point: You wish me to "explain" how a certain
unambiguously racist quote is racist, yet you fear to actually produce
the quote in question. And the reason is obvious: You know perfectly
well that it is self-explanatory, and self-illuminating as to its
import, and that everyone would see it. Thus, it must remain hidden. 

And I'm afraid that is the unfortunate downside to the life of a
censor, Neil. You really should get used to it.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:40 PST 1996
Article: 35736 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:28:58 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:428 alt.censorship:74158 alt.revisionism:27713 can.politics:35736 alt.society.civil-liberties:6692

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:


>[edit]

>>... I do not
>>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>>with respect to defeating these criminals.

>Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
treated by the state.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:41 PST 1996
Article: 35738 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:27:35 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <4iqeqk$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6o8$1u62@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ifl7v$o9l@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj2k$1dt@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.censorship:74161 can.politics:35738 alt.society.civil-liberties:6693

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >On Sun, 17 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:
>> >> If "the promotion of hatred" is the BAD THING, why is it allowed
>> >> against some groups but it is a criminal offense against others? 
>> >[snip]
>> 
>> >Could you please provide us with some examples that illustrate your claim? 
>> 
>> I don't quite follow the import of this request.

>What in the hell could possibly be so difficult to understand about my
>request? You claim that hatred is forbidden against some, but allowed
>against others. I ask you to provide us with examples to illustrate your
>claim. It sounds like a fairly straightforward, and reasonable, request to
>me. 

Shouldn't you actually read the laws you post here, Neil? The
propagation against people on the basis that they are Jews is a
criminal offense, while the propagation of hatred against
people on the basis that they are men, or poor, or homosexuals, or
children is not.

This is information that YOU have provided this newsgroup, by the way.

>> You know perfectly
>> well that the hate law is quite explicit as to those groups of people
>> towards whom the "propagation of hatred" constitutes a criminal
>> offense.

>As do you, since the hate law protects all members of any identifiable
>group. Both you and I are members of identifiable groups. We have equal
>protection from hate laws. 

I have no "protection" from the propagation of hatred based on my sex.
No one does. It is therefore a criminal offense to propagate hatred
against Jews and Blacks, while it is perfectly legal to promote hatred
against men. This is not "equal protection" even by the Charter
standards you yourself have posted. It is supposed to be a
Charter-guaranteed right that the government may not discriminate
against people on the basis of their sex, yet here the hate laws do.

>> When NACSOW hired Andrea Dworkin to give a speech
>> recommending the murder of men in Edmonton a few years ago, neither
>> she nor NACSOW were breaking the hate law because the propagation of
>> hatred against men is not a criminal offense. 

>You have recommended the murder of women. Why are you complaining?

Why do you think I am complaining? I am quite happy pointing out the
crimes of government, in this case happily aided by your buffoonery.

> Also,
>since the Supreme Court has recommended a standard by which to define the
>propogation of hate, you will have to post the text of the speech in order
>to use it as a valid example. Since you are probably unable to do that,
>your claim will simply have to be considered as unprovable, by most of us. 

Of course, Neil. You didn't hear it, therefore, naturally, it never
happened. Doubtless our friends the Holocaust non-deniers will be
cautioning you against similar mental gyrations on the subject closest
to their hearts, as that would likely constitute evidence of your
participating in a "hate crime".


>> In fact, the speech was
>> given to an all-female audience, with the then Minister for the Status
>> of Women attending and approving. When she was questioned after the
>> event to explain why the government was sponsoring such views, she
>> replied that "people must try to understand", a singularly obscure
>> response to my mind. 
>> 
>> However, it did confirm, yet again, that only violence will overcome
>> these criminals. If the government is funding and endorsing the view
>> that the murder of men is somehow "to be understood" no amount of
>> reasoning or political horse-trading will persuade them otherwise.

>Why haven't you posted the speech, Kolding? Are you, perhaps, an evil
>CENSOR!? 

The reports of the speech are a matter of public record. Please feel
free to review the major Canadian newspaper archives for more
information. If you want me to do this research, you need only change
the law so government-sponsored hatred expressed against men will be
subject to criminal sanctions, and thus make such research worth the
candle. That, after all, is the entire point of this thread, Neil.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:42 PST 1996
Article: 35739 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:27:59 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <4iqerd$k1v@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj3h$1dt@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.censorship:74162 can.politics:35739 alt.society.civil-liberties:6694

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> If Keegstra is of the opinion that Jews are sadistic child-killers he
>> is supposed to have the right to express that opinion.

>He is "supposed to have the right" according to who?

According to the Charter of Rights. Not something any sane person has
any regard for, but if the government demands rules are to be followed
I suggest that they be held to it.

> Not according to me. 
>Not according to most Canadians. Not according to most judges. And not
>according to the Supreme Court of Canada. He was given the opportunity to
>prove that his opinion of Jews was defensible, based on either (a) truth
>or (b) good faith that a reasonable person could have believed such an
>opinion without malicious intent. He failed this test.  So will you if you
>attempt to take it. Care to give it a shot? 

Certainly: Feminists sponsored by NACSOW have spent much of the last
twenty years calling men "pigs", "rapists", "murderers" and "child
abusers" as a part of their political activities, They have held
meetings in public schools, on school time, where only female students
were permitted access and boys were expressly denied, solely on the
basis of their sex. They have produced and distributed, using
government funds, publications reiterating these hateful views, and
they have expressed them publically and in an organised manner on
every broadcast medium. They have demanded privilege and special
treatment for females, solely on the basis of their sex, and demanded
repression and unequal treatment of men solely on the basis of their
sex. Now, Neil: What court of law has ever decided whether their
opinions are legitimate political expressions or otherwise? And
furthermore, how can ANY legal judgement of the "legitimacy" of their
opinions, political or otherwise, be made if there is no law against
propagating hatred against men in the first place? NACSOW and other
feminists do not have to prove to "you", "most Canadians", "most
judges" or the "Supreme Court of Canada" that THEIR opinions are
"legitimate".

In short, an unpopular political opinion expressed against some
special, powerful group is suddenly "illegal" and "not legitimate" and
"hatred" and  "criminal" and "subject to Court approval" and "requires
proof", but those who the express exactly the same thing against
non-special, weak people can not even be brought to Court, much less
adjudicated. In fact, quite to the contrary, the expression of hatred
against men is irrefutably legal and protected by the Charter of
Rights. 

Keegstra didn't "fail" any test. The Supreme Court merely revealed the
true nature of the criminal Canadian system. If you wish to understand
the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian legal system I suggest
you read up on Freisler and his court proceedings.

>> God knows, I've
>> heard any number of Leftists claim over the years that various
>> government policies constitute child abuse, female abuse, seniors'
>> abuse and just plain abuse in toto. 

>Such "leftist" claims are not labelling a racial, ethnic or religious
>group as the perpetrator of these crimes. 

Really? There have been plenty of Leftists on this newsgroup alone
that have claimed that it is the "whiteness" of government that is to
blame for the "abuse" their policies produce.

>> If Keegstra's employer has a
>> problem with Keegstra's teaching let them fire him upon cause, but
>> there is no place for criminalising political opinions no matter where
>> they are expressed.

>Every time you claim Keegstra's opinion were political, I will demand a
>definition of what you consider to be a political opinion. For the record,
>Kolding has failed to do this after my asking at least 4-5 times. 

I have defined this at least ten times, yet you just ignore things
inconvenient to your views. Why should I have to repeat, over and
over, arguments and views already familar to everyone? YOU are the
fellow who is making the claim that somehow Keegstra's opinions with
respect to the Jews---how they are evil and control the world monetary
system and have evil designs upon eveything under the sun---is NOT a
"political opinion." So please, Neil, elucidate. And don't attempt to
prove your point by saying that _someone else_ says its not a
political opinion. What, precisely, is the difference between the
political opinion of those who maintain female inferiority and their
evilness, or male inferiority and their evilness, or Jewish
inferiority and their evilness? If the last is "not a political
opinion" and subjects the proponent to criminal charges, why doesn't
the former? How is it that the former views ARE recognised as
"political speech" and are practised and their principles incorporated
in law, but the latter, by some alchemy of the simpleminded, is not?
There can be only one explanation: All these views are  "political
opinion", but some political opinions, when expressed to the
dissatisfaction of some powerful and privileged class, are to be
supressed as criminal offenses.

>> >If Keegstra had been able to prove the many things he said about Jews in
>> >his Supreme Court case, he would have had quite a strong defense on his
>> >side. Unfortunately for him, and apparently you, he failed. 
>> 
>> But why must Keegtra have to prove his opinions to the satisfaction of
>> the government but not anyone else?  Does Ms. Finsted have to submit
>> her opinions to government review, and on pain of incarceration if
>> they are not satisfied? Do you? No. Only those people who hold
>> political opinions unpopular with powerful interest groups.

>No. Only those who spew hatred and try and incite violence and harm the
>general interests of the Canadian people do. 

Like the Unions in Ontario, today, you mean? I would look forward to
their leaders being charged and jailed under the hate law, but, of
course, they are expressing POLITICAL views.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:42 PST 1996
Article: 35926 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!oleane!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: edm.general,ab.general,ab.politics,can.politics,can.general,alt.society.generation-x
Subject: Re: Sick nazi sends me hate mail
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:54:11 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4istnd$7re@news2.cts.com>
References: <826510746.3569snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4i5pbl$8to@tigger.planet.eon.net> <4i8mm4$72m@news2.cts.com> <4id7so$fo2@hermes.oanet.com> <4ij3eh$lgm@news2.cts.com> <4ino6r$2bn@hermes.oanet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ab.general:7981 can.politics:35926 can.general:72823 alt.society.generation-x:89748

fugi@oanet.com (Fugi Saito) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>>I hate to reiterate an old argument.  The list whether or not it is
>>>maintained is the property of a private citizen aka the ISP.  Just as
>>>a store owner, restauranteur, hotelier etc. has the right to permit or
>>>not to permit certain individuals to frequent his premises, so too the
>>>ISP has the same right to permit or not to permit certain individuals
>>>access to his or her dialups.  They need not justify the reasons for
>>>their discrimination. It is the same right that allows you to boot
>>>somebody out of your house for whatever reason you want.  You cannot
>>>argue for them something that you would not want for yourself.
>>
>>I challenge this interpretation of the various Canadian discrimination
>>laws. If a blacklist is maintained and people are prevented access or
>>service where the general public is permitted, the laws against
>>discrimination will apply and if the list is unbalanced with respect
>>to some certain group it will have to be proved NOT to be the result
>>of discrimination. Pleae do not interpret this as my support of such
>>laws, but your interpretation above is wrong.

>I would strongly suspect that you have not, do not, or did not do your
>homework.  Just because something is open to the General Public does
>not mean that it is public property.  As such you can discriminate for
>any number of reasons.  You can restrict people because of dress codes
>(suit and tie required) you can restrict because of age (no minors
>allowed) you can segregate washrooms, you can require ID, you can
>stock items that are gender specfic (ladies wear) and Mr. Big and Tall
>does not have to accomidate Mr. Short and Skinny.  In fact the list of
>allowed discriminatory activities far outstrips those which are not
>allowed (race, color, creed and in the case of employment, age) A
>merchant in a retail establishment has the right to refuse service by
>simply stating "We do not want your business, please leave".  If the
>person does not, they can be charged with trespassing.  An ISP can,
>for whatever reason, refuse an individual access to THEIR dialups.
>The key word being THEIR since the dialups are the property of the
>ISP.  Being open to the public does not automatically guarantee public
>access.  It is a privilidge, not a right.

But none of the above addresses the point: Under the various
anti-discrimination laws you may not, if you operate a business,
discriminate against people on the basis of ethnicity, race, sex, and
a host of other particulars. If a blacklist is created, and its
contents are "unbalanced" with respect to these criteria, it is the
responsibility of the blacklisters to prove that discrimination has
not occured.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:43 PST 1996
Article: 36184 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:51:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <4j0711$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41824 ont.general:36241 can.general:72953 can.politics:36184 soc.culture.canada:84114

Neil  wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> You are a natural censor, Neil.

>You are a natural politically correct hypocrite, Kolding. You don't like
>my opinion about something, so you scream out "censor!!!" How pathetic. 

I'm not screaming out anything. You are the fellow who insists that
some speech you don't care for should be subject to government and
legal repression. You complain of "hypocrisy", Neil, but what is more
hypocritical than someone who supports censorship objecting to being
called a censor?


>> You are a fellow who seeks to have
>> ISP's  remove people's Internet access, simply because you don't care
>> for their views. 

>Based on what? My complaining to a person's ISP? Do I not have the right
>to do that? 

You have a perfect right to be a censor, Neil.  

>> You are the fellow who carbon-copies these requests
>> to "postmaster@fbi.com". 

>I'm sure someone at the FBI was very interested in the comments you made
>about the use of violence to further your political goals. They're as
>aware as I am of the popularity of the Internet among freaks like
>yourself. Are you questioning my right to notify them? 

Not at all. Such activity earned you kook-of-the-month status, a
difficult acheivement given the competition on this newsgroup alone.
And I agree with you about the FBI's awareness of how many freaks
inhabit the Internet. After all, are they not inundated by bizarre
posts from you, Neil?

>> This is not the sort of behaviour that
>> springs from someone struggling against a natural tendency for
>> allowing freedom of expression. 

>You are the last person on EARTH to be preaching to others about
>"behavior" and your analysis of it. 

>> But to get back to the point: You wish me to "explain" how a certain
>> unambiguously racist quote is racist, yet you fear to actually produce
>> the quote in question. And the reason is obvious

>You're right, the reason is obvious. The quote you refer to was available
>to anyone who wanted to read it about 3 posts back. When writing
>follow-ups, I like to edit everything except the most relevant, recent
>material in the post I'm responding to. If I was really trying to "censor"
>the quote (if I wanted to censor it, why would I even mention it, you
>moron?), I would have used my God-like, FBI-manipulating, censorship
>powers to remove the quote-post in question altogether. 

If you didn't wish to censor it, why did you? And why do you continue
to do so? Simply post the racist quote you maintain is not racist. 






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:44 PST 1996
Article: 36187 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!news.us.world.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:50:49 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4j0700$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hnf2t$2s3@news2.cts.com> <4hvah6$12eu@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i3a37$18s@news3.cts.com> <4icqfr$39fs@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij397$lgm@news2.cts.com> <4iq7pp$1g2e@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:478 alt.censorship:74577 alt.revisionism:27972 can.politics:36187 alt.society.civil-liberties:6804

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <4ij397$lgm@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) said:

>>
>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:


>>>Interesting how those clearly unversed in the law claim to understand it. 
>>>Perhaps Mr. Kolding will read the numerous posts on this topic and revise
>>>his opinion.  Hopefully, he will also revise his opinion that it was just
>>>fine for the man who killed the 15 women in Montreal in 1989 to have done
>>>so.

>>Far more interesting is how Marc Lepine could not have been charged under
>>the same hate laws as Mr. Keegstra, if he merely advocated exterminating
>>females. This illustrates the point which you just can't meet, and defeats
>>all these sanctimonious arguments about the "propagation of hatred" being
>>the fulcrum upon which these laws rest.

>Mr. Lepine could have been charged if he had advocated extermination of
>women.  

'Women" are not among the identifiable groups covered by the
legislation. May I suggest you actually read the posts you make. It is
you, after all, who has posted the terms of this law.

>Perhaps if he had been charged with something like that, he would
>not have been out on the street to murder the women in Montreal.  Tell me:
>why are you so ready to defend him?  Do you agree with what he did?

Absolutely. His one mistake was to kill himself.





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:45 PST 1996
Article: 36188 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!news.us.world.net!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:51:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4j070s$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4irsr1$18@curly.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:479 alt.censorship:74578 alt.revisionism:27973 can.politics:36188 alt.society.civil-liberties:6805

libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: Laura Finsten  wrote:
>: >pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:


>: >[edit]

>: >>... I do not
>: >>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>: >>with respect to defeating these criminals.

>: >Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>: >murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

>: They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>: of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
>: support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>: deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>: affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>: upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>: treated by the state.

>Just so we're on the same page here, PKolding--do you also hold
>that African-Americans have the right to kill any white person
>who's personal wealth or social standing is based on being 
>descended from slave holders?

They certainly have the right to use violence if the government passes
legislation forbidding them access to virtually every institution of
society solely on the basis of their race. That, by the way, is what
the AA and relationship laws have done with respect to non-disabled
white males.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:46 PST 1996
Article: 36190 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:51:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4j0716$hj2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ic0fh$koo@kryten.awinc.com> <4ij3ab$lgm@news2.cts.com> <3150f79d.5695228@news.helix.net> <3151205a.16124332@news.helix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41829 can.general:72959 can.politics:36190

jyau@helix.net (Jerome Yau) wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:09:29 GMT, jyau@helix.net (Jerome Yau) wrote:

>>>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:28:21 GMT, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>>I agree completely, but none of this should make the expression of a
>>>political opinion, inside or outside of a classroom, a criminal
>>>offense. It is precisely my point that limitations on Keegstra's
>>>expressing of political opinions is a matter of the curriculum and his
>>>employment contract, and if we are to criminalise his poiltical
>>>opinions then we should criminalise ALL unpleasant political opinions,
>>>everywhere. The jails should therefore be stacked with feminists,
>>>communists, Rush Limbaugh enthusiasts, Senators and MP's and virtually
>>>every successful columnist in the land.

>Keegstra was not expressing any political opinions. He was trying to deny
>historical facts to his students and the case has nothing to do with freedom of
>speech. 

It has everything to do with freedom of speech, and the opinions
Keegstra expressed are already admitted by everyone to be his
sincerely held political views. If the expression of one's views is to
be limited, it must be through mutual agreement. In the case of
Keegstra, by way of his employment contract and the demands of the
curriculum. In other words, it is an entirely civil matter. The
government shouldn't be criminalising political opinions simply
because they find them inconvenient, and they destroy the legitimacy
of the law when they defend their actions on the basis that one may
"freely" express political opinions only in places and at times and
upon subjects that they decide, after the fact, or suffer criminal
sanctions.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:47 PST 1996
Article: 36310 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:47:04 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4j2k3t$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ik5qc$ntr@curly.cc.emory.edu> <4iq7nv$1sfu@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4isequ$gae@curly.cc.emory.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:510 alt.censorship:74707 alt.revisionism:28126 can.politics:36310 alt.society.civil-liberties:6856

Neil  wrote:


>"Mr. Keegstra's teachings attributed various evil qualities to Jews. He
>thus described Jews to his pupils as 'treacherous', 'subversive',
>'sadistic', 'money-loving', 'power hungry" and 'child killers'.  He taught
>his classes that Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are
>responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution.
>According to Mr. Keegstra, Jews 'created the Holocaust to gain sympathy'
>and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be
>deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. Mr. Keegstra expected his
>students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams.  If they failed
>to do so, their marks suffered." 

>It's almost obscene to even try and claim that Keegstra's words were
>"political". If Keegstra was not clearly and undoubtedly trying to create
>an atmosphere of intense hatred against Jews, that could very easily lead
>to violence if such views were imposed on larger numbers of people, what
>exactly was he trying to do? 

It stuns me that you actually cannot understand that these views you
quote above are not *entirely* political in nature. What you are
objecting to is the *political message and presumed import* of such
views, according to your own subjective analysis and political
prejudices. What you are objecting to is the stage upon which these
views were propounded. What you are objecting to is that the students
were denied the education they, their parents and Keegstra's employers
had a right to expect under the terms of his employment contract. But
the right to free political expression applies inside and outside of a
classroom, and the government is spitting on the Charter to make laws
denying this. And the private civil employment contracts that people
enter into are civil matters, not criminal, and if there is some sort
of fraud or dereliction such a crime must be applicable to any and
all, and not entirely dependent upon the expression of certain
unpopular political views towards certain powerful groups.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:48 PST 1996
Article: 36311 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:47:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <4j2k50$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4iua8g$l21@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:511 alt.censorship:74708 alt.revisionism:28127 can.politics:36311 alt.society.civil-liberties:6857

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>Laura Finsten  wrote:
>>>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>[edit]

>>>>... I do not
>>>>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>>>>with respect to defeating these criminals.
>>
>>>Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>>>murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

>>They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>>of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
>>support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>>deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>>affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>>upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>>treated by the state.

>Not that I think that this would be cause for justifiable homicide.
>But (1) in Ontario, there are no gender quotas for admissions to
>colleges and universities, and I am fairly certain that there are
>no such quotas in other provinces either, including Quebec. 

Affirmative action and its technical variants are a matter of law, not
conjecture. I have gone over this at length in the past and would
simply suggest that you review Section 15 of the Charter of Rights,
and then consult the various employment equity and other affirmative
action laws, programs and activities demanded and enforced by the
government. The Charter gives the government the power to discriminate
against anyone, on the basis of any of the characteristics which
Section 15 (1) expressly prohibits discrimination upon, if they claim
they are doing so to "ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged
groups or individuals". Those "disadvantaged groups" are specifically
set out in legislation: Women, Aboriginal People, Visible Minorities
and the Disabled. Please note that this means that everybody in Canada
is a member, legally, of a disadvantaged group---except non-disabled
white males. This means, in turn, that no discriminatory laws are
possible against anyone but non-disabled white males---because they
would be counter to the Charter----while simultaneously no
discriminatory laws are possible for the benefit of non-disabled white
males (in Nursing, as an example) because they are not a
"disadvantaged group".

The governments of Canada deliberately, by law and constitutional
authority, discriminate against a single group of people solely on the
basis of their sex and colour. No alleged right or freedom can be used
to overturn such laws, because these laws explicitly deny all rights
and freedoms to non-disabled white males by Constitutional fiat.

The people that legislate, enforce and support these laws are
criminals thugs. They have created a criminal society with predictable
and unavoidable consequences. 

> So
>this suggests (2) that your "evidence" that Lepine's victims were
>taking advantage of an affirmative action programme is their very
>presence at the college.  Is this indeed what you are saying, Mr.
>Kolding, that any woman in college or university, or in a job that
>you think rightly belongs to a man, is there not on her own
>merits?  Are you saying that any woman who seeks higher education
>or professional employment deserves to be killed?

Why address such imponderables to me? The government doesn't seem to
have any problem with saying---and enforcing at the point of a gun---
that any non-disabled white male who seeks virtually any place in
society can be be denied solely on the basis of THEIR sex. As I
remarked before, if females wish to support, and choose to benefit
>from  crimes against humanity, they deserve what they will inevitably
get: The dark and violent affirmative action society,






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:49 PST 1996
Article: 36314 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:48:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <4j2k6b$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:512 alt.censorship:74710 alt.revisionism:28128 can.politics:36314 alt.society.civil-liberties:6858

Neil  wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Laura Finsten  wrote:
>> >Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>> >murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   
>> 
>> They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>> of men in general, and Lepine in particular.

>If a woman who benefitted from the same "legal oppression" you speak of,
>decided to hire you and give you employment, you would also be a
>beneficiary of the evil system you refer to.

I'm not surprised to see you reduced to this intellectual penury.
Doubtless you think the slaves of the Old South were also
"beneficiaries" of the evil system they laboured under. Presumably
those who protested this you would have recommended being charged
under whatever "hate" laws you could dig up.

...[some deleted]...

>> If females wish to
>> support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>> deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>> affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>> upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>> treated by the state.

>That this man claims to be a supporter of "free speech" is a joke. He has
>no concept of reality, no concept of justice. Where was the right to free
>speech for those women, Kolding? 

In exactly the same place as equality before and under the law is for
non-disabled white males. I find it ironic, and typical, that those
most enamoured with the legal enforcement of discrimination against
white males, based solely on their race and sex, should somehow find
the application of the principle by others "inconceivable" and
"unjust". 

Really, Neil, what is so inconceivably unreal and unjust about other
people applying precisely the same rules of political logic that you
and the government do?



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:50 PST 1996
Article: 36319 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:45:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>  <4ifl6e$o9l@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:41887 can.general:73017 can.politics:36319

Neil  wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> I was simply pointing out how your understanding of the law is flawed.
>> You keep on maintianing that the law is about the propagation of
>> "hatred" when it is about the suppression of unpopular political
>> opinion. I am reminded of those who thought the Nuremburg laws were
>> simply about the racial make-up of German institutions, when they were
>> really about the dispossession and destruction of Jews.

>Again, Kolding, you seem very willing to throw out declaratory statements
>("your understanding of the law is flawed", "the law... is about the
>suppression of the unpopular political opinion") without offering the
>slightest bit of evidence to back them up.

Alas, I offer endless "evidence", but you simply ignore anything said
that does not confirm your own views. You seem incapable of
independent thought, and examine the world as if it was designed to
your own plan. Variations to the blueprint, or outright omissions,
only inspire in you Orwellian doublethink.

>It's very easy to argue in this
>manner, but I'm afraid it really doesn't help you at all since no one, but
>yourself, buys it. 

It isn't that easy---You have almost no ability to make "declaratory"
statements not already approved of by government and the courts. In
fact, I'm quite sure you are not stimulated to form any opinion
whatsoever until your complacent, cow-like mentality is jostled. Then,
you charge in whatever direction the unusual sounds are emanating
from, shouting to one and all that they must be stopped, by criminal
proceedings if necessary.

>Why should they? The Nuremburg Laws are a convenient
>little analogy for you, but despite claiming that they are "similar" to
>Section 319, you haven't shown us HOW they are similar.  

I have made such comparisons many times, each time offering the
undeniable evidence. You just don't care to respond to arguments you
can't defeat.

>Neither have you
>offered to tell me HOW Section 319 is about "political opinions" (despite
>the fact that I've offered you many opportunities to explain your
>definition of what a political opinion is, and the many times I've asked
>you to explain how Keegstra's words of "subversive, sadistic
>child-killers" were political opinions). Neither have you bothered to
>explain HOW my knowledge of the law is "flawed". 

You are quite welcome to your fantasies, Neil, but you shouldn't make
them the basis of articles that can be refuted by the simple
resposting of previous, and lengthy, articles of your own. I have
defined what a political opinion is---you never have. Yet it is you
who wishes to incarcerate people on the basis of certain opinions that
are political when some say them, but not when others do. I have gone
to some length pointing out your flawed understanding of the law,
giving examples with respect to its declared principles and stated
intent, and its perverse application. Yet it passes by and over your
closed mind like most other arguments inconvenient to your passively
entrenched and utterly prejudiced views.


>By the way, everyone, since I have refused to quote every single reference
>in this post, since I hate messy posts and past quotes are easily
>accessible elsewhere, Kolding should, if he's consistent, whine about me
>being a censor now. [muffled laugh]

I have never "whined" about anything you do, Neil. You are a natural
censor. You see censorship as not only essential, but something to be
applied simply upon your own, private subjective terms of reference.
When you don't like some stranger's views you feel perfectly happy and
justified in trying to deny those views being expressed or heard by
anyone.

>> >Perhaps it does. I'm not a lawyer. All I know is that Section 319(2) of
>> >the criminal code of Canada protects all Canadians who are being attacked
>> >by hate crimes on the basis of their race, colour of skin, religion or
>> >ethnicity, and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. 
>> 
>> Why do you think merely stating the law is somehow an argument
>> supporting it?

>Are you implying that what you said just now is somehow an argument
>opposing it? 

I'm saying that you do not offer any arguments to justify this law
whatsoever. Quoting the terms of an indisputably prejudiced and
tryannous law is not an argument either in support or against. It is
not an argument of any sort whatsoever. I, on the other hand, have
addressed all my arguments upon what the terms mean, who they exclude,
the Charter provisions they contravene and their incompatibility with
the liberal, democratic spirit of the last 150 years. Naturally, you
cannot meet any of these arguments, because you have no conception of
independently assessing the actions and crimes of those in authority,
nor imagining that what is publically declared to be done with good
intentions could possibly be privately understood to be something
quite different.



>> 
>> >> Hath not a male eyes? hath
>> >> not a male hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
>> >> fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the
>> >> same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same
>> >> winter and summer as a Jew is? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if
>> >> you poison us, do we not die? 
>> 
>> >Look everybody. Kolding's a poet and doesn't even knowit! 
>> 
>> Confused by Shakespeare, Neil? I fear I am casting pearls before swine
>> in this discussion.

>Replace "male" with "female" and "Jew" with "man", then apply these words
>to the arguments you have made about Marc Lepine's slaughter of innocent
>women in Montreal. By the way, you should at least have the courtesy to
>cite your sources when quoting other people's work, Kolding. Or did you
>delete Shakespeare's name as an act of CENSORSHIP? 

If you are not aware of the author of one of the most famous quotes in
the English language, what possible use would it serve to provide you
with any sources, Neil? And by the way, did I or did I not actually
take the time and effort to point out that the quote was from
Shakespeare, when it became perfectly apparent that you were an
ill-educated clod?

>> The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene. Or has this masterpiece also now
>> fallen foul of the speech laws?

>I don't care if it's from the Bible. A threat is a threat. But then,
>you're not exactly known to be sincere in anything that you spout on the
>Internet, and probably elsewhere as well. 

Now you question my sincerity? The central point in all your
complaints regarding my posts can only be because they ARE sincere,
Neil, not otherwise. Or are you frothing at the mouth because I'm just
kidding you along?



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:51 PST 1996
Article: 36320 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Zundel lies to supporters and press (was Re: "_I_ don'
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:45:39 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4j2k18$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpk0l$ca7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hqei1$eeu@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4i06mb$pnj@news2.cts.com>  <4i3a4u$18s@news3.cts.com>  <4ifl5q$o9l@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Neil  wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Precisely proving my point. For the fourth---or is it the fifth time
>> time?---how is it that certain political opinions 
>[SNIP]

>This discussion will go nowhere until you post your definition of a
>political opinion. Do so, unless you don't have one, in which case it's
>obvious that you have no real argument. 

I have already posted my definition, as well as given examples. It is
you who have failed in this duty you demand of others, Neil. This
explains why you have literally nothing to say.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:51 PST 1996
Article: 36321 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Zundel lies to supporters and press (was Re: "_I_ don'
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 04:46:30 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <4j2k2t$t5m@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpk0l$ca7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hqei1$eeu@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4i06mb$pnj@news2.cts.com>  <4i3a4u$18s@news3.cts.com>  <4icfb0$5pj@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj5s$1dt@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Simply answer the question, now put to you for possibly the tenth
>> time: Why is hatred propagated against males, females, the poor, the
>> sick or the homeless not a criminal offense, but that propagated
>> against Jews and Blacks is? This is in direct contradiction to the
>> Equality section of the Charter, which guarantees EVERYONE equal
>> rights before and under the law.

>You are comparing acts of hatred against people based on their gender,
>financial status and health status to hatred against people based on their
>race. This is clearly an invalid analogy.

It's perfectly valid. The test is simply to change the crime, rather
than the status of the victims, and see if the Charter would allow it.
If the crime---as I have argued before---was "killing" rather than
"propagating hatred", the equality section of the Charter would not
permit the constitutionality of the law, and the Supreme Court would
be exposed for what it actually is if it did not return such a
finding.

>A valid comparison would be to
>say that, of people being subjected to hate crimes due to their race,
>there is inequality, i.e., whites are not protected by hate crimes, but
>blacks are. To suggest that "everyone" is not guaranteed equal rights
>under the law is completely incorrect, because if you are a victim of
>hatred because you are white, you are afforded the same protection from
>the law as someone who is a victim of hatred because he is black. 

The argument you are now making is that "the propagation of hatred"
against people is not the problem that the law addresses---which is
what I have been arguing since the beginning of this discussion.  What
this law is all about is the criminalising of "hateful" (read
unpopular) opinions when they are directed against special, powerful
groups in society, but permitting them against others. This is not
permitted under the equality provisions of the Charter which demands
that everyone be equal before and under the law. To compound this by
additionally denying the Charter-guaranteed fundamental freedom of
speech when it irritates a special class of citizens makes a mockery
of Canada, the Charter, the Judiciary and all those who support this
plainly corrupt law and the people who enforce and support it.


>As for the handicapped, and the other examples you gave, I agree that
>these groups of people (who are already protected by Section 319, by the
>way), deserve protection as well. Since there is currently no demand for
>laws that protect the handicapped from hate crimes targetted against them
>specifically for their handicapped status, since hate crimes against
>handicapped people have not yet become a major issue in Canada, a law
>specifically protecting them has not yet been passed. You are arguing that
>the protection of Section 319 should be expanded to different categories
>of people, which contradicts your general argument, which I find very
>interesting. Either way, your argument does nothing to suggest that
>Section 319 should be removed from the books. You're arguing that its
>influence should be expanded, in fact. Hypocrisy at its finest, yet again. 

I tire of repeating arguments already made over and over again: This
law is not MY doing. The Charter is not MY doing. I have absolutely no
problem with the hate laws being "expanded" to include every special
interest group now extant---it would certainly expose them for the
tyranny they represent. For the hate law to be consistent with
Charter guarantees that allegedly are given to everyone, everyone must
have equal access before and under the law to be protected from the
same crimes. People may not, according to the Charter, be denied
protection under the law on the basis of a long list of declared and
implied immutable personal characteristics. Furthermore, the reason
that such articles are included in Charters and their kin is precisely
to defeat the nonsense you propound above----people should NOT have to
apply for separate protection under the law. The government, in other
words, must NOT be allowed to build class-based laws where a citizen's
*group status* determines if a crime has actually occured.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:52 PST 1996
Article: 36604 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 06:39:37 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4j83eo$gq1@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com>  <4j58ih$nh9@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:564 alt.censorship:74940 alt.revisionism:28325 can.politics:36604 alt.society.civil-liberties:6941

Neil  wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> hce@magmacom.com (Howard Eisenberger) wrote:
>> >By what standard or charter or constitution is a political opinion
>> >immune from moral judgement when that opinion is the glorification
>> >of cold-blooded murder? 
>> 
>> On the standard that slaves are not morally responsible for *anything*
>> that happens in their masters' domain.

>And who are you a slave of, Kolding? 

Conscience and justice. And may I say that you are far overdue for a
similar submission.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:53 PST 1996
Article: 36786 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:33:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4jb91j$env@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ivlen$vfg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3dtu$dqq@news2.cts.com> <4j6sb3$ll7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:596 alt.censorship:75152 alt.revisionism:28537 can.politics:36786 alt.society.civil-liberties:6999

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>>>What were the good intentions behind Lepine murdering 15 innocent women?

>>The intentions of those who legislate, enforce and support affirmative
>>action I leave for those involved in those criminal activities to
>>explain. The result of those activities, however, is inevitable: Some
>>of the oppressed are going to fight back.

>Uh huh.  And because the Lepines of the world have such a problem with
>legislation like affirmative action on humanistic grounds, they take
>out fourteen young women whose only "crime" is to get an education.
>So much more sensible and reasonable than directing their psychopathic
>violence at the legislators, for example, and so much more effective
>than challenging the law.

Strange how the actions of a man who was denied, by law, the right to
equality before and under the law simply because of his race and sex
is termed as "psychopathic", while those taken by those who legislate,
enforce, support and deliberately benefit from such oppression are
seen as "reasonable" and "sensible". By any sane stahdard, it is the
latter group who are exhibiting real psychopathic behaviour.

 




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:54 PST 1996
Article: 36787 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:33:52 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <4jb92e$env@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.u <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4j1ba1$47su@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3ea9$dqq@news2.cts.com> <4j6vl2$ll7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:597 alt.censorship:75153 alt.revisionism:28538 can.politics:36787 alt.society.civil-liberties:7000

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>[edit]

>>> Do you say that Marc Lepine, who murdered 14 (I had the number 
>>>wrong) innocent women in Montreal in 1989 is a hero?

>>Under no circumstances. The hero Marc Lepine murdered no one, and the
>>females in question were not innocent. One can hardly be accused of
>>any crime under laws deliberately drafted to exclude you from their
>>protection; and you can hardly make claims of "innocence" when, on
>>occasion, the knifeblade of a slave is rammed through your back.

>So in your estimation, any able-bodied white male is entitled to kill
>anyone who is not an able-bodied white male? 

"Entitlement" is hardly the word. The problem is not one of sex or
race relations, but of political and social reality. If you are a
non-disabled white male you are, by law, explicitly denied equality
before and under the law whenever the government wants you to be, by
fiat. This is not a "choice", or an "opinion", but a matter of legal
fact, and entrenched in the Charter of Rights. The enemy is not
therefore defined by race or sex, but by their acts: If a person
legislates, enforces, supports or deliberately benefits from this
oppression they should not be surprised when the oppressed target them
in return. And the activities of the oppressed, when they are
explicitly denied legal rights, can not, sanely, be held accountable
to these same laws. 

>So you are arguing that
>when a law is unjust, drastic action is justifiable? 

No, all my arguments are made with respect to the Canadian status quo,
and the legal and social position of non-disabled white males within
it. If I thought that non-violent action would succeed, I would say
so. But I am personally aware that talk and reason, and appeals to
justice and conscience, have met with nothing but the legal
entrenchment of slavery. Violence is not simply the only policy, but
the inevitable one. The consequences of the law are and will be
violent, and that violence will be directed against the enemy by the
oppressed. There is nothing particularly original or suprising in this
analysis, as it simply follows invariable historical processes.


>That when social
>justice has not been forthcoming to an entire group of people, that
>draconian measures should be used to remedy the situation? 

"Social justice" is a meaningless term, and deliberately so I suspect.

I have tried to address my arguments to actual, irrefutable legal
practices in Canada, and have provided lengthy articles supporting
them.

>Would you
>argue that before 1918, women would have been justified in killing
>any and all men?  Or that before various laws were changed only 20
>years ago or so to finally make it possible for women to borrow money
>without a husband's or father's cosignature, women would have been
>justified in murdering any man they felt like killing?

If you are arguing that the position of females somehow justifies
entrenching a system of tacit slavery of non-disabled white men, I
suspect you will be hard-pressed to explain why not ALL men are so
treated. The activities and complaints of females in the year 1917 are
all very interesting, but I fail to see how present-day
nineteen-year-old, non-disabled white men can be said to have
contributed to them.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:55 PST 1996
Article: 36788 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,can.politics
Subject: Re: Canadian Hate-Propaganda Law (was Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:34:05 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4jb92r$env@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4igk22$348@Networking.Stanford.EDU>  <4iq7j9$1tqs@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4iqc91$a37@elaine20.Stanford.EDU> <4j1b8n$1fc4@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3e8h$dqq@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:28539 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:598 can.politics:36788

Neil  wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>> >*That's* the kind of publicity these slugs crave, and that money can't buy. 
>> >It gets them into the public limelight and it's all paid for by others. 
>> >That is the publicity the lack of a prosecution will deny Zuendel.  And
>> >while I feel he is a candidate for conviction under the hate law, I agree
>> >not to prosecute him for these reasons.
>> 
>> Thank you for acknowledging publically that you agree with me that the
>> "law" is applied in Canada only on the basis of political advantage or
>> the status of those who would be involved. That a crime may or may not
>> have been committed is now entirely irrelevant.

>It is the prosecutor's duty and obligation to represent the interests of
>the Canadian people when making prosecutorial decisions. If he decides
>that prosecuting a certain case would cause more harm to society than not,
>you may label it a "political decision", but it is what the prosecutor is
>expected to do. It is why the role of prosecutor even exists. 

You are simply incorrect. A prosecutor's job in a modern liberal
democracy is to ensure the Rule of Law, NOT the selective prosecution
of crimes. When the prosecution of a criminal is seen to harm society,
it is the duty of the lawmakers to repeal the law, not maintain the
law and release the criminal. That Canada has sunk so deep in
corruption that corrupt practice is now held up as duty-bound
behaviour is typical of the pathology that has infected so many
Canadians nowadays.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:56 PST 1996
Article: 36906 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!apollo.isisnet.com!news2.interlog.com!winternet.com!guitar.sound.net!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ont.general,tor.general,can.general,can.politics,can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 12:12:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4j3e5s$dqq@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4j0711$hj2@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42181 ont.general:36604 can.general:73334 can.politics:36906 soc.culture.canada:84512

Neil  wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Not at all. Such activity earned you kook-of-the-month status, a
>> difficult acheivement given the competition on this newsgroup alone.

>All I have to say about this topic is: Kolding had me as kook-of-the-month
>one month, and Prime Minister Jean Chretien the next.  I'd say I'm in
>pretty good company. Thanks for the attention, Kolding. 

You're more than welcome. Censor's always have a leg-up when it comes
to kookiness. Just let me know when you, too, are reduced to
strangling people for what they say, and you can replace your current
hero in the league standings.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:56 PST 1996
Article: 36917 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!apollo.isisnet.com!news2.interlog.com!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!uniserve!van-bc!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 12:07:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4j3dtu$dqq@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ivlen$vfg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:610 alt.censorship:75280 alt.revisionism:28702 can.politics:36917 alt.society.civil-liberties:7027

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>>The root problem, as I see it, is that they confuse their intentions with
>>their actions, and honestly belive that ANY action undertaken from "good"
>>intentions is not simply morally correct, but morally defensible. Thus the
>>rationalising of evil acts as good ones is completed with the mere
>>conception of a pretty thought.

>What were the good intentions behind Lepine murdering 15 innocent women?

The intentions of those who legislate, enforce and support affirmative
action I leave for those involved in those criminal activities to
explain. The result of those activities, however, is inevitable: Some
of the oppressed are going to fight back.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:57 PST 1996
Article: 36941 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:27:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <4jdt2p$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj8n$1dt@news2.cts.com> <4imdae$gkd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4iqet5$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4iua8g$l21@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4j2k50$t5m@news2.cts.com> <4j6lmj$d1a@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:611 alt.censorship:75321 alt.revisionism:28752 can.politics:36941 alt.society.civil-liberties:7036

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>Laura Finsten  wrote:

>>>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>>>Laura Finsten  wrote:
>>>>>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>[edit]

>>>>>>... I do not
>>>>>>condemn violence, but explicitly suggest that it is the only answer
>>>>>>with respect to defeating these criminals.

>>>>>Explain to me what law the fourteen engineering students Marc Lepine
>>>>>murdered in cold blood were breaking, PKolding.  Can we start there?   

>>>>They consciously and deliberately benefited from the legal oppression
>>>>of men in general, and Lepine in particular. If females wish to
>>>>support, and choose to benefit from crimes against humanity, they
>>>>deserve what they will inevitably get: The dark and violent
>>>>affirmative action society, where they will be targeted for violence
>>>>upon exactly the same principles that they insist and expect men to be
>>>>treated by the state.

>>>Not that I think that this would be cause for justifiable homicide.
>>>But (1) in Ontario, there are no gender quotas for admissions to
>>>colleges and universities, and I am fairly certain that there are
>>>no such quotas in other provinces either, including Quebec. 

>>Affirmative action and its technical variants are a matter of law, not
>>conjecture. I have gone over this at length in the past and would
>>simply suggest that you review Section 15 of the Charter of Rights,
>>and then consult the various employment equity and other affirmative
>>action laws, programs and activities demanded and enforced by the
>>government. The Charter gives the government the power to discriminate
>>against anyone, on the basis of any of the characteristics which
>>Section 15 (1) expressly prohibits discrimination upon, if they claim
>>they are doing so to "ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged
>>groups or individuals". Those "disadvantaged groups" are specifically
>>set out in legislation: Women, Aboriginal People, Visible Minorities
>>and the Disabled. Please note that this means that everybody in Canada
>>is a member, legally, of a disadvantaged group---except non-disabled
>>white males. This means, in turn, that no discriminatory laws are
>>possible against anyone but non-disabled white males---because they
>>would be counter to the Charter----while simultaneously no
>>discriminatory laws are possible for the benefit of non-disabled white
>>males (in Nursing, as an example) because they are not a
>>"disadvantaged group".

>I notice that you failed to answer my question.  Because of the 
>existence of affirmative action, all women by definition are, in
>your sick mind, guilty of some crime against humanity? 

There seems little point to persist in this discussion if you
perpetually ignore the answers I supply you with. If a person
legislates, enforces, supports or deliberately benefits from the
legally-sanctioned oppression of non-disabled white men he, she or it
is guilty of crimes against humanity. What part of this very clear and
unambiguous statement---that I have posted over and over and over---do
you not understand?

>I take it
>your definition of humanity is limited to non-disabled white males.

>How simple life would be if past processes had no effect on the present.
>Personally, I have some difficulty with equal opportunity because of 
>the inherent contradiction it embodies.  But it must be viewed in
>recent historical context.

Then I suggest you view Lepine's actions in exactly the same light.

>I find your discussion interesting for a couple of reasons.  First,
>you seem to saying that group responsibility exists. 

I am not saying this thing---the law is. The Affirmative Action
Culture is not MY doing, but that of those who legislate, enforce,
support and deliberately benefit from the legal enforcement of "group
responsibility" against a single group: Non-disabled white males. My
views with respect to those who support these laws is simply that they
have nothing to complain about when the principle they support is
adopted and used against them.



...[much re-hash deleted]...

>White males are still the most employed, best paid and "most
>successful" group in North American society, by a long shot.  White
>males in Canada make nearly 150 percent of what women make.  They have
>far higher rates of full-time employment with benefits.  They are
>promoted faster and to higher levels within organisations than most
>women could ever hope to achieve.  Your view is reality is so twisted
>by your hatred of anyone who isn't a "white non-disabled male" that
>you really need psychiatric help.

All you are doing is rationalising evil. You are simply arguing that
white males should be discriminated on the basis of their sex and
race. It is the identical argument that the Nazis used with respect to
the "Jew-dominated" institutions of German society in the Thirties.
There were, indeed, a "disproportionate" number of Jews in high
positions in the Civil Service and other professions, but arguing that
therefore Jews should be legally denied access to equality before and
under the law on that basis is the product of a pathological ideology.

But, of course, all oppressors always exempt themselves from the
possibility that their forms of criminality and discrimination are in
any way comparable to other, indistinguishable examples. 

By the way, why do you defend discrimination against men on the basis
of "diversity" and proportional representation, but only on the basis
of privilege rather than oppression in society? I mean to say, if the
problem is that the population of the institutions of society must be
reflective of its  sexual and racial proportions, and that an
imbalance is somehow inherently "unjust", surely it is at the bottom
of society---where real oppression takes place---that such proportions
should be engineered, rather than at the top.

99% of prison cells are filled with men, Finsten. Why are you not
arguing for laws to be changed, therefore, so that 52% of them be
occupied in future by females, rather than the 1% that are occupied
now? If "systemic" discrimination is the cause and reason for the
enforcement of AA, surely this discrimination is most undeniably and
poisonously felt there.





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:58 PST 1996
Article: 36942 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:28:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <4jdt4n$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.censorship:75322 can.politics:36942 alt.society.civil-liberties:7037

Neil  wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >Please define for us "political opinion" and how Keegstra's words
>> >describing Jews fit under this definition. 
>> 
>> Thank you for the opportunity to clear this up for you: The views
>> Keegstra was arrested, jailed, charged and convicted upon, constituted
>> his political opinions.

>He did not teach them as opinions, actually. He taught them as facts. 
>Have you ever had a teacher who penalized you on exams for not having the
>same "opinion" as he did? 

Of course. I recall distinctly taking history exams where most
questions were begun in the form "Give your opinion of the Triple
Alliance....". etc.


>> Note that the central theme is "opinion" and
>> the descriptive tag is "political." Keegstra's views were those
>> opinions regarding what he considered to be in the realm of public
>> affairs.

>Are you then telling us that anything that any person, even a neo-Nazi,
>believes to be "in the realm of public affairs" is a political opinion, is
>therefore a political opinion? I still see no definition for the term,
>although I have asked you at least 15 or 20 times now. "In the realm of
>public affairs", by the way, could be applied to anything that anyone
>says. 

It could be. But are you really arguing that any publically-stated
opinion regarding the conduct of world affairs is not a political
opinion? You seem to be approaching the problem from a singularly
authoritarian point-of-view, where people must be obliged to prove the
"political" nature of their opinions against an arbitrary standard not
their own. 


>My running into a packed theatre and screaming, "Fire!", thus
>causing a stampede and the deaths and injuries of many innocent people is
>also something that falls under "the realm of public affairs", as would be
>anything I said about someone else that were libellous or defamatory. 

You are being ridiculously simple-minded. If someone runs into a
theatre and screams "Fire!" and NO ONE stampedes, and there are no
deaths and injuries, does this mean that the expression is now a bona
fide political expression to you? A political opinion can certainly be
defamatory or libellous. But when the speaker is brought up on charges
relating to such incidents, these are based on the act of defamation
or libel, not the status of the victims. The laws with respect to
libel and defamation do not examine the complainant as to his
Jewishness or his skin colour before proceeding, but are concerned
with defamation and libel. The hate laws, on the other hand, rely
entirely upon finding a designated, privileged class that the speech
mentions. But we have gone into this at length, already. 

Under the present hate law, legal political views when addressing a
non-privileged class are protected speech, but identical sentiments
expressed against certain, legally-sanctioned privileged classes may
constitute a criminal offense. The law itself, in fact, is solely
about "political crimes" by its very definiton, and thus any speech
that comes under its purview MUST be political in nature.

>> If they were not his stated opinions he is not the person who
>> should have been charged, and if they did not concern the affairs of
>> "the public", by whatever narrow definition the law gives that term,
>> he could not have been charged under the hate law. 

>They were his stated opinions, he was charged for them. They did concern
>the affairs of the public, and so the public took action upon it. Justice
>is served. 

Now you are contradicting yourself. If Keegstra expressed opinions
regarding public affairs he was indulging in political speech of the
most unambiguous kind. And for this the government had him arrested,
jailed, charged and convicted. 



>> Please do try and see the idiocy of your position. My views on
>> Lepine's actions are a matter of record. You, yourself, have even
>> tried to have my ISP access removed because I have justified these
>> views with remarkable, and to you, frightening success. 

>"Frightening success"? Pretty confident about yourself, aren't you,
>Kolding?

It's not a matter of confidence, but elementary logic. You have tried
to censor my posts, and you have publically declared your intention to
ignore my posts, yet, here you are---months later---still obsessively
concerned with the views of someone you repeatedly have claimed has no
credibility at all. One can only conclude that you're frightened by
the successful way I have managed to justify my views.

>Confident to proclaim yourself "frighteningly successful" in
>arguing your points, even though I've yet to see any objective reader of
>this thread comment on your "frightening success". Thanks for the laugh. 
>And are you still whining over my e-mailing your ISP? Poor baby, I didn't
>know you were so sensitive. 

I'm sorry I mention your attempts to censor whenever you claim not to
be a censor. Poor little Neil, how horribly awkward the situation must
be for you.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:05:59 PST 1996
Article: 36943 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:30:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4jdt7u$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com>  <4j58ih$nh9@news2.cts.com>  <4j83eo$gq1@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:612 alt.censorship:75323 alt.revisionism:28753 can.politics:36943 alt.society.civil-liberties:7038

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote: "On the standard that slaves are not
>morally responsible for *anything* that happens in their masters' domain." 

>And I asked: "And who are you a slave of, Kolding?"

>And Kolding responded: "Conscience and justice. And may I say that you are
>far overdue for a similar submission." 

>You are a slave of conscience and justice? How revolutionary of you. If
>your "masters" are conscience and justice, how does that justify the
>murder of innocent people, since they are _not_ your masters? 

Which "innocent" people are you referring to? Those who are denied, by
law, equality before and under the law solely on the basis of their
sex and race, or those who deliberately benefit from that oppression?



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:00 PST 1996
Article: 36948 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Special interest groups!
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:25:46 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4jdsvq$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@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 <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com writes:
>>
>>"acts" that you wish to incorporate as one of the prohibited forms of
>>discrimination. One's "orientation" is hardly a matter of "consensus",

>Orientation is either male or female. A magnet doesn't have 3 poles, 
>and what's more, a person's orientation is their own business, not yours.

I don't quite know what you are objecting to, and I don't know why you
suppose "orientation" is so defined. The underlying point of these
types of anti-discrimination laws, after all, is about the lack of
"choice" people have with respect to their race, sex or sexual
orientation, not about any "acts" they may choose to undertake. The
modern view seems to be that "sexual orientation" is genetically
inspired, while sexual activity is very much culturally and socially
controlled.

The demand for laws that confirm implicitly the immutability of sexual
orientation must inevitably lead to the protection against
discrimination of all "sexual orientations", while simultaneously
outlawing the actual practice of any number of them. I have no
particular problem with this, but I just don't see how the general
public is going to accept the idea of self-admitted, but allegedly
non-practicing deviants being protected from discrimination on the
basis of their sexual orientation. For example, I do not see how a law
forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation cannot be
invoked by paedophiles who seek employment in schools, and claim they
are "non-practicing". Is the Canadian public really ready to accept
the possibility of people being sued and dragged before "human rights"
tribunals by self-acknowledged paedophiles seeking to teach and care
for their children? It seems a recipe for social disaster.





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:01 PST 1996
Article: 36976 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!news.ccs.queensu.ca!kone!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:31:13 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <4jdta2$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>  <4ifl6e$o9l@news2.cts.com>  <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com> <4j8tdv$7op@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42213 can.general:73392 can.politics:36976

rkrasich@awinc.com wrote:

>In article <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com says...
>>

>>
>>I have never "whined" about anything you do, Neil. You are a natural
>>censor. You see censorship as not only essential, but something to be
>>applied simply upon your own, private subjective terms of reference.
>>When you don't like some stranger's views you feel perfectly happy and
>>justified in trying to deny those views being expressed or heard by
>>anyone.

>I would like to raise this question again, because I have either
>missed the answer or it hasn't been given.

>Given the fact that a coercive relationship exists between
>teacher and student, then Keegstra was not simply expressing
>his political opinions, he was enforcing them, marking and grading
>his students on their regurgitation of his political opinions.

The first point I note is that you understand that Keegstra was
expressing his political opinion. He is allowed to do that according
to the Charter, and he is allowed to do it inside or outside a
classroom. The second point I note is that you understand that
Keegstra was employed as a teacher, and therefore his activities,
including the speeches and tests he may propose, are subject---by
mutual agreement between he and his employers---to his employment
contract, an entirely civil matter.

>Given that the students did not have the opportunity to dispute his
>views except at the risk of their grades, given that they couldn't
>simply leave the room when he started express his "personal" opinions
>the coercive situation takes on a nature that is outside the issue of
>free speech.

This is entirely incorrect. The restraint on the activities of
students would be no different had Keegstra followed the curriculum
faultlessly. 

>Keegstra was certainly not allowing free speech to those in his
>classrooms whose sincerely held political beliefs were different from his.
>Or does Keegstra have the right to free speech without extending that
>same right to those who are around him?

Neither Keegstra nor the students are empowered to "extend" any rights
to anyone. The relationship between the two is classically "civil" in
nature, as he is not guilty of anything but breaking his employment
contract.

>Keegstra's defence was also interesting in that his first line of
>defence was not entitlement to free speech but that he was telling
>the truth.  There was clear intent on his part of make his students
>adhere to his political beliefs through abuse of the power inherent
>in the student/teacher relationship.  He was deliberately and systematically
>developing lesson plans, essays and examinations which forced these
>students to hold his beliefs, at least on paper.  

It is absurd to judge Keegstra's---or anyone's---defence against a
charge on the basis of the terms the law dictates as establishing
innocence. A defence under the law he was charged under was that he
was telling the factual truth. I, personally, have no doubt that
Keegstra sincerely believes his views to be factually true---but the
standard that one becomes a criminal if the Court disagrees with your
sincerely held beliefs is the government's convenient rule, not the
accused's.

>Keegstra's opinions are not criminal - his method of promulgating them
>was.

Then he should have been found not guilty under the law. There is no
difference between the "expression" of one's political opinions and
the "advocacy" of one's political opinions, except to the biased and
politically prejudiced.


 



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:02 PST 1996
Article: 36977 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!news.ccs.queensu.ca!kone!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Zundel lies to supporters and press (was Re: "_I_ don'
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:31:57 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4jdtbc$s1s@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpk0l$ca7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4hqei1$eeu@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4i06mb$pnj@news2.cts.com>  <4i3a4u$18s@news3.cts.com>  <4icfb0$5pj@news2.cts.com>  <4ilj5s$1dt@news2.cts.com>  <4j2k2t$t5m@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Neil  wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> It's perfectly valid. The test is simply to change the crime, rather
>> than the status of the victims, and see if the Charter would allow it.
>> If the crime---as I have argued before---was "killing" rather than
>> "propagating hatred", the equality section of the Charter would not
>> permit the constitutionality of the law, and the Supreme Court would
>> be exposed for what it actually is if it did not return such a
>> finding.

>The law is applied equally to all individuals. If you are a victim of a
>hate crime on the basis of your race, you are provided equal protection as
>Somalis are on the basis of their race. 

Your now legendary illiteracy seems to be playing havoc with your
understanding yet again. If the crime was "killing" rather than
"propagating hatred" would you say that killing females would
perfectly OK, since, according to you, they are not an identifiable
group, the law is applied equally to all individuals, and the Court
has found that it does not conflict with either the spirit or the
letter of the Charter?





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:02 PST 1996
Article: 37080 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme court and Keegstra - is Rock next liar they go after?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:08:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4jgjrm$hpq@news2.cts.com>
References: <4h3ocs$4fm@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4h7dl6$sn5@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4hfhhm$7o4@news2.cts.com>  <4hr0n4$6nt@news2.cts.com>  <4i8mn2$72m@news2.cts.com>  <4ifl6e$o9l@news2.cts.com>  <4j2k0i$t5m@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42267 can.general:73452 can.politics:37080

Neil  wrote:

>Now, to get back to that
>thing called "the issue", you tried to compare Section 319 to the
>Nuremburg Laws of Nazi Germany. Please demonstrate how. You haven't done
>so before, and if you can't do it at all, admit it. 

Please post a quote where I compared Section 319 to the Nuremburg Laws
of Nazi Germany. 

This is yet another example of the consequences of your illiteracy. As
I have posted before, you seem to be incapable of actually answering
any questions that you do not pose yourself. If you wish to engage
people in argument and discussion, you are going to have to learn to
address the actual arguments made rather than make things up and
attribute the conclusions you draw from your creations, as someone
else's views. What is irksome is that the newsgroup forum is ideally
suited to clarity and the easy posting of quotes, yet you take great
pains to avoid this. I know why you do this, but my chief objection is
that in your endeavours to avoid providing quotes that do not exist
you make things up about OTHER people's views.

...[the usual make-believe deleted]...

>> 
>> If you are not aware of the author of one of the most famous quotes in
>> the English language, what possible use would it serve to provide you
>> with any sources, Neil? And by the way, did I or did I not actually
>> take the time and effort to point out that the quote was from
>> Shakespeare, when it became perfectly apparent that you were an
>> ill-educated clod?

>I think "uneducated" would be a much better choice of words, Kolding. 

Cogently demonstrating, yet again, how ill-educated you really are.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:03 PST 1996
Article: 37082 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:09:25 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4jgjtj$hpq@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6o8$1u62@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ifl7v$o9l@news2.cts.com> <314B6C7E.1B30@itn.is>  <4ii21d$njc@wi.combase.com>  <3154cc87.17807687@news.dnai.com> <4j5i2f$pd1@wi.combase.com> <4j9p3k$53c@shiva.usa.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:624 alt.censorship:75481 alt.revisionism:28979 can.politics:37082 alt.society.civil-liberties:7071

hkatz@earth.usa.net (Harry Katz) wrote:

>In article <4j5i2f$pd1@wi.combase.com>,
>Matt Giwer (mgiwer@combase.com) the would-be cynic demonstrates
>extraordinary naivete:

>	You are whatever you want to be by self proclamation.
>	That is all tht is required.

>If that were so I would have ceased being Jewish long ago!

>It was not Jewish doctrine that convinced me that Jewishness is an
>ethnic, as opposed to religious, quality.  No, it was anti-Jewish
>racists who insist on branding Marx a Jew in spite of the total
>absence of any religious training, background, or inclination.

>It is said that the Nazis arrested people who did not even know they
>had any Jewish blood.  I cannot confirm this, but I can confirm that
>the Nazis did arrest converts to Christianity.  So, regardless of
>"self-proclamation," the reality is that I will be a Jew so long as
>others regard me as a Jew.

You might find the book "The Racial State, Germany 1933-1945", by
Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann (Cambridge University 1991)
useful in understanding the Nazis' methods of legally determining who
was "tainted" by Jewish blood. It even reproduces a diagram used by
the bureaucracy in their efforts to attain this end.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:04 PST 1996
Article: 37083 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.censorship,alt.revisionism,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:10:53 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4jgk0c$hpq@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4hl892$1ru8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hlf45$kah@wi.combase.com> <4hva9m$41qc@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ij38a$lgm@news2.cts.com>  <4ivlen$vfg@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4j3dtu$dqq@news2.cts.com> <4j6sb3$ll7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4jb91j$env@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:625 alt.censorship:75482 alt.revisionism:28980 can.politics:37083 alt.society.civil-liberties:7072

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>In article <4jb91j$env@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>> Laura Finsten  wrote:
>> 
>> >Uh huh.  And because the Lepines of the world have such a problem with
>> >legislation like affirmative action on humanistic grounds, they take
>> >out fourteen young women whose only "crime" is to get an education.
>> >So much more sensible and reasonable than directing their psychopathic
>> >violence at the legislators, for example, and so much more effective
>> >than challenging the law.
>> 
>> Strange how the actions of a man who was denied, by law, the right to
>> equality before and under the law simply because of his race and sex
>> is termed as "psychopathic", while those taken by those who legislate,
>> enforce, support and deliberately benefit from such oppression are
>> seen as "reasonable" and "sensible". By any sane stahdard, it is the
>> latter group who are exhibiting real psychopathic behaviour.

> 
>Mr. Kolding:
> 
>Please go back to your dictionary and read the definition of a
>"psychopath." I think you will find that it is perfectly appropriate for
>Mr. Lepine. Legislators, whatever their private lives, do not, as a group,
>fit that category. You may mnake up whatever definitions you like, but
>according to the accepted ones, you're incorrect.
> 
>However. When you skip ahead a little bit from "psychopath," don't miss
>the definition of "sociopath," because I believe there will be an
>illustration of PKolding as the classic definition.
> 

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to challenge the opinion of one who so
obviously has a deeply personal acquaintance with the term. However,
it seems to me the psychopath's most noticeable characteristic is her
complete lack of conscience, which is reflected by behaviours that
directly contravene the moral standards she parrots for public
consumption. In public, for example, the nascent psychopath is likely
to call for the equal treatment of people, and that no one should be
discriminated against on the basis of their sex or race. In private,
however, she argues for the unequal treatment of people and demands
this type of discrimination. She reveals herself to be a full-blown
psychopath, however, only when she ceases to change this behaviour
with respect to public and private utterances, and is found to be
declaring her unswerving principles for and against equality and for
and against discrimination simply on the basis of what the audience
requires. 



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:05 PST 1996
Article: 37227 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: McFee Spins Out, Crashes in Flames.
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:33:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <4jirk1$rr4@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hosob$t5d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4hpmn8$3dg@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4ht0bj$41r@news2.cts.com> <4i52j9$1noq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4i8mlo$72m@news2.cts.com> <4ia6al$gh3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifl83$o9l@news2.cts.com> <4ilcbd$2deg@news-s01.ny.u <4iqepo$k1v@news2.cts.com> <4j1ba1$47su@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>  <4j668l$90k@news2.cts.com>  <4jb904$env@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.censorship:75600 can.politics:37227 alt.society.civil-liberties:7094

Neil  wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >Do you agree with Keegstra's descriptions or not? What are you scared of? 
>> 
>> It's not a question of fear, it is the demand that I associate or not
>> associate myself with a particular person or group that I object to.
>> When you pose questions in this manner you are conducting a witch hunt
>> in the same manner as the late Senator. Whether you are deliberately
>> engaged in this attempt I have no idea, though, which prompted my
>> response above. 
>> 
>> If you want me to respond to views, state the views and I'll let you
>> know my own.

>The following is based on R. v. Keegstra. 

>According to Keegstra:
>-Jews are treacherous
>-Jews are subversive
>-Jews are sadistic
>-Jews are money-loving
>-Jews are power hungry
>-Jews are child killers
>-Jews seek to destroy Christianity
>-Jews are responsible for depressions
>-Jews are responsible for anarchy
>-Jews are resonsible for chaos
>-Jews are responsible for wars
>-Jews are responsible for revolution
>-Jews created the Holocaust to gain sympathy
>-Jews are deceptive
>-Jews are secretive
>-Jews are inherently evil

Thanks for couching your questions in a more reasonably neutral
manner. I believe the qualities and ambitions listed above have no
uniquely racial, ethnic or religious sponsor.

Now, do you agree with these views you have listed above?  I think, as
you have now set yourself up as an inquisitor, you should clearly
establish your bona fides.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:06 PST 1996
Article: 37230 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!oleane!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A PISSED OFF ONTARIAN
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:34:20 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4jirmf$rr4@news2.cts.com>
References: <903316471@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <363963257@f47.n340.z1.ftn>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Ken Wiebe  wrote:

>In response to a message from Zeljko "Zed" Zidaric to All:


>Z"Z> I remember seeing a quote by someone while I was studying
>Z"Z> politics... I can't remember who it was... and I can't
>Z"Z> remember it verbatim... but it went something like this. (If
>Z"Z> anyone can identify this quote please let us know)

>This quote?

>-------------------------------------------------------

>A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of
>government; it can only exist until the voters discover
>they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
>From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the
>candidate promising the most from the public treasury,
>with the result that a democracy always collapses over
>loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.

>The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has
>been two hundred years. These nations have progressed
>through this sequence:

>from bondage to spiritual faith;
>from spiritual faith to great courage;
>from great courage to liberty;
>from liberty to abundance;
>from abundance to selfishness;
>from selfishness to complacency;
>from complacency to apathy;
>from apathy to dependency;
>from dependency to bondage.

>--- Alexander Tyler, 1775


And probably based on Plato's earlier, but less poetic view:
"Democracy passes into despotism."





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:06 PST 1996
Article: 37294 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: earth.general,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.greens,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.activism,alt.censorship,soc.culture.usa,comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.bbs.first-class,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: APOLOGY from Toronto FreeNet. Account Remains Suspended(?)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:49:35 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4jlkfi$9sf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4jjbcv$8q5@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.usa:81534 alt.politics.greens:13190 alt.politics.libertarian:150927 alt.politics.usa.republican:173459 talk.politics.misc:351987 can.politics:37294 can.general:73592 soc.culture.canada:84822 alt.activism:37296 alt.censorship:75685 comp.sys.mac.comm:98829 alt.bbs.first-class:12449 sci.environment:49987 talk.environment:33388

bt142@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bob Allisat) wrote:



>          The following letter was sent by the Board of
>          Directors of the Toronto Free-Net to Bob Allisat


>- BEGIN QUOTE  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

>TFN freenet.toronto.on.ca

>March 26th, 1996

>Bob Allisat
>1164 College Street
>Toronto Canada
>M6M 1B6

>Dear Bob,

...[some deleted]...

>The Board wishes to make clear that it has not taken this step lightly.
>It is a strong supporter of freedom of expression, and does not cast
>itself in the role of the censor of material posted on or from the
>Free-net. However, when material is posted on or from the Free-Net
>that is in likely violation of Canadian criminal statutes, and that
>activity is brought to the attention of the Free-net Board, the Board
>is under legal duty to take appropriate action.

The above is a paragraph that should be noted by all Canadians, and
any others interested in how a national censorship system works in
practice. The vast majority of censorship under such a system takes
place completely outside of the "legal" arena, by design. Laws are
indeed passed, but the object of such laws is to turn people into
censors, not to actually bring charges that may not survive the test
of public opinion and thus threaten the system. Instead, the law is
used as a pretext, a weapon for special interest groups both inside
and outside of government to wield in private. By this means a
"complaint" becomes, in effect, a decree. A "suggestion" from police
becomes an order to censor people for their views. An "opinion" from
one source becomes "law", and an opinion from another a "crime". Note,
also, how the presumption of their guilt by association is
*established* by the very entities who simultaneously deny that they
are anything but neutral. And this is the ultimate alchemy of
institutional censorship: All the views allowed to be expressed must
become, irresistably, the views of those who do the censoring. 






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:07 PST 1996
Article: 37297 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Lasswell on elites
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:49:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4jlkf6$9sf@news2.cts.com>
References: <827890399snx@dale.cam.org> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Alexander Parkinson  wrote:


>Greetings
>>
>>
>>* Years after he wrote this book Professor Lasswell fixed on a list
>>of eight key values. He took it that everyone seeks: 1, power (a part
>>in making choices for one's groups, starting with the family);
>>2, wealth (income); 3, enlightenment (understanding, insight);
>>4, well-being (safety, health, fun); 5, respect (deference, approval,
>>notice); 6, skill (competence at work and play); 7, affection (love,
>>friendship); and 8, rectitude (conscience).
>>
>>
>Sociology 101 Like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Laswell it all. Conscience, 
>social consience is the last thing on list of the power elites agenda. . .
>Pity the poor soul who has a social conscience in a dog eat dog world of 
>the bottom line.

I wish people would stop using murky, dubious phrases like "social
conscience".  It is meaningless and leaves only the repellent odour of
moral smugness.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 13:06:08 PST 1996
Article: 37298 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Special interest groups!
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:49:33 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4jlkfg$9sf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jhcbc$22eu@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jhpee$34j@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>hawley@ibm.net wrote:
>: In <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca>, jkodish@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) writes:

>: >and what's more, a person's orientation is their own business, not yours.

>: Right,  Jason;  and  it's  not  yours,  and  it's not the Supreme
>: Court's, nor the Legislature's business either. It is not an area
>: within which Society should be writing inept Law.

>Excepting by not prohibiting sexual orientation as a grounds for 
>discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act (and by not 
>formalizing the reading in of sexual orientation in Section 15(1) of the 
>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), whereas discrimination on other 
>grounds is prohibited, and, whereas legal rights are established for 
>heterosexuals that are denied to homosexuals, society is, de facto, 
>making homosexuality its business.
>	To not distinguish, and hence not make its business, sexual 
>orientation, the govt must prohibit discrimination under those grounds.  

There are no laws established on the basis of sexual orientation,
heterosexual or otherwise.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 14:23:55 PST 1996
Article: 37296 of alt.activism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: earth.general,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.greens,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.activism,alt.censorship,soc.culture.usa,comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.bbs.first-class,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: APOLOGY from Toronto FreeNet. Account Remains Suspended(?)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:49:35 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4jlkfi$9sf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4jjbcv$8q5@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.usa:81534 alt.politics.greens:13190 alt.politics.libertarian:150927 alt.politics.usa.republican:173459 talk.politics.misc:351987 can.politics:37294 can.general:73592 soc.culture.canada:84822 alt.activism:37296 alt.censorship:75685 comp.sys.mac.comm:98829 alt.bbs.first-class:12449 sci.environment:49987 talk.environment:33388

bt142@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bob Allisat) wrote:



>          The following letter was sent by the Board of
>          Directors of the Toronto Free-Net to Bob Allisat


>- BEGIN QUOTE  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

>TFN freenet.toronto.on.ca

>March 26th, 1996

>Bob Allisat
>1164 College Street
>Toronto Canada
>M6M 1B6

>Dear Bob,

...[some deleted]...

>The Board wishes to make clear that it has not taken this step lightly.
>It is a strong supporter of freedom of expression, and does not cast
>itself in the role of the censor of material posted on or from the
>Free-net. However, when material is posted on or from the Free-Net
>that is in likely violation of Canadian criminal statutes, and that
>activity is brought to the attention of the Free-net Board, the Board
>is under legal duty to take appropriate action.

The above is a paragraph that should be noted by all Canadians, and
any others interested in how a national censorship system works in
practice. The vast majority of censorship under such a system takes
place completely outside of the "legal" arena, by design. Laws are
indeed passed, but the object of such laws is to turn people into
censors, not to actually bring charges that may not survive the test
of public opinion and thus threaten the system. Instead, the law is
used as a pretext, a weapon for special interest groups both inside
and outside of government to wield in private. By this means a
"complaint" becomes, in effect, a decree. A "suggestion" from police
becomes an order to censor people for their views. An "opinion" from
one source becomes "law", and an opinion from another a "crime". Note,
also, how the presumption of their guilt by association is
*established* by the very entities who simultaneously deny that they
are anything but neutral. And this is the ultimate alchemy of
institutional censorship: All the views allowed to be expressed must
become, irresistably, the views of those who do the censoring. 






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Mar 31 15:30:01 PST 1996
Article: 351987 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: earth.general,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.greens,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.activism,alt.censorship,soc.culture.usa,comp.sys.mac.comm,alt.bbs.first-class,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: APOLOGY from Toronto FreeNet. Account Remains Suspended(?)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:49:35 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4jlkfi$9sf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4jjbcv$8q5@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.usa:81534 alt.politics.greens:13190 alt.politics.libertarian:150927 alt.politics.usa.republican:173459 talk.politics.misc:351987 can.politics:37294 can.general:73592 soc.culture.canada:84822 alt.activism:37296 alt.censorship:75685 comp.sys.mac.comm:98829 alt.bbs.first-class:12449 sci.environment:49987 talk.environment:33388

bt142@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bob Allisat) wrote:



>          The following letter was sent by the Board of
>          Directors of the Toronto Free-Net to Bob Allisat


>- BEGIN QUOTE  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

>TFN freenet.toronto.on.ca

>March 26th, 1996

>Bob Allisat
>1164 College Street
>Toronto Canada
>M6M 1B6

>Dear Bob,

...[some deleted]...

>The Board wishes to make clear that it has not taken this step lightly.
>It is a strong supporter of freedom of expression, and does not cast
>itself in the role of the censor of material posted on or from the
>Free-net. However, when material is posted on or from the Free-Net
>that is in likely violation of Canadian criminal statutes, and that
>activity is brought to the attention of the Free-net Board, the Board
>is under legal duty to take appropriate action.

The above is a paragraph that should be noted by all Canadians, and
any others interested in how a national censorship system works in
practice. The vast majority of censorship under such a system takes
place completely outside of the "legal" arena, by design. Laws are
indeed passed, but the object of such laws is to turn people into
censors, not to actually bring charges that may not survive the test
of public opinion and thus threaten the system. Instead, the law is
used as a pretext, a weapon for special interest groups both inside
and outside of government to wield in private. By this means a
"complaint" becomes, in effect, a decree. A "suggestion" from police
becomes an order to censor people for their views. An "opinion" from
one source becomes "law", and an opinion from another a "crime". Note,
also, how the presumption of their guilt by association is
*established* by the very entities who simultaneously deny that they
are anything but neutral. And this is the ultimate alchemy of
institutional censorship: All the views allowed to be expressed must
become, irresistably, the views of those who do the censoring. 







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.