From pkolding@cts.com Mon Apr  1 09:00:15 PST 1996
Article: 74086 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:16 PST 1996
Article: 74087 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:17 PST 1996
Article: 74157 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:18 PST 1996
Article: 74158 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:19 PST 1996
Article: 74161 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:20 PST 1996
Article: 74162 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:21 PST 1996
Article: 74577 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:22 PST 1996
Article: 74578 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:23 PST 1996
Article: 74707 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:24 PST 1996
Article: 74708 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:25 PST 1996
Article: 74710 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:26 PST 1996
Article: 74940 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:27 PST 1996
Article: 75152 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:28 PST 1996
Article: 75153 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:29 PST 1996
Article: 75280 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:30 PST 1996
Article: 75321 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:31 PST 1996
Article: 75322 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:32 PST 1996
Article: 75323 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:33 PST 1996
Article: 75481 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:34 PST 1996
Article: 75482 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:35 PST 1996
Article: 75600 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 09:00:36 PST 1996
Article: 75685 of alt.censorship
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 Mon Apr  1 12:28:59 PST 1996
Article: 37379 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.unb.ca!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: Special interest groups!
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 15:14:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4jm7gp$g7u@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jdsvq$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jgtj6$f9l@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>In article <4jdsvq$s1s@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com says...
>>
>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.
>>
>Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality or sexual orientation.
>Sexual orientation speaks to the gender of your desire, not the age.

Sexual orientation speaks to the OBJECT of your desire, not the
"gender". 

>Pssst!  Watch out though, the big bad homosexual is coming to get you!

You idiot. If sexual orientation is defined as you want it to be, male
paedophiles who are oriented to boys will be legally defined as
homosexuals. But if that's what you want....



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Apr  1 12:29:01 PST 1996
Article: 37505 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: can.politics
Subject: Re: Total misunderstanding of Canada's legal system
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 08:01:40 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <4jo2h5$icm@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$env@news2.cts.com>  <4jirih$rr4@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Neil  wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >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."

>How does one "selectively not prosecute" a case? That's interesting. 

There are two general methods. Political crimes such as  the hate
laws, invariably instruct in their very terms that a "criminal" shall
be prosecuted only if a senior political appointee approves. The other
method, which coincidentally often leads to new political laws whose
design I've just outlined, is the prejudicial decision based on the
sex or race of the victims and/or the accused.  The female criminal,
for example, is rarely prosecuted when she can be used to offer
perjury against a male to secure a more politically-correct
conviction.  Homolka will be out next year, by the way.

>To answer your question: it is correct that a prosecutor must weigh the
>effects prosecuting an individual will have on society. When making this
>decision, the individual is not yet a defendant.

The "individual" is not supposed to be ANY part of a prosecutor's
concern when it comes to the evidence. A prosecutor is supposed to
weigh EVIDENCE, not the status of the people involved or the
consequences of a legal proceeding on society. The only thing he must
avoid is prosecuting people on the basis of insufficient evidence and
thus bring the administration of justice into disrepute.



>> >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.

>The question is, if you hate Canada so much, and you think it's a
>shithole, and you detest Canadians as much as you claim, why waste any of
>your own time discussing Canadian politics? Having a little trouble
>letting go of your shitty homeland, perhaps? 

You are revealing an enormous lack of imagination, Neil. My knowledge
of Canada inspires increased political activity, not less.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Apr  1 12:29:01 PST 1996
Article: 37506 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: can.politics
Subject: Re: Defenders of Marc Lepine
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 08:01:43 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4jo2h6$icm@news2.cts.com>
References: <2181579912@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <365276468@f47.n340.z1.ftn> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Neil  wrote:


>It is impossible to address the frustration of pyschopaths. This would be
>like suggesting there is some way the Dunblane massacre could have been
>prevented. 

The Dunblane massacre was the simple and predictable result of a nasty
little town bullying, smearing and bankrupting an innocent man for 20
years. If he had happened to be female there would have been a hue and
cry about this, with endless declarations that he was suffering some
species of "battered woman syndrome".





From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 08:32:35 PST 1996
Article: 6668 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:37 PST 1996
Article: 6691 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:38 PST 1996
Article: 6692 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:38 PST 1996
Article: 6693 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:39 PST 1996
Article: 6694 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:40 PST 1996
Article: 6804 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:41 PST 1996
Article: 6805 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:42 PST 1996
Article: 6856 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:43 PST 1996
Article: 6857 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:44 PST 1996
Article: 6858 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Apr  2 08:32:45 PST 1996
Article: 6941 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:46 PST 1996
Article: 6999 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:47 PST 1996
Article: 7000 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:48 PST 1996
Article: 7027 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:49 PST 1996
Article: 7036 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:50 PST 1996
Article: 7037 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:51 PST 1996
Article: 7038 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:52 PST 1996
Article: 7071 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:52 PST 1996
Article: 7072 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 08:32:53 PST 1996
Article: 7094 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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 Tue Apr  2 10:19:19 PST 1996
Article: 73824 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:25:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <4jrddd$8ub@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$7op@kryten.awinc.com> <4jdta2$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jjf8j$rs0@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42620 can.general:73824 can.politics:37623

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


>No, issue becomes criminal when you are in a position of power over
>people and then you start spouting your personal political beliefs and
>coercing the students to follow them through your position as a teacher.

Unless your personal political beliefs coincide with the curriculum or
are approved of by others. Then, by some magic, using your "position
of power" and "coercion" are perfectly legal.

>Two juries found him guilty.  Not the "Court" but rather 24 citizens
>who were presented with the arguments of both the defense and 
>the Crown.  The juries could have chosen not to convict and they didn't.
>On their oaths as jurors, they believe this man guilty of breaking
>the laws of Canada.

The deliberations of the jury are based on the law. If there was a law
that criminalised posting on the Internet these same jurors would find
you guilty of breaking the laws of Canada without even leaving the
box. The fact that someone is found guilty of an infraction of a law
is not an argument about the nature of that law. 

>>>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.

>Of course there is.  

Please expand, as I cannot see how one could possibly express one's
political views without them being interpreted as "advocacy". How, for
instance, does Keegstra "express" his view that Jews are child
killers, are inherently evil and are the root cause of depressions and
wars without contravening the hate laws? He can't----it is entirely up
to the biased and politically prejudiced judgement of others that turn
political views into criminal acts.

>Though, I can't expect you to quite grasp that
>since you choose to regard certain acts of violence as political
>acts.  One thing that surprises me though, (and granted, this is 
>outside this praticular thread, but what the hell) if Lepine's act
>of killing the female students is a political act, what is the
>act of a woman killing her husband under the grounds that she
>was a battered spouse.  Before you go off the deep end - IF there
>is physical evidence showing that the woman was battered (medical
>report, calls to the police, etc.) then when she shoots him in
>his sleep, isn't that a political act through which she is 
>trying to break free of the victimization and oppression she is
>suffering at the hands of another?  I DON"T BUY THIS VIEW.  I want
>that to be perfect clear - but it seems to me that political acts for
>the gander should be political acts for the goose.

But I don't know why you imagine that the battered-woman syndrome
defense is anything BUT political. When was the last time the
treatment of *men* at the hands of their spouses was ever accepted as
mitigation for murder?


>The Keegstra issue is a red herring in dealing with the hate law.

>If you want to discuss whether the law should even be on the books,
>that is one thing.  But under the terms of the law that does exist
>Keegstra was found guilty by two juries and that verdict was 
>repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

Of course. The discussion was never about the actuality of the law or
the reality of the sentence. It is all about the fraudulent nature of
the Canadian system, and gangsterism that attempts to pass itself off
as government.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 10:23:11 PST 1996
Article: 37612 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:26:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <4jrdfa$8ub@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> <4jdt2p$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jk407$hl4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:677 alt.censorship:75937 alt.revisionism:29635 can.politics:37612 alt.society.civil-liberties:7166

Laura Finsten  wrote:

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

>[edit]

>>>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.

>I rarely resort to such language, but bullshit, Kolding.  Where is the
>evidence that Lepine's victims were admitted to the engineering programme
>at the polytechnic *because* and only because they were women? 

I suggest you phone up the school and ask them if they have
affirmative action programs geared to females. What kind of CRAP are
you trying to peddle? I quote laws and regulations. I provide
detailed, lengthy articles specifically dealing with REAL laws and
REAL, OFFICIAL discriminatory policies. I refer people to Charters,
preferential employment statutes, and Human Rights laws. 

And yet here you are intimating that these laws, statutes, Charters,
regulations and programs don't actually exist!

> Where is
>the evidence that poor little able-bodied white males like Lepine (who,
>had he gotten psychiatric help could likely have been classified as
>disabled) were being denied admission to that programme or any other
>because of their physical condition, race or sex?  

>There *is* no evidence because it isn't happening.  People are not being
>admitted to Canadian universities without the proper academic qualifications
>according to sex, race or disability quotas. 

But one single group of people, by law, are being denied admisssion
because of their sex and race, viz, non-disabled white males. This is
the LAW you creep, and you KNOW it.


>>>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

>Not at all.  What I am arguing is that affirmative action is not 
>depriving qualified able-bodied white males of admission to institutions
>of higher learning or jobs. 

To use your own phrase: BULLSHIT. I wish you would read the laws
concerned, they are crystal clear. Affirmative action policies can
ONLY deprive non-disabled white males, BY LAW. Everyone else, BY LAW,
is a member of a legally-designated "disadvantaged group". It is
IMPOSSIBLE to have an affirmative action program that discriminates
against ANYONE but a non-disabled white male, because everyone except
NDWM's are protected by the Charter from such discrimination because
they are members of a "disadvantaged group". The only group in society
that is not protected from discrimination, according to the Charter,
are those who are not members of a "disadvantaged group". And the ONLY
people who are not members of a "disadvantaged group" are, BY LAW,
non-disabled white males. 

Affirmative action constitutes all the laws, policies, programs and
activities that discriminate against people who have been legally
-designated as unprotected by the Charter from discrimination.
Non-disabled white males are the only group so designated by law, all
others are *explicitly* protected from discrimination.

The law is the law. Affirmative action is not some myth. That
affirmative action supporters are now reduced to saying that AA
doesn't actually exist, and therefore isn't a problem, is contemptible
on its very face.

...[some deleted]...

>[edited idiocy about "gender equity" in access to prison cells]

Too bad. Here it is again, and perhaps someone else will explain why
"equality" is something only to be engineered for the benefit of the
privileged, rather than those who are actually oppressed:

"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 Tue Apr  2 10:23:12 PST 1996
Article: 37613 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:29:32 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4jrdkc$8ub@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <4jm5fm$el4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:678 alt.censorship:75938 alt.revisionism:29636 can.politics:37613 alt.society.civil-liberties:7167

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>[edit]

>>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.

>But the men who attend such institutions are not?  Explain to me
>exactly how the attendance of women constitutes support for affirmative
>action while the attendance of men does not, Kolding.

Explain to me how a slave eating his master's crumbs constitutes
support for slavery.


>You idolise a man who murdered fourteen women because you are a sicko
>misogynist loser who can't make it on his own merits.

Typical. I'm a "sicko" because I oppose legally-enforced
discrimination against men on the basis of their sex, while you are so
sunk in pathological denial that you cannot even bring yourself to
admit that AA actually exists. I'm a "misogynist" because I treat
female criminals with the same contempt I would treat any criminal
---but evidently "equality" to some of them means that they are to be
immune from criticism, contempt and hatred simply because they are
females. And I'm a "loser", evidently,  because I don't actually have
to live in that shithole of a country you call Canada or publically
agree with the scum who inhabit so much of it.

Let me give you a little information, Finsten: My public utterances
are simply an echo of the private opinions of millions of Canadians
who are too scared---for good reason---to speak out. You think you
live in a happy land of "sensible" neo-fascists, who are glad to
render up every white man's civil rights on the altar of radical
feminist theology. Well, I tell you that you are dead wrong, and that
Lepine represents the true nature of your society. I know this sticks
in your craw, but if you don't get wise you will probably choke to
death one day.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 10:23:13 PST 1996
Article: 37614 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:31:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4jrdns$8ub@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <30MAR96.23899101.0032@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> <4jm7h4$g7u@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:679 alt.censorship:75939 alt.revisionism:29637 can.politics:37614 alt.society.civil-liberties:7168

Neil  wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> If you don't believe the school has an affirmative action program as
>> I, and Polytechnique officials, have stated repeatedly, I suggest you
>> contact them for confirmation. I have.

>The question is not whether or not Polytechnique has an affirmative action
>program. The question is whether or not Marc Lepine was discriminated
>against. 

Marc Lepine was male and white. Affirmative action is only applicable
to white males. ALL white males. The fact that Lepine was denied
admission because of AA is not arguable, because that is what AA
demands. 



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 10:23:14 PST 1996
Article: 37616 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:32:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4jrdq0$8ub@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4jegt2$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jm7h4$g7u@news2.cts.com> <4jmtpd$2t3i@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:680 alt.censorship:75941 alt.revisionism:29639 can.politics:37616 alt.society.civil-liberties:7169

ncrccjc@ibm.net (ncrccjc) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>
>>>In article <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:
>>>>
>>>>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.

>ncrccjc responds:

>Let me see if I have this straight. You, Mr. Kolding, the defender of free speech
>truth, justice and the American way, are suugesting that any woman who attends
>a university or college with an affirmative action programme should be killed.

>PK, have I got this straight????? If not please post your apology.

You haven't got it staright, but I don't suppose you were attempting
to. My views have been stated clearly, repeatedly and are not at all
easy to misinterpret: Those who legislate, enforce, deliberately
benefit and support AA are guilty of crimes against humanity. What
they deserve is entirely a matter of the possibilities they leave
themselves open to, in my opinion. I support and defend the actions of
Lepine on the basis of his, and all non-disabled white men's, legal
and social position in Canadian society. As I have said before: If
people want an affirmative action society they have no reason to
complain when  AA principles are adopted and exercised by people in
that society. If people want a de facto slave society they have no
reason to complain when there are regular and predictable episodes of
violence involving slaves. And get this straight: I am on the side of
the slaves, and not on the side of those who legislate, enforce,
benefit and support slavery. 






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 10:23:15 PST 1996
Article: 37617 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:33:45 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <4jrdsa$8ub@news2.cts.com>
References: <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jb8v5$env@news2.cts.com> <4jeb97$10su@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jirl8$rr4@news2.cts.com> <4jmuds$2t3i@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:681 alt.censorship:75942 alt.revisionism:29640 can.politics:37617 alt.society.civil-liberties:7170

ncrccjc@ibm.net (ncrccjc) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>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:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>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?
>>
>ncrccjc responds:

>You are totally irrational (which given your racist politics should be of no surprise).
>Even if your above fantasy were true, how does this compare to MURDER.

You object to Lepine killing these 14 females. I do not. I, however,
have at least explained why I support and defend Lepine. No one,
however, is ever able to "rationally" explain why non-disabled white
men, purely on the basis of their race and sex, must, by law, be
subject to legal and enforceable discrimination in any and every
institution of society any time the government decides. You, for
instance, seem to think that killing one's oppressors is an irrational
act. Why you think this you never say, and what is worse, you don't
explain why Lepine---and myself, for that matter---are to be accused
of dreadful crimes of irrationality simply because one personally
adopted the same practice of AA that was inflicted upon him, while I
simply explained the perfect rationality of this adoption.

It seems to me that the most vociferous opponents to Lepine fall into
two camps. Those who support AA and those who don't. The supporters
are easily explained: The ideologues are criminals similar to the
Nazis and other ideological thugs, while the rest generally see a
personal benefit to themselves accruing from AA. Those who oppose AA
while simultaneously condemning Lepine are another matter: They
confuse their ideological or intellectual opposition with suffering,
and being able to bear their intellectual musings they find it easy to
condemn illegality simply on the high-minded principle that it is
illegal. Lepine, they say to themselves, was wrong to kill because
killing is wrong. AA is wrong, they say, because discrimination is
wrong. And there they sit, smug and satisfied, perfect students of the
Pontius Pilate school of moral reasoning. In short, they successfully
address the problem by a policy of general condemnation of oppression
and the activities of its opponents, while letting oppression grow and
flower all around them.

Finally, you have obscurely referenced in your post my "racial
policies". What, precisely, are you talking about, if anything?

>For any who had doubts about Mr. PKolding in the past these
> series of ruthless messages should tell you where he stands; 
>an advocate of genocide and comfortable in the arms of his 
>nazi-like friends.

I cannot think of anything more ruthless than legislating, enforcing,
benefiting or supporting AA. I suggest you bear this in mind when
judging the "ruthlessness" of anyone involved in this discussion. I
would also be obliged if you would supply some sort of quote when you
make ludicrous claims that I have "advocated genocide". I also note
that you refer to my "nazi-like friends" but fail to actually name any
one of them. Since I'm not aware of any of my friends exhibiting
"nazi-like" proclivities, perhaps you will now apply your stupendous
moral analysis to people who deliberately defame, such as yourself.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 10:23:15 PST 1996
Article: 37618 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!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: McFee Spins Out, Singh Critically Injured.
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:35:29 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4jrdvh$8ub@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 <4jn79q$tg6@news.nyu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:29641 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:682 can.politics:37618

jal5266@is.nyu.edu (Jeremy A. Litt) wrote:


>: >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.

>(a)It has bearing because your motives always have bearing.

How can the personal "motives" of a poster have a bearing on an
exchange of premises and arguments? It is nonsensical. When people
start demanding the motives of a poster you may be sure they have run
out of arguments with respect to the discussion.

>(b)It has bearing because whether this is worldwide or not, it's the 
>discussion going on right now.  "Worldwide" newsgroup doe not equal in 
>every discussion "worldwide coverage."  

Do you actually believe the stuff you write? (Please note that neither
the preceding question, nor its answer, can have any bearing whatever
on the validity of arguments made by the questioner or answerer.) 



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 10:23:16 PST 1996
Article: 37619 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:36:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4jre1v$8ub@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$10su@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jirl8$rr4@news2.cts.com> <4jnk06$1msq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:683 alt.censorship:75945 alt.revisionism:29643 can.politics:37619 alt.society.civil-liberties:7171

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <4jirl8$rr4@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) said:



>>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?

>I am a non-disabled white man and I have not been discriminated against by
>any Canadian government.

You have. You simply refuse to acknowledge the existance, practice and
enforcement of the law. In almost every aspect of law you are daily
subject to discrimination on the basis of your sex alone.






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 10:23:17 PST 1996
Article: 37623 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:25:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <4jrddd$8ub@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$7op@kryten.awinc.com> <4jdta2$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jjf8j$rs0@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42620 can.general:73824 can.politics:37623

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


>No, issue becomes criminal when you are in a position of power over
>people and then you start spouting your personal political beliefs and
>coercing the students to follow them through your position as a teacher.

Unless your personal political beliefs coincide with the curriculum or
are approved of by others. Then, by some magic, using your "position
of power" and "coercion" are perfectly legal.

>Two juries found him guilty.  Not the "Court" but rather 24 citizens
>who were presented with the arguments of both the defense and 
>the Crown.  The juries could have chosen not to convict and they didn't.
>On their oaths as jurors, they believe this man guilty of breaking
>the laws of Canada.

The deliberations of the jury are based on the law. If there was a law
that criminalised posting on the Internet these same jurors would find
you guilty of breaking the laws of Canada without even leaving the
box. The fact that someone is found guilty of an infraction of a law
is not an argument about the nature of that law. 

>>>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.

>Of course there is.  

Please expand, as I cannot see how one could possibly express one's
political views without them being interpreted as "advocacy". How, for
instance, does Keegstra "express" his view that Jews are child
killers, are inherently evil and are the root cause of depressions and
wars without contravening the hate laws? He can't----it is entirely up
to the biased and politically prejudiced judgement of others that turn
political views into criminal acts.

>Though, I can't expect you to quite grasp that
>since you choose to regard certain acts of violence as political
>acts.  One thing that surprises me though, (and granted, this is 
>outside this praticular thread, but what the hell) if Lepine's act
>of killing the female students is a political act, what is the
>act of a woman killing her husband under the grounds that she
>was a battered spouse.  Before you go off the deep end - IF there
>is physical evidence showing that the woman was battered (medical
>report, calls to the police, etc.) then when she shoots him in
>his sleep, isn't that a political act through which she is 
>trying to break free of the victimization and oppression she is
>suffering at the hands of another?  I DON"T BUY THIS VIEW.  I want
>that to be perfect clear - but it seems to me that political acts for
>the gander should be political acts for the goose.

But I don't know why you imagine that the battered-woman syndrome
defense is anything BUT political. When was the last time the
treatment of *men* at the hands of their spouses was ever accepted as
mitigation for murder?


>The Keegstra issue is a red herring in dealing with the hate law.

>If you want to discuss whether the law should even be on the books,
>that is one thing.  But under the terms of the law that does exist
>Keegstra was found guilty by two juries and that verdict was 
>repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

Of course. The discussion was never about the actuality of the law or
the reality of the sentence. It is all about the fraudulent nature of
the Canadian system, and gangsterism that attempts to pass itself off
as government.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 11:13:42 PST 1996
Article: 29635 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:26:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <4jrdfa$8ub@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> <4jdt2p$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jk407$hl4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:677 alt.censorship:75937 alt.revisionism:29635 can.politics:37612 alt.society.civil-liberties:7166

Laura Finsten  wrote:

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

>[edit]

>>>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.

>I rarely resort to such language, but bullshit, Kolding.  Where is the
>evidence that Lepine's victims were admitted to the engineering programme
>at the polytechnic *because* and only because they were women? 

I suggest you phone up the school and ask them if they have
affirmative action programs geared to females. What kind of CRAP are
you trying to peddle? I quote laws and regulations. I provide
detailed, lengthy articles specifically dealing with REAL laws and
REAL, OFFICIAL discriminatory policies. I refer people to Charters,
preferential employment statutes, and Human Rights laws. 

And yet here you are intimating that these laws, statutes, Charters,
regulations and programs don't actually exist!

> Where is
>the evidence that poor little able-bodied white males like Lepine (who,
>had he gotten psychiatric help could likely have been classified as
>disabled) were being denied admission to that programme or any other
>because of their physical condition, race or sex?  

>There *is* no evidence because it isn't happening.  People are not being
>admitted to Canadian universities without the proper academic qualifications
>according to sex, race or disability quotas. 

But one single group of people, by law, are being denied admisssion
because of their sex and race, viz, non-disabled white males. This is
the LAW you creep, and you KNOW it.


>>>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

>Not at all.  What I am arguing is that affirmative action is not 
>depriving qualified able-bodied white males of admission to institutions
>of higher learning or jobs. 

To use your own phrase: BULLSHIT. I wish you would read the laws
concerned, they are crystal clear. Affirmative action policies can
ONLY deprive non-disabled white males, BY LAW. Everyone else, BY LAW,
is a member of a legally-designated "disadvantaged group". It is
IMPOSSIBLE to have an affirmative action program that discriminates
against ANYONE but a non-disabled white male, because everyone except
NDWM's are protected by the Charter from such discrimination because
they are members of a "disadvantaged group". The only group in society
that is not protected from discrimination, according to the Charter,
are those who are not members of a "disadvantaged group". And the ONLY
people who are not members of a "disadvantaged group" are, BY LAW,
non-disabled white males. 

Affirmative action constitutes all the laws, policies, programs and
activities that discriminate against people who have been legally
-designated as unprotected by the Charter from discrimination.
Non-disabled white males are the only group so designated by law, all
others are *explicitly* protected from discrimination.

The law is the law. Affirmative action is not some myth. That
affirmative action supporters are now reduced to saying that AA
doesn't actually exist, and therefore isn't a problem, is contemptible
on its very face.

...[some deleted]...

>[edited idiocy about "gender equity" in access to prison cells]

Too bad. Here it is again, and perhaps someone else will explain why
"equality" is something only to be engineered for the benefit of the
privileged, rather than those who are actually oppressed:

"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 Tue Apr  2 11:13:43 PST 1996
Article: 29636 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:29:32 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4jrdkc$8ub@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <4jm5fm$el4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:678 alt.censorship:75938 alt.revisionism:29636 can.politics:37613 alt.society.civil-liberties:7167

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>[edit]

>>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.

>But the men who attend such institutions are not?  Explain to me
>exactly how the attendance of women constitutes support for affirmative
>action while the attendance of men does not, Kolding.

Explain to me how a slave eating his master's crumbs constitutes
support for slavery.


>You idolise a man who murdered fourteen women because you are a sicko
>misogynist loser who can't make it on his own merits.

Typical. I'm a "sicko" because I oppose legally-enforced
discrimination against men on the basis of their sex, while you are so
sunk in pathological denial that you cannot even bring yourself to
admit that AA actually exists. I'm a "misogynist" because I treat
female criminals with the same contempt I would treat any criminal
---but evidently "equality" to some of them means that they are to be
immune from criticism, contempt and hatred simply because they are
females. And I'm a "loser", evidently,  because I don't actually have
to live in that shithole of a country you call Canada or publically
agree with the scum who inhabit so much of it.

Let me give you a little information, Finsten: My public utterances
are simply an echo of the private opinions of millions of Canadians
who are too scared---for good reason---to speak out. You think you
live in a happy land of "sensible" neo-fascists, who are glad to
render up every white man's civil rights on the altar of radical
feminist theology. Well, I tell you that you are dead wrong, and that
Lepine represents the true nature of your society. I know this sticks
in your craw, but if you don't get wise you will probably choke to
death one day.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 11:13:44 PST 1996
Article: 29637 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:31:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4jrdns$8ub@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <30MAR96.23899101.0032@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> <4jm7h4$g7u@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:679 alt.censorship:75939 alt.revisionism:29637 can.politics:37614 alt.society.civil-liberties:7168

Neil  wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> If you don't believe the school has an affirmative action program as
>> I, and Polytechnique officials, have stated repeatedly, I suggest you
>> contact them for confirmation. I have.

>The question is not whether or not Polytechnique has an affirmative action
>program. The question is whether or not Marc Lepine was discriminated
>against. 

Marc Lepine was male and white. Affirmative action is only applicable
to white males. ALL white males. The fact that Lepine was denied
admission because of AA is not arguable, because that is what AA
demands. 



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 11:13:45 PST 1996
Article: 29639 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:32:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4jrdq0$8ub@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4jegt2$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jm7h4$g7u@news2.cts.com> <4jmtpd$2t3i@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:680 alt.censorship:75941 alt.revisionism:29639 can.politics:37616 alt.society.civil-liberties:7169

ncrccjc@ibm.net (ncrccjc) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>
>>>In article <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:
>>>>
>>>>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.

>ncrccjc responds:

>Let me see if I have this straight. You, Mr. Kolding, the defender of free speech
>truth, justice and the American way, are suugesting that any woman who attends
>a university or college with an affirmative action programme should be killed.

>PK, have I got this straight????? If not please post your apology.

You haven't got it staright, but I don't suppose you were attempting
to. My views have been stated clearly, repeatedly and are not at all
easy to misinterpret: Those who legislate, enforce, deliberately
benefit and support AA are guilty of crimes against humanity. What
they deserve is entirely a matter of the possibilities they leave
themselves open to, in my opinion. I support and defend the actions of
Lepine on the basis of his, and all non-disabled white men's, legal
and social position in Canadian society. As I have said before: If
people want an affirmative action society they have no reason to
complain when  AA principles are adopted and exercised by people in
that society. If people want a de facto slave society they have no
reason to complain when there are regular and predictable episodes of
violence involving slaves. And get this straight: I am on the side of
the slaves, and not on the side of those who legislate, enforce,
benefit and support slavery. 






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 11:13:46 PST 1996
Article: 29640 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:33:45 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <4jrdsa$8ub@news2.cts.com>
References: <4icqbb$10rq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jb8v5$env@news2.cts.com> <4jeb97$10su@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jirl8$rr4@news2.cts.com> <4jmuds$2t3i@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:681 alt.censorship:75942 alt.revisionism:29640 can.politics:37617 alt.society.civil-liberties:7170

ncrccjc@ibm.net (ncrccjc) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>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:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>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?
>>
>ncrccjc responds:

>You are totally irrational (which given your racist politics should be of no surprise).
>Even if your above fantasy were true, how does this compare to MURDER.

You object to Lepine killing these 14 females. I do not. I, however,
have at least explained why I support and defend Lepine. No one,
however, is ever able to "rationally" explain why non-disabled white
men, purely on the basis of their race and sex, must, by law, be
subject to legal and enforceable discrimination in any and every
institution of society any time the government decides. You, for
instance, seem to think that killing one's oppressors is an irrational
act. Why you think this you never say, and what is worse, you don't
explain why Lepine---and myself, for that matter---are to be accused
of dreadful crimes of irrationality simply because one personally
adopted the same practice of AA that was inflicted upon him, while I
simply explained the perfect rationality of this adoption.

It seems to me that the most vociferous opponents to Lepine fall into
two camps. Those who support AA and those who don't. The supporters
are easily explained: The ideologues are criminals similar to the
Nazis and other ideological thugs, while the rest generally see a
personal benefit to themselves accruing from AA. Those who oppose AA
while simultaneously condemning Lepine are another matter: They
confuse their ideological or intellectual opposition with suffering,
and being able to bear their intellectual musings they find it easy to
condemn illegality simply on the high-minded principle that it is
illegal. Lepine, they say to themselves, was wrong to kill because
killing is wrong. AA is wrong, they say, because discrimination is
wrong. And there they sit, smug and satisfied, perfect students of the
Pontius Pilate school of moral reasoning. In short, they successfully
address the problem by a policy of general condemnation of oppression
and the activities of its opponents, while letting oppression grow and
flower all around them.

Finally, you have obscurely referenced in your post my "racial
policies". What, precisely, are you talking about, if anything?

>For any who had doubts about Mr. PKolding in the past these
> series of ruthless messages should tell you where he stands; 
>an advocate of genocide and comfortable in the arms of his 
>nazi-like friends.

I cannot think of anything more ruthless than legislating, enforcing,
benefiting or supporting AA. I suggest you bear this in mind when
judging the "ruthlessness" of anyone involved in this discussion. I
would also be obliged if you would supply some sort of quote when you
make ludicrous claims that I have "advocated genocide". I also note
that you refer to my "nazi-like friends" but fail to actually name any
one of them. Since I'm not aware of any of my friends exhibiting
"nazi-like" proclivities, perhaps you will now apply your stupendous
moral analysis to people who deliberately defame, such as yourself.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 11:13:47 PST 1996
Article: 29641 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!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: McFee Spins Out, Singh Critically Injured.
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:35:29 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4jrdvh$8ub@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 <4jn79q$tg6@news.nyu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:29641 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:682 can.politics:37618

jal5266@is.nyu.edu (Jeremy A. Litt) wrote:


>: >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.

>(a)It has bearing because your motives always have bearing.

How can the personal "motives" of a poster have a bearing on an
exchange of premises and arguments? It is nonsensical. When people
start demanding the motives of a poster you may be sure they have run
out of arguments with respect to the discussion.

>(b)It has bearing because whether this is worldwide or not, it's the 
>discussion going on right now.  "Worldwide" newsgroup doe not equal in 
>every discussion "worldwide coverage."  

Do you actually believe the stuff you write? (Please note that neither
the preceding question, nor its answer, can have any bearing whatever
on the validity of arguments made by the questioner or answerer.) 



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr  2 11:13:47 PST 1996
Article: 29643 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:36:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4jre1v$8ub@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$10su@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jirl8$rr4@news2.cts.com> <4jnk06$1msq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:683 alt.censorship:75945 alt.revisionism:29643 can.politics:37619 alt.society.civil-liberties:7171

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In article <4jirl8$rr4@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) said:



>>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?

>I am a non-disabled white man and I have not been discriminated against by
>any Canadian government.

You have. You simply refuse to acknowledge the existance, practice and
enforcement of the law. In almost every aspect of law you are daily
subject to discrimination on the basis of your sex alone.






From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr  3 09:48:58 PST 1996
Article: 42620 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:25:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <4jrddd$8ub@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$7op@kryten.awinc.com> <4jdta2$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jjf8j$rs0@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:42620 can.general:73824 can.politics:37623

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


>No, issue becomes criminal when you are in a position of power over
>people and then you start spouting your personal political beliefs and
>coercing the students to follow them through your position as a teacher.

Unless your personal political beliefs coincide with the curriculum or
are approved of by others. Then, by some magic, using your "position
of power" and "coercion" are perfectly legal.

>Two juries found him guilty.  Not the "Court" but rather 24 citizens
>who were presented with the arguments of both the defense and 
>the Crown.  The juries could have chosen not to convict and they didn't.
>On their oaths as jurors, they believe this man guilty of breaking
>the laws of Canada.

The deliberations of the jury are based on the law. If there was a law
that criminalised posting on the Internet these same jurors would find
you guilty of breaking the laws of Canada without even leaving the
box. The fact that someone is found guilty of an infraction of a law
is not an argument about the nature of that law. 

>>>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.

>Of course there is.  

Please expand, as I cannot see how one could possibly express one's
political views without them being interpreted as "advocacy". How, for
instance, does Keegstra "express" his view that Jews are child
killers, are inherently evil and are the root cause of depressions and
wars without contravening the hate laws? He can't----it is entirely up
to the biased and politically prejudiced judgement of others that turn
political views into criminal acts.

>Though, I can't expect you to quite grasp that
>since you choose to regard certain acts of violence as political
>acts.  One thing that surprises me though, (and granted, this is 
>outside this praticular thread, but what the hell) if Lepine's act
>of killing the female students is a political act, what is the
>act of a woman killing her husband under the grounds that she
>was a battered spouse.  Before you go off the deep end - IF there
>is physical evidence showing that the woman was battered (medical
>report, calls to the police, etc.) then when she shoots him in
>his sleep, isn't that a political act through which she is 
>trying to break free of the victimization and oppression she is
>suffering at the hands of another?  I DON"T BUY THIS VIEW.  I want
>that to be perfect clear - but it seems to me that political acts for
>the gander should be political acts for the goose.

But I don't know why you imagine that the battered-woman syndrome
defense is anything BUT political. When was the last time the
treatment of *men* at the hands of their spouses was ever accepted as
mitigation for murder?


>The Keegstra issue is a red herring in dealing with the hate law.

>If you want to discuss whether the law should even be on the books,
>that is one thing.  But under the terms of the law that does exist
>Keegstra was found guilty by two juries and that verdict was 
>repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

Of course. The discussion was never about the actuality of the law or
the reality of the sentence. It is all about the fraudulent nature of
the Canadian system, and gangsterism that attempts to pass itself off
as government.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr  3 10:01:28 PST 1996
Article: 37624 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!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: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:27:53 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4jrdh9$8ub@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hqei1$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>  <4jdtbc$s1s@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Neil  wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> 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?

>All people who commit the crime of murder within Canada's jurisdiction are
>subject to the same level of prosecution regardless of background,
>legally-speaking.

Yet all people who commit the crime of hate are not. Please address
the question, asked now for the fifth time:  If the crime was
"killing" rather than "propagating hatred" would you say that killing
females would be 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?

>Of course, since you feel this law should be repealed in
>order to make the mass murderer, Marc Lepine , a "hero" rather than a
>criminal, I don't know why you choose this example.

Lepine's actions make him a hero, not the existence of any
contemptible and tyrannous laws.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 09:58:43 PDT 1996
Article: 38302 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Defenders of the hero Marc Lepine
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:37:53 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4kehqg$sa2@news2.cts.com>
References: <2181579912@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <365276468@f47.n340.z1.ftn>  <4jo2h6$icm@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:

>In article <4jo2h6$icm@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>>Neil  wrote:


>>>It is impossible to address the frustration of pyschopaths. This would be
>>>like suggesting there is some way the Dunblane massacre could have been
>>>prevented. 

>>The Dunblane massacre was the simple and predictable result of a nasty
>>little town bullying, smearing and bankrupting an innocent man for 20
>>years. If he had happened to be female there would have been a hue and
>>cry about this, with endless declarations that he was suffering some
>>species of "battered woman syndrome".

>So according to Kolding, Lepine was a hero, and the Dunblane murderer was just 
>being reasonable.

My view of the Dunblane massacre has been echoed in UK newspaper
editorials, so don't have a fit, old boy.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 09:58:45 PDT 1996
Article: 38312 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: 52% of prisoners should be female
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:37:45 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4kehq7$sa2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jirih$rr4@news2.cts.com>  <4jo2h5$icm@news2.cts.com> <4jpeq1$iru@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>In article <4jo2h5$icm@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>sex or race of the victims and/or the accused.  The female criminal,
>>for example, is rarely prosecuted when she can be used to offer
>>perjury against a male to secure a more politically-correct
>>conviction.  Homolka will be out next year, by the way.

>At least two witnesses lied during their testimony for Ernst
>Zundel - please explain how this example of lying during
>examination relates to the above.... both witnesses were
>appearing for Mr. Zundel, not the Crown.

I think the fact that 99% of prisoners are male answers ALL questions
with respect to the treatment of men and females by the system. In the
Zundel case, let me remind you that the government was involved in
unconstituional behaviour in even charging the man, much less
convening a trial. It could therefore be said that EVERY government
witness and prosecutor connected with the case should be in jail for
perjury or criminal conspiracy.




From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 09:58:46 PDT 1996
Article: 38313 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: can.politics,mtl.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Neil Singh's Admiration of Slavery
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:39:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 196
Message-ID: <4keht5$sa2@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <4jm5fm$el4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4jrdkc$8ub@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38313 soc.culture.canada:85507 alt.society.civil-liberties:7242

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Explain to me how a slave eating his master's crumbs constitutes
>> support for slavery.

>You define an affirmative action program as "slavery" and "oppression". 

I define the legislation and enforcement of the present Canadian AA
programs and actvities as a crime against humanity. Those who
participate in legislating or enforcing these crimes, or deliberately
benefit from or support them, I consider criminals. And the activities
of these criminals constitute oppression by any standard. The
widespread enforcement of AA policies in virtually every aspect of
law, and especially with respect to the treatment of men and the
legally-demanded dispossession of their rights and property, has
produced a slave state. 

>You consider anyone associated with any institution that happens to have
>an affirmative action to be a "slaveholder" and "oppressor". You consider
>anyone associated with any association that has an AA program to be worthy
>of being murdered. 

You are again making things up to suit your tiny, inflamed mind. I do
not assign any particular "worth" to those who commit crimes. I simply
support their victims taking whatever action they feel they have to
against them. 


>Using the very loose, illogical and psychotic reasoning that you use to
>defend the murder of innocent women by Marc Lepine, the vast majority of
>Canadians, who would spit on your face if they could, could easily find
>dozens of reasons why you yourself would fit under the category of
>"oppressor" and find several reasons, under your logic remember, you
>should be murdered in cold blood.

I don't doubt that many Canadians would act exactly like that. After
all, they seem to have no problem in legislating, enforcing,
deliberately benefiting from, and supporting crimes against humanity
right now. However, please note that whatever the "dozens" of reasons 
they might produce to justify themselves in their views, they cannot 
claim that I constitute a government, or that I enforce my presumed
oppression with laws, armed bureaucrats, prisons and the maintenance
of a slave state.

>If you are working for an employer, or
>have ever worked for an employer, or have attended any school, or have
>been associated with any institution at all during any period of your life
>which has been found to somehow discriminate or "oppress" anyone
>(including any school you have attended or any place at which you have
>been employed that did not have 100% wheelchair accessibility), then you
>are guilty of violating the same "moral ethic" that you blather about
>everyday that "justified" the devastating murder of 14 young college
>students in Montreal. 

You have made this argument before that slaves are responsible for
their own slavery, and it remains just as contemptible a view as it
did when you first broached it. But I suppose to someone of your
mentality a Black slave picking cotton on the plantation, by that mere
fact alone,  turns himself into an oppressor. If you think this is an
argument that I think needs addressing you are greatly mistaken.

>> Let me give you a little information, Finsten: My public utterances
>> are simply an echo of the private opinions of millions of Canadians
>> who are too scared---for good reason---to speak out. You think you
>> live in a happy land of "sensible" neo-fascists, who are glad to
>> render up every white man's civil rights on the altar of radical
>> feminist theology. Well, I tell you that you are dead wrong, and that
>> Lepine represents the true nature of your society. I know this sticks
>> in your craw, but if you don't get wise you will probably choke to
>> death one day.

>Is that so? Why don't run for public office on your platform then, you
>coward?

The obvious answer is because I prefer to live a free and decent
life, which is not possible in Canada. I think you really should pay
closer attention to what I actually advocate, Neil, and not jump
always to the conclusion that my views with respect to Canada are
mirror images of your own, but for a disagreement on the moral
authority of government and its relationship with the citizenry. 

I am not a believer in Canada, Neil, and consider it, in all its
intrinsic and artificial attributes, an evil.  

>An "echo"? Don't make me laugh! The only echo voices like yours
>would receive are from the empty rooms that would supposed to be filled
>with your supporters if you tried to sell yourself to the public. Step
>forward, identify yourself, broadcast to society your disgusting attitude
>toward women and humans in general, and see for yourself how many
>Canadians would vote for you or any of your Nazi companions. 

Once again, this reference to "Nazi" companions. I have no connection
to any Nazis whatever.  But I suppose that your fundamental debating
style would be mortally crippled if you could not resort to
smear-mongering, rather than the impossibly difficult effort of
producing cohesive arguments to defend your views.


>Where are the
>millions of Canadians voting for your pathetic neo-Nazi friends, who are
>so unpopular and rejected from society at-large that they have to resort
>to using child-like, hate-inspired rantings that give them media attention
>rather than their actual ideas? 

I don't believe I have had any problem getting my ideas across, Neil.
As to the "pathetic neo-Nazis" that so concern you, I am rapidly
getting the impression that the lady doth protest too much. I'm
beginning to understand that it is your own Nazi-like views and
behaviour that is at the root of your obsession with asserting that
"others"---those whom you disagree with---are actually the "real"
Nazis. 

>The "millions" of Canadians you claim
>agree with you and your father figure of Marc Lepine simply do not exist,
>except in your wildest fantasies. You are all talk and no action. 

Once again, this inability to actually THINK. The reason you are so
obsessed with me and my views is precisely that I DO talk, and I HAVE
acted. 

>You claim that "millions" of sick cowards like you and Lepine exist, but the
>truth of the matter is that you are too scared to step forward and even
>identify yourself because deep down inside you know damn well that the
>Canadian people outright reject criminals and societal freaks such as
>yourself.

I will certainly accept the view that, since I happen to be white and
male, I am in virtually all respects a criminal in Canada. Or rather,
a slave. A criminal at least is obliged to commit some *act*, where a
slave is abused simply on the basis of his legal status. But back to
the point: WHY do you think I am someone other than Peter Kolding? I
mean to say, we have exchanged private e-mail, and you never broached
the view that you were communing with a robot. And WHY do you think
that you have a right to personal information about me, Neil?----It's
not as if we are friends. I have, after all, publically declared on
numerous occasions that I despise most everything you stand for.

>Usenet has given you the opportunity to make your voice be heard
>regardless of how few people agree with it, and so you pollute this medium
>of communication with your repulsive thoughts everyday. 

Wel, I suppose we have come to expect from you the exquisitely
Canadian view that somehow opinions that are not agreeable to some
must, by that fact alone, be less deserving of expression. As to the
"pollution" this activity constitutes, may I say that the offering of
such an outlook confirms the basically pathological worldview you
hold.

>But, your ownhallucinations and delusional fantasies aside, the truth 
>of the matter is that you and your attitude are not welcome in Canada,
>or the United States which you have chosen as your new home. 

Luckily, I----nor the millions of men who share my views----are not at
all concerned with the "welcome" people like you choose to extend to
us in the delusional rantings you make on behalf of a Canada that you
neither represent nor understand.

>Now, continue on with your daily rantings and fantasies of grandeur. Go
>ahead and believe that "millions" of Canadians agree with you, by all
>means. But the rest of us know the truth: your movement is insignificant,
>you must resort to violence to gain attention because your ideas are
>devoid of substance and unable to gather popular support, and you depend
>on the independent-of-popular-opinion environment of Usenet to continue
>mind-vomitting your ideas to the rest of us.

I'm afraid that you are again making things up to suit your own
prejudices, and then assigning these views to me. 1) Every poll
undertaken by the Canadian government regarding AA has shown 
more than 75% of the public rejecting the idea. 2) I do not resort to
violence, and deliberately left the country rather than take up arms.
3) AA legislation is fact, not a delusion, and the rise in violence
against the beneficiaries of AA-inspired laws, by those who are
persecuted by those laws, is indisputable. 

The only person in this conversation guilty of delusions, of grandeur
and otherwise, is yourself. People who disagree with you, you delude
yourself into believing are Nazis, and arguments against them are made
by you under the delusion that you represent not simply the views of
Canada and America, but the actual citizenry as well.

>Carry on, my delusional
>friend, but the truth is obvious to everyone but yourself. Your "public
>utterances" are just that, and nothing more: utterances. 

The point is hardly one necessary to be made: What is involved in a
newsgroup posting but words? Yet, my delusional friend, while you say
this very thing above, it must be a rather recently adopted viewpoint
of yours. After all, aren't you the same person who demands people
"identify" themselves, and who seeks to have people removed from ISP's
for posting "public utterances" without the Singh seal of approval?
Can you spell "hypocrite"?

I thought you could.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 09:58:47 PDT 1996
Article: 38314 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Affirmative action supporters are criminals
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:39:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4kehsq$sa2@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <30MAR96.23899101.0032@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> <4jm7h4$g7u@news2.cts.com>  <4jrdns$8ub@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38314 alt.society.civil-liberties:7243

Neil  wrote:

>In light of this supposed habit of your of providing us with "REAL" 
>citations, please post for us the Polytechnique affirmative action
>policy's wording in which it is stated that affirmative action is
>"applicable" to "all white males", as well as the wording that directly
>resulted in the rejection of Marc Lepine's application to Polytechnique. 

Neil, I certainly appreciate your fascination with affrimative action,
but I really don't see why I should spend hours re-typing each AA
policy, of every institution, just because you are too lazy or too
stupid to: 1) phone up the school yourself  and/or 2) read the laws
I've already posted---at mind-numbing length---that are THE BASIS and
INSTRUCTING DOCUMENTS for ALL AA programs EVERYWHERE in 
Canada. 

For what seems the fifteen-hundredth time: Section 15 (2) is the part
of the Charter that makes discrimination against people on the sole
basis of sex and race a constituionally-protected activity of
government, limited only in so far as they are not a member of a
government-determined "disadvantaged group". These "disadvantaged
groups" have already been determined and defined in both Human Rights
and Employment Equity legislation. They are: Women, Visible
Minorities, Indigenous People, and the Disabled. The only group that
AA programs can target is non-disabled white males, BY LAW. The
"choice" to target some other group in society does NOT EXIST. Please
understand the overriding and instructing law with respect to all AA
programs, Neil: No AA program in Canada can target any group except
non-disabled white males. It is ILLEGAL to discrimnate against people
on the basis of sex and race, Neil---EXCEPT under AA programs, which,
in turn, can only target non-disabled white males.

But there is really no point in going on and on explaining the most
elementary facts of AA in Canada, if you are not prepared to actually
read and inwardly digest them. Do you understand that only
non-disabled white males can be legally discriminated against by way
of AA programs in Canada, Neil? 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 09:58:48 PDT 1996
Article: 38317 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: can.politics
Subject: Re: Defenders of the hero Marc Lepine
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:37:55 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4kehqi$sa2@news2.cts.com>
References: <2181579912@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <365276468@f47.n340.z1.ftn>  <4jo2h6$icm@news2.cts.com> <4jq0dg$evu@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

an321@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:


>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> Neil  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>It is impossible to address the frustration of pyschopaths. This would be
>>>like suggesting there is some way the Dunblane massacre could have been
>>>prevented. 
>> 
>> The Dunblane massacre was the simple and predictable result of a nasty
>> little town bullying, smearing and bankrupting an innocent man for 20
>> years. If he had happened to be female there would have been a hue and
>> cry about this, with endless declarations that he was suffering some
>> species of "battered woman syndrome".
>> 
>Uh huh. Another hero for you to look up to and worship. 

Don't be absurd. The fellow was bullied incessantly and made a victim
of an official whispering campaign by local government officials for
years. Even an official enquiry by an ombudsman revealed this and
castigated those involved, but that didn't stop them. The fellow went
off the deep end, predictably, with results that will probably burn in
the brains of a lot of formerly smug Dunblanians. The whole episode is
worthy of Greek Tragedy, but hardly important.







From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 09:58:49 PDT 1996
Article: 38318 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!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: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:38:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4kehqo$sa2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jhcbc$22eu@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jhpee$34j@knot.queensu.ca> <4jlkfg$9sf@news2.cts.com> <4jp6ek$2il@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: There are no laws established on the basis of sexual orientation,
>: heterosexual or otherwise.

>Well, if you choose to not include marital rights, spousal rights, and
>custody rights, all established by law, you would be correct. 

I think we've been over this in the past. There is no law preventing,
or even enquiring about people's sexual orientation.  A man may marry
a woman, and a woman a man. The sexual orientation of either plays no
part in the law. 






From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 09:58:50 PDT 1996
Article: 38319 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!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court attacks freedom of speech!
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:39:34 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <4kehtm$sa2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4k693r$p63@milo.vcn.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>NEWS ITEM:

>Supreme Court attacks freedom of speech!

>A ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada has now made school 
>teachers in Canada second-class citizens: "Teachers voicing
>views publicly that offends a particular group in our society,
>even though the teacher believes his or her views to be the 
>truth can be barred from the classroom for expressing
>"intolerant views" the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in 
>allowing an appeal against a New Brunswick teacher who published 
>anti-Semitic writings. (Vancouver Sun, April 4, 1996, page A4).  

>"A school board has the duty to maintain a positive environment 
>for all children," the Supreme Court of Canada said Thursday in 
>allowing an appeal against New Brunswick teacher Malcolm Ross, who 
>taught for years in the Moncton, New Brunswick area and has written 
>books, pamphlets and letters to newspapers alleging that Christian 
>civilization is being undermined by a global Jewish conspiracy.

>Justice Gerard La Forest who wrote the court's unanimous decision, 
>stated that Ross'action poisoned the school environment "even 
>though the teacher did not express his controversial views in the 
>classroom" - he was guilty of being intolerant.

>So what this ruling by the Supreme Court means is that if a school 
>teacher is sitting in his or her living room with a friend and he 
>or she expresses their belief that the holocaust never took place, 
>and their friend decides to tell the thought police what they said, 
>the teacher can be hauled into court and charged with intolerance 
>and spreading racial hatred.

It may mean this, but that would not be anything new. People are
charged under these hate laws inside and outside of their workplace.
What this ruling actually means is that the government may fire people
on the basis of an inference they choose to draw from their opinions,
*without* charge or trial. It is a ruling that legitimizes the
government's power to enforce political, religious and ideological
qualifications for government employees.  

....[some deleted]...

>However, having said all that, I also am a great lover of democracy 
>and freedom of speech. For instance, if my neighbor tells me that 
>he does not believe the holocaust ever took place, I chalk it up to 
>his ignorance.  Nevertheless, I will defend his right to say what he 
>believes with all the means I have available.  Have we now reached 
>such a sorry state in Canada - as a result of this Supreme Court 
>decision - that we are going to weed out any teacher who holds 
>private views outside of the classroom that might offend some
>special self-interest group in society, simply because that teacher 
>holds private views that this group might think are offensive or
>intolerant towards it?  God help us if we have!  

That is not what is going to happen though. What will happen is that
teachers and other government employees, and those who rely upon
government contracts or largesse, will not express any views contrary
to those approved by government. The real heart and nature of these
laws, however, will be revealed when people are targeted for being
overly silent and not expressing the "correct" opinions in a timely
and properly regular manner. This will quickly become the new standard
of evidence to determine who is "intolerant" and who is not. One
should also look forward to official "guilt" being determined on the
basis of  association, if no actual speech infraction can be pinned on
people. Merely belonging to an anti-multicultural or anti-feminist
organisation will probably be the first of the new types of activities
proving  "intolerance", with other associations of a more neutral
nature being gradually added to the list. 


....[some deleted]...

>  But the private views of teachers held outside 
>of the classroom are protected under the freedom of speech section 
>of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and; therefore, should 
>not be a reason to charge that person simply because he or she has 
>publicly expressed a view not held by a majority of Canada's 
>citizens. 

I don't believe the Supreme Court has made that ruling. It seems to
have determined that a person's constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of
speech may be "overruled" if certain privileged classes of people
object to the content (the Keegstra case); and that the government may
fire its employees on the sole basis of opinions they have expressed,
anywhere (the Ross case).

>Section 2 of the Charter states that every citizen of Canada has 
>the following fundamental freedoms:  (a) freedom of conscience and 
>religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, 
>including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
>(c) freedom of peaceful assembly and (d) freedom of association.  
>How the Supreme Court Justices could make their unanimous ruling 
>in view of (a) and (b) is a mystery to me.

The logical and inescapable answer to this mystery is that they do
not, in fact, make their rulings on the basis of the Charter.

....[some deleted]...

>If the media moguls in Canada don't soon start to speak out against 
>these attacks on our freedom of speech by the courts, they will soon 
>find their own freedoms curbed to the point where telling the truth 
>will soon become an indictable offence in Canada.	A good example of 
>how fragile is the protection of our freedom of speech in Canada
>today is the specious reasoning in an editorial in today's Vancouver 
>Sun, April 6, 1996, "A delicate balance," which supports the Supreme 
>Court's decision.

Who is the largest advertiser in Canada? The answer will reveal why
you will find no defenders against state criminality in the dominant
Canadian media.










From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 20:30:24 PDT 1996
Article: 38490 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!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Singh: Affirmative action victims deserve to be jailed.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:49:00 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <4khabi$co7@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <30MAR96.23899101.0032@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> <4jm7h4$g7u@news2.cts.com>  <4jrdns$8ub@news2.cts.com> <4jrnbi$jm2@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4kehrq$sa2@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38490 alt.society.civil-liberties:7255

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Laura Finsten  wrote:
>[snip]
>> >Ummmm, are you assuming that *any* able-bodied white male who is
>> >denied admission to a programme has been turned down *only* because
>> >of affirmative action? 
>> 
>> Why do you assume otherwise? It is, after all, illegal to discrimnate
>> against people on the basis of their sex unless they are non-disabled
>> white males and the organisation has an affirmative action program. 
>> Try to at least understand the law, Laura: ONLY non-disabled white
>> males can be discriminated against. Any other form of AA is ILLEGAL.
>> You may admit anybody except a NDWM under an AA program, but ONLY if
>> you displace a non-disabled white male. You may not "choose" between a
>> female and a native, or a cripple and a black: they are
>> legally-protected disadvantaged groups. Discrimination against them
>> under any circumstances is a crime.

>In other words, your answer to Finsten's rather simple question is: "Yes,
>I, Kolding, believe that every single white non-disabled male is
>discriminated in every single position he applies for in every single
>institution in all of Canada that has an affirmative action policy." 

>Your logic (using the term loosely) is quite bizarre, to say the least. 

Here is yet another example of you making things up, saying they are
the views of other people, and then replying to them. And you think MY
logic is bizarre.

>> The fact is, if an affirmative action program is in force, every
>> person that is a member of a legally-designated "disadvantaged group"
>> is admitted to the institution on the basis of their status, as is
>> every NDWM that is denied entry. Only people protected by their
>> "disadvantaged" status can therefore be denied entry on the basis of
>> their grades, while the single group that is unprotected ---
>> non-disabled white males --- MUST submit to discrimination on the
>> basis of their sex and race irrespective of their grades.

>The same could be said about any person of any race applying for any
>position to any institution. 

The same could be said, indeed, but those who said it would be liars.
AA  can only be applied against non-disabled white males, no one else.


>The point remains: none of these scenarios justify murder. 

Correct---these scenarios effectively relieve the oppressed from any
charge of criminality, much less murder, in their fight against their
oppressors. 





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 20:30:26 PDT 1996
Article: 38491 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!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,mtl.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Singh loses his mind. No noticeable change reported.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:50:13 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 264
Message-ID: <4khae1$co7@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38491 soc.culture.canada:85564 alt.society.civil-liberties:7256

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >You define an affirmative action program as "slavery" and "oppression". 
>> 
>> I define the legislation and enforcement of the present Canadian AA
>> programs and actvities as a crime against humanity.

>Thank you for re-stating what I already wrote. Personally, I see both
>sides of the AA debate. At times I have actually been completely opposed
>to all forms of AA. In your case, it is irrelevant what a person's view on
>affirmative action may be, because you feel violence is justifiable to
>make your political argument.

I believe that violence against those who legislate, enforce,
deliberately benefit from and support AA is not only justified, but
unavoidable and inevitable. My political argument against AA has
nothing to with violence, but with the principles and consequences of
AA itself.

>The Canadian people live in a democratic
>country, and believe in basic principles of freedom, civility and respect
>for others. Affirmative action may be a bad policy, but the way to go
>about changing it is through the channels that Canadians have almost
>always gone through to affect changes in their government and
>constitution: discussion, political debate, votes and elections. 

The central problem with this argument is that it defends itself on
the basis that the actual problem doesn't exist. It is absurd to argue
against "illegal" political actvities by saying that Canadian people
"live in a democratic country, and believe in basic principles of
freedom, civility and respect for others" when it is precisely that
millions of people DO NOT live in a democratic country, and are denied
the basic principles of freedom, civility and respect, BY LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION.

>It is quite obvious that you are not interested in those methods of
>political change.

I WAS interested. I spent a number of years pursuing those methods.
Unfortunately, such methods are useless in a system that has adopted
the principle of discriminating against people on the basis of their
immutable characteristics. Violence is not simply the only thing that
will work, it is INEVITABLE by virtue of the very nature of the system
itself. The widespread application of AA principles has created an
*Affirmative Action Culture*.  In short, the AA policies undertaken by
governments and bureaucracy have now been adopted by individuals in
their own private lives and relationships within society. AA produces
not simply official oppression by the state, but by its very rules and
nature spreads these rules of conduct to all parts of the society. And
the central theme of AA is NEVER its declared object, "equality", but
simply the enforcement of class-based privilege. Look at your very own
recent, perverse, rationalisation: AA to make the prison population
more representative of society, rather than 99% male, is unnecessary
because crime is a consequnce of testosterone, not systemic
discrimination. Yet never is this "testosterone" theory applied
anywhere else. Never is this "scientific fact" brought up to explain
and deny AA programs in other areas of society. The criminal AA
apologists are simply transparent ideological thugs. Testosterone
means that 99% of prisoners must "scientifically" be male, while the
introduction of the scientific "testosterone" explanation is, quite
literally, interpreted as a crime when offered with respect to, say,
promotion and success. But please don't think I am simply picking on
your particular views----they are ubiquitous, and simply reflect the
values current in an Affirmative Action Culture. Values which must
lead to violence and injustice precisely because those are the central
principles underlying affirmative action: violence and injustice.

>In fact, I strongly believe that your agenda is quite
>different from those Canadians who sincerely believe that AA is bad for
>Canada, because you are not interested in Canada: you are interested in
>the principles abided by your neo-Nazi friends.

Who are these "friends" of mine? This is pure smearmongering.

>This is evidenced by (1) your attempts to brainwash people with your 
>propoganda about affirmative action being "slavery" and "oppression",
> a common strategy and belief among skinheads and white supremacists 
>such as yourself, 

Why do you believe I am a skinhead and a white supremacist? I assure
you I am neither. On the other hand, you have now proven to us all
what YOU are.

>(2) your (what a convenient coincidence) belief that Jim Keegstra, 
>a neo-Nazi who tried to brainwash public school students into having 
>anti-Semetic beliefs was an innocent man who was a "victim" of 
>"oppressive" forces in the Canadian government, 

Let's just understand this: I disagree with the hate laws and find
appalling that a country that claims to guarantee free speech instead
throws people in jail on the sole basis of their opinions---and this
makes me a *Nazi*??? 

>(3) your belief that the mass murder by Marc Lepine of 14
>female college students in Montreal was a "justified" act, and that Lepine
>is a "hero" who should have escaped and planned another attack rather than
>killing himself at the scene,

It is not MY beliefs that are the problem, but YOURS. You simply
disagree with me. All your views with respect to me rely entirely on
self-generated hallucinations. I have no problem disagreeing with your
views, or even despising you for them, but I don't therefore assume
you are member of SMERSH on account of them. 

> (4) the very coincidental fact that your ISP is the same ISP used by 
>Metzger of the White Aryan Resistance (or whatever
>the hell the name of his organization is). 

CTSNET is the sixth largest ISP in the WORLD. Nitwit.

>Further evidence of point #1 follows:

>> Those who
>> participate in legislating or enforcing these crimes, or deliberately
>> benefit from or support them, I consider criminals. And the activities
>> of these criminals constitute oppression by any standard. The
>> widespread enforcement of AA policies in virtually every aspect of
>> law, and especially with respect to the treatment of men and the
>> legally-demanded dispossession of their rights and property, has
>> produced a slave state. 
>[snip]

>Again, both sides of the AA debate have certain elements of truth to them.
>To argue that AA is discriminatory is certainly valid. But to scream out
>hysterically that AA has turned Canada into an "evil", "shithole" of a
>country that "enslaves" white men is the sign of an irrational mind, to
>put it gently. 

But I don't make such accusations without supplying ample, and
indisputable evidence. I also don't "scream hysterically" under any
circumstances.

>I don't feel my theory that you are associated with Nazis, or at least
>white supremacists, is at all "smear-mongering".

But you haven't actually associated ME with ANYONE, white supremacist
or otherwise. But that hasn't stopped you from calling me a  "white
supremacist". Please, Neil, simply post something of *mine*, rather
than making up things.

>In fact, I think it sheds
>a lot of light on why you say many of the things you say on Usenet. 

But it doesn't shed any light on what I actually say. Rather, it
reveals the processes of your mind: Unable to meet my arguments, you
simply adopt smear tactics. It is such a fatuous policy I must wonder
if you are not actually in league with these racists yourself. If
anyone who opposes state-sponsored discrimination against people on
the basis of their race and sex is now to be deemed a racist and
sexist, what, exactly, is left to define anti-racists and
anti-sexists? 

> Ialso believe I have presented a credible argument backed up 
>with several examples as evidence to support my theory, and that 
>most reasonable people reading my argument would tend to agree
> with me that you, at the very least, have a hidden agenda, and are
> not being honest about what it is. 

Your arguments are not credible, but pure smear-mongering of the most
reprehensible kind. As to my agenda, it is the height of fatuousness
to say it is "hidden"----Do you honestly suppose the viewpoints I've
consistently expressed on this newsgroup can have left ANYONE in doubt
of what I think of AA and the plight of men in Canadian society? Is
there anyone who has read my articles on the impossibility of Canada,
politically, who doesn't understand that I am in favour of its
breakup?

The practice of accusing people of "hidden agendas" is very popular in
Canadian political circles. It is an unpleasant activity, but when it
is done at least the alleged "hidden agenda" should be revealed, and
supporting evidence offered. However, all you do is accuse me of a
mysterious, unrevealed "hidden agenda" simply because you disagree,
and find difficulty countering, my open and consistently-stated
political opinions.

>Are you surprised? You vehemently deny any association with white
>supremacists or the like, yet it is an incredible coincidence that your
>opinions reflect those held by typical white supremacists, and your method
>of dealing with political disagreements is similar to them as well.

It seems to me that white supremacists hold the same view of those who
support the principles of AA:  That the immutable characteristics of
people are to be the legal principle upon which the state should treat
its citizens. Since I am so opposed to the incorporation of this
principle in Canadian law that I left the country, and now publically
support any and all actions by victims of these laws, the accusation
that my views are similar to those held by white supremacists is just
too ludicrous. In fact, the accusation is so at variance with known
facts regarding my views it probably constitutes proof-positive of
smear-mongering simply on its own merits. As to my "methods of dealing
with political disagreements", they are my own, and you don't actually
know what they are. I honestly have no idea whether they are similar
or not to anyone else's and have no interest one way or the other. 

>Your obsession with violence is remarkably similar to the obsession 
>I've seen skinhead groups have.

But it is YOU who is "obsessed" with violence, not me. I simply do not
delude myself that Canadian state oppression can be stopped by
argument and reasoning, any more than Nazi oppression could be stopped
by argument and reasoning. They both rely at their core on prejudice
and ideology unconnected with rationality, and often actively deny it.

>I still remember with great clarity how a person
>mentioned the fact that his father had passed away due to war wounds he
>had received during service in World War II, as a Canadian soldier, and
>you stated that the veteran should have died "a painful death" since the
>person disagreed with you on affirmative action.

But once again, I never said that. You just made it up as you have
almost every argument you claim I make. If you dispute this, kindly
post a quote. I assure you I have all my posts to this newsgroup
archived should it be necessary to prove you the liar you are.
 
> Along with your "Lepine is a hero" tirade, that was truly one of the 
>sickest things I have ever seen anyone write on Usenet. 

My arguments are not "tirades". I do not, for instance, make false
accusations about people on the basis that they share the same ISP. An
ISP, by the way, whose market exceeds the population of Canada. That
sort of behaviour I leave to shits like you----truly one of the
sickest things I've ever seen anyone do on USENET.


>To spit on and defile the courage and
>sacrifice that Canada's veterans gave for our country, just because you
>disagree with affirmative action policies, goes beyond any reason. 

Now I'm spitting on and defiling all Canada's veterans, am I? Thank
you for yet another example of the Affirmative Action Culture in
practice.  I disagree with AA----therefore I am now assigned a group
status and am to be judged upon that group's views. I oppose someone
using his dead father as an argument in defending his political
opinion ----  therefore his father is now assigned a group's views and
is to judged upon that groups' status. The merits of the arguments are
now irrelevant. Even the individuals involved are rendered invisible
and worthless. It is now just a matter of "group" against "group",
pure violence and intimidation in the pursuit of power. And you accuse
ME of an "obsession" with violence!!!

>Again, the only types of people I ever see exhibiting such abnormal 
>and psychotic behavior are those of the skinhead/white supremacist
>variety. 

I'm opposed to affirmative action, and therefore, under the Singh
formula, I am abnormal and psychotic. Doubtless this is consistent
with your testoterone=criminal outlook, but that doesn't make your
views defensible. It simply highlights how repulsive they are.

>Your strategy is obvious, and flows with the "new look" skinhead
> movement of the 1990s: act smart, look smart, don't use racial 
>slurs, and recruitment of members will increase. 

Let me understand this reasoning: If someone acts smart, looks smart
and doesn't use racial slurs----he is a white supremacist skinhead.

It's bedtime, Bonzo.






From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 20:30:27 PDT 1996
Article: 38493 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!news.msfc.nasa.gov!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Neil Singh says: Testosterone=criminal.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:49:56 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4khad9$co7@news2.cts.com>
References: <4i023t$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> <4jdt2p$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jk407$hl4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4jrdfa$8ub@news2.cts.com> <4jrohp$jm2@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4kehru$sa2@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38493 alt.society.civil-liberties:7257

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> "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."

>There is a scientifically-verifiable explanation for why most criminals
>are male, and that is that men have higher levels of testosterone in them,
>among other factors.

Unbelievable. Testosterone=criminal. 

And people complain when I say that only violence will overcome the
scum who legislate, enforce and support AA. Tell me, what other form
of persuasion can possibly be effective against people who equate the
presence of a Y chromosome as tantamount to evidence of a criminal
act?

>Why do blacks and some other minorities have lower
>rates of literacy and employment than whites, in your opinion?  Inquiring
>minds want to know. 

You tell me, Neil. You are the fellow who has now revealed himself to
be a latter-day Himmler.




From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 23:42:11 PDT 1996
Article: 7242 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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: can.politics,mtl.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Neil Singh's Admiration of Slavery
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:39:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 196
Message-ID: <4keht5$sa2@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <4jm5fm$el4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4jrdkc$8ub@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38313 soc.culture.canada:85507 alt.society.civil-liberties:7242

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Explain to me how a slave eating his master's crumbs constitutes
>> support for slavery.

>You define an affirmative action program as "slavery" and "oppression". 

I define the legislation and enforcement of the present Canadian AA
programs and actvities as a crime against humanity. Those who
participate in legislating or enforcing these crimes, or deliberately
benefit from or support them, I consider criminals. And the activities
of these criminals constitute oppression by any standard. The
widespread enforcement of AA policies in virtually every aspect of
law, and especially with respect to the treatment of men and the
legally-demanded dispossession of their rights and property, has
produced a slave state. 

>You consider anyone associated with any institution that happens to have
>an affirmative action to be a "slaveholder" and "oppressor". You consider
>anyone associated with any association that has an AA program to be worthy
>of being murdered. 

You are again making things up to suit your tiny, inflamed mind. I do
not assign any particular "worth" to those who commit crimes. I simply
support their victims taking whatever action they feel they have to
against them. 


>Using the very loose, illogical and psychotic reasoning that you use to
>defend the murder of innocent women by Marc Lepine, the vast majority of
>Canadians, who would spit on your face if they could, could easily find
>dozens of reasons why you yourself would fit under the category of
>"oppressor" and find several reasons, under your logic remember, you
>should be murdered in cold blood.

I don't doubt that many Canadians would act exactly like that. After
all, they seem to have no problem in legislating, enforcing,
deliberately benefiting from, and supporting crimes against humanity
right now. However, please note that whatever the "dozens" of reasons 
they might produce to justify themselves in their views, they cannot 
claim that I constitute a government, or that I enforce my presumed
oppression with laws, armed bureaucrats, prisons and the maintenance
of a slave state.

>If you are working for an employer, or
>have ever worked for an employer, or have attended any school, or have
>been associated with any institution at all during any period of your life
>which has been found to somehow discriminate or "oppress" anyone
>(including any school you have attended or any place at which you have
>been employed that did not have 100% wheelchair accessibility), then you
>are guilty of violating the same "moral ethic" that you blather about
>everyday that "justified" the devastating murder of 14 young college
>students in Montreal. 

You have made this argument before that slaves are responsible for
their own slavery, and it remains just as contemptible a view as it
did when you first broached it. But I suppose to someone of your
mentality a Black slave picking cotton on the plantation, by that mere
fact alone,  turns himself into an oppressor. If you think this is an
argument that I think needs addressing you are greatly mistaken.

>> Let me give you a little information, Finsten: My public utterances
>> are simply an echo of the private opinions of millions of Canadians
>> who are too scared---for good reason---to speak out. You think you
>> live in a happy land of "sensible" neo-fascists, who are glad to
>> render up every white man's civil rights on the altar of radical
>> feminist theology. Well, I tell you that you are dead wrong, and that
>> Lepine represents the true nature of your society. I know this sticks
>> in your craw, but if you don't get wise you will probably choke to
>> death one day.

>Is that so? Why don't run for public office on your platform then, you
>coward?

The obvious answer is because I prefer to live a free and decent
life, which is not possible in Canada. I think you really should pay
closer attention to what I actually advocate, Neil, and not jump
always to the conclusion that my views with respect to Canada are
mirror images of your own, but for a disagreement on the moral
authority of government and its relationship with the citizenry. 

I am not a believer in Canada, Neil, and consider it, in all its
intrinsic and artificial attributes, an evil.  

>An "echo"? Don't make me laugh! The only echo voices like yours
>would receive are from the empty rooms that would supposed to be filled
>with your supporters if you tried to sell yourself to the public. Step
>forward, identify yourself, broadcast to society your disgusting attitude
>toward women and humans in general, and see for yourself how many
>Canadians would vote for you or any of your Nazi companions. 

Once again, this reference to "Nazi" companions. I have no connection
to any Nazis whatever.  But I suppose that your fundamental debating
style would be mortally crippled if you could not resort to
smear-mongering, rather than the impossibly difficult effort of
producing cohesive arguments to defend your views.


>Where are the
>millions of Canadians voting for your pathetic neo-Nazi friends, who are
>so unpopular and rejected from society at-large that they have to resort
>to using child-like, hate-inspired rantings that give them media attention
>rather than their actual ideas? 

I don't believe I have had any problem getting my ideas across, Neil.
As to the "pathetic neo-Nazis" that so concern you, I am rapidly
getting the impression that the lady doth protest too much. I'm
beginning to understand that it is your own Nazi-like views and
behaviour that is at the root of your obsession with asserting that
"others"---those whom you disagree with---are actually the "real"
Nazis. 

>The "millions" of Canadians you claim
>agree with you and your father figure of Marc Lepine simply do not exist,
>except in your wildest fantasies. You are all talk and no action. 

Once again, this inability to actually THINK. The reason you are so
obsessed with me and my views is precisely that I DO talk, and I HAVE
acted. 

>You claim that "millions" of sick cowards like you and Lepine exist, but the
>truth of the matter is that you are too scared to step forward and even
>identify yourself because deep down inside you know damn well that the
>Canadian people outright reject criminals and societal freaks such as
>yourself.

I will certainly accept the view that, since I happen to be white and
male, I am in virtually all respects a criminal in Canada. Or rather,
a slave. A criminal at least is obliged to commit some *act*, where a
slave is abused simply on the basis of his legal status. But back to
the point: WHY do you think I am someone other than Peter Kolding? I
mean to say, we have exchanged private e-mail, and you never broached
the view that you were communing with a robot. And WHY do you think
that you have a right to personal information about me, Neil?----It's
not as if we are friends. I have, after all, publically declared on
numerous occasions that I despise most everything you stand for.

>Usenet has given you the opportunity to make your voice be heard
>regardless of how few people agree with it, and so you pollute this medium
>of communication with your repulsive thoughts everyday. 

Wel, I suppose we have come to expect from you the exquisitely
Canadian view that somehow opinions that are not agreeable to some
must, by that fact alone, be less deserving of expression. As to the
"pollution" this activity constitutes, may I say that the offering of
such an outlook confirms the basically pathological worldview you
hold.

>But, your ownhallucinations and delusional fantasies aside, the truth 
>of the matter is that you and your attitude are not welcome in Canada,
>or the United States which you have chosen as your new home. 

Luckily, I----nor the millions of men who share my views----are not at
all concerned with the "welcome" people like you choose to extend to
us in the delusional rantings you make on behalf of a Canada that you
neither represent nor understand.

>Now, continue on with your daily rantings and fantasies of grandeur. Go
>ahead and believe that "millions" of Canadians agree with you, by all
>means. But the rest of us know the truth: your movement is insignificant,
>you must resort to violence to gain attention because your ideas are
>devoid of substance and unable to gather popular support, and you depend
>on the independent-of-popular-opinion environment of Usenet to continue
>mind-vomitting your ideas to the rest of us.

I'm afraid that you are again making things up to suit your own
prejudices, and then assigning these views to me. 1) Every poll
undertaken by the Canadian government regarding AA has shown 
more than 75% of the public rejecting the idea. 2) I do not resort to
violence, and deliberately left the country rather than take up arms.
3) AA legislation is fact, not a delusion, and the rise in violence
against the beneficiaries of AA-inspired laws, by those who are
persecuted by those laws, is indisputable. 

The only person in this conversation guilty of delusions, of grandeur
and otherwise, is yourself. People who disagree with you, you delude
yourself into believing are Nazis, and arguments against them are made
by you under the delusion that you represent not simply the views of
Canada and America, but the actual citizenry as well.

>Carry on, my delusional
>friend, but the truth is obvious to everyone but yourself. Your "public
>utterances" are just that, and nothing more: utterances. 

The point is hardly one necessary to be made: What is involved in a
newsgroup posting but words? Yet, my delusional friend, while you say
this very thing above, it must be a rather recently adopted viewpoint
of yours. After all, aren't you the same person who demands people
"identify" themselves, and who seeks to have people removed from ISP's
for posting "public utterances" without the Singh seal of approval?
Can you spell "hypocrite"?

I thought you could.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 23:42:12 PDT 1996
Article: 7243 of alt.society.civil-liberties
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Affirmative action supporters are criminals
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:39:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4kehsq$sa2@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <30MAR96.23899101.0032@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> <4jm7h4$g7u@news2.cts.com>  <4jrdns$8ub@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38314 alt.society.civil-liberties:7243

Neil  wrote:

>In light of this supposed habit of your of providing us with "REAL" 
>citations, please post for us the Polytechnique affirmative action
>policy's wording in which it is stated that affirmative action is
>"applicable" to "all white males", as well as the wording that directly
>resulted in the rejection of Marc Lepine's application to Polytechnique. 

Neil, I certainly appreciate your fascination with affrimative action,
but I really don't see why I should spend hours re-typing each AA
policy, of every institution, just because you are too lazy or too
stupid to: 1) phone up the school yourself  and/or 2) read the laws
I've already posted---at mind-numbing length---that are THE BASIS and
INSTRUCTING DOCUMENTS for ALL AA programs EVERYWHERE in 
Canada. 

For what seems the fifteen-hundredth time: Section 15 (2) is the part
of the Charter that makes discrimination against people on the sole
basis of sex and race a constituionally-protected activity of
government, limited only in so far as they are not a member of a
government-determined "disadvantaged group". These "disadvantaged
groups" have already been determined and defined in both Human Rights
and Employment Equity legislation. They are: Women, Visible
Minorities, Indigenous People, and the Disabled. The only group that
AA programs can target is non-disabled white males, BY LAW. The
"choice" to target some other group in society does NOT EXIST. Please
understand the overriding and instructing law with respect to all AA
programs, Neil: No AA program in Canada can target any group except
non-disabled white males. It is ILLEGAL to discrimnate against people
on the basis of sex and race, Neil---EXCEPT under AA programs, which,
in turn, can only target non-disabled white males.

But there is really no point in going on and on explaining the most
elementary facts of AA in Canada, if you are not prepared to actually
read and inwardly digest them. Do you understand that only
non-disabled white males can be legally discriminated against by way
of AA programs in Canada, Neil? 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 23:42:13 PDT 1996
Article: 7255 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Singh: Affirmative action victims deserve to be jailed.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:49:00 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <4khabi$co7@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <30MAR96.23899101.0032@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> <4jm7h4$g7u@news2.cts.com>  <4jrdns$8ub@news2.cts.com> <4jrnbi$jm2@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4kehrq$sa2@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38490 alt.society.civil-liberties:7255

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Laura Finsten  wrote:
>[snip]
>> >Ummmm, are you assuming that *any* able-bodied white male who is
>> >denied admission to a programme has been turned down *only* because
>> >of affirmative action? 
>> 
>> Why do you assume otherwise? It is, after all, illegal to discrimnate
>> against people on the basis of their sex unless they are non-disabled
>> white males and the organisation has an affirmative action program. 
>> Try to at least understand the law, Laura: ONLY non-disabled white
>> males can be discriminated against. Any other form of AA is ILLEGAL.
>> You may admit anybody except a NDWM under an AA program, but ONLY if
>> you displace a non-disabled white male. You may not "choose" between a
>> female and a native, or a cripple and a black: they are
>> legally-protected disadvantaged groups. Discrimination against them
>> under any circumstances is a crime.

>In other words, your answer to Finsten's rather simple question is: "Yes,
>I, Kolding, believe that every single white non-disabled male is
>discriminated in every single position he applies for in every single
>institution in all of Canada that has an affirmative action policy." 

>Your logic (using the term loosely) is quite bizarre, to say the least. 

Here is yet another example of you making things up, saying they are
the views of other people, and then replying to them. And you think MY
logic is bizarre.

>> The fact is, if an affirmative action program is in force, every
>> person that is a member of a legally-designated "disadvantaged group"
>> is admitted to the institution on the basis of their status, as is
>> every NDWM that is denied entry. Only people protected by their
>> "disadvantaged" status can therefore be denied entry on the basis of
>> their grades, while the single group that is unprotected ---
>> non-disabled white males --- MUST submit to discrimination on the
>> basis of their sex and race irrespective of their grades.

>The same could be said about any person of any race applying for any
>position to any institution. 

The same could be said, indeed, but those who said it would be liars.
AA  can only be applied against non-disabled white males, no one else.


>The point remains: none of these scenarios justify murder. 

Correct---these scenarios effectively relieve the oppressed from any
charge of criminality, much less murder, in their fight against their
oppressors. 





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 23:42:13 PDT 1996
Article: 7256 of alt.society.civil-liberties
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,mtl.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Singh loses his mind. No noticeable change reported.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:50:13 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 264
Message-ID: <4khae1$co7@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38491 soc.culture.canada:85564 alt.society.civil-liberties:7256

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >You define an affirmative action program as "slavery" and "oppression". 
>> 
>> I define the legislation and enforcement of the present Canadian AA
>> programs and actvities as a crime against humanity.

>Thank you for re-stating what I already wrote. Personally, I see both
>sides of the AA debate. At times I have actually been completely opposed
>to all forms of AA. In your case, it is irrelevant what a person's view on
>affirmative action may be, because you feel violence is justifiable to
>make your political argument.

I believe that violence against those who legislate, enforce,
deliberately benefit from and support AA is not only justified, but
unavoidable and inevitable. My political argument against AA has
nothing to with violence, but with the principles and consequences of
AA itself.

>The Canadian people live in a democratic
>country, and believe in basic principles of freedom, civility and respect
>for others. Affirmative action may be a bad policy, but the way to go
>about changing it is through the channels that Canadians have almost
>always gone through to affect changes in their government and
>constitution: discussion, political debate, votes and elections. 

The central problem with this argument is that it defends itself on
the basis that the actual problem doesn't exist. It is absurd to argue
against "illegal" political actvities by saying that Canadian people
"live in a democratic country, and believe in basic principles of
freedom, civility and respect for others" when it is precisely that
millions of people DO NOT live in a democratic country, and are denied
the basic principles of freedom, civility and respect, BY LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION.

>It is quite obvious that you are not interested in those methods of
>political change.

I WAS interested. I spent a number of years pursuing those methods.
Unfortunately, such methods are useless in a system that has adopted
the principle of discriminating against people on the basis of their
immutable characteristics. Violence is not simply the only thing that
will work, it is INEVITABLE by virtue of the very nature of the system
itself. The widespread application of AA principles has created an
*Affirmative Action Culture*.  In short, the AA policies undertaken by
governments and bureaucracy have now been adopted by individuals in
their own private lives and relationships within society. AA produces
not simply official oppression by the state, but by its very rules and
nature spreads these rules of conduct to all parts of the society. And
the central theme of AA is NEVER its declared object, "equality", but
simply the enforcement of class-based privilege. Look at your very own
recent, perverse, rationalisation: AA to make the prison population
more representative of society, rather than 99% male, is unnecessary
because crime is a consequnce of testosterone, not systemic
discrimination. Yet never is this "testosterone" theory applied
anywhere else. Never is this "scientific fact" brought up to explain
and deny AA programs in other areas of society. The criminal AA
apologists are simply transparent ideological thugs. Testosterone
means that 99% of prisoners must "scientifically" be male, while the
introduction of the scientific "testosterone" explanation is, quite
literally, interpreted as a crime when offered with respect to, say,
promotion and success. But please don't think I am simply picking on
your particular views----they are ubiquitous, and simply reflect the
values current in an Affirmative Action Culture. Values which must
lead to violence and injustice precisely because those are the central
principles underlying affirmative action: violence and injustice.

>In fact, I strongly believe that your agenda is quite
>different from those Canadians who sincerely believe that AA is bad for
>Canada, because you are not interested in Canada: you are interested in
>the principles abided by your neo-Nazi friends.

Who are these "friends" of mine? This is pure smearmongering.

>This is evidenced by (1) your attempts to brainwash people with your 
>propoganda about affirmative action being "slavery" and "oppression",
> a common strategy and belief among skinheads and white supremacists 
>such as yourself, 

Why do you believe I am a skinhead and a white supremacist? I assure
you I am neither. On the other hand, you have now proven to us all
what YOU are.

>(2) your (what a convenient coincidence) belief that Jim Keegstra, 
>a neo-Nazi who tried to brainwash public school students into having 
>anti-Semetic beliefs was an innocent man who was a "victim" of 
>"oppressive" forces in the Canadian government, 

Let's just understand this: I disagree with the hate laws and find
appalling that a country that claims to guarantee free speech instead
throws people in jail on the sole basis of their opinions---and this
makes me a *Nazi*??? 

>(3) your belief that the mass murder by Marc Lepine of 14
>female college students in Montreal was a "justified" act, and that Lepine
>is a "hero" who should have escaped and planned another attack rather than
>killing himself at the scene,

It is not MY beliefs that are the problem, but YOURS. You simply
disagree with me. All your views with respect to me rely entirely on
self-generated hallucinations. I have no problem disagreeing with your
views, or even despising you for them, but I don't therefore assume
you are member of SMERSH on account of them. 

> (4) the very coincidental fact that your ISP is the same ISP used by 
>Metzger of the White Aryan Resistance (or whatever
>the hell the name of his organization is). 

CTSNET is the sixth largest ISP in the WORLD. Nitwit.

>Further evidence of point #1 follows:

>> Those who
>> participate in legislating or enforcing these crimes, or deliberately
>> benefit from or support them, I consider criminals. And the activities
>> of these criminals constitute oppression by any standard. The
>> widespread enforcement of AA policies in virtually every aspect of
>> law, and especially with respect to the treatment of men and the
>> legally-demanded dispossession of their rights and property, has
>> produced a slave state. 
>[snip]

>Again, both sides of the AA debate have certain elements of truth to them.
>To argue that AA is discriminatory is certainly valid. But to scream out
>hysterically that AA has turned Canada into an "evil", "shithole" of a
>country that "enslaves" white men is the sign of an irrational mind, to
>put it gently. 

But I don't make such accusations without supplying ample, and
indisputable evidence. I also don't "scream hysterically" under any
circumstances.

>I don't feel my theory that you are associated with Nazis, or at least
>white supremacists, is at all "smear-mongering".

But you haven't actually associated ME with ANYONE, white supremacist
or otherwise. But that hasn't stopped you from calling me a  "white
supremacist". Please, Neil, simply post something of *mine*, rather
than making up things.

>In fact, I think it sheds
>a lot of light on why you say many of the things you say on Usenet. 

But it doesn't shed any light on what I actually say. Rather, it
reveals the processes of your mind: Unable to meet my arguments, you
simply adopt smear tactics. It is such a fatuous policy I must wonder
if you are not actually in league with these racists yourself. If
anyone who opposes state-sponsored discrimination against people on
the basis of their race and sex is now to be deemed a racist and
sexist, what, exactly, is left to define anti-racists and
anti-sexists? 

> Ialso believe I have presented a credible argument backed up 
>with several examples as evidence to support my theory, and that 
>most reasonable people reading my argument would tend to agree
> with me that you, at the very least, have a hidden agenda, and are
> not being honest about what it is. 

Your arguments are not credible, but pure smear-mongering of the most
reprehensible kind. As to my agenda, it is the height of fatuousness
to say it is "hidden"----Do you honestly suppose the viewpoints I've
consistently expressed on this newsgroup can have left ANYONE in doubt
of what I think of AA and the plight of men in Canadian society? Is
there anyone who has read my articles on the impossibility of Canada,
politically, who doesn't understand that I am in favour of its
breakup?

The practice of accusing people of "hidden agendas" is very popular in
Canadian political circles. It is an unpleasant activity, but when it
is done at least the alleged "hidden agenda" should be revealed, and
supporting evidence offered. However, all you do is accuse me of a
mysterious, unrevealed "hidden agenda" simply because you disagree,
and find difficulty countering, my open and consistently-stated
political opinions.

>Are you surprised? You vehemently deny any association with white
>supremacists or the like, yet it is an incredible coincidence that your
>opinions reflect those held by typical white supremacists, and your method
>of dealing with political disagreements is similar to them as well.

It seems to me that white supremacists hold the same view of those who
support the principles of AA:  That the immutable characteristics of
people are to be the legal principle upon which the state should treat
its citizens. Since I am so opposed to the incorporation of this
principle in Canadian law that I left the country, and now publically
support any and all actions by victims of these laws, the accusation
that my views are similar to those held by white supremacists is just
too ludicrous. In fact, the accusation is so at variance with known
facts regarding my views it probably constitutes proof-positive of
smear-mongering simply on its own merits. As to my "methods of dealing
with political disagreements", they are my own, and you don't actually
know what they are. I honestly have no idea whether they are similar
or not to anyone else's and have no interest one way or the other. 

>Your obsession with violence is remarkably similar to the obsession 
>I've seen skinhead groups have.

But it is YOU who is "obsessed" with violence, not me. I simply do not
delude myself that Canadian state oppression can be stopped by
argument and reasoning, any more than Nazi oppression could be stopped
by argument and reasoning. They both rely at their core on prejudice
and ideology unconnected with rationality, and often actively deny it.

>I still remember with great clarity how a person
>mentioned the fact that his father had passed away due to war wounds he
>had received during service in World War II, as a Canadian soldier, and
>you stated that the veteran should have died "a painful death" since the
>person disagreed with you on affirmative action.

But once again, I never said that. You just made it up as you have
almost every argument you claim I make. If you dispute this, kindly
post a quote. I assure you I have all my posts to this newsgroup
archived should it be necessary to prove you the liar you are.
 
> Along with your "Lepine is a hero" tirade, that was truly one of the 
>sickest things I have ever seen anyone write on Usenet. 

My arguments are not "tirades". I do not, for instance, make false
accusations about people on the basis that they share the same ISP. An
ISP, by the way, whose market exceeds the population of Canada. That
sort of behaviour I leave to shits like you----truly one of the
sickest things I've ever seen anyone do on USENET.


>To spit on and defile the courage and
>sacrifice that Canada's veterans gave for our country, just because you
>disagree with affirmative action policies, goes beyond any reason. 

Now I'm spitting on and defiling all Canada's veterans, am I? Thank
you for yet another example of the Affirmative Action Culture in
practice.  I disagree with AA----therefore I am now assigned a group
status and am to be judged upon that group's views. I oppose someone
using his dead father as an argument in defending his political
opinion ----  therefore his father is now assigned a group's views and
is to judged upon that groups' status. The merits of the arguments are
now irrelevant. Even the individuals involved are rendered invisible
and worthless. It is now just a matter of "group" against "group",
pure violence and intimidation in the pursuit of power. And you accuse
ME of an "obsession" with violence!!!

>Again, the only types of people I ever see exhibiting such abnormal 
>and psychotic behavior are those of the skinhead/white supremacist
>variety. 

I'm opposed to affirmative action, and therefore, under the Singh
formula, I am abnormal and psychotic. Doubtless this is consistent
with your testoterone=criminal outlook, but that doesn't make your
views defensible. It simply highlights how repulsive they are.

>Your strategy is obvious, and flows with the "new look" skinhead
> movement of the 1990s: act smart, look smart, don't use racial 
>slurs, and recruitment of members will increase. 

Let me understand this reasoning: If someone acts smart, looks smart
and doesn't use racial slurs----he is a white supremacist skinhead.

It's bedtime, Bonzo.






From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 10 23:42:14 PDT 1996
Article: 7257 of alt.society.civil-liberties
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!news.msfc.nasa.gov!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Neil Singh says: Testosterone=criminal.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:49:56 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4khad9$co7@news2.cts.com>
References: <4i023t$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> <4jdt2p$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jk407$hl4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4jrdfa$8ub@news2.cts.com> <4jrohp$jm2@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4kehru$sa2@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38493 alt.society.civil-liberties:7257

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> "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."

>There is a scientifically-verifiable explanation for why most criminals
>are male, and that is that men have higher levels of testosterone in them,
>among other factors.

Unbelievable. Testosterone=criminal. 

And people complain when I say that only violence will overcome the
scum who legislate, enforce and support AA. Tell me, what other form
of persuasion can possibly be effective against people who equate the
presence of a Y chromosome as tantamount to evidence of a criminal
act?

>Why do blacks and some other minorities have lower
>rates of literacy and employment than whites, in your opinion?  Inquiring
>minds want to know. 

You tell me, Neil. You are the fellow who has now revealed himself to
be a latter-day Himmler.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:20 PDT 1996
Article: 38977 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.dacom.co.kr!usenet.seri.re.kr!usenet.hana.nm.kr!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Doctor Who is Kolding?
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:37:16 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4koonh$aoo@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$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <4jm5fm$el4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4jrdkc$8ub@news2.cts.com> <4jrp2g$jm2@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4kehs9$sa2@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38977 soc.culture.canada:85795 alt.society.civil-liberties:7283

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote to Laura F.: 

>[snip]
>> fuck you, cunt.

>I think this epitomizes perfectly what kind of person "Kolding" is. I
>don't think I've encountered anyone so lacking in moral values or human
>decency on Usenet before. You are disgusting. 

I'm afraid that your sensitivities are not the arbiter of either moral
values or decency.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:21 PDT 1996
Article: 38978 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.dacom.co.kr!news.kreonet.re.kr!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,mtl.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: More interesting info on Kolding
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:37:50 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4koooj$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4khae1$co7@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38978 soc.culture.canada:85796 alt.society.civil-liberties:7284

Neil  wrote:

>Why is it that we always see Mr. Kolding defending white supremacists (Jim
>Keegstra) and "anti-affirmative action" mass murderers (Marc Lepine), but
>no one else? 

Why is it that Mr. Singh attempts to censor people who have opinions
at variance with his own, even going so far as to carbon-copy his
e-mail "postmaster@fbi.com"?

When you grow up, Neil, you will, I hope, realise that only those
people who have unpopular opinions ever require defending, and that if
their rights to free speech are not protected EVERYONE loses.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:22 PDT 1996
Article: 38979 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!xenitec!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Affirmative action supporters are "criminals"
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:37:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4koons$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References:   <4hnf66$2bgq@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <314f0c39.274759619@193.78.33.33> <20MAR96.00176131.0043@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> <315631d6.43710352@news.dnai.com> <4jae8o$3qg0@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4ju02l$ctj@mippet.ci.com.au> <03APR96.16615395.0059@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> <4kehsn$sa2@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38979 alt.society.civil-liberties:7285

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Let me first note that the word is "sex" not "gender". 

>What's this? More right wing politically correct terminology? 

I'm afraid the Charter is the quite clear on the subject. Perhaps you
should read it one day.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:23 PDT 1996
Article: 38989 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!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Kolding and violence
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:37:34 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4kooo4$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References: <4hvf13$jnc@wi.combase.com> <4hvttt$1gh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4i023t$t0n@wi.combase.com> <4jegt2$gvv@larry.cc.emory.edu> <4jirm3$rr4@news2.cts.com> <30MAR96.23899101.0032@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> <4jm7h4$g7u@news2.cts.com>  <4jrdns$8ub@news2.cts.com>  <4kehsq$sa2@news2.cts.com>  <4khadf$co7@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38989 alt.society.civil-liberties:7286

Neil  wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >Does this in any way answer my question? You seem to have difficulty
>> >understanding that the issue here is not affirmative action. 
>> 
>> The difficulty is that AA is precisely the issue.
>[snip]

>No, Kolding, the issue is NOT affirmative action. The issue is your desire
>to murder Canadian citizens in order to propogate your own political
>agenda.

Please provides some quotes that I "desire to murder Canadian
citizens".


...[nonsense deleted]...

>> >Do you understand English, Kolding? 
>> 
>> Far better than you do, obviously. Here is the question again and
>> English-speakers should have no problem both comprehending it and
>> providing an answer: Do you understand that only non-disabled white
>> males can be legally discriminated against by way of AA programs in
>> Canada, Neil? 

>How does this relate to your obsession with violence against women? When
>will you realize that you are making more and more of a fool out of
>yourself? 

Let's try this for the third time: Do you understand that only
non-disabled white males can be legally discriminated against by way
of AA programs in Canada, Neil? 



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:24 PDT 1996
Article: 38990 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!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Affirmative action supporters are criminals
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:38:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4koopa$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References: <4khi0b$bq2@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38990 alt.society.civil-liberties:7287

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:


>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: For what seems the fifteen-hundredth time: Section 15 (2) is the part
>: of the Charter that makes discrimination against people on the sole
>: basis of sex and race a constituionally-protected activity of
>: government, limited only in so far as they are not a member of a
>: government-determined "disadvantaged group". These "disadvantaged
>: groups" have already been determined and defined in both Human Rights
>: and Employment Equity legislation. They are: Women, Visible
>: Minorities, Indigenous People, and the Disabled. 

>Mr. Kolding, you are mistaken.  S.15 and 15(2) may extended to other 
>analgouas grounds like marital status (married, divorced men or women) or 
>poverty.  These grounds are not always explicit in statutory language.  
>These grounds are open to expansion. 

The "expansion" of protection derives not from the Equality section
but from Section 26:

"26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms
shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or
freedoms that exist in Canada."

This is the legal acknowledgement of the myriad rights and freedoms
recognised in Common Law, and the power and validity of future
decisions based on Common Law.


>"White able-bodied males" can and 
>do find protection under the Charter.  They may be protected further if 
>it can be proved they suffer disadvantage.  The only people who cannot 
>resort to s.15 or 15(2) are those who are "advantaged". 

There is no such word or definition for "advantaged" in the Charter or
any other legislation. The protection from discrimination on the terms
outlined in s. 15(1) applies to everyone, except when the government
chooses to invoke s. 15(2), the affirmative action sub-section. In
that sub-section the government is granted the power, by way of "any
law, program or activity" to deny people the protections outlined in
s. 15(1) if they are not a member of a legally-designated
"disadvantaged group". These disadvantaged groups are ALREADY
determined in law, and follow explicitly the Federal Royal Commission
of 1984, which determined the actual list of groups. 

The only people not included in a "disadvantaged" group, and therefore
the only people who can be discriminated against by "any law, program
or actvity" under s. 15(2), on the sole basis of their race and sex,
are non-disabled white males.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:25 PDT 1996
Article: 38991 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!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neil Singh: ESL dropout.
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:38:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <4kooqe$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References: <4khkar$bq2@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:38991 alt.society.civil-liberties:7288

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: Far better than you do, obviously. Here is the question again and
>: English-speakers should have no problem both comprehending it and
>: providing an answer: Do you understand that only non-disabled white
>: males can be legally discriminated against by way of AA programs in
>: Canada, Neil? 

>Actually, non-disabled white men do find protection under the Charter.  
>Marital status (married, divorced) applies equally to men.  An argument 
>could also be made for poverty, as in some Human rights legislation.

You are simply pointing out that NDWM can claim status under the
Charter, so long as the government does not invoke s. 15(2).  But s.
15(2) allows "any law, program or activity", notwithstanding such a
claim, so long as it doesn't override the rights of those designated
as belonging to a "disadvantaged group". Since everyone except NDWM
are designated as belonging to such a group the only people the
government is expressly permitted to discriminate against,
notwithstanding their claims of Charter protection, are non-disabled
white males.


>The point is, s.15(1) and (2) are not all there is to it.  Note the word 
>"includes".  Analagous grounds may be argued to exist.  What is required 
>is a discreter and insular minority which has suffered disadvantage.  If 
>you have a good argument take it to court.  

The list of "disadvantaged groups" are a matter of public and legal
record, and follow expressly those determined by the 1984 Royal
Commission. Everyone, except non-disabled white males, is covered. 


>Mr. Kolding, your views may be strongly held.  To compare the lives of 
>able bodied whites to slaves (or even Canada's Aboriginal peoples) is 
>ludicrous. 

My views are strongly held, but I at least offer sound reasoning and
proofs. I attempt at every juncture to make reference to the actual
laws and offical policies, rather than simply offering well-known, and
overwhelming anecdotal evidence. My comparisons are not ludicrous---
they are inescapable.

>To justify the murder of anyone is morally void. 

To justify slavery could be said to equally deficient. I am not an
adherent of the morality of wringing one's hands in the face of
oppression. I do not consider the victims of oppression and slavery
capable of contravening the laws of a system under which they are
explicitly denied protection. 

> On any ground. 

It is pointless to make arguments when you refuse to consider any. I
understand completely, however, the frustration this leads to. Perhaps
you will now understand why I support violence against the system as
the only possible and inevitable means to defeat it. Those who
legislate, enforce, benefit from and support AA refuse to accept, like
you, any grounds for opposition to the policy. What, but violence, is
left?

>To idolize a mass murderer is insane. 

I agree. I don't idolize any mass murderers, however.

>You speak of liberty and advocate violence.  What you wish is to usurp 
>democracy.  If I am putting words in your mouth, I apologize.  I doubt 
>that is the case.

You speak of Canada and call it a democracy. The creation and
maintenance of a slave state is neither the product nor the activity
of a democracy.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:26 PDT 1996
Article: 39000 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.dacom.co.kr!vyzynz!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Language Police In Quebec!!!!
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:37:09 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4koona$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References: <4kegg5$hdn@hp.cuug.ab.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Daniel-Robert Gooch  wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, horsefeathers wrote:

>> Was watching the Montreal CBC News on the dish yesterday, and i was
>> absolutely astounded that the so called Language Police sailed in and
>> made a raid on a local IGA store for selling Jewish Food Cosher
>> products that mostly are just sold for a few days this time of year in
>> English only. These items were imported from the United States in
>> English. Can you believe this, comming down on the store because the
>> products were not in French!!!! In this day and age, this is hard to
>> believe, this was not a drug raid, it was a Language raid...Wished the
>> store owner launches a complaint against the so called Language
>> Police.  Hey, if we want National Unity in this country, this sure is
>> not the way to go around it, for sure...
>> 
>> comments?

>Agreed that the whole thing is a regrettable incident.  Of course the
>law requiring labels to be in French in Quebec is a valid one, but it
>is my understanding that the products in question were only actually
>imported for a limited time.  In any case, the *beaurocrats* made
>a bad move.

>This should be emphasized however.  It was some beaurocrat somewhere
>who made the decision and should not be taken as the position of the
>Bouchard government.  It now remains to be seen if Bouchard will handle
>the incident in an adequete way.

This is a difficult one to judge. So far as I know the abhorrent
language law doesn't make distinctions except on the basis of
language---so presumably the bureaucrats had every "right" to act as
they did. But then I read an article in the Gazette that quoted a
government memo to the effect that "Passover would be over soon, so
act quickly". This seems to me to be a direct attack on people on the
sole basis of their religious practices, and, if so, the people
responsible should be drop-kicked out of the Civil Service. 

 






From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:27 PDT 1996
Article: 39001 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.dacom.co.kr!vyzynz!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!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: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:37:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4kooo1$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jdsvq$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jgtj6$f9l@kryten.awinc.com> <4jm7gp$g7u@news2.cts.com> <4jp7i8$2il@knot.queensu.ca> <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <4kha3o$6fd@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>	Finally, you have argued that, with these guarantees of legal 
>equality in place, innocent people can not be denied employment.  Under 
>what basis can one claim that a POSSIBLE criminal -- with no prior record 
>-- should be denied employment?  Suspected or self-confessed but not 
>convicted pedophiles should not work with children, you claim.  

Thank you for finally confirming my point. The person who simply
declares himself to be a paedophile by orientation, if sexual
orientation is a prohibited basis for discrimination, cannot be denied
employment in schools or daycare facilities and will have legal
recourse. If you will recall, I said that the public was not ready for
the spectacle of people being dragged before tribunals and fined
because they refused to allow admitted paedophiles to attend to their
children. I noted that the effects of such a law would likely be a
social disaster.

I'm interested to know why you think this will not happen.








From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:28 PDT 1996
Article: 39002 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.dacom.co.kr!vyzynz!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Nick Sidor, Albert Einstein: How does one tell the difference?
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:37:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4kooob$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References: <4keo5u$f5e@news.magi.com> <4khadp$co7@news2.cts.com> <4khgpj$i68@news.magi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

nsidor@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>nsidor@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:

>>>with the rest of the wingnuts and loose screws.

>>>(Off his medication or off his rocker, we wonder....)

>>The intellectual life of the typical Canadian, ably recreated by Nick
>>Sidor. Too bad you do it unconsciously. :)

>Hardly. No time to waste intellectual capital on your ravings, typical
>or not... But I *am* glad to see your taking your meds again, Peter...

No need for medication with your eye-glazing posts to soothe us, Nick.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:28 PDT 1996
Article: 39003 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!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!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: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:39:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4koora$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References: <4kehqo$sa2@news2.cts.com> <829146839.3701snx@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 <4kehqo$sa2@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com writes:
>>
>>or even enquiring about people's sexual orientation.  A man may marry
>>a woman, and a woman a man. The sexual orientation of either plays no
>>part in the law. 


>A man should be allowed to marry another man if he so wishes.
>the State has no place telling us who our marriage parteners should be.

And they should also have no place in setting any other terms of the
marriage either, should they? So long as they do, however, I am not
prepared to support even more people being reduced to slavery. There
are, of course, more general arguments about the nature of marriage
and the place it has in society---but the discussion was about sexual
orientation, not the sex of the people concerned; and the fact that
marriage is a legal, social and religious institution that is
intrinsically defined as concerning people of the opposite sex. In
fact, "marriage" defines a certain specific relationship between
people of the opposite sex, and cannot exist otherwise. It is much
like the definition of "apple pie" in that respect----if it doesn't
contain apples, it ain't apple pie.

By the way, if the legal responsibilities and consequences of the
present relationship laws were repealed, I, too, would have no
objection to "marriage" between people of the same sex. I would not
even object to polygamy, so long as dangerous genetic consequences
were avoided.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:29 PDT 1996
Article: 39004 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!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!rail.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!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: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:39:41 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <4koos4$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References: <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <829147102.3702snx@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 <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com writes:
>>
>>unavoidable, which is that sexual perverts, such as paedophiles, are
>>not guilty of anything under the law unless they ACT. And if the law

>As a matter of fact, pedophilia is defined by the ACT is it not?

Yet paedophiles claim they are sexually-oriented towards children. It
is not ME who is splitting terminological hairs, but those who want to
equate the sexual orientation of paedophiles as simply illegal
homosexual or heterosexual behaviour---like having sex in the public
square. 

>Or do you wish the State to conduct mind probes to determine if you are
>a pedophile or not?

Does the state conduct mind probes presently to determine who is a
homosexual when it comes to marriage? Absolutely not. Marriage has
nothing to do with sexual orientation of the people involved.

>>is changed to prohibit discrimination on the basis sexual orientation
>>I don't see how they would be prevented from successfully suing school
>>boards and daycare centers whenever they were turned down for a job.

>Because sexual orientation reffers the gender preferance, not age 
>preference.

And here, yet again, this absurd misuse of the word "gender". Sexual
orientation is defined by the "object" of one's sexual preference,
where the sex---if the object possesses a sex---is usually of
secondary or only limited importance. The male that is
sexually-oriented towards young boys, or, as you seem to want him
described, the homosexual, is not oriented towards the sex (witless
illiterates read "gender" throughout) of the object so much as
specific, age-related physical attributes. 

But to get back to this dreadful mangling of an important and useful
word. Even in Victorian times the substitution of the word "gender"
for the word "sex" was considered a comical, even satirical thrust at
prudery and obfuscation, and not actually a literal synonym. But the
modern adoption of this word has even gone one step further than this:
Not only is it now used as an obfuscating synonym, but it has actually
destroyed its proper use in describing a basic sexual concept: The
sexual personality. (As opposed to the physical sexual attributes a
person may have). By this I mean---to those narrow numbskulls who use
"gender" anytime the word "sex" raises its ugly head---that a person
can have a "gender" quite the opposite of their sex.

But, of course, illiterates are always using words they don't
understand, while politically-active illiterates take this a step
further and openly emulate Humpty Dumpty: Choosing a meaning 
and then assigning it to any pretty word that comes upon them.


>As for the above senario, not likely since it can be reasonably argued that
>a pedophile will conduct acts against the children under his care.

>>discussing the inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a prohibited form
>>of discrimination and what the likely, and to my mind, inevitable
>>consequences will be if it is applied.


>I think, like most rightoids you want control and power. You wrap yourself
>in the flag of a freedom fighter yet would like to prevent homosexuals from
>having the same rights you take for granted.

Whatever delusions you may be suffering from with respect to my
political leanings, it is pure political gibberish to suggest that I
consider what I have described as a vicious system of enslavement as a
"right". Homosexuals already have the "right" to marry, just as
heterosexuals do. Marriage is neutral with respect to sexual
orientation.

> By oppressing gays, by letting them get fired from jobs soley because 
> of who they choose as parteners, you enslave us all.

I see in Canada that a Mr. Ross has been fired from his job because he
wrote a book some people didn't care for. Yet I hear no howls of
"oppression! oppression!" from activist homosexuals, and no
declarations from you as to the enslavement this treatment produces.
However, supporting a widening grasp for the marriage laws---and the
resulting increase in slavery that will flow from it---IS evidence of
oppression, Kodish, so you can go blow it out your ear.





From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:30 PDT 1996
Article: 39005 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!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!rail.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!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: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:40:09 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <4koosv$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jhcbc$22eu@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <4jhpee$34j@knot.queensu.ca> <4jlkfg$9sf@news2.cts.com> <4jp6ek$2il@knot.queensu.ca> <4kehqo$sa2@news2.cts.com> <4kj2l2$ss@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

phoenixr@isisnet.com (Paula Peter-Dennis) wrote:

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

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

>: >: There are no laws established on the basis of sexual orientation,
>: >: heterosexual or otherwise.

>: >Well, if you choose to not include marital rights, spousal rights, and
>: >custody rights, all established by law, you would be correct. 

>: I think we've been over this in the past. There is no law preventing,
>: or even enquiring about people's sexual orientation.  A man may marry
>: a woman, and a woman a man. The sexual orientation of either plays no
>: part in the law. 

>ah, but a man may not legaly marry another man in Canada, even though 
>there is no law saying that this is not permitted.

I think you are making an argument convenient to your own idelogical
or political definition of "marriage". Marriage is legally defined (as
well as socially, historically and religiously) as the relationship of
"husband and wife". The objection to including same-sex couples is
that they cannot, by definition, be "married". It would be equivalent
to saying that beef stew is apple pie. 

>What there *is*, is a perceived law that says that two people cannot 
>legagly be married, and a definition of "spouse" as a member of the 
>opposite sex. Kim Campbell  soldified that back in the six months she 
>was PM.

I realise that some people believe merely changing definitions doesn't
change meaning, but it isn't so. The same-sex marriage advocates think
changing the definition of marriage somehow means that the present
meaning is retained nonetheless. It isn't. "Marriage" is a
relationship involving people of the opposite sex. 

But let us at least be honest about this subject: The drive for
"homosexual" marriage has nothing to do with any actual individual
people, but with the privileges that accrue from legal marital status.
There would be no demand for homosexual marriage if it involved no
equivalent financial and legal benefits (for some), or if those
involved were obliged to pay a heavy and regular "marriage tax"
instead.

>It the reason why same sex couples on welfare claim as single persons, 
>and therefore don't get the deductions that married or commmonlaw people 
>do. It's also the same reason that income tax for a same sex couple is 
>filed as two single persons living in the same house instead of as a 
>married or commonlaw couple.

Exactly. It is not "marriage" that is at issue here, but taxes and
benefits.  




From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 14 13:36:31 PDT 1996
Article: 39007 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!howland.reston.ans.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Private Schools should be illegal!
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:40:43 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4koou0$aoo@news2.cts.com>
References: <869269503.12675191@hubcap.mlnet.com> <4kjo9t$qo2@nic.ott.hookup.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Mark_Burchell@on.infoshare.ca (Mark Burchell) wrote:

>___The basic thesis is this....While private schools remain and
>flourish, the power elite in this country will not be overly concerned
>with public schools.  If the power elite is forced to address the
>issue of bettering education, education for regular Canadians will get
>better.  Making private schools illegal is the best and most efficient
>way to get them to study the issue.

I'm afraid this real-politik approach is still terminally faulty. The
power elite, like all other parents, are interested first in the
education of their children, not "in bettering education". You make
the fundamental mistake that somehow merely eliminating private
schools will result in better public schools---it doesn't work that
way however. What people will do is simply hire private tutors and
have their children taught at home, privately. And if you then counter
this with a prohibition against private tutors, they will simply hire
private "nurses" or "babysitters" or "drivers" or whatever, who will
do this private tutoring instead.

Understand something: teaching and learning are natural abilities of
all human beings. The problem with public education is that the
"educators" think that they are a special priesthood, admission to
which is only acheived by years of study, and by demonstrating the
mastery of holy educational ceremonies and incantations. For this they
require large salaries, an immense adminstrative organisation and
plenty of rest.






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 16 20:06:44 PDT 1996
Article: 39474 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.men,can.politics
Subject: Re: Madam Justice Louise Arbour
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:34:25 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4l1app$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4k0vqq$9a3@nntp.pinc.com> <4kc2ac$kf4@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4kme3i$2v7@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.men:111864 can.politics:39474

cmacdoug@chat.carleton.ca (Cindy MacDougall) wrote:



>> : Feminism is fun, fun, fun! -- me.

>> Feminism is sad, sad, sad! --you.

>Oh, wow, what a winner.  Afraid of equality, are we? >:)

Afraid of disagreement, are we?



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 16 20:06:46 PDT 1996
Article: 39475 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: More interesting info on Kolding
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:35:37 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4l1as1$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4khae1$co7@news2.cts.com>  <4koooj$aoo@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39475 soc.culture.canada:85942 alt.society.civil-liberties:7326

Neil  wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Why is it that Mr. Singh attempts to censor people who have opinions
>> at variance with his own, even going so far as to carbon-copy his
>> e-mail "postmaster@fbi.com"?

>Oh pulleaze. Kolding has been whining about my e-mailing the FBI letting
>them know of yet another kook that lives in their jurisdiction (even
>though they probably already knew) ever since I did it _several_ months
>ago. 

>> When you grow up, Neil, you will, I hope, realise that only those
>> people who have unpopular opinions ever require defending, and that if
>> their rights to free speech are not protected EVERYONE loses.

>I am using my freedom of speech to denounce and expose your hatred for
>non-whites and women, and for your belief that Canadian citizens should be
>murdered in order to propogate your personal political agenda. If you have
>a problem with that: shove it. 

I don't have a problem with your exercise of the right to free speech,
I simply insist that you support your opinions with evidence when you
typify other people's views. Now that you claim to be in some sort of
holy lather of denunciation and exposition, please supply us with some
sort of quote that "I hate women and non-whites", and that "Canadian
citizens should be murdered to propagate my person political agenda".

That you cannot provide any evidence is obvious, as I have asked the
same sort of question of you before and your response has simply been
to ignore it or lie. You are simply a cheap smearmonger. 



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 16 20:06:47 PDT 1996
Article: 39476 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Doctor Who is Kolding?
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:36:00 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4l1aso$rnf@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.emo 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39476 soc.culture.canada:85943 alt.society.civil-liberties:7327

dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:

>In article <4koonh$aoo@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>>Neil  wrote:

>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote to Laura F.: 

>>>[snip]
>>>> fuck you, cunt.

>>>I think this epitomizes perfectly what kind of person "Kolding" is. I
>>>don't think I've encountered anyone so lacking in moral values or human
>>>decency on Usenet before. You are disgusting. 

>>I'm afraid that your sensitivities are not the arbiter of either moral
>>values or decency.

>But according to you, it is quite legitimate for Marc Lepine to be the arbiter 
>of life and death.  

No, it is quite legitimate to oppose by violence deliberate,
constitutionally-sanctioned government oppression. It was not
_Lepine's_ sensitivities that decided that he had the wrong sex and
skin colour to be allowed to attend school.




From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 16 20:06:47 PDT 1996
Article: 39479 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec
Subject: Re: December 6, 1989
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:36:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4l1atn$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39479 soc.culture.quebec:16142

Neil  wrote:

>I think when we get carried away with arguing the "issues" surrounding
>various events, we tend to forget that we are talking about real people, who
>had real lives, real hopes, real dreams, and real families, all of which were
>shattered one afternoon by the act of a single man armed with a Sturm Ruger
>Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle. 

>Lest we forget: 

>Genevieve Bergeron, 21
>Helene Colgan, 23
>Nathalie Croteau, 23 
>Barbara Daigneault, 22
>Anne-Marie Edward, 21 
>Maud Haviernick, 29
>Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31
>Maryse Leclair, 23
>Annie St-Arneault, 23
>Michele Richard, 21
>Maryse Laganiere, 25
>Anne-Marie Lemay, 22
>Sonia Pelletier, 28 
>Annie Turcotte, 21. 

And you accuse ME of idolatry!





From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 16 20:06:48 PDT 1996
Article: 39480 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.men,can.politics
Subject: Re: Madam Justice Louise Arbour
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:36:41 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4l1au2$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4k0vqq$9a3@nntp.pinc.com> <4kc2ac$kf4@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4kme3i$2v7@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4ktht9$596@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.men:111866 can.politics:39480

leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:

>In  the
>soul searcher  writes: 
>>
>>> > : Feminism is fun, fun, fun! -- me.
>>> 
>>> > Feminism is sad, sad, sad! --you.
>>> 
>>> Oh, wow, what a winner.  Afraid of equality, are we? >:)
>>> 
>>I personally am not afraid of equality, but I don't think that is what
>>Justice Arbour was aiming for. Why, for example, are male guards not 
>>allowed in women's prisons, while female guards are allowed in men's 
>>prisons?

>-----------------------
>I'd have to look up the legal answer for you (if there is
>one)....something to do about a legitimate state purpose only needing a
>rational reason to enforce the law you see as unfair.  However, a more
>practical reason for this may have to do with liability, i.e. what are
>the statistics for rape of male prisoners by female gaurds?

It seems you are now suggesting that "all men are rapists".






From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 17 08:09:01 PDT 1996
Article: 39488 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!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!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: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:36:25 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <4l1atl$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jdsvq$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jgtj6$f9l@kryten.awinc.com> <4jm7gp$g7u@news2.cts.com> <4jp7i8$2il@knot.queensu.ca> <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <4kha3o$6fd@knot.queensu.ca> < <4ks5i7$hq8@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>4kooo1$aoo@news2.cts.com>:
>Organization: Department of Economics
>Distribution: 

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: Thank you for finally confirming my point. The person who simply
>: declares himself to be a paedophile by orientation, if sexual
>: orientation is a prohibited basis for discrimination, cannot be denied
>: employment in schools or daycare facilities and will have legal
>: recourse. If you will recall, I said that the public was not ready for
>: the spectacle of people being dragged before tribunals and fined
>: because they refused to allow admitted paedophiles to attend to their
>: children. I noted that the effects of such a law would likely be a
>: social disaster.

>: I'm interested to know why you think this will not happen.

>First, please refute (if possible) the arguments that I have presented 
>that state that pedophilia is not and would not be considered a sexual 
>orientation. 

Because paedophilia is an orientation based on sexual characteristics
primarily dependent upon the age of the object, not the sex of the
object. The present politically-correct view that anyone's sexual
orientation can be represented as a point on a sexual continuum with
heterosexuality on one end and homosuality on the other is just that:
a political view. It has no basis in reality and is defied in
practical terms with virtually every new edition of the morning
newspaper. Please don't forget that homosexuality once suffered
exactly the same political view, using the same reasoning and
definitions, that you now wish to award paedophilia. It was not
considered a sexual orientation, but a perversion of sexual
orientation.

> Moreover, please do note, as I have only now mentioned it 
>multiple times, that, given the fact that sexual orientation is read in 
>to Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCR&F)  
>why is this social disaster not happening right now?

It took decades for homosexuals to come out of the closet, it will
likely take a similar length of time with respect to paedophiles. The
social progression, I'll wager, will be almost identical. From illegal
outcast, to the victim of a "sickness", to being unjustly persecuted
on the basis of an irremediable characteristic, to pro-active legal
protection, to "compensation", to social neutrality. I am not arguing
that paedophiles will ever be legally permitted to exercise their
orientation, but that inevitably the forces propelling law-making in
Canada will deny the exercise of discrimination on "moral" grounds
against those who claim the paedophile's sexual orientation.

>	Second, under what basis is the social disaster you fear worse 
>than what can only be described as a fascist state that has no concern 
>for democracy and justice which you propose to prevent the alleged 
>disaster?  

I haven't made any comparisons of social disasters, but have tried to
keep the argument to general, well-known tendencies of all societies.
It seems to me that parents are not going to allow people who claim to
be sexually orientated to children, to attend to their children, no
matter what the law demands. And if the law demands that such
discrimination cannot be allowed, and that the courts and jails and
AA, etc. etc. is to be applied to resolve this---as it is everywhere
else---there will be a social disaster.


>	You argue that:  a person who declares him or herself as a 
>pedophile should be legally denied employment, at least in those 
>situations that expose the individual to children. 

I do not argue any such thing. My argument is that if sexual
orientation is a prohibited form of discrimination, then
discrimination on that basis will be against the law. And the
consequence of this will be that the society will be treated to the
spectacle of parents being dragged before the courts because they
refuse to allow admitted paedophiles to care for their children. If
you think this won't lead to a social disaster, let us just agree to
disagree.

>Presumably, under 
>extension of that argument, the self-confessed pedophile could be barred 
>from such areas as playgrounds, schoolyards, and perhaps even living in 
>certain areas that have lots of children.  The next extension is that a 
>person suspected of being a pedophile, even if that person has not 
>declared him or herself as one, could similarly be barred employment or 
>other rights.
>	All in the name of protecting the innocent from a potential 
>criminal.

I agree entirely with your analysis of the witchhunt mentality that
accrues in an AA culture. But paedophiles are sexually orientated to
children. The self-admitted paedophile admits his sexual attraction to
children. I really do not see why parents should be obliged to place
their children under such people's care, but, more to the point, I do
not see why, law or no law, anyone would think they would anyway.

>	Let me throw a parallel dilemna out and follow the same logic.
>I love money.  In fact, I love money so much, I would take money that I 
>wasn't legally entitled to, if I could get away with it.  If I could 
>commit the perfect bank robbery, I would do it.  If I could commit fraud 
>for money and get away with it, I would do it.  The only thing that is 
>stopping me is fear of getting caught.

...[bulk of bank robber parallel deleted for space]....

>I am a potential thief, Will barring me from a bank make society any 
>safer?   

I don't know if barring you from a bank will make society any safer,
but the question is a matter of the right of *a bank* to refuse you
employment if they think it will make *them* safer. I assure you that
open declarations that you love money and would be willing to steal if
you could get away with it will certainly be used to deny you a job
with a bank today. 

>	Now, if I committed a crime, and was, under due process of the 
>law, found guilty of that crime -- and ended up with a criminal record -- 
>then that record could be used against me.  For instance, I might not be 
>bondable, which would mean that becoming a armoured car guard might not 
>be in the works.  After the criminal act, after I am guilty, things change.  
>But until then, I, and many others, are innocent and equal under the law 
>to all other innocent people.
>	Pedophilia is a criminal act, and a very offensive act as well.  
>Someone who is convicted of pedophilia should be prevented by all 
>reasonable measures from being a danger to children again.  There is no 
>danger, and if you read my previous posts to this thread it should be 
>quite clear why, that a person committing pedophilia can somehow, under 
>Section 15(1) of the CCR&F or under the suggested amendment to the 
>Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), use prohibition from discrimination 
>on the basis of sexual orientation to not get the sentence that the 
>pedophile deserves.

I already stated in my first response that the limitation of sexual
*acts* is nowhere prohibited and is not the issue at hand.

>	But until a pedophile commits a criminal act, and until that 
>pedophile is convicted for that criminal act under due process of the 
>law, that person has committed no crime and thus holds the rights to 
>employment even in places where children may be.

This is the nub of the argument. What you are saying is what I have
been arguing: If "sexual orientation" is to be a prohibited form of
discrimination, parents will be obliged to allow their children to be
attended by self-declared, but unconvicted paedophiles, or face fines,
compensation payments and possibly jail. I cannot see anything but a
looming social disaster under such circumstances.


>	That's what our democratic system and our system of justice 
>mean.  No-one, not government, not any other individual, has the right to 
>persecute the innocent.  The guilty can be punished, but only under due 
>course of the law.  This is the fundamental principles that define a 
>democratic society; that no individual or collective body has arbitrary 
>power over any individual.  

Yet the government would be exerting their arbitrary power---against
the wishes of parents--in order to allow admitted paedophiles to
attend to their children. This is the madness of ideological
despotism, not the exercise of democratic principles. 





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 17 08:09:03 PDT 1996
Article: 39489 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!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Neil Singh: ESL dropout.
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:36:40 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4l1au0$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: <60426150@news2.cts.com> <386120002@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 PKolding to All:


>P> You speak of Canada and call it a democracy. The creation
>P> and maintenance of a slave state is neither the product nor
>P> the activity of a democracy.

>Sure it is. Democracy is slavery of the minority by the
>majority. Pretty much by definition.

But in a democracy both majority and minority are defined by the
process, and not by their legal and social class. The minority are not
"slaves" to the majority, they are simply in the minority. Canada,
however, has designated an actual slave "class" that is denied rights
and recourse to the courts regardless of the operation of any
nominally democratic process that may be undertaken. 





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 17 08:09:04 PDT 1996
Article: 39490 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!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: FREE THE WEST! Let Western Canada Seceede!
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:36:43 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4l1au4$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

wparker@torfree.net (Wil Parker) wrote:

>Your Name (papin.2@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:

>[snip]

>: Leftist radicals are to blame for that! Well a LARGE NUMBER of
>: Conservative Canadians are fed up with this soft-peddaled tyranny and want
>: out! (Quebec, The West, etc)
>: These are wise individuals who are sick of a Big Brother type central
>: government! To all you Liberal Canadians who are control freaks, passing
>: law after law for others to follow, you could learn a thing or two from
>: the Swiss system of government, and how it views its citizens and freedom!

>: Free the West!
>: Free Quebec!

>: Jack D Papin

>I guess you illustrate that old joke about you US of Aers and your lack of
>knowledge of Canada.  Do you bring your skis for a vacation here in July?
>:-)

>Sorry, but the University Of Ohio hasn't taught you very well so far about
>the current state of politics in Canada.  The only separatist government
>in Canada is in Quebec, and it has positioned itself to the left on the
>political spectrum.  The rest of your letter indicates a profound
>ignorance of the politics of our country, part of which is just on the
>other side of Lake Erie from you. 

I think you should get oot-na-boot a little more. The separatist
sentiment is strong in BC, and grows stronger with every outrage the
Federal system and its bureaucracy commits. 






From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 17 08:09:04 PDT 1996
Article: 39495 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!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Affirmative action supporters are criminals
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:35:39 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <4l1as6$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4khi0b$bq2@News.Dal.Ca> <4koopa$aoo@news2.cts.com> <4kq6qd$ke5@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39495 alt.society.civil-liberties:7331

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>(disussion on the expansive nature of s.15 equality guarantees omitted)

>: The "expansion" of protection derives not from the Equality section
>: but from Section 26:

>: "26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms
>: shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or
>: freedoms that exist in Canada."

>: This is the legal acknowledgement of the myriad rights and freedoms
>: recognised in Common Law, and the power and validity of future
>: decisions based on Common Law.

>No it does not. S.26 is a saving provision.  What provides room for 
>expansion is the judicial interpretation of "includes" in section 
>15. Read the Andrews decision.  There citizenship was held to be an 
>analagous ground. 

There is no "includes" in Section 15. Perhaps you are referring to
Section 15 (2) and the word "including". 

>An American able bodied male was able to use the 
>Charter to challenge citizenship requirements preventing him from 
>practicing law in Canada. 

Citizenship requirements, in this case, were determined to contravene
the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national
origin. The interpretation that a person's citizenship signifies a
foreign national origin is one that has long pertained in Common Law.

>Furthermore, to the extent the common law is inconsistent with the 
>Charter, it is invalid. 

That's not true. To the extent that the Charter incorporates Common
Law, it ceases to be Common Law. The Charter is the supreme legal
document, but Section 26 specifically acknowledges that it cannot be
construed to deny the existence of other rights and freedoms in
Canada.

>See for example R. v. Swain. 
>There may be other existing rights at common law but they are still 
>subject to Charter scrutiny.

The Charter may scrutinise any relationship it governs. Scrutiny is
not invalidation.

>: There is no such word or definition for "advantaged" in the Charter or
>: any other legislation. The protection from discrimination on the terms
>: outlined in s. 15(1) applies to everyone, except when the government
>: chooses to invoke s. 15(2), the affirmative action sub-section. In
>: that sub-section the government is granted the power, by way of "any
>: law, program or activity" to deny people the protections outlined in
>: s. 15(1) if they are not a member of a legally-designated
>: "disadvantaged group". These disadvantaged groups are ALREADY
>: determined in law, and follow explicitly the Federal Royal Commission
>: of 1984, which determined the actual list of groups. 

>You are mistaking legal text for law. First: the government does 
>not invoke s.15(2).  

You mistake exposition for legal text.

>Secondly, there are indeed certain groups designated as 
>disadvantaged under legislation.  However this legislation must be read 
>in light of judicial pronouncements.  Legislation is not written in stone, 
>for better or worse.  For example, homosexuals find protection under the 
>Canadian Human Rights legislation. However, you will not find this stated 
>explicitly.  I have no intention of arguing about the merits of this, but 
>here is yet another group of NDWM finding protection under the Charter.

But homosexuals do not equal NDWM any more than females do.
Non-disabled white females do not have to seek protection under the
exclusive rubric of their homosexuality. 



>The point is that "disadvantaged" group is a malleable concept. 

No, it is deliberately arbitrary. 

>Analagous grounds do cover non disabled white males. Ie. Marital status, 
>citizenship, poverty, etc. It can be expanded.  When you examine the law 
>as it stands, only "advantaged" sub groups fail to find any protection 
>under the Charter. S.15(2) is permissive.  The government may establish 
>programs.  It does so. Nothing prevents NDWM from finding protection there.

Except if they are simply non-disabled white males. You don't seem to
quite understand the point: EVERYONE is covered under the present
arbitrarily designated disadvantaged groups already, except NDWM. NO
ONE has to "seek" analogous grounds, except NDWM. What you are arguing
would be the state of protection if Section 15 (2) didn't exist.

>: the only people who can be discriminated against by "any law, program
>: or actvity" under s. 15(2), on the sole basis of their race and sex,
>: are non-disabled white males.

>Please quote all of the law.

>15(2) Subsection (1) does not *preclude* any law program or activity that 
>has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged 
>or groups "including" those that are disadvantaged because of race, 
>national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or 
>physical disability.

>That "includes" is very important.  I see there "national origin".  I 
>also see "religion".  I also see "age" and "national origins".  All are 
>applicable to non-disabled white males. 

They are NOT. You suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the
law.  The laws, programs and activities referred to in s. 15 (2) that
the government may enforce can only apply with respect to legally
defined "disadvantaged groups." The government MAY NOT legislate in
contravention of s. 15 (1) otherwise. The ONLY people who are not
legally defined as belonging to a disadvantaged group are non-disabled
white males.

>Go figure. I repeat: only "advantaged" sub groups fail to find protection.

There is no such word as "advantaged" in the Charter. The word is
"disadvantaged" and all those who fall into that catagory cannot be
discriminated against on the basis of s. 15 (1) by the government,
under any circumstances. 





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 17 08:09:05 PDT 1996
Article: 39496 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!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Idolizing mass murderers
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:35:43 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4l1as7$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4khkar$bq2@News.Dal.Ca> <4kooqe$aoo@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39496 alt.society.civil-liberties:7332

Neil  wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> I agree. I don't idolize any mass murderers, however.

>Marc Lepine was a mass murderer. 

YOU think he was. I don't. I have stated repeatedly that he is a hero
and is guilty of no crime whatever. Quite the opposite.

>You idolize Marc Lepine. 

I respect him for his actions. I consider him a true hero. Idolatry is
a passion far more likely in your case than mine.

>Therefore, you idolize a mass murderer. 

Therefore I respect the hero Marc Lepine. And therefore you are an
idiot. 
 







From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 17 08:09:06 PDT 1996
Article: 39497 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!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Kolding and violence
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:36:05 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4l1ast$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39497 alt.society.civil-liberties:7333

Neil  wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Neil  wrote:
>> >No, Kolding, the issue is NOT affirmative action. The issue is your desire
>> >to murder Canadian citizens in order to propogate your own political
>> >agenda.
>> 
>> Please provides some quotes that I "desire to murder Canadian
>> citizens".

>You stated that Marc Lepine is a "hero". You stated that Marc Lepine
>should not have killed himself, but rather should have planned an escape
>route and organized yet another attack on more "beneficiaries" of
>affirmative action. Clearly, you approve of the murder of Canadian
>citizens. That easily translates into a "desire" to see Canadians citizens
>murdered. 

Only in disturbed and prejudiced minds, such as your own, are such
"translations" formulated.


>> Let's try this for the third time: Do you understand that only
>> non-disabled white males can be legally discriminated against by way
>> of AA programs in Canada, Neil? 

>Allow me to quote Brian Willcott: "Actually, non-disabled white men do
>find protection under the Charter. Marital status (married, divorced)
>applies equally to men.  An argument could also be made for poverty, as in
>some Human rights legislation." 

>Similarly, as Willcott also pointed out, if you can prove that white males
>are in fact suffering from "disadvantage" in society, you have a case. 

Let's try this for the *fourth* time: Do you understand that only
non-disabled white males can be legally discriminated against by way
of AA programs in Canada, Neil? 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 17 08:09:07 PDT 1996
Article: 39498 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!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neil Singh: ESL dropout.
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:36:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 237
Message-ID: <4l1at6$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4khkar$bq2@News.Dal.Ca> <4kooqe$aoo@news2.cts.com> <4kpenq$i7q@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39498 alt.society.civil-liberties:7334

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: You are simply pointing out that NDWM can claim status under the
>: Charter, so long as the government does not invoke s. 15(2).  But s.
>: 15(2) allows "any law, program or activity", notwithstanding such a
>: claim, so long as it doesn't override the rights of those designated
>: as belonging to a "disadvantaged group". Since everyone except NDWM
>: are designated as belonging to such a group the only people the
>: government is expressly permitted to discriminate against,
>: notwithstanding their claims of Charter protection, are non-disabled
>: white males.

>No part of the Charter "expressly" permits anyone to be discriminated 
>against.  If your are a charter group under s.15 you also find protection 
>under 15(2).  The government does not invoke 15(2).  It

>Examples:  Common law spouse are protected against discrimination vis a 
>vis married spouses or divorced spouse or non-spouses. NDWM find 
>protection there. 

THEY DO NOT! No such status  as "non-disabled white males" exists, and
no one can claim status on that basis. EVERYONE else, however, CAN
claim status as a member of a disadvantaged group. 

> Again, under 15(2) a program to alleviate the 
>condition of impovershed people would find protection. This would include 
>NDWM. A particular program for NDWM could also be established in fields 
>for NDWM is traditionally female oriented areas like air steward.

This is absolute, out-and-out nonsense. You are claiming THE EXACT
OPPOSITE of what the section means. It is AGAINST THE LAW to
discriminate against females under Section 15 (1). The only way
discrimination on the basis of a prohibited ground, as listed in s. 15
(1), can be undertaken is by virtue of any law, program or activity
done in the name of IMPROVING the conditions of a legally-designated
disadvantaged group. Since everyone is a member of a disadvantaged
group, except non-disabled white males, no AA program can be directed
against anyone but NDWM. You cannot deny females a job on the basis of
AA for NDWM, because denying jobs to females ---a disadvantaged
group---does not IMPROVE their conditions.

This is not rocket science. I really wish people would apply
themselves in this discussion, rather than just applying their own
prejudices and then claiming that is what the law means.

>My point is that there is really nothing preventing from such arguments 
>from being made.  Perhaps you would not want AA in any form. 

Of course I don't want AA in any form. AA is simply the policy of the
government denying people rights on the basis of one or more immutable
personal characteristics they may have. 

>But it is untrue to say our Constituion mandates that NDWM cannot 
>be discriminated against.

Who ever said this? It is precisely this aspect of the Charter---that
people may be discriminated against---by any law, program or
activity-- purely on the basis of some immutable personal
characteristic, that I oppose. That this section has been used to
remove *only* the rights of a single group of citizens---non-disabled
white men---while simultaneously denying the possibility of its
application against anyone else, reveals it to be no more than the
pretext for massive state criminality.

>They certainly may be.  

Of course "they may be". What do you think this discussion is about,
except that only NDWM are discriminated against by AA, by law?

>And remedies exist.  You may disagree 
>with AA on a more fundamental level.  But it does not create slavery.  

If the government, with constitutional backing and authority, can pass
ANY law, undertake ANY program, and conduct ANY activity---completely
in contravention of all the constitutional protections one has against
discrimination on the basis of sex and race----those people targeted
don't have any rights. And the ONLY people who the government can
treat in this way---under the very laws they themselves have created
under the auspices of obeying this section---are non-disabled white
males.

AA removes rights and denies legal recourse. The widespread
application of the racist, sexist principles of AA has created the
Affirmative Action Culture, where all legal, social and personal
decisions are now made upon these principles. The result is "legal"
slavery for NDWM in virtually all aspects of society, and practical
slavery for most men---regardless of race---even tangentially involved
with government-controlled or regulated areas of society. And what
aspect of society is not under government control or regulation in
Canada? From marriage to employment, from education to what you watch
on TV or read on the Internet, the government legislates according to
the authority of the Charter and the sensibilities of the Affirmative
Action Culture. 


>: The list of "disadvantaged groups" are a matter of public and legal
>: record, and follow expressly those determined by the 1984 Royal
>: Commission. Everyone, except non-disabled white males, is covered. 

>I don't follow.  The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of 
>Canada is the supreme law of the land.  All policies and legislation must 
>conform.  What a Royal commission says has not been written on stone tablets.
>Again "disadvantaged groups" are still an open door.  That does not mean 
>that a court will agree with your definition of disadvantaged, though.

It is not up to the courts to agree or disagree with the AA status the
Parliament defines, but to rule on who fits that definition. The Court
cannot rule that a non-disabled white male is a "woman", and therefore
is protected from discrimination and qualifies for privileged
treatment. 

>: My views are strongly held, but I at least offer sound reasoning and
>: proofs. I attempt at every juncture to make reference to the actual
>: laws and offical policies, rather than simply offering well-known, and
>: overwhelming anecdotal evidence. My comparisons are not ludicrous---
>: they are inescapable.

>Mr Kolding, you do not have exclusive claim to sound reasoning and proof. 
>NDWM may be persecuted, but you comparison to slavery invite skepticims.  
>None of my NDWM family or friends have ever been lynched or shackled.  
>None have ever been sold to another household to perform menial chores 
>(unless babysitting can be considered onle of the last vestiges of slavery)

If you have been legally stripped of rights, solely because of your
sex and race,  while everyone else in society is granted privilege and
advantage----BUT ONLY AGAINST YOU----you are a slave. I'm pleased to
hear that none of your NDWM friends have been lynched and shackled,
but perhaps none of them have been thrown in jail because their
unemployment cheque could not cover alimony payments. Perhaps they
haven't actually sought to oppose the legal discrimination against
NDWM's because, hey, they keep their noses clean, and---let's face
it----opposing slavery will get slaves in trouble.


>With the regard to Aboriginal Peoples, their history is one of legislated 
>genocide.  Legal restraints which denied legal representation. 
>Imprisonment for the performance of traditional dance.  The destruction 
>of communitites.  Tyraniical, bearucratic regimes.  The denial of 
>education.  This is a long enough list.

The treatment of the Indians you describe above was simply the
application of AA against them. Their sorry state is the RESULT of AA,
and hardly  a cause and rationale to defend it. 

>This may be overwhelming, but it is not anecdote.  It is as sound an 
>argument as any.

>My point is simply that in comparison to persecution suffered by NDWM, 
>there is no comparison.  Persecution, perhaps.  But if the game is who is 
>more prosecuted, there is no doubt who "wins", if that can be said to be 
>the word.

This is not a game of persecution. This is not a competiton except to
those who are infected by the AA mindset. Persecution is wrong.
Persecution by the government on the sole basis of a person's
immutable characteristics is a crime against humanity.

>: To justify slavery could be said to equally deficient. I am not an
>: adherent of the morality of wringing one's hands in the face of
>: oppression. I do not consider the victims of oppression and slavery
>: capable of contravening the laws of a system under which they are
>: explicitly denied protection. 

>By all means.  No hand wringing.  Hower, causing the death of any human 
>being is wrong.  The criminal code applies equally to all Canadians.  In 
>fact a disproportionate of Aboriginal people and Blacks are in prison.  

Please get one thing straight: 99% of prisoners are MALE. The criminal
code therefore DOES NOT apply equally to all Canadians by the very
standard that those who demand and support AA insist it must!


>How then do you justify violence?  Or murder?  Even "criminals" can be 
>"murdered".  I have no intention of quibbling over semantics. Unless you 
>think every child who shoplifts a candy bar should be lynced publicly as 
>a detterent to foolish youth.  How about speeding?

>NDWM may be the victims of persections. Perhaps.  But that does not 
>justify violence.  

Why not? The justification of violence is surely a matter of the
circumstances that pertain. If one is persecuted and no talk, reason,
or argument will move or stop it, violence is more than justified. It
is mandatory.


>: It is pointless to make arguments when you refuse to consider any. I
>: understand completely, however, the frustration this leads to. Perhaps
>: you will now understand why I support violence against the system as
>: the only possible and inevitable means to defeat it. Those who
>: legislate, enforce, benefit from and support AA refuse to accept, like
>: you, any grounds for opposition to the policy. What, but violence, is
>: left?

>I have listend to your arguments.  I do not accept them.  I am still 
>listening.  Violence resolves nothing.  If anything it lends support to 
>those who defend AA.  It makes peoples dig their heels in say "Enough". 
>It discredits those who offer any rational argument.  The question of 
>violence is not being asked by you alone. Many young minorities are 
>asking the same. But violence will not solve anything.  It just leads to 
>more bloodshed and hatred.

But why should those who legislate and enforce AA---the active
government persecution of people on the same underlying principle
adopted by the Nazis in the Thirties---be spared bloodshed and hatred?
Who are these despicable criminals to claim moral authority in
anything?

>Perseverance is the truest test of strength.  You may find it frustrating 
>that your views are not accepted by those with the apparent power to 
>change things.  However, violence leads only to self-destruction.

>: I agree. I don't idolize any mass murderers, however.

>Perhaps "idolize" is the wrong word. Your advocacy of Marc Lepine is 
>disturbing though.  He did murder 14 women. 14 human beings, with 
>families and loved ones.  This cannot be justified.

Yes it can . I have done it repeatedly.

>: You speak of Canada and call it a democracy. The creation and
>: maintenance of a slave state is neither the product nor the activity
>: of a democracy.

>Perhaps I am one of the blind who can not see. But I do not live in a 
>slave state.  AA is not mandated by our consititution.  It is permitted 
>by the will of people and politicians. 

Utter nonsense. When non-disabled white men are denied by law all
their rights at the whim of government a slave state is created. The
fact that you approve of the slave state is not an argument that it
doesn't exist.





From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 17 08:09:07 PDT 1996
Article: 39499 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!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Idolizing mass murderers
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:36:16 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <4l1at9$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: <4khkar$bq2@News.Dal.Ca> <4kooqe$aoo@news2.cts.com>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39499 alt.society.civil-liberties:7335

dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:

>In article  Neil  writes:
>>From: Neil 
>>Subject: Idolizing mass murderers
>>Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 12:35:58 -0700

>>On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, PKolding wrote:

>>> I agree. I don't idolize any mass murderers, however.

>From Dec 18/95:

>===begin Dec 18 PKolding quote=======================================

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

>>: Lepine undertook a political act that now---6 years after the
>>: event---is still reverberating in Canadians' minds. He was a direct
>>: victim of Canada's AA laws and the females he killed were direct
>>: beneficiaries of that persecution. If females want laws that oppress
>>: and discriminate against men purely in order to benefit themselves
>>: they are going to live in a society that targets them for violence.
>>: Get this straight:  Lepine was right. The people who legislate,
>>: enforce and seek to benefit from AA are evil little thugs and
>>: criminals. Their deaths improve the smell of the world.

>===end quote==========================================

>From Dec 4/95

>===begin Dec 4 PKolding quote==========================================

>From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
>Subject: Re: The 'type' that wants their guns unregistered....
>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 22:27:09 GMT

>the females received direct benefit from that persecution.  The only
>mistake he made was to kill himself----he should have made his escape
>and planned another attack. 

>If females wish to have the advantages of an oppressive system they
>should expect---and deserve---the consequences. Lepine is one of
>Canada's true heroes. May there be many more.

>===end quote==============================================

>So what's this bullshit about not idolizing mass murderers??  Oh... I forgot: 
>Lepine wasn't a murderer -- he was a "freedom fighter."

I have no idea if Lepine was a "freedom fighter", but he is certainly
a hero. He took direct action against state criminality, something
that few Canadians can say they have done. And by the way, I do not
"idolize" anyone. If you want a real example of idolatry I suggest you
study the people who put up monuments to the females that Lepine
killed. I mean to say, the same people who claim that these people
were mere "innocents" somehow now offer them up as martyrs to the
cause of AA. 



From pkolding@cts.com Thu Apr 18 11:36:38 PDT 1996
Article: 16142 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec
Subject: Re: December 6, 1989
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:36:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4l1atn$rnf@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39479 soc.culture.quebec:16142

Neil  wrote:

>I think when we get carried away with arguing the "issues" surrounding
>various events, we tend to forget that we are talking about real people, who
>had real lives, real hopes, real dreams, and real families, all of which were
>shattered one afternoon by the act of a single man armed with a Sturm Ruger
>Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle. 

>Lest we forget: 

>Genevieve Bergeron, 21
>Helene Colgan, 23
>Nathalie Croteau, 23 
>Barbara Daigneault, 22
>Anne-Marie Edward, 21 
>Maud Haviernick, 29
>Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31
>Maryse Leclair, 23
>Annie St-Arneault, 23
>Michele Richard, 21
>Maryse Laganiere, 25
>Anne-Marie Lemay, 22
>Sonia Pelletier, 28 
>Annie Turcotte, 21. 

And you accuse ME of idolatry!





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 08:33:40 PDT 1996
Article: 39803 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:33:32 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <4l7c3d$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:    <4l1au6$rnf@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16204 can.politics:39803

lemieub@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA (Lemieux Brigitte) wrote:

>   :pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>   :You don't seem to comprehend that Lepine was the PRODUCT of this "work
>   :through education" policy you advocate. 

>That's patently silly, and a smokescreen. So what if he was?
>_I'm_ the product of this policy, and so are you.
>Yet I didn't kill 14 innocent people and neither did you.

Lepine killed, I learned to despise Canada and left, and you are quite
happy with a country where some men have learned to kill and a lot
have learned to hate. If you're happy with it, that's fine, but that
still doesn't mean Lepine wasn't a product of the policy. It simply
means you are prepared to accept death and hate as a byproduct of the
personal benenits you derive from oppression.


>Guess it's possible to be such a product and retain a
>modicum of humanity.

I suppose that depends on how one defines such a term in a society
such as Canada. Lepine and his actions strike me not only as entirely
human, but based intrinsically on humanity outraged. Lepine isn't the
problem-----it is the people who legislate, enforce, deliberately
benefit from and support the oppression he suffered.

>Any way you look at it, it always comes back to Lepine.
>It was his decision.

That's right. He was no madman, but a hero.

>   :The "justice and necessity" of
>   :discrimination on the sole basis of some immutable personal
>   :characteristic a person may have is what the laws, the government, the
>   :bureaucracy and the legal system---much less the loud and highly
>   :visible special interest groups---have been teaching society for a
>   :generation. If you teach people that discrimination on the basis of
>   :race and sex is perfectly okay, and the government and the courts and
>   :the schools all declare it as just and reasonable, the rationale and
>   :activities of Marc Lepine---and all the future Marc Lepines---should
>   :hardly surprise you.

...[some deleted]...

>Anyone who doesn't like affirmative action can enter politics,
>or go to the media, or start a petition, or fight it in the courts.

Or take violent action against the criminals. And anyone who doesn't
like that can enter politics, go to the media, or start a petition or
fight it in the courts. It won't help them.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 08:33:41 PDT 1996
Article: 39804 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:33:39 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4l7c3k$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:     
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16205 can.politics:39804

lemieub@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA (Lemieux Brigitte) wrote:

>Are you saying that having said psychological profile absolves Lepine
>of his wrongs? I mean, unless a guy is truly delusional and believes
>he's blowings dragons away, if he knows what he's doing and kills
>a lot of people anyway... that makes him a beast. 

If the government, by law, denies him his rights, on the sole basis of
his race and sex, what does that make the government? You speak of
"delusional" activities, but there is nothing delusional about AA.
Lepine was right.

>Sorry.
>I mean, I have my blue funks like everybody else, but gee, I'm still
>not a murderer. The point is, Lepine killed fourteen _innocent_ people, he
>knew what he was doing (as far as we can tell), and he didn't _have_
>to do it. Therefore, he was a terrible person, and no injustice
>done him, real or imagined, can change that.

This is just perverse. How is it that oppression of men on the sole
basis of their race and sex is perfectly all right to correct the real
and/or imagined injustices of females, but Lepine is a "terrible"
person for applying exactly the same political principles?

...[some deleted]...

>Vincent (this message was relayed by Brigitte)

Naturally.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 08:33:42 PDT 1996
Article: 39805 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:33:55 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <4l7c45$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16206 can.politics:39805

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote:

>> Let's not rush to label people one way or the other here, okay?  It's 
>> one thing
>> to allege that the person harbours racist/xenophobic beliefs- it's another to
>> allege that they might fully appreciate these views.
>[snip]

>I have very strong reason to believe the things I said about Kolding. 
>That's why I made them public. His obsession with violence and the policy
>of affirmative action (he claims it is affirmative action alone that drove
>him from Canada into southern California, where he says he "lives in
>exile" like some kind of freak refugee) are typical characteristics of
>white supremacists. 

But it wasn't "affirmative action alone" that prompted to me to leave.
Nor am I obsessed with violence----surely leaving Canada, rather than
taking up arms, is indisputable evidence of this. And I do live in
"self-imposed exile" because that is the choice I made. But what has
any of this to do with "white supremacy"?

>This is not direct evidence that makes him a white
>supremacist, 

It's not any type of evidence at all, Neil. You are worse than the
Nazis you claim to oppose. A "white supremacist" in your eyes is
anyone who disagrees with you, and does a good job at it.

>nor would I view his opinion any differently if he were to
>come out and admit he is a white supremacist - after all, it is his
>democratic right to be one.

But if your views would be no different whether I was a white
supremacist or not, why are you trying to prove I am one? There can be
only one reason: you are indulging in a smear.

>However, since I do sincerely believe he is a
>white supremacist, that would make him a liar since he denies it
>completely.

No, what you believe doesn't make anyone a liar. The truth and the
intent is the standard for what is a lie and who is one, not your
"beliefs".  For instance, a person who falsely states that he truly
believes someone, who is not a white supremacist, is a white
supremacist, is a liar.

> It would not be the first time he has lied on Usenet before
>either, since he denied making comments that he did in fact make (about
>someone's late father, and I now have proof that he made them). 

Please post this alleged "proof".

>If a
>person lies consistently during a debate, do you truly find it
>unreasonable for his opponent in that debate to attack him on the basis of
>his credibility?

Not at all. The problem is that you haven't produced any of these
alleged "lies". THAT is the reason you are intent on smearing. You
have failed in debate and now you are only left with smearmongering.
Let me say that I am quite enjoying the spectacle.

>What if one single person were on the verge of agreeing
>with his sick view that the Montreal 14 "deserved" to die? Would such a
>borderline person not be affected by the fact that his source for such
>ideas is an established liar, and a propogator of hatred?

Thank you for so cogently outlining your principles. You disagree with
my views, cannot refute them, fear others will not agree with you, and
therefore you will accuse me of being a liar and propagator of hatred
instead. 

> Maybe, maybe
>not. Either way, Kolding chooses to exercise his freedom of speech to
>promote hatred and violence. I choose to exercise mine: to counter it. 

If you were at all interested in countering hatred and violence you
would be advocating the punishment of those who legislate, enforce,
deliberately benefit from and support AA. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 08:33:43 PDT 1996
Article: 39806 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: No Excuse for Caprina!
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:34:06 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <4l7c4e$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:   <4l1vsm$rir@dec3300.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16207 can.politics:39806

caprina@cuug.ab.ca wrote:

>I don't care how he felt he was 
>discriminated against, there was no excuse for his actions, *none*!

Lepine was right. And such actions as he undertook will be justifiable
just so long as AA exists and those who legislate, enforce,
deliberately benefit from and support it remain unpunished.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 08:33:43 PDT 1996
Article: 39814 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news1.vancouver.istar.net!news.vancouver.istar.net!west.news.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Kolding and hormones
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:32:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <4l7c0u$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References: <4klq0m$27t@News.Dal.Ca> <4l1aog$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l1hp5$mbt@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39814 alt.society.civil-liberties:7362

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: You seem to have missed the point: Affirmative action is constantly
>: defended on the basis that the institutions of society should reflect
>: the sexual make-up of society. The Parliament "should" be 52% female,
>: as should every other institution, even down to 15-person Scarborough
>: sweatshops. And to this end deliberate, legally-demanded
>: discrimination against people on the sole basis of their sex is said
>: to be justified. I simply reveal the utter corruption of those who
>: make this claim by demanding that it be applied where actual social
>: "inequality" exists in its worst form---the prison population. I am

>I think I saw your point.  I just don't think it stands up to scrutiny.

>: not advocating the increase of the prison population, but simply the
>: application of affirmative action policies---in all aspects of law and
>: society---that will result in the prison population reflecting the
>: sexual make-up of the population. If there are people who actually
>: believe in the corrupt and criminal AA practices for the reasons that
>: are constantly used to justify them, I suggest they have no choice but
>: to insist upon changes in law and judicial practice to reduce the male
>: prison population to 48% from its present 99%.

>I think there is a choice. Advocate measure which are desirable from a 
>common sense perspective.  We want fewer criminals in society, take 
>action to reduce the numbers.  If you want more women represented take 
>measures which accomplish that. 

This last reveals the corruption I was pointing out. The stated
rationale of AA is the acheivement of "equality" not the
representation of any particular sex. The number of criminals is not
the issue, but the acheivement of equality in one of the most
important of society's institutions: the justice system. If laws and
judgements produce a prison population 99% male, the system is---by
the very rules that AA apologists have declared---oppressive, unjust
and systemically, if not systematically, prejudiced against men. The
reduction of the number of criminals, if that is even an issue, cannot
therefore be acheived until the system is changed so the prison and
criminal population reflects the sexual make-up of the country.

...[some deleted]...

>: I'm afraid men can't be "over-represented" without females being
>: under-represented.

>True enough.  I fail to see any merit in arguing more women should be 
>incarcerated w/o in fact committing more crime.  Reduce the number of 
>male criminals.

How convenient. The laws and judicial system are geared to produce a
prison population that is 99% male. The only way to reduce the number
of male prisoners therefore would be to change the law and the system,
so that the population would be more equally represented----and
treated. This is the argument that is used everywhere else in society,
and is enforced by law. Why, suddenly, is it not applicable in a REAL
instance of persistent "inequality" and oppression?

>: >Who do in fact commit the vast majority of violent crimes.  This was true 
>: >even before the introduction of Affirmitive Action.

>: Please note that men held the majority of seats in Parliament and in
>: most of the formal institutions of society before affirmative action
>: as well. If AA is all about the establishment of "equality", why is it
>: that those MOST suffering from oppression and inequality---the prison
>: population---are not the object of the most aggressive AA programs?

>Actually they have some of the most extensive AA programs.  Its called 
>rehabilitation. 

Rehabilitation isn't an AA program. 


...[some deleted]...

>: Or, in fact, any at all? Obviously, the answer is that AA is NOT about
>: "equality", but is about the establishment of class privilege on the
>: basis of sex. 

>I am not so sure.  I would agree that certain stereotypes do perhaps  
>benefit women in the area of family.  This has nothing to do with AA.  

It has everything to do with AA. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 08:33:44 PDT 1996
Article: 39817 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news1.vancouver.istar.net!news.vancouver.istar.net!west.news.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: The Planet Caprina passes close to Earth... again
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:31:46 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4l7c02$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4kst4p$5s4@dec3300.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39817 alt.society.civil-liberties:7363

caprina@cuug.ab.ca wrote:

...[Lengthy, but almost unintelligible compilation of quotes
deleted]...

>- End of quotes.

While I certainly appreciate the attention you pay to my views, please
have the honesty to either quote the entire article, or give an
indication that you have cut out all the context. It is misleading to
cut out all the passages that have prompted a response, and then
amalgamate what's left as if it was a single paragraph. 




From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 08:33:45 PDT 1996
Article: 39822 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!news.ccs.queensu.ca!kone!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nrchh45.rich.nt.com!news.utdallas.edu!news01.aud.alcatel.com!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Affirmative action supporters are criminals
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:34:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <4l7c54$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References: <4khi0b$bq2@News.Dal.Ca> <4koopa$aoo@news2.cts.com> <4kq6qd$ke5@News.Dal.Ca> <4l1as6$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l3avq$86@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39822 alt.society.civil-liberties:7364

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: But homosexuals do not equal NDWM any more than females do.
>: Non-disabled white females do not have to seek protection under the
>: exclusive rubric of their homosexuality. 

>Nor do non-disabled white men.

YES they DO! Females are a legally-designated disadvantaged group.
Females do not have to seek "analogous grounds" for status. NO ONE has
to, except non-disabled white males, because everyone except NDWM has
status as a member of a disadvantaged group.

>: Except if they are simply non-disabled white males. You don't seem to
>: quite understand the point: EVERYONE is covered under the present
>: arbitrarily designated disadvantaged groups already, except NDWM. NO
>: ONE has to "seek" analogous grounds, except NDWM. What you are arguing
>: would be the state of protection if Section 15 (2) didn't exist.

>That is simply untrue.  I have already made the arguments.  Buy yourself 
>a textbook.  "Sex" may apply to both men and women, although it is 
>generally successful when used by women.  Mostly due to stereotypes.

This is pointless. Section 15 (1) simply grants guarantees that are
are overturned by Section 15 (2) if you are not a member of a
legally-designated disadvantaged group. ONLY NDWM can be leaglly
discriminated against, therefore, because they are the only people in
the country that are not members of a disadvantaged group.

>: >15(2) Subsection (1) does not *preclude* any law program or activity that 
>: >has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged 
>: >or groups "including" those that are disadvantaged because of race, 
>: >national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or 
>: >physical disability.

Why did you cut out the rest of your quote, which I was responding
to?:
------ 
That "includes" is very important.  I see there "national origin".  I 
also see "religion".  I also see "age" and "national origins".  All
are applicable to non-disabled white males. "
------

>: They are NOT. You suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the
>: law.  The laws, programs and activities referred to in s. 15 (2) that
>: the government may enforce can only apply with respect to legally
>: defined "disadvantaged groups." The government MAY NOT legislate in
>: contravention of s. 15 (1) otherwise. The ONLY people who are not
>: legally defined as belonging to a disadvantaged group are non-disabled
>: white males.

>My understanding is perfectly cogent.  You simply don't believe me.  What 
>the cts say are determinative.  NDWM can claim protection under s.15(2) 
>in the appropriate circumstances.  Under "sex". 

Please see the case (I don't recall the reference) regarding strip
searching of prisoners. The court ruled that while men could be
prohibited from strip-searching females, solely on the basis of their
sex, females could not be prohibited from strip-searching men---for
the PURPOSES OF AA. Section 15 (2) is the Charter provision for AA,
that allows the rights of those not designated a disadvantaged group
to be denied for the advantage of those who are. You do not understand
the application of the law.


>You will however, have to convince the judge that you are 
>disadvantaged.  There also ground like marital status, citizenship, 
>poverty, political belief etc which may be argued to be analagous 
>grounds.  

You have a basic misunderstanding of the law. Everyone in Canada is
already, LEGALLY, determined to be a member of a disadvantaged group,
EXCEPT non-disabled white males. 

>These grounds may also be used to justify programs on these 
>basis including both men and women. 

You are simply wrong, and I tire of repeating, over and over, the most
basic and fundamental knowledge that someone who participates in such
a discussion should already have: Discrimination against a person on
the basis of those grounds listed in Section 15 (1) is prohibited.
However, under Section 15 (2), people who are not members of a
designated disadvantaged group can be discriminated against, by ANY
law, program or activity, to improve the conditions of those who are
so designated. AA programs cannot discriminate against people
belonging to a disadvantaged group because being denied constitutional
protection from discrimination is not an "improvement" of their
conditions. *Only* non-disabled white males can be discriminated
against under the Equality section because they are the *only* people
not designated as part of a disadvantaged group. AA for NDWM is
legally and constitutionally PROHIBITED.

>: There is no such word as "advantaged" in the Charter. The word is
>: "disadvantaged" and all those who fall into that catagory cannot be
>: discriminated against on the basis of s. 15 (1) by the government,
>: under any circumstances. 

>As you so often reason, there can be no disadvantage without an 
>advantage.

And you pretend to understand law. The phrase "disadvantaged" does not
describe a condition, but a status.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 08:33:45 PDT 1996
Article: 39823 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!news.ccs.queensu.ca!kone!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nrchh45.rich.nt.com!news.utdallas.edu!news01.aud.alcatel.com!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neil Singh: ESL dropout.
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:34:34 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 291
Message-ID: <4l7c5i$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References: <4khkar$bq2@News.Dal.Ca> <4kooqe$aoo@news2.cts.com> <4kpenq$i7q@News.Dal.Ca> <4l1at6$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l3er6$86@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:39823 alt.society.civil-liberties:7365

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: >Examples:  Common law spouse are protected against discrimination vis a 
>: >vis married spouses or divorced spouse or non-spouses. NDWM find 
>: >protection there. 

>: THEY DO NOT! No such status  as "non-disabled white males" exists, and
>: no one can claim status on that basis. EVERYONE else, however, CAN
>: claim status as a member of a disadvantaged group. 

>Saying its so doesn't make it so.  You do not have to believe me.  You 
>may choose not to for your own purposes.  NDWM can claim s15(1) and (2) 
>protection under the Charter.  Both on the grounds of sex and any other 
>analagous ground. 

Look: NDWM's cannot make a claim for any AA  law, program or activity
under Section 15(2) because they are not a legally-designated
disadvantaged group. Everyone else in the country can, however,
because they are legally-designated members of a disadvantaged group.
Section 15 (2)'s sole use is to allow the rights guaranteed in Section
15 (1) to be ignored and overridden in order to improve the conditions
of those included in a disadvantaged group. However, ignoring and
overriding Charter-guaranteed rights of people does not IMPROVE their
conditions, and thus Section 15 (2) can only override and ignore the
Charter-guaranteed rights of those not designated as members of a
"disadvantaged group". In short: Only NDWM can be the subject of laws,
programs and activities that discriminate against people on the basis
of the prohibited grounds listed and presumed in Section 15 (1).

AA for NDWM is IMPOSSIBLE under law.

>Again.  Religion, poverty, citizenship (american even) 
>national orgin, ethnic orgin (ie maybe if a newfoundlander with an accent 
>was denied a job), marital status, sexual orientation, political belief, 
>etc.  However all of these if infringed are subject to section 1 (R v. 
>Oakes) where these infringements may be justified if the goal of 
>government action in question outweighs the impact.  Discretionary? Yes. 
>Arbitrary?  Sure.  To some extent. Thats the legal system for you though.  
>Things are no different in the US.

Section 1 cannot justify the infringement on the *basis* of those
criteria listed as prohibited grounds, though. The Court has to refer
to limitations as prescribed BY LAW. In the case of AA---Section 15
(2) and the legal designation, in law, of those who are members of a
"disadvantaged group".

>: > Again, under 15(2) a program to alleviate the 
>: >condition of impovershed people would find protection. This would include 
>: >NDWM. 

NO it wouldn't. Section 15 (2) only applies to the benefit of people
legally designated as members of a disadvantaged group. The Court
cannot determine the definition of a disadvantaged group under Section
15 (2), only those who are covered by the definition ALREADY
established in law.

<: >A particular program for NDWM could also be established in fields 
>: >for NDWM is traditionally female oriented areas like air steward.

Such a program would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is prohibited to
discriminate against females on the basis of their sex under Section
15 (1). It is prohibited to enact an AA program that does not
*improve* the conditions of a legally-designated disadvantaged group,
(to which females are *already* designated). Discriminating against
female employment *deteriorates* their conditions, and therefore AA
programs for non-disabled white males in traditionally female-oriented
areas are ILLEGAL.


>: This is absolute, out-and-out nonsense. You are claiming THE EXACT
>: OPPOSITE of what the section means. It is AGAINST THE LAW to
>: discriminate against females under Section 15 (1). The only way

>No the word is "sex". Remember?  Nothing says its a one way street.

>: discrimination on the basis of a prohibited ground, as listed in s. 15
>: (1), can be undertaken is by virtue of any law, program or activity
>: done in the name of IMPROVING the conditions of a legally-designated
>: disadvantaged group. Since everyone is a member of a disadvantaged
>: group, except non-disabled white males, no AA program can be directed
>: against anyone but NDWM. You cannot deny females a job on the basis of
>: AA for NDWM, because denying jobs to females ---a disadvantaged
>: group---does not IMPROVE their conditions.

>No.  Courts take a contextual approach.  In a field dominated by women, 
>men would have a strong argument. You can be advantaged in one 
>circumstance and disadvantaged in another.

They can not. You are simply spouting nonsense. Section 1 demands the
courts refer to *legal* prescriptions when limiting the application of
rights. Section 15 (2) demands the existence of disadvantaged groups,
and its application only with respect to the IMPROVEMENT of their
conditions. Parliament has already incorporated in law that everyone
except non-disabled white males are members of a disadvantaged group.
The Courts can certainly offer the opinion that a program does not,
reasonably, improve the conditions of a disadvantaged group---it
cannot rule, however, that one is simultaneously a member and
non-member of a disadvantaged group. 

>: This is not rocket science. I really wish people would apply
>: themselves in this discussion, rather than just applying their own
>: prejudices and then claiming that is what the law means.

>Rocket science.  No.  Certainly not. I must admit I find that statement 
>just a little difficult to swallow.  Sure I bring prejudices to this 
>argument.  Am I trying to decieve anyone? No. I am simply informing you 
>of my knowlege of the law and its potential.  I think you should consider 
>your own prejudice before make that statement.

I don't mind you being biased, I simply object to you stating that
black is white.  You have made an argument regarding the application
of AA that is wrong on its very face. The purposes and arguments you
use to justify or support any particular program is not what I am
objecting to---it is your ignorance of the actual possibilities of AA
under law.

>: >But it is untrue to say our Constituion mandates that NDWM cannot 
>: >be discriminated against.

>: Who ever said this? It is precisely this aspect of the Charter---that
>: people may be discriminated against---by any law, program or
>: activity-- purely on the basis of some immutable personal
>: characteristic, that I oppose. That this section has been used to
>: remove *only* the rights of a single group of citizens---non-disabled
>: white men---while simultaneously denying the possibility of its
>: application against anyone else, reveals it to be no more than the
>: pretext for massive state criminality.

>How then do you justify violence. 

One might as well say how does one not justify it!


>: AA removes rights and denies legal recourse. The widespread
>: application of the racist, sexist principles of AA has created the
>: Affirmative Action Culture, where all legal, social and personal
>: decisions are now made upon these principles. The result is "legal"
>: slavery for NDWM in virtually all aspects of society, and practical
>: slavery for most men---regardless of race---even tangentially involved
>: with government-controlled or regulated areas of society. And what
>: aspect of society is not under government control or regulation in
>: Canada? From marriage to employment, from education to what you watch
>: on TV or read on the Internet, the government legislates according to
>: the authority of the Charter and the sensibilities of the Affirmative
>: Action Culture. 

>So are Canadians brain washed lemmings?  Your justification of violence 
>is simply an attempt to short circuit free expression and political freedom.

Whose free expression am I attempting to short circuit, and whose
political freedom is threatened? If the government is, *legally*
throwing people in jail for expressing their political opinions and
*legally* denying people their rights on the sole basis of their sex
and race their isn't any free expression or political freedom to be
short-circuited in the first place. And why is it that "violence" so
suddenly provokes you?----You don't seem to have a problem with the
government's use of policemen and prisons when THEY "short-circuit"
people's free expression and political rights.

>: It is not up to the courts to agree or disagree with the AA status the
>: Parliament defines, but to rule on who fits that definition. The Court
>: cannot rule that a non-disabled white male is a "woman", and therefore
>: is protected from discrimination and qualifies for privileged
>: treatment. 

>That is partly true.  Courts define who is and who is disadvantaged in 
>particular instance by reference to the guidelines of the Charter. 
>Provinical and federal governments do establish programs.  These programs 
>may have their own criteria.  However they are subject to scrutiny by the 
>courts.

They are only subject to scrutiny with respect to who belongs to the
designated groups. The Court CANNOT decide that a women is not a
member of a disadvantaged group, it can only decide whether a program
is justifiable with respect to improving the conditions of that
disadvantaged group. Equally, the Court may determine that someone who
is not recognised under a program is actually a member of the
disadvantaged group that is targeted.  The classic discussion example:
Is a man who goes through a sex-change operation to be considered a
woman for the purposes of an AA program? The Court may decide either
he is or he is not---it doesn't decide what a disadvantaged group is.

> In the end though, and is my basic point, the question is one of 
>political will.  Your advocacy of violence and such does nothing for your 
>cause.  It does nothing for your credibility with the majority of Canadians.

So you say. I differ though----I believe violent opposition to AA is
the only way the "political will" supporting oppression will be
shaken.


>: If you have been legally stripped of rights, solely because of your
>: sex and race,  while everyone else in society is granted privilege and
>: advantage----BUT ONLY AGAINST YOU----you are a slave. I'm pleased to
>: hear that none of your NDWM friends have been lynched and shackled,
>: but perhaps none of them have been thrown in jail because their
>: unemployment cheque could not cover alimony payments. Perhaps they
>: haven't actually sought to oppose the legal discrimination against
>: NDWM's because, hey, they keep their noses clean, and---let's face
>: it----opposing slavery will get slaves in trouble.

>Point one.  There was no constitutionally guaranteed right not to be 
>discriminated against period until the passage of the Charter.  I am not 
>sure any rights of "stripped". 

There was also no constitutional power granted the government to deny
rights already recognised, simply on the basis of someone's sex or
race. It is a specious argument to say slaves never had any rights and
therefore cannot claim to be stripped of them. Everyone has rights,
some of which are recognised and protected, and others whose exercise
are limited. Citizens who are "stripped" of rights are those who have
had those rights recognised and protected already. In a non-criminal
regime it is the commision of a crime, an act, that leads to the loss
of rights. In a criminal regime, such as Canada, it is the arbitrary,
involuntary inclusion in the membership of a certain *class* that
leads to such actions.

...[some deleted]...

>: The treatment of the Indians you describe above was simply the
>: application of AA against them. Their sorry state is the RESULT of AA,
>: and hardly  a cause and rationale to defend it. 

>No. Concerted attacks on their status as Nations. Forced assimilation. 
>them.  Their situation is the result of European greed and self-interest.
>Jail for dancing tradition dance is not AA.  Nor is the denial of the 
>right to seek legal representation.  NDWM can indeed hire lawyers.

AA is the legal denial of rights, on the basis of some immutable
personal characteristic. All the laws, programs and activities---to
use a familiar phrase---that were applied against the Indians were
done so upon that sole basis.


>: Please get one thing straight: 99% of prisoners are MALE. The criminal
>: code therefore DOES NOT apply equally to all Canadians by the very
>: standard that those who demand and support AA insist it must!

>I don't dispute that. Though I am not sure of the 99% figure. The criminal 
>code does however apply equally to men and women.  Men do in fact commit 
>more violent crimes or property offences.  This has always been the 
>case.  I simply don't accept your argument.

Men do, in fact, occupy most of the high positions in the institutions
of society. This has always been the case. Therefore, I take it, you
agree with me that the argument for AA is indefensible----using  your
own reasoning.


>I would prefer to find ways 
>of reducing the numbers of male criminals.  If they *have* to steal to pay 
>alimony then lower alimony rates.  A good lawyer does the trick.

NO alimony. That would solve it. The support for slavery is entitrely
incompatible with your wish for reducing the violence of those very
people you arbitrarily designate as slaves-in-waiting.

>: Why not? The justification of violence is surely a matter of the
>: circumstances that pertain. If one is persecuted and no talk, reason,
>: or argument will move or stop it, violence is more than justified. It
>: is mandatory.

>I don't believe life is that cheap.  You are simply frustrated with 
>democracy.  In my opinion.

There is nothing democratic about denying people the rights you
already say they are entitled to. Who the hell ever voted to be denied
their rights because they were of a certain sex or race?

>: But why should those who legislate and enforce AA---the active
>: government persecution of people on the same underlying principle
>: adopted by the Nazis in the Thirties---be spared bloodshed and hatred?
>: Who are these despicable criminals to claim moral authority in
>: anything?

>Again you invite skepticism.  None of my NDWM friends and family, or 
>myslef for that matter has ever been herded into a gas chamber. 

Once again, this studied avoidance of the actual terms of the
discussion. The *principles* of the Nazi laws, programs and activities
were based on the immutable characteristics of people, exactly like
the AA laws. People were not accorded rights and treatment on the
basis of their particular activities, but upon their membership of a
certain group. These principles were not simply translated into law
and enforced by the instruments of the government, but were propagated
throughout society---just as AA is in Canada. 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 10:41:10 PDT 1996
Article: 16204 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:33:32 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <4l7c3d$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:    <4l1au6$rnf@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16204 can.politics:39803

lemieub@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA (Lemieux Brigitte) wrote:

>   :pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>   :You don't seem to comprehend that Lepine was the PRODUCT of this "work
>   :through education" policy you advocate. 

>That's patently silly, and a smokescreen. So what if he was?
>_I'm_ the product of this policy, and so are you.
>Yet I didn't kill 14 innocent people and neither did you.

Lepine killed, I learned to despise Canada and left, and you are quite
happy with a country where some men have learned to kill and a lot
have learned to hate. If you're happy with it, that's fine, but that
still doesn't mean Lepine wasn't a product of the policy. It simply
means you are prepared to accept death and hate as a byproduct of the
personal benenits you derive from oppression.


>Guess it's possible to be such a product and retain a
>modicum of humanity.

I suppose that depends on how one defines such a term in a society
such as Canada. Lepine and his actions strike me not only as entirely
human, but based intrinsically on humanity outraged. Lepine isn't the
problem-----it is the people who legislate, enforce, deliberately
benefit from and support the oppression he suffered.

>Any way you look at it, it always comes back to Lepine.
>It was his decision.

That's right. He was no madman, but a hero.

>   :The "justice and necessity" of
>   :discrimination on the sole basis of some immutable personal
>   :characteristic a person may have is what the laws, the government, the
>   :bureaucracy and the legal system---much less the loud and highly
>   :visible special interest groups---have been teaching society for a
>   :generation. If you teach people that discrimination on the basis of
>   :race and sex is perfectly okay, and the government and the courts and
>   :the schools all declare it as just and reasonable, the rationale and
>   :activities of Marc Lepine---and all the future Marc Lepines---should
>   :hardly surprise you.

...[some deleted]...

>Anyone who doesn't like affirmative action can enter politics,
>or go to the media, or start a petition, or fight it in the courts.

Or take violent action against the criminals. And anyone who doesn't
like that can enter politics, go to the media, or start a petition or
fight it in the courts. It won't help them.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 10:41:10 PDT 1996
Article: 16205 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:33:39 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4l7c3k$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:     
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16205 can.politics:39804

lemieub@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA (Lemieux Brigitte) wrote:

>Are you saying that having said psychological profile absolves Lepine
>of his wrongs? I mean, unless a guy is truly delusional and believes
>he's blowings dragons away, if he knows what he's doing and kills
>a lot of people anyway... that makes him a beast. 

If the government, by law, denies him his rights, on the sole basis of
his race and sex, what does that make the government? You speak of
"delusional" activities, but there is nothing delusional about AA.
Lepine was right.

>Sorry.
>I mean, I have my blue funks like everybody else, but gee, I'm still
>not a murderer. The point is, Lepine killed fourteen _innocent_ people, he
>knew what he was doing (as far as we can tell), and he didn't _have_
>to do it. Therefore, he was a terrible person, and no injustice
>done him, real or imagined, can change that.

This is just perverse. How is it that oppression of men on the sole
basis of their race and sex is perfectly all right to correct the real
and/or imagined injustices of females, but Lepine is a "terrible"
person for applying exactly the same political principles?

...[some deleted]...

>Vincent (this message was relayed by Brigitte)

Naturally.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 10:41:11 PDT 1996
Article: 16206 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:33:55 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <4l7c45$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16206 can.politics:39805

Neil  wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote:

>> Let's not rush to label people one way or the other here, okay?  It's 
>> one thing
>> to allege that the person harbours racist/xenophobic beliefs- it's another to
>> allege that they might fully appreciate these views.
>[snip]

>I have very strong reason to believe the things I said about Kolding. 
>That's why I made them public. His obsession with violence and the policy
>of affirmative action (he claims it is affirmative action alone that drove
>him from Canada into southern California, where he says he "lives in
>exile" like some kind of freak refugee) are typical characteristics of
>white supremacists. 

But it wasn't "affirmative action alone" that prompted to me to leave.
Nor am I obsessed with violence----surely leaving Canada, rather than
taking up arms, is indisputable evidence of this. And I do live in
"self-imposed exile" because that is the choice I made. But what has
any of this to do with "white supremacy"?

>This is not direct evidence that makes him a white
>supremacist, 

It's not any type of evidence at all, Neil. You are worse than the
Nazis you claim to oppose. A "white supremacist" in your eyes is
anyone who disagrees with you, and does a good job at it.

>nor would I view his opinion any differently if he were to
>come out and admit he is a white supremacist - after all, it is his
>democratic right to be one.

But if your views would be no different whether I was a white
supremacist or not, why are you trying to prove I am one? There can be
only one reason: you are indulging in a smear.

>However, since I do sincerely believe he is a
>white supremacist, that would make him a liar since he denies it
>completely.

No, what you believe doesn't make anyone a liar. The truth and the
intent is the standard for what is a lie and who is one, not your
"beliefs".  For instance, a person who falsely states that he truly
believes someone, who is not a white supremacist, is a white
supremacist, is a liar.

> It would not be the first time he has lied on Usenet before
>either, since he denied making comments that he did in fact make (about
>someone's late father, and I now have proof that he made them). 

Please post this alleged "proof".

>If a
>person lies consistently during a debate, do you truly find it
>unreasonable for his opponent in that debate to attack him on the basis of
>his credibility?

Not at all. The problem is that you haven't produced any of these
alleged "lies". THAT is the reason you are intent on smearing. You
have failed in debate and now you are only left with smearmongering.
Let me say that I am quite enjoying the spectacle.

>What if one single person were on the verge of agreeing
>with his sick view that the Montreal 14 "deserved" to die? Would such a
>borderline person not be affected by the fact that his source for such
>ideas is an established liar, and a propogator of hatred?

Thank you for so cogently outlining your principles. You disagree with
my views, cannot refute them, fear others will not agree with you, and
therefore you will accuse me of being a liar and propagator of hatred
instead. 

> Maybe, maybe
>not. Either way, Kolding chooses to exercise his freedom of speech to
>promote hatred and violence. I choose to exercise mine: to counter it. 

If you were at all interested in countering hatred and violence you
would be advocating the punishment of those who legislate, enforce,
deliberately benefit from and support AA. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 19 10:41:12 PDT 1996
Article: 16207 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: No Excuse for Caprina!
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:34:06 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <4l7c4e$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:   <4l1vsm$rir@dec3300.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16207 can.politics:39806

caprina@cuug.ab.ca wrote:

>I don't care how he felt he was 
>discriminated against, there was no excuse for his actions, *none*!

Lepine was right. And such actions as he undertook will be justifiable
just so long as AA exists and those who legislate, enforce,
deliberately benefit from and support it remain unpunished.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 20 10:25:17 PDT 1996
Article: 39832 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!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: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:34:50 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <4l7c5s$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jdsvq$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jgtj6$f9l@kryten.awinc.com> <4jm7gp$g7u@news2.cts.com> <4jp7i8$2il@knot.queensu.ca> <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <4kha3o$6fd@knot.queensu.ca> < <4ks5i7$hq8@knot.queensu.ca> <4l1atl$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l3k4k$8d5@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>	If Kolding wishes to simply make it criminal -- punishable even 
>by exclusion of employment/denial of access to playgrounds -- to declare 
>oneself a pedophile, I wish that this would simply be brought forward.  

My discussion has been entirely with respect to the consequences of
adopting "sexual orientation" as a prohibited form of discrimination
under law. I have no problem with people saying anything at all, I
simply think parents will discriminate against declared paedophiles
whatever the law, and a government which prosecutes them for such
actions will produce a social disaster.

>If Kolding furthermore wishes that it not only be criminal to declare 
>oneself a pedophile, but, if one is suspected of being a pedophile one 
>can be denied rights, I wish that that issue would be brought forward.

I certainly support the idea that parents should be free from any
legal sanction with respect to their choice, upon any grounds, of the
people they wish their children to associate with. And I believe the
government-controlled institutions that deal specifically with
children----schools, children's hospitals, etc. should be subject to
individual parental approval with respect to the people who will be
associating with their children.

>To hide the desire for these states of existence under a pretense 
>that sexual orientation should not be a clause in Section 15(1) of the 
>CCR&F or in the CHRA is to unfairly deny a significant portion of the 
>population rights and will not even successfully reduce the danger that 
>children face from pedophilia.

I'm opposed to the inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited
form of discrimination because it is, itself, the same sort of
pretense you have suggested above. It will simply be, when applied, a
prohibition against offering or holding an "incorrect" opinion. People
do not discriminate upon the basis of  "sexual orientation" as it is,
but on their *perceptions and beliefs* of someone's orientation.
Unlike race, sex, etc. one's sexual orientation is impossible of
independent verification. What the inclusion of this criteria will
mean is only that expressions of disapproval---or even
neutrality---with respect to *sexual acts* will constitute grounds for
lawsuits. The person who simply claims to disapprove of sodomy---or
any sexual act----will, under this provision, suddenly be open to
charges that he is acting in a discriminatory manner. The argument
will be that such comments are analogous to some stereotypical idea of
a particular sexual orientation, and therefore constitute bias.

But speaking of pretenses, you have already declared that you favour
the inclusion of this item because it would allow homosexual marriage
and the benefits that accrue from that legal status. Surely a more
honest declaration would be to simply favour the redefinition of
"spouse" in the marriage laws, or the repeal of all sex-based
legislation. 



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 20 10:25:18 PDT 1996
Article: 39833 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:33:16 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4l7c2s$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:   <4kon2a$fgq@News.Dal.Ca> <4l1arq$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l38hm$86@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>: Reason now demands only that those who have legislated, enforced,
>: deliberately benefited from and supported AA be punished for their
>: crimes, and that the laws and policies be repealed and acknowledged as
>: evil and oppressive.

>What you are suggesting is that every who dares to oppose your view of 
>the world should be suject to the same fate as the 14 human beings gunned 
>down by Marc Lepine.  If you wish to air your views, feel free.  However, 
>it does little convince anyone of anything.  Even if you do view "women" 
>as vicarious criminal, this does not justify or excuse murder.  You feel 
>free to make statements which are essentially veiled threats to all who fail 
>to see things your way.  Should AA be repealed?  Maybe.  But your advocay 
>of "punishment" for all who oppose you is in my opinion indefensible.  

I consider the legislation and enforcement of AA a crime against
humanity. I find the opinion that those responsible should not be
punished to be both indefensible and reprehensible.




From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 20 10:25:19 PDT 1996
Article: 39837 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!calvin.risq.qc.ca!news.mcgill.ca!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:34:10 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4l7c4j$5ih@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l1aqn$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l2pmg$2d24@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ncrccjc@ibm.net (ncrccjc) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>ncrccjc responds:

>I believe it is time to understand something about PK.
>He advocates murder, has supported nazis and their ilk, and
>appears to have little or no interest in a tolerant Canada.

Why is it so hard for you and others on this newsgroup to actually
meet my arguments, rather than making absurd, demonstrably false
accusations? Can the support of Lepine and the recognition of the
legitimacy of violence against oppression really be reduced to
"advocating murder"---except by supporters of tyranny and prejudice?
Does opposing the government's throwing people in jail for expressing
their political opinions now really define people, in Canada, as
"supporters of Nazis and their ilk?"  Is the wholesale legal
discrimination against non-disabled white men, and the cultural
adoption of sexist and racist AA principles really a definition of a
"tolerant" society? 

Yes, indeed, let us understand something about PK: I oppose the
Canadian government throwing people in jail and criminalising opinion.
I support ANY action against those who legislate, enforce,
deliberately benefit from and support the criminal AA laws. And
finally: A society can deny free speech and discriminate against
people, or it can be tolerant. These two activities are mutually
exclusive, however.

>Isn't it time we give him the obscurity he so justly deserves?

Certainly----Simply change the AA and relationship laws, ban
government censorship, and establish BC as an independent nation.
With that accomplished I will surely melt into the obscurity that you
now inhabit.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 23 08:15:35 PDT 1996
Article: 40114 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!DMI.USherb.CA!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 21:53:03 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <4lgv41$b0a@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lbarl$18e@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4lbe6m$4bq@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

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

>: Pedophiles will be protected under the same sexual orientation 
>: clause as homosexuals.

>That can occur as the law stands now.

That is not true. That is the central problem with your view that
protections given under "analogous" grounds can be applied as if they
were equivalent to amendments to the Charter. The employer who posts
signs in the workplace saying that homosexuals are criminals would
probably be found to be acting in a discriminatory manner. Indeed,
under some Human Rights legislation an actual "victim" would not even
be needed for a successful prosecution. On the other hand, the same
employer posting the same signs with respect to paedophiles would not
be open to the same sanction before and under the law, because being a
paedophile connotes sexual orientation and simultaneously a criminal
act. In addition, the laws with respect to slander and libel treat
declarations of criminality as proof of the claim, unless there is
evidence offered of the actual truth of the charge. In other words, to
claim that someone is a paedophile who is not, in fact, a paedophile
is a slander on its very face, while the same cannot be made of simple
claims about someone's race or sex, and the other criteria listed in
the Charter's Equality section. 

>: If sexual orientation is included in the Charter of Rights,
>: the use of the word "homosexual" could be cause enough to charge
>: a person with discrimination against homosexuals. Discussions
>: of various aspects of their lifestyle such as the prevalence
>: of AIDS in their group, could be classed as discrimination and 
>: prohibited.

>Uhhh ... anything is possible I suppose, but last time I checked 
>homosexual has never been an insult to someone who is homosexual.
> Nor is the discussion of aids discriminatory.

But a comment such as "90% of all AIDS patients in Canada are
homosexuals" WILL be determined as discriminatory under such a law, if
expressed by a supervisor to an employee----if the employee is a
homosexual. Similar types of evidence are now used regularly to prove
sex discrimination, and there is no reason to suppose it will not be
used by those who claim discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. 

>: In other words any criticism of the homosexual lifestyle will be 
>: a violation of the law under the "sexual orientation" clause.

>: The stupid notion that we can prevent people from hating one another 
>: by passing laws against hatred is so psychologically misinformed 
>: about human nature, that one wonders how otherwise intelligent people 
>: can believe that this will stop hatred and discrimination.

>I don't think anyone believes it will.  Just as laws against stealing 
>have never stopped theft.  I guess we should do away with all laws.

You are avoiding the point. That a law is passed against every known
activity and emotion doesn't stop these things, it merely reduces the
respect the law has in society in general. A multiplicity of laws and
the widening of government power leads always, almost with
mathematical precision, to despotism. As more laws and powers are
created by government, the more these laws are enforced unequally by
the increasing number of enforcers. Eventually, there are so many laws
and the government has so much power, that the enforcers need not
refer to any law whatever in exercising any power over the
citizenry---for whatever act they undertake can be justified by some
law, and whatever action a citizen undertakes can be proven a crime.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 23 08:15:35 PDT 1996
Article: 40135 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Careful Sovereignty (was: Sympathy for Marc Lepine)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:48:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4lbbhi$48t@news2.cts.com>
References:     <4l36qa$sun@News.Dal.Ca>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16320 can.politics:40135

Neil  wrote:

>On 18 Apr 1996, Bosse Dominique wrote:

>> 		Yes, I'm a sovereignist. And yes, I believe
>> 		that we should be wary of the Canadian 
>> 		potential for violence, which has been
>> 		recognized twice by the Russians in the
>> 		last few days. And yes, I believe that 
>> 		many people voted NO out of a not so
>> 		unreasonable fear. 
>> 
>> 		As I maintained all throughout the
>> 		referendum campaign, we are a distinct
>> 		people with a distinct dislike for war
>> 		and blood. It's always been like that way.
>> 		We won't fight, and we don't want to be 
>> 		Chechnyized or Bosnified.

>Bosse Dominique would have us believe that non-quebecois Canadians have
>some sort of genetic defect that prevents them from realizing the dangers
>of promoting or threatening violence with regard to the issue of Quebec
>separatism.

What utter claptrap. Please quote where any such reference to "genetic
defect" occurs in Bosse's articles. On the other hand, we now have
evidence that you translate the word "Canadian" as a *genetic*, rather
than political description of people. 

...[some deleted]....

>> 		As to the Natives, they have nothing to
>> 		fear fom us and they know it very well.

>I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Michel Guimond, BQ Member of Parliament
>from the Chicoutimi region of Quebec (I forget the actual name of the
>riding) a few weeks ago when he visited my university. He was a very
>pleasant man, but when I asked him (during a question and answer session)
>how the Quebec government would respond to the Cree and Inuit declarations
>that they will violently oppose any attempts by Quebec to change their
>status as citizens of Canada or to take control of their land away from
>Canada, he floundered and flailed and probably wanted to flip me off, but
>was unable to come up with a satisfactory answer.

What do you think he should have said, Neil? What is the Federalist's
answer to the same question when refering to Quebec separatists and
their determination to violently oppose any Canadian attempt to
prevent Quebec separation?






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 23 08:15:36 PDT 1996
Article: 40136 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:48:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 185
Message-ID: <4lbbht$48t@news2.cts.com>
References:    <4l1au6$rnf@news2.cts.com>  <4l7c3d$5ih@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16321 can.politics:40136

lemieub@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA (Lemieux Brigitte) wrote:

>Hullo, mister Kolding! Just to clear up any possible misunderstandings,
>the present writer, who signs as "Vincent (this message was relayed
>by Brigitte)", is actually a white male, just like you. How about
>that, huh? 

That was quite obvious by your signature. 

>I repeat: I am a man. Not a woman. My sig. is just a rather poor
>attempt at covering my ass, since I'm using my wife's account.

I know. What's the point, if any?

>On with the show. 

>   :pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>   ::Vincent, in a message relayed by Brigitte, writes:

>   :::pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>   :::You don't seem to comprehend that Lepine was the PRODUCT of this "work
>   :::through education" policy you advocate. 

>   ::That's patently silly, and a smokescreen. So what if he was?
>   ::_I'm_ the product of this policy, and so are you.
>   ::Yet I didn't kill 14 innocent people and neither did you.

>   :Lepine killed, I learned to despise Canada and left, and you are quite
>   :happy with a country where some men have learned to kill and a lot
>   :have learned to hate. If you're happy with it, that's fine, but that
>   :still doesn't mean Lepine wasn't a product of the policy. It simply
>   :means you are prepared to accept death and hate as a byproduct of the
>   :personal benenits you derive from oppression.

>What personal benefits?

You tell me. You're the fellow who claims to be the happy product of
AA.


...[some deleted]...

>Now let's take this in order. 
>One, your listing seems to imply that all these courses of action are
>pretty much on an equal footing. "If you're against AA, you can either
>slaughter people, get out with your tail hanging between your legs,
>or cravenly profit from all the senseless injustice." These things are
>_not_ all morally equivalent.

People keep on making these ungirded moral presumptions. The morality
of any action is bound up with what provokes the action. People keep
on saying that there is some difference in morality with respect to
mere actions----there isn't. The morality of any action rests upon the
causes leading to the action. Those concerned with such reasoning are
going to have to deal with the morality of AA before they start making
airy claims to judgement with respect to the actions that are a
consequence of AA.


>_Killing_ someone because you believe
>(rightly or wrongly) that he or she got your job is, as justice goes,
>monstrously out of proportion with the alleged crime.

Would killing someone because you believe they deliberately benefited
>from  laws that deny Jews employment, expropriated their wealth and
sent them to concentration camps be "monstrously" out of proportion?

>It is taking
>several atom bombs to one gnat. There _are_ other jobs out there,
>but people have only _one_ life.

This is perhaps the most immoral statement I have seen on this
newsgroup. What moral claims do people have for demanding moral
treatment from those they treat immorally?

>Two, if you feel so strongly about this, _why_ haven't _you_ killed
>yourself a couple of these bitches who take jobs away from skilled,
>intelligent white males? Are you really this gutless? Talk, talk,
>talk, but no cojones, is that it? I will venture an opinion here:
>you're still not a murderer because you don't actually believe that
>killing is the answer. You're better than that. I hope so, because
>otherwise you're just a coward.

You obviously haven't followed this discussion very closely. I left
Canada rather than take up arms against the system because of my
contempt for Canadians as a whole, not any rejection of violence. I
view them, sociologically, as simply transplanted Germans of the
Thirties: Cowed by their own government, and holding fundamentally
totalitarian viewpoints anyway. (Which is confirmed daily on this
newsgroup, by the way.) But this is beside the point. My support of
violence is also a matter of plain knowledge of the people who
legislate and enforce AA: They did not adopt AA through the use of
reason, and will not be persuaded against it by reason. They
understand only violence, and only an entry in the ledger of violence
will force a recalculation. 

>Three, I'm not saying that Lepine was not a product of this
>policy. I'm saying that it's no excuse.

But you base this on some sort of unexplained morality or religion,
not on the reality of Lepine, AA and Canada.


>Four, your argument that Lepine was a hero can only be coherent
>(I don't mean right, I just mean internally consistent) if you're
>ready to maintain that _all_ 14 women killed were _all_ accepted 
>at Polytechnique because of AA, 

The Polytechnique had an AA policy that denied non-disabled white
males' applications in order to accept females' applications. ALL
females are accepted because of AA if an AA program is in effect.

>that without AA they wouldn't
>have had the intellectual capacity to be accepted and indeed
>would _all_ have been rejected,

Females cannot claim "innocence" on the basis that they are qualified
if men can't make the same claim.

> that _all_ of them were absolutely
>aware of this and knowlingly and with malicious intent used the 
>system to take the place of 14 _guys_. 

If you join the SS you should not blame Jews for trying to kill you on
occasion. 

>Are you saying that all
>14 of Lepine's victims were too dumb to get into Polytechnique
>by themselves?

What's the difference----under AA that is not a criteria.

...[some deleted]...

>   ::Guess it's possible to be such a product and retain a
>   ::modicum of humanity.

>   :I suppose that depends on how one defines such a term in a society
>   :such as Canada. Lepine and his actions strike me not only as entirely
>   :human, but based intrinsically on humanity outraged. Lepine isn't the
>   :problem-----it is the people who legislate, enforce, deliberately
>   :benefit from and support the oppression he suffered.

>Please. You're _incredibly_ outraged, and you haven't killed.

And Lepine did. And he is a hero for it.

>Don't you see this is a terribly important point?

No. I don't even think it is a point at all, quite frankly.

>For the 14 victims and their family, Lepine was and is very much the
>problem. And none of the victims legislated, or enforced laws.

Neither did Lepine. But it is HE who is denied admission because of
it, not the deliberate beneficiaries of AA. Look: If there are females
who want to attend university and there is an AA program they are
deliberately benefiting and supporting AA.  If females want to
participate in such a system they should expect the occasion bullet
wafted their way. They should not be surprised to find themselves
being hated. They should not imagine appeals to "morality", from
themselves, will have much effect on anyone except those involved in
the immorality of AA itself.

>And if you're arguing that they "_deliberately_ benefitted from and
>supported the oppression he suffered" (emphasis mine), you'll have
>to prove it. Go find out their grades. Prove that these _particular_
>14 women were too stupid to get into Polytechnique without AA.
>Your whole case hinges on this. Otherwise you're just yapping.

Pardon me, but if this is your argument---you have none. If females do
not require AA, why is AA in place? AA means that men who are
perfectly qualified do not get in because they are the wrong sex and
race, by law. These 14 females deliberately attended and benefited
>from  an organisation that discriminates against non-disabled white
men, on the sole basis of their sex and race, in order that females
may benefit from this discrimination. As I alluded to above---if you
want to join the SS don't whine when Jews occasionally blow a few of
your compatriots away.






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 23 08:15:37 PDT 1996
Article: 40137 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:48:41 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4lbbi8$48t@news2.cts.com>
References:      <4l7c3k$5ih@news2.cts.com> <4l8a14$v17@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16322 can.politics:40137

kate@Vir.com (Kate McDonnell) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: This is just perverse. How is it that oppression of men on the sole
>: basis of their race and sex is perfectly all right to correct the real
>: and/or imagined injustices of females, but Lepine is a "terrible"
>: person for applying exactly the same political principles?

>Leaving aside the affirmative-action issue, tell me why depriving
>someone of a job, or a place at a university, is "exactly the
>same" as depriving them of life.

Why should I leave aside AA in answering this?






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 23 08:15:38 PDT 1996
Article: 40162 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!lamarck.sura.net!ra.nrl.navy.mil!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.men,can.politics
Subject: Re: Madam Justice Louise Arbour
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:20:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <4lhlpm$oaj@news2.cts.com>
References: <4k0vqq$9a3@nntp.pinc.com> <4kc2ac$kf4@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4kme3i$2v7@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4ktht9$596@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <4l1au2$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l47cj$48g@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4lbbgi$48t@news2.cts.com> <4ldfkm$9i1@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.men:112161 can.politics:40162

leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:


>>>>It seems you are now suggesting that "all men are rapists".
>>
>>>---------------------------
>>>No it doesn't....not at all.  Are you another who likes to
>generalize? >What I DID say was that liability is a practical reason to
>select>>female gaurds for female prisoners because the govt. will
>subject>>itself to less liability.  It's not MY answer, it's a
>practical>implication.  
>>
>-------------------------------
>>It is not any kind of "practical implication". What next, are you
>>going to investigate the religion of guards and then have the
>>government deny Christians or Jews or Atheists because rapists are
>>unproportionally Christians or Jews or Atheists? Men DO NOT commit
>>rape. RAPISTS rape.

>---------------------------f government
>>should allow them to deny employment to people simply because they
>>have a certain immutable personal characteristic. 

>---------------------------------------
>If you believe that govts. do not consider potential liability to the
>rules they inact, you would be _mistaken_.  Rape is (right now, in
>CA--unless it's been altered without my knowledge :] a gender specific
>crime. 

There are NO "gender specific" crimes in Canada. There is no such
crime as rape. It's all sexual assault now, with no reference to the
sex of the persons involved, and has been for well over a decade.

>Some men want to change that definition so as to include women
>as rapists.  So far, there are other sex crimes that can be more easily
>attributed to women.  What you fail to realize is that ACTUAL
>DIFFERENCES IN GENDER (few and far between) do allow for some
>gender-specific discrimination. 

This where you are entirely wrong-------actual differences in "gender"
expressly do not allow discrimination. One must be a member of a
legally-determined "disadvantaged group" to be given preference on the
sole basis of sex. It is one's legal status, not one's sex that allows
discrimination.

> It is not a discrimination on an
>"immutable personal characteristic"; it is based upon observable
>dissimilar circumstances, i.e. women do not have the physical equipment
>necessary for rape, but they do have the ability to sexually molest in
>other ways.

That is why the definition of rape was redefined as sexual
assault---so the law did not discriminate against men simply on the
basis of "their equipment". You do realise that for decades females
had been raping people, but could only be charged with the
run-of-the-mill assault provisions in the Criminal Code before this
change was made? (Not that such changes in law will ever make a
difference in an AA culture, however.)

>>
>>>As a taxpayer, I have the right to protect my interests viz
>>>money spent on litigation.
>>
>>Then I suggest you concentrate on the government not hiring crooks,
>>rather than advocating some sort of new Race Law.
>>
>>-----------------------------------------
>Race law?  I advocate programs that treat us the same when we ARE the
>same and differently when we ARE different.  Rape is (almost) a
>gender-specific crime.  Since it is highly unlikely that female prison
>guards are going to act as accomplices in rape of male prisoners, it is
>not reasonable to prevent them from working there on THAT basis. 

But now you are again saying that men are rapists. Neither men nor
females commit sexual assaults on account of their "gender". 


>Having said that, however, I also believe that prisoners of both
>genders have some privacy rights, and those rights should certainly
>include the request not to be searched intimately by the opposite sex.

The Court has already ruled that such rights do not extend to men. It
is a human rights violation for a male guard to strip-search a female
prisoner, while it is a human rights violation to deny a female guard
the right to strip-search a male prisoner. Incidentally, this may give
you some small insight as to why so many men are so prone to violence
nowadays.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 23 13:24:34 PDT 1996
Article: 40207 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!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: "Lepine is a true hero" [was:Sympathy for / Sympathie pour MarcLepine]
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:09:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4lef7p$1qq@news2.cts.com>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16359 can.politics:40207

rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote:

>In article , Neil  writes:
>>On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote:

>[....]

>First Neil, let me thank you for re-posting what he wrote (or whoever else had
>it and re-posted it)- now I can get a clearer picture of exactly what was said
>by PKolding that let to the uproar, so to speak.  

>>Lepine undertook a political act that now---6 years after the event---is
>>still reverberating in Canadians' minds. He was a direct victim of
>>Canada's AA laws and the females he killed were direct beneficiaries of
>>that persecution. If females want laws that oppress and discriminate
>>against men purely in order to benefit themselves they are going to live
>>in a society that targets them for violence.  Get this straight:  Lepine
>>was right. The people who legislate, enforce and seek to benefit from AA
>>are evil little thugs and criminals. Their deaths improve the smell of the
>>world. 

>I think that I can speak for most individuals when I say that a) the remarks
>that paint Lepine as "right" are all a crock of shit,

Wow, what a comeback!


 



From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 23 14:14:55 PDT 1996
Article: 16320 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Careful Sovereignty (was: Sympathy for Marc Lepine)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:48:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4lbbhi$48t@news2.cts.com>
References:     <4l36qa$sun@News.Dal.Ca>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16320 can.politics:40135

Neil  wrote:

>On 18 Apr 1996, Bosse Dominique wrote:

>> 		Yes, I'm a sovereignist. And yes, I believe
>> 		that we should be wary of the Canadian 
>> 		potential for violence, which has been
>> 		recognized twice by the Russians in the
>> 		last few days. And yes, I believe that 
>> 		many people voted NO out of a not so
>> 		unreasonable fear. 
>> 
>> 		As I maintained all throughout the
>> 		referendum campaign, we are a distinct
>> 		people with a distinct dislike for war
>> 		and blood. It's always been like that way.
>> 		We won't fight, and we don't want to be 
>> 		Chechnyized or Bosnified.

>Bosse Dominique would have us believe that non-quebecois Canadians have
>some sort of genetic defect that prevents them from realizing the dangers
>of promoting or threatening violence with regard to the issue of Quebec
>separatism.

What utter claptrap. Please quote where any such reference to "genetic
defect" occurs in Bosse's articles. On the other hand, we now have
evidence that you translate the word "Canadian" as a *genetic*, rather
than political description of people. 

...[some deleted]....

>> 		As to the Natives, they have nothing to
>> 		fear fom us and they know it very well.

>I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Michel Guimond, BQ Member of Parliament
>from the Chicoutimi region of Quebec (I forget the actual name of the
>riding) a few weeks ago when he visited my university. He was a very
>pleasant man, but when I asked him (during a question and answer session)
>how the Quebec government would respond to the Cree and Inuit declarations
>that they will violently oppose any attempts by Quebec to change their
>status as citizens of Canada or to take control of their land away from
>Canada, he floundered and flailed and probably wanted to flip me off, but
>was unable to come up with a satisfactory answer.

What do you think he should have said, Neil? What is the Federalist's
answer to the same question when refering to Quebec separatists and
their determination to violently oppose any Canadian attempt to
prevent Quebec separation?






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 23 14:14:56 PDT 1996
Article: 16321 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:48:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 185
Message-ID: <4lbbht$48t@news2.cts.com>
References:    <4l1au6$rnf@news2.cts.com>  <4l7c3d$5ih@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16321 can.politics:40136

lemieub@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA (Lemieux Brigitte) wrote:

>Hullo, mister Kolding! Just to clear up any possible misunderstandings,
>the present writer, who signs as "Vincent (this message was relayed
>by Brigitte)", is actually a white male, just like you. How about
>that, huh? 

That was quite obvious by your signature. 

>I repeat: I am a man. Not a woman. My sig. is just a rather poor
>attempt at covering my ass, since I'm using my wife's account.

I know. What's the point, if any?

>On with the show. 

>   :pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>   ::Vincent, in a message relayed by Brigitte, writes:

>   :::pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>   :::You don't seem to comprehend that Lepine was the PRODUCT of this "work
>   :::through education" policy you advocate. 

>   ::That's patently silly, and a smokescreen. So what if he was?
>   ::_I'm_ the product of this policy, and so are you.
>   ::Yet I didn't kill 14 innocent people and neither did you.

>   :Lepine killed, I learned to despise Canada and left, and you are quite
>   :happy with a country where some men have learned to kill and a lot
>   :have learned to hate. If you're happy with it, that's fine, but that
>   :still doesn't mean Lepine wasn't a product of the policy. It simply
>   :means you are prepared to accept death and hate as a byproduct of the
>   :personal benenits you derive from oppression.

>What personal benefits?

You tell me. You're the fellow who claims to be the happy product of
AA.


...[some deleted]...

>Now let's take this in order. 
>One, your listing seems to imply that all these courses of action are
>pretty much on an equal footing. "If you're against AA, you can either
>slaughter people, get out with your tail hanging between your legs,
>or cravenly profit from all the senseless injustice." These things are
>_not_ all morally equivalent.

People keep on making these ungirded moral presumptions. The morality
of any action is bound up with what provokes the action. People keep
on saying that there is some difference in morality with respect to
mere actions----there isn't. The morality of any action rests upon the
causes leading to the action. Those concerned with such reasoning are
going to have to deal with the morality of AA before they start making
airy claims to judgement with respect to the actions that are a
consequence of AA.


>_Killing_ someone because you believe
>(rightly or wrongly) that he or she got your job is, as justice goes,
>monstrously out of proportion with the alleged crime.

Would killing someone because you believe they deliberately benefited
>from  laws that deny Jews employment, expropriated their wealth and
sent them to concentration camps be "monstrously" out of proportion?

>It is taking
>several atom bombs to one gnat. There _are_ other jobs out there,
>but people have only _one_ life.

This is perhaps the most immoral statement I have seen on this
newsgroup. What moral claims do people have for demanding moral
treatment from those they treat immorally?

>Two, if you feel so strongly about this, _why_ haven't _you_ killed
>yourself a couple of these bitches who take jobs away from skilled,
>intelligent white males? Are you really this gutless? Talk, talk,
>talk, but no cojones, is that it? I will venture an opinion here:
>you're still not a murderer because you don't actually believe that
>killing is the answer. You're better than that. I hope so, because
>otherwise you're just a coward.

You obviously haven't followed this discussion very closely. I left
Canada rather than take up arms against the system because of my
contempt for Canadians as a whole, not any rejection of violence. I
view them, sociologically, as simply transplanted Germans of the
Thirties: Cowed by their own government, and holding fundamentally
totalitarian viewpoints anyway. (Which is confirmed daily on this
newsgroup, by the way.) But this is beside the point. My support of
violence is also a matter of plain knowledge of the people who
legislate and enforce AA: They did not adopt AA through the use of
reason, and will not be persuaded against it by reason. They
understand only violence, and only an entry in the ledger of violence
will force a recalculation. 

>Three, I'm not saying that Lepine was not a product of this
>policy. I'm saying that it's no excuse.

But you base this on some sort of unexplained morality or religion,
not on the reality of Lepine, AA and Canada.


>Four, your argument that Lepine was a hero can only be coherent
>(I don't mean right, I just mean internally consistent) if you're
>ready to maintain that _all_ 14 women killed were _all_ accepted 
>at Polytechnique because of AA, 

The Polytechnique had an AA policy that denied non-disabled white
males' applications in order to accept females' applications. ALL
females are accepted because of AA if an AA program is in effect.

>that without AA they wouldn't
>have had the intellectual capacity to be accepted and indeed
>would _all_ have been rejected,

Females cannot claim "innocence" on the basis that they are qualified
if men can't make the same claim.

> that _all_ of them were absolutely
>aware of this and knowlingly and with malicious intent used the 
>system to take the place of 14 _guys_. 

If you join the SS you should not blame Jews for trying to kill you on
occasion. 

>Are you saying that all
>14 of Lepine's victims were too dumb to get into Polytechnique
>by themselves?

What's the difference----under AA that is not a criteria.

...[some deleted]...

>   ::Guess it's possible to be such a product and retain a
>   ::modicum of humanity.

>   :I suppose that depends on how one defines such a term in a society
>   :such as Canada. Lepine and his actions strike me not only as entirely
>   :human, but based intrinsically on humanity outraged. Lepine isn't the
>   :problem-----it is the people who legislate, enforce, deliberately
>   :benefit from and support the oppression he suffered.

>Please. You're _incredibly_ outraged, and you haven't killed.

And Lepine did. And he is a hero for it.

>Don't you see this is a terribly important point?

No. I don't even think it is a point at all, quite frankly.

>For the 14 victims and their family, Lepine was and is very much the
>problem. And none of the victims legislated, or enforced laws.

Neither did Lepine. But it is HE who is denied admission because of
it, not the deliberate beneficiaries of AA. Look: If there are females
who want to attend university and there is an AA program they are
deliberately benefiting and supporting AA.  If females want to
participate in such a system they should expect the occasion bullet
wafted their way. They should not be surprised to find themselves
being hated. They should not imagine appeals to "morality", from
themselves, will have much effect on anyone except those involved in
the immorality of AA itself.

>And if you're arguing that they "_deliberately_ benefitted from and
>supported the oppression he suffered" (emphasis mine), you'll have
>to prove it. Go find out their grades. Prove that these _particular_
>14 women were too stupid to get into Polytechnique without AA.
>Your whole case hinges on this. Otherwise you're just yapping.

Pardon me, but if this is your argument---you have none. If females do
not require AA, why is AA in place? AA means that men who are
perfectly qualified do not get in because they are the wrong sex and
race, by law. These 14 females deliberately attended and benefited
>from  an organisation that discriminates against non-disabled white
men, on the sole basis of their sex and race, in order that females
may benefit from this discrimination. As I alluded to above---if you
want to join the SS don't whine when Jews occasionally blow a few of
your compatriots away.






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 23 14:14:57 PDT 1996
Article: 16322 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:48:41 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4lbbi8$48t@news2.cts.com>
References:      <4l7c3k$5ih@news2.cts.com> <4l8a14$v17@Vir.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16322 can.politics:40137

kate@Vir.com (Kate McDonnell) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: This is just perverse. How is it that oppression of men on the sole
>: basis of their race and sex is perfectly all right to correct the real
>: and/or imagined injustices of females, but Lepine is a "terrible"
>: person for applying exactly the same political principles?

>Leaving aside the affirmative-action issue, tell me why depriving
>someone of a job, or a place at a university, is "exactly the
>same" as depriving them of life.

Why should I leave aside AA in answering this?






From pkolding@cts.com Tue Apr 23 14:14:58 PDT 1996
Article: 16359 of soc.culture.quebec
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!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.quebec,mtl.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: "Lepine is a true hero" [was:Sympathy for / Sympathie pour MarcLepine]
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:09:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4lef7p$1qq@news2.cts.com>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.quebec:16359 can.politics:40207

rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote:

>In article , Neil  writes:
>>On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote:

>[....]

>First Neil, let me thank you for re-posting what he wrote (or whoever else had
>it and re-posted it)- now I can get a clearer picture of exactly what was said
>by PKolding that let to the uproar, so to speak.  

>>Lepine undertook a political act that now---6 years after the event---is
>>still reverberating in Canadians' minds. He was a direct victim of
>>Canada's AA laws and the females he killed were direct beneficiaries of
>>that persecution. If females want laws that oppress and discriminate
>>against men purely in order to benefit themselves they are going to live
>>in a society that targets them for violence.  Get this straight:  Lepine
>>was right. The people who legislate, enforce and seek to benefit from AA
>>are evil little thugs and criminals. Their deaths improve the smell of the
>>world. 

>I think that I can speak for most individuals when I say that a) the remarks
>that paint Lepine as "right" are all a crock of shit,

Wow, what a comeback!


 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 24 11:31:19 PDT 1996
Article: 40301 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!cunews!news.achilles.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Scabs Still Selfish!
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:19:59 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <4lhlp8$oaj@news2.cts.com>
References: <4l9die$qf0@cdc2.cdc.net> <4larg2$1bg@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4ldpt0$rul@cdc2.cdc.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

papamu@vianet.on.ca (Rusty Wiley) wrote:

>zeljko@netcom.ca (Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric) wrote:

>>papamu@vianet.on.ca (Rusty Wiley) wrote:


>>Z>We have to cherish groups like the unions, non-profit organizations
>>Z>and the like, since there are so few democratic institutions left in
>>Z>this country.  At least in these groups you will see, one person has
>>Z>one vote and one issue on the table at a time.

>>Actually, I consider the unions to be manipulative thugs who extort
>>too much money from their hard working members... many of which did
>>not want to be a part of the union.

>>Why can't people direct their union dues to go to charity anymore?
>>Why should a person's union dues be spent by the union to support a
>>political party that the individual does not want his money to
>>support?  ie it is well known that the unions all support the NDP.




>>Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric

>>"Sound argument will have more weight with me than popular opinion."
>>	- Cicero, Paradoxa, I, 8.

>Please sir do read your signurature.
>In the union every issue is put before the membership for a vote.
>There is no issue that is forbiden.  The members have a right to  make
>a de-certification vote at any time.
>As a CAW member (retired) I do not like the support given to the NDP.
>My preference would be that we buy every vote in government that we
>can afford , just as business does, and not limit ourselves
>At every opportunity I do vote to suspend support for the NDP.
>Unfortunately in the democratic union I have to date been continuously
>out-voted.
>Your post contains no argument.  A statement of - you consider - and -
>everyone knows, is niether sound nor arguement.

It is absurd to argue that one must be bound by "democratic" actions
that deny one's democratic rights. Unions do not have a vote with
respect to those who will govern the country---citizens do.
Organisations which co-opt the democratic rights of citizens should be
subject to prosecution, just like those who tamper with ballot boxes.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed Apr 24 11:31:20 PDT 1996
Article: 40302 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!cunews!news.achilles.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!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: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:20:03 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4lhlpc$oaj@news2.cts.com>
References: <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <829147102.3702snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4koos4$aoo@news2.cts.com> <4ks697$hq8@knot.queensu.ca> <4lcfdb$uha@rex.cadvision.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Timothy Huyer  wrote:

>On 21 Apr 1996, Derek Nalecki wrote:

>> I _will_ grant that there is noone like Huyer to claryfy the usually 
>> obfuscate and deliberately misguiding blather of the left. [snip]
>> But he of course *is* correct.

>I do so appreciate it when I receive such glowing praise for my modest 
>efforts and I can think of nobody whose praise I would rather have then 
>the feisty and irrepressible Mr. Nalecki.  

>> But homesexual "rights" to marry, the left
>> really means a situation where the rest of us is burdened with yet more
>> taxation to pay for their lifestyles. We are supposed to 'live their private
>> lifes alone', as long as we pay for them that is.

>In a humbly offered attempt to broaden my skills of clarification from 
>merely leftist "misguiding blather", I will attempt to rephrase this 
>excerpt of Mr. Nalecki's post:

>Mr. Nalecki asserts that married persons either face a net lower average 
>tax rate then equivalent income single persons, get more tax funded benefits 
>than single persons, or some combination thereof such that they are net 
>subsidized by single persons.
>	I will not dispute that statement, although I do not have any figures 
>on this issue.
>	Gays and lesbians, by being unable to legally marry or establish a 
>legally recognizable common-law relationship with their partners, cannot 
>take advantage of this tax break/benefits bonus.  

This is just wrong. There is no bar to homosexuals marrying. Marriage
is the legally-sanctioned recognition of a husband-and-wife
relationship. It requires two people of the oppisite sex, not any
particular sexual orientation.

>Hence, gay and lesbian couples no different than heterosexual 
>couples excepting in legal status, are net subsidizers of those 
>heterosexual couples.

Then tax allowances given to the married do not apply to the single,
either. Consequently, according to the argument you make, they too
would be "subsidizing" the married. The error in your argument is
therefore threefold: 1) sexual orientation is no more a bar to
marriage than it is to getting a driving licence; 2) the "subsidy" you
claim homosexuals have to bear on account of their sexual orinetation,
is in fact borne by everyone not married, regardless of their sexual
orientation; and 3) tax advantages based on legal status are not
subsidies of one taxpayer by another, but the purchase by government
of behaviours for the alleged good of society. 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 11:00:51 PDT 1996
Article: 26566 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!sunqbc.risq.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.mcgill.ca!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Pissed Mc OyVay...
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:56:49 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4lqdll$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <1996Apr24.063120.19256@wpg.ramp.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26566 can.politics:40719

anakin@pinc.com (Rajiv K. Gandhi) wrote:

>In article <1996Apr24.063120.19256@wpg.ramp.net>, Joe Lockhart
> wrote:

>> I hate people who hate Christ, This includes some Jews, some
>> so-called Christians, anyone who blasphemes His name.

>'He' is actually a She - in fact 'He' is a black lesbian She.

I think the sex of Jesus Christ is established as male,
notwithstanding the pain this causes so many modern non-Christians.

...[some deleted]...

>> You McVay... can explain how you sold your soul to the devil.

>I've met the devil. He is a nice guy. Bit of a party animal, but nice.

Actually, the devil is actually a She - in fact 'he' is a black
lesbian She. :_)



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 11:22:24 PDT 1996
Article: 40714 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!csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neil Singh: ESL dropout.
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:48:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 316
Message-ID: <4lqd6r$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4khkar$bq2@News.Dal.Ca> <4kooqe$aoo@news2.cts.com> <4kpenq$i7q@News.Dal.Ca> <4l1at6$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l3er6$86@News.Dal.Ca> <4l7c5i$5ih@news2.cts.com> <4l955m$pp3@News.Dal.Ca> <4lef7j$1qq@news2.cts.com> <4lf1eo$eqs@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:40714 alt.society.civil-liberties:7452

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: No AA program for non-disabled white men is possible under the law.

>I think we will just have to disagree here. Nothing in the Charter, 
>federal employment equity act or any other part of the constitution of law
>prohibits AA for "disadvantaged" men in the appropriate context.

Please explain how this can be. Everyone except NDWM's are already
members of some legally-designated disadvantaged group (check the very
employment equity act you mention above) and they cannot be
discriminated against under AA. This leaves only NDWM's for AA
programs to discriminate against. If, on the other hand, a new law is
passed making NDWM's a disadvantaged group, and thus making everybody
in the country officiallly "disadvantaged", no AA law, program or
activity will be able to discriminate against anyone.

>: I've repeated and explained the law to you three times already. Please
>: post the AA law, program or activity that has been undertaken for the
>: improvement of the conditions of the "non-disabled white male"
>: disadvantaged group.

>As I have explained my understanding of the law to you.  My
>point has been that such program *may* indeed be established, despite your 
>protests to the contrary. The lack or existance thereof is one of political 
>will. Not constitutional mandate. Activities, programs, etc may indeed
>include mens only organizations aimed at ameliorating disadvantage. It is 
>you are you who are fixated with status, and therefore ignore the fact 
>that arguments can be made pursuant to the Supreme Law of Canada on the 
>basis of "disadvantage", regardless of what federal legislation or 
>provincial statute says.

>: The 1986 Employment Equity Act comes immediately to mind. It
>: designates categorically the four "disadvantaged groups" referred to
>: in the Charter.

>Bingo!!!!  For someone who prides themselves on stating facts and 
>concrete policies it certainly has taken you a long time.  Point one: the 
>EE Act establishes little more than a reporting system.  Some sort of EE 
>programs have to be implemented in the federal government but if nothing is 
>really done, nothing happens.  

Excuse me, but you are avoiding the point: The legal STATUS needed
under the Charter is gained this way. The Charter allows ANY law,
program or activity to completely ignore the rights of those without
this STATUS. To argue about any particular provision of the literally
thousands of AA programs in effect is meaningless and even
suspect---ONLY non-disabled white males do not have status under AA
and therefore only THEY can be discriminated against under any of
these laws, programs and activities.

...[some deleted]...

>: You may, but the Charter allows AA discrimination only on the basis of
>: LEGAL STATUS, not condition. 

>Well its the chicken and the egg. You won't gain that status unless you 
>can prove disadvantage.

Please think clearly: If a Court ruled that "Non-disabled white men"
are a disadvantaged group no AA program could be instituted.
Discrimination against a disadvantaged group is prohibited, under the
very Charter section that allows AA. An AA program that sought to
discriminate against women, aboriginal people, visible minorities, or
the disabled---I.e. everyone in the country but NDWM's---for the
benefit of NDWM's, would be contrary to the Charter guarantees given
in Section 15.


>: >Did I say I agree with jailing people for expressing their views?  

>: No, you said: "Your justification of violence is simply an attempt to
>: short circuit free expression and political freedom." What you agree
>: with  is not the issue, but the justification that exists for
>: political violence.

>By advocating the principles of violence you send the message to everyone 
>who disagrees with you to shut up or else.  Wheter you intend it or not.  

Look, this is ridiculous. I support political violence in a particular
case for particular reasons. I would have "advocated" political
violence in the case of the Hitler and Stalin regimes as well. This is
supposed to be a forum for views to be expressed, not the place for
the regurgitation and enforcement of some pacifist catechism.

>That is contrary to free speech.  Violence is the resort of desparation, 
>and will alienate more people than it will convince. In my estimation.

Political violence is not contrary to free speech---it is independent
of free speech. And you, like so many others, miss the whole point:
Why should people who are denied their rights, by law, simply on the
basis of their sex and race, be at all concerned about "alienating"
anyone? What difference could it possibly mean to someone who is
consigned to virtual slavery by the very people who want to discuss
the "merits" of that slave state, rather than overthrow it and hang
those responsible?

>: >Where one moves from speaking one opinion to murder, somehow 
>: >my tolerance dissapears.  Violence is the antithesis to free speech. 
>: > Its goal is simply to silence others.

>: What good is free speech when if it doesn't actually exist?

>Even free speech has some limits.  Do you agree with public
>nuisance laws?

It depends entirely on my legal status. If I can be denied all my
rights simply on the basis that I am a certain sex and race, I can
have no regard for, much less agree with, any law whatever. 

>: >No.  It will create "martrys for the AA cause", as you seem to realize.
>: >You may get some attention that way, but it certainly isn't the kind that 
>: >changes peoples minds.

>: If it doesn't change their minds then it will certainly destroy their
>: system.

>No. Systems don't dissapear that easily.  Violence destroys people, not 
>systems.

I think you live in a dream world.

>: >No.  At common law there was only the doctrine of Parliamentary 
>: >supremacy. 

>: I think not. The Crown was supreme, and everyone was "subject".
>: The Crown did not grant Parliament a *constitutional* power to deny
>: the existence of any rights already recognised, but the power to
>: ignore them, or deny their exercise.

>Convention is one of the basis of Canada's consitutional framework. As in 
>all countries.  The Doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy is part of that.  
>The will of the vocal majority rules.  You may have "rights" but it is 
>always subject to wheter others will recognize them.  The courts have and 
>continue to play this role.

>: >Well, thats not true.  Nuisance for example is not a crime. 

>: Certainly it is.

>I was thinking civil law.  For example smelly wood burning or factory.  
>No Criminal Code offence. No crime. No criminal record.  Just injunction 
>to stop.

You make a distinction that doesn't exist. Sanctions arise regardless.
Ignoring a civil judgement can be criminalized on a simple application
for contempt.

>: >However, if you create a nuisance you can be forced to forgo 
>: >some of your property rights.  

>: But not on the basis of your *class*. (Except in Canada).

>All property owner belong to a class - "property owner"/Care to clarify?

This is equivalent to maintaining that any activity undertaken by
anyone assigns them to a class. The expropriated "property owner" is
affected on the basis of his _property_ not his class, while the
non-disabled white male suffers on the basis of his class---which then
defines the status of his property or rights. 


>: >Consider also expropriation of land for public thoroughfares.

>: And this, also, is not a matter of the class of the person involved.
>: (Except in Canada).

>Same response. "property owners" in the US can still have land expropriated.

See above. It is not the person's legal class that allows
expropriation in your example, but the location or state of the
property. When the US and Canadians expropriated Japanese property
during the War, however, this was done not on the basis of the
property, but on the "class" of the people affected. This last example
should surely be clear enough for you to see the difference.

>: "I would prefer to find ways of reducing the numbers of male
>: criminals.  If they *have* to steal to pay alimony then lower alimony
>: rates.  A good lawyer does the trick."

>: To which I made the perfectly reasonable observation that eliminating
>: alimony would solve the problem you raise.

>Please, you are the one who brought up alimony to begin with.

Indeed I did. I also noted your tendency to cut inconvenient quotes.
If men are going to prison because their unemployment cheque cannot
fulfill the demands of alimony, I opined, then violence against such a
system is justified. 

> I you 
>don't think it is AA, though you have said AA "has everything to do with it",
>I think it is fair to say "What?" Is it relevent?  If so, how?  YOu don't
>consider prisoner rehab AA, so why alimony?  

Where have I ever said that alimony is AA!!!??? I have explained, over
and over, that the widespread enforcement of AA laws, programs and
activities has created an "Affirmative Action Culture." The principles
of AA, i.e. the treatment of people according to some immutable
personal characteristic they have, have been adopted in all the
institutions of society and between individuals, quite outside the
legal requirements demanded by law. Support and child custody is made
on this same basis, as is every other social and personal decision.
This has resulted in the establishment of a virtual slave state, where
men in general, and non-disabled white men in particular, can be
reduced to slavery simply on the basis of their sex and race.
Social education to counter this state of affairs cannot even be
started, however, until the legal structures are dismantled and those
responsible are brought to justice. Any actions taken towards this end
will lead to a lessening of the causes that now justify so much social
and political violence. Eliminating AA and revising the relationship
laws to prohibit government from ordering or coercing support payments
of any kind would go a long way to this end. Alimony isn't AA---- but
AA has everything to do with it. The AA culture has poisoned and
infected everything, with the inevitable result that those targeted
for discrimination under such a culture feel its sting in every aspect
of their lifes.

>: >I have never been divorced, but I have seen the impact of such 
>: >things on people.  I can only say that in my experience, alimony 
>: >is intended to be temporary.Alimony or spousal support was around 
>: >before AA.

>: So what? Again, this insistence that things which one group doesn't
>: care for must be changed, even if means denying people their
>: fundamental rights, while simultaneously arguing that no one else may
>: argue for change on precisely the same basis. The current relationship
>: laws are simply slave laws. They are indefensible in a society where
>: 95% of all "support" and is made the responsibility of a single sex.

>????? Everyone has equal protest power under the Charter, despite your 
>protest. "Support" is temporary. "Support" came long before AA. 
>My question: are you saying spousal "support" is AA or not?  
>That only 5% of men get support suggests the reality that women (and the 
>children of divorce) generally suffer greater economic 
>disadvantage as a result of divorce. 

This is getting tedious---if females suffer a greater disadvantage due
to divorce why is that the EX-HUSBAND's problem???? The reason men pay
95% of all support and are awarded custody in only 15% of cases is
because they are the wrong sex in the eyes of the court, nothing else.
Doesn't it strike you as somewhat absurd that the Courts continuallly
claim that they award custody on the sole basis of "the good of the
child", and then, 85 times out of 100,  make the award to someone who
is not even financially capable of taking care of the child, by their
very own estimation? What, other than slavery, is the definition of a
system that in 5 years will see 35% of ALL men who marry today having
neither their wives nor their children, yet be responsible all their
lives for supporting both? And this does not include the 95% of those
without children who will only be obliged to endure slavery for the
benefit of their ex-wife.

>That is not an immutable charachteristic, as your 5% recognizes.

Incorrect. When the female chooses not to take custody of her
children, she just loses the ability to claim a set-off against income
>from  wages. The husband is not, in practical terms, "awarded" custody,
but is "allowed" custody by way of the AA cultural custom that the
females' demands are to be met first, and, when met, then the child's
are considered. 


>You could make a charter argument 
>if you could prove that alimony "disadvantages" you.  Whether the 
>argument is accepted will depend on the facutal circumstances and the 
>mood of the judge.  Spousal support law weighs a lg number of things on 
>the premise that marriage is a 50/50 split. If a spouse fails to seek to 
>support themselve, support can be reduced or cut off. Spousal support is 
>intended to be temporary and may be varied if circumstancres permit.

This is not true. Support rules are entirely a matter of law, not the
"mood of the judge" or even mitigating circumstances. The B.C. Family
Relations Act makes support simply a matter of "need". In addition,
the law is supreme to any private agreements that contravene it---at
the time of the divorce. This means that a pre-marital agreement could
be made in good faith with respect to a number of matters, but that if
it contravenes the Family Relations Act with respect to "need" or with
respect to any relationship law or current practice passed in the
intervening years, the agreement can be torn up by the judge. Imagine
the same practice being applied to any other area of life----say your
credit card charges for example. You make an agreement to get a
fee-free credit card, and then five years later the judge reviews the
agreement, notices that most other cards charge $20 a year, and rules
upon that basis that you owe the bank $100, plus interest.


>: You are beginning to invite ridicule. There are only four groups under
>: which someone may claim "disadvantaged" status: Women, Aboriginal
>: Peoples, Visible Minorities, and the Disabled. If you are not in
>: possession of one of the immutable personal characteristics that
>: classify you for membership, i.e. you are a non-disabled white male,
>: AA laws, programs and activities can target you for discrimination.
>: Remember, "disadvantaged" is a STATUS, not a condition. A status based
>: on an immutable personal characteristic. You are subject or not
>: subject to discrimination under AA laws and programs based entirely
>: upon you holding or not holding a certain immutable characteristic.

>That is simply not true.  The defining element of "status" is "disadvantage"
>under the Charter.  The EE Act which you have finally mentioned does not 
>prohibit programs, activites, or laws which ameliorate disadvantaged white 
>males.  Again the question is one of disadvantage and your ability to convince
>a judge, employer, or legislature  that it is so.

You are simply denying the undeniable. The 1986 EE Act expressly notes
the groups that are disadvantaged, and these groups follow precisely
the recommendations of the 1984 Royal Commission concerned with the
matter.









From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 11:22:26 PDT 1996
Article: 40715 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!csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Kolding and hormones
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:49:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <4lqd7o$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4klq0m$27t@News.Dal.Ca> <4l1aog$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l1hp5$mbt@News.Dal.Ca> <4l7c0u$5ih@news2.cts.com> <4l91mk$pp3@News.Dal.Ca> <4lef78$1qq@news2.cts.com> <4lf38g$eqs@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:40715 alt.society.civil-liberties:7453

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: >Exactly what I am suggesting.  Find ways to lower the number of male 
>: >criminal, thereby increasing the representation of women as a proportion 
>: >of the inmate population. 

>: If the laws and the courts produce a 99% male prison population, no
>: lowering the *number* of male criminals will change their proportional
>: prison population. According to AA principles such disproportionate

>What do you mean? Basic math. 9 male criminal and 1 female.
> Men form 90%. Reduce number of male criminal to 1 and 1 
>female criminal. Men are 50%.

How can you say "reduce the number of male criminals" without changing
the laws and court proceedings that produce a 99% rate of male
criminality? I already told you that under AA principles the outcome
indicates the systemic discrimination existing. To remove the systemic
discrimination, under AA procedures, it is necessary to change the
laws to IMPROVE the conditions of the disadvantaged group. If you are
not going to change the law or the court proceedings, you are left
either with discriminatory activities against the disadvantaged group
or females. Since AA prohibits discrimination against disadvanatged
groups, the laws can only be changed to discrimnate against females
and thus lead to the simultaneous increase in female prisoners and the
decrease in male prisoners. These are AA principles I am invoking
here. These are the AA rules applied and demanded everywhere else in
society when similar "systemic outcomes" are encountered. 

If AA was about equality and justice as its supporters and
beneficiaries constantly claim, it would have been applied to the
prison population FIRST----they are the most oppressed group in
society, and the least able to effect independent change. But AA is
just warmed-over Nazism, and its supporters are criminals and thugs.



>: representation is a product of systemic and/or systematic
>: discrimination against men on the basis of their sex. If laws and
>: court rulings are to be changed everywhere else in society to
>: accomodate the pathological view of racial and sexual proportionality,
>: they should surely be applied where real disproportionate oppression
>: and inequality actually exists. If they aren't, it is proof positive
>: of the true criminal nature of AA.

>What? Are suggesting the all crimes, or even the majority of crimes
> are committed because of AA?  Why  are so many Blacks and 
>Native men in prison?According to you their "status" should be 
>protecting them. Or do you support AA for disadvantaged minority
> men too.

Please note that it can hardly be a matter of their race that lands
them in jail---or there would be a similar number of Black and Indian
females in prison. And Black and Native men surely suffer from the AA
culture because of their sex. They suffer absolutely horrible lives
under the relationship laws, because so often they are dependent upon
the government for all things. I have gone into this at length in
another article, and if you want me to re-post it, I will.

>: >How misguided.  The criminal law is directed equally at both women
>: > and men.  

>: Then why are 99% of prisoners male? You can't have it both ways: If a
>: disproportional number of men are ensconced in government jobs, or fly
>: airplanes or work in lumber yards---it is claimed to be systemic
>: discrimination and laws are changed, judges are briefed and men are
>: denied jobs even when they are qualified. However, when the system
>: produces a prison population that is 99% male----suddenly, oh no,
>: demands for AA are "misguided." It's completely corrupt.

>I see no problem with AA (read rehabilitaion and training) for prisoners. 

That is a fatuous definition of AA. 

>I don't think you achieve AA by  throwing women in jail unless they have 
>broken the law.

I agree. The law must be changed so that 52% of the prison population
becomes female. Surely you agree with the central raison d'etre of all
those who support AA and "equality" in every other area---namely that
society's institutions should represent the make-up of the population?

>But then again you consider all women "criminals" don't you.

No. As I have said, endlessly it seems, I consider those who
legislate, enforce, deliberately benefit from and support AA to be
criminals. Their sex, race or table manners are of no account.

>I believe its true, there is systemic discrimnation against men. AA does 
>not stand in the way adressing this. It actually provides a tool to fight it.
>It is not premised on status, but disadvantage.

I await your posting the AA law, program or activity undertaken by
government to ameliorate the conditions of the disadvantaged group
"non-disabled white males". It is impossible both legally and
practically, as I have proved before.

>: >Men do commit more crimes. Especially violent ones. 

>: Right. Violent "crimes" like those of Marc Lepine. And we know why he
>: acted----he was discriminated against by law simply because of his
>: race and sex. 

>He did it because he was a psychopathic loser. 

Why is a man who took direct action against an institution that
discriminated against him on the sole basis of his sex and race,
against which he is denied redress BY LAW, a "psychopathic loser", but
the people who legislate, enforce, benefit from and support this
discrimination against him are considered rational human beings
spreading justice and equality? It is completely corrupt and
Orwellian. Lepine was right. He took violent action against an evil
and corrupt system and the people who sought to benefit from his
oppresssion. He is a hero.

> So now not only Lepine is 
>a hero but all those who break the law?  

>: If you want to reduce the number of male criminals you are going to
>: have to change the laws to both allow male behaviour now forbidden,
>: forbid female behaviour now allowed, and deny the government the power

>As you so often say - nonsense.  

But why is it "nonsense"? If that is the process that applies
everywhere else in society for the benefit of females, and is claimed
as the epitome of rational justice to effect equality, why is it
suddenly nonsense when females get the short end of the stick? 
The answer is obvious, I think, and does not put you in a very good
light.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 11:22:27 PDT 1996
Article: 40716 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!csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Zundel Affair: A Report by Manuel Prutschi (1/11)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:54:54 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <4lqdi4$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4li9n8$672@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:40716 alt.revisionism:32831

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

Let me just go over this and note those reporting methods not entirely

acceptable outside of Inquisition Central. I shall make no comment on
the truth or falsity of any observations made in the article.

>                           The Zundel Affair
>                            Manuel Prutschi

>                             Introduction

>On November 18, 1983, Mrs. Sabina Citron of the Canadian Holocaust
>Remembrance Association went before a justice of the peace to swear
>out charges against Ernst Zundel under the "false news" section of
>Canada's Criminal Code.[1] This section makes it a crime to produce
>and disseminate wilfully material which is false, known to be false,
>and damaging to a public interest. The action began as a private
>complaint; however, the Crown took the case over in January 1984. 

>By the time of the preliminary hearing in June, the indictment involved
>two separate charges: (1) the publication of a four-page letter
>entitled "The West, War and Islam" advancing the notion of a
>conspiracy by Zionists, bankers, communists and Freemasons to control
>the world; (2) the publication of a 30-page pamphlet entitled "Did
>Six Million Really Die?" stigmatizing

Replace "stigmitizing" with "describing".

>                                                         the Holocaust as a "colossal
>piece of fiction and the most successful of deceptions."[2] The Crown
>also specified the affected public interest as that of social and
>racial tolerance.

>Ernst Zundel was already familiar to the Jewish community as a
>hatemonger.

Replace "hatemonger" or rewrite the sentence. Perhaps: "Ernst Zundel's
opinions had deeply offended many Jews for years."

>Moreover, government officials, both federal and
>provincial, had become aware of him and had explored various legal
>avenues long before criminal charges were actually laid. The Canadian
>Holocaust Remembrance Association had played a significant role in
>the imposition of an interim mail ban on November 13, 1981, a
>prohibitory order that was repealed almost a year later.[3] 

>Mrs. Citron's group, as well as other Jewish organizations, had also
>pressed the attorney general of Ontario, Roy McMurtry, to prosecute
>Zundel under Canada's 1970 anti-hate law, which makes it a crime to
>advocate genocide or wilfully to promote hatred against an
>identifiable group as defined by race, colour, ethnicity or
>religion.[4] McMurtry was sensitive to Jewish concerns, but hesitated
>in pressing charges because he feared that some of the provisions in
>the Criminal Code might allow Zundel to escape with an acquittal.

The last sentence should be re-written. Perhaps: "McMurtry hesitated
to press charges because he thought he hadn't enough evidence to
convict."

>Mrs. Citron, impatient with the lack of action, decided to lay a
>private charge under the "false news" section, which did not require
>the consent of the attorney general. Although he had the power to
>stay this charge, McMurtry chose instead to take control of the case.
>To have stayed the charge would have been tantamount to granting
>Zundel a second triumph, after his initial victory in the postal-ban
>hearing.

Rewrite this last sentence. Maybe: "To have stayed the charge would
have accented the weakness of the prosecution case, especially after
the lifting of the postal ban."

> A private prosecution would have been highly unusual in
>Canada and would have shown a less than forceful attitude toward the
>merchants of hate.

Replace "the merchants of hate" with "Zundel".





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 11:22:28 PDT 1996
Article: 40717 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!csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism,can.politics
Subject: Re: 960424: Deportation hearing; Anarchy; "What we have to say is far from frivolous"
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:57:16 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4lqdmf$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <199604242345.QAA19303@infinity.c2.org> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:768 alt.revisionism:32832 can.politics:40717

rich@c2.org (Rich Graves) wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>In article <199604242345.QAA19303@infinity.c2.org>, 
>ezundel@alpha.c2.org (E. Zundel) wrote:

Well, well, well-----both Rich Graves AND E. Zundel post out of
c2.org! 

I guess we all know what that means.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 11:22:29 PDT 1996
Article: 40718 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!csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Madam Justice Louise Arbour
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:57:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <4lqdml$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4k0vqq$9a3@nntp.pinc.com> <4kc2ac$kf4@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4kme3i$2v7@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4ktht9$596@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <4l1au2$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l47cj$48g@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4lh6ng$7bv@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4lk82n$ldm@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4lnub6$11o@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:40718 soc.men:112309 alt.feminism:117387

glasgow@bnr.ca (Barry Glasgow) wrote:


>Louise Arbour is right up there with Alan Rock in the coddling of
>feminists and criminals.


But Rock can at least be fired.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 11:22:30 PDT 1996
Article: 40723 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!sunqbc.risq.net!calvin.risq.qc.ca!news.mcgill.ca!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.men,can.politics
Subject: Re: Madam Justice Louise Arbour
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:56:54 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4lqdlq$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4k0vqq$9a3@nntp.pinc.com> <4kc2ac$kf4@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4kme3i$2v7@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>  <4ktht9$596@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <4l1au2$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l47cj$48g@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4lbbgi$48t@news2.cts.com> <4ldfkm$9i1@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4lhlpm$oaj@news2.cts.com> <4llc9g$d5a@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.men:112310 can.politics:40723

leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:

>In <4lhlpm$oaj@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes: 
>>
>>leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>>
>>(edit)
>>>Some men want to change that definition so as to include women
>>>as rapists.  So far, there are other sex crimes that can be more
>easily>>attributed to women.  What you fail to realize is that ACTUAL
>>>DIFFERENCES IN GENDER (few and far between) do allow for some
>>>gender-specific discrimination. 
>>
>>This where you are entirely wrong-------actual differences in "gender"
>>expressly do not allow discrimination. One must be a member of a
>>legally-determined "disadvantaged group" to be given preference on the
>>sole basis of sex. It is one's legal status, not one's sex that allows
>>discrimination.

>-------------------
>In the United States one may not discriminate against one gender unless
>there is an IMPORTANT state interest to assess.  If the state has such
>an interest, it may also allow for discrimination.  Gender
>discrimination (in America) demands an intermediate level of scrutiny.
>One's "legal status" may indeed be determined by gender where gender is
>the reason for the discrimination.
>--------------------

My views relate to the Canadian situation and laws. 






From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 11:44:03 PDT 1996
Article: 32832 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!csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism,can.politics
Subject: Re: 960424: Deportation hearing; Anarchy; "What we have to say is far from frivolous"
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:57:16 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4lqdmf$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <199604242345.QAA19303@infinity.c2.org> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:768 alt.revisionism:32832 can.politics:40717

rich@c2.org (Rich Graves) wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>In article <199604242345.QAA19303@infinity.c2.org>, 
>ezundel@alpha.c2.org (E. Zundel) wrote:

Well, well, well-----both Rich Graves AND E. Zundel post out of
c2.org! 

I guess we all know what that means.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 13:13:42 PDT 1996
Article: 40731 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:53:40 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 270
Message-ID: <4lqdfv$19g@news2.cts.com>
References:    <4l1au6$rnf@news2.cts.com>  <4l7c3d$5ih@news2.cts.com>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote:

>In article <4lbbht$48t@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:
>>lemieub@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA (Lemieux Brigitte) wrote:

>[....]
>>>Now let's take this in order. 
>>>One, your listing seems to imply that all these courses of action are
>>>pretty much on an equal footing. "If you're against AA, you can either
>>>slaughter people, get out with your tail hanging between your legs,
>>>or cravenly profit from all the senseless injustice." These things are
>>>_not_ all morally equivalent.
>>
>>People keep on making these ungirded moral presumptions. The morality
>>of any action is bound up with what provokes the action. People keep
>>on saying that there is some difference in morality with respect to

>Morality is always an imperfect measure of an action though: it rests upon the
>judgement of individuals.  In Hitler's Germany, the Jewish residents
>"controlled the wealth and thwarted German economic recovery," and one might
>say that the German reaction, given your definitions, was not to blame, but
>only a result of the greater moral evil of Jewish domination.  We both know
>though that, even if this were the case (which it most certainly wasn't), that
>still did not justify the murder of millions.  

But please note that this was the moral buttress of GOVERNMENT action
against citizens, to be legislated and enforced by the state and by
all institutions of society, by law. 

>>mere actions----there isn't. The morality of any action rests upon the
>>causes leading to the action. Those concerned with such reasoning are
>>going to have to deal with the morality of AA before they start making
>>airy claims to judgement with respect to the actions that are a
>>consequence of AA.
>>
>I don't like AA/EE, but what of the actions that are a consequence of no AA? 
>Would someone be justified in saying that, given your thought process and the
>features of today's society, it wouldn't be morally wrong to go out and
>massacre a room full of white males because such actions are a direct
>consequence of the morality prevailing in society today? 

It seems to me that murder and assault and stealing and fraud and
betrayal take place every day, upon all sorts of causes. Many of these
incidents, however, can be blamed on the affirmative action culture
created by AA laws, programs and activities that are enforced
throughout society. Try to understand also that AA and the laws and
rulings springing from it are enforced by *the government and the
police*, and the people who are discriminated against are completely
innocent of any crime or activity, except having the wrong sex and
race. In addition, they are denied---by law---from seeking or being
granted any legal redress. And by the way, "whole rooms full" of white
males ARE slaughtered in Canada, and their wives just claim they are
suffering "battered women syndrome" and are given six months jail. But
don't grieve for those few who get more severe sentences. They will be
released regardless of judge and jury in a couple of years, by some
criminal politician with an up-to-date view of  how overvalued  a
"male's" life is.

> I'd like to see a) what your reaction would've been if your wife/
>mother/sister/daughter had been massacred in the Lepine incident 

I don't give a damn for the lives of people who legislate, enforce,
deliberately benefit from and support AA and the relationship laws.
All the people killed by Lepine got what they deserved as far as I'm
concerned. And so did Canada.

>or b) what your reaction would be if the positions were reversed, 
>and individuals who are disadvantaged because of their race, sex 
>or ethnicity were to perpetrate the same crime.

I suggest you reverse these conditions first, before asking the
oppressed to take on drawing-room morality.


...[some deleted]...

>>>_Killing_ someone because you believe
>>>(rightly or wrongly) that he or she got your job is, as justice goes,
>>>monstrously out of proportion with the alleged crime.
>>
>>Would killing someone because you believe they deliberately benefited
>>from laws that deny Jews employment, expropriated their wealth and
>>sent them to concentration camps be "monstrously" out of proportion?
>>
>I don't think the same thing applies at all- please justify comparing AA/EE to
>the holocaust.  

The AA laws are based on precisely the same principles used by the
Nazis in constructing their laws for the treatment of Jews.  A single
group is targeted on the basis of an immutable personal characteristic
a person may have---which is defined precisely in law---and is
justified by all sorts of reasoning, covering the spectrum of social,
economic, political, biological and psychological theories. Central to
the justification, however, is that the targeted group "dominates" or
"controls" by virtue of its immutable characteristics and not the
individual activity of anyone within the group. Thus the nineteen year
old white male is denied employment in Canada, on the basis that he is
a white male and white males "dominate", which is exactly the same
grounds Jews were denied employment in the Germany in the Thirties.
And it was the law, whether you agreed with it or not.


>>>It is taking
>>>several atom bombs to one gnat. There _are_ other jobs out there,
>>>but people have only _one_ life.
>>
>>This is perhaps the most immoral statement I have seen on this
>>newsgroup. What moral claims do people have for demanding moral
>>treatment from those they treat immorally?
>>
>You, talking about immoral?  

No, actually. It seems only those who object to government
discrimination against people on the basis of their race and sex are
to be accused and questioned about their "morality". The morality of
those who support this sort of discrimination, however, never seems to
be brought up, except by people with exceptionally bad taste, like
myself.


>>>Two, if you feel so strongly about this, _why_ haven't _you_ killed
>>>yourself a couple of these bitches who take jobs away from skilled,
>>>intelligent white males? Are you really this gutless? Talk, talk,
>>>talk, but no cojones, is that it? I will venture an opinion here:
>>>you're still not a murderer because you don't actually believe that
>>>killing is the answer. You're better than that. I hope so, because
>>>otherwise you're just a coward.
>>
>>You obviously haven't followed this discussion very closely. I left
>>Canada rather than take up arms against the system because of my
>>contempt for Canadians as a whole, not any rejection of violence. I

>And thank god you did- because we Canadians have nothing but 
>contempt for you and your kind. 

I know. What the hell do you think AA is all about?

...[some deleted]... 

>>>that without AA they wouldn't
>>>have had the intellectual capacity to be accepted and indeed
>>>would _all_ have been rejected,
>>
>>Females cannot claim "innocence" on the basis that they are qualified
>>if men can't make the same claim.
>>
>Huh?  You know, I don't agree with EE/AA either, but I think you're way 
>out of whack on this one.  How do you differ whether a "female" got in 
>on her own merit or not?  Does she deserve to die regardless?  Who are 
>you to determine who is innocent and who is guilty?  

My dear fellow, I am simply applying the same principles of guilt and
innocence that was applied, by law, to Lepine. 


>>> that _all_ of them were absolutely
>>>aware of this and knowlingly and with malicious intent used the 
>>>system to take the place of 14 _guys_. 
>>
>>If you join the SS you should not blame Jews for trying to kill you on
>>occasion. 
>>
>>>Are you saying that all
>>>14 of Lepine's victims were too dumb to get into Polytechnique
>>>by themselves?
>>
>>What's the difference----under AA that is not a criteria.
>>
>Huh?  He asks whether you believe that any of the victims had gained 
>entry on their own merit?  Your response sounds like a justification 
>for AA- what's the difference whether they have merit or not....they're
> overrepresented.

You are not concentrating. A female does not have to compete on merit
with a non-disabled white male under AA rules. No one does. Anyone who
is minimumly qualified is granted admission before the most highly
meritorious non--disabled white male will be. Everyone admitted under
AA rules does so on the basis of merit, but only with respect to
people not non-disabled white males. Merit is not a criteria for
NDWM's under AA. They are disqualified on the basis of their sex and
race, regardless of their "merit".

....[some deleted]...

>>who want to attend university and there is an AA program they are
>>deliberately benefiting and supporting AA.  If females want to

>Really?  And if every institution implements it, because it's a sign of the
>times, then women should leave the universities alone?  

If every university implemented a NO JEWS admission policy, because
"its the sign of times", would you attend university? And if you
would, do you really think Jews would care a damn if you were shot
down in the College Square one fine December morning?


...[some deleted]...

>>Pardon me, but if this is your argument---you have none. If females do

>Really?  I thought it was you that had none- because the argument that you
>present can be reversed very easily.  If your argument justifies the rights of
>white males to murder because of a system that discriminates, then surely you
>can understand the justification for an African American, who is three times
>more likely to be turned down for a job than his European American counterpart,
>partaking in the same justification to slaughter you and your poker buddies.

I'm sure there are problems all over the world. The difference is that
everyone in Canada has legal recourse against discrimination under the
Charter EXCEPT non-disabled white men. They, exclusively, are not only
denied legal recourse from deliberate discrimination under AA laws,
but are explicitly TARGETED for official, government-enforced
discrimination on the sole basis of their race and sex. Is this simple
concept really so hard for you to comprehend?

>>not require AA, why is AA in place? AA means that men who are
>>perfectly qualified do not get in because they are the wrong sex and

>AA means that the playing field is not level because white males control the
>system, and thus are likely to perpetuate the system. 

What a disgusting slimeball you are. I said Canadians were just
transplanted Germans of the Thirties---thanks for so perfectly
confirming this view. Are you sure when you said "white males" above,
you didn't actually mean "Jews"? Go ahead, substitute "Jews" for
"white males" and then tryn and read it aloud in a synagogue, you
lousy piece of shit.

>Can you prove that the system is fair at this time? 

Is this now the level you've sunk to? Because someone is of a certain
race and sex he not only must be denied all rights and be
discriminated against, by law, throughout society, but must also be
held responsible for the system this has created?  

> Can you prove that the teacher-student
>relationship is identical with *every* student?  Can you prove that cultural
>bias is not actively practised within the classroom?  

How can anything in a system that deliberately treats people
differently on the sole basis of their sex and race avoid "cultural
bias"!


>>race, by law. These 14 females deliberately attended and benefited
>>from an organisation that discriminates against non-disabled white
>>men, on the sole basis of their sex and race, in order that females
>>may benefit from this discrimination. As I alluded to above---if you

>Okay, so women don't have the right to attend a school practising AA,

Sure they do. It's non-disabled white males who don't have the right,
you fathead. What females don't have is the right to moan and complain
when a Lepine starts shooting them down.

> but men
>do?  That's your answer to AA- intimidate the target group into backing down so
>that the injustice of the current system can be perpetuated?  

>>want to join the SS don't whine when Jews occasionally blow a few of
>>your compatriots away.
>>
>Not the same story at all- and simply because you can make the comparison, that
>doesn't mean that it's a valid assumption to make.  The fact is that 99% of the
>people in this country and the US wouldn't agree with you- I'd say that's the
>strongest sign that you, your pathetic ideas, and the violent solutions will
>*never* sway the general public.

I suppose we can only wait and see. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 13:13:44 PDT 1996
Article: 40732 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:54:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4lqdh5$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lhf5k$r8s@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: I'm glad you've been able to sort the whole thing out. Perhaps you'll
>: now explain to the rest of us what is the difference between the
>: government feeling perfectly justified in treating people on the sole
>: basis of their sex, and someone else acting on exactly the same
>: principle.

>AA is premised on the notion of disadvantage. 

No, it is premised on the notion of discrimination on the basis of
race and sex, ethnicity and disability. The persons privileged under
AA are not required to be literally "disadvantaged", as their personal
conditions are irrelevant to the privileges that they are awarded.
They need only be of the right sex or race or ethnicity, or have a
disablility. Those discriminated against are equally unable to plead
some personal condition in extenuation. If they are the wrong sex or
race, or suffer no disability, they are denied their rights by law,
without recourse.

If AA was about anyone's actual, personal conditions it wouldn't be
AA. The whole point of AA is to establish the pathological idea of
literal sexual and racial "equality" as a reality in all spheres of
society. So long as the proposed proportions are acheived they may be
individually held by those least in need of any personal help, and
denied to those who are actually helpless. The personal conditions of
actual, living, breathing human beings has no place, and can have no
place, in any AA law, program or activity.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 13:13:45 PDT 1996
Article: 40733 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!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: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:54:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <4lqdhl$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jdsvq$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jgtj6$f9l@kryten.awinc.com> <4jm7gp$g7u@news2.cts.com> <4jp7i8$2il@knot.queensu.ca> <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <4kha3o$6fd@knot.queensu.ca> < <4ks5i7$hq8@knot.queensu.ca> <4l1atl$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l3k4k$8d5@knot.queensu.ca> <4l7c5s$5ih@news2.cts.com> <4l99h0$1b9@kryten.awinc.com> <4lgv31$b0a@news2.cts.com> <4lhkb6$rup@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: rkrasich@access.awinc.com (Robin Krasichynski) wrote:

>: >Now, in the case of someone who has a sexual
>: >prediliction/orientation/kink/perversion/dysfunction 
>: >(pick any or all of the above in any combination, it 
>: >makes no difference to the argument), you favour
>: >discriminatory activity based not even on the actual
>: >commission of an act, but on someone's 
>: >professed views or ideas.

>: It is difficult to answer precisely if you do not supply the
>: appropriate quote of mine that you have used to typify what you think
>: are my views. If I am guessing right you are referring to my objection
>: to the inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a prohibited form of
>: discrimination. And I think I explained my position fairly clearly. 

>If I might be so bold as to offer an interpretation of Robin 
>Krasichynski's post, the point that was made was that you support the 
>discrimination against certain individuals for professing a view and/or 
>making some statement about him or herself even if no act is commissioned.

I have no problem with allowing people to discrimnate against people,
upon all sorts of reasoning. My objections are to do with the
government overuling the rights of people to discriminate on the basis
of actual "knowledge" they have about people that relates to actvities
they undertake, and subjecting them to prosecution if they do so.

I also reject the conception that "sexual orientation" is the same
kind of personal quality that is represented by sex or race. The
latter are independently verifiable and need no test, declaration or
confirmation by the person. "Sexual orientation" on the other hand, is
not independently verifiable, and is simply a personal declaration
little different from any political opinion. And as we have seen in
this forum, Canadians are more than happy to discriminate against
people on the basis of their political opinions, even if they
vociferously deny it while doing so. They argue, when they go through
this process, that there are "limits" to all rights, and those that
express certain opinions can be discriminated against because of the
*threat* involved, not on the actual opinion. And this leads to other
reasons to object to including "sexual orientation" as a prohibited
form of discrimination: First, in practical terms, all it does is deny
people from discriminating against people who express certain,
government-approved political opinions; and second, it denies people
the right to discriminate against people on the basis of knowledge of
threatening activities these people conduct. It is a recipe for social
disaster, in my opinion, and I think those who say, in opposition,
that "history is on our side" are no students of history.

>In particular, you have repeatedly stated that you support a 
>system whereby anyone confessing to being a pedophile (or
> presumably even advocating support for the agenda of such
> organisations as NAMBLA) can be discriminated against even 
> if that individual is not even accused of committing any criminal
> act (much less being accused of committing 
> pedophilia). There is a seeming dichotomy in your viewpoints.

That's not quite what I said. I am opposed to including "sexual
orientation" as a prohibited form of discrimination. Such an inclusion
will make confessed paedophiles (amongst others) free from
discrimination, if not now, then eventually. I believe it is not only
ridiculous, but a positive danger to society to have the government
prosecuting parents because they object to paedophiles being in charge
of their children. As to people with a membership in NAMBLA, it seems
to me they are protected (except in Canada) under the rights concerned
with freedom of association. I have no objections to paedophiles and
their supporters organising for political purposes, but I object to
passing a law that forbids parents from discriminating against
self-confessed paedophiles. There IS a difference here, and it isn't
that subtle, actually. 

>: What I said---if the subject is my objections to the inclusion of
>: "sexual orientation" as a prohibited form of discrimination---was that
>: paedophiles could claim protection under this criteria, and society
>: would soon be subject to parents being prosecuted because they didn't
>: wish to leave their children in the care of self-acknowledged
>: paedophiles.

>And if I might be so daring as to join the list of posters to this 
>thread who repeat their own arguments, you are advocating support 
>(claiming that otherwise social disaster will occur) for the 
>discrimination against completely innocent people who have simply 
>exercised reasonable freedom of speech.  

You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Everyone in Canada already
has, theoretically, the right to the exercise of free speech---and
everybody has the right to discriminate against you on the basis of
whether it fulfills THEIR requirements. The inclusion of "sexual
orientation", as I have already explained, essentially denies people
this right to discriminate against people who express opinions that do
not fulfill, and sometimes diametrically oppose their requirements. If
Canada is going to protect free speech then all free speech should be
protected, and no one should be allowed to discriminate against people
on the basis of their expressed views. However, Canada is not prepared
to protect free speech, and wishes, on the contrary, to criminalise
many expressed opinions. The inclusion of "sexual orientation" is the
opposite of the criminalising of an opinion, however. It is the
mandating of "correct" opinion by force of law.

As I mentioned in another article, I have no particular opposition to
the idea of legalising "homosexual marriage", except that I am opposed
to the slavery that current marriage and divorce law creates and I
object to ever more people being sucked into its maw.


>You argue that the formal 
>inclusion of sexual orientation in Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter 
>of Rights and Freedoms (CCR&F) and/or in the Canadian Human Rights Act 
>(CHRA) will prevent this discrimination against innocent people, and thus 
>any amendment to the CCR&F or the CHRA to add sexual orientation is a 
>mistake.

That is just twisting the truth to suit your prejudices. I have no
doubt that law or no law self-confessed paedophiles will be
discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. My
objection to its inclusion is that it is bad law and will lead to a
social disaster. 

>	This argument is obviously fallacious; adding sexual orientation 
>to 15(1) of the CCR&F or to the CHRA will not prevent discrimination 
>against people who profess to be pedophiles but who have not committed 
>any act of pedophilia:  THE DISCRIMINATION IS ALREADY PROHIBITED BY OTHER 
>SECTIONS OF THE CCR&F AND THE CHRA UNDER SUCH SECTIONS AS FREEDOM OF 
>SPEECH AND RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN UNDER OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.  
>	

Are you saying that it is an offense under Human Rights law in Canada
for a self-confessed paedophile to be dismissed as a teacher, or
day-care worker, or to be subject to "offensive" remarks regarding
paedophilia in the workplace?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 13:13:45 PDT 1996
Article: 40734 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:50:05 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <4lqd94$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lbarl$18e@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4lbe6m$4bq@News.Dal.Ca> <4lgv41$b0a@news2.cts.com> <4lhdlf$r34@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

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

>: >: Pedophiles will be protected under the same sexual orientation 
>: >: clause as homosexuals.

>And you accuse me of selective  editing! I was responding  to the notion 
>that recognizing sexual orientation would make any difference.  It won't 
>because of what the courts have declared.  I am not dealing with the 
>question of pedophilia.  Whatever protection may be available as a result 
>of recognizing it will be no greater than that which exists now.

>: >That can occur as the law stands now.

>: That is not true. That is the central problem with your view that
>: protections given under "analogous" grounds can be applied as if they
>: were equivalent to amendments to the Charter. The employer who posts

>Analagous grounds "are" equivalent to the effect of amendment.

They are not. Amendments cannot be rescinded by future court
decisions.


>: signs in the workplace saying that homosexuals are criminals would
>: probably be found to be acting in a discriminatory manner. Indeed,
>: under some Human Rights legislation an actual "victim" would not even
>: be needed for a successful prosecution. On the other hand, the same
>: employer posting the same signs with respect to paedophiles would not
>: be open to the same sanction before and under the law, because being a
>: paedophile connotes sexual orientation and simultaneously a criminal
>: act. In addition, the laws with respect to slander and libel treat
>: declarations of criminality as proof of the claim, unless there is
>: evidence offered of the actual truth of the charge. In other words, to
>: claim that someone is a paedophile who is not, in fact, a paedophile
>: is a slander on its very face, while the same cannot be made of simple
>: claims about someone's race or sex, and the other criteria listed in
>: the Charter's Equality section. 

>Clarify this, please. I do not see any relevence to it.  Are you saying 
>pedophaelia has greater protection generally than sex or race under the 
>Charter?  If not, your statement is somewhat difficult to follow.

I'm saying "sexual orientation" as a prohibited form of discrimnation
is extremely problematic, (I gave what I thought was a clear example
of a typical problem it would cause) and is not an attribute similar
to the others mentioned in the Charter. Some "sexual orientations"
connote actual criminal behaviour by their adherents, for example, and
a person's sexual orientation is also entirely a matter of
self-declaration---there is no independent test possible to confirm
such a status. In many respects what is offered under the rubric of
'sexual orientation" is  tantamount to protection against
discrimination on the basis of an exclusive political opinion.

>: >Uhhh ... anything is possible I suppose, but last time I checked 
>: >homosexual has never been an insult to someone who is homosexual.
>: > Nor is the discussion of aids discriminatory.

>: But a comment such as "90% of all AIDS patients in Canada are
>: homosexuals" WILL be determined as discriminatory under such a law, if

>Who made you a judge?

Well,  I don't think it takes a particularly alert creature to
understand the effect of a supervisor remarking, every time a known
honosexual employee passes by, that "90% of all AIDS patients in
Canada are homosexuals". But you're right, one must never rely upon
Canadian judges to apply anything but their personal opinions as the
law.


>: expressed by a supervisor to an employee----if the employee is a
>: homosexual. Similar types of evidence are now used regularly to prove
>: sex discrimination, and there is no reason to suppose it will not be
>: used by those who claim discrimination on the basis of sexual
>: orientation. 

>This can and does happen now. Deal with the reality.

First you imply such a thing is unlikely and now you are telling me it
definitely happens and I should deal with reality. The whole point is
that I AM dealing with reality, and the day when a paedophile claims
protection under the Charter to care for a child, against the wishes
of the children's parents, is inevitable if "sexual orientation" is a
prohibited form of discrimnation. YOU deal with reality, buddy.


>: >I don't think anyone believes it will.  Just as laws against stealing 
>: >have never stopped theft.  I guess we should do away with all laws.

>: You are avoiding the point. That a law is passed against every known
>: activity and emotion doesn't stop these things, it merely reduces the
>: respect the law has in society in general. A multiplicity of laws and
>: the widening of government power leads always, almost with
>: mathematical precision, to despotism. As more laws and powers are
>: created by government, the more these laws are enforced unequally by
>: the increasing number of enforcers. Eventually, there are so many laws
>: and the government has so much power, that the enforcers need not
>: refer to any law whatever in exercising any power over the
>: citizenry---for whatever act they undertake can be justified by some
>: law, and whatever action a citizen undertakes can be proven a crime.

>So what are you saying?  We should oppose all laws?  After all its a 
>slippery slope..... or is it just this law?  But that is all besides the 
>point.  These rights already exist as part of the Supreme Law of Canada.  
>You have every right to disagree.  But do yourself the favor or 
>recognizing that its already there.

I wish you'd state your case in a more organised and straightforward
way. Are you now saying that, today, paedophile's may claim protection
under Charter guarantees against discrimnation on the basis of "sexual
orientation"? Or are you saying that "sexual orientation" is only
applicable with respect to those who profess to be "homosexual"
and/or "heterosexual"? You realise, of course, that whichever case you
are trying to make paedophile's will gain status for their sexual
orientation regardless?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 13:13:46 PDT 1996
Article: 40735 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:50:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4lqd9g$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lbarl$18e@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4lc4is$cnf@apollo.isisnet.com> <4lgv58$b0a@news2.cts.com> <4lintq$18l@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

phoenixr@isisnet.com (Paula Peter-Dennis) wrote:

>: This is all very true, but you are not addressing his point: Just
>: because you do all these things, why must he or his children be forced
>: to associate with you? If he doesn't want his children's teachers or
>: his doctor or his barber to be homosexual, why should he be forced to?

>My point is, that he doesn't even know that he is dealing with us on a 
>daily basis, and so do any children he might have. How does he KNOW his 
>children's teacher's aren't Gay or Lesbian or Bisexual? And how, exactly, 
>does it affect their schooling if they are?

If he doesn't know your sexual orientation, he can hardly be accused
of discrimnation on the basis of your sexual orientation, can he? What
the law is doing is denying him the right to behave as he wishes on
the actual basis of *knowledge*. As I mentioned before, your sexual
orientation is not an independently determinable immutable
characteristic, like sex or race and the other prohibited items. I'm
also not making the case that the government is indulging in some
outrage against the principles of freedom and democracy when it
prohibits discrimination on the grounds of "sexual orientation". I am
simply making the case that it is bad law, and is likely to lead to
disastrous and unintended consequences. 

>Thing is, I understand the point, but the counterpoint is, that legal 
>ratification isn't gonna change the fact that we already interact with 
>people on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis. The only difference will be 
>that you can't fire someone because you find out that they have 
>interacted with you, which, in all provinces except 3 is already true.

That is the problem. If a parent can't prevent his children from being
cared for by someone whom he KNOWS participates in activites he and
millions of others sincerely oppose for deeply personal, moral,
religious and other grounds then a social disaster is probably to be
expected. The argument here is that a person's independent and
self-declared statement of "sexual orientation" may be used to deny
people the rights and responsibilities they have with respect to their
own children that they would have exercised before the law was
enacted.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:32 PDT 1996
Article: 40777 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:48:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4lqd5l$19g@news2.cts.com>
References:    <4l1au6$rnf@news2.cts.com>  <4l7c3d$5ih@news2.cts.com>  <4lbbht$48t@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

lemieub@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA (Lemieux Brigitte) wrote:


>   :Neither did Lepine. But it is HE who is denied admission because of
>   :it, not the deliberate beneficiaries of AA. Look: If there are females
>   :who want to attend university and there is an AA program they are
>   :deliberately benefiting and supporting AA.  

>This is where I had my epiphany:
>"This Kolding dork is a trooooooooll... this guy is a trooooooll...".
>Read what you wrote. Now. 
>And again.
>Slowly.
>You're in fact saying, spectacularly plainly, that women should
>not even _apply_ to a university with a AA program, _regardless_
>of the fact that they have had nothing to do with the fact that
>it's there! 

But I'm not saying this at all. I'm saying that those who support
oppression shouldn't whine and complain when some oppressed person
lets off a few bullets in their direction. If people wish to
deliberately benefit from the oppression caused by AA they will have
to accept the inevitable, historical price. 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:35 PDT 1996
Article: 40778 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: "Lepine is a true hero" [was:Sympathy for / Sympathie pour MarcLepine]
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:52:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <4lqddg$19g@news2.cts.com>
References:   <3179B6CD.59E9@interport.net> <4lgv5h$b0a@news2.cts.com> <4lim3f$1rq@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: Jacques Pavlenyi  wrote:

>: >> >Lepine undertook a political act that now---6 years after the event---is
>: >> >still reverberating in Canadians' minds. He was a direct victim of
>: >> >Canada's AA laws and the females he killed were direct beneficiaries of
>: >> >that persecution. If females want laws that oppress and discriminate
>: >> >against men purely in order to benefit themselves they are going to live
>: >> >in a society that targets them for violence.  Get this straight:  Lepine
>: >> >was right. The people who legislate, enforce and seek to benefit from AA
>: >> >are evil little thugs and criminals. Their deaths improve the smell of the
>: >> >world.______________________________
>: >> >From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
>: >> >Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada,can.politics
>: >> >Subject: Re: Equality, in Employment
>: >> >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 03:31:42 GMT
>: >>How horrible!  How heinous!  An acquaintance of mine was murdered
>: >> by that sick thug. She was in my choir, and back at Poly for the 
>: >>evening to do some studying when Lepine struck.  It still makes 
>: >>me sick to this day.

>: But I note it doesn't make you sick enough to actually oppose the
>: oppression, and the violent consequences, created by AA. 

>I have nothing but revulsion for anyone who would justify murder for 
>their own political ends. 

OK. You just sit back and let oppression flower. Let's hope some of it
lands on your back.

>Canadians will continue to oppose violence against all human beings. 

Except men. They are to submit at the point of a gun and prisons.

>Your disregard of human life for rhetorical flourish is reprehensible.

I don't give a bean for the lives of people who legislate, enforce,
deliberately benefit from and support Affirmative Action. This is not
rhetorical flourish. The deaths of such people can only be a good
thing, and the quicker and more violently it happens the sooner I
expect AA to lose its charms for a lot of people.

> I wonder how you would respond to "political"  expression of the 
> kind you speak of. 

What, exactly, is left for men to fear? Enslaved by AA and the
relationship laws threats just lose their sting. What is anyone going
to do?---Add another man to the prison population where they already
hold a nice 99% majority stake? Expropriate all his property and
income for the rest of his life, when a simple filing for divorce will
already acheive that? Deny him employment? Kill him for being a
conveniently secret "abuser"? There just aren't any more threats left,
buddy. 










From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:36 PDT 1996
Article: 40779 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:54:29 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4lqdh8$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lhiki$r8s@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

brianw@is.dal.ca (Brian Willcott) wrote:


>  I do no that many of the community leaders which exist
> might not be community leaders where it not for EE rekated 
>programs.

I wonder if you'd expand upon this a little. Since EE denies, by law,
the employment and advancement of non-disabled white men, which
"community" do they belong to? Are you trying to persuade us that the
people assigned as "leaders", by denying millions of people the right
to challenge their leadership, are actually legitimate leaders?

.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:37 PDT 1996
Article: 40782 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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,bc.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Getting rid of the GST
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:55:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <4lqdig$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lg7rq$c7a@milo.vcn.bc.ca>   <4li20p$g6c@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4ljgvr$8ne@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:40782 bc.politics:168

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>keith@vcn.bc.ca (Keith Richmond) wrote:

>>Blue Sheet (1995) page 3, fiscal reform, tax reform, Point D:

>>"The Reform Party opposes and increase to the rate of the GST, and 
>>favours a stage elimination of the GST as part of an overall program of 
>>tax reform and spending restraint once the budget is balanced."

>1, nobody is talking about increasing the rate of the GST.

But yesterday nobody in the Liberal party was talking about retaining
the GST. They were promising to do away with it. By the way, I'm
prepared to go on record that within 5 years Canadians will be paying
closer to 20% than 15% in GST/Prov sales tax.

>2, the GST currently brings in about $19 billion a year or about 12%
>of the total budget. If we balance the budget and then eliminate the
>GST, how do you proposed to account for the loss of revenues to
>balance the budget again?

Presumably in the same way the government has promised to raise money
in the past---growth. That has been the standard response to all
questions of revenue for the past thirty years. When people have
complained about taxes the reply has always been that "as a percentage
of GDP, government spending has "remained constant/gone
down/fill-in-the-blank". When people have complained about the
disastrous "topping-up" immigration policy of the last thirty years
they have been met with explanations that immigration will "finance
our social services so we needn't raise taxes".And when people
complain about the back-breaking debt that has been accumulated over
the last twenty years, notwithstanding all this immigration and the
enormous rise in GDP, they have been met with the response that
revenue shortfalls were a result of "bad taxation policy with respect
to the export trade" and the GST would solve this and remain revenue
neutral. And when it didn't solve it they were met with the
explanation that NAFTA and the FTA and GATT and Asian trade would
increase GDP and increase revenue and just rest your little head and
don't you worry about any raise in taxes because it just won't happen
and we'll be repealing the GST when we get into office. 

People should understand that the problem is going to be solved in the
old-fashioned way----by debauching the currency. All this talk about
revenue and the GST is so much blather.

>3, How long would this "staged elimination" take? Would it involve a
>blanket reduction in the rate till in reaches 0%, would it involve
>reduction in the scope of the tax where goods and services which are
>currently being tax would be taken out of the "basket", or prehaps a
>combination of both?

>What's the plan?

Perhaps you should let us in on the Liberal's plan first. They were
the one's elected on the promise to "scrap" the GST, weren't they?
They must have had a PLAN, surely? I can't imagine they were just
fibbing to get votes.....



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:38 PDT 1996
Article: 40783 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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,bc.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Nunziatta kicked out of Liberal Caucus, Mills quits
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:55:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4lqdj0$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lg7rq$c7a@milo.vcn.bc.ca>   <4ljtoj$34a@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4lkcod$jog@news.magi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:40783 bc.politics:169

nsidor@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:

>an321@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:

>>Utterly amazing that you people want to hold Reform to policies which they
>>have no power to carry out yet blithely ignore the broken promises of
>>the governing Liberals.

>Don't count me in that group. What amazes me is the Deform supporters
>who actually believe that, if Presto was elected, the GST would
>vanish. 

It didn't seem to "amaze" people when the Liberal's promised exactly
the same thing. 






From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:39 PDT 1996
Article: 40784 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: OPSEU BRINGS NEW MEANING TO THE WORD HYPOCRISY!!
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:55:35 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4lqdja$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4l828c$qo5@granite.sentex.net> <4lc9s9$st@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca> <4limc5$a75@granite.sentex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Barry Bruyea  wrote:

>   And while we are on the subject;
>   How come all the marxists on the net support the unions? No country
>   that has ever had a marxist government has ever allowed unions! Or
>   strikes, for that matter.  Seems like a strange allegience to somehting
>   they don't believe in.

You don't understand----not even the union leaders "believe in
unions".  "The ends justifies the means" is not just a quaint old
Marxist saying, you know.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:40 PDT 1996
Article: 40785 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:55:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4lqdje$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4ldbaq$1e4@thor.atcon.com> <4leooa$dg2$1@mhafc.production.compuserve.com> <4lhlq3$oaj@news2.cts.com> <4lippo$f9n@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

phoenixr@isisnet.com (Paula Peter-Dennis) wrote:

>: Then I wish you'd explain it to me. There is nothing in the quote that
>: could possibly justify government interference, legal censorship and
>: prosecution. By the way, the substantive issue raised---that the
>: politicians mentioned are biased and have a vested interest---is
>: undeniable. Is it your opinion that people should be thrown in jail
>: for expressing a politically inconvenient truth?


>Welcome to politics...as I am sure that you already know, politics is 
>made up of opinions and ideaology. Preston Manning also has a vested 
>interest in some issues, Kim Campbell (such as she was) had a vested 
>interest in some issues, so does Chretian, so did John A. MacDonald. And 
>so, definetly, did both Trudeau and Mulrooney. 
>       
>Without these vested interests, we would have no political debate. 
>Politicians are humans, and so have "pet projects" like anyone else. We 
>could not expect them to be otherwise.

I agree completely. The point was that some people want to pass laws
and throw people in jail simply because they publically reveal the
partiality and bias of politicians.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:41 PDT 1996
Article: 40787 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: Opposition to language law is about freedom of choice?
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:55:43 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4lqdji$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <85159-830289613@mindlink.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Jan_de_Groot@mindlink.bc.ca (Jan de Groot) wrote:

>I think that the English Quebecers should threaten to secede from the rest
>of Quebec.

>That way, they can negotiate as equal to equal, nation to nation.

>I'm sure the sovereignists can understand and appreciate this idea.

At least the separatists had something to separate with. Are you
suggesting that English Quebecers be awarded a super-citizenship, and
be able to opt out of the laws simply because they're English
Quebecers?




From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:42 PDT 1996
Article: 40788 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: Opportunity to Influence Ottawa Liberals
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:55:50 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4lqdjq$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4ljisn$1hk@news.pathcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

mjensen@pathcom.com (Mike Jensen) wrote:

>Today's newspapers announce that Jean Chretien expelled John Nunziata 

...[some deleted]...

 >Apparently MANY Liberal backbenchers are equally disaffected,

...[some deleted]...

>If enough Liberals, afraid of not getting re-elected because of their 
>government's poor record, were to band together and challenge Jean 
>Chretien, they could ......[some deleted].... become designated as the 
>government

Has anyone other than myself reflected that the current situation is
awfully reminiscent of Yeltsin leaving the Gorbachev-run Communist
Party? The reforms are not being made fast enough, the society is
declining, the Empire is taking a beating, the system is crumbling and
now a popular, tunnel-visioned firebrand has abandoned his Party and
its formerly popular, but now dithering leader.

I think people in BC and Alberta should really get serious about
having some sort of independence plan ready. Not on any ideological
basis, but simply as a pragmatic approach to protect the interests of
their citizens.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:43 PDT 1996
Article: 40789 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:55:53 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <4lqdk0$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <829147102.3702snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4koos4$aoo@news2.cts.com> <4ks697$hq8@knot.queensu.ca> <4lcfdb$uha@rex.cadvision.com>  <4lhlpc$oaj@news2.cts.com> <4ljnvo$omh@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: Timothy Huyer  wrote:

>: >	Gays and lesbians, by being unable to legally marry or establish a 
>: >legally recognizable common-law relationship with their partners, cannot 
>: >take advantage of this tax break/benefits bonus.  

>: This is just wrong. There is no bar to homosexuals marrying. Marriage
>: is the legally-sanctioned recognition of a husband-and-wife
>: relationship. It requires two people of the oppisite sex, not any
>: particular sexual orientation.

>I would like to invite Mr. Kolding to read carefully.  Note that I 
>included the clause "with their partners", by which I would presume that 
>it is obvious that I meant one's long term romantic interest.  Gays and 
>lesbians are prevented from forming a legally recognizable marital or 
>common-law relationship with their partners since, as Mr. Kolding so 
>kindly noted, legal recognition only occurs for two people of the opposite 
>sex.

I don't think there is any misunderstading on this point, do you? We
all know that "homosexual couples" wish the ability to acquire the
legal recognition and status now awarded to the married. There are
various arguments against this, and they have been made by a number of
people on this newsgroup. My own position is quite clear---I don't
oppose the legal recognition of homosexual relationships, per se, but
rather, I oppose the marriage and divorce laws as they now stand for
everyone. I don't oppose the legal recognition of homosexual
relationships, but I oppose them being described as "marriages" and
equated as equal to or even similar to the husband and wife
relationship. 

There is another thing I'll let you know---I oppose any legal status
and recognition for "common-law" marriages as well. The modern trend
to give these relationships a status or benefit similar to formal
marriage is both bad social policy and oversteps the authority of
government to my mind.

>Nevertheless, I would like to voice my growing frustration with 
>attempts (by Mr. Kolding, Mr. Nalecki, and others) to play games of 
>semantics when it is quite clear what the discussion is about.  Gays and 
>lesbians are not prevented from marrying, THEY ARE PREVENTED BY
> LAW FROM MARRYING THE PERSON THEY DESIRE. 

And that is exactly the point. Gays and lesbians wish to change the
definition of *marriage*.  They wish to be accorded that legal status
simply on the basis of their sexual practices. 

>It is this restriction that those of us interested in equal rights object 
>to and want removed, and hence it is this restriction that we are talking 
>about.  I would hope that, in future, participants on this and related 
>threads will not attempt to obfuscate the issue by digressing from the 
>restriction in question.

Please don't ask people to avoid obfuscation while indulging yourself.
Please do not attempt, in other words, to keep on saying that the
marriage laws "restrict" homosexuals from marrying, when they do no
such thing. Let us try at least to deal with the facts as they are:
The restrictions as to who can or cannot get married are many, but
none of them concern a person's sexual orientation. If we can't agree
on this fundamental truth there is no point in discussing the issue.

>: >Hence, gay and lesbian couples no different than heterosexual 
>: >couples excepting in legal status, are net subsidizers of those 
>: >heterosexual couples.

>: Then tax allowances given to the married do not apply to the single,
>: either. Consequently, according to the argument you make, they too
>: would be "subsidizing" the married. The error in your argument is
>: therefore threefold: 1) sexual orientation is no more a bar to
>: marriage than it is to getting a driving licence; 2) the "subsidy" you
>: claim homosexuals have to bear on account of their sexual orinetation,
>: is in fact borne by everyone not married, regardless of their sexual
>: orientation; and 3) tax advantages based on legal status are not
>: subsidies of one taxpayer by another, but the purchase by government
>: of behaviours for the alleged good of society. 

>Given, however, that there is 
>effectively a tax credit for married persons or persons in legally 
>recognized common-law relationships, a heterosexual couple (having the 
>status of being common-law or married) faces a lower average tax rate 
>than a gay or lesbian couple (who are denied that legal status) when all 
>else is equal (such as length of the relationship).
>	In other words, a gay or lesbian couple is denied tax credits 
>that a heterosexual couple is entitled to for no other reason than the 
>sexual orientation of the persons involved.

I'm afraid that you cannot simply "declare" that a common law marriage
is just a "heterosexual couple" and then, willy-nilly, proclaim that a
homosexual couple is just a heterosexual couple with matching
genitalia. Two heterosexuals having sex and living in the same house
does NOT constitute a "common law marriage". They must live as
*husband and wife*. I think you must come to grips with the fact that
mere sexual cohabitation grants no one any legal status under the law,
regardless of their sexual orientation.

>	BTW, for technical clarification, in response to point (3) of Mr. 
>Kolding's, above:  the "purchase of behaviours by govt" is paid for by 
>the taxpayer.  A tax credit that not all persons qualify for is thus 
>financed by those people who do not qualify for that credit. 

It is not. It's "financed" by the government. You are being swallowed
by propaganda or ideology if you imagine that taxes have any meaning
other than funding GOVERNMENT activity.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:45 PDT 1996
Article: 40790 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:56:04 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4lqdk7$19g@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4lgv2t$b0a@news2.cts.com> <4lkf9c$qc0@news.tiac.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

springer@tiac.net (Curt Springer) wrote:

>In article <4lgv2t$b0a@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com says...
>>

>[...]
>OK, I've just _barely_ followed this Lepine thread, 'cause it seems like 
>nonsense.

>There's just one thing I'd like to hear from Mr. Kolding.  If affirmative 
>action in Canada bugs you so much, why oh why did you go to the US? 
> If anything, we worship more at the altar than do Canadians.  I really don't get 
>this.  Why don't you stay in your own country and try to do something about 
>it??

I'm not an American---I have neither the right nor the interest in
interfering in American affairs. I moved to San Diego because it
offers things I want and like. Above all, I am protected under the
First Amendment. This is important because the views I hold, if
expressed in Canada, would doubtless lead to my prosecution. 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:45 PDT 1996
Article: 40791 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:56:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4lqdkb$19g@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4lgv2t$b0a@news2.cts.com> <4lkf9c$qc0@news.tiac.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Neil  wrote:

>On 24 Apr 1996, Curt Springer wrote:

>> There's just one thing I'd like to hear from Mr. Kolding.  If affirmative 
>> action in Canada bugs you so much, why oh why did you go to the US?  If 
>> anything, we worship more at the altar than do Canadians.  I really don't get 
>> this.  Why don't you stay in your own country and try to do something about 
>> it??

>Because, as he says, Canada is a "shithole" and "deserves destruction". 
>[Now watch, he'll demand I re-post the actual messages in which he used
>those words. 

Not at all. Canada IS a shithole and I do look forward to its
destruction. I have been a supporter of BC independence since 1972,
Neil.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri Apr 26 15:02:46 PDT 1996
Article: 40792 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics,ont.general,can.legal
Subject: Re: Premier Mike Harris Thinks Just Like Georges Skorpios
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:56:11 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4lqdkg$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4llpmq$ccu@steel.interlog.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:171 can.politics:40792 ont.general:38340 can.legal:12579

Georges Skorpios  wrote:

>We had just written yesterday that Chretien's unprincipled Liberals
>had offered about $1 billion to the Atlantic provinces as a bribe to 
>agree to harmonize their sales taxes with the GST, and that this 
>money, which of course Paul Martin and Chretien will have to borrow,
>will eventually come from Ontario, Alberta and BC taxpayers. 

>Now as reported in this morning's "Sun", described as Toronto's 
>only honest newspaper, low-and-behold what does 
>Premier Harris say: "The feds are bribing the Atlantic provinces
>and Ontario taxpayers are being stuck with the $960 million bill".
>Have you been reading our postings, Mike?

>Maybe not as last week Harris said the same thing: "My only 
>concern is that
>they are bribing the Atlantic provinces with taxpayers' dollars".
>Ontario's Finance Minister, Ernie Eves, added: "Where are they
>getting the $960 million? Because Ontario contributes 41 cents
>of every federal tax dollar, this sweeheart deal is costing the
>province dearly", he said.  Of, course for years Ontario has also been
>drained of tax dollars by UI going to the Atlantic region and 
>Quebec, not to mention all the costly patronage and pork
>barreling of federal government.

The Federal policies with respect to the Atlantic provinces are,
albeit expensive, entirely to the benefit of Ontario . But only having
to pay 41% of the cost of these policies is surely a gigantic savings
over paying 100%.

>Again this whole thing stinks like hell and is so typical of 
>the rotten, corrupt regime in Ottawa. It is not just the federal
>politicians who are to blame, of course. It is the Canadian system
>of government. We have only two options. Give the Reform Party a
>mandate and see what happens or break up the country. For the latter,
>it would have to be initiated by one or all of Ontario, Alberta
>and BC, the three provinces that are taking a royal screwing from
>Ottawa and the present flawed political system. Quebec will never
>take the lead; it is too much a net beneficiary from the status quo. 

Ontario can hardly blame the Federal system for establishing across
the entire nation the political, economic and social values professed
and exhorted by Southern Ontario. Ontario's present problems are not a
result of "Federal" policies----Ontario literally owns the Federal
Government regardless of the Party in charge---but their own policies.


What is happening now is simply the inevitable consequences of the
Federal/Southern Ontarian policies of the last thirty-five years.
Ontario is NOT a "have" province, but the seat of the Empire. It is
pure convenience for Ontario to now claim it is no more than one of
the triumvirate of provinces who fund the Empire. 



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 27 07:32:13 PDT 1996
Article: 40826 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Joe Lockart, Antisemite? Not our Joe....
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:56:34 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4lqdl6$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lh7gu$2mg@news.nstn.ca> <1996Apr23.162812.8400@wpg.ramp.net> <4ljg6p$497@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>You refer to the ADL as the "anti-defecation league";

I think Lockart's commentaries are unambiguous, but claiming that
opposition and disapproval of the ADL is equivalent to "antisemitism"
is simply confirming your own bigotry.

The ADL, after all,  was convicted of bribing police officers to use
their official positions to illegally collect and pass on to them
confidential information about private citizens.  It seems to me that
groups who undertake such activities should be rejected and opposed by
everyone.






From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 27 07:32:16 PDT 1996
Article: 40831 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:56:25 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <4lqdkt$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <317cb996.1898315@news> <830223525.3810snx@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:

>I don't think my political or other views should be of any concern to you
>when you are hiring (unless the job specifically calls for them)
>Nor in whether I can rent an appartment or whatever.....

I don't have any particular problem with this, except that you don't
explain why you feel this way. I share your views, but I am not
satisfied that everyone should have to act according to that criteria,
and especially with respect to their own livelihoods or property. 





From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 27 07:32:16 PDT 1996
Article: 40832 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!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: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:56:39 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4lqdlb$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jdsvq$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jgtj6$f9l@kryten.awinc.com> <4jm7gp$g7u@news2.cts.com> <4jp7i8$2il@knot.queensu.ca> <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <4kha3o$6fd@knot.queensu.ca> < 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:

>In article <4lgv31$b0a@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>>What I said---if the subject is my objections to the inclusion of
>>"sexual orientation" as a prohibited form of discrimination---was that
>>paedophiles could claim protection under this criteria, and society
>>would soon be subject to parents being prosecuted because they didn't
>>wish to leave their children in the care of self-acknowledged
>>paedophiles.

>That is ridiculous.  There is nothing in any Human Rights legislation which 
>provides protection for criminals -- or thiose advocating criminal activity.  
>For example, the protection from discrimination on the basis of religion does 
>not provide protection to Christian abortion terrorists or Sikh 
>separatist bombers.

Please read Huyer's responses to my views. He understands the essence
of the problem I have raised, though he, like you, disagrees with me.
Sexual orientation is not an *act*, but a personal declaration
incapable of independent verification. The teacher who on some future
day stands up and proclaims that he is "sexually oriented" to
children, but claims not to actually indulge himself, will find
protection from being fired under the prohibited criteria of "sexual
orientation". Professing your sexual orientation, whatever that
orientation is, will not be a crime, but rather a protected right. 



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 27 07:32:17 PDT 1996
Article: 40833 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!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:57:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <4lqdm8$19g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lbarl$18e@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4lc4is$cnf@apollo.isisnet.com> <4lgv58$b0a@news2.cts.com> <4lintq$18l@apollo.isisnet.com> <4ljs1m$7of@thor.atcon.com> <4lm5p7$bla@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

phoenixr@isisnet.com (Paula Peter-Dennis) wrote:

>C) We can lose our JOBS, housing and in some cases, family for being Gay, 
>Lesbian or Bisexual..Simply for BEING, in 2 provinces and Two territories 
>in Canada. In these provinces and territoriy, we have NO legal recourse.

I think this is a little too broad. In the case of family law it is a
matter of sexual behaviour, not sexual orientation. And it is MEN who
lose in 85% of cases with respect to custody and are held responsible
for support 95% of the time.

>D) The Seuxal Orientation Clause Protects Heterosexuals as well as 
>homosexuals. For instance, if you worked in a Gay Bar, or Lesbian 
>Bookstore, and they found out YOU were Heterosexual, you couldn't be 
>fired for it. In NO province is this protection evident by law.

It seems to me the existence, legality and economic soundness of such
enterprises as Gay Bars and Lesbian Bookstores seems to indicate that
homosexuals do not suffer so much from discrimination as disapproval.

>: Come on! If you describe every group that is harrassed occasionally,
>: either in jest, or when their feelings have been hurt, the Act would
>: weigh a ton.  Maybe if you feel guilty about something, your more
>: conscience of it. Could that be part of the problem? 

>I do NOT feel guilty for being who I am..I felt guilty for ahving to 
>pretend I was Heterosexual and lie to myself and others for fear of 
>losign my job,

Most people make enormous personal sacrifices with respect to holding
on to their jobs, so I have never found this argument particularly
impressive with respect to sexual orientation. One can hardly "hide"
one's sex or race, so being fired on that cause arguably requires some
independent legal protections. One's sexual orientation, on the other
hand, is no more open to public knowledge than one insists it be.

> being beat up or killed, 

Butbeating  up and killing people is already against the law. 

>or being unable to get housing, 

But I question if this is a matter of sexual orientation. It seems to
me that people are more likely to be acting on the basis of their
disapproval of certain sexual activities, not anyone's unknowable
sexual orientation.

>appropriate health care at a hospital,

I think most medical care is rendered upon the body, rather than the
"orientation". 

>or legal help should any of the above happen.

I think there would be plenty of legal help if you weren't living in
an AA culture. Homosexuals are victims of their activist leaders
political tactics as much as anything in the culture. In the
affirmative action culture they are stuck with seeking class-based
legal solutions, rather than general provisions applying to everyone
on simple universal grounds of, say, privacy. 






From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 27 07:32:18 PDT 1996
Article: 40926 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 22:54:48 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4lrk7k$l2q@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lbarl$18e@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4lbe6m$4bq@News.Dal.Ca> <4lgv41$b0a@news2.cts.com> <4lo37v$rhb@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

aa006@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Kevin Alexander James Nugent) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: to
>: claim that someone is a paedophile who is not, in fact, a paedophile
>: is a slander on its very face, while the same cannot be made of simple
>: claims about someone's race or sex, and the other criteria listed in
>: the Charter's Equality section. 

>So the fact that I can be punished for lying on TV and saying you are a 
>mass murderer is actually protection for mass murderers?

I wish people would learn to read.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 27 07:32:19 PDT 1996
Article: 40927 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 22:55:55 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4lrk9n$l2q@news2.cts.com>
References: <317b6dac.2110255@news> <4lep0f$dg2$2@mhafc.production.compuserve.com> <4lhlq9$oaj@news2.cts.com> <4lo3np$rhb@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

aa006@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Kevin Alexander James Nugent) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: has dropped. Anti-discrimination laws have had no effect whatever on
>: the economic status of Blacks---except with respect to hiring in
>: federal and state agencies. It's straight pork.

>Ernest Green was one of the black students who went to that high school 
>in the south when it was a big news story.  The governor put national 
>guard members outside of the school and the president sent federal troops 
>in to accompany the black students in an effort to ensure that they were 
>safe in a desegregated school.  Mr. Green went on to graduate from high 
>school, and from a university in Michigan.  He served as undersecretary 
>of labour in the Carter Administration [call that pork if you like] and 
>now is managing an investment banking firm in DC.  So, did the government 
>force the world to make him an investment banker?  Nope, he was 
>competent, and because of antidiscrimination laws, he was able to let his 
>expertise get him a good job.

>put that in your oven and cook it.

I noted before that you needed to learn to read. The discussion is
about the economic status of "Blacks" not any Mr. Green. 



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 27 07:32:20 PDT 1996
Article: 40928 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Violence against women - more 'unpretty' stats....
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 22:56:30 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <4lrkaq$l2q@news2.cts.com>
References: <4loqle$iet@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ar231@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen Gordon) wrote:

>NO?  Then you are just as much a part of the problem of violence against
>women as any of the actual violent perpetrators.  

So long as there is AA and the relationship laws violence against
females isn't a problem. It's an answer.




From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 27 10:24:07 PDT 1996
Article: 40955 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.jumppoint.com!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!hookup!cunews!news.achilles.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:20:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4lhlq3$oaj@news2.cts.com>
References: <4ldbaq$1e4@thor.atcon.com> <4leooa$dg2$1@mhafc.production.compuserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

David Reilley <103714.1725@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>Buzz Valient wrote:
>I guess like in casr accidents, if your "rear-ended" enough it 
>starts to take it's toll. I suspect this could be the case of 
>Svend and the Senator. Don't forget, there is also a Bloc member 
>who has a vested interest as well.

>Reply:
>When homosexual people seek protection from discrimination and 
>hate, the post above is a very good example of why this legal 
>protection is needed.

Then I wish you'd explain it to me. There is nothing in the quote that
could possibly justify government interference, legal censorship and
prosecution. By the way, the substantive issue raised---that the
politicians mentioned are biased and have a vested interest---is
undeniable. Is it your opinion that people should be thrown in jail
for expressing a politically inconvenient truth?



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 27 10:24:09 PDT 1996
Article: 40957 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.jumppoint.com!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!hookup!cunews!news.achilles.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:20:33 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4lhlq9$oaj@news2.cts.com>
References: <317b6dac.2110255@news> <4lep0f$dg2$2@mhafc.production.compuserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

David Reilley <103714.1725@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>Laws cannot stop hatred.  What they an do is prevent those who 
>practice that hatred from engaging in discrimination in housing, 
>jobs or admission to schools as students.  Since the time the USA 
>passed this kind of legislation about blacks 30 years ago, one 
>third of previously black people in the US have become middle 
>class.  

But in the last twenty years the real income of middle-class citizens
has dropped. Anti-discrimination laws have had no effect whatever on
the economic status of Blacks---except with respect to hiring in
federal and state agencies. It's straight pork.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat Apr 27 13:41:21 PDT 1996
Article: 41007 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!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,qc.politique
Subject: Re: A distinctly DISGRACEFUL Freenet
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:42:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4lsq5c$a1e@news2.cts.com>
References: <4ldu6h$1m8@newsflash.concordia.ca> <4lhdtv$9mq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4lq7s2$5vr@pegasus.odyssee.net> <4lr77g$sti@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:41007 qc.politique:5785

cbelway@chat.carleton.ca (Chris Belway) wrote:

>Jinx (gagnonja@odyssee.net) wrote:
>> an321@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >Don't ya just hate that old freedom of expression thing?
>> >I mean, what right do people have to disagree with you?

>> Infammatory expression is illegal behind the law... period.

>Discriminating against a religious minority is illegal...period.

Not quite. According to the BC Human Rights Code:

    37.  If a charitable, philanthropic, educational, fraternal,
         religious or social organization or corporation that is
         not operated for profit has as a primary purpose the
         promotion of the interests and welfare of an
         identifiable group or class of persons characterized by
         a physical or mental disability or by a common race,
         religion, age, sex, marital status, political belief,
         colour, ancestry or place of origin, that organization
         or group must not be considered to be contravening this
         Code because it is granting a preference to members of
         the identifiable group or class of persons.

This is how the government gets around the CCRF with respect to the
discriminatory funding of people and groups. It is forbidden by the
Charter, as you know, for the unequal treatment of people on the basis
of sex, race, disability, religion, age etc. The interesting aspect of
the BC code is its inclusion of "political belief" as an exemption.
The possibilities created by including this criteria are almost
unlimited.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 28 13:33:07 PDT 1996
Article: 41200 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tech.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!ns1.aplatform.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Sheila Taquila, honour & honesty
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 09:12:03 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4lvcot$l6u@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lqh8b$4ie@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ag153@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Alex G. Turner) wrote:


>John Nunziata is one of the few M.P.s who have displayed any
>tendency to actually support and represent the people who voted
>for them, and look where that got him.
>Lumping Sheila Tequilla, honour and decency in the same sentence,
>is an obvious oxymoron.
>If Reform can replace Manning as leader, and file off a few of 
>their rough edges, the next election should be very interesting.
>Just a thought.

In the Canadian parliamentary system a member is nominated by his
Party, and then runs with its support and on its platform. It seems to
me that the only honourable thing to do when faced with a
Nunziata-type conflict is resignation from Parliament, not simply
taking a seat in another part of the House. He was nominated and ran
under the Liberal banner, and was elected upon that basis. The fact
that the Liberals have let him down in one area of policy doesn't,
IMHO, give him the right to remove from his constituents the power and
effect of their vote. They voted for Nunziata the Liberal and he
shouldn't hold on to power except in that role.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 28 13:33:09 PDT 1996
Article: 41201 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tech.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!ns1.aplatform.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: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 09:12:05 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 198
Message-ID: <4lvcp4$l6u@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jdsvq$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jgtj6$f9l@kryten.awinc.com> <4jm7gp$g7u@news2.cts.com> <4jp7i8$2il@knot.queensu.ca> <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <4kha3o$6fd@knot.queensu.ca> < <4ks5i7$hq8@knot.queensu.ca> <4l1atl$rnf@news2.cts.com> <4l3k4k$8d5@knot.queensu.ca> <4l7c5s$5ih@news2.cts.com> <4l99h0$1b9@kryten.awinc.com> <4lgv31$b0a@news2.cts.com> <4lhkb6$rup@knot.queensu.ca> <4lqdhl$19g@news2.cts.com> <4lr8qo$gpl@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>: You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Everyone in Canada already
>: has, theoretically, the right to the exercise of free speech---and
>: everybody has the right to discriminate against you on the basis of
>: whether it fulfills THEIR requirements.

>It is you who has completely misunderstood reality.  Subject to the 
>reasonable limits noted above, everyone has the right to freedom of 
>speech, which means, by definition, the power to exercise that right 
>without fear of sanction. 

But this is not true. Freedom of speech does not mean people can't
discriminate against you on the basis of your views, but simply that
the government cannot prohibit you from expressing them. Just
recently, for example,  the Court ruled that a certain Mr. Ross could
be denied a teaching job simply on the basis of a book he had
published. He had been an exemplary teacher before and had never mixed
his political views with his teaching responsibilities. The rub comes
when it is the *government* that acts against a person on the basis of
his *political views* that the right to free speech is threatened.
You'll recall that Keegstra faced this dilemma, and that I said in
that case his firing was perfectly legitimate because he failed to
meet the requirements under his employment contract and the
curriculum---but that charging him with a criminal offense was wrong,
because everyone is guaranteed the right to free speech.

>Hence, Mr. Kolding, you are entitled to state 
>your view that Marc Lepine was a hero, your view that Affirmative Action 
>is evil, or your view that amending the CHRA to include sexual 
>orientation would be a social disaster.  Moreover, you have the right to 
>not be discriminated against on the basis of those viewpoints.

This is absolutely incorrect. People have a perfect right to
discriminate against me on the basis of my views---just so long as
these views contradict their requirements. (Just look at the practice
of many ISP's in Canada, who stop people's accounts on the sole basis
of speech laws they have instituted, for example). 

>: However, Canada is not prepared
>: to protect free speech, and wishes, on the contrary, to criminalise
>: many expressed opinions.

>FYI, Freedom of Speech is included in the CCR&F.  Many cases 
>have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCOC) to determine 
>what the reasonable limits of this right are, and many bills have 
>been struck down, amended, or otherwise affected by this right.  
>Your statement, therefore, is blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

Keegstra and Ross are only two recent examples disproving this. The
widespread installation of government censorship boards also flies in
the face of this view of yours. Remember, censorship boards actually
*deny* speech, not merely sanction it after the fact. I will not go
into the various provincial speech codes, to save bandwidth.

>: The inclusion of "sexual orientation" is the
>: opposite of the criminalising of an opinion, however. It is the
>: mandating of "correct" opinion by force of law.

>Nowhere does the inclusion of sexual orientation in the CCR&F or in the 
>CHRA force you, or anyone else, to hold or even express a specific 
>opinion. 

But it makes illegal the right to act on one's own opinion regarding
the sexual orientation of people. As I said at the beginning of this
thread---and what is the central matter under discussion---the
self-declared paedophile teacher, who claims to be non-practicing,
could not be fired. And it seems to me that disallowing parents and
school boards from doing this will lead to a social disaster.

>You, and others, remain perfectly entitled to express whatever 
>opinion of sexual orientation you please, subject only to certain 
>reasonable limits (to publish a manifesto calling for the murder of all 
>gays and lesbians would presumably constitute an example of hate 
>propaganda.  The criminalisation of this matter, however, falls not under 
>sexual orientation but under free speech and limits thereof).

I don't believe gays and lesbians have protection under the hate laws,
and won't, even if the Human Rights Act is amended. So manifestos
calling for genocide along those lines are quite legal. 

> For instance, the biblical passages -- for example in Leviticus (in the 
>neighbourhood of chapter 19) that calls homosexuality a sin punishable by 
>death would still be legal notwithstanding the amendments to the CCR&F 
>and/or CHRA.

Which brings us to yet another problem: Millions of people have a
Charter-guaranteed right to a religion that will prove difficult to
practise if they have homosexuals teaching them. Surely you can see
the absurdity and danger of the situation. Furthermore, if the
requirement is that people are expected to keep their
Charter-guaranteed religious practices and beliefs to themselves and
submit to secular rules, why shouldn't the same standard be applied to
people's sexual orientations?

>: As I mentioned in another article, I have no particular opposition to
>: the idea of legalising "homosexual marriage", except that I am opposed
>: to the slavery that current marriage and divorce law creates and I
>: object to ever more people being sucked into its maw.

>You sound like you had a very bitter marital experience.  Get 
>counselling. 

Stop imagining things. My views with respect to the marriage and
divorce laws spring from actually reading them and noting over a
period of years their effect on living human beings. 

>However, gays and lesbians kindly ask for you to cease and 
>desist preventing them from falling into the maw of marriage and divorce 
>law should they so choose to pursue that path.

Alas, I'm afraid I must kindly ask gays and lesbians to respect my
right to freedom of my speech.

>: >You argue that the formal 
>: >inclusion of sexual orientation in Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter 
>: >of Rights and Freedoms (CCR&F) and/or in the Canadian Human Rights Act 
>: >(CHRA) will prevent this discrimination against innocent people, and thus 
>: >any amendment to the CCR&F or the CHRA to add sexual orientation is a 
>: >mistake.

>: That is just twisting the truth to suit your prejudices. I have no
>: doubt that law or no law self-confessed paedophiles will be
>: discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. My
>: objection to its inclusion is that it is bad law and will lead to a
>: social disaster. 

>The only word that you presumably object to in the passage of mine quoted 
>above is "innocent".  

I don't object to it, I just question the theory that "sexual
orientation" is a requirement of innocence. As I pointed out in
another article, I am not at all opposed to people discriminating
against other people on a whole host of grounds. "Sexual orienation"
however, is no more---in practical terms---than a narrow political
opinion, and I don't think the government should incorporate and
mandate "correct" political opinions in law.

>I presumed that any person not committing a crime 
>(much less not convicted of a crime) is innocent.  At present, and unless 
>major changes to the CCR&F occur, and in the future, stating that one is, 
>or is not, a pedophile, is not a criminal act.  Hence, a person who does 
>so is innocent.  If I am 'twisting the truth' in any other way, please, 
>ever so kindly, let me know.

I am in absolute agreement that the mere expression of one's sexual
orientation is not, and should not be, a criminal offence. I merely
suggest that people should be granted the right to discriminate
against people on the basis of their views with respect to their own
sexual proclivities, or those they approve of. And as you yourself
noted above, making discriminatory views with respect to homosexuals
is quite legal now, and---according to you---would be quite legal
whatever the future. Presumably the people expressing these views are
no less "innocent" than you are, Tim, to use your very own criteria.


>	You do not doubt that self-confessed pedophiles will be 
>discriminated against.  I would tend to agree with you.  You argue that 
>inclusion of sexual orientation in the CCR&F and/or CHRA would make this 
>discrimination prohibited.  I disagree:  such activity is already 
>prohibited under free speech.  Moreover, to permit such activity is to 
>invite the end of any semblance of democracy that Canada has.

I simply don't agree with this conclusion. In almost any employment
situation there are rules regarding appropriate speech which
limit---by mutual agreement---the speech of employees along approved
and agreed lines. Employees can certainly be fired or refused
employment on "speech" grounds therefore, and always have been.
Whether such practices are a threat to democracy I will leave to
another thread, but certainly the imposition of speech laws by
government that *deny* people the right to discriminate on such a
basis is as much a threat.

> That it is an offense under Human Rights law in Canada
>: for a self-confessed paedophile to be dismissed as a teacher, or
>: day-care worker,

>If such an individual has no criminal record, yes.  The same holds true 
>in the USA.  Sorry if I have made the world somewhat more scary for you, 
>Mr. Kolding.  Maybe, if you have kids, you should yank them out of 
>child-care.  

I wasn't asking for my own benefit, but to get things out in the open.
I hope everyone who has children in Canadian schools and daycare
centers understands what the law is. 

>: or to be subject to "offensive" remarks regarding paedophilia in the 
>: workplace?

>No.  If the self-confessed but unpracticing pedophile is subjected to 
>harrassment or other intimidation designed to harm that individual, that 
>is prohibited.  However, to state that pedophilia is illegal, to state 
>even that '(convicted) pedophiles should have their genitals hacked off 
>with a rusty saw' (hypothetical example -- but I think possibly a good 
>idea nonetheless) is not being 'offensive'. 

How about if the same thing was said about homosexuals? 



From pkolding@cts.com Sun Apr 28 13:33:10 PDT 1996
Article: 41202 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tech.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!ns1.aplatform.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: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 09:12:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <4lvcp9$l6u@news2.cts.com>
References: <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <829147102.3702snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4koos4$aoo@news2.cts.com> <4ks697$hq8@knot.queensu.ca> <4lcfdb$uha@rex.cadvision.com>  <4lhlpc$oaj@news2.cts.com> <4ljnvo$o <4lra4a$gpl@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>mh@knot.queensu.ca> <4lqdk0$19g@news2.cts.com>:
>Organization: Department of Economics
>Distribution: 

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: Please don't ask people to avoid obfuscation while indulging yourself.
>: Please do not attempt, in other words, to keep on saying that the
>: marriage laws "restrict" homosexuals from marrying, when they do no
>: such thing. Let us try at least to deal with the facts as they are:
>: The restrictions as to who can or cannot get married are many, but
>: none of them concern a person's sexual orientation. If we can't agree
>: on this fundamental truth there is no point in discussing the issue.

>Given two couples that are identical in all respects EXCEPT one couple is 
>same-sex the other is opposite-sex, only ONE of the two couples can get 
>legal status as a common-law or married relationship.  This is where 
>sexual orientation is an issue, and this is the restriction that equal 
>rights champions are fighting to remove.

>: I'm afraid that you cannot simply "declare" that a common law marriage
>: is just a "heterosexual couple" and then, willy-nilly, proclaim that a
>: homosexual couple is just a heterosexual couple with matching
>: genitalia. Two heterosexuals having sex and living in the same house
>: does NOT constitute a "common law marriage". They must live as
>: *husband and wife*. I think you must come to grips with the fact that
>: mere sexual cohabitation grants no one any legal status under the law,
>: regardless of their sexual orientation.

>I have come to grips with the fact that mere sexual cohabitation is 
>insufficient.  And, if you had chosen to read my post carefully, I did 
>not suggest that every heterosexual couple, whether they be cohabiting or 
>not, or even if they are sexually monagamous with each other or not, has 
>legal status as common-law or married.  But there are situations where a 
>heterosexual couple has legal status as common-law or married while a gay 
>or lesbian couple, identical in every other respect, does not have that 
>status.  

>: >	BTW, for technical clarification, in response to point (3) of Mr. 
>: >Kolding's, above:  the "purchase of behaviours by govt" is paid for by 
>: >the taxpayer.  A tax credit that not all persons qualify for is thus 
>: >financed by those people who do not qualify for that credit. 

>: It is not. It's "financed" by the government. You are being swallowed
>: by propaganda or ideology if you imagine that taxes have any meaning
>: other than funding GOVERNMENT activity.

>If graduate studies in economics, Mr. Kolding, is propaganda and ideology 
>only, then I concede your point.  I offered merely what is a definition 
>in my discipline.  But to be, at the risk of boring everyone else on this 
>thread, completely precise, let me sketch what happens:

>(1)  People pay taxes.
>(2)  Govt spends the tax money on either programmes or transfers
>(3)  People benefit from the programmes and transfers.

>Now, I am NOT stating that the people in (1) and the people in (3) are 
>the same people, or that even if they are, that the benefit corresponds 
>precisely to the taxes paid.  I am not even suggesting that the benefits 
>are worth the taxes under any measure whatsoever.  There is no ideology 
>or propaganda meant here.

>Now, impose a govt budget constraint, which by definition, is:
>all money the govt spends must be paid for by tax dollars, bond 
>financed deficits, and seignorage (printing money).  This is an equality, 
>and holds no ideology or propaganda.

But it is a confirmation that it is government, and not taxpayers,
that involve themselves in these efforts. This is what you said, and
which I dispute: "A tax credit that not all persons qualify for is
thus financed by those people who do not qualify for that credit. "
And it is not true in fact or theory.

>Note that giving a person a direct transfer or giving a person an 
>equivalent value tax credit makes no difference from that person's point 
>of view. 

Of course it does. A tax credit doesn't exist without a tax liability,
while a government payment needs no such qualifications. There are
also a host of other taxation implications, but that is a bit off the
subject.

>It also makes no difference from the govt's point of view 
>(okay, we are assuming the absence of accounting costs, but this is not 
>that unreasonable). 

But this can't be true. A tax credit requires a tax liability, and
furthermore doesn't require the government to borrow money to fund it.
A grant or payment has to be funded. 

>Note, moreover, that bond financing govt spending means that taxes are 
>merely deferred to a future period -- at some point (given a finite time 
>system) the bonds would be paid off and this requires additional tax 
>dollars to do so. Also note that seignorage is a tax on money, and thus 
>holders of money contribute more than the broke.

>Now, under these definitions, if someone is to be given a credit or a 
>transfer, that money must come from somebody else (whether a future 
>taxpayer some generations down the line or another present taxpayer).  
>This can come in the form of increased taxes for that person, or 
>equivalently, reduced benefits to that person.

The obligations of government are government's, not taxpayers. It
cannot be any other way since there is nothing constant or permanent
about the revenues or expenditures of government, as they all are
translated into government-issued debt regardless. The taxpayer simply
assigns some part of the government debt he holds back to the
government, and the government issues debt as it sees fit. There is NO
connection between the two, except that made for political and
ideological reasons.  





From pkolding@cts.com Mon Apr 29 08:08:10 PDT 1996
Article: 33576 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism,can.politics
Subject: Re: 960424: Deportation hearing; Anarchy; "What we have to say is far from frivolous"
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:55:16 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4m2762$4hb@news2.cts.com>
References: <199604242345.QAA19303@infinity.c2.org>  <4lqdmf$19g@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:814 alt.revisionism:33576 can.politics:41343

rich@c2.org (Rich Graves) wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>In article <4lqdmf$19g@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>> rich@c2.org (Rich Graves) wrote:
>> 
>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 
>> >In article <199604242345.QAA19303@infinity.c2.org>, 
>> >ezundel@alpha.c2.org (E. Zundel) wrote:
>> 
>> Well, well, well-----both Rich Graves AND E. Zundel post out of
>> c2.org!

>Wrong. Neither my posts nor ezundel@alpha.c2.org's posts originate at c2.org.

...[some deleted]...

>> I guess we all know what that means.

>I know what it means. I'm not sure what you mean.

It means exactly the same thing that you regularly suggest it does
when different people post from the same ISP. If *you* disagree with
one of them, and the other is a notorious personage, it means they are
in collusion. If, on the other hand, one of these people is yourself,
and the other is a notorious personage, then, naturally, accusations
of secret associations and collusion are unfounded.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon Apr 29 08:22:16 PDT 1996
Article: 813 of alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!news.jsums.edu!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.censorship,alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Subject: Re: Botting Returns Orwell Award
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:55:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <4m275t$4hb@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lranm$aei@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:41342 alt.censorship:78941 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:813

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

>The Wiesenthal Centre has a file on Botting, and will continue
>it until the day he dies.

>'We have kept research material on all those people associated
>with Zundel, because we consider Zundel to be a threat to
>Canadian society,' said Littman.

Yet he remains unconvicted of any offence except having unpopular
opinions. Would someone please tell me what "threat to Canadian
society" Zundel presents, precisely? 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed May  1 07:47:05 PDT 1996
Article: 33975 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism,can.politics
Subject: Re: 960428: Sophistry; Propaganda; "Pollute a nation's culture, and the soul of a nation dies"
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 03:03:45 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4m6ka5$hbg@news2.cts.com>
References: <199604281541.AAA81293@infinity.c2.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.ernst-zundel:833 alt.revisionism:33975 can.politics:41782

ezundel@alpha.c2.org (E. Zundel Repost) wrote:

>________________
>________________
>________________  Dr. Ingrid Rimland is an internationally known keynote
>speaker and award-winning author of several books and hundreds of columns
>and articles.

>Her best-known books are "The Furies and the Flame," an autobiography, and
>"The Wanderers," the epic account of a pacifist group of Mennonites
>escaping during WW II from Communist persecution.


Rather than wade through the dubious material churned out by our
latter-day Siegfried's and their furious opponents, may I suggest that
people interested in Nazi "theory" consult Mein Kampf and the
collected speeches of Hitler instead. The first volume is generally
available, and the latter can be found in "My New Order" edited by
Raymond Gram Swing a copy of which is probably moldering away in your
library's storage area.

By doing this one will quickly come to the independent conclusion that
there is literally nothing that stupid people won't believe of other
other stupid people.





From pkolding@cts.com Wed May  1 08:35:47 PDT 1996
Article: 41413 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Getting rid of the GST
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:55:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4m2767$4hb@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lg7rq$c7a@milo.vcn.bc.ca>   <4li20p$g6c@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4ljgvr$8ne@thoth.portal.ca> <4lqdig$19g@news2.cts.com> <4lrp3m$73j@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:41413 bc.politics:304

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>Perhaps you should let us in on the Liberal's plan first. They were
>>the one's elected on the promise to "scrap" the GST, weren't they?

>No, they weren't.  They promised to change it, which they are doing.

>>They must have had a PLAN, surely? I can't imagine they were just
>>fibbing to get votes.....

>The "plan" was also in the Red Book:  To send the issue to an
>all-party Commons committee for recommendations to make the tax more
>equitable.  That was done.  The committee reported, Paul Martin took
>itsa report to the provincial finance ministers who told him to blow
>it out his ear.  So he sent it back to the Finance Committee and in
>the mean time just sat on it.  

>Now, that it became untenable for him to delay any longer, he's doing
>whatever he can to do at least something about the tax.  Admitedly, it
>is not much, but at least it is something. I don't expect the current
>measures to satisfy too many voters, but the actions of any government
>rarely do.

Do you really approve of this VAT scheme, Karl? It strikes me as an
absolutely horrifying turn of events. The Feds are going to co-opt the
provinces with this scheme, and the citizenry will find themselves
with a uniform rate (at the high bid) across Canada, notwithstanding
the economic and financial differences between the provinces. 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed May  1 08:35:49 PDT 1996
Article: 41414 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Opportunity to Influence Ottawa Liberals
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:55:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4m276a$4hb@news2.cts.com>
References: <2117763782@news2.cts.com> <404533895@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 PKolding to All:


>P> I think people in BC and Alberta should really get serious
>P> about having some sort of independence plan ready. Not on
>P> any ideological basis, but simply as a pragmatic approach to
>P> protect the interests of their citizens.

>The 1996 election platform of the BC Libertarian Party
>includes policies to "defend the Liberty of residents of
>BC from aggression by any other government". Basically,
>this means we will tell the Liberals to get stuffed when
>they attempt to impose any of their stupid legislation
>here in BC. C-68, C-8 and several others come to mind.

I think this is admirable, but what I am driving at is not the
purposes independence would be put to, but the technical
framework. The definition of borders, the qualifications for
citizenship, the drawing up of guidelines with respect to the
transfer of civil service responsibilties and the people involved, 
etc. I don't particularly believe in the PQ method for BC, where a
single party dedicated to independence fights it out in BC as well as
in Canada. It would be better if all BC political parties made some
declaration about a contigency plan, and then worked out the technical
points. 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed May  1 08:35:50 PDT 1996
Article: 41415 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Joe Lockart, Antisemite? Not our Joe....
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:55:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4m276c$4hb@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lh7gu$2mg@news.nstn.ca> <1996Apr23.162812.8400@wpg.ramp.net> <4ljg6p$497@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4lqdl6$19g@news2.cts.com> <4ltblf$kr1@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>In article <4lqdl6$19g@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

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

>>>You refer to the ADL as the "anti-defecation league";

>>I think Lockart's commentaries are unambiguous, but claiming that
>>opposition and disapproval of the ADL is equivalent to "antisemitism"
>>is simply confirming your own bigotry.

>I made no such claim. I pointed out that calling the
>organization such a name is one reason he might be considered
>an antisemite. Disapproval has nothing to do with employing
>such a name. You should avail yourself of a good reading
>tutor, Mr. Kolding, really you should.

Quite frankly, I think someone who claims that calling the ADL the
"anti-defecation league" does not indicate disapproval is simply not
to be trusted.


>>The ADL, after all,  was convicted of bribing police officers to use
>>their official positions to illegally collect and pass on to them
>>confidential information about private citizens.  It seems to me that
>>groups who undertake such activities should be rejected and opposed by
>>everyone.

>While you may be correct, to the best of my recollection, you
>are not. The ADL, if memory serves, has not be convicted of
>any such charge.

>If you have information to the contrary, by all means share it
>here.

I don't keep the voluminous files on people and organisations that the
ADL does, so I have only the memory of reading newspaper accounts
about it. Give me a couple of weeks and I'll try and dig up what I
can. As I recall, the charges were laid in California, but I can't
recall if it was in San Francisco or Los Angeles. 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed May  1 08:35:51 PDT 1996
Article: 41416 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Tax on blank tapes?
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:55:30 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4m276f$4hb@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lppsf$b5o@scipio.cyberstore.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

jmarynow@idirect.com (John Marynowicz) wrote:

>larry@furble.signs.eh (Larry Phillips) wrote:

>>Here we go again. We now get to pay yet another fucking tax because
>>our glorious government cannot see past the idea of tax-as-solution-
>>to-all-problems.

>>Doesn't matter whether or not you use a tape to steal someone's work
>>or not.. you pay anyway. Well, if this tax is passed, I have bought
>>my last tape in Canada, prerecorded or otherwise.

>You've obviously missed the whole point of this.  The tax on tapes is
>not for the government, it's for the artists who make the stuff in the
>first place.  For years they have been stolen from by people who buy
>tapes, make copies and pay no royalties.  The large majority of tapes
>bought are used for copyright infringement.  That is against the law.
>The tax on tapes is a fair way of compensating the artists for that.

This is completely corrupt. If someone is accused of a crime they are
supposed to be tried and found guilty before sentence is passed. And
if someone hasn't been found guilty of any crime the government is
abusing its authority by fining them. If artists wish "compensation"
they will either have to insure themselves (like the rest of the
population) or sue those people who have stolen from them. The
government has no business subverting the justice system by making
artists above the law.

>It is not a tax, it is royalty payments to the people who deserve
>them, the artists.

It is NOT a "royalty system".  It is theft and corruption.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed May  1 08:35:52 PDT 1996
Article: 41788 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!uniserve!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics,ab.politics,ont.general
Subject: Re: Getting rid of the GST
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 03:03:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4m6k99$hbg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lg7rq$c7a@milo.vcn.bc.ca>  <4li20p$g6c@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4ljgvr$8ne@thoth.portal.ca> <4lle4m$fv2@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> <141648.11596.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4lorgh$h5g@news.sas.ab.ca> <4lptfl$oeq@thoth.portal.ca> <31811530.102372691@news.uniserve.com> <4lu5a6$37a@thoth.portal.ca> <31830af0.230840496@news.uniserve.com> <4m0uk0$86r@thoth.portal.ca> <3184f936.357393314@news.uniserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:41788 bc.politics:383 ont.general:38618

welsh@uniserve.com (Barry Welsh) wrote:

>Karl, when are going to realize that she made the promise. No one is
>making this up or making false claims. She said it....we all saw
>it...we all read it. Now as she said it was a mistake doesn't change
>the fact and for her to say it was in the "heat of the moment" doesn't
>help her creditability either. Are we all to cross our fingers and
>hope that she doesn't have another "heat of the moment" when talking
>to some foreign diplomate in her position as deputy PM.

The other, more important, facet of this situation is that by not
resigning she has devalued and made purposeless the citizenry's vote. 








From pkolding@cts.com Wed May  1 08:35:53 PDT 1996
Article: 41792 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!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!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: Wed, 01 May 1996 03:03:03 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <4m6k8s$hbg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$dqq@news2.cts.com> <827713677.3631snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4jdsvq$s1s@news2.cts.com> <4jgtj6$f9l@kryten.awinc.com> <4jm7gp$g7u@news2.cts.com> <4jp7i8$2il@knot.queensu.ca> <4kehqs$sa2@news2.cts.com> <4kha3o$6fd@knot.queensu.ca> < <4m1nue$suh@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>: I simply don't agree with this conclusion. In almost any employment
>: situation there are rules regarding appropriate speech which
>: limit---by mutual agreement---the speech of employees along approved
>: and agreed lines. 

>These standards are frequently codes such as sexual harassment policies 
>-- a reasonable limitation of freedom of speech.  I will caveat to a 
>certain point:  the exercising of sanctions are not done solely by 
>government and have been done by private agents, such as firms by firing 
>employees for engaging in sexually harassing speech.  Note, though, that 
>legislation, backed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 
>strictly limits the ability of any employer or other private agent to 
>exercise a sanction -- should the limitation of speech not be a 
>reasonable limit, or should there be no valid evidence that such a 
>reasonable limit was violated, the employee would easily win a wrongful 
>dismissal suit.  

And here you finally touch on the subject. The limitations to speech
we are discussing are those that exist between employers and
employees. With the introduction of "sexual orientation" as a
prohibited form of discrimination will come, quite "reasonably", the
concept of harrassing someone on the basis of their sexual
orientation. Comments, for instance, that derogate or even merely
disapprove of some sexual orientation will be considered as
"harrassment" just as similar comments would be if expressed about a
certain sex. The incorporation of this standrad, as I have explained
at length now, will essentially mandate the "correct" opinion with
respect to sexual orientation, and will sanction "incorrect" opinions
as a matter of law. As I noted, there are millions of people who do
not, as a matter of their Charter-guaranteed right to religious
expression, agree with this "correct" opinion, and do not equate the
various alleged "sexual orientations" as at all equal or respectable.

>: >No.  If the self-confessed but unpracticing pedophile is subjected to 
>: >harrassment or other intimidation designed to harm that individual, that 
>: >is prohibited.  However, to state that pedophilia is illegal, to state 
>: >even that '(convicted) pedophiles should have their genitals hacked off 
>: >with a rusty saw' (hypothetical example -- but I think possibly a good 
>: >idea nonetheless) is not being 'offensive'. 

>: How about if the same thing was said about homosexuals? 

>I should caution people that I am not knowledgeable about where a 
>statement enters into the gray area of becoming a hate crime.  Subject to 
>that caveat, the same thing could be said about gays and lesbians, or 
>about heterosexuals, or about anyone.  Anyone who does say such a thing 
>is, IMHO, a poor example of a human being, but they have that right.

But they won't have that right if "sexual orientation" is incorporated
in the prohibited list. That is the nub of the problem as I see it.
Unlike sex and race, sexual orientation is a declaration of intent
with respect to actual activities, much like any political
declaration. And while denying people the right to express disapproval
of political views is authoritarian to a degree, denying people the
right to dismiss self-declared, yet unconvicted paedophiles from
caring for their children is a recipe for social disaster, IMHO.

The homosexual lobby is demanding legal approval of all sexual
proclivities, rather than equal rights under the law. By taking this
tack they are opening a Pandora's Box. 



From pkolding@cts.com Wed May  1 08:35:54 PDT 1996
Article: 41821 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Getting rid of the GST
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 03:03:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4m6k90$hbg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lg7rq$c7a@milo.vcn.bc.ca>   <4li20p$g6c@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4ljgvr$8ne@thoth.portal.ca> <4lqdig$19g@news2.cts.com> <4lrp3m$73j@thoth.portal.ca> <4m2767$4hb@news2.cts.com> <4m3a2g$393@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:41821 bc.politics:394

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>>The Feds are going to co-opt the
>>provinces with this scheme, and the citizenry will find themselves
>>with a uniform rate (at the high bid) across Canada, notwithstanding
>>the economic and financial differences between the provinces. 

>No, there is no requirement for a uniform rate across the country.
>There may be a lot of lunatics in Ottawa, but none crazy enough to
>believe that Alberta with no provincial sales tax would agree to
>charge the unified tax at 15%.  In BC all parties have already said
>that it is out of the question and BC does charge provincial slaes tax
>on labour, legal services and some other items that most provinces
>don't.

Unfortunately, what politicians promise today they tend to deny,
Copps-like, on the morrow. "Harmonizing" the two taxes into one VAT
will result, in short order, in political comparisons for the purposes
of raising revenue. In the future, I can easily see certain
editorialists saying things like "Ontario pays 15%, shouldn't we all
be paying our fair share?". Or, in the private meetings elected
officials are so wont to attend, "So long as we maintain a lower rate
than Ontario, we can borrow and look to adjustments in the VAT rate to
provide the revenue." The net result will be a relatively quick
ratcheting-up of the rate everywhere, culminating in a cross-country
VAT rate spread with the high at around 19% and the low at around 15%.
When this happens the next step, inevitably, will be "harmonizing" the
spread---and it will be a popular move. This is because those paying
at the high end of the rate will get the benefit from averaging, and
those governments at the low end of the rate will get a benefit in
revenue for the same reason.

Within 5 years I confidently expect the whole country to be paying a
uniform VAT at about 18%.



From pkolding@cts.com Wed May  1 08:35:55 PDT 1996
Article: 41822 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Sympathy for / Sympathie pour Marc Lepine
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 03:03:25 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4m6k9h$hbg@news2.cts.com>
References:    <4l1au6$rnf@news2.cts.com>  <4l7c3d$5ih@news2.cts.com>  <4lbbht$48t@news2.cts.com>  <4lqd5l$19g@news2.cts.com> <4luf2l$t3j@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:48:17 GMT PKolding said ...

>/But I'm not saying this at all. I'm saying that those who support
>/oppression shouldn't whine and complain when some oppressed person
>/lets off a few bullets in their direction. If people wish to
>/deliberately benefit from the oppression caused by AA they will have
>/to accept the inevitable, historical price. 


>Then you shouldn't be surprised at all when women have lobbied and
>support AA in an attempt to redress what they consider to have been
>oppression.  You are paying the inevitable historical price.

But you are now exposing for all the world the hypocrisy of those who
support AA. The stated justification for the program has always been
to bring about "equality" and "diversity" and NOT retribution.

However, I am perfectly willing to accept the view that AA stems from
the confluence of historical forces and the activities of thugs and
criminals, just like the Nazi and Fascist periods. I'm also confident
that those who legislate, enforce, deliberately benefit from and
support AA should pay the same historical price that Nazis and
fascists did.





From pkolding@cts.com Wed May  1 08:35:56 PDT 1996
Article: 41823 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The heterosexual menace in Canada.
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 03:03:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4m6k9u$hbg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m0a7f$1lb6@rex.cadvision.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

igguldec@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) wrote:

> Why are equal rights for homosexuals such a contentious issue? It just 
>does not make sense to me.

The reason is that homosexuals wish legal privilege to be given on the
sole basis that they partake in certain sexual activities.

>After all what do we have to do with the nuclear family? We don't create 
>them so how can we be a threat to them?

The changes demanded by homosexual activists are not a threat to the
nuclear family, but to marriage itself. They wish to establish
homosexual co-habitation as equal and comparable to marriage. To
millions of religious people this is an outrage, and to the thoughtful
non-religious it appears to be a recipe for social disaster, quite
apart from mandating an enormous added government expense. 


...[some deleted]...

>        Why do heterosexuals feel it is necessary to blame their familial 
>problems on homosexuals? 

Why is it necessary for homosexuals to blame their social problems on
the marriage laws?

...[some deleted]...

>Look at the mess they have created in their own community 
>I certainly don't want them deciding what is right for me!

Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as a "heterosexual
community", the huge social and familial problems in Canada are
entirely the result of AA and the relationship laws. Instead of
keeping out of people's lives the government, at the urging of special
interest groups, has enforced on the populace ideologically-based
behaviours and rules with respect to even the most private and
personal activities. And now the "homosexual community" is doing
exactly the same thing. 

>        The solution is to pass equal rights legislation for all gay men and 
>lesbians. Leave us alone and we will extend the same courtesey to you.

But this is simply a lie. The reason that homosexuals want "marriage
rights" in the first place, by their own admission, is to obtain the
government-supplied benefits that accrue to the married. Homosexuals
do NOT want to leave anyone alone, they want special rights and
privileges awarded on the sole basis of their sexual activities.

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