From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 06:38:52 PDT 1996
Article: 16860 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The Language of Intollerance 
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:04:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4ma8bf$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l5mqu$e6e@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>  <4lc3 <4lvo6d$s0@tandem.CAM.ORG> <4m09ir$5av@orb.direct.ca>  <4m4727$bo6@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <3186029E.7B2B@login.net> <4m59d2$9s4@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42038 soc.culture.quebec:16860 qc.politique:5960 soc.culture.canada:86869

Daniel-Robert Gooch  wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Darryl Levine wrote:
>> Wrong.  There are idiots in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and all the other
>> provinces. What is different in Quebec is that the discrimination is
>> institutionalized by laws like 101 whose aim, it true, is to protect the
>> French language, but whose foreseeable side-effect is the destruction of the
>> English-speaking community of Quebec.  The government of Ontario has no such law
>> which discriminates against their minorities.

>Yes.  You keep repeating this over and over again, but you fail to
>address the fact that there ISN'T another province where a linguistic
>minority virtually controlled the economy, was able to impose its
>language on the majority, or abuse `freedom of language' by not
>bothering to give the language of the majority the place it warranted in 
>society.

And you forget that the French in Quebec are there on sufferance, not
by right. They are a conquered minority who lost their French colonial
protections centuries ago.








From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 07:51:56 PDT 1996
Article: 42038 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The Language of Intollerance 
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:04:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4ma8bf$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l5mqu$e6e@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>  <4lc3 <4lvo6d$s0@tandem.CAM.ORG> <4m09ir$5av@orb.direct.ca>  <4m4727$bo6@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <3186029E.7B2B@login.net> <4m59d2$9s4@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42038 soc.culture.quebec:16860 qc.politique:5960 soc.culture.canada:86869

Daniel-Robert Gooch  wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Darryl Levine wrote:
>> Wrong.  There are idiots in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and all the other
>> provinces. What is different in Quebec is that the discrimination is
>> institutionalized by laws like 101 whose aim, it true, is to protect the
>> French language, but whose foreseeable side-effect is the destruction of the
>> English-speaking community of Quebec.  The government of Ontario has no such law
>> which discriminates against their minorities.

>Yes.  You keep repeating this over and over again, but you fail to
>address the fact that there ISN'T another province where a linguistic
>minority virtually controlled the economy, was able to impose its
>language on the majority, or abuse `freedom of language' by not
>bothering to give the language of the majority the place it warranted in 
>society.

And you forget that the French in Quebec are there on sufferance, not
by right. They are a conquered minority who lost their French colonial
protections centuries ago.








From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 07:51:58 PDT 1996
Article: 42039 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Neil Singh: ESL dropout.
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:03:09 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 178
Message-ID: <4ma89m$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m45n7$5ne@News.Dal.Ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42039 alt.society.civil-liberties:7565

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

>: 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

>No. The Charter permits programs to ameliorate disadvantage.  15(2) has 
>been posted  and you have seen the language. 

I posted it and I understand it completely. The language is
unmistakable.

> The "status" required to 
>invoke 15(2) may be gained by proving disadvantage to a court.  
>Regardless of what mere legislation may or may not say.

This is where you are wrong. Discriminatory laws, programs and
activities undertaken under 15(2) require a "disadvantaged group" not
a finding of disadvantage. 

>: 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.

>What are you talking about?  You have stated categorically that only NDWM 
>can, constitutionally be discriminated against.  You point to these 
>programs as proof ofthe "status" or lack thereof of NDWM.  
>However, "status" under the Charter is premised on the notion of 
>"disadvantage".  In the appropriate circumstance, as in a field where 
>women dominate, men may invoke 15(2) to justify an AA program. 

We have been over this already, and you just ignore the facts. No AA
policy, i.e discrimination against people on the basis of prohibited
grounds found in 15(1), can be taken against groups already deemed as
disadvantaged. This is because all such activities must IMPROVE the
conditions of such groups. The EE laws *already establish* that for
employment purposes everyone is a member of a disadvantaged group,
except non-disabled white males. Preferential hiring for NDWM is
IMPOSSIBLE therefore, as it would be both against EE laws and would
contravene the Charter guarantees granted under Section 15(1).


...[some deleted]....

>: >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.

>Untrue. AA would for men would apply only where men had proven 
>"disadvantage". AA in field where  women are found to be "disadvantaged" 
>would not be affected.  As I have repeated ad nauseum, courts aply a 
>contextual approach.

You are wrong and I suggest you review the various EE and Human Rights
Acts. The groups deemed disadvantaged are not connected to any
industry, profession or type of employment. The Charter demands
STATUS, not any disadvantaged condition.


>: 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.

>Nope. Read the above. Contextual approach.  Not "status". Remember, the 
>key words in 15(1) and (2) are "sex" (not "women") and "disadvantage" 
>(not "status"). 

The key words are "disadvantaged group". These groups have been
designated in law so that AA programs allowed under S. 15(2) may be
undertaken. 


...[some deleted]...

> I have 
>also noted I find you comparison of AA to Hitler and Nazism wanting.  AA is 
>premised constitutionaly on the very mutable charachteristic of disadvantage.

You are now gaining my contempt. The very definition of AA in Section
15(2) states that any law, program or activity can be undertaken
notwithstanding guarantees against discrimination on the basis of the
prohibited forms listed in Section 15(1). It is saying PRECISELY that
people can and will be arbitrarily treated in accordance to some
immutable characteristic they have---like race or sex. AA does not
involve delving into the personal conditions of any individual and
determining if they suffer "disadvantage". It discriminates against
people purely on the basis that they lack the immutable personal
characteristics that grant status under law.


...[some deleted]....

>However, I think your real beef is with divorce laws, not AA.  And there 
>I might even be partly in agreement.  Perhaps I am being presumptuos but I 
>think you will surely correct that misunderstanding if it is one. 

The relationship laws (under this designation I refer to all the laws
relating to formal and informal personal realtionships) are based on
AA principles, so it is a mistake to treat them as somehow independent
of each other. 


...[some deleted]...

>: 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

>I think the rationale is that marriage is a 50/50 partnership where both 
>parties contribute equally and sacrifice equally.

But this is precisely what I'm getting at. Marriage was never defined
this way before in law, until the principles of AA were introduced
into lawmaking. A marriage was not a partnership of two individuals
dedicated to "equality" of outcomes, but an agreement based on
behaviour regardless of outcomes. The public interest in behaviour
confined itself to such things as adultery, abandonment, sexual
abnormality, debt responsibilities, etc. not the private marriage
arrangements and conduct of spouses as a class. Under AA-inspired
relationship laws, however, marriage and similar relationships are
seen in exclusively financial terms with the sole object of
transferring wealth to "equalise" people on the basis of their AA
class. It is as ridiculous to say people enter into or leave a
marriage on any basis of "equality", as it would be to make the same
claim of investors in the stock market, or gamblers in a casino.
Whatever benefits or losses that accrue, excepting outright fraud, are
each person's own affair. 

>At least hypothetically.  Both spouses decide freely to enter a 
>relationship. As such both should share the burden of divorce. 

Marriage is the "burden", not divorce. There is no such thing as a
"burden of divorce". Divorce was supposed to END a failed association,
not maintain its burdens because it failed.

>I do understand the difficulty of thinking of marriage as something 
>which has to be compensated for.  

There is no difficulty in understanding the concept, but that is not
what marriage was until AA principles were applied to the law. And
please understand that the relationship laws do not seek to compensate
for marriage, but for the class status of females. The relationship
laws have been written with this AA objective in mind: to transfer
wealth from male to female hands in accordance with modern feminist
ideology.

...[some deleted]...

>I have no doubt it would make me angry. But I have never exprienced a 
>bitter divorce.  If it were not bitter, however, in my innocence I  might 
>wish  to support my spouse to the extent her "needs" were reasonably met.  
>I am aware that reasonble needs often aren't that reasonable at all.

Precisely. The private arrangements and the conduct of personal
relationships, especially marriage, should be a matter between the
individuals involved. Arbitrary legal conditions of behaviour and
responsibility should be applied, if at all, only with the agreement
of the parties involved. As I pointed out in an article posted here
some months ago, arbitrary assignments with respect to custody should
be a part of marriage requirements, as they were for centuries before
AA poisoned the well. Equally, divorce should mean the END of support
and responsibility---not the enforcement of it under slavery
conditions..











From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 11:14:37 PDT 1996
Article: 42054 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Opposition to language law is about freedom of choice?
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:07:45 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4ma8hs$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4llrfn$o4i@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <31802BB7.5146@mail.odyssee.net> <4lq5rp$3dr@piano.synapse.net> <4ls5cm$q7b@netope.harvard.edu> <4lunbe$lar@netone.netonecom.net>  <4m6ole$14q@netone.netonecom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42054 soc.culture.quebec:16869 qc.politique:5966 soc.culture.canada:86882

bbcat@netonecom.net wrote:

> It is true that the national language is now English but it
> didn't come about as the bullshitting historians are telling us.

I have already sold the bridge, but I have a mint condition draft of
the U.S. Constitution in the original Polish if you're interested.....



From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 13:58:11 PDT 1996
Article: 76014 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Herr CRETIN protects liars
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:05:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <4ma8cn$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m18l5$h5c@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4m5utt$36s@news.magi.com> <4m6cme$cfd@thor.atcon.com> <4m6i79$hmb@news.magi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:76014 can.politics:42090

nsidor@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:

>Or are you saying that it's okay to discriminate
>against people because of their sexual orientation (never mind
>answering that, it's probably *exactly* what you're saying...)

I will mind----of COURSE people discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation. What the hell do think the practical exercise of one's
"sexual orientation" means, you simpleton? 



From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 13:59:35 PDT 1996
Article: 42090 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Herr CRETIN protects liars
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:05:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <4ma8cn$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m18l5$h5c@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4m5utt$36s@news.magi.com> <4m6cme$cfd@thor.atcon.com> <4m6i79$hmb@news.magi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:76014 can.politics:42090

nsidor@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:

>Or are you saying that it's okay to discriminate
>against people because of their sexual orientation (never mind
>answering that, it's probably *exactly* what you're saying...)

I will mind----of COURSE people discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation. What the hell do think the practical exercise of one's
"sexual orientation" means, you simpleton? 



From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 18:36:48 PDT 1996
Article: 42110 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!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!cdc2.cdc.net!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: Violence against women - more 'unpretty' stats....
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:06:58 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4ma8gd$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4loqle$iet@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4lrkaq$l2q@news2.cts.com> <4m648i$m74@thor.atcon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

willie@atcon.com (John) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>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.

>It is People like you that makes it necessary to have an  AA
>policy in force. 

Of course it is. I am a "male" who, unforgivably, presumes and demands
a right to equal treatment before and under the law.

>Don.t blame other people for your failures in life, learn to 
>responsiblilty for your own actions.

Pardon me, but AA isn't interested in people's actions, but solely
their sex and race. And those who legislate, enforce, deliberately
benefit from and support AA are the people who will be learning about
"responsibility" in the next few years, boyo. 

Some, thanks to the hero Lepine, have learned already.




From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 18:36:49 PDT 1996
Article: 42117 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!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.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,can.politics
Subject: Re: Liberal view
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:02:41 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4ma88e$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References: <3.142723.10896.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4lcmem$13i0@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4lcu0h$5rc@thoth.portal.ca> <4ljgu9$dle@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4llnlt$r20@thoth.portal.ca> <4lq0b6$b9k@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <143117.11696.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4m0qam$feo@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <143711.11996.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4m4165$78f@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:466 can.politics:42117

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

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

>>In <4m0qam$feo@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> klorenz@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (Kevin Lorenz) writes:
>>>The "two founding nations" Liberals see society as a whole?  What a joke!
>>>And this "to each according to his need, from each according to his 
>>>ability" stuff seems familliar.  Where from I wonder?

>>Two founding peoples, a bunch of natives, and a whole lot of others
>>have created a great society which is far better than the reform
>>view that we are 10 provinces made up of about 29,000,000 people
>>who are in it for themselves.

>Stephen, methinks you've got yourself sucked into a trap on this one.
>As much as I have searched current Liberal documents, I find no
>mention of the "two founding peoples". 

How current is current? Pearson's Bi-Bi Commission, which inaugurated
Canada's 30-year slow-motion disaster, took exactly this view.

For those interested in how Canada got into the mess it finds itself
in may I recommend "Farewell the Peaceful Kingdom" by Joe Armstrong.
His opinions are his own, but his facts are indisputable.




From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 18:36:50 PDT 1996
Article: 42120 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!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.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
Subject: Re: Results of Edmonton Sun poll on Sheila Copps
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:02:49 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4ma88n$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lteh1$rf4@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4m0nil$m2b@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> <4m2udo$jvc@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4m4169$78f@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42120 bc.politics:468

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>timlamb@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tim E. Lamb) wrote:

>>It just shows she will say anything to get re-elected.

>Aaaaaw puhleese, Tim.  

>Show me a politician that will not do that and still get elected.
>Just because polticians shoot their mouths off in an election campaign
>does not mean that the voters have to be so dumb as to beleive every
>word they are told.

>Well, perhaps not all is lost yet.  Not too many voters bought the
>Natural Party's promise of their yogic flying squads solving all our
>financial problems by meditating about them ....

>What I am curious about is the reaction of the voters in Hamilton.
>Everybody has been screaming about this issue across the country, but
>I have heard nothing from Hamilton East.

>Perhaps they are embarrassed about buying the promise in the first
>place? Look at it this way:  The GST provides about 13% of all federal
>revenues.  The Feds are still spending about 15% more than they take
>in.  So in order for the feds to simply scrap the GST (without
>plunging us even deeper into debt), they would have to reduce all of
>their spending by some 28%.

>Before I would buy anybody's promise to scrap any tax, I would first
>want to get some pretty convincing answers to the question "How will
>you account for the loss of that revenue?  What will you cut and by
>how much?  Where will the replacement revenue come from?"

This is all very interesting, but you might recall that before the
Liberals were elected these questions were raised with Chretien. His
response was that he would let us know after he was elected. We
discussed this on Fidonet at some length as I remember.



From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 18:36:51 PDT 1996
Article: 42121 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!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.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: Sheila Taquila, honour & honesty
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:02:58 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <4ma890$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4lqh8b$4ie@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4lvcot$l6u@news2.cts.com> <4m2okt$eth@ns2.ryerson.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

cal@cate.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) said...
>>
>>In the Canadian parliamentary system a member is nominated by his
>>Party, and then runs with its support and on its platform.

>Ah, no.  The parliamentary system involves the election of a representitive
>of a constituency in the House of Commons. 

I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse. I wasn't defining the
Parliamentary system, but simply pointing out how, why and upon what
grounds an elected party member attains his position.

...[some deleted]...

>>They voted for Nunziata the Liberal and he
>>shouldn't hold on to power except in that role.

>As I said, too many people have lost sight of the fundamental principle
>of parliamentary democracy.  

I certainly agree with you. There are far too many people who think
the mere inability of recall gives an imprimatur to any conduct of an
MP. The fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy---of all
democracy---is that power is granted by, and not defrauded from, the 
electorate.

>Similarly, people forget sight of the fact that "majority" means first-past 
>the post.  People complain when governments take their majority in the 
>House seriously even though they may have only received 40% of the 
>popular vote.  Too bad - change the system.

What this has to do with Nunziata doing the honourable thing and
resigning from Parliament I do not know.

>As it stands now, our system elects constituency representitives through
>a first-past-the-post vote.  If you don't like it, work towards changing
>it.

Actually, they elect constituency representatives on the basis of
inumerable factors, chief among them being the platform and party the
representative claims to submit to.

>BTW, Dennis Mills, the MP who left the Liberal caucus following Nunziata's
>expulsion, stated on CFRB radio after a caller suggested that his
>constituents voted for "Mills the Liberal candidate", that he will be
>polling his constituents to see if they want him as their MP, or a Liberal
>as their MP.

I find this corrupt. It is not up to him to conduct private elections.
The right thing to do is resign and run against all comers.





From pkolding@cts.com Thu May  2 23:35:18 PDT 1996
Article: 42147 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.ott.hookup.net!hookup!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: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:03:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4ma89t$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l5mqu$e6e@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>  <4lc3h5$mn4@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <4m1tnd$b1d@pegasus.odyssee.net> <4m46em$bmn@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

dlevin2@po-box.mcgill.ca (Darryl Levine) wrote:

>gagnonja@odyssee.net (Jinx) wrote:

>>>Anglophones have always known they were a small minority in Quebec.
>>>But since most anglos live in Montreal where they have always had a 
>>>good percentage of the population, we have had come to expect a certain
>>>level of equal treatment.  Bill 22 made French the only offical langauge
>>>of the province.  Bill 101, among other things, banned English from the 
>>>face of Quebec (but lets face it, it was designed to wipe English from
>>>the face of Montreal).  Bill 178 maintained the ban.  Bill 86 lifted the ban
>>>(but made sure that English had to be smaller than French).  And now that
>>>anglophones are asking stores (in the west-end of Montreal which is majority
>>>English-speaking) to show some respect and put up a few English signs,
>>>all the nationalists are accusing anglos of stirring up trouble.

>>And anglos accusing francos of domination... yeah... I heard Dady
>>Mordecai's speech. Never the english was banned from Québec. May I ask
>>you to point us when and how? Did you examine the laws you
>>mentioned?.... I think not... you're interpreting as you're feeling
>>to...

>Jean-Phillipe,  do you believe that Bill Clinton is the US President?
>Do you believe that this is the year 1996?  Do you believe that
>you are sitting in front of your computer screen? 

>Did you bother to read what I wrote on top about the language laws?
>What part do you deny?  SPECIFICALLY.

Your concise recitation of the laws involved is unassailable.
Jean-Philipe would do well to take his own advice and examine them
himself.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May  3 12:00:51 PDT 1996
Article: 86869 of soc.culture.canada
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The Language of Intollerance 
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:04:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4ma8bf$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l5mqu$e6e@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>  <4lc3 <4lvo6d$s0@tandem.CAM.ORG> <4m09ir$5av@orb.direct.ca>  <4m4727$bo6@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <3186029E.7B2B@login.net> <4m59d2$9s4@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42038 soc.culture.quebec:16860 qc.politique:5960 soc.culture.canada:86869

Daniel-Robert Gooch  wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Darryl Levine wrote:
>> Wrong.  There are idiots in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and all the other
>> provinces. What is different in Quebec is that the discrimination is
>> institutionalized by laws like 101 whose aim, it true, is to protect the
>> French language, but whose foreseeable side-effect is the destruction of the
>> English-speaking community of Quebec.  The government of Ontario has no such law
>> which discriminates against their minorities.

>Yes.  You keep repeating this over and over again, but you fail to
>address the fact that there ISN'T another province where a linguistic
>minority virtually controlled the economy, was able to impose its
>language on the majority, or abuse `freedom of language' by not
>bothering to give the language of the majority the place it warranted in 
>society.

And you forget that the French in Quebec are there on sufferance, not
by right. They are a conquered minority who lost their French colonial
protections centuries ago.








From pkolding@cts.com Fri May  3 12:00:53 PDT 1996
Article: 86882 of soc.culture.canada
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Opposition to language law is about freedom of choice?
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 12:07:45 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4ma8hs$c2g@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4llrfn$o4i@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <31802BB7.5146@mail.odyssee.net> <4lq5rp$3dr@piano.synapse.net> <4ls5cm$q7b@netope.harvard.edu> <4lunbe$lar@netone.netonecom.net>  <4m6ole$14q@netone.netonecom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42054 soc.culture.quebec:16869 qc.politique:5966 soc.culture.canada:86882

bbcat@netonecom.net wrote:

> It is true that the national language is now English but it
> didn't come about as the bullshitting historians are telling us.

I have already sold the bridge, but I have a mint condition draft of
the U.S. Constitution in the original Polish if you're interested.....



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May  3 19:15:35 PDT 1996
Article: 27522 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Pissed Mc OyVay...
Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 17:35:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4mdg4t$737@news2.cts.com>
References: <1996Apr24.063120.19256@wpg.ramp.net>  <4lqdll$19g@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:27522 can.politics:42368

anakin@pinc.com (Rajiv K. Gandhi) wrote:

>In article <4lqdll$19g@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>> anakin@pinc.com (Rajiv K. Gandhi) wrote:

>> >'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.

>I don't believe there is actually any proof for this proposition, beyond
>what is written in the bible, which as far as anybody knows was penned by
>a series of males in decidedly paternalistic societies.

As I said, all the evidence establishes Jesus Christ as male,
notwitstanding the pain this causes so many modern non-Christians.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat May  4 07:18:56 PDT 1996
Article: 27593 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!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!winternet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!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 McGoyVay.. Round 3
Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 07:03:45 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4mevgf$5i2@news2.cts.com>
References: <1996Apr30.205208.23945@wpg.ramp.net> <4ma68h$b0s@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:27593 can.politics:42508

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

>In article <1996Apr30.205208.23945@wpg.ramp.net>, Joe Lockhart wrote:

>>I asked you to provide evidence that I was a member
>>of any Klan. You refused. Who is the liar McVay? 

>...and:

>>McVay in an attempted to question my credibility
>>called me a liar.

>I called Mr. Lockhart a liar because he is a liar.

>"Klansman Joseph Edward Lockhart was later charged with
>mischief for erasing and replacing a telephone answering
>machine message at..." (Kinsella, Warren. Web of Hate: Inside
>Canada's Far Right Network. HarperPerennial, 52-53)

Is that the book that describes Kinsella, on its cover, as "formerly a
special assistant to Jean Chretien, [and] now Executive Assistant to a
cabinet minister in the Federal Government"? I would suggest that the
views of such a person could hardly be put forward as "evidence" in
any matter.





From pkolding@cts.com Sat May  4 09:33:22 PDT 1996
Article: 42487 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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.community.asian,can.politics,can.atlantic.general,can.atlantic
Subject: Re: petition, sexual orientation
Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 17:35:52 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <4mdg5i$737@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8tdj$7on@apollo.isisnet.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42487 can.atlantic.general:976

storr96@medcor.mcgill.ca (John Storring) wrote:

>Nope, Sorry try again. This clause merely affirms the right to be free
>from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in areas covered by
>federal juristiction (ie chartered banks, military, gov't employees, ec)
>The net effect will be basically that one cannot be fired from one's job
>due to being gay or lesbian (currently it IS in fact legal to fire someone
>for this reason, if very difficult).

I think the essence of the error of your view is contained within it.
People in the federal government and its regulated industries are NOT
being fired because they are gay or lesbian, right now. The "net
effect" of the legislation can therefore NOT be what you say it will
be. The net effect will instead be the interpretation and redrafting
of all laws and regulations in accordance with the standard that all
sexual orientations are to be approved, and disapproval will bring
sanctions. "Tolerance" will no longer be permitted, it will be
obligatory. 

...[some deleted]...

>> immigration and income tax. The rights and freedoms of Canadians,
>including freedom of religion, conscience, expression and
>> association would undoubtedly be curtailed.

>And if my religion claimed that blacks, or women were inferior would I
>have the right to not hire them, or deny them housing? I think not. 

It seems to me that race and sex are involuntary public
characteristics and imply no activities or dispositions whatever.
Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is most definitely a private
characteristic that is immune from independent verification, and
definitely and intrinsically implies activities and dispositions. 

...[some deleted]...

>> 
>> that inclusion of the phrase "sexual orientation" in the Canadian Human Rights
>> Act could extend human rights protection to a broader range of "sexual
>> orientations" such as paedophilia;

>No it can't. The term "sexual orientation" has been interpreted by the
>courts to refer exlusively to hetero-, homo-, bi-sexual orientations,
>nothing else.

This is plainly incorrect. The courts have ruled that *sexual
practices* have not proven to be relevant in the cases they have
addressed. Sexual orientation is not a practice, but a prejudice.

>Further the acts performed by adults in private are legal,
>the CHRA amendments will do nothing to render legal 
>paedophilia, which is covered by the criminal code. 

But it *will* make discrimination against self-admitted, but
unconvicted paedophiles an offence. 

>> 
>> that inclusion will infringe on the fundamental rights of Canadians, such as
>> freedom of religion, conscience, belief, expression and association;

>protection of one's rights to a job, and to housing and not to be
>assaulted on the street is a reasonable limitation of the above rights.
>One could not deny these to blacks, women or other protected groups and
>then hide behind a shield of "religious rights" or "freedom of
>association"

The difference is that sexual orientation implies, intrinsically,
*sexual activities and practices* which many people find abhorrent.
I find it appalling and a sign of complete degeneracy that people are
to be forced to associate with *self-declared* paedophiles and other
sexual degenerates on pain of legal sanction. 

>> 
>> that the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, including freedom from
>> discrimination, are already protected by Canadian law;

>Yes, but we need these categories to outline exactly what kinds of
>discrimination we are outlawing. If you feel so strongly about this why
>not move to eliminate ALL categories from the CHRA (ie gender, race,
>religion (which you seem to feel stongly should be in there), age,
>ability, etc)

In as much as the CHRA governs the relationship of the government with
respect to ALL citizens, one wonders why such categories have to be
listed in the first place?  






From pkolding@cts.com Sat May  4 09:33:23 PDT 1996
Article: 42507 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!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The Language of Intollerance 
Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 07:03:55 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <4mevgq$5i2@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l5mqu$e6e@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>  <4lc3 <4lvo6d$s0@tandem.CAM.ORG> <4m09ir$5av@orb.direct.ca>  <4m4727$bo6@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <3186029E.7B2B@login.net> <4m59d2$9s4@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>  <4ma8bf$c2g@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42507 soc.culture.quebec:16990 qc.politique:6057 soc.culture.canada:87044

Daniel-Robert Gooch  wrote:

>On Thu, 2 May 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Daniel-Robert Gooch  wrote:
>> 
>> >On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Darryl Levine wrote:
>> >> Wrong.  There are idiots in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and all the other
>> >> provinces. What is different in Quebec is that the discrimination is
>> >> institutionalized by laws like 101 whose aim, it true, is to protect the
>> >> French language, but whose foreseeable side-effect is the destruction of the
>> >> English-speaking community of Quebec.  The government of Ontario has no such law
>> >> which discriminates against their minorities.
>> 
>> >Yes.  You keep repeating this over and over again, but you fail to
>> >address the fact that there ISN'T another province where a linguistic
>> >minority virtually controlled the economy, was able to impose its
>> >language on the majority, or abuse `freedom of language' by not
>> >bothering to give the language of the majority the place it warranted in 
>> >society.
>> 
>> And you forget that the French in Quebec are there on sufferance, not
>> by right. They are a conquered minority who lost their French colonial
>> protections centuries ago.
>> 

>Yes.  I am sure this is the attitude that the English businesses
>etc... had before too.

It's not an "attitude" it is the plain truth. Quebecois and
federalists constantly make fraudulent claims of "two founding
peoples" and "cultural rights" and "recognition". The demands of
separatists in Quebec are simply the demands of rebels against legal
authority. Personally, I support Quebec independence, but I don't
accept the claimed historical and cultural reasoning at all.

The separatists, and their proposals, have been accepted by the
federal power for twenty years. They have conducted
government-to-government relations. They have secured a massive and
legitimate political following in the land they claim is theirs. THAT
is the basis I accept for Quebec independence, not the contemptible
propaganda agreed to by both sides.





From pkolding@cts.com Sat May  4 11:52:03 PDT 1996
Article: 87044 of soc.culture.canada
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The Language of Intollerance 
Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 07:03:55 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <4mevgq$5i2@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l5mqu$e6e@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>  <4lc3 <4lvo6d$s0@tandem.CAM.ORG> <4m09ir$5av@orb.direct.ca>  <4m4727$bo6@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <3186029E.7B2B@login.net> <4m59d2$9s4@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>  <4ma8bf$c2g@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42507 soc.culture.quebec:16990 qc.politique:6057 soc.culture.canada:87044

Daniel-Robert Gooch  wrote:

>On Thu, 2 May 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Daniel-Robert Gooch  wrote:
>> 
>> >On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Darryl Levine wrote:
>> >> Wrong.  There are idiots in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and all the other
>> >> provinces. What is different in Quebec is that the discrimination is
>> >> institutionalized by laws like 101 whose aim, it true, is to protect the
>> >> French language, but whose foreseeable side-effect is the destruction of the
>> >> English-speaking community of Quebec.  The government of Ontario has no such law
>> >> which discriminates against their minorities.
>> 
>> >Yes.  You keep repeating this over and over again, but you fail to
>> >address the fact that there ISN'T another province where a linguistic
>> >minority virtually controlled the economy, was able to impose its
>> >language on the majority, or abuse `freedom of language' by not
>> >bothering to give the language of the majority the place it warranted in 
>> >society.
>> 
>> And you forget that the French in Quebec are there on sufferance, not
>> by right. They are a conquered minority who lost their French colonial
>> protections centuries ago.
>> 

>Yes.  I am sure this is the attitude that the English businesses
>etc... had before too.

It's not an "attitude" it is the plain truth. Quebecois and
federalists constantly make fraudulent claims of "two founding
peoples" and "cultural rights" and "recognition". The demands of
separatists in Quebec are simply the demands of rebels against legal
authority. Personally, I support Quebec independence, but I don't
accept the claimed historical and cultural reasoning at all.

The separatists, and their proposals, have been accepted by the
federal power for twenty years. They have conducted
government-to-government relations. They have secured a massive and
legitimate political following in the land they claim is theirs. THAT
is the basis I accept for Quebec independence, not the contemptible
propaganda agreed to by both sides.





From pkolding@cts.com Sat May  4 20:25:16 PDT 1996
Article: 42663 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,hamilton.general
Subject: Re: I love Sheila Copps-and who wouldn't??????
Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 07:04:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4mevgv$5i2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m5nao$hj2@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4m7qo5$din@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4m8bvg$m3@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> <4matd2$cr2@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:76208 can.politics:42663

af836@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Robert Deans) wrote:

>I wonder how many of the rest of us would be working if we had to resign 
>every time we said something stupid?

You should instead wonder if you'd fly in a plane where the pilot lied
to get her job.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat May  4 20:25:18 PDT 1996
Article: 42664 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: fascist Harris
Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 07:04:09 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4mevh7$5i2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4khrmj$mc2@rex.cadvision.com> <829219561.3709snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca><4ksn09$26bu@rex.cadvision.com> <4kvein$989@explorer.sasknet.sk.ca> <4lchet$uha@rex.cadvision.com> <4lhlpf$oaj@news2.cts.com> <4mau9h$q7l@mongol.sasknet.sk.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

think.uninc@dlcwest.com wrote:

>>>If you are a man of moral standards you don't steal from others; you deal
>>>with people based on voluntary exchange of goods and services, as expressed
>>>by money - I gather you don't.

>>Do you extend this view to marriage and family life? I'm interested,
>>because so often people make the argument you have with respect to
>>labour and property, but then do not support it when it comes to the
>>marriage and divorce laws. 

>Please clarify.

The implication that family relationships are run along monetary lines
I find absurd. Equally, "voluntary exchanges" seem to rapidly change
their character with the onset of divorce. 





From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 00:20:27 PDT 1996
Article: 16990 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The Language of Intollerance 
Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 07:03:55 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <4mevgq$5i2@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l5mqu$e6e@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>  <4lc3 <4lvo6d$s0@tandem.CAM.ORG> <4m09ir$5av@orb.direct.ca>  <4m4727$bo6@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <3186029E.7B2B@login.net> <4m59d2$9s4@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>  <4ma8bf$c2g@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42507 soc.culture.quebec:16990 qc.politique:6057 soc.culture.canada:87044

Daniel-Robert Gooch  wrote:

>On Thu, 2 May 1996, PKolding wrote:

>> Daniel-Robert Gooch  wrote:
>> 
>> >On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Darryl Levine wrote:
>> >> Wrong.  There are idiots in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and all the other
>> >> provinces. What is different in Quebec is that the discrimination is
>> >> institutionalized by laws like 101 whose aim, it true, is to protect the
>> >> French language, but whose foreseeable side-effect is the destruction of the
>> >> English-speaking community of Quebec.  The government of Ontario has no such law
>> >> which discriminates against their minorities.
>> 
>> >Yes.  You keep repeating this over and over again, but you fail to
>> >address the fact that there ISN'T another province where a linguistic
>> >minority virtually controlled the economy, was able to impose its
>> >language on the majority, or abuse `freedom of language' by not
>> >bothering to give the language of the majority the place it warranted in 
>> >society.
>> 
>> And you forget that the French in Quebec are there on sufferance, not
>> by right. They are a conquered minority who lost their French colonial
>> protections centuries ago.
>> 

>Yes.  I am sure this is the attitude that the English businesses
>etc... had before too.

It's not an "attitude" it is the plain truth. Quebecois and
federalists constantly make fraudulent claims of "two founding
peoples" and "cultural rights" and "recognition". The demands of
separatists in Quebec are simply the demands of rebels against legal
authority. Personally, I support Quebec independence, but I don't
accept the claimed historical and cultural reasoning at all.

The separatists, and their proposals, have been accepted by the
federal power for twenty years. They have conducted
government-to-government relations. They have secured a massive and
legitimate political following in the land they claim is theirs. THAT
is the basis I accept for Quebec independence, not the contemptible
propaganda agreed to by both sides.





From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 19:28:24 PDT 1996
Article: 42752 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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,ab.politics,bc.politics,ont.general
Subject: Re: Manning Must Go
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 07:02:23 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4mhjpr$mig@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mctdq$mgd@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <318A41BF.6EBA@netway.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42752 bc.politics:686 ont.general:38984

Don LaBossiere  wrote:

>Plain fact: Reform Party of Canada is but an extremist-driven radical 
>party attempting to "capitalize" on the racist and bigoted sentiments 
>present in the ultra-right wing world of big business.  The Canadian 
>version of "the silent majority" gone loud.

One wonders why, if the silent *majority* are extremists, a democratic
government does not reflect their views in legislation. The truth of
the matter is that any view, upon any subject, that is at variance
with that of the ruling elite automatically gets those responsible
stained with the epithet "extremist" in Canada. This was borne out in
stark relief during the time of the Charlottetown Referendum---where
it was learned that 75% of the populace were "Enemies of Canada"---and
it continues, unabated, today.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 19:28:26 PDT 1996
Article: 42753 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 07:02:28 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4mhjq0$mig@news2.cts.com>
References: <317b6dac.2110255@news> <4lep0f$dg2$2@mhafc.production.compuserve.com> <4lhlq9$oaj@news2.cts.com> <4lo3np$rhb@apollo.isisnet.com> <4lrk9n$l2q@news2.cts.com> <4mav0a$pvt@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>: I noted before that you needed to learn to read. The discussion is
>: about the economic status of "Blacks" not any Mr. Green. 


>How can one discuss the economic status of "blacks" as a whole??

The same way you and the government seem to be able to discuss
"homosexuals" as a whole.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 19:28:27 PDT 1996
Article: 42754 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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: The heterosexual menace in Canada.
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 07:02:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4mhjq4$mig@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m0a7f$1lb6@rex.cadvision.com> <8BF9324.1BC600B0BF.uuout@westonia.com> <4mb037$pvt@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>: I far as I can tell, all gay and lesbians are protected against wrongful
>: dismissal based upon their sexuality that heterosexuals are. That is,
>: there is no law on the books that say you cannot fire a heterosexual
>: because of their sexual orientation. If heterosexual don't need that
>: kind of protection, then why should homosexuals. One law should apply
>: equally to all. Cheers.

>The point is that the *is* no law..Under a law that protects people under 
>a "Sexual orientation" clause, heterosexuals would also be protected.

No, under such a law "sexual orientation" would give certain people
the status to be treated differently from all other people. 



From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 19:28:27 PDT 1996
Article: 42755 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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: The CHRA Ammendment
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 07:02:33 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <4mhjq7$mig@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mavg3$olg@rex.cadvision.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

igguldec@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) wrote:

>I found this article in can.motss and thought it would be helpful here....


>In can.motss,  ad752@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ronald Chaplin) wrote:
>->2.  Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
>->
>->      [Prohibited grounds of discrimination]  3. (1)  For all
>->      purposes of this Act, *the* prohibited grounds of
>->      discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour,
>->      religion, age, sex, *sexual orientation,* marital status,
>->      family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has
>->      been granted.

>Thank you for posting this.  It is interesting to note that the actual
>words being added are "Sexual orientation", not "homesexuality".  So, since
>everyone has a sexual orientation, in all reality this is not a gay rights
>issue at all; it is one of "human rights".

I would say that everyone has a favourite Chinese dish as well, but I
hardly think this justifies legislation to protect you from people who
reject your presence after you've eaten dried squid.

>The term "sexual orientation" applies equally to heterosexuals, bisexuals,
>and homosexuals.  It will be interesting to see the hets argue against this
>since we can all (rather smugly) remind them that they are arguing against
>an expansion of their own rights.  Arguing against Gay rights is the same
>as arguing against hetrosexual rights!

What has a protection against discrimination on the basis of "sexual
orientation" have to do with homosexual or heterosexual rights? After
all, you have stated that everyone is in possession of a "sexual
orientation" already and surely no power of government will be able to
relieve them of that.

All this amendment means, in practical and inescapable terms, is the
prohibition of discrimination against people on the basis of their
views and practices with respect to sex.

And speaking of heterosexual "rights"----I read that a Conservative
MPP has recently been forced to resign his position because he offered
money to a hooker in order to exercise his particular sexual
orientation. However, using the justifications so popular with
homosexual activitists, surely he was simply indulging in a sexual
practice that has been with mankind forever? And therefore, to bring
this back to the point at issue, I trust I can expect those who
approve the current amendment to now support legislation awarding all
Johns and hookers the financial and legal benefits of marriage that
they have, for so long, been denied.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:26 PDT 1996
Article: 42807 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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: bc.politics,can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Bob Ringma ( was: Copp's Resignation a Farce...)
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:39:23 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4mi7hg$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mac0f$50a@steel.interlog.com> <4malkn$769@thoth.portal.ca> <1996May2.095741@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mccd8$u26@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <1996May3.091904@malad1.mala.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:707 can.politics:42807

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

>> Acceptance of gays as equal and moral people is simply not as 
>> common as it is for blacks etc.  Until it is, let's not get carried 
>> away in calling for Ringma's head for his homophobic comments.

What I want explained is the justification for government forcing, on
pain of law and sanction, people to accept homosexuality and the
practices that flow from it as "morally good". Is Canada a theocracy?

>    Granted it's a far to common attitude, however that doesn't excuse a
>person in a position of leadership for giving credence to such a viewpoint.

Why? Ringma's remarks were unexceptional with respect to homosexuals
and "ethnics". The central point at issue should be his expressed
business philosophy, which is dangerously utilitarian. As I noted in a
past post, I'm sure if Ringma thought having homosexuals and "ethnics"
would increase his profit he'd fall over himself hiring them.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:26 PDT 1996
Article: 42808 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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: bc.politics,can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Bob Ringma ( was: Copp's Resignation a Farce...)
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:40:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <4mi7j0$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mac0f$50a@steel.interlog.com> <4malkn$769@thoth.portal.ca> <1996May2.095741@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mccd8$u26@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <1996May3.091904@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4menl2$i5u@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:708 can.politics:42808

klorenz@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (Kevin Lorenz) wrote:

>Why not?  If there's public support for a position or viewpoint, why 
>shouldn't an MP represent it?  What you call bigotry others call moral 
>leadership.  It seems undemocratic to have a list of what can't be said 
>by an MP, no matter how many millions of voters are saying it.

Unfortunately, "moral leadership" is not for the hoi polloi in Canada.
One is now required to be "morally" as well as "politically" correct,
and to keep one's damned mouth shut if an occasional independent
thought wanders across one's ever-narrowing mind.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:27 PDT 1996
Article: 42809 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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,bc.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Bob Ringma ( was: Copp's Resignation a Farce...)
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:40:37 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4mi7jq$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mac0f$50a@steel.interlog.com> <4malkn$769@thoth.portal.ca> <1996May2.095741@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mccd8$u26@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4mcs2p$m38@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mdf49$8u6@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42809 bc.politics:709

suture@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:

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

>>I do not see his comments as neccessarily homophobic. 

>He cast his net wider than that. I sincerely doubt that anyone, even
>hypothetically, making those remarks would not hold some degree of
>inner fear and ignorance of those targeted.

If you are sincere in this view, I think you should apply yourself a
little more closely to the context and basis of Ringma's remarks. I
think you are ignoring, for some reason, the inescapable utilitarian
philosophy he was expressing. The danger of the Ringma philosophy is
its reduction of employees---notwithstanding any personal
characteristics they may have---to human ciphers. 

...[some deleted]...

>The only people who feel this way (protecting their business at *all
>costs*) are those who completely lack moral fibre. They are repugnant
>and dangerous to the maintenence and development of a civilized and
>tolerant society. Period.

I think you are now more on the right track. Ringma's hypothetical
views with respect to the sexual orientation or race of his employees
is purely utilitarian and essentially amoral, rather than bigoted.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:28 PDT 1996
Article: 42810 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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: bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: It's time to boot the extremists out of town
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:40:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <4mi7ju$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m7kgp$2c5@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca>  <4mciu7$idn@thoth.portal.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:710 can.politics:42810

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>Campbell is running a party that has moved so far to the right that even
>the center-right federal Liberals cause him embarassment. 

To call a party "center-right" that has already passed new AA
legislation, and is now seeking to establish same-sex marriages as a
_human right_,   is to make nonsense of language and meaning.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:29 PDT 1996
Article: 42811 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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,ab.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: Manning Must Go
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:41:06 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4mi7kn$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mctdq$mgd@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42811 bc.politics:711

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

>Also, Manning must go. His wishy-washy crawling to the press on this issue,
>his lack of any effort to confront those who have distorted Ringma's
>comments, and his catering to those who, let's face it, wouldn't vote
>for him if Jesus Christ came down from the mount and pulled him up on his
>shoulder, was sickening, embarassing, and dishonest. Manning has demonstrated
>again his lack of leadership skills and his inability to debate issues
>of importance.

I agree that Manning has proven himself simply another establishment
politician---but he never denied it in the first place. He is Joe
Clark, highly spiced. 

The pundits who say that the Reform Party has shot itself in the foot
over the Ringma incident are right, but for the wrong reasons. They
think Ringma and his "attitudes" are the problem, when it is actually
the failure of Manning and the "moderates" to justify their own views.
Manning wants power in the same way that Trudeau wanted power----to
impose an ideological system on the country without respect to human
dignity and the individual freedom that that requires.










From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:29 PDT 1996
Article: 42812 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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,ab.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: Manning Must Go
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:41:49 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4mi7m1$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mctdq$mgd@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mddiu$uh2@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:42812 bc.politics:712

jpschaef@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jeffrey Paul Schaefer) wrote:

>Jan Brown, Steven Harper, and Jim Silye are the kind of
>reasonable people that we need.  Ringma's performance and
>Manning's failure to keep the party from continually shooting
>itself in the foot is why Jean Cherest will be back and asking
>Preston if he wants to join the PC's.  

I don't agree with the view that Jan Brown, Steven Harper etc.
represent "reasonableness", except of the damp, compromising kind
that leads to cultural and social Munichs. But I do agree with you
that they and Manning are almost indistinguishable, today, with the
PC's of the Clark era.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:30 PDT 1996
Article: 42813 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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: Well Reformers, it's time to put up or shut up
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:42:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4mi7nm$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m90v1$ikd@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mcc02$u26@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4md26m$npc@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>I wonder if Mr. Ringma would terminate a white male employee
>if visible minority customers complained about that employee?

There is nothing to wonder about---Mr. Ringma would be forced BY LAW
to stop hiring white males in future, under AA provisions of
applicable Human Rights legislation. 

May I suggest that those who object to Ringma's utilitarian approach
to employee staffing explain how it is any different from the
government's approach? After all, when some of the government's
customers have complained about the sex and race of government
employees, has not the government responded precisely as Ringma has
said he would?





From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:31 PDT 1996
Article: 42814 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:42:54 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4mi7o3$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:76254 can.politics:42814

welsh@uniserve.com (Barry Welsh) wrote:

>>Wrong, again.  The term is "sexual orientation".  There is not one
>>credible scientific opinion that posits that pedophilia is a sexual
>>"orientation".  Nor is necrophilia, bestiality, etc.

Let me remind you that exactly the same position was taken with
respect to homosexuality 30 years ago.

One's sexual orientation is defined by the object of one's sexual
desire, and has nothing to do with the actual sexual attributes of
that object, if any. Paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc., are
not "forms" of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Rather, they are
definitive sexual orientations precisely because they are not
heterosexual or homosexual orientations. 

And from a legal view, it is a lucky thing---until some nitwit has
"sexual orientation" considered as a prohibited form of
discrimination.We are then faced with a Catch-22: If sexual
orientation is only to be defined as heterosexual, homosexual or
bisexual what does one say about the paedophile who is simply
indulging in sexual acts in accordance with his sexual orientation? He
must, by the very criteria we have set up, be acting in a
heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual manner and therefore he should
not be discriminated against because of it. On the other hand, if the
truth is retained and sexual orientation is defined as actually being
one's sexual orientation, then the paedophile finds himself with
exactly the same legal defense.

Let me stress something: having sex with children is not in and of
itself evidence of paedophilia, just as a man having sex with females
does not make him a heterosexual. Paedophilia is a *sexual
orientation*, like heterosexuality and homosexuality, completely
independent of any activity a person undertakes.




From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:31 PDT 1996
Article: 42815 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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: bc.general,ab.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: call your MP now
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:43:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <4mi7oi$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.general:44161 ab.general:8790 can.politics:42815

storr96@medcor.mcgill.ca (John Storring) wrote:

>In article <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com>, ab304@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Robert
>Speirs) wrote:

>>                               ALERT!  ALERT!  ALERT!
>> 
>> There is no time for petitions. You must call your MP IMMEDIATELY! The
>government is
>> trying to push Bill C-33 through as quickly as possible - most likely
>early next week.
>> Chretien does not want any chance of organized resistance like he had
>with C-41.
>> 
>Robert, I've already posted in reply to your call for a petition showing
>where  your initial premises about what the implications of the amendments
>to the CHRA will mean are DEAD WRONG. Now rather than try and defend your
>position, you merely reiterate your points. 

>The CHRA amendments will not:

>1. redefine spouse- only a PROVINCIAL legislature can do that.

Since the CHRA covers the federal government's relations with the
citizenry, the federal government will have to curb all its laws,
programs and activities to abide by it. Taxation law with respect to
marriage relationships will not survive, as this would be seen as
systemic discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If the
provinces do not redefine "spouse" the federal power will be obliged,
under the very CHRA that is being amended, to inaugurate AA programs
to compensate homosexuals.

>2. Alter the criminal code - "sexual orientation" refers exclusively to
>homo-/hetero/bi-. Paedophilia CANNOT be defended by this clause.

Where in the criminal code is there such a definition? There is also
no prohibition to paedophilia as a "sexual orientation" in the
criminal code. In fact, the definitions of sex crimes are not
concerned at all with the sexual orientation of anyone, but limit
themselves to competence and activities.

>3. automatically permit gay adoptions - again provinical responsibility.

The federal power will then have to inaugurate AA programs to
compensate homosexuals who cannot receive taxation benefits or status
simply because they were denied the right to have children, simply on
the basis of their sexual orientation.


>4. Give any special right to gays or lesbians. The CHRA merely PROHIBITS
>discrimitation on the basis of an outlined series of characteristics. (ie
>one canno discrimitate because one is female OR male, black OR white, and
>if this goes through gay OR straight) 

The amendment seeks to give status to people on the basis of their
self-defined and unverifiable "sexual orientation". It does not
therefore "give" anyone any rights, but takes away everyone's right to
make decisions on the basis of their views with respect to sexual
activities. It is denying people the freedom to discriminate on the
basis of "activities" people undertake, which is pure
authoritarianism.

>The freedom from discrimination will be granted to ALL Canadians
>irrespective of their sexual orientation.

Except that the CHRA is subject to Section 15 (2) of the CCRF, which
will allow the government to discriminate against anyone,
notwithstanding constitutional prohibitions, on the sole basis that
they have a certain sexual orientation. And what legislation grants
the preparation, oversight and enforcement of such discriminatory
programs? Why, the very same CHRA you say will be granting all
Canadians freedom from discrimination "irrespective of their sexual
orientation".


...[some deleted]...

>However it is important to the gay and
>lesbian community that the discrimination they have faced historically
>(and you know that they have) is recognized by the feds, and has been
>found to be wrong.

But no one ever bothers to explain what is wrong with discriminating
against people on the basis of their support or participation in
abhorrent sexual activities? People have no problem discriminating
against hookers and their Johns, or those who fondle sheep and
gerbils, and a myriad other poor souls propelled by any number of
sexual orientations. The government is enforcing religion with this
amendment, and that is bad law in a liberal democracy.






From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:32 PDT 1996
Article: 42816 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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: violence against women:  More "unpretty" stats
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:43:45 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4mi7pm$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

lemieux@cce.ubc.ca 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.

>>It is People like you that makes it necessary to have an  AA
>>policy in force. 

>"Of course it is. I am a "male" who, unforgivably, presumes and demands
>"a right to equal treatment before and under the law.

>"Pardon me, but AA isn't interested in people's actions, but solely
>"their sex and race. And those who legislate, enforce, deliberately
>"benefit from and support AA are the people who will be learning about
>"responsibility" in the next few years, boyo. 

>"Some, thanks to the hero Lepine, have learned already.

>Well since you unforgiveably presume and demand a right to equal treatment 
>before and under the law, you can go to prison for the rest of your life like 
>Lepine would have, for murder of anyone despite race, sex, sexual persuasion 
>or religion.

Tell it to Homolka. 




From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:33 PDT 1996
Article: 42822 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!tribune.usask.ca!decwrl!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Bob Ringma ( was: Copp's Resignation a Farce...)
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:37:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4mi7dj$3f2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mac0f$50a@steel.interlog.com> <4malkn$769@thoth.portal.ca> <1996May2.095741@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mbier$o27@sparky.insinc.net> <4md04f$dnk@steel.interlog.com> <4mejvl$5od@news.magi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:716 can.politics:42822

nsidor@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:

>coop@interlog.com (jc) wrote:

>>I fail to see what is dangerous about not supporting the kind of ethnic 
>>country that has resulted only in the last 30 years. As well, I fail to see 
>>what is dangerous about finding homosexuality repulsive!

>What's really repulsive is your lack of tolerance. What difference
>could it possibly make to you if this country is more "ethnic", or if
>some folks are homosexual?

It makes literally no difference until "ethnics" and "homosexuals" are
given privileged legal status in law. Then "tolerance" has become
compulsion and all bets are off. 

>If those things are really causing you a lot of stress, I'm sure your
>doctor could recommend some good drugs.

I see. Tolerance through pharmaceuticals is to be the Brave New World.





From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:33 PDT 1996
Article: 42823 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!tribune.usask.ca!decwrl!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Bob Ringma ( was: Copp's Resignation a Farce...)
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:38:29 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4mi7fq$3f2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mac0f$50a@steel.interlog.com> <4malkn$769@thoth.portal.ca> <1996May2.095741@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mccd8$u26@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <1996May3.091904@malad1.mala.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:717 can.politics:42823

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

>> Acceptance of gays as equal and moral people is simply not as 
>> common as it is for blacks etc.  Until it is, let's not get carried 
>> away in calling for Ringma's head for his homophobic comments.

What I want explained is the justification for government forcing, on
pain of law and sanction, people to accept homosexuality and the
practices that flow from it as "morally good". Is Canada a theocracy?

>    Granted it's a far to common attitude, however that doesn't excuse a
>person in a position of leadership for giving credence to such a viewpoint.

Why? Ringma's remarks were unexceptional with respect to homosexuals
and "ethnics". The central point at issue should be his expressed
business philosophy, which is dangerously utilitarian. As I noted in a
past post, I'm sure if Ringma thought having homosexuals and "ethnics"
would increase his profit he'd fall over himself hiring them.



From pkolding@cts.com Sun May  5 23:40:34 PDT 1996
Article: 42839 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: anti-immigration and Christian ethics
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 07:02:36 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4mhjq8$mig@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.canada:87146 can.politics:42839

au999@torfree.net (Andrew T. Chow) wrote:

>I agree.  The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the 
>individual while enacting the will of the majority.  NOT establishing the 
>rights of the majority while stifling the lives of the minority.

But you are an acknowledged supporter of AA, are you not? AA
represents neither the "will of the majority" nor protects the rights
of the individual, and stifles millions of "minority" lives. 





From pkolding@cts.com Mon May  6 00:23:38 PDT 1996
Article: 87146 of soc.culture.canada
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: anti-immigration and Christian ethics
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 07:02:36 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4mhjq8$mig@news2.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.canada:87146 can.politics:42839

au999@torfree.net (Andrew T. Chow) wrote:

>I agree.  The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the 
>individual while enacting the will of the majority.  NOT establishing the 
>rights of the majority while stifling the lives of the minority.

But you are an acknowledged supporter of AA, are you not? AA
represents neither the "will of the majority" nor protects the rights
of the individual, and stifles millions of "minority" lives. 





From pkolding@cts.com Mon May  6 12:19:30 PDT 1996
Article: 76208 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,hamilton.general
Subject: Re: I love Sheila Copps-and who wouldn't??????
Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 07:04:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4mevgv$5i2@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m5nao$hj2@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4m7qo5$din@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4m8bvg$m3@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> <4matd2$cr2@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:76208 can.politics:42663

af836@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Robert Deans) wrote:

>I wonder how many of the rest of us would be working if we had to resign 
>every time we said something stupid?

You should instead wonder if you'd fly in a plane where the pilot lied
to get her job.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May  6 12:19:30 PDT 1996
Article: 76254 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!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.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 12:42:54 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4mi7o3$3fc@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:76254 can.politics:42814

welsh@uniserve.com (Barry Welsh) wrote:

>>Wrong, again.  The term is "sexual orientation".  There is not one
>>credible scientific opinion that posits that pedophilia is a sexual
>>"orientation".  Nor is necrophilia, bestiality, etc.

Let me remind you that exactly the same position was taken with
respect to homosexuality 30 years ago.

One's sexual orientation is defined by the object of one's sexual
desire, and has nothing to do with the actual sexual attributes of
that object, if any. Paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc., are
not "forms" of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Rather, they are
definitive sexual orientations precisely because they are not
heterosexual or homosexual orientations. 

And from a legal view, it is a lucky thing---until some nitwit has
"sexual orientation" considered as a prohibited form of
discrimination.We are then faced with a Catch-22: If sexual
orientation is only to be defined as heterosexual, homosexual or
bisexual what does one say about the paedophile who is simply
indulging in sexual acts in accordance with his sexual orientation? He
must, by the very criteria we have set up, be acting in a
heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual manner and therefore he should
not be discriminated against because of it. On the other hand, if the
truth is retained and sexual orientation is defined as actually being
one's sexual orientation, then the paedophile finds himself with
exactly the same legal defense.

Let me stress something: having sex with children is not in and of
itself evidence of paedophilia, just as a man having sex with females
does not make him a heterosexual. Paedophilia is a *sexual
orientation*, like heterosexuality and homosexuality, completely
independent of any activity a person undertakes.




From pkolding@cts.com Mon May  6 15:19:53 PDT 1996
Article: 35035 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!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ken McVay the worst sterotype of a Jew
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:26:30 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4mlg89$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m0co9$qd9@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4m7alt$2ca@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4m90eb$hle@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <4mas4s$c2s@news.nyu.edu> <4mbmb2$shn@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4mh9ed$s1t@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:19196 alt.discrimination:46514 alt.revisionism:35035 alt.skinheads:21930 can.politics:42927

mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:

>>-- 
>>The Nizkor Project (Canada) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
>>      Over 100Megs of data: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl? 
>>            Europe: ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
>>Nizkor Web: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction - permanently!)


>	Ah, yes.  Jews never forget.  

Then I suggest you are more Jewish than most, Giwer.

>At least you are one of the most disgusting animals I have 
>ever read in my life.  

This is pure abuse, and, more to the point, you seem incapable of
proving it. 

>	You give Jews a bad name.  

I don't care for McVay's methods, but he doesn't reflect "Jews" any
more than you do.

>You are the worst example of humanity that ever posted on the
>internet.   

He's an unpleasant ideologue who seeks to co-opt the state machinery
to sanction and oppress people who's opinion he doesn't care for. That
earns him my contempt, but he's hardly the worst thing on the
Internet. On the other hand, you seem to transform people who disagree
with you into secret members of an all-seeing and all-knowing Jewish
world-controlling, devil-inspired cabal.

It is pathetic, transparent nonsense unfit for human consumption.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May  6 15:29:58 PDT 1996
Article: 27826 of alt.politics.white-power
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!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Pissed McGoyVay.. Round 3
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:26:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4mlg7p$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <1996Apr30.205208.23945@wpg.ramp.net> <4ma68h$b0s@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4mevgf$5i2@news2.cts.com> <4mg69t$pht@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mgnin$lu@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:27826 can.politics:42926

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

>>In fact, one reporter (who is very well informed) wrote in a review that
>> he counted 19 errors in one chapter.  Pretty lousy research.

>Since Mr. Lockhart maintains that his being identified as a
>Klan member is an error, one wonders why he has not asked Mr.
>Kinsella to back up his assertion where it counts - in a civil
>court. I certainly would, were I tarred with that brush.

I see. When you say something it is to be taken as the shining truth
until the court rules otherwise. On the other hand, when someone who
disagrees with you says something, it is to be taken as a dubious,
unfounded theory until the court rules otherwise. A trifle convenient,
don't you think?




From pkolding@cts.com Mon May  6 16:14:24 PDT 1996
Article: 21929 of alt.skinheads
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!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,can.politics
Subject: Re: Les Griswold: Public Figure
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:24:37 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4mlg4p$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m0co9$qd9@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mbmb2$shn@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4mcdgq$qdr@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <4meko7$a0t@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mfups$nj1@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.skinheads:21929 can.politics:42925

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

>In article <4meko7$a0t@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, 
>bb374@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jenn Starkman) wrote:

>>Considering the fact that one of Mr. McVay's very first statements,
>>however, was the rather straightforward "I wouldn't dream of getting the
>>Griswold fired", you're obviously fishing with the wrong end of the pole.

>When someone lives a life built upon of fraudulent constructs, 
>even having a pole to fish with is an accomplishment. It
>becomes clearer by the day that Mr. Griswold is ashamed of his
>message and his discredited philosophy. Why else would he
>react in such a way to a marvellous opportunity to address
>prominent Canadian lawmakers?

Are you really trying to pass off the idea that Parliamentary hearings
are about the dissemination of knowledge to lawmakers!!!!!


...[some deleted]...

>Mr. Griswold, should he receive an invitation to address the
>Standing Committee on Human Rights, may find it in his best
>interest to do so; Parliament would not compel him to do so -
>the choice would be his. 

>Should he refuse, however, whatever shred of credibility
>remains of his "message" will have disappeared beyond
>recovery. His reputation as a hypocrite, liar and fraud will
>have been established beyond reproach.

I see. The failure to voluntarily submit one's views to the government
now establishes one, beyond reproach no less, as a "hypocrite, liar
and fraud" in Canada. 

And you say you are an _opponent_ of the Nazi method and system?
.







From pkolding@cts.com Mon May  6 16:51:12 PDT 1996
Article: 42924 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!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: nj.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,can.politics
Subject: Re: [3/4] Welfare
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:23:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4mlg26$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <3184804D.5B68@village.ios.com> <4m2ab2$gda@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4m8tfq$pau@goodnews.wv.tek.com> <4mfsgd$os8@paperboy.ids.net> <318C27BD.6406@mail.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:301210 alt.politics.democrats.d:73193 talk.politics.misc:368355 talk.politics.guns:256788 alt.politics.usa.republican:191398 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:53137 alt.politics.usa.misc:78975 alt.politics.usa.constitution:60002 alt.politics.usa.congress:35477 alt.politics.reform:66037 alt.politics.radical-left:87572 alt.politics.perot:44149 alt.politics.libertarian:161206 talk.politics.libertarian:82253 alt.politics.elections:59963 alt.politics.economics:49474 alt.politics.correct:98303 alt.politics.clinton:230508 can.politics:42924

Joseph Bowen  wrote:

>Michael Zarlenga wrote:

>> Go to ANY busy department of Health and Social Services and listen to
>> the young girls talking amongst themselves.  It will become immediately
>> obvious that most of children in those strollers are meal tickets.

>One would think that an appropriate response would be to teach sex ed and 
>the difficulties and responsibilities of children, in the classroom, 
>before this happens, so that some of them would change their attitudes.  
>The fact is, a baby is a pretty lousy meal ticket.

The fact is, it isn't. If your only ambition is sex, food and watching
TV welfare is a great deal.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May  6 17:15:17 PDT 1996
Article: 368355 of talk.politics.misc
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!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: nj.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,can.politics
Subject: Re: [3/4] Welfare
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:23:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4mlg26$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <3184804D.5B68@village.ios.com> <4m2ab2$gda@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4m8tfq$pau@goodnews.wv.tek.com> <4mfsgd$os8@paperboy.ids.net> <318C27BD.6406@mail.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:301210 alt.politics.democrats.d:73193 talk.politics.misc:368355 talk.politics.guns:256788 alt.politics.usa.republican:191398 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:53137 alt.politics.usa.misc:78975 alt.politics.usa.constitution:60002 alt.politics.usa.congress:35477 alt.politics.reform:66037 alt.politics.radical-left:87572 alt.politics.perot:44149 alt.politics.libertarian:161206 talk.politics.libertarian:82253 alt.politics.elections:59963 alt.politics.economics:49474 alt.politics.correct:98303 alt.politics.clinton:230508 can.politics:42924

Joseph Bowen  wrote:

>Michael Zarlenga wrote:

>> Go to ANY busy department of Health and Social Services and listen to
>> the young girls talking amongst themselves.  It will become immediately
>> obvious that most of children in those strollers are meal tickets.

>One would think that an appropriate response would be to teach sex ed and 
>the difficulties and responsibilities of children, in the classroom, 
>before this happens, so that some of them would change their attitudes.  
>The fact is, a baby is a pretty lousy meal ticket.

The fact is, it isn't. If your only ambition is sex, food and watching
TV welfare is a great deal.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May  6 17:19:47 PDT 1996
Article: 256788 of talk.politics.guns
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!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: nj.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,can.politics
Subject: Re: [3/4] Welfare
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:23:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4mlg26$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <3184804D.5B68@village.ios.com> <4m2ab2$gda@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4m8tfq$pau@goodnews.wv.tek.com> <4mfsgd$os8@paperboy.ids.net> <318C27BD.6406@mail.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:301210 alt.politics.democrats.d:73193 talk.politics.misc:368355 talk.politics.guns:256788 alt.politics.usa.republican:191398 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:53137 alt.politics.usa.misc:78975 alt.politics.usa.constitution:60002 alt.politics.usa.congress:35477 alt.politics.reform:66037 alt.politics.radical-left:87572 alt.politics.perot:44149 alt.politics.libertarian:161206 talk.politics.libertarian:82253 alt.politics.elections:59963 alt.politics.economics:49474 alt.politics.correct:98303 alt.politics.clinton:230508 can.politics:42924

Joseph Bowen  wrote:

>Michael Zarlenga wrote:

>> Go to ANY busy department of Health and Social Services and listen to
>> the young girls talking amongst themselves.  It will become immediately
>> obvious that most of children in those strollers are meal tickets.

>One would think that an appropriate response would be to teach sex ed and 
>the difficulties and responsibilities of children, in the classroom, 
>before this happens, so that some of them would change their attitudes.  
>The fact is, a baby is a pretty lousy meal ticket.

The fact is, it isn't. If your only ambition is sex, food and watching
TV welfare is a great deal.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May  6 17:24:12 PDT 1996
Article: 98303 of alt.politics.correct
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!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: nj.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,can.politics
Subject: Re: [3/4] Welfare
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:23:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4mlg26$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <3184804D.5B68@village.ios.com> <4m2ab2$gda@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4m8tfq$pau@goodnews.wv.tek.com> <4mfsgd$os8@paperboy.ids.net> <318C27BD.6406@mail.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:301210 alt.politics.democrats.d:73193 talk.politics.misc:368355 talk.politics.guns:256788 alt.politics.usa.republican:191398 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:53137 alt.politics.usa.misc:78975 alt.politics.usa.constitution:60002 alt.politics.usa.congress:35477 alt.politics.reform:66037 alt.politics.radical-left:87572 alt.politics.perot:44149 alt.politics.libertarian:161206 talk.politics.libertarian:82253 alt.politics.elections:59963 alt.politics.economics:49474 alt.politics.correct:98303 alt.politics.clinton:230508 can.politics:42924

Joseph Bowen  wrote:

>Michael Zarlenga wrote:

>> Go to ANY busy department of Health and Social Services and listen to
>> the young girls talking amongst themselves.  It will become immediately
>> obvious that most of children in those strollers are meal tickets.

>One would think that an appropriate response would be to teach sex ed and 
>the difficulties and responsibilities of children, in the classroom, 
>before this happens, so that some of them would change their attitudes.  
>The fact is, a baby is a pretty lousy meal ticket.

The fact is, it isn't. If your only ambition is sex, food and watching
TV welfare is a great deal.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:26 PDT 1996
Article: 42951 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarians are 0.001% of B.C. population
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:16:58 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4mlfme$ake@news2.cts.com>
References:  <1996May3.222157@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mgpbn$92j@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:782 can.politics:42951

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>>   I don't think it's fair to judge the BC Libertarians by the postings
>>of "Lazarus Long". I understand he lives in Ontario and is, by his own
>>admission, more of an anarchist than a libertarian.

>On the contrary, I think it is very fair.  Regardless of Keith Weaver
>(alias Lazarus Long) living in St. Catharines,Ont.,  Ken actively
>seeks Keith's support and assistance, so it is only fair to consider
>Keith's demeanor in assessing their group.  It is interesting to note
>that while our mouthy friend Weaver keeps railing against governmnt
>funding for special interest groups, his own livelihood depends on
>exactly that funding.  You might want to consider that when you hear
>either of the two accusing others of hypocrisy or lack of principles.

I think it is a confused argument to insist, on the one hand, that
people who disagree with the system must nonetheless respect it  
and obey the laws, and then, when they do respect the system, claim
they lack "principle" by doing so. The habit of government handing out
money to special interest groups is the government's, not Long's, and
I don't see why he should be singled out for a moral check-up because
of it.

 




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:27 PDT 1996
Article: 42956 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: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:20:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <4mlfsm$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mi7o3$3fc@news2.cts.com> <4mjg3l$mpq@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> One's sexual orientation is defined by the object of one's sexual
>> desire, and has nothing to do with the actual sexual attributes of
>> that object, if any. Paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc., are
>> not "forms" of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Rather, they are
>> definitive sexual orientations precisely because they are not
>> heterosexual or homosexual orientations. 

>	They are called FETISHES. Pedophilia, necrophilia, and other
>attributes are ELIGIBILITY FETISHES, where a person has to have a certain
>charecteristic in order to be an acceptable partner. 
>	They are most definitely not sexual orientations. 

I have already covered this red herring. If necrophilia, for example,
is not a sexual orientation, then it must be a consequence of a sexual
orientation. And the necrophiliac is perfectly correct to consider
his "fetish" as an attribute of his constitutionally-protected sexual
orientation.

>All major studies, clinics, and scientists who research sexual 
>behavior agree onthis topic. 
>My resource is The Kinsey 1990 study. Come up with something
>better ot drop this line of discussion cause it's gettin old.

I'm afraid that everyone has a sexual orientation and behaves in
accordance with it. Necrophilia, since it defines a sexual activity,
denotes a sexual orientation. A sexual orientation, whatever it is,
which is to be a prohibited form of discrimination.


>> And from a legal view, it is a lucky thing---until some nitwit has
>> "sexual orientation" considered as a prohibited form of
>> discrimination.We are then faced with a Catch-22: If sexual
>> orientation is only to be defined as heterosexual, homosexual or
>> bisexual what does one say about the paedophile who is simply
>> indulging in sexual acts in accordance with his sexual orientation? He
>> must, by the very criteria we have set up, be acting in a
>> heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual manner and therefore he should
>> not be discriminated against because of it. On the other hand, if the
>> truth is retained and sexual orientation is defined as actually being
>> one's sexual orientation, then the paedophile finds himself with
>> exactly the same legal defense.

>	I am white. If i rip off a bank i will be exhibiting white
>charecteristics such as light skin and a fondness for Tom Jones. 
>	I cannot get off by claming that, since i am white, jailing me
>would be discriminatory. 
>	This argument is silly. 

You reveal the essence of the problem, and then fail to understand it.
Race is independent of any activity, by its very nature. There is no
such thing a "white" activity. On the other hand, "sexual orientation"
IS dependent on activity, because it denotes a prejudice towards the
purposes and manner of sexual *activity*.


>> Let me stress something: having sex with children is not in and of
>> itself evidence of paedophilia

>	It is to every court in Canada. In a clinical sense, you are
>right. One time does not make you a repeat offender. However, it is still
>pedophilia in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the canadian public. 

It is not. There is no crime of paedophilia. Sexual orientation plays
no part in the definition of sex crimes.......presently.

...[some deleted]...


>	 please describe how pedophilia is different from a
>sweater/long hair fetish and how it is the same as heterosexuality. 

Please name the sexual orientation---homosexual, heterosexual or
bisexual---of a paedophile. As soon as you do, I hope you will finally
understand that the paedophile's activities are a consequence of his
sexual orientation---which is to be prohibited form of discrimination.

I am not, by the way,  making the argument that laws against sex with
children will be repealed as a consequence of the amendment. I am
saying that the amendment is bad law, and that people should have the
right to discriminate against others on the grounds of their
self-declared and confirmed sexual orientation.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:29 PDT 1996
Article: 42957 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: Smuggling aliens into Canada....I
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:21:54 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4mlfvl$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m0kke$sm0@freenet-news.carleton.ca>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

gdaymate@iceonline.com (Trikky T) wrote:


>	As is the case with the United States, the vast majority of illegal
>immigrants from Mexico that are smuggled in are bought in by
>caucasions.

I've lived in San Diego for the last five years or so and your
understanding of the situation is laughable. The vast majority of
illegals from Mexico smuggle themselves in, and the rest are brought
in, overland, by fellow Mexicans, and by sea, by Asians.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:29 PDT 1996
Article: 42959 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: Mulroney's $50-Million reputation....
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:25:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4mlg6l$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4ll7ar$2bu@hermes.dciem.dnd.ca> <4mg4db$2bn$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Kevin Auld (kauld@agt.net) <104450.2455@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>I've noticed this trend about people posting from sympatico. They
>all seem to be extremely right wing and complete idiots as well.

Have you checked under your bed lately? You never can tell where these
extremely right wing people will hide themselves these days.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:31 PDT 1996
Article: 42960 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: We won!!!
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:26:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4mlg7u$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mgo8l$t1c@elmo.cadvision.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

igguldec@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) wrote:

>        It is about time the gay and lesbian community had something to 
>celebrate in this homohating country we live in. Now it will no longer be 
>legal for the bigots to persecute us.

Homosexual acts were decriminalised some thirty years ago, weren't
they?

>        It is interesting to read all the negative posts from people who claim 
>they are not homophobes or bigots and that they would never discriminate 
>against someone based on sexual orientation. I wonder why they are so upset by 
>this legislation then...hmmm, a point to ponder.

It is indeed a point to ponder. One can't help thinking why you
haven't done so already, however. What I have gathered from the posts
you refer to is that many people do *not* make the argument you say
they do. They do not make the claim that they would never discriminate
against people based on their sexual orientation, but, on the contrary
think they have the right in judging people on the basis of the
actvities they support and undertake, and acting on that judgement.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:31 PDT 1996
Article: 42961 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.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: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:26:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <4mlg84$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$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> <4m6k8s$hbg@news2.cts.com> <4m720k$siu@knot.queensu.ca> <4mdg4j$737@news2.cts.com> <4mh41p$lc9@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:
>: huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>: >(1) Sexual orientation is _at least_ as much a declaration as religion, 
>: >not political ideology. 

>: You are wrong. Claims for protection under religious guarantees demand
>: independent verification, which is impossible with respect to "sexual
>: orientation" *unless sexual actvities are considered as indicating
>: sexual orientation*.

>I seem to be in the habit of correcting your mistakes.  In order to file 
>complaint to either the Canadian or a provincial Human Rights Commission 
>and win, the complainant need only show that the defendant believed that 
>the complainant was of a certain religion and that, based on that belief, 
>the defendant discriminated against the complainant.  THE COMPLAINANT 
>NEED NOT BE RELIGIOUS AT ALL, MUCH LESS A MEMBER OF THE RELIGION THAT THE 
>DEFENDANT BELIEVED WAS TRUE.

Alas, you are out of your depth. If discrimination on the basis of
"religion" is the accusation someone has to prove that such a religion
actually exists. That is whole the point, Tim---sexual orientation is
not subject to independent verification, nor is it even knowable apart
>from  a declaration of the party involved. It is a political view, no
more.

>Thus, the parallel for a complaint under the basis of sexual 
>orientation, a complainant need only show that the defendant had assumed 
>the complainant was of a particular sexual orientation (gay/lesbian or 
>straight) and then proceeded to discriminate under those grounds.
>	
I agree that the mere accusation is to be tantamount to proof. How is
one supposed to prove discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation, when it can constitute no more than opinion? Only one
way---by ruling that any speech indicating disapproval of any
particular sexual orientation is prima facie evidence of
discrimination. This amendment, in effect, will deny people the right
to publically disapprove of any sexual orientation whatever, or risk
legal sanctions.


...[some deleted]...

>	The analogy that I draw is simply the announcement that I am a 
>person who desires to engage in some kind of criminal activity (which 
>the act of pedopilia is).  Under the logic you use, simply for making 
>this statement, people should have the legal right to discriminate 
>against me -- and you are at least consistent enough to make that same 
>point in the example I used above. 

I simply don't see any problem with this. If someone comes to me
seeking employment and says that he finds children sexually
attractive, I don't---and I won't---hire him. If he comes and says
that he believes property is theft and that employers should be hanged
>from  the lamposts, I don't---and I won't---hire him. This is perfectly
legitimate discrimination and I reject the concept that government has
the authority to make me associate with such people in the conduct of
my life or business. 

Equally, I strongly object to the government taking these decisions
out of people's hands using the involuntary proxies inherent in public
schooling and certain other mandatory government-controlled services.

...[some deleted]....

>	My point follows under the presumption that freedom of 
>speech to reasonable limits is of fundamental importance to a democratic 
>society.  Freedom of speech simply means the right to communicate 
>anything subject only to reasonable limits (direct cause of harm to 
>others) without fear of sanction by government or private agents.  By 
>stating that it is morally justifiable that persons be discriminated 
>against on the basis of their statements when such statements do not 
>exceed the reasonable limits, you are stating that you do not believe in 
>freedom of speech, and, therefore, you do not believe in democracy.

I think you have strange view of freedom, much less freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means that people may say what they wish without
fear of GOVERNMENT sanctions based on the content of their opinions.
It means that people may say things and not have to submit their views
for approval to the GOVERNMENT before they are distributed to the
public. Someone who respects freedom of speech opposes GOVERNMENT
interference and sanction of opinion, and supports the concept that
censoring people's opinions is antithetical to its fulfillment. 

...[some deleted]...

>[they = equal rights supporters ] 
>: Far worse---they are demanding that disapproving opinions be subject
>: to sanction under the cover of harrassment and hate laws, and that
>: people's actual ACTIVITIES be constrained unless they signify approval
>: of gays, homosexuals or the sexual orientation of anyone.

>If you would so kindly take a moment to read my posts fully prior to 
>replying to them, you would note that the restriction against the 
>expressing of disapproving opinions is covered by the freedom of speech 
>clauses, not by any sexual orientation clause.  

Saying this doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. The unverifiable and
intrinsically private nature of "sexual orientation" means, in
practical terms, that only hearsay evidence will be available to
"prove" discrimination on this basis. This means that any remarks made
that disapprove of any particular sexual orientation will constitute
the proof of discrimination when linked to any act. Now that this law
has passed it will be, for all practical purposes, *evidence* of
discrimination to express disapproval of any particular sexual
orientation, even by implication.

...[some deleted]...

>: Please name the rights and privileges now accorded heterosexuals that
>: are not accorded homosexuals. There are NO laws, rights or privileges
>: based on sexual orientation extant.

>Mr. Kolding, we have both covered this ground already and I find it hard 
>to believe that your memory is so poor.  If that is indeed the case, I 
>suggest that you save the posts in threads that you participate in so 
>that you can refresh your memory by reading previous posts.  You might 
>also consider taking the time to read those posts, possibly with the 
>assistance of a dictionary.  I suspect that it is too much to hope for 
>that you also read with an open mind.

>Given two couples that are identical in every respect with the ONLY 
>exception that one couple is same-sex and the other is opposite-sex, the 
>opposite-sex couple has or can have legal rights the same-sex couple 
>cannot.  

Let me understand your reasoning: homosexuality is identical to
heterosexuality, except that they are diametrically opposite.
Marriage--a relationship of husband and wife undertaken by, and only
possible by people of the oppsite sex, is identical to homosexual
co-habitation---except for the sexual nature of the relationship, the
sex of the people involved, and the impossiblity of two people of the
same sex to have a husband and wife relationship.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:32 PDT 1996
Article: 42962 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: carleton.talk.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ncf.general
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:26:40 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4mlg8j$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8t4d$66t@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:42962 ont.general:39064

mcallis@uwindsor.ca (Brian McAllister) wrote:


>It is OK to fire homosexuals if they are bankrupting you - so long as the 
>reason you are firing them is not based on their homosexuality.  Nothing 
>in the amendments prevents an employer from firing someone (of any sexual 
>orientation) for normal business reasons.  

And how exactly does one prove such discrimination without,
inevitably, relying completely on an employer's publically stated
views with respect to sexual orientation? This law makes disapproving
of any sexual orientation, and by extension any particular sexual act,
tanatamount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:33 PDT 1996
Article: 42963 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: QUEBEC REFERENDUMS
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:27:20 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4mlg9r$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mjevk$htu@news1.sympatico.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

ted.charters@sympatico.ca (Ted Charters) wrote:

>If the Chretien Liberals had the brains and the courage to act like a
>national government they would take action to ensure that  the
>following points are  clearly understood by all the provinces:

>1. Canada is a nation committed to and  bound by the rule of law.

>2. Canada is not a temporary arrangement and there is no lawful
>    mechanism for a province to secede  from the federation.

>3. Provincial referendums dealing with secession are expressions of 
>    opinion without legal  standing and will  not be  recognized by 
>    the  federal government.
> 
>4. Any unilateral declaration of independence by a province would have

>    no lawful effect and would be blocked by the federal government  
>   using  every lawful means at its disposal.

>5. Should parliament and the provinces decide to amend the   
>    constitution to permit secession, then any such law would have to

>    be approved by a two thirds  majority  in a national referendum.
>   
>Once the phony threat of secession has been put aside, the federal
>government and the provinces could get down to more  rational  talks
>and negotiations about  how to make Canada  work better for  all
>Canadians.


I can't fault any of these 5 points on their own terms. What they fail
to address, however, is that maybe independence for Quebec and the
West IS rational, and in the best interests of the people concerned. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:34 PDT 1996
Article: 43237 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Bob Ringma ( was: Copp's Resignation a Farce...)
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:36:36 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4mo579$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mac0f$50a@steel.interlog.com> <4malkn$769@thoth.portal.ca> <1996May2.095741@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mccd8$u26@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <1996May3.091904@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4menl2$i5u@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <1996May4.085733@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mj9a5$9ma@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <1996May5.193331@malad1.mala.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:882 can.politics:43237 ont.general:39170

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


>     Laws which state that the personal lifestyle of others is none of
>your business don't strike me as being on the road to dictatorship. Rather
>the reverse they codify that noone ( including the government ) has a right
>to impose a behaviour on others without good cause.

The problem with this is that it leads to despotism, because it leaves
the government as the sole authority of what is "good cause" in even
the most personal and private matters. The present AA situation is a
wonderful living example of this process in action. There is no good
cause to discriminate on this or that basis, declares the government,
and then, instead of forbidding the behaviour outright, it simply
grants itself the *exclusive* power to discriminate on these grounds .

>     How many dictatorships have started from the premise that it is
>not permissible to discriminate against others? Even a cursory look at history
>will show that dictatorships are far more likely to start from the premise
>that certain groups within the society are doing thing "abhorrent to decent
>citizens" and that it is acceptable to do whatever is necessary to stop
>them.

You have described the pretext used to defend AA in a nutshell.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:35 PDT 1996
Article: 43238 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Bob Ringma ( was: Copp's Resignation a Farce...)
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:36:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4mo57f$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mac0f$50a@steel.interlog.com> <4malkn$769@thoth.portal.ca> <1996May2.095741@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mbier$o27@sparky.insinc.net> <4md04f$dnk@steel.interlog.com> <4mejvl$5od@news.magi.com> <4mi7dj$3f2@news2.cts.com> <4mjmcf$9fn@news.magi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:883 can.politics:43238

nsidor@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

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

>>>coop@interlog.com (jc) wrote:

>>>>I fail to see what is dangerous about not supporting the kind of ethnic 
>>>>country that has resulted only in the last 30 years. As well, I fail to see 
>>>>what is dangerous about finding homosexuality repulsive!

>>>What's really repulsive is your lack of tolerance. What difference
>>>could it possibly make to you if this country is more "ethnic", or if
>>>some folks are homosexual?

>>It makes literally no difference until "ethnics" and "homosexuals" are
>>given privileged legal status in law. Then "tolerance" has become
>>compulsion and all bets are off. 

>There are exactly three idiots in Canada who think that human rights
>legislation is the same thing as "privileged legal status". One is
>you, Kolding. The other two morons don't have internet accounts to
>inflict us with their nonsense.

I can hardly be included in your census, as I don't live in Canada. 
And I think you really must be the most obtuse fellow if you don't
understand that giving people rights that are dependent exclusively on
certain physical or political attributes they hold is the award, by
definition, of privilege. 






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:36 PDT 1996
Article: 43239 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Tell me what's wrong with Ringma's statement
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:09 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4mo58b$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mfjam$h3i@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mg1kg$2cm@news.inforamp.net> <4mg9ro$22m@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4mi84g$3fc@news2.cts.com> <1996May5.190449@malad1.mala.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:43239 bc.politics:884

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

>In article <4mi84g$3fc@news2.cts.com>, 
>    pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>> People still refuse to answer the obvious question: Why shouldn't one
>> be allowed to discrimnate against people on the basis of their support
>> and/or participation in abhorrent sexual activities? I think it is
>> pure degeneracy, and extremely bad law, for the government to force
>> people to associate upon this basis.
>> 

>     I thought I answered this question a couple of days ago, but anyway:

>   People should not be allowed to discriminate against others on the
>basis of their support and/or participation in "abhorrent sexual activities"
>for precisely the same reasons they should not be allowed to discriminate
>against people on the basis of their support and/or participation in any
>given religious, political or social activity. In short, what adults do
>amongst themselves in private is none of your business unless you can
>clearly demonstrate it is harming you in some way.

I think this is the most concise and lucid response I've received on
this subject. In another article in this thread I responded to what I
thought was the central error in such thinking. I observed that no one
is obliged to associate with Catholics, Nazis or golfers, and that
such "discriminatory" decisions are an inextricable part of being an
autonomous person. 

>    I suggest you either drop this line of argument or open it up to
>include all human rights laws.

I am not at all enamoured with the human rights laws in Canada, as
they seem to be involved in extending privileges on the basis of class
status, rather than rights based on one's humanity. But be that as it
may, I am particularly leery of the concept that *activities* are now
to be condoned, if not approved, by everyone on pain of legal
sanction.

>    btw: If you are referring to anal or oral intercourse as the
>"abhorrent sexual activities" you should consider that many heterosexuals
>also engage in these practices.

I am not referring to any particular sexual activity. I am suggesting
that people who find certain sexual activities abhorrent not be
obliged to associate with people who support and participate in them.

Let me put this in another way, using a less threatening example: I
suggest that people who find the Holocaust abhorrent, or were
incarcerated by the Nazi regime, not be obliged to associate with
ex-concentration camp guards by law. 




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:37 PDT 1996
Article: 43240 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Bob Ringma ( was: Copp's Resignation a Farce...)
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4mo58f$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mac0f$50a@steel.interlog.com> <4malkn$769@thoth.portal.ca> <1996May2.095741@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mccd8$u26@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <1996May3.091904@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mi7fq$3f2@news2.cts.com> <1996May5.193912@malad1.mala.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:885 can.politics:43240

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

>In article <4mi7fq$3f2@news2.cts.com>,
>      pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>> 
>> What I want explained is the justification for government forcing, on
>> pain of law and sanction, people to accept homosexuality and the
>> practices that flow from it as "morally good". Is Canada a theocracy?
>> 

>     They aren't. They are saying that what that individual considers
>"moral" is none of your business and that you can't colour your dealings
>with him on that basis.

I understand this---I am simply trying to find the justification for
government to enforce this view on the populace. In the quote I was
responding to, you implied that it was because "Acceptance of gays as
equal and moral people is simply not as common as it is for blacks
etc." Why should people be forced to accept homosexual (or the sexual
activities intrinsic to any sexual orientation) as being evidence of
moral behaviour that must be accepted, on pain of sanction? 

>     You have to get over the idea that the law is saying "this is good"
>and accept that what it is really saying is "this is none of your business".

No, it is saying that it is THEIR business to tell you who you may or
may not associate with and upon what grounds. My objection is not to
their authority and power, but to the grounds they are now including
as a standard. 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:38 PDT 1996
Article: 43242 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!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.community.asian,can.politics,can.atlantic.general,can.atlantic
Subject: Re: petition, sexual orientation
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:36 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4mo596$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8tdj$7on@apollo.isisnet.com>  <4mdg5i$737@news2.cts.com> <4mhd1v$4v2@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:43242 can.atlantic.general:984

aa006@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Kevin Alexander James Nugent) wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: But it *will* make discrimination against self-admitted, but
>: unconvicted paedophiles an offence. 

>Pedophiles (why use a confusing dipthong when you don't have to?) 

Call it my "language orientation".

>are not expressing a sexual orientation.  If you ask a mental health
> professional they will explain that PARAphilias, of which PEDOphilia
> is one, are what is called "eligibility fetishes".  That is analagous to 
>liking sex on a train;  It's not an orientation, it's a preference which, 
>in the case of pedophilia, is harmful to another person and therefore 
>societally unacceptable.

I've recently addressed this argument for the red-herring it is. If
one wishes to maintain that paedophilia is not a sexual orientation
you are simply making the same argument that was made with respect to
homosexuality not so many years ago. And whatever a person's sexual
activities, they are all a product of his sexual orientation if they
are sought out by him. The fellow who enjoys sex on a moving train is
indulging in activities concomitant with his sexual orientation, not
apart and separate from it. I have never made the argument, by the
way, that government may not sanction sexual activities. I have simply
offered the opinion that sexual orientation and sexual activities are
intrinsically and inescapably linked, and that people should have the
right to discriminate against people, in the conduct of their lives,
property and associations, on the basis of known activities. 

>: The difference is that sexual orientation implies, intrinsically,
>: *sexual activities and practices* which many people find abhorrent.

>Go out into the world and you'll find those who think sex of any kind is 
>abhorrent.  That's because they were raised to think that way.

I think you are right. But I also think every person in the world
places some value and moral attribute, and makes some discriminating
judgement on some particular sexual activity. 

>: I find it appalling and a sign of complete degeneracy that people are
>: to be forced to associate with *self-declared* paedophiles and other
>: sexual degenerates on pain of legal sanction. 

>It's not a sexual orientation, therefore you'll be forbidden to 
>discriminate on the same grounds as if you'd refused to hire a fully 
>qualified person who was a convicted murdurer. 

As I said, this is a sign of degeneracy, and is the sort of thing one
expects to find in a theocracy, not a liberal democracy.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:38 PDT 1996
Article: 43250 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Tell me what's wrong with Ringma's statement
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:00 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <4mo583$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mfjam$h3i@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mg1kg$2cm@news.inforamp.net> <4mg9ro$22m@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4mi84g$3fc@news2.cts.com> <4mjm73$cog@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:43250 bc.politics:891

joseph@sitka.triumf.ca (Joseph Mildenberger) wrote:

>In article <4mi84g$3fc@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:
>|> joseph@sitka.triumf.ca (Joseph Mildenberger) wrote:
>|> 
>    
>|> 
>|> >    Yes, and that is exactly why laws are needed to expressly forbid this.
>|> >    If times were really tough, many people also might be tempted  to go
>|> >    and hit someone over the head and take his wallet. In both cases, the law
>|> >    reminds otherwise-reasonable people that these are not acceptable  courses
>|> >    of action.
>|> 
>|> People still refuse to answer the obvious question: Why shouldn't one
>|> be allowed to discrimnate against people on the basis of their support
>|> and/or participation in abhorrent sexual activities? I think it is
>|> pure degeneracy, and extremely bad law, for the government to force
>|> people to associate upon this basis.
>|> 

>    O.K., then I will fire _you_ because I find your Catholic (Protestant,
>    Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Wiccan, Snake-handling, or whatever) religious
>    activities "abhorrent", or because I find your Liberal (Conservative, New
>    Democratic, Reform, Libertarian, Green, or whatever) political views and
>    activities "abhorrent", or because you play golf, and I happen to find golf
>    "abhorrent", or because you wear that ugly green shirt all of the time, or
>    for whatever damn reason I choose, simply because I find it "abhorrent".
>       We (well, most of us) long ago  decided that some things that people do,
>    e.g. religious and political beliefs and activities, are nobody else's
>    business, and that we will not tolerate abuse and discrimination of 
>    people in our society, just because someone happens to find their beliefs
>    "abhorrent". Are you with me so far ? Now, we are expanding the list of
>    areas of people's personal practices for which we will not tolerate abuse
>    and discrimination. You are free to not like this, but I am afraid that
>    you are definitely swimming against the tide of societal progress on this
>    issue. In a generation or so, people will look back and be amazed at
>    how intolerant we once were with respect to this, just as we (well, again,     
>    most of us) are amazed at how intolerant people once were with respect
>    to race, and religious and political beliefs.
>      Does this answer your question ?
>                                                      Joe

In an indirect way. What you seem to be saying, in practical terms, is
that people should be forced, on pain of legal penalty, to associate
in the conduct of their personal lives and business with, for example,
self-declared paedophiles, or others who support or participate in
abhorrent sexual behaviour. This is necessary, if I follow your
reasoning, because otherwise we would have to let people discriminate
against anyone for any reason they want.

The problem I have with this view, popular though it may be, is that
it is essentially nonsense. People already discriminate, quite
legally, against religions they don't believe in and political
opinions they don't share. They even discriminate against golfers and
those with unsound fashion sense. People are not obliged to associate
with Catholics or curb their religious views to meet Catholic
standards. No one is obliged to associate with Nazis, nor should they.

They may decline invitations to play golf, and refuse to allow the
drably attired to enter their premises. These "discriminatory"
behaviours are part and parcel of being an autonomous human being.

Let us understand something here: No one is suggesting that people
should have the right to force people to change their religion, their
politics, their athletic pursuits or their dressing habits in their
private lives. What I am suggesting is that people have a right to
choose whom they wish to associate with, and especially when the
choice is made on the basis of known *activities* of the person
concerned.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:39 PDT 1996
Article: 43251 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Tell me what's wrong with Ringma's statement
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4mo58i$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mfjam$h3i@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mg1kg$2cm@news.inforamp.net> <4mg9ro$22m@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4mi84g$3fc@news2.cts.com> <4mjv79$iq8@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:43251 bc.politics:892

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:


>>People still refuse to answer the obvious question: Why shouldn't one
>>be allowed to discrimnate against people on the basis of their support
>>and/or participation in abhorrent sexual activities? I think it is
>>pure degeneracy, and extremely bad law, for the government to force
>>people to associate upon this basis.

>OK Peter, I'll bite:

>Because an employee should be judged on his skill and performance
>only.  What he does on his own time and with whom is nobody's
>business.

Then shouldn't the the same standard be applied to the employer?
Whom he hires, and the terms of that employment in his own company, is
nobody's business but his. 







From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:40 PDT 1996
Article: 43252 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Wow, talk about discrimiation
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4mo58k$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mek5b$nh7@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>I was amazed as to the amount of outrage generated when the federal
>governemtn wants to make it illegal to discriminate against someone for
>sexual orientation. Discrimination for ANY reason is wrong.

I think you'll have to define "discrimination" in that case. People
discriminate against people every day, for all sorts of perfectly
valid and defensible reasons.

>Discrimintion only leads to hatred and violence. It is simply amazing as
>to the amount of narrow minded people in this country. One is saying
>that you have to sleep with someone of the same sex, what is being said
>is that they are people to and they deserve to be treated like the rest
>of us, free of discrimination for any reason.

I haven't seen a single post supporting the view that homsexual
behaviour be criminalised. People are simply saying that the
government is overreaching itself in forcing people to associate with
persons whose specific *behaviours* they may find abhorrent.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:41 PDT 1996
Article: 43253 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: ncf.general,carleton.talk.politics,ont.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:23 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4mo58o$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8t4d$66t@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4m90as$if8@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mb1t7$qfp@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4mbkov$coe@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4me0tb$74e@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4mffms$g3n@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mj06g$s3v@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ont.general:39178 can.politics:43253

mbird@chat.carleton.ca (M. Bird) wrote:

>> Perhaps that's simply because you don't understand the difference between
>> analyzing the theoretical answer to a theoretical quesiton and talking about
>> real world generalities.

>Legistlation is based primarily on theory.  Murder being a crime, not
>being able to fire someone because of race, these are all theoretical and
>practiced in specifics.  The "generality", in your equation, is equivalent
>to the theoretical.

The point you seem to be missing is that the inclusion of "sexual
orientation" is a NEW theory. All the other prohibited forms rest on
the basis of public and independently verifiable traits that imply no
specific *activities*. The theory is now changed, however, and the
government is obliging people to condone, if not actually approve,
specific activities on pain of legal sanction.







From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:42 PDT 1996
Article: 43254 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:25 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4mo58p$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m9bf9$q3v@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <831222272.3875snx@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 <4m9bf9$q3v@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> jvaillan@chat.carleton.ca writes:
>Otherwise, an employer has no right
>to harrass me or fire me because of my off work activities, whom I choose
>as a love partener or anything not directly related to the job 
>performed.

Then surely, by this standard, the private employment criteria an
employer sets up are his affair, and not anyone else's?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:43 PDT 1996
Article: 43255 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ns.general
Subject: Re: The heterosexual menace in Canada.
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:34 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4mo593$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m0a7f$1lb6@rex.cadvision.com> <4m6k9u$hbg@news2.cts.com> <4mdkvc$ina@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4mgea8$29i@thor.atcon.com> <4mgl6s$sic@News.Dal.Ca> <4mgvtr$lc9@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

> A tax credit for 
>heterosexual relationships only, though, is not only an inefficient 
>measure but also morally unsound.

And about to become illegal as well. It seems to me that what is
"morally unsound" is this constant drumbeat that marriage is simply a
sexual relationship, defined by the sexual orientation of the
participants. A tax credit for married people is no more morally
unsound than one for the poor, or for those who make donations to
political parties.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:44 PDT 1996
Article: 43256 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: carleton.talk.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ncf.general
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:39 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4mo598$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8t4d$66t@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4m9bf9$q3v@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4m9iqn$29a@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4mdk1r$m4p@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <173116.12596.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:43256 ont.general:39179

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

>If there is a hearing, the question is whether believing the
>faith which is being taught by the school is a bona fide
>occupational requirement. If it is, then the case will be
>dismissed.

This is where I have a problem with popular presumptions. Why should
the government be involved in determining the religious qualifications
of people in religious organisations? Don't people understand that ALL
occupations in religious institutions are religious practices, just as
all occupations in government organisations are government practices? 








From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:45 PDT 1996
Article: 43257 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ont.general
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4mo59d$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:76445 can.politics:43257 ont.general:39180

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>Pedophiles have as many rights as any other criminal.  This issue has
>NOTHING to do with rights for pedophiles.

>I will take your disgust for me as a compliment.

>Try to get informed before you make more of a fool of yourself in
>front of thousands.

I suggest that you should first understand that paedophilia is not a
crime in Canada, before commenting on other's lack of information.
With the enactment of the amendment it will now be an offence to
discriminate against paedophiles on the basis of their sexual
orientation alone. If the laws are enforced as they are for the other
human rights criteria, such as sex and race, it will also be an
offence to make derogatory comments in the workplace regarding
paedophiliac behaviour.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:46 PDT 1996
Article: 43264 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!scramble.lm.com!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!nntp.crosslink.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ns.general
Subject: Re: The heterosexual menace in Canada.
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:21:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <4mlfuo$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m0a7f$1lb6@rex.cadvision.com> <4m6k9u$hbg@news2.cts.com> <4mdkvc$ina@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4mgea8$29i@thor.atcon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

todds@atcon.con (Todd Stark) wrote:

>>: 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.

>Wouldn't you want them if you were in a life-long committed
>relationship, paying hoards of taxes, and being identical to any
>hetrosexual couple.  Who cares if the couple is penis/vagina,
>penis/penis, or vagina/vagina ???

The government and homosexual activists obviously care. If co-habiting
homosexuals wish tax benefits on that basis they should apply for
legislation on that basis. But they already tried that last year---and
were defeated in parliament. So now it is suggested that we award
overarching legal status to people simply on the basis of their
bedroom proclivities, and thus INSTRUCT parliament in these matters,
rather than suffer the humiliation of further inconvenient democratic
action.

>A committed loving couple is a couple is a couple.

IT IS NOT. A *married* couple is one that lives as husband and wife,
committed and loving, or not.

>Economically, they are all the same.

If this is the standard you are using there is no reason for you or
the government to differentiate between the married and the single.
much less between the "sexually orientated".


>> Homosexuals
>>: do NOT want to leave anyone alone, they want special rights and
>>: privileges awarded on the sole basis of their sexual activities.

>Not at all.  It's based on the same identical coupleship principles
>that heterosexuals claim.

"Heterosexuals" make no claims whatever. There are no laws extant that
refer in any way to heterosexuals, homosexuals or any sexual
orientation whatever. Sexual orientation prevents NO ONE from marrying
and deriving all the tax advantages that that tax-recognised
organisation receives. 


>>This is all that any activist group is really looking for - money.
>>Oddly enough,  stats show that gay men are considerably higher on the 
>>economic scale that the average man.  This is just another example 
>>of the well-off trying to claim victim status to raise their own 
>>standard of living further.

>WE PAY for it, we want it back.  I don't want to shell out for the
>next 50 years to go into the pockets of some gross heterosexual couple
>living off the dole in a trailer park and screwing like minks avery
>night, having "mistake" pregnancies, and going on even further support
>programs from the government, benifits, and using MY MONEY.

>I want some kickback from my taxes too!!!!

Fine. But what has this to do with your sexual orientation? Or are you
saying what I have been maintaining throughout this thread: That
sexual orientation is intrinsically about *sexual activties*, and that
people should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis
of their sexual orientation---AS YOU HAVE JUST DONE.

You do realise, don't you, that you have just demanded that the
government discriminate in your favour on the sole basis of the sexual
orientation you ascribe to heterosexuals?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:47 PDT 1996
Article: 43265 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!scramble.lm.com!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!nntp.crosslink.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!news.abs.net!news.synapse.net!news4.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: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:22:34 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4mlg0t$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mbj1n$c9s@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <831222100.3874snx@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 <4mbj1n$c9s@freenet-news.carleton.ca> an321@FreeNet.Carleton.CA writes:
>>
>>
>>No, the cash box is always right.


>Sorry, John. THere are principles far more important than money.
>An employer has ZERO right to dictate what my personal prefferences are.

Then I suggest that an employee, or the government, has ZERO right to
dictate what an employer's personal preferences are.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:48 PDT 1996
Article: 43266 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!scramble.lm.com!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!nntp.crosslink.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!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: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:20:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4mlfta$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <199605031447.MAA26270@plato.ucs.mun.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Michael Riehl  wrote:


>> From: dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley)

>> >From: bvalient@mail.atcon.com (Buzz Valient)

>> >>>        I totally disagree with this legislation, and those that vote on it
>> >>>will be voting against the will of the majority of the Canadian
>> >>>people.
>> 
>> >An educated guess would be about 70 - 30 against the legislation. Even
>> >the stupid Grits are divided on it, and their not to quick on the
>> >up-take.  That's why Jean has to tell them how to vote.
>> 
>> This is your basis for making authoritative statements on the will of the 
>> Canadian people... an educated guess???

>Buzz...

>have you even watched or listened to the National news reports this and 
>last week...they stated (not me) that national opinion polls have shown a 
>MAJORITY of Canadians are IN FAVOUR of admending the Human Rights Act...
>I believe that number was 60-65%...

>now the people have spoken...not yours or mine educated guess...

The polls have not shown any such thing. If you review the question
asked in the Angus Reid poll, for example, you will see that Canadians
were asked if gays and lesbians should be protected under Human Rights
laws. The phrase "sexual orientation" appears nowhere, nor is the
manner and substance of the "protection" ever broached. 

And a majority of Albertans oppose the amendment according to the
polls---what of their "majority" rights? 

Such matters are beyond the jurisdiction of government to my mind. No
one should be *forced* to associate with people, whose activities,
lifestyle and opinions they find morally abhorent. It is inhuman, and
a law for cattle.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:49 PDT 1996
Article: 43267 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!scramble.lm.com!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!nntp.crosslink.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: petition, sexual orientation
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:26:09 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <4mlg7l$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8tdj$7on@apollo.isisnet.com>  <4mdg5i$737@news2.cts.com> <4mg4e3$p2t@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> sanctions. "Tolerance" will no longer be permitted, it will be
>> obligatory. 

>	OH NO! TOLERANCE! RUN!

>> It seems to me that race and sex are involuntary public
>> characteristics and imply no activities or dispositions whatever.
>> Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is most definitely a private
>> characteristic that is immune from independent verification, and
>> definitely and intrinsically implies activities and dispositions. 

>	No, Race and sex can be changed much more easily than sexual
>orientation can be changed. 

I didn't say otherwise. I said that they were public characteristics,
unlike one's sexual orientation.


...[some deleted]...

>	Race is also not public. You can't prove you are "white" or
>"black", as these are also immune from independant verification.

I disagree, and so does every Canadian human rights tribunal extant. 


>>>No it can't. The term "sexual orientation" has been interpreted by the
>>>courts to refer exlusively to hetero-, homo-, bi-sexual orientations,
>>>nothing else.
>> 
>> This is plainly incorrect. The courts have ruled that *sexual
>> practices* have not proven to be relevant in the cases they have
>> addressed. Sexual orientation is not a practice, but a prejudice.

>The above regarding homo- bi- and hetero-sexual is correct and you
>are wrong. In fact, you have spewed a wonderfully demented sentence that
>makes almost no sense. 

That you cannot read is not proof that there is nothing readable.

...[some deleted]...

>>>Further the acts performed by adults in private are legal,
>>>the CHRA amendments will do nothing to render legal 
>>>paedophilia, which is covered by the criminal code. 
>> 
>> But it *will* make discrimination against self-admitted, but
>> unconvicted paedophiles an offence. 

>	Why would it? I haven't seen anything in the bill that would
>permit that. Heterosexual pedophiles outnumber gay ones by 1:100

Are you now saying that heterosexuals are not to be protected from
discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation under this
amendment?

>>>protection of one's rights to a job, and to housing and not to be
>>>assaulted on the street is a reasonable limitation of the above rights.
>>>One could not deny these to blacks, women or other protected groups and
>>>then hide behind a shield of "religious rights" or "freedom of
>>>association"
>> 
>> The difference is that sexual orientation implies, intrinsically,
>> *sexual activities and practices* which many people find abhorrent.
>> I find it appalling and a sign of complete degeneracy that people are
>> to be forced to associate with *self-declared* paedophiles and other
>> sexual degenerates on pain of legal sanction. 

>	Again, pedophiles are mostly heterosexual. (FBI statistics, Kinsey
>1990 edition). 

Most people are heterosexuals. Most people have noses. Why should one
be obliged by law to associate with self-declared paedophiles on the
pain of legal sanction?

>	Please supply evidence that pedophilia will have to be sanctioned
>if the bill is passed.

Because everyone has a sexual orientation which no one may use as a
basis to discriminate. The paedophile will use exactly the same claim
homosexuals have used for 40 years: Their inclinations are part and
parcel of their immutable, genetically-based sexual orientation.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:49 PDT 1996
Article: 43268 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!scramble.lm.com!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!nntp.crosslink.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Would someone tell me WHY we need special gay legislation?
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:26:16 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4mlg7s$ake@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4mgbqa$9jt@thor.atcon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

todds@atcon.con (Todd Stark) wrote:

>So the key note you are overlooking, the amendment will now make it
>totally crystal clear:

>- If you are heterosexual, you have the HUMAN RIGHT to be so.
>- If you are homosexual, you have the HUMAN RIGHT to be so.
>- If you are bisexual, you have the HUMAN RIGHT to be so.

This is just meaningless nonsense. Are you suggesting that there is
some way that the government---or anyone else---has the power to stop
you from being heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual?  This law is
being enacted to force millions of people to associate with people who
publically support or participate in ACTIVITIES they find abhorrent.

...[some deleted]...

>>Inclusion of "sexual orientation" in the CHRA would require the re-definition
>>of the term "spouse" in over fifty federal statutes including those laws governing marriage, divorce, spousal benefits,
>>immigration and income tax.

>Great.  And hopefully it the new definition will not simply mean a man
>and a woman.    Not all spouse are the opposite sex. 

Yes they are.

>Mine certainly isn't.   He is identical as a "spouse" as any woman 
>would be to me if I was heterosexual.  

Since you are neither a woman, heterosexual or married this is
complete claptrap.

>Whether or not my "spouse" has a vagina or not is
>totally irrelevant.   

True. All your spouse needs to be is of the opposite sex, of legal
age, and that the both of you live as husband and wife. Neither of you
need be heterosexual either.

>Another human being that personally dedicates his/her whole life to 
>you as your true monogamus significant other is your spouse 

If he is not of the opposite sex, and you are not living as husband
and wife, he is your friend, not your spouse.

> I don't care what genitals either of those humans have.

That's fine. I don't care what genitals my friends have either. But
that doesn't make me married or they my spouses.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:50 PDT 1996
Article: 43269 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!scramble.lm.com!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!nntp.crosslink.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Mary Clancy - Pimp-Queen Extraordinaire
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:26:46 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4mlg8q$ake@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mhrl4$ovl@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

at570@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ian Rooney) wrote:


>		I remember a couple of years back writing to Mary
>Clancy when she was then opposition Critic for the Status of Women
>and M.P. for Halifax, N.S.
>I voiced my concern about pimping activities and white slavery and their
>possible connection to a string of prostitute-slayings across Canada. 
>After much prompting from my M.P., she finally responded with a sanctimonious
>lecture on how prostitution should be tolerated for economic reasons and
>implied that the tone of my letter was 'intolerant'.  One year later,
>a NATIONAL prostitution ring was uncovered operating from Toronto to
>Vancouver, having as it's base, guess where,  HALIFAX. MARY CLANCY's very
>riding.  Since that time,  three Halifax-area pimps have been charge in
>connection with prostitute slayings across Canada and several pimping 
>atrocities including incidents of branding and whipping girls with red-hot
>implements.  This is the work of our Status of Women types in Canada?
>Despite this scandal, Clancy was re-elected to her seat in the House of
>Commons.  Why?  Because the corrupt Canadian Press covered her ass.

I think you make a fundamental mistake in thinking reason and argument
will persuade people to reject convictions gained through unreason and
slogan-based ideology. Mary Clancy is not interested in prostitutes,
the treatment of women, or the views of her constituency or anyone
else. She is interested in bending people to her will, and ordering
their thoughts and beliefs. She is a priest and takes her line from
Torquemada.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:51 PDT 1996
Article: 43407 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!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The partition of Canada leads to the partition of Quebec (was...)
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:23:11 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4mqvr5$991@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4llrfn$o4i@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <31802BB7.5146@mail.odyssee.net> <4lq5rp$3dr@piano.synapse.net>  <4lri12$d9f@sifon.cc.m   <4mk3og$8dq@pegasus.odyssee.net> <4mmcda$6va@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:43407 soc.culture.quebec:17178 qc.politique:6174 soc.culture.canada:87328

dlevin2@po-box.mcgill.ca (Darryl Levine) wrote:

>gagnonja@odyssee.net (Jinx) wrote:

>>>The question arises as to where we'll draw the line in Montreal.  I go
>>>along with the opinion that Moishe's and Schwartz's have to stay in 
>>>Canada - that means we keep St.Lawrence Main.  Oh, and by the way, we'll
>>>rename Blvd R.Levesque "Dorchester" west from there.  

>>>GC, Toronto.

>>May I ask why you are talking about "your right" to partition Québec
>>if you're from Toronto??

>>By the way... this option isn't really popular neither in the
>>anglophone community...

>You are partly right Jean-Phillipe.  Nobody _really_ wants to see the
>partion of Quebec.  But it only happens if Canada is partioned.
>Think of it as a rider on the secessionist bill.  No secession, no
>partition.  Quebec remains united, and so does Canada.  That's
>seems like a much better solution to me.

A dangerous strategy. It leaves Quebec, tit for tat, with the option
of annexing ("partitioning" in your world) the territory of any
community in Canada that expressed approval. Canada could look like
Swiss Cheese.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:52 PDT 1996
Article: 43462 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!unixg.ubc.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!tribune.usask.ca!decwrl!enews.sgi.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,ab.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: Manning Must Go
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:22:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4mqvpk$991@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mctdq$mgd@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mddiu$uh2@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <4mi7m1$3fc@news2.cts.com> <4mo8o3$bjl@steel.interlog.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:43462 bc.politics:993

n49@interlog.com (John Dixon) wrote:

>In article <4mi7m1$3fc@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>jpschaef@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jeffrey Paul Schaefer) wrote:

>>that leads to cultural and social Munichs. But I do agree with you

>Culturally and socially speaking, I don't recall that Munich ever had a problem.  
>It had an athletic, political and criminal one some years back, but what is wrong
>with its culture?  Or is the word you meant to use "eunuchs"?

I was referring to the habit of weak, vacillating and essentially
fear-driven compromise that produced the pre-WW2 agreement in Munich.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:53 PDT 1996
Article: 43519 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!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: Violence against women - more 'unpretty' stats....
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:22:34 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4mqvq0$991@news2.cts.com>
References: <4loqle$iet@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4lrkaq$l2q@news2.cts.com> <4m648i$m74@thor.atcon.com> <4ma8gd$c2g@news2.cts.com> <4mefio$oc6@thor.atcon.com> <4mi7vv$3fc@news2.cts.com> <4mkhnj$i3i@thor.atcon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

willie@atcon.com (John) wrote:


>I don't approve of discrimination in any form, but for a
>white male to say he is being discriminated against because
>he is a white male even today is just an easy way out for
>for him to hide the real reason for his failures in life.

I'm afraid you are completely submerged in error and fantasy. 
Non-disabled white males are the only group that is, by law,
deliberately discriminated against. This is not an opinion or
conjecture, but THE LAW. 






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:54 PDT 1996
Article: 43520 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!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: (fwd) Re: The heterosexual menace in Canada.
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:23:23 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4mqvrg$991@news2.cts.com>
References: <199605071226.JAA21382@plato.ucs.mun.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Michael Riehl  wrote:


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

>> Sexual orientation prevents NO ONE from marrying
>> and deriving all the tax advantages that that tax-recognised
>> organisation receives. 

>if this is so...you should be contacting the media...

>TELL ME of a province that recognizes a gay marriage...

Please post the law that prevents a person from marrying on the basis
of his sexual orientation. Neither the legal or definitional
requirements of marriage concern sexual orientation.
All that is required is that you be unmarried, of legal age and enter
into the contract with someone of the opposite sex.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:55 PDT 1996
Article: 43521 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!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: Would someone tell me WHY we need special gay legislation?
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:23:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4mqvrp$991@news2.cts.com>
References: <199605071228.JAA23866@plato.ucs.mun.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Michael Riehl  wrote:


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

>> This law is
>> being enacted to force millions of people to associate with people who
>> publically support or participate in ACTIVITIES they find abhorrent.

>newsflash...you are already associating with us...and you will continue to 
>'rub elbows' with us whether the amendment passes or not...

One wonders why the government then feels it has to enforce this
association on pain of law.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:56 PDT 1996
Article: 43524 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!oleane!hole.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!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: petition, sexual orientation
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:22:30 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4mqvps$991@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8tdj$7on@apollo.isisnet.com>  <4mdg5i$737@news2.cts.com> <173115.12596.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>In <4mdg5i$737@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>>In as much as the CHRA governs the relationship of the government with
>>respect to ALL citizens, one wonders why such categories have to be
>>listed in the first place?  

>If they were not listed in the Act, they would have to be determined
>either by looking at policy statements of the Canadian Human Rights
>Commission, or in decisions of its tribunals, or the courts.

>The list would also be completely open ended.

>Its far easier to list the grounds, and if they have to be
>expanded they can be by either Parliament or by the Courts
>through section 15(1) of the Charter. (The sexual orientation
>example is an example of both).

>Listing the grounds makes the law more understandable to 
>people who are reading it.

A trifle disingenuous. Actually amending the grounds means it will
take a future  amendment to remove those grounds, rather than merely a
tribunal or policy decision. 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:56 PDT 1996
Article: 43528 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!oleane!hole.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!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: We won!!!
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:22:46 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4mqvqc$991@news2.cts.com>
References: <199605061252.KAA28786@plato.ucs.mun.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Michael Riehl  wrote:


>> From: gregs@inforamp.net (GREGS)
>> 
>> YAHOO!!!!
>> Now to celebrate why don't you go grab some 10 year old boy and sodomize
>> him!  YIPEE!

>you must definitely be interesting at parties...

>1)   you must be refering to married, heterosexual men...they are the 
>     ones that chase boys/girls in 99% of the statistics from the gov't...

You, and the Canadian government, will have to make up your minds: If
marriage and paedophilia is a symptom of the sexual orientation of
heterosexuals, then homosexuals can hardly have a basis to claim their
relationships and activities are equal and parallel to them.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:57 PDT 1996
Article: 43617 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.ccs.queensu.ca!kone!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Check your bathing suit! Jantzen closing Vancouver plant.
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:17:30 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4mlfne$ake@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4md2vo$4ce@granite.sentex.net> <4meotu$9es@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:1047 can.politics:43617

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>Barry Bruyea  wrote:

>>   I find myself agreeing with the implications of Mr. Ranta's posting.   

>As much as I would like to, I can't.

>>   Mainly, that I don't think Jantzen should be putting this many    
>>   Canadians, out of work. 

>Fortunately, I guess you are not a director of the company and
>therefore have no responsibility to its sharholders to ensure that
>their investment earns the best return possible.

>Nobody likes to see people being thrown out of work, but a company has
>no obligation to employ anyone.

So far as I can see, it seems in Kafkanada you may not dismiss
homosexuals and blacks, but the wholesale firing of employees in
favour of mexicans is perfectly alright. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:08:59 PDT 1996
Article: 43618 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.ccs.queensu.ca!kone!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Manning's latest push exposes Reform inconsistencies
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:18:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4mlfod$ake@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l0b5j$fut@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <4l1im9$nhg@thoth.portal.ca> <4lehb0$pt3@news1.sympatico.ca> <4m0nfq$hb6@orb.direct.ca>  <4m7pul$134@kryten.awinc.com>  <4mb7rb$fah@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <32313.12396.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4md4el$ke4@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <4meotk$9es@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:1048 can.politics:43618

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>glasgow@bnr.ca (Barry Glasgow) wrote:

>>This whole discussion on bigotry sounds pretty selective to me.
>>Are all Christians bigots because they are taught that homosexuality
>>is not right ?

>there is a vast difference between what one accepts as his own moral
>code and what he attempts to apply to others.  Many christian
>denominations show their tolerance by accepting homosexuals not only
>into their congregations but also into their clergy.  

>>If not, why would it be bigotry for a Catholic school to not
>>hire a homosexual teacher and why should the law be changed
>>to force them to do so.

>It shouldn't, as long as the catholic school is truly private and does
>not receive any public funds.  If it does receive funds from the
>State, then it should adhere to the State's rules.

I think this view is wrongheaded and anti-democratic. What rules like
this do is legally politicize all State funding and as a consequence
makes legal activity a cause for exclusionary treatment. There is
NOTHING illegal about private Catholic schooling or its criteria with
respect to the habits, views and deportment of its teachers. If the
government seeks to fund religious organisations there should be no
religious test whatever. Otherwise, the government ends up funding the
religion that most closely incorporates its political views, while
denying funding to those that don't. An intolerable situation.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:09:00 PDT 1996
Article: 43619 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.ccs.queensu.ca!kone!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Manning's latest push exposes Reform inconsistencies
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:18:35 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <4mlfph$ake@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l0b5j$fut@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <4l1im9$nhg@thoth.portal.ca> <4lehb0$pt3@news1.sympatico.ca> <4m0nfq$hb6@orb.direct.ca>  <4m7pul$134@kryten.awinc.com>  <4mb7rb$fah@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <1996May2.171520@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mdg4g$737@news2.cts.com> <1996May4.093455@malad1.mala.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:1049 can.politics:43619

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

>In article <4mdg4g$737@news2.cts.com>, 
>   pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:
>> 
>> It seems to me the proper answer is up to the employer, not the
>> government.

>     Are you suggesting that all human rights laws be abolished then,
>or just protesting the idea of them applying to homosexuals?

I certainly think the human rights laws in Canada should be repealed
along with the Charter of Rights, but that is for reasons that
encompass the manner in which these laws are applied and the use to
which they are put, as well as their actual philosophical intent. As I
have explained before, my opposition to the inclusion of "sexual
orientation " as a prohibited form of discrimination rests on a number
of arguments, which I have already explained at length. It is bad law
in my opinion, which is the worst threat to the Rule of Law that a
government can inflict upon a country. 


>> It seems to me that your argument presupposes that a
>> person's sexual orientation is of no possible consequence to anyone,
>> and that people don't have the right to suppose otherwise.

>     You're correct, it does. It seems to me a fundamental principle
>of tolerance is to accept that others have the right to live their
>lives however they wish as long as it doesn't harm you. If you find
>this principle invalid then what basis do you use for justifying any
>form of tolerance?

I don't find the principle particularly invalid, I simply question the
right of the government to insist that everyone adopt it. It is pure
hypocrisy to say that people have the right to live however they wish
so long as it doesn't harm one, when the government taxes, regulates,
coercies and imprisons people precisely upon this basis. 

>> IMHO, the
>> government goes too far in enforcing this particular religious view,
>> however.
>> 

>     This is not a "particular religious view", it is the foundation
>on which tolerance of religious views is based. If it is acceptable to
>condemn homosexuals it is equally acceptable to condemn Jews, Moslems,
>Christians or Reform Party members. Take your own particular religious
>or political philosophy and subsitute it whenever you hear a homophobic
>comment - do you still find the comment acceptable?

But "sexual orientation" is not a religious view.  However, with its
inclusion in the CHRA it will be awarded the equivalent religious
status under law, which is farcical and insulting. I do not believe
that people should be fired without cause. I simply believe that
people have the right to make a *known* sexual orientation they 
abhor cause for not hiring or firing someone. This is because, unlike
race and sex, "sexual orientation" in the public sphere constitutes
nothing more or less than a deliberate political declaration, and,
unlike race and sex, is intrinsically concerned with actual
activities.


>> 
>> There's that religious intolerance once again. It seems to me one's
>> view of "sexual orientation" is an intensely moral activity, and not
>> one to be determined by the government.
>> 

>      "Morality" is a code of behaviour to which individuals subscribe.
>If your morality tells you not to engage in homosexual activity then by
>all means don't do so, the government is not proposing to force you to.

What if my morality says that homosexual activity is morally wrong and
I am morally obliged to boycott those who participate in it, much like
those on the left treat "scabs"? This is not my personal view, but I
certainly oppose the government forcing people to associate against
their will upon such grounds, my personal views nothwithstanding.


>     However you seem to have confused your right to follow your own
>moral principles with a right to force others to act the way you want
>them to. 

It is you who are confused. It is the government who is forcing people
to act in ways in direct opposition to their moral principles. They
are saying that people may not discriminate against people on the
basis of their support of, or participation in, any sexual activity. I
am not saying that homosexuals, heterosexuals or any other "orientated
person" may not exercise the promptings of his libido. I merely say
that people should have the right to associate or not associate on
that basis.

>You seem to find it acceptable to use economic pressure to
>deny homosexuals the right to follow their "morality".

It is perfectly legal to partake in homosexual activity so far as I
know, and I am steadfastly opposed to the government criminalising or
regulating such *private* behaviour. On the other hand, I am also
steadfastly opposed to the government criminalising or regulating
anyone's right to disassociate themselves, their property and their
manner of living on the basis of a person's sexual orientation. 

>> business practice. Ringma is the type of businessman, it strikes me,
>> who would hire ONLY homosexuals and blacks if he thought it would
>> bring the customers in.
>> 

>     Which would be just as wrong as the reverse is.

But it does indicate that the issue is not the "racist" and
"homophobic" one that the corrupt Press, and others, would have us
believe. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:09:01 PDT 1996
Article: 43642 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news4.mr.net!mr.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 12:31:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4msoil$9p0@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8t4d$66t@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4m90as$if8@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mb1t7$qfp@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4mbkov$coe@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4me0tb$74e@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4mffms$g3n@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mj06g$s3v@ber 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:

>>The point you seem to be missing is that the inclusion of "sexual
>>orientation" is a NEW theory. All the other prohibited forms rest on
>>the basis of public and independently verifiable traits that imply no
>>specific *activities*.

>That's absolute bullshit.  You are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of 
>religion.  At least with homosexuality there is evidence of a genetic 
>predisposition -- which you can't say about religion.

Religion is an independently verifiable trait. Any accusation made
that one was discriminated against on the basis of one's religion
requires the independent verification of such a religion existing. A
good example is the debate over whether Sikhs should be allowed to
wear their little daggers in places that prohibit weapons. A Sikh who
sought relief under the various human rights provisions would have to
establish both that he was a Sikh, that Sikhism was religion, and that
wearing a dagger was a legitimate religious practice. Only after this
was done could the question of any discrimination be considered. In
the case of sexual orientation, however, no such independent
verification is possible----unless one is to equate specific acts as
evidence of a person's sexual orientation.  

>>The theory is now changed, however, and the
>>government is obliging people to condone, if not actually approve,

>No -- the government is saying "It's none of the employer's 
>fucking business."

But what exactly does that mean, in real terms, if not that the
employer may not express any view that does not condone or approve
any sexual activity---or risk legal action from some employee whose
sexual orientation and activities he neither knows, nor could know,
even if he wanted to? At least with the religious (and other) criteria
the employer is able to have an independent standard of what
constitutes the religion and its legitimate practices, against which
the employee must apply his case. In the "sexual orientation"
criteria, on the other hand, he may not undertake any position that
does not condone, if not approve, any sexual practice---for fear that
an employee will arbitrarily declare it reflects prejudicially on his
sexual orientation and is therefore discriminatory.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:09:02 PDT 1996
Article: 43659 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.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!imci2!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: bc.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Manning's latest push exposes Reform inconsistencies
Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 17:35:23 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <4mdg4g$737@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l0b5j$fut@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <4l1im9$nhg@thoth.portal.ca> <4lehb0$pt3@news1.sympatico.ca> <4m0nfq$hb6@orb.direct.ca>  <4m7pul$134@kryten.awinc.com>  <4mb7rb$fah@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <1996May2.171520@malad1.mala.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:1059 can.politics:43659 ont.general:39338

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

>In article <4mb7rb$fah@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>,
>    glasgow@bnr.ca (Barry Glasgow) writes:
>> 
>> As for the moral issues at hand, I would suggest that you, the reporters
>> asking the questions and the Liberals might constitute the largest collection
>> of liars on the planet if you all told us that, given the choice of losing  
>> your livelihood or letting go an individual of _any_ minority,
>> you would choose to lose your business.
>> 

>    I didn't hear the precise wording of the question he was responding
>to, but his answer wasn't "if I was going to lose the business", it was
>"if it was *hurting* business". As I mentioned in an earlier post, this
>is almost verbatim the remark he made quite some time ago in the local
>media. He's obviously had a long time to think about the issue in the
>interim.

>    You may argue that the difference is only a matter of degree, but I
>think that if we look at the question in the context of Canadian society
>there is a real difference. I'll concede that if you asked me "if you had
>the choice of firing a homosexual employee or having your business destroyed
>and you and your family attacked and possibly killed by an angry mob what
>would you do" I would have to answer that I might very well fire the
>person (much as I'd hate myself for doing so). But we're not talking about
>Nazi Germany here, we're realistically talking about whether a business
>should be able to fire a competent employee if a few bigots suggest that
>they don't like "those sort of people working here". The proper answer to
>that question is "tell those jerks to take their business elsewhere". 

It seems to me the proper answer is up to the employer, not the
government. It seems to me that your argument presupposes that a
person's sexual orientation is of no possible consequence to anyone,
and that people don't have the right to suppose otherwise. IMHO, the
government goes too far in enforcing this particular religious view,
however.

>It's one thing to concede that any of us might crumble under 
>enough pressure and take the low road in order to survive, 
>quite another thing to suggest that people should be free to 
>act immorally any time doing otherwise would be inconvenient. 

There's that religious intolerance once again. It seems to me one's
view of "sexual orientation" is an intensely moral activity, and not
one to be determined by the government.

>Mr. Ringmas attitude certainly seem to becloser to the latter case 
>than the former.

It seems to me you have it absolutely wrong. Ringma's attitude
betrayed an entirely amoral and utilitarian philosophy with respect to
business practice. Ringma is the type of businessman, it strikes me,
who would hire ONLY homosexuals and blacks if he thought it would
bring the customers in.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:09:03 PDT 1996
Article: 43663 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!xenitec!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!vyzynz!inquo!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!ns2.mainstreet.net!ns1.aplatform.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Manning's latest push exposes Reform inconsistencies
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 18:50:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <4mtep2$ldm@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l0b5j$fut@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <4l1im9$nhg@thoth.portal.ca> <4lehb0$pt3@news1.sympatico.ca> <4m0nfq$hb6@orb.direct.ca>  <4m7pul$134@kryten.awinc.com>  <4mb7rb$fah@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <1996May2.171520@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mdg4g$737@news2.cts.com> <1996May4.093455@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mlfph$ake@news2.cts.com> <1996May6.210039@malad1.mala.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:1061 can.politics:43663

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

>In article <4mlfph$ake@news2.cts.com>,
>    pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>> 
>> But "sexual orientation" is not a religious view.  However, with its
>> inclusion in the CHRA it will be awarded the equivalent religious
>> status under law, which is farcical and insulting.

>     Why? What makes a persons belief ( or lack thereof ) in supernatural
>beings worthy of respect and tolerance, but not his/her belief in the
>propriety of pair bonding with a person of the same sex?

Discrimination on the basis of religion is not a matter of one's
beliefs, but the existence of a religion and its known practices. 

>> I do not believe
>> that people should be fired without cause.

>    yet ...

>> I simply believe that
>> people have the right to make a *known* sexual orientation they 
>> abhor cause for not hiring or firing someone.

>   Then surely one must have the right to make  a *known* belief in supreme
>beings, or political philosophies, which he abhors cause for not hiring or
>firing someone.

If those religions and political philosophies intrinsically included
the practice of abhorrent activities I would agree with you. Please
note the words "practice" and "intrinsically". 

>   You say you don't believe in firing without cause, however you appear
>to think that any arbitrary personal attribute you don't like about the
>employee is a justifiable "cause". It makes your "no firing without
>cause" claim rather hollow doesn't it?

If I gave that impression then I have not been clear enough. I believe
that employers---and people in general---should have as wide as
possible latitude in choosing whom they wish to associate with. I
believe the purpose of government is to protect this right as much as
possible, rather than otherwise. If we are going to have laws limiting
this right, I believe they should be based on public, immutable
characteristics that imply no activity whatsoever---such as race.
Being Black, for instance, implies no actvities whatever, public or
private, and is an immutable, personal, and public characteristic.

>> This is because, unlike
>> race and sex, "sexual orientation" in the public sphere constitutes
>> nothing more or less than a deliberate political declaration

>I don't believe people adopt a sexual orientation in order to make a
>deliberate political statement.

Neither do I. I merely say that one may not know what anyone's sexual
orientation is unless the person involved makes a public statement on
the subject. In short, a deliberate political statement.

>But even granting for a moment that they do
>how is that different from saying that a person adopts a particular
>religious view as a deliberate political statement?

You have arrived at the central argument: One may not simply call any
political statement you make "a religion", and then derive protections
under the law simply by making that declaration. If you make the
statement that you are a Sihk it means nothing unless this can be
independently verified. In addition, whatever the cause of complaint,
it must contravene, exclusively, an independently verifiable Sihk
practice undertaken by the complainant.

>>, and,
>> unlike race and sex, is intrinsically concerned with actual
>> activities.
>> 

>   As is religion or politics ( or belonging to a bowling league for
>that matter )

I have no objection to people being fired on the basis of their
religious "activities", if it is the activity that is in question, and
not the religion. There are no "intrinsic" religious activities, they
are all arbitrary. On the other hand, sexual orientation intrinsically
denotes sexual activities by its very definition.


>> 
>> It is perfectly legal to partake in homosexual activity so far as I
>> know, and I am steadfastly opposed to the government criminalising or
>> regulating such *private* behaviour. On the other hand, I am also
>> steadfastly opposed to the government criminalising or regulating
>> anyone's right to disassociate themselves, their property and their
>> manner of living on the basis of a person's sexual orientation. 
>> 

>   IF we accept that premise then people must similarly have a right to
>refuse to associate with others on the basis of their religion, political
>views or choice of breakfast cereals. Is that what you are really arguing
>for? If not, what makes sexuality different from any of those other
>lifestyle choices?

I think I have met the religious argument. With respect to political
views, I don't think the government should enforce association if an
employer finds them abhorent. With respect to the choice of breakfast
cereals, I also don't think it the government's business, and I would
also point out that such restrictions are already common in the
business world.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:09:04 PDT 1996
Article: 43664 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!xenitec!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!vyzynz!inquo!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!ns2.mainstreet.net!ns1.aplatform.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarians are 0.001% of B.C. population
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 18:51:34 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4mtera$ldm@news2.cts.com>
References:  <1996May3.222157@malad1.mala.bc.ca> <4mgpbn$92j@thoth.portal.ca> <4mlfkg$ak3@news2.cts.com> <4mmpgt$pin@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:1062 can.politics:43664

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>I think it is a confused argument to insist, on the one hand, that
>>people who disagree with the system must nonetheless respect it  
>>and obey the laws, and then, when they do respect the system, claim
>>they lack "principle" by doing so. 

>Not confused at all, Peter.  On the contrary, my reasoning on that
>point is quite clear.  

>Take a look at another example:  The Reform Party has as one of its
>policies a statement that issuing tax receipts for political donations
>is wrong and given half a chance, they will eliminate it.

>But, in the mean time, they are more than happy to keep issuing them
>themselves.  Same deal.  Just because the government allows you do
>something that you yourself disagree with, does not mean that you have
>to do it.

I agree that one does not have to hide the cards one holds in a poker
game, but if it's the only game in town you are going to lose.
Similarly, I have heard a lot of people say they think the tax system
is wrong, but I do not think their paying taxes is necessarily an
"unprincipled" practice because of that.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:09:05 PDT 1996
Article: 43669 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!xenitec!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!vyzynz!inquo!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!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: FRIGHTENING HOMOSEXUAL POWER!
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 18:52:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4mtesi$ldm@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mlfta$ake@news2.cts.com> <831472432.3915snx@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 <4mlfta$ake@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com writes:
>>
>>And a majority of Albertans oppose the amendment according to the
>>polls---what of their "majority" rights? 
>>

>Majority rights end as soon as you walk into my house. You have no right
>to tell me whom to sleep with, whom to love...
>You want to do so, pay my rent, food and everything else.

Yet when it comes to other people's premises and livelihoods the
government is saying that they may not exercise these rights you,
quite reasonably, claim as above democratic opinion.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:09:06 PDT 1996
Article: 43670 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!xenitec!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!vyzynz!inquo!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!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: Would someone tell me WHY we need special gay legislatio
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 18:52:33 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4mtet5$ldm@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mm1bf$lv0@cdc2.cdc.net> <831472598.3916snx@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:


>It seems to me that the Right ought to be staying out of our bedrooms, 
>and employers out of our private lives. When you hire me, you buy my labour,
>not my soul.

This is a difficult argument to take seriously when government is
already dictating the colour and sex of people with respect to
employment.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:09:07 PDT 1996
Article: 43671 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!xenitec!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!vyzynz!inquo!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!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: Thu, 09 May 1996 18:53:25 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <4mteuq$ldm@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mlg84$ake@news2.cts.com> <831472759.3917snx@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 <4mlg84$ake@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com writes:


>>attractive, I don't---and I won't---hire him. If he comes and says
>>that he believes property is theft and that employers should be hanged
>>from the lamposts, I don't---and I won't---hire him. This is perfectly
>>legitimate discrimination and I reject the concept that government has
>>the authority to make me associate with such people in the conduct of
>>my life or business. 
>>


>That is difficult to prove,and there are many reasons people don't get hired.
>But let me tell you this, if you found out, through a third source that
>I believed property was theft and employers should be hung from a lampost,
>and such beliefs had no impact on my job, and you fired me for that
>belief, I would have you fried in court so fast you wouldn't have time to
>blink.

On the other hand, surely I have the right to not only express my
political views, but actually practice them in my personal life. Why
should I be obliged to employ or associate with people who
diametrically oppose my political views? This is not a matter of some
public and immutable personal characteristic, after all.

By the way, I read that the law school at a University in Ottawa was
now handing out admission applications that ask for the "sexual
orientation" of applicants. Is sexual orientation a pertinent
qualification with respect to attending lectures, Jason?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 09:09:08 PDT 1996
Article: 43688 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news4.mr.net!mr.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 18:49:55 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4mteo8$ldm@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8t4d$66t@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4m90as$if8@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mb1t7$qfp@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4mbkov$coe@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4me0tb$74e@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4mffms$g3n@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mj06g$s3v@ber 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:

>>The point you seem to be missing is that the inclusion of "sexual
>>orientation" is a NEW theory. All the other prohibited forms rest on
>>the basis of public and independently verifiable traits that imply no
>>specific *activities*.

>That's absolute bullshit.  You are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of 
>religion.  At least with homosexuality there is evidence of a genetic 
>predisposition -- which you can't say about religion.

Religion is an independently verifiable trait. Any accusation made
that one was discriminated against on the basis of one's religion
requires the independent verification of such a religion existing. A
good example is the debate over whether Sikhs should be allowed to
wear their little daggers in places that prohibit weapons. A Sikh who
sought relief under the various human rights provisions would have to
establish both that he was a Sikh, that Sikhism was a religion, and
that wearing a dagger was a legitimate religious practice. Only after
this was done could the question of any discrimination be considered.
In the case of sexual orientation, however, no such independent
verification is possible----unless one is to equate specific acts as
evidence of a person's sexual orientation.  

>>The theory is now changed, however, and the
>>government is obliging people to condone, if not actually approve,

>No -- the government is saying "It's none of the employer's 
>fucking business."

But what exactly does that mean, in real terms, if not that the
employer may not express any view that does not condone or approve
any sexual activity---or risk legal action from some employee whose
sexual orientation and activities he neither knows, nor could know,
even if he wanted to? At least with the religious (and other) criteria
the employer is able to have an independent standard of what
constitutes the religion and its legitimate practices, against which
the employee must apply his case. In the "sexual orientation"
criteria, on the other hand, he may not undertake any position that
does not condone, if not approve, any sexual practice---for fear that
an employee will arbitrarily declare it reflects prejudicially on his
sexual orientation and is therefore discriminatory.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 11:59:20 PDT 1996
Article: 87328 of soc.culture.canada
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The partition of Canada leads to the partition of Quebec (was...)
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:23:11 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4mqvr5$991@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4llrfn$o4i@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <31802BB7.5146@mail.odyssee.net> <4lq5rp$3dr@piano.synapse.net>  <4lri12$d9f@sifon.cc.m   <4mk3og$8dq@pegasus.odyssee.net> <4mmcda$6va@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:43407 soc.culture.quebec:17178 qc.politique:6174 soc.culture.canada:87328

dlevin2@po-box.mcgill.ca (Darryl Levine) wrote:

>gagnonja@odyssee.net (Jinx) wrote:

>>>The question arises as to where we'll draw the line in Montreal.  I go
>>>along with the opinion that Moishe's and Schwartz's have to stay in 
>>>Canada - that means we keep St.Lawrence Main.  Oh, and by the way, we'll
>>>rename Blvd R.Levesque "Dorchester" west from there.  

>>>GC, Toronto.

>>May I ask why you are talking about "your right" to partition Québec
>>if you're from Toronto??

>>By the way... this option isn't really popular neither in the
>>anglophone community...

>You are partly right Jean-Phillipe.  Nobody _really_ wants to see the
>partion of Quebec.  But it only happens if Canada is partioned.
>Think of it as a rider on the secessionist bill.  No secession, no
>partition.  Quebec remains united, and so does Canada.  That's
>seems like a much better solution to me.

A dangerous strategy. It leaves Quebec, tit for tat, with the option
of annexing ("partitioning" in your world) the territory of any
community in Canada that expressed approval. Canada could look like
Swiss Cheese.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 13:48:50 PDT 1996
Article: 76445 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ont.general
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:37:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4mo59d$ogg@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:76445 can.politics:43257 ont.general:39180

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>Pedophiles have as many rights as any other criminal.  This issue has
>NOTHING to do with rights for pedophiles.

>I will take your disgust for me as a compliment.

>Try to get informed before you make more of a fool of yourself in
>front of thousands.

I suggest that you should first understand that paedophilia is not a
crime in Canada, before commenting on other's lack of information.
With the enactment of the amendment it will now be an offence to
discriminate against paedophiles on the basis of their sexual
orientation alone. If the laws are enforced as they are for the other
human rights criteria, such as sex and race, it will also be an
offence to make derogatory comments in the workplace regarding
paedophiliac behaviour.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 10 14:28:17 PDT 1996
Article: 17178 of soc.culture.quebec
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.quebec,qc.politique,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The partition of Canada leads to the partition of Quebec (was...)
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:23:11 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4mqvr5$991@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4llrfn$o4i@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <31802BB7.5146@mail.odyssee.net> <4lq5rp$3dr@piano.synapse.net>  <4lri12$d9f@sifon.cc.m   <4mk3og$8dq@pegasus.odyssee.net> <4mmcda$6va@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:43407 soc.culture.quebec:17178 qc.politique:6174 soc.culture.canada:87328

dlevin2@po-box.mcgill.ca (Darryl Levine) wrote:

>gagnonja@odyssee.net (Jinx) wrote:

>>>The question arises as to where we'll draw the line in Montreal.  I go
>>>along with the opinion that Moishe's and Schwartz's have to stay in 
>>>Canada - that means we keep St.Lawrence Main.  Oh, and by the way, we'll
>>>rename Blvd R.Levesque "Dorchester" west from there.  

>>>GC, Toronto.

>>May I ask why you are talking about "your right" to partition Québec
>>if you're from Toronto??

>>By the way... this option isn't really popular neither in the
>>anglophone community...

>You are partly right Jean-Phillipe.  Nobody _really_ wants to see the
>partion of Quebec.  But it only happens if Canada is partioned.
>Think of it as a rider on the secessionist bill.  No secession, no
>partition.  Quebec remains united, and so does Canada.  That's
>seems like a much better solution to me.

A dangerous strategy. It leaves Quebec, tit for tat, with the option
of annexing ("partitioning" in your world) the territory of any
community in Canada that expressed approval. Canada could look like
Swiss Cheese.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat May 11 08:41:54 PDT 1996
Article: 43854 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 18:45:46 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4n02sc$4f6@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8t4d$66t@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>      
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

aa960@torfree.net (J. W. Wells) wrote:


>: > Almost everyone is protected by the charter of rights,
>: > why not Homosexuals as well.

>: That much is true.  Everyone is protected except heterosexual white
>: anglophone males.

>Why do the majority and power holders need protection?

So you don't actually believe in legal protection from discrimination
on the basis of race, sex or sexual orientation, do you?





From pkolding@cts.com Sat May 11 08:41:54 PDT 1996
Article: 43855 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 18:46:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4n02t9$4f6@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4msci8$121@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

timmer@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) wrote:

>"Rene S. Hollan"  wrote:

>>Because of the history of a succession of governments in correcting what
>>was perceived as "some previous wrong"... employment equity, for
>>example. Many fear that, because of past oppression of homosexuals by a
>>few homophobes, all of us will now be forced to pay for some government
>>subsidised retribution to "correct" the prior injustice that some, but
>>certainly not all, of us may have had a hand in.

>You are confusing the issues of employment equity and
>anti-discrimination.  Though both seek to ameliorate discrimination,
>Bill C33 merely seeks to prevent discrimination - not, as you claim,
>right some *past* wrong by compensating. 

This is incorrect, as the CHRC is the very Act that grants AA power to
rectify discrimination on the basis of the prohibited forms contained
within it. And the CHRC, with the successful passage of the amendment,
now is to include "sexual orientation" as a prohibited form of
discrimination. 

>If, as you claim, you are not a bigot, then the law should have no 
>effect on you and you should support it.

IMHO it'll have a massive effect on the country, perhaps even being
seen, in the future, as the straw that broke its back.





From pkolding@cts.com Sat May 11 08:41:55 PDT 1996
Article: 43868 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news4.mr.net!mr.net!news.clark.net!world1.bawave.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 18:46:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4n02u4$4f6@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8t4d$66t@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4m90as$if8@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mt09b$lh7@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

pprimeau@chat.carleton.ca (Patricia Primeau) wrote:

>It is not acceptable to fire someone solely because of
>their skin colour, religion, sexual orientation.  It is not only illegal,
>it is immoral.  

I think the above reveals the depths to which political
decision-making have sunk. Discrimination on the basis of one's
religious beliefs----immoral! Discrimination on the basis of sexual
activities----immoral!

Canada has turned into a theocracy without a God.






From pkolding@cts.com Sat May 11 20:51:48 PDT 1996
Article: 44018 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Svend Said It
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 13:57:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4n26b9$7bv@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mvklo$j9h@thor.atcon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

fpoole@mail.atcon.com wrote:

>	Well, all you people that supported Bill C-33 must feel relieved
>today, even though there were 29 Liberals, plus the Reform Party who
>saw through the Legislation.
>	Of course one minority group and the wannabee's are estatic with
>Svend's comments on the news, when he stated that this was "a stepping
>stone to other benefits and recognition of homosexual marriages, and
>partnerships". 

This can't be true. Rock promised that no such conclusions should be
drawn, and that the amendment had nothing to do with same-sex
marriages. Svend is obviously deeply confused about the amendment he
helped draft. :-)






From pkolding@cts.com Sat May 11 20:51:49 PDT 1996
Article: 44028 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.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: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:08:50 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4n2ojo$h8r@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mi7o3$3fc@news2.cts.com> <4mni0m$j03@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>Paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc., are
>>not "forms" of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Rather, they are
>>definitive sexual orientations precisely because they are not
>>heterosexual or homosexual orientations. 

>Please cite reliable scientific proof.

According to the newly amended CHRA, discrimination on the basis of
"sexual orientation" is now prohibited. Now, you can't have it both
ways: Either everyone has a sexual orientation, including paedophiles,
or no one does. Paedophiles must indulge in sexual activity,
therefore, that is concomitant with their sexual orientation, by
definition. It is pointless and irrelevant, and now possibly illegal,
to start making distinctions against people on the basis of the
activities impelled by their sexual orientation.

>Homosexuality is legal in this country.  Those other fetishes are not.

Pardon me, but ALL sexual orientations are legal---and always have
been. The point is that now, because "sexual orientation" is utterly
personal and independently unverifiable, the state is going to have to
start defining views with respect to sexual *activities* as
discriminatory, because they are a consequence of sexual orientation.

If the law can now penalise people on the basis that critical remarks
with respect to pregnancy constitute discrimination or harrassment
against females, the same process will follow when it comes to sexual
activities with respect to sexual orientation.




From pkolding@cts.com Sat May 11 20:51:50 PDT 1996
Article: 44042 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in1.uu.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
Subject: Re: Les Griswold's Parliamentary appearance
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:09:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <4n2ol5$h8r@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m0co9$qd9@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mcdgq$qdr@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>  <4mibef$srp@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <5MAY199618532263@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu> <4mkq7a$3oh@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ml5bq$fn3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4mogi6$n1o@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <4mqfpe$7nf@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4mrgb5$pek@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4n0f3k$poh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Laura Finsten  wrote:

>But my position on the original subject
>about which the discussion was taking place is this:
>sexual orientation should *not* be a grounds upon which
>it is legitimate to discriminate against people. 

What I want to know is WHY you think this. WHY is it the government's
affair to deny people the right to conduct their lives on grounds
subject, in part or in whole, to their own or others' sexual
orientation? 




From pkolding@cts.com Sat May 11 20:51:51 PDT 1996
Article: 44043 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in1.uu.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
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:10:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4n2omd$h8r@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8t4d$66t@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>      <4n06dn$ev8@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

timmer@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) wrote:

>Interesting that this subject was raised...
>If you study the case law you will find that most charter cases have
>been brought (and won) by white heterosexual males. 

I would be interested to find where the sex, sexual orientation and
race of the plaintiffs is anywhere mentioned in these cases.

The majority of Charter challenges have been brought by LEAF, a
feminist, government-funded special interest group.





From pkolding@cts.com Sun May 12 11:07:58 PDT 1996
Article: 44136 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!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,bc.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: Tell me what's wrong with Ringma's statement
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 13:45:32 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4n4q1j$h7g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mfjam$h3i@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mi84g$3fc@news2.cts.com> <4mjm73$cog@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4mo583$ogg@news2.cts.com> <4mqo81$5af@klg-gateway.klg.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:44136 bc.politics:1263

davet@klg-gateway.klg.com (Dave Till) wrote:

>But here's the interesting question:  what about ex-Nazis
>or ex-paedophiles?  Should people be obliged to associate with them,
>at least on a business footing?  Can clubs or other organizations
>legally refuse them membership, or businesses deny them employment?
>I haven't thought this through completely, but I think that if
>discrimination of this sort is allowed, what we are basically saying is
>that the act of paedophilia is so morally repugnant that the stain can
>never be washed out, as it were.  In that case, to be logically consistent,
>we probably should sentence all paedophiles to life in prison without parole.

You are jumping where no chasm exists. Why is it the GOVERNMENT'S
business to take such decisions out of the individuals' hands? Why
can't an individual exercise his own judgement, and not be forced to
associate with "ex-paedophiles" or Nazis or others who *views and
activities* he finds abhorent? It is at least arguable to invoke the
the government to make law regarding public and immutable personal
chartacteristics, such as race---since such characteristics are
intrinsically public and connote no intrinsic activity. On the other
hand, for the government to deem people who hold views that do connote
definite activities, as well as indulge in activities that many view
as abhorent, as immune from discrimination on those grounds, is pure
authoritarianism.

>>Let us understand something here: No one is suggesting that people
>>should have the right to force people to change their religion, their
>>politics, their athletic pursuits or their dressing habits in their
>>private lives. What I am suggesting is that people have a right to
>>choose whom they wish to associate with, and especially when the
>>choice is made on the basis of known *activities* of the person
>>concerned.

>Same question:  what about known *past* activities -- activities that
>the person is no longer performing?  When does the statute of limitations
>run out, as it were?

Leave it up to each individual. As I said in a previous article, Nazi
concentration camp survivors shouldn't, by law, be forced to associate
with ex-concentration camp guards. 



From pkolding@cts.com Sun May 12 11:07:59 PDT 1996
Article: 44137 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!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in1.uu.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
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 13:45:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <4n4q1v$h7g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mt00d$q73@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mvm8c$dbo@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>Ian Rooney (at570@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:



>: 		Changes to the human-rights act will lead to all sorts 
>: 	of legal challenges by the human-rights commission and other
>: 	quasi-political  rulings by the courts to promote homosexuality 
>: 	with no public input.  There will be nothing preventing 
>: 	homosexuals from using the school system as a way to convert 
>: 	children to homosexuality.  They are already organizing homosexual

>Got news for you Mr. Rooney. If the schools were going to convert people 
>into homosexuality, they already would have done so. Did it never occur 
>to you that some of the wolrd's greatest literary Genius' were 
>homosexual? Here's a list of just a FEW poets and writers YOU may have 
>studied in high school who happened ot be Homosexual:

>Tennessee Williams
>Emily Dickenson 
>Oscar Wilde

>Some of the world's greatest philosphers, the people we get our political 
>idealism from and form our philosphical basis from were homosexual. In 
>fact, in Ancient Greece, where democracy was born, homosexuality was an 
>accepted orientation. Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle all engaged in 
>homosexual sex. Do you you question democracy because some of the fathers 
>of it happened to have an orientation different than yours?

I think you should be a little more open on this subject. The Ancient
Greeks condoned not homosexuality, but paedophilia. It was the
relationship of older man to pubescent boy that was accepted. The type
of pseudo-marital homosexual relationship approved of today would have
been condemned as abnormal and anti-social. In addition, prostitution
for women was seen as a "religious" practice as well as a lucrative
occupation. 

In fact, the accepted social mores of Ancient Greece involved almost
exactly the things that are most stridently condemned by the
politically correct of today as the epitome of immorality. 





From pkolding@cts.com Sun May 12 11:08:00 PDT 1996
Article: 44138 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!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in1.uu.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,can.general,ont.general
Subject: Re: Svend Said It
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 13:46:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4n4q3a$h7g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mvklo$j9h@thor.atcon.com> <4n0ue8$5ii@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:44138 can.general:76904 ont.general:39546

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

>Anonymous (fpoole@mail.atcon.com) wrote:

>> As far as I am concerned, the
>> Human Rights Act is nothing more then a joke now and I will be less
>> inclined to respect it.

>If you don't respect the Charter of Rights, which is a law of this
>land, there will be a nice little room for you to stay where you will be
>able to conduct some hands-on research into homosexuality.

30% of the population disapproved of the concept of special
protections for gays and lesbians. How many would disapprove of AA for
people on the basis of their "sexual orientation" is bound to be far
higher. The government has made bad law with this amendment and the
result will be a lowering of respect and obedience of law *in
general*. The laws that will be broken will likely be those that yield
to breaking the most easily. The relationship between the citizenry
and the forces of government will become adversarial, which will make
governing a very difficult matter.


>It's natural that you should feel this reactive over the issue. A few MPs
>argue very hard about it, but with even a quick look at the mood of the
>country it will be obvious to all that they (and you) are losing badly. And
>in a few years, you will have lost completely.

But what can one lose when one has already lost respect for the
authority and legitimacy of government?



From pkolding@cts.com Sun May 12 12:41:44 PDT 1996
Article: 76904 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in1.uu.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,can.general,ont.general
Subject: Re: Svend Said It
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 13:46:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4n4q3a$h7g@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mvklo$j9h@thor.atcon.com> <4n0ue8$5ii@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:44138 can.general:76904 ont.general:39546

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

>Anonymous (fpoole@mail.atcon.com) wrote:

>> As far as I am concerned, the
>> Human Rights Act is nothing more then a joke now and I will be less
>> inclined to respect it.

>If you don't respect the Charter of Rights, which is a law of this
>land, there will be a nice little room for you to stay where you will be
>able to conduct some hands-on research into homosexuality.

30% of the population disapproved of the concept of special
protections for gays and lesbians. How many would disapprove of AA for
people on the basis of their "sexual orientation" is bound to be far
higher. The government has made bad law with this amendment and the
result will be a lowering of respect and obedience of law *in
general*. The laws that will be broken will likely be those that yield
to breaking the most easily. The relationship between the citizenry
and the forces of government will become adversarial, which will make
governing a very difficult matter.


>It's natural that you should feel this reactive over the issue. A few MPs
>argue very hard about it, but with even a quick look at the mood of the
>country it will be obvious to all that they (and you) are losing badly. And
>in a few years, you will have lost completely.

But what can one lose when one has already lost respect for the
authority and legitimacy of government?



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 10:59:15 PDT 1996
Article: 44406 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.mindspring.com!news4.agis.net!agis!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: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:35:41 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4n7ks1$1i7@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

"Rene S. Hollan"  wrote:

>ron wrote:
> 
>> Why do some people think that straight relationships and families are
>> threatened by acknowledging that some people are discriminated against
>> because of their sexual orientation?

>Because of the history of a succession of governments in correcting what
>was perceived as "some previous wrong"... employment equity, for
>example. Many fear that, because of past oppression of homosexuals by a
>few homophobes, all of us will now be forced to pay for some government
>subsidised retribution to "correct" the prior injustice that some, but
>certainly not all, of us may have had a hand in.

I think you don't quite understand the thrust of "employment equity".
"Inequality" is now defined as any disproportional presence in any
social institution, starting with government. If homosexuals do not
occupy at least 10% of high government offices, for example, this
alone would probably be enough to inaugurate affirmative action
programs to ensure their representation. 

I'm afraid that the future of Canadians is going to involve a lot of
government application forms with a fill-in blank asking for one's
sexual orientation.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 10:59:16 PDT 1996
Article: 44409 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!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: Legal Implications of Bill C-33 (was Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights)
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:35:54 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <4n7kse$1i7@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4mt7vr$m09@news1.io.org> <319246DC.ED0@bnr.ca> <4muvts$6tl@news1.io.org> <31934E8A.6CDA@bnr.ca> <4n286b$dt8@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>>Government, serving all of us, can't legitimately discriminate against
>>any of us. However, in our private lives, we do not aim to serve all
>>fellow citizens: we pick and chose with whom we associate.
>>Anti-discrimination legislation must not affect the choices we make in
>>our private lives.

>Bill C-33 has no implications in your private life.

Excuse me, private citizens lead exclusively private lives. Bill C-33
ONLY has implications on people's private lives. 



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 10:59:17 PDT 1996
Article: 44410 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!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: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:36:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <4n7ksp$1i7@news2.cts.com>
References: <4j3dvh$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> <4m6k8s$hbg@news2.cts.com> <4m720k$siu@knot.queensu.ca> <4mdg4j$737@news2.cts.com> <4mh41p$lc9@knot.queensu.ca> <4mlg84$ake@news2.cts.com> <4mrckl$dgg@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:
>: huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>: >I seem to be in the habit of correcting your mistakes.  In order to file 
>: >complaint to either the Canadian or a provincial Human Rights Commission 
>: >and win, the complainant need only show that the defendant believed that 
>: >the complainant was of a certain religion and that, based on that belief, 
>: >the defendant discriminated against the complainant.  THE COMPLAINANT 
>: >NEED NOT BE RELIGIOUS AT ALL, MUCH LESS A MEMBER OF THE RELIGION THAT THE 
>: >DEFENDANT BELIEVED WAS TRUE.

>: Alas, you are out of your depth. If discrimination on the basis of
>: "religion" is the accusation someone has to prove that such a religion
>: actually exists. That is whole the point, Tim---sexual orientation is
>: not subject to independent verification, nor is it even knowable apart
>: from a declaration of the party involved. It is a political view, no
>: more.

>There seems to be something missing in your argument here.  You claim 
>that the complainant must prove, in order to successfully file a 
>complaint of discrimination on the basis of religion, that the religion 
>actually exists.  Presumably, in many cases this is a trivial 
>requirement. 

It is not trivial, but essential. One cannot make a claim of
discrimination on the basis of religion without their being
independent proof that such a religion exists, and that the employer
was referring to it when he acted. 

>The parallel is that the complainant, in order to 
>successfully file a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sexual 
>orientation, must show that the sexual orientation exists.  Since we are 
>dealing with heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, the proof 
>of existence is so excessively trivial that it can be considered common 
>knowledge (i.e., includes everyone but you).

I think you are either honestly confused or are deliberately avoiding
the point. What acts constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation? If an employer says to you that you're fired because
you're Gay, presumably that is a clear-cut case. But what if he
doesn't do that, and instead makes general and public observations
that sex between two men is immoral and unnatural? What if he says
this to you privately? If you are subsequently fired, do not these
views open him up to accusations of discrimination of the basis of
sexual orientation notwithstanding any of the actual reasons for the
firing?


>: I agree that the mere accusation is to be tantamount to proof. How is
>: one supposed to prove discrimination on the basis of sexual
>: orientation, when it can constitute no more than opinion? Only one
>: way---by ruling that any speech indicating disapproval of any
>: particular sexual orientation is prima facie evidence of
>: discrimination. This amendment, in effect, will deny people the right
>: to publically disapprove of any sexual orientation whatever, or risk
>: legal sanctions.

>You have misunderstood me.  Please consider taking a remedial English 
>course.  Perhaps even an English as a Second Language course.
>	I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SPEECH.
>I am talking about a circumstance akin to the following example:
>	Let us suppose that one day I show up to work wearing a gay pride 
>rainbow pin.  My employer, seeing that pin, assumes that I am gay, and 
>fires me for that reason.
>	I choose to file complaint that I was discriminated against on 
>the basis of sexual orientation.  To win, I need not prove that I am gay 
>(how one would prove to a court leads to some interesting, irreverent, 
>and obscene thoughts...), which would be difficult for me since it 
>happens to be the case that I am straight.  I merely must show that the 
>employer THOUGHT I was gay and that the employer fired me because of 
>those beliefs.

And how do you prove such a thing without producing some connection
between your wearing a pin and your firing? After all, wearing a
political sign on your chest is not evidence of any particular sexual
orientation---it is evidence of political activity. There is therefore
only one way to prove discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation: Hearsay evidence relating to views or opinions the
employer has expressed, either privately or publically. In other
words, people will now be subject, in practical terms, to legal
sanction for expressing disapproval of any sexual activities that may
be inferred by strangers as reflecting unkindly upon their sexual
orientation.


>: Freedom of speech means that people may say what they wish without
>: fear of GOVERNMENT sanctions based on the content of their opinions.

>That is incorrect.  The right is a freedom from fear of any censure from 
>society, be the sanctioning body private or public.  I would invite you 
>to consult any legal text.

I don't have to consult any legal text. You have no understanding of
the law. Everyone has a perfect right to "sanction" people whose views
they find abhorent. They may boycott their businesses, excommunicate
them from their organisations and deny them from their property. They
may close their Internet accounts and throw them out of universities. 

>: Let me understand your reasoning: homosexuality is identical to
>: heterosexuality, except that they are diametrically opposite.

>An interesting turn of phrase.  A gay or lesbian is an individual 
>romantically and sexually interested in people of the same gender.  A 
>straight is an individual romantically and sexually interested in people 
>of the opposite gender.  There is no other distinction.

What more of a distinction could there be?

>: Marriage--a relationship of husband and wife undertaken by, and only
>: possible by people of the oppsite sex, is identical to homosexual
>: co-habitation---except for the sexual nature of the relationship, the
>: sex of the people involved, and the impossiblity of two people of the
>: same sex to have a husband and wife relationship.

>The forming of a life-long union, based on trust, sharing, love, sexual 
>monagamy, and any other criteria, can, and is, formed by both same-sex 
>and opposite-sex couples.  However, only one of the two types of couples 
>is eligible for legal recognition of their relationship.  

You seem incapable of understanding that marriage has nothing to do
with life-long unions, trust, sharing, love, sexual monogamy, etc.
There are not "two types" of married couples, there is only marriage.
It's purpose is the joining or maintaining of family lines through
procreation.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 10:59:18 PDT 1996
Article: 44411 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!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: Reform: Brain Dead
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:36:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4n7ktc$1i7@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mp2li$quv@apollo.isisnet.com>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:

>In article  jstark@wimsey.com (john stark) writes:

>>Maritime parasite!  The sooner we get a border between us the better!

>>Fuck the Maritimes pal.

>Either you support the Reform Party or you support western separation -- you 
>can't have it both ways.

>When Manning says the extremists must be driven from the Reform party, he 
>means YOU.  (Doesn't mean he will prevail, but if he doesn't, the federal 
>Reform party will be left with a smaller political base than Bill Vander Zalm 
>-- who is as convinced as Mr. Stark that he is absolutely right.)

There is no reason to suppose that the Reform Party will not adopt
Western separation eventually. Manning can say what he likes, but if
he doesn't produce----it won't matter what he says. 



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 10:59:18 PDT 1996
Article: 44412 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!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: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:36:53 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <4n7kua$1i7@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mt00d$q73@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n1ajl$in6@news.agt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

koppas@supernet.ab.ca (Brian Koppas) wrote:


>I've been watching this group for a long time on and off and this is the
>worst sort of nonsense I have ever seen.  I am gay teenager, who is
>sixteen years old.  I was not converted by anyone, no one came up and
>"forced" me to be the way I am.  What about me?

Why should the government force people to approve of you, your sexual
orientation, or your sexual activities?

>I attend a Catholic High School where they feel that it is there so-called
>right to tell me that my very existence is evil.  Don't I have the right
>to go to school in a less hostile envioronment?

You have no right to expect people to order their morality and
opinions to fit in with yours. If you find this freedom produces a
"hostile" environment I suggest you make other arrangements with
respect to your education.

>This is never about the rights of the majority or specail rights or
>religous rights.  This is about us.  Gay teenagers.  Don't we have any
>rights in this society?

What rights, exactly, are you denied? Homosexual activity is not
criminalised. Why should people be obliged to condone, approve or even
like you?

>ou have no idea the pain I have been through,
>none at all.  I do not have disease, I am not evil, I am not perverted.
>I am not out to "convert" anyone, which is impossible.  I simply am.  
>Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

That's fine, but so what? Your opinion of yourself is not an argument
to deny other people a differing opinion.

>This bigotry must end, one way or another.  And it will, one way or
>another.

I see. You expect to produce an end to "bigotry" by enforcing it.

>It cannot change the pain that this society unwittingly inflicted on me,
>or on Canada's gay youth up till now.  But we can still make it better.

>It won't help those of my generation and may be too late to help the next.
>But for God's sake, we have to stop it.  For the benefit of all those who
>will come after us.

>I am proud Canadain.  To all the bigots hidding, lurking in the shadows
>(i.e. Reform Party) how dare you call yourselves Canadians!

A telling admission. It seems that a Canadian must now hold approved
opinions, or risk his right to freedom of opinion.




From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 19:59:09 PDT 1996
Article: 36730 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Les Griswold: Muzzled
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <4n8enp$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <318B38EC.4A99@ix.netcom.com> <4n3lc0$344@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com> <4n4kaq$5mh@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n4sgf$oi2@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com> <4n56l0$e7i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:46812 alt.politics.nationalism.white:19849 alt.revisionism:36730 alt.skinheads:22983 can.politics:44516 soc.culture.canada:87744

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

>The delightful prospect of having Mr. Griswold invited to
>address questions before a Parliamentary Standing Committee
>becomes all the more pleasant when you consider his little
>problem, which you have touched on above.

...[some deleted]...

>It is interesting to note, of course, that Mr. Griswold will
>prattle endlessly _here_ about his political beliefs, Mr.
>Pierce's "the rules" notwithstanding. Mr. Kleim prattles
>endlessly about the NA as well, "the rules" notwithstanding.

>I therefore conclude that Mr. Griswold is all bluster and no
>belief - i.e. that he is, in truth, ashamed of the spew he
>utters, and most certainly does not want his neighbors, or
>Parliament, or Canadian CPAC viewers (Gov't business channel),
>to hear anything about what he believes.

>In short, Mr. Griswold is a hypocrite of the first order; on
>the one hand, he writes the most amazing drivel here on the
>net - on the other, he claims that Mr. Pierce has muzzled him
>(were I Wm. Pierce, I would most certainly tell him to keep
>his mouth shut, on the net and off, given the embarrassment he
>must be causing the "movement," but that's another issue), and
>that he cannot speak to the media.

The above illustrates the internal contradiction of your own
arguments, I'm afraid. You have on more than one occassion asked
Griswold why he won't appear before the Committee, you have requested
the Committee to invite him, and you have claimed that attendance is
for informational purposes and nothing else. Yet why, if Griswold's
opinions are available to all on the Internet, (and provide 
you with literally all your information respecting him) don't you
advise the Committee to log on to the Internet to learn about Griswold
and his views? It is, after all, his views that are the concern here,
isn't it? 








From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 20:36:16 PDT 1996
Article: 28558 of alt.politics.white-power
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.politics.white-power,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Pissed McGoyVay.. Round 3
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:16 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4n8enm$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <1996Apr30.205208.23945@wpg.ramp.net> <4mg69t$pht@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mgnin$lu@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4mlg7p$ake@news2.cts.com> <4mlvvk$q93@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4mqvqq$991@news2.cts.com> <4n309k$avk@news.nyu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:28558 can.politics:44515

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

>: 
>: >I can assure you that if Mr. Kinsella called me a klansman, I
>: >would bring suit the day the book was published.
>: 
>: So you say. But saying that doesn't prove you're not a klansman, to
>: use your own, faulty logic.


>Yes, but if he brought suit and won, that would prove it.

So you are of the opinion that McVay is a klansman because 
he has yet to win a suit proving he is not?



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 22:06:55 PDT 1996
Article: 44566 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: It's time to boot the extremists out of town
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:56:49 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4n8emr$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m7kgp$2c5@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca>  <318da35c.5236796@news.mindlink.net> <4ml7ca$gm@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4mmpgn$pin@thoth.portal.ca> <4motf9$1on@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4mqdq3$gtv@thoth.portal.ca> <4mrk7p$pni@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <319173f8.51276450@NEWS.mindlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:1496 can.politics:44566

LSoth@alpha.c2.org (Lord Soth) wrote:



>>You know I've always wondered about this "we can't put debt on to our
>>children" argument.  If we do, and they consider it some kind of a
>>problem, they can simply put it on their children who can in turn put
>>it on their children and so ad infinitum.  So where's the problem?

>The problem is the debt get's bigger and bigger and bigger.

>>That aside, since the children are going to be reaping the benefits of
>>the investments we are making in their future I don't see why we
>>should feel guilty about asking them to help pay for it

>Because by the time they get the tab it will be to huge to bring it
>down.  And you or they will see mexico in canada.  Our dollar will
>collapse,  Investors will sell and run. 

It is a little more subtle than that. The problem is that young people
will flee the country in order to be free of confiscatory tax rates
brought on by high government debt---thus sending the country into a
slow-motion spiral of impoverishment.






From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 22:06:56 PDT 1996
Article: 44567 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!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: Tell me what's wrong with Ringma's statement
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:56:57 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4n8en4$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mfjam$h3i@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mi84g$3fc@news2.cts.com> <4mjm73$cog@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <4mo583$ogg@news2.cts.com> <4mqo81$5af@klg-gateway.klg.com> <4n4q1j$h7g@news2.cts.com> <4n6t56$9ao@news.sas.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:44567 bc.politics:1497

brogers@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:

>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:

>: Leave it up to each individual. As I said in a previous article, Nazi
>: concentration camp survivors shouldn't, by law, be forced to associate
>: with ex-concentration camp guards. 


>  The whole Ringma affair really opened up a pretty dicey can of 
>  worms. It brings up a huge list of questions and hypothetical
>  situations and demands that we ask ourselves, as a society, what
>  forms of discrimination, both legal and otherwise, are acceptable.
>  It is an important issue and one that should have sparked a sensible
>  public debate. Unfortunately the media, pitchforks and torches
>  blazing, conentrated on the sensational while ignoring the key
>  issue.

>  The charter now prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation.
>  What forms of discrimination are "acceptable"? If I own a business
>  and one of my employees, either gay or straight, is hitting on my
>  customers and causing me to lose business, do I have the right to
>  take whatever actions neccessary, including firing, or is that
>  discrimination? What if one of my employees was promoting political
>  or religious beliefs and causing a loss of business? Would taking
>  them off of the front counter (so to speak) constitute discrimination?
>  What if a jewish person rented a room to someone who they later
>  discovered to be a neo-nazi, what action could they take?

>  It is pretty confusing...

It isn't really confusing. The actual individuals involved know
perfectly well who they want to associate with, what their own
morality is and what views and activities they find abhorrent. The
confusion comes because the government has become no different 
>from  an absolute dictator or monarch. Everyone must constantly try
and read the sovereign's unreadable mind, and tread carefully around
public officials because they now have arbitrary power to determine
and enforce literally all the acrtivities of the sovereign's subjects.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 22:06:57 PDT 1996
Article: 44568 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:11 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <4n8enj$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m8t4d$66t@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>       <4n2e26$h7p@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

bc711@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gordon Moore) wrote:


> I believe that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being used
>to limit free speech bit-by-bit. What if someone believes that
>homosexual behaviour is wrong. If they now state that idea can
>they now be arrested for discrimination and spreading hate?

No one knows. Sexual orientation is undefined, as are
those activities and expressions that would constitute discrimination.
If we look to the reasoning behind rulings with respect to the other
prohibited grounds we see that the widest possible interpretation is
the rule, rather than otherwise. Statistical inequality has been
judged "discriminatory" as have expressions that imply no
discrimination except by inference, after the fact, by the tribunal.
Demeaning or disapproving comments with respect to certain sexual
activities could certainly be seen to be discriminatory, if a tribunal
infers that a sexual orientation implicitly involves such activities.
The speech codes with respect to "hate" differ from province to
province, but the Criminal Code does not include "sex" or "sexual
orientation" as a definition of a protected group. 

> Why are heterosexual white males not specifically listed in
>the Charter as other groups are? 

Race and sex are explicitly listed in the Charter (Section 15 (1)),
and sexual orientation has been "read into" the list of prohibited
grounds by the Courts. Under 15 (2) however, the government can ignore
the protections granted under 15 (1) for the purposes of Affirmative
Action for "disadvantaged groups". The present AA laws designate all
people in Canada as members of a disadvantaged group, with the single
exception of non-disabled white males.

The Canadian Human Rights Act is a law that grants the Commission the
power to determine and enforce Affirmative Action for those groups
covered by the prohibited grounds of discrimination contained within
it. Now that "sexual orientation" has been added as a prohibited
ground, AA laws, programs and activities will be enacted and enforced
against people whose sexual orientation is not one that grants them
status as part of a disadvantaged group. Without knowing the precise
definition of "sexual orientation" it is speculative to say which
"sexual orientation" will grant its holders this new privileged
status. But since Max Yalden declared that the new amendment was
overdue and necessary to protect Gays and Lesbians, and he is the
Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, one 
should be in little doubt about who will be discriminated against in
future AA programs.

One should also note, especially if you are of the opinion that
"sexual orientation" will merely mean "heterosexual, homosexual or
bisexual", that the Chief Commissioner himself is making distinctions
between Gays and Lesbians under the rubric of sexual orientation. This
seems to indicate that sexual orientation will not simply be a matter
of orientation, but also of the sex of the person having the
orientation.  People with the same sexual orientation are therefore
not likely to be accorded the same identification under sexual
orientation definitions. This underlying outlook will likely lead to
many, many different stratifications of  "sexual orientation" being
defined over the years, all of which will derive protections and whose
holders will qualify for privilege under AA programs.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 22:06:58 PDT 1996
Article: 44569 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4n8enk$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4mt7vr$m09@news1.io.org> <319246DC.ED0@bnr.ca> <4muvts$6tl@news1.io.org>  <1996May10.162520.1@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca> <4n2eqd$2iu@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77099 can.politics:44569

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:


>This would be quite difficult for a typical straight person to do.
>They would probably have discussed their opposite sex boy/girlfriend
>or even a wife or husband.  Or even talked about good-looking
>celebrities of the opposite sex.  It would be quite obvious that they
>were lying if the day after they were fired that they became "gay".

Let everyone understand what you are saying: A person's sexual
orientation is independently unverifiable, and its determination
impossible, except by hearsay evidence relating to public "views and
activities" that the tribunal feels are *intrinsically* associated
with a specific orientation. What you are saying is that sexual
orientation intrinsically connotes certain sexual activities, and that
upon *opinions regarding sexual activities* people and acts will be
judged discriminatory or not.







From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 22:06:58 PDT 1996
Article: 44570 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <4n8en7$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <4mo59d$ogg@news2.cts.com> <4mqcpr$ggk@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>This would be very true if pedophilia was a sexual orientation.  But
>it's not.  Every pedophile has a sexual orientation, namely hetero-,
>homo- or bisexual.  Pedophilia is their sexual fetish.

If an employer hangs out a sign that says that any sexual act between
two men is evil, immoral and grounds for dismissal, will he be open to
a charge of harrassment on the basis of sexual orientation?






From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 22:06:59 PDT 1996
Article: 44571 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:03 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <4n8ena$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <4mo59d$ogg@news2.cts.com> <4mqcpr$ggk@news1.io.org> <4mrdt6$cnd@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mt80u$m09@news1.io.org> <4mu0ms$7gc@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4mvo3i$4jb@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>an321@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:
>>ron (lovebite@io.org) writes:

>>> But, that still doesn't make pedophilia a sexual orientation.

>>I dunno if this isn't little more than semantics. 

>>Gay =  A person who is attracted to someone of the same sex. They don't
>>       choose to be, nor can they control who they're attracted to.

>>Pedo= A person who is attracted to children. They don't choose to be, nor
>>      can they control who they're attracted to.

>No, it's not just semantics.  I view pedophiles as similar to rapists.
>The acts of pedophilia and rape, on the surface, involve sexual
>activity but the underlying motive is power and domination.  

This is an interesting view. Why are power and domination not as
legitimate as love and tenderness with respect to sexual acts or
motivations? 

Rape and child-sex are not "illegitimate" sexual activities---they are
simply illegal activities. Sexual activities are sexual---the problem
of modern society is that people are not prepared to accept this and
discriminate against people on that basis. Instead, they engage in
intellectual dishonesty and cowardice, and declare, because they
disapprove of certain vile sexual activities, that these aren't
actually sexual activities at all. Paedophiles and rapists aren't
actually indulging in sexual activities, they say to themselves, but
are involved in something akin to purse-snatching or drunken-driving.
And therefore, the discrimination that they demand be exercised
against these criminals cannot be based on the sexual activity
involved, because there is no sexual activity involved at all! 

Rape and child-sex are vile sexual activities, undertaken by people
who are indulging the promptings of their sexual orientation. Rape is
not vile because it involves domination, but because it involves
*sexual activity*. Child-sex is not vile because it involves children,
but because it involves *sexual activity*. But such basic truths are
anathema in modern Canada. One must be tolerant of all sexual
activities, at all times. Those sexual activities that jar the
legitimacy of this general outlook are therefore to be desexualised,
rather than risking the legitmacy of the view that all sexual
activities are to be tolerated.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 22:07:00 PDT 1996
Article: 44572 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:10 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4n8eng$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <4mo59d$o <4mrb7a$dgg@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

>	Pedophilia is a crime. 

Perhaps we are arguing on the basis of semantics alone. Paedophilia,
like haemophilia, doesn't mean one indulges, but that one is disposed
to certain activity. *Sexual assault* is a crime. One may be a
paedophile, suffering from paedophilia, and commit no crime.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 22:07:01 PDT 1996
Article: 44573 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Oh Glory Day for Svend.
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4n8enn$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mvko8$j9h@thor.atcon.com> <4n3777$1fvq@elmo.cadvision.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

igguldec@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) wrote:

>We're here, we're queer and we are staying at the front of the shop!

Really? I think posting your business address and telephone number
would be a lot more convincing on this subject, than simply spouting
mindless slogans.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 13 22:07:01 PDT 1996
Article: 44574 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4n8ent$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mi7o3$3fc@news2.cts.com> <4mni0m$ 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:

>In article <4n2ojo$h8r@news2.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>>lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

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

>>>>Paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc., are
>>>>not "forms" of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Rather, they are
>>>>definitive sexual orientations precisely because they are not
>>>>heterosexual or homosexual orientations. 

>>>Please cite reliable scientific proof.

>>According to the newly amended CHRA, discrimination on the basis of
>>"sexual orientation" is now prohibited.

>Eight provinces already have legislation similar to the new federal amendment. 
> There is NO case law indicating sich an amendment in any protects kiddie 
>diddlers.   Your bullshit arguments have no basis in Canadian law.

Then I wish you would address the various people who have already
posted articles on this newsgroup stating that paeodphiles are ALREADY
protected from discrimination under the law. The confusion about this
amendment and its inevitable consequences is not on my side, but on
the side of those who support it. One the one hand some claim, as you
do, that paedophiles will derive NO protection, while simultaneously
the rest claim that discrimination against self-declared, but
unconvicted paedophiles is prohibited already under provincial
employment rules or under the free speech provisions of the Charter.

The fact remains that discrimination against self-admitted paedophiles
is prohibited in many jurisdictions already,  and that the
introduction of federal law with respect to "sexual orientation" now
instructs the highest law-making body in the country to adapt ALL law
to this standard.



From pkolding@cts.com Thu May 16 12:14:18 PDT 1996
Article: 37170 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Les Griswold: Muzzled
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 20:07:30 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4nddhg$dmp@news3.cts.com>
References: <318B38EC.4A99@ix.netcom.com> <4n4sgf$oi2@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com> <4n56l0$e7i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4n8enp$ese@news2.cts.com> <4nakdh$6tg@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:46911 alt.politics.nationalism.white:20065 alt.revisionism:37170 alt.skinheads:23312 can.politics:45200 soc.culture.canada:88029

gtaylor@msn.fullfeed.com (Gregory Taylor) wrote:

>In article <4n8enp$ese@news2.cts.com>, PKolding  wrote:
>>Yet why, if Griswold's
>>opinions are available to all on the Internet, (and provide 
>>you with literally all your information respecting him) don't you
>>advise the Committee to log on to the Internet to learn about Griswold
>>and his views? It is, after all, his views that are the concern here,
>>isn't it? 

>The first and most obvious reason would be that we don't, in fact, *know*
>that Les himself has written and said what he's written and said. 

Then what's the point? Is it the person or the views that interest the
New Inquistion? Or is the operating principle that you pick a person
at random and then decide to gather evidence? 

If members of Parliament want "evidence" they have only to log-on. 
Why this is not agreeable to the Inquisition is very suspicious.

...[some deleted]...

>How 'bout you PK - are you a closeted Aryan, too?

I'm sure a person like you is perpetually surrounded by Aryans. Most
of them, cunningly, hiding under your bed.



From pkolding@cts.com Thu May 16 12:45:00 PDT 1996
Article: 20065 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
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!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Les Griswold: Muzzled
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 20:07:30 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4nddhg$dmp@news3.cts.com>
References: <318B38EC.4A99@ix.netcom.com> <4n4sgf$oi2@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com> <4n56l0$e7i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4n8enp$ese@news2.cts.com> <4nakdh$6tg@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:46911 alt.politics.nationalism.white:20065 alt.revisionism:37170 alt.skinheads:23312 can.politics:45200 soc.culture.canada:88029

gtaylor@msn.fullfeed.com (Gregory Taylor) wrote:

>In article <4n8enp$ese@news2.cts.com>, PKolding  wrote:
>>Yet why, if Griswold's
>>opinions are available to all on the Internet, (and provide 
>>you with literally all your information respecting him) don't you
>>advise the Committee to log on to the Internet to learn about Griswold
>>and his views? It is, after all, his views that are the concern here,
>>isn't it? 

>The first and most obvious reason would be that we don't, in fact, *know*
>that Les himself has written and said what he's written and said. 

Then what's the point? Is it the person or the views that interest the
New Inquistion? Or is the operating principle that you pick a person
at random and then decide to gather evidence? 

If members of Parliament want "evidence" they have only to log-on. 
Why this is not agreeable to the Inquisition is very suspicious.

...[some deleted]...

>How 'bout you PK - are you a closeted Aryan, too?

I'm sure a person like you is perpetually surrounded by Aryans. Most
of them, cunningly, hiding under your bed.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 17 21:03:26 PDT 1996
Article: 23312 of alt.skinheads
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!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Les Griswold: Muzzled
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 20:07:30 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4nddhg$dmp@news3.cts.com>
References: <318B38EC.4A99@ix.netcom.com> <4n4sgf$oi2@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com> <4n56l0$e7i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4n8enp$ese@news2.cts.com> <4nakdh$6tg@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:46911 alt.politics.nationalism.white:20065 alt.revisionism:37170 alt.skinheads:23312 can.politics:45200 soc.culture.canada:88029

gtaylor@msn.fullfeed.com (Gregory Taylor) wrote:

>In article <4n8enp$ese@news2.cts.com>, PKolding  wrote:
>>Yet why, if Griswold's
>>opinions are available to all on the Internet, (and provide 
>>you with literally all your information respecting him) don't you
>>advise the Committee to log on to the Internet to learn about Griswold
>>and his views? It is, after all, his views that are the concern here,
>>isn't it? 

>The first and most obvious reason would be that we don't, in fact, *know*
>that Les himself has written and said what he's written and said. 

Then what's the point? Is it the person or the views that interest the
New Inquistion? Or is the operating principle that you pick a person
at random and then decide to gather evidence? 

If members of Parliament want "evidence" they have only to log-on. 
Why this is not agreeable to the Inquisition is very suspicious.

...[some deleted]...

>How 'bout you PK - are you a closeted Aryan, too?

I'm sure a person like you is perpetually surrounded by Aryans. Most
of them, cunningly, hiding under your bed.



From pkolding@cts.com Sat May 18 07:36:53 PDT 1996
Article: 37685 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: McVay - Be honest...
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:55:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4njvo1$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <1996May8.054302.19169@wpg.ramp.net> <4mvkao$2th@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4nep53$10o@dec.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:45872 alt.revisionism:37685

caprina@cuug.ab.ca wrote:

>Anyone who has nazi sympathies and says the holocaust didn't happen 
>should be kicked out of Canada. 

Are there any other illegal opinions in the land where speech is a
fundamental freedom? Perhaps you could draw up a list and post it for
us, Caprina? 





From pkolding@cts.com Thu May 23 07:33:25 PDT 1996
Article: 38697 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: RACISM IS ALREADY LEGAL IN CANADA
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:29:59 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4o0t4e$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References: <318B38EC.4A99@ix.netcom.com>  <4n6vnu$pj1@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4nfm8g$aka@tandem.CAM.ORG> <4nggje$btt@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <832426202snz@abaron.demon.co.uk> <31A16A56.4227@compusmart.ab.ca> <4nu5t0$nk2@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:47396 alt.politics.nationalism.white:20675 alt.revisionism:38697 alt.skinheads:24540 can.politics:46958 soc.culture.canada:88623

Tony Kondaks  wrote:

>William Grosvenor  wrote:

>: Through the socalled "affirmative action" programs of both the federal 
>: government and some provinces, it is now impossible for normal, white men 
>: to get jobs such as with the RCMP, or for that matter with the Fire 
>: department of Redmonton Alberta.

>However you may feel about it, whether for or against affirmative action, 
>I am afraid you can't call it illegal (racist maybe).

>Section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows 
>affirmative action, under the conditions it outlines, as an exception to 
>equality guarantees of section 15(1).

>My home province of Quebec, in its charter of rights, also makes 
>exception for affirmative action programs.

>It may interest you to read section 15(2) because it actually lays down 
>conditions for allowing affirmative action to take place...you may find 
>that those groups you feel don't deserve the special treatment may 
>actually not be entitled to it, according to the law.

This last is a trifle modest. EVERYONE in Canada is a member of a
"disadvantaged group" and thus granted special treatment by law, with
the single exception of non-disabled white males. This is a far cry
>from  the intent of affirmative action when it was first proposed.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 15:10:39 PDT 1996
Article: 44814 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc,bofh.dot!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada,can.legal,ont.general,soc.culture.quebec,bc.politics,bc.general,alt.journalism
Subject: Re: Bill C-33 - What you can do!
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 18:51:49 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4nakni$k35@news3.cts.com>
References: <4me250$cr7@kryten.awinc.com>  <318da405.5406301@news.mindlink.net> <318e7e52.188242113@news.uniserve.com> <31901b3c.12226721@NEWS.mindlink.net> <3190d16a.340608867@news.uniserve.com> <4mt82e$m09@news1.io.org> <3192bf03.466989314@news.uniserve.com> <4mvo40$4jb@news1.io.org> <31937291.512962020@news.uniserve.com> <4n27q7$dt8@news1.io.org> <3194bb0d.63325887@news.uniserve.com> <4n86v8$ku0@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77171 soc.culture.canada:87822 can.legal:12992 ont.general:39890 soc.culture.quebec:17439 bc.politics:1613 bc.general:44814 alt.journalism:39474

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>I certainly won't argue that this occurs occasionally, but I do
>believe, still, that, on the whole, people who actually desire to have
>a child, as opposed to "unplanned" pregnancies, will treat their
>children better.  

But unplanned pregnancies happen all the time in nature. And, using
the reasoning put forward by homosexual activists, that must mean they
are perfectly normal. Therefore, saying that such parents will treat
their children worse on that account is nothing but bigotry. :-)






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 15:10:40 PDT 1996
Article: 45219 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!icarus.lon.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,bc.general
Subject: Re: The census' visible-minorities question
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:54:15 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4njvm2$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4na9ug$k67@cheshire.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77767 can.politics:45960 bc.general:45219

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

> If you get the long census form, you are required to respond to
> Question 19.  The Chief Statistician used about a column foot of
> our daily paper explaining that this is designed to measure not
> race, but visible minority status.  Then he listed the choices:
> White, Chinese, South Asian, Black, Arab/West Asian, Filipino,
> South East Asian, Latin American, Japanese, Korean.
> 
> Seven out of ten choices go to differentiate peoples from the
> bottom and right edges of Asia ...[some deleted]...  but
> isn't this a bit biased towards nitpicking among people from
> one, albeit populous, part of the planet?...[some deleted]...
> lumped together in that vague "Black" category. ...[some deleted]..
> 

...[some deleted]...

> 
> No, I'm forced to the conclusion that from the scientific
> viewpoint of the Chief Statistician, and despite all his
> finely-tuned sensitivities to the fine divisions of coastal
> Asian ancestry,   there is no such thing as a Latin American.
> aboriginal descent, but not African (scratch a lot of
> Brazilians) who happen to ...[the rest deleted]...

You have a complete misunderstanding of the bureaucratic
purpose of the question, indeed the purpose for all bureaucratic
questions. They are designed to weed people *out*. The actual question
being asked is "Are you White?". All those who are not, are, by
bureaucratic definition, members of a "visible minority". And the
statisticians require the total number of such people in order to
supply the politicians with the information they need with respect to
funding AA programs.

But asking the direct and singular question "Are you White?" is far
too reminiscent of the Nazi days, where the question was "Are you
Jewish?". People might think the wrong thing, and imagine that the
Canadian government was interested in treating people differently
simply because of their race. Nothing, of course, could  be further
>from  the truth.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 15:10:42 PDT 1996
Article: 45650 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.illuminati,bc.general,ab.general,can.politics,can.atlantic.general
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:11:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv62q$5e2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.philosophy.objectivism:68728 alt.illuminati:13281 bc.general:45650 ab.general:9659 can.politics:47187 can.atlantic.general:1110

John Caballero  wrote:

>It is immoral to judge people by
>factors over which they have no choice. A black person has no choice
>about being born black, the same could be said for a person's sexuality.

I find this argument completely ludicrous. People may judge others on
any basis they wish. I would say it is immoral to suggest otherwise.
The moral question is not the criteria of judgement, but judgement
itself. In short, is it immoral to judge? The suggestion of the famous
Nazarene is that people shouldn't judge, lest they be judged. He
didn't base this on the qualities of those involved, but their
*authority*. The fundamental principle being, as I understand it, that
it is not the person or criteria of judgement that is the issue, but
the authority of the judge---which is a personal question each of us
must answer for himself.

>And finally I have a couple of questions for you - if a man uses his
>mouth to sexually stimulate the penis of another, consenting, man, would
>this be immoral. Or *must* the mouth belong to a female to qualify for
>that distinction, and if so, why?

There are an unlimited number of answers to this, but you don't
provide any context. Presumably, acts have consequences. Conscious,
consensual acts would also seem to imply the knowledge and intent of
conscious, consensual consequences. It seems to me the argument could
be made that sexual acts, by definition, are implicitly concerned with
reproductive consequences. Any sexual act, by this reasoning, that
denies or obstructs reproductive consequences could therefore be
judged as immoral.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 15:10:43 PDT 1996
Article: 45651 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.illuminati,bc.general,ab.general,can.politics,can.atlantic.general
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:11:56 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4o420k$4ub@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nv6tn$638@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4nv89a$m39@news.accent.net> <4nv8s5$m39@news.accent.net> <4nvfne$c7a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.philosophy.objectivism:68729 alt.illuminati:13282 bc.general:45651 ab.general:9660 can.politics:47188 can.atlantic.general:1111

John Caballero  wrote:

>No, it just appeals to your predjudices and hatred of humanity. If, by
>your own assumptions, the only "metaphysically honest" reason to engage
>in sexual activity is to procreate, then anytime a couple engages in
>protected sex (or homosexual sex), they are immoral. My wife had a
>hysterectomy a few years ago thereby rendering us unable to have children
>- I can't wait to tell her that we don't have the right to have sex any
>longer! Your Fundamentalist Christian ideology has no place here (no
>matter how you try to justify it). Go preach to people who actually
>believe in God - you'll get nowhwere with Objectivists.

I'm afraid you have things completely ass-backwards. In the Christian
faith a hysterectomy---even virginity---is no bar to reproduction. Sex
within marriage is one's moral duty, notwithstanding the pleasure this
involves. :-) 

Some denominations, however, take the view that sex should be
undertaken for the right reasons and that it is immoral to deny or
subvert this. Just as it would be immoral to pray insincerely, or to
bear false witness, they argue that sex undertaken deliberately to
avoid reproduction is immoral. 






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 16:37:06 PDT 1996
Article: 77099 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4n8enk$ese@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4mt7vr$m09@news1.io.org> <319246DC.ED0@bnr.ca> <4muvts$6tl@news1.io.org>  <1996May10.162520.1@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca> <4n2eqd$2iu@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77099 can.politics:44569

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:


>This would be quite difficult for a typical straight person to do.
>They would probably have discussed their opposite sex boy/girlfriend
>or even a wife or husband.  Or even talked about good-looking
>celebrities of the opposite sex.  It would be quite obvious that they
>were lying if the day after they were fired that they became "gay".

Let everyone understand what you are saying: A person's sexual
orientation is independently unverifiable, and its determination
impossible, except by hearsay evidence relating to public "views and
activities" that the tribunal feels are *intrinsically* associated
with a specific orientation. What you are saying is that sexual
orientation intrinsically connotes certain sexual activities, and that
upon *opinions regarding sexual activities* people and acts will be
judged discriminatory or not.







From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 16:37:08 PDT 1996
Article: 77171 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc,bofh.dot!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada,can.legal,ont.general,soc.culture.quebec,bc.politics,bc.general,alt.journalism
Subject: Re: Bill C-33 - What you can do!
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 18:51:49 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4nakni$k35@news3.cts.com>
References: <4me250$cr7@kryten.awinc.com>  <318da405.5406301@news.mindlink.net> <318e7e52.188242113@news.uniserve.com> <31901b3c.12226721@NEWS.mindlink.net> <3190d16a.340608867@news.uniserve.com> <4mt82e$m09@news1.io.org> <3192bf03.466989314@news.uniserve.com> <4mvo40$4jb@news1.io.org> <31937291.512962020@news.uniserve.com> <4n27q7$dt8@news1.io.org> <3194bb0d.63325887@news.uniserve.com> <4n86v8$ku0@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77171 soc.culture.canada:87822 can.legal:12992 ont.general:39890 soc.culture.quebec:17439 bc.politics:1613 bc.general:44814 alt.journalism:39474

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>I certainly won't argue that this occurs occasionally, but I do
>believe, still, that, on the whole, people who actually desire to have
>a child, as opposed to "unplanned" pregnancies, will treat their
>children better.  

But unplanned pregnancies happen all the time in nature. And, using
the reasoning put forward by homosexual activists, that must mean they
are perfectly normal. Therefore, saying that such parents will treat
their children worse on that account is nothing but bigotry. :-)






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 16:37:11 PDT 1996
Article: 77762 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!n1ott.istar!n3ott.istar!istar.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,can.general,ont.general
Subject: Re: Svend Said It
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:55:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4njvnt$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mvklo$j9h@thor.atcon.com> <4n284j$dt8@news1.io.org> <4n304k$mes@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n86vs$ku0@news1.io.org> <4n8lrq$es7@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ncpji$hce@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:45952 can.general:77762 ont.general:40468

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>It's fine to state that "masses of Canadian DO have objections" to
>legal gay partnerships, but unless they can offer a valid, logical
>explanation (and not a visceral or religious one) as to why they
>object, then I'll consider them bigotted.

Then you should have no objection to polygamy, the marriage of
blood-relations, or the payment and enforcement of spousal benefits to
any person who claims any other person is his "spouse".

If the standard is to be that any personal relationship that can be
justified on its own, internally-based merits, deserves legal
sanctification, I don't really see the need for any laws whatever with
respect to personal relationships. All government benefits, by this
standard, should be open to every single individual without regard to
their personal lives or values.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 16:37:12 PDT 1996
Article: 77767 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!icarus.lon.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,bc.general
Subject: Re: The census' visible-minorities question
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:54:15 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4njvm2$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4na9ug$k67@cheshire.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77767 can.politics:45960 bc.general:45219

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

> If you get the long census form, you are required to respond to
> Question 19.  The Chief Statistician used about a column foot of
> our daily paper explaining that this is designed to measure not
> race, but visible minority status.  Then he listed the choices:
> White, Chinese, South Asian, Black, Arab/West Asian, Filipino,
> South East Asian, Latin American, Japanese, Korean.
> 
> Seven out of ten choices go to differentiate peoples from the
> bottom and right edges of Asia ...[some deleted]...  but
> isn't this a bit biased towards nitpicking among people from
> one, albeit populous, part of the planet?...[some deleted]...
> lumped together in that vague "Black" category. ...[some deleted]..
> 

...[some deleted]...

> 
> No, I'm forced to the conclusion that from the scientific
> viewpoint of the Chief Statistician, and despite all his
> finely-tuned sensitivities to the fine divisions of coastal
> Asian ancestry,   there is no such thing as a Latin American.
> aboriginal descent, but not African (scratch a lot of
> Brazilians) who happen to ...[the rest deleted]...

You have a complete misunderstanding of the bureaucratic
purpose of the question, indeed the purpose for all bureaucratic
questions. They are designed to weed people *out*. The actual question
being asked is "Are you White?". All those who are not, are, by
bureaucratic definition, members of a "visible minority". And the
statisticians require the total number of such people in order to
supply the politicians with the information they need with respect to
funding AA programs.

But asking the direct and singular question "Are you White?" is far
too reminiscent of the Nazi days, where the question was "Are you
Jewish?". People might think the wrong thing, and imagine that the
Canadian government was interested in treating people differently
simply because of their race. Nothing, of course, could  be further
>from  the truth.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 16:37:13 PDT 1996
Article: 77770 of can.general
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.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:55:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4njvnr$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4mt7vr$m09@news1.io.org> <319246DC.ED0@bnr.ca> <4muvts$6tl@news1.io.org>  <1996May10.162520.1@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca> <4n2eqd$2iu@news1.io.org> <4n8enk$ese@news2.cts.com> <4ncphl$hce@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77770 can.politics:45972

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>>>This would be quite difficult for a typical straight person to do.
>>>They would probably have discussed their opposite sex boy/girlfriend
>>>or even a wife or husband.  Or even talked about good-looking
>>>celebrities of the opposite sex.  It would be quite obvious that they
>>>were lying if the day after they were fired that they became "gay".

>>Let everyone understand what you are saying: A person's sexual
>>orientation is independently unverifiable, and its determination
>>impossible, except by hearsay evidence relating to public "views and
>>activities" that the tribunal feels are *intrinsically* associated
>>with a specific orientation. What you are saying is that sexual
>>orientation intrinsically connotes certain sexual activities, and that
>>upon *opinions regarding sexual activities* people and acts will be
>>judged discriminatory or not.

>That's not what I'm saying, at all.  Where did I mean "sexual
>activity"?  

>What I said was that heterosexuals display their sexual orientation in
>public, often and casually.  Homosexuals are much more careful in this
>regard.  It would be very difficult for a straight person to pull off
>a sham such as this to claim they were fired from a job because they
>are gay.

How can someone "display their sexual orientation in public, often and
casually" if you maintain that the determination of sexual orientation
has no connection to sexual activity?






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 16:37:14 PDT 1996
Article: 77929 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:50:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4noj3r$sip@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4mt7vr$m09@news1.io.org> <319246DC.ED0@bnr.ca> <4muvts$6tl@news1.io.org>  <1996May10.162520.1@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca> <4n7cmv$3s8@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77929 can.politics:46282

aa006@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Kevin Alexander James Nugent) wrote:

>Steven A. Hocevar (steve@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca) wrote:

>: If I get fired, I can say I'm a homo-sexual and that was the reason
>: for the firing.  I can say I told the boss in private the day before
>: the firing and that was why I was fired.

>Cool.  Now when Donald Trump dies I can claim that he called me the day 
>before and told me he wanted me to have all of his money!

>There are already situations in law that require stuff like  this to be 
>part of an obvious pattern.  We interview everyone in your life and if we 
>don't find that you were openly gay they you're outta luck.  You're gonna 
>have to start acting gay right now.  Go blow someone.

I'm afraid your ignorance is showing. No such investigations can be
undertaken, because "sexual orientation" cannot be independently
verified. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 16:37:16 PDT 1996
Article: 78355 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.vbc.net!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:28:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4o0t19$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References:  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4mt7vr$m09@news1.io.org> <319246DC.ED0@bnr.ca> <4muvts$6tl@news1.io.org>  <1996May10.162520.1@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca> <4n7cmv$3s8@apollo.isisnet.com> <4noj3r$sip@news2.cts.com> <4npfil$dti@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47082 can.general:78355

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

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>>>There are already situations in law that require stuff like  this to be 
>>>part of an obvious pattern.  We interview everyone in your life and if we 
>>>don't find that you were openly gay they you're outta luck.  You're gonna 
>>>have to start acting gay right now.  Go blow someone.
>> 
>> I'm afraid your ignorance is showing. No such investigations can be
>> undertaken, because "sexual orientation" cannot be independently
>> verified. 

>	An immigrant marrying for citizenship can be rooted out just as
>easily as a straight pretending to be gay.

Pardon me, but sexual orientation is not supposed to be a matter of
activities, but is, according to those who supported the amendment,
simply an innate "orientation". Are you now agreeing with what I have
been warning all along: That "sexual orientation" will now be
interpreted by tribunals and other authorities as incorporating
implicitly certain sexual and/or social *activities*? And, upon this
basis, views expressed with respect to certain *sexual activities*
will be considered grounds for charges of discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:03 PDT 1996
Article: 45952 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!n1ott.istar!n3ott.istar!istar.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,can.general,ont.general
Subject: Re: Svend Said It
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:55:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4njvnt$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mvklo$j9h@thor.atcon.com> <4n284j$dt8@news1.io.org> <4n304k$mes@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n86vs$ku0@news1.io.org> <4n8lrq$es7@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ncpji$hce@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:45952 can.general:77762 ont.general:40468

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>It's fine to state that "masses of Canadian DO have objections" to
>legal gay partnerships, but unless they can offer a valid, logical
>explanation (and not a visceral or religious one) as to why they
>object, then I'll consider them bigotted.

Then you should have no objection to polygamy, the marriage of
blood-relations, or the payment and enforcement of spousal benefits to
any person who claims any other person is his "spouse".

If the standard is to be that any personal relationship that can be
justified on its own, internally-based merits, deserves legal
sanctification, I don't really see the need for any laws whatever with
respect to personal relationships. All government benefits, by this
standard, should be open to every single individual without regard to
their personal lives or values.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:04 PDT 1996
Article: 45960 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!icarus.lon.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,bc.general
Subject: Re: The census' visible-minorities question
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:54:15 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4njvm2$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4na9ug$k67@cheshire.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77767 can.politics:45960 bc.general:45219

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

> If you get the long census form, you are required to respond to
> Question 19.  The Chief Statistician used about a column foot of
> our daily paper explaining that this is designed to measure not
> race, but visible minority status.  Then he listed the choices:
> White, Chinese, South Asian, Black, Arab/West Asian, Filipino,
> South East Asian, Latin American, Japanese, Korean.
> 
> Seven out of ten choices go to differentiate peoples from the
> bottom and right edges of Asia ...[some deleted]...  but
> isn't this a bit biased towards nitpicking among people from
> one, albeit populous, part of the planet?...[some deleted]...
> lumped together in that vague "Black" category. ...[some deleted]..
> 

...[some deleted]...

> 
> No, I'm forced to the conclusion that from the scientific
> viewpoint of the Chief Statistician, and despite all his
> finely-tuned sensitivities to the fine divisions of coastal
> Asian ancestry,   there is no such thing as a Latin American.
> aboriginal descent, but not African (scratch a lot of
> Brazilians) who happen to ...[the rest deleted]...

You have a complete misunderstanding of the bureaucratic
purpose of the question, indeed the purpose for all bureaucratic
questions. They are designed to weed people *out*. The actual question
being asked is "Are you White?". All those who are not, are, by
bureaucratic definition, members of a "visible minority". And the
statisticians require the total number of such people in order to
supply the politicians with the information they need with respect to
funding AA programs.

But asking the direct and singular question "Are you White?" is far
too reminiscent of the Nazi days, where the question was "Are you
Jewish?". People might think the wrong thing, and imagine that the
Canadian government was interested in treating people differently
simply because of their race. Nothing, of course, could  be further
>from  the truth.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:06 PDT 1996
Article: 45963 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!icarus.lon.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:54:23 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <4njvmb$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mt00d$q73@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n1ajl$in6@news.agt.net> <4n7kua$1i7@news2.cts.com> <4nd6hr$csa@knot.queensu.ca>
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:

>: Why should the government force people to approve of you, your sexual
>: orientation, or your sexual activities?

>Mr. Kolding, I am yet again amazed that I find you posting to a thread a 
>comment that any sane person with a positive IQ would feel was completely 
>refuted elsewhere on threads where you had participated.  So, using the 
>time old tradition that one should shout at people who are completely 
>ignorant, and, on the hope that, where I am forced to use pollysyllabic 
>(i.e. big) words, a dictionary (i.e., book that tells what words mean) 
>can help you out:

>NO ONE WANTS TO FORCE YOU TO LIKE GAYS/LESBIANS.  IN FACT, IF YOU 
>APPROVED, WE WOULD BE SO STUNNED WE WOULD ALL HAVE HEART ATTACKS -- SO, 
>PLEASE, STAY A BIGOT.  WHAT THE LAW NOW STATES IS THAT NO ONE MAY CHOOSE 
>TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANOTHER ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  

I know perfectly well what the laws says, and I have described on more
than one occasion what this means in practical terms: People will be
obliged to condone and/or approve of all sexual activities that could
be construed, however tangentially, as reflecting upon any sexual
orientation. They will not only be denied the right to association on
the basis of their opinion of people and the sexual acts they
undertake, but they will be open to legal sanction if they even
express disapproval. And I pose the question again:  Why should the
government force people to approve of you, your sexual
orientation, or your sexual activities?


>: What rights, exactly, are you denied? Homosexual activity is not
>: criminalised. Why should people be obliged to condone, approve or even
>: like you?

>Well, at least you are consistent, Mr. Kolding.  The number of times 
>which I, personally, have answered your question "what rights, exactly, 
>are gays and lesbians denied" is now approaching an uncountable set.  
>Please forgive me if I simply ask you to actually read at least ONE of 
>those many posts.

But you haven't answered the question I asked, you avoided answering
it. As everyone else has. This is because there are no rights that are
denied people on the basis of their sexual orientation.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:07 PDT 1996
Article: 45964 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!icarus.lon.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: WHY ALLOW FAGGOTS AS SO-CALLED REFUGEES?
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:54:13 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4njvm0$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mrucd$i2q@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <8319577586503@bbs.kosone.com> <4nde0r$42b@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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


>: The second part is absolutely true, but homosexuality is sexually
>: deviant by definition.  Sexual "normality" in nature (including amongst
>: human animals) is the practice of the act of hetero intercourse which
>: is *useful* for propagation.

>Hmmm.. by the Diagnostic and Statistical Medical Journal (version IV), 
>Homosexuality is not devient behaviour. It hasn't been listed as such 
>since Version II way back in the 1970's. This is also the "yardstick" by 
>which most psychiatrists and Dr's measure what's "normal" and what isn't.

You forgot to mention that no medical or psychological investigations
prompted this change.  A select group of officials, prompted by forces
unexplained, simply had a show of hands one day, and, voila,
homosexuality was "normal".



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:08 PDT 1996
Article: 45965 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!icarus.lon.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!uniserve!news.sol.net!news.inc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (PKolding)
Newsgroups: carleton.talk.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ncf.general
Subject: Re: Repugnant Reform Party
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:53:38 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4njvkt$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4m8t4d$66t@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>        <4n7i1j$11o@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4nako9$k35@news3.cts.com> <4nc795$hvp@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:45965 ont.general:40472

jwwells@chat.carleton.ca (J. W. Wells) wrote:



>> >You said lets protect the white, anglo males..it just a step away--can't you
>> >see that. Give fascists an inch, they'll try to take a mile--Remember the
>> >Neo-Nazi Skinheads will follow your path of action--and when they join your
>> >movement, they will soon become instrumental in dictating your policy.

>> Let me just interrupt your bigotry for a brief note of reality. It was
>> white anglo men who fought and died overthrowing the Nazis. The Nazis
>> regaled in their TEUTONIC heritage, you racist, sexist bigot.

>Most flames make me laugh. This one did not. MY bigotry. Without twisting
>my words around, how could what I have mentioned be construed as hateful.

Please don't play the injured innocent. You are the fellow who has
said giving "white anglo males" equal rights is one step away from
them joining the Nazis. You are a sexist and a racist. 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:09 PDT 1996
Article: 45971 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: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:55:06 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4njvnl$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4n7ks1$1i7@news2.cts.com> <3197A5A7.2040@bnr.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

"Rene S. Hollan"  wrote:

>Again, I ask those who support C-33, "Do you favour legislation that
>prohibits discriminating against an employee solely on the basis of the
>fact that they're homosexual, but grants no such protection to
>heterosexuals? Would you remain silent if such legislation came to
>pass?"

>C-33 does not do this. But, if the history of employment equity
>legislation is any guide, C-33 is a stepping stone to just such
>legislation.

C-33 amends the CHRA to make "sexual orientation" a prohibited form of
discrimination. The CHRA is the legislation that empowers and
instructs the Canadian Human Rights Commission to undertake
Affirmative Action policies on the pretext of countering prohibited
forms of discrimination. The passage of C-33 therefore renders further
legislation with respect to AA for homosexuals unnecessary. The
unelected Commission can, and will, inaugurate AA for homosexuals as
soon as it wants without any further democratic action or legislation
being undertaken.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:11 PDT 1996
Article: 45972 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.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:55:12 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4njvnr$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4mt7vr$m09@news1.io.org> <319246DC.ED0@bnr.ca> <4muvts$6tl@news1.io.org>  <1996May10.162520.1@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca> <4n2eqd$2iu@news1.io.org> <4n8enk$ese@news2.cts.com> <4ncphl$hce@news1.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77770 can.politics:45972

lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>lovebite@io.org (ron) wrote:

>>>This would be quite difficult for a typical straight person to do.
>>>They would probably have discussed their opposite sex boy/girlfriend
>>>or even a wife or husband.  Or even talked about good-looking
>>>celebrities of the opposite sex.  It would be quite obvious that they
>>>were lying if the day after they were fired that they became "gay".

>>Let everyone understand what you are saying: A person's sexual
>>orientation is independently unverifiable, and its determination
>>impossible, except by hearsay evidence relating to public "views and
>>activities" that the tribunal feels are *intrinsically* associated
>>with a specific orientation. What you are saying is that sexual
>>orientation intrinsically connotes certain sexual activities, and that
>>upon *opinions regarding sexual activities* people and acts will be
>>judged discriminatory or not.

>That's not what I'm saying, at all.  Where did I mean "sexual
>activity"?  

>What I said was that heterosexuals display their sexual orientation in
>public, often and casually.  Homosexuals are much more careful in this
>regard.  It would be very difficult for a straight person to pull off
>a sham such as this to claim they were fired from a job because they
>are gay.

How can someone "display their sexual orientation in public, often and
casually" if you maintain that the determination of sexual orientation
has no connection to sexual activity?






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:11 PDT 1996
Article: 45973 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: The Oshawa Group
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 07:55:20 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4njvo3$378@news3.cts.com>
References: <4nfjgl$fco@mag3.magmacom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

pcanniff@canniff.com (Paul A. Canniff) wrote:

>There are reports of a secret group among Ontario's Reform ranks denouncing
>Preston Manning and threatening to aid and abet the Grits and Tories in the next
>election if their demands are not met.

What are the demands of this secret group?

>This "Oshawa Group" is clearly without any honour and courage, deserving only
>contempt from Reformers and others committed to democratic change.

It's difficult to agree with this without knowing who these people
are, or what they are proposing, don't you think?


>I urge thoughtful Reformers to post publicly their opposition to such
> practices.

What practices? 

>An Email of support to pmanning@reform.ca would be 
>helpful as well.

Supporting what?


>Let's set things right!

I like the fact that you posted to this newsgroup. Set things right by
actually informing us what you are on about.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:13 PDT 1996
Article: 46282 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:50:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4noj3r$sip@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4mt7vr$m09@news1.io.org> <319246DC.ED0@bnr.ca> <4muvts$6tl@news1.io.org>  <1996May10.162520.1@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca> <4n7cmv$3s8@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.general:77929 can.politics:46282

aa006@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Kevin Alexander James Nugent) wrote:

>Steven A. Hocevar (steve@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca) wrote:

>: If I get fired, I can say I'm a homo-sexual and that was the reason
>: for the firing.  I can say I told the boss in private the day before
>: the firing and that was why I was fired.

>Cool.  Now when Donald Trump dies I can claim that he called me the day 
>before and told me he wanted me to have all of his money!

>There are already situations in law that require stuff like  this to be 
>part of an obvious pattern.  We interview everyone in your life and if we 
>don't find that you were openly gay they you're outta luck.  You're gonna 
>have to start acting gay right now.  Go blow someone.

I'm afraid your ignorance is showing. No such investigations can be
undertaken, because "sexual orientation" cannot be independently
verified. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:14 PDT 1996
Article: 46283 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Les Griswold: Muzzled
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:50:51 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <4noj4p$sip@news2.cts.com>
References: <318B38EC.4A99@ix.netcom.com> <4n3lc0$344@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com> <4n4kaq$5mh@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n4sgf$oi2@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com> <4n56l0$e7i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4n8enp$ese@news2.cts.com> <31980974.9070204@news>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

pgroff@txdirect.net (pgroff) wrote:

>On Mon, 13 May 1996 22:57:19 GMT, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>(Mr. McVay snipped)
>>The above illustrates the internal contradiction of your own
>>arguments, I'm afraid.
>No, it is you that doesn't understand what Mr. McVay has written.

> You have on more than one occassion asked
>>Griswold why he won't appear before the Committee, you have requested
>>the Committee to invite him, and you have claimed that attendance is
>>for informational purposes and nothing else. Yet why, if Griswold's
>>opinions are available to all on the Internet, (and provide 
>>you with literally all your information respecting him) don't you
>>advise the Committee to log on to the Internet to learn about Griswold
>>and his views? It is, after all, his views that are the concern here,
>>isn't it? 

>Mr. PKolding, look at it this way. Many, many people print trash each
>and every day, people like Zundel and others, now if one should so
>wish to read them and then assume that Mr. Zundel wrote said trash
>fine, but having Mr. Zundel or in this case, Griswold tell the
>committe that, yes I said it, and so what, I enjoyed it and had a lot
>of fun with my hatred, then he wouldn't be viewed as the pants wetting
>hypocrite he seems to be. That and people could actually see the
>little simp and realize that racists aren't always big guys named
>bubba.

This is all very interesting. So appearing before a Parliamentary
Committee ISN'T about providing the members with information, but with
trashing Canadian citizens whose views are disapproved of by some
powerful interest group.

This is exactly what I was pointing out. Appearing before a
Parliamentary Committe is pure politics and has nothing to do with the
gathering of information. 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:15 PDT 1996
Article: 46284 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Freedom of religion is dead - Homo rights live on
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:50:57 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4noj4v$sip@news2.cts.com>
References: <4nakqv$k35@news3.cts.com> <832177960.3969snx@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 <4nakqv$k35@news3.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com writes:
>>

>Pkholding, you are very naive if you believe that the employer has less
>power than the employee. Particularly in these lousy markets.

Since you didn't actually quote anything I said, I'll post the item I
think you were referring to:

"Both the employer and employee are private individuals living and
working in their private lives. All rules and regulations that the
state enforces on them are limitations on their private lives,
generally on the pretext of it being for the "public good". The
central objection to latter-day lawmaking, as I see it, is that the
government is now ordering people's attitudes and activities with
respect to a singular theological or moral model. It has gone from
keeping order in the public square, to enforcing theological order in
people's minds. It now seeks to govern not by managing the
disputations between freethinking citizens, but by eliminating all
individual thought and disputation. In short, the government will do
the thinking, and the government will decide what is to be disputed
and what is not to be, on pain of law, and applicable to the most
personal and private activities of the citizenry."

The power relationship between employer and employee is a valid
concern of government, but all the power is derived from the relative
existence of competition, not the personal moral views of the
employer. Strong anti-trust legislation and laws relating to the
principle of "competition over capitalism" are the solution to this
problem, not theological indoctrination and inquisitions conducted
against those who can't adhere to ever-changing government catechism.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:16 PDT 1996
Article: 46285 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:51:50 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4noj6k$sip@news2.cts.com>
References:        <4nm333$8r9@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:46285 bc.politics:2267

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

>On Sat, 18 May 1996 16:47:11 -0600 Duane Hewitt said ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>BC ELECTION POLICE THREATEN TO CHARGE NCC
>>
>What is it that give the NCC the right to circumvent Canadian
>electoral laws?

People outside Canada are not bound by Canadian laws, thank God.


>Why shouldn't the NCC be bound by the same limitations on
>electoral spending as all other groups in B.C.?  

Nothing stops these other groups from doing business in the U.S.

>Why is the NCC above the law?

If the NCC is breaking this law, then so are all the people outside of
BC who are commenting on the election on the various Internet Canadian
politics newsgroups. 

More to the point, all the people who are posting from *within B.C.*
are, without question, breaking the law. Are you going to do your
civic duty and report them, Robin?




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:17 PDT 1996
Article: 46286 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.coast.net!sgigate.sgi.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:51:56 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4noj6q$sip@news2.cts.com>
References: <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nl64j$eub@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

John Caballero  wrote:


>>It is classified similar to having sex with an animal, a child...

>No, those actions are illegal and immoral because the animal and/or child
>are not able to provide informed consent. 

Since when is "consent" a matter of morality or legal principle?
Neither a child nor an animal can provide informed consent in any
matter. By your standard, any act undertaken with respect to a child
or animal is definitely immoral, and possibly illegal.

>One who would value sex with an
>animal or a child is irrational because the target of his desire is not
>able to fully able to comprehend the complex nature of a sexual
>relationship and thus cannot rationally give consent.

One can say exactly the same thing with respect to life-saving
surgical operations. "Consent" and someone else's ignorance has no
place in a determining morality. If having sex with an animal or a
child is immoral, it is immoral even if yhose involved completely
comprehend and give their consent.

>>it's possible but it's not in accord with the rationally determined ideal.

I think this is shoddy thinking. Rationality is no stronger than the
premises it relies upon. Two rational people can produce absolutely
opposite and conflicting moral codes without ever failing to be
competely consistent and rational.

>And what *is* the rationally determined ideal? What document (besides the
>Bible or its derivaties) declares homosexuality immoral?

>There is no objective way to declare homosexuality between rational,
>consenting, adults immoral.

The above is perhaps the least rational declaration one could make.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:18 PDT 1996
Article: 46924 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!utcsri!uniserve!n2van.istar!n1van.istar!van.istar!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 22:12:45 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4o03gt$1lj@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com> <4mg5s5$led@news.sas.ab.ca> <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

rjk@laraby.tiac.net (Robert J. Kolker) wrote:

>	Your thesis sounds to much like Papal bull. Humanea Vitea posits
>	that sexual activity is only morally valid when there is a 
>	possibility of its natural potential (making babies) has a poss-
>	ibilty of realization.

>	Taken to its logical conclusion, barren couples should not screw,
>	nor woman past the age of menopause. This of course is total 
>	tommyrot and balderdash. Many couples have satisfactory sexual
>	relationships when there is no intent or no ability to make
>	babies.

I really don't think you should be making these oafish pronouncements
on Catholic doctrine. The religious possibility of barren women giving
birth is precisely why the Church insists they have the right to marry
and have sex, and not the other way around.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:19 PDT 1996
Article: 46965 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!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 22:12:28 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <4o03gd$1lj@news2.cts.com>
References: <132612.13796.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>In <4nakon$k35@news3.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:

>>As I've asked more than once: What acts and expressions would
>>constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? 

>The following are examples:

>You are fired from the telephone company because you are gay!

A person's sexual orientation cannot be independently verifiable. I
wish to know what act and/or expression constitutes discrimination of
the basis of sexual orientation. For instance, if an employer made the
statement that sexual relations bewteen men was morally wrong and
repugnant---would he be open to a charge of discrimination or
harrassment on the basis of sexual orientation?


>You will not get a loan at this bank because you are gay!

>You fags are not allowed to book a cabin on this ship!

>>If an employer expresses disapproval of sexual activity between 
>>men, is he now going to be subject to the charge of discrimination 
>>on the basis of sexual orientation? 

>First, you cannot be charged with discrimination.

>An employer might do so and continue not to discriminate against
>his employees on the basis of sexual orientation, and so long has
>his expressions are not too frequent or outrageousm, there is no
>problem.

I don't understand this last proviso. An opinion is either grounds for
discrimination or it isn't. It is the content of the opinion that is
at issue with respect to discrimination.


>If the employer continues to make the comments to such an extent
>that it becomes impossible for an employee to continue to work,
>a complaint might be made. It is akin to a complaint of sexual
>harrassment.

I still don't understand what the standard is. Is saying that sex
between people of the same sex is morally wrong and repugnant a crime?

>On them does the CHRC has the power to tell the employer to stop 
>saying those things in the workplace, to award damages, etc.

>>This new amendment to the CHRA demands, in
>>reality, that people condone or approve all *sexual activities* that
>>any sexual orientation may be reasonably imply.

>No. All it says is not to discriminate on the basis of sexual
>orientation. 

>Just like discrimination on the basis of religion does not
>require one to condone or approve any particular religion.
>You just aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of that
>religion.

But it is discrimination and/or harrassment for an employer to say
that Jews or Christians or Muslims, etc. are morally suspect and that
their religion is repugnant. One the other hand, it is not harrassment
for an employer to say that genuflecting, facing East or circumcision
is repugnant or absurd. When sexual orientation is added to this mix,
however, people are faced with having to condone or approve any sexual
activity that can be construed, even tangentially, to reflect on
someone's unknown sexual orientation.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:20 PDT 1996
Article: 46966 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!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 22:12:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <4o03gr$1lj@news2.cts.com>
References: <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nl64j$eub@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4noj6q$sip@news2.cts.com> <4npfb5$dt3@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> John Caballero  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>It is classified similar to having sex with an animal, a child...
>> 
>>>No, those actions are illegal and immoral because the animal and/or child
>>>are not able to provide informed consent. 
>> 
>> Since when is "consent" a matter of morality or legal principle?

>	Since about 4000 years ago, Peter. 

Moral and legal principles have been derived from the idea of
*authority*, not consent. Democratic principles grant *authority* to
the people who then consent that others exercise this authority on
their behalf. The Divine Right of Kings is similarly a matter of the
authority of God being granted to Monarchs.

>> Neither a child nor an animal can provide informed consent in any
>> matter. By your standard, any act undertaken with respect to a child
>> or animal is definitely immoral, and possibly illegal.

>	Hence the basis of vegetarianism. 
>	I think he's referring to sex with animals and children specifically.

But you are making the case that these things are immoral and illegal
because they are done without consent. I merely point out that since
children and animals are not deemed capable of consenting to anything,
therefore anything done to them---good or bad---must by your standard
be immoral and/or illegal.

>> One can say exactly the same thing with respect to life-saving
>> surgical operations. "Consent" and someone else's ignorance has no
>> place in a determining morality. If having sex with an animal or a
>> child is immoral, it is immoral even if yhose involved completely
>> comprehend and give their consent.

>Consent has a lot to do with morality in sexual matters. Without
>consent, it's rape.

I don't think defining rape is the moral explanation of it. The
morality of things is based on our conception of the "Good", without
reference to consent at all. Even in law there is the basic principle
that one must know "right" from "wrong", and not the definitions of
crimes as set out in statutes.


>>>And what *is* the rationally determined ideal? What document (besides the
>>>Bible or its derivaties) declares homosexuality immoral?
>> 
>>>There is no objective way to declare homosexuality between rational,
>>>consenting, adults immoral.
>> 
>> The above is perhaps the least rational declaration one could make.

>	It's very rational. There is no way that consensual sex between
>adults can be deemed immoral, unless one of them dies in the process. 

What if one of them has AIDS, or whose family has a history of
hereditary insanity, or is bound by an oath of chastity or fidelity,
or whose partner is a blood-relation, or if the sex act takes place in
front of children, or in a religious shrine, or during work
hours...etc...

There are literally an unlimited number of ways "consensual sex" could
be deemed immoral---all of them based on conceptions of what is
"good", and not what is nominally consented to.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:21 PDT 1996
Article: 46974 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!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ab.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 22:12:41 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4o03gp$1lj@news2.cts.com>
References: <172150.13996.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4novbi$6uq@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

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

>>While I don't know the content of the ads, I do support
>>the idea of limiting spending on election campaigns.

>>Only a banana republic would allow those who have the money
>>to spend excessive amounts of money on a campaign.

>The contents of the ad is not relevant to the issue.  The BC Elections
>Act prohibits 3rd parties to spend more than $5000 on election
>advertising.  Do you consider that to be "excessive amounts of money",
>Stephen?

This is far too glib. Do you think the NDP passed the law because it
*wasn't* interested in the content of ads? This law is ALL about
speech control---specifically, the speech of the voters.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:22 PDT 1996
Article: 47067 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!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 (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ns.general
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Heterosexuality - Time to Bash the Bashers
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:30:20 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <4o0t52$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References: <4nrvio$ic5@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

kevboy@ra.isisinet.com (Kris Kennedy) wrote:

>Don't you see that gay realtionships (they are ALREADY valid, sir.  
>Me and my bf are more  valid than you'll ever be...) and gay families 
>can only ADD to the nation's family base?   It's a simple equation....

>1996:   X heterosexual families

>2000:   X heterosexual families + Y homosexual families

>There is absolutely no hinderance to the present and future heterosexual 
>families.  Gay couples and the like will only ADD to the coupleships already 
>everywhere in this nation.   And I'd bet a million bucks we'd statistically 
>ALL show you het couples up.  Less splits, no divorces, no bankruptcies, no 
>mistake babies, etc.   What are you afraid of?

I don't agree with your respondent who claims that sexual orientation
is a *choice*, except for a small number of bisexuals who are
genuinely confused. However, now that you've brought the discussion
down to the social and legal aspects of granting homosexual marriage
equivalency to "traditional" marriage I have to take issue with you.  
Marriage does not make either of the parties members of their
partners' *family*. It is the *children* of the marriage that become
members of their parents' families, and maintain the families. Please
note that it is the children of the *marriage*, and not simply any
children produced by one or the other spouse, in or out of marriage.
So there IS a challenge to "family" when homosexual relationships are
equated with traditional marriage: It means that the most basic and
fundamental tie between family members will be destroyed, i.e. blood
relationships through formal marriage. 

It seems to me that if homosexuals REALLY believed in family they
would marry someone of the opposite sex and produce children. The
conduct of their marriage with respect to their sexual habits
otherwise, could be as free and as active as they want. It is not
prudery or obstinacy that drives many of those who object to
homosexual "marriage", but the legal equation of such unions with
marriage and the destruction of "family", as a concept, that will
result. If things progress as so many wish there will not be any
families in future, only gangs.
 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:23 PDT 1996
Article: 47068 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!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 (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:30:58 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4o0t68$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com> <4mg5s5$led@news.sas.ab.ca> <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nmeoq$mn0@loki.tor.hookup.net>  <4nt8fn$7le@cliff.island.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

rdgood@qb.island.net (Meaghan Walker) wrote:

> 
>Should I deny my love for a person simply because people like you think that 
>biology should determine my nature? That choice and rationality are obsolete 
>when it comes to sex because reproduction is a sometimes consequence of sex.

I think the argument is that reproduction is always the consequence of
sex, and that "sexual" acts that deliberately subvert or prevent this
consequence are by definition not sexual at all, but are perversions
of sexuality. I don't completely share this view, but I find it hard
to counter. Your view that love is somehow a rational argument for any
sexual activity is absurd.







From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:24 PDT 1996
Article: 47069 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!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 (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: WHY ALLOW FAGGOTS AS SO-CALLED REFUGEES?
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:31:20 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4o0t6u$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mrucd$i2q@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <8319577586503@bbs.kosone.com> <4nde0r$42b@apollo.isisnet.com> <4njvm0$378@news3.cts.com> <4ntj0r$lgb@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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


>PKolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:

>Re, the DSM on homosexuality:

>> 
>> You forgot to mention that no medical or psychological investigations
>> prompted this change.  A select group of officials, prompted by forces
>> unexplained, simply had a show of hands one day, and, voila,
>> homosexuality was "normal".

>Seems as good a reason as any.  They might just as well have had a show of
>hands to decide that it is "abnormal".  This reflects the age old question
>of what makes a behaviour abnormal.  And, by saying that something "is not
>the norm", are we saying that it is undesirable, and should be treated?

Abnormality is not a difficult or strange concept. If something that
is common in humanity is missing in the individual, that is abnormal.
If something that is missing in humanity is present in an individual,
that is abnormal. There is nothing innately prejorative in the
defining of abnormality.


>In the case of homosexuality, I don't see that the two APAs had much
>choice but to take a sociological approach.  Homosexuality, per se, does
>not impair one's day-to-day functioning, is not associated with
>hallucinations or delusions, and does not threaten the safety of the
>individual or others.  Difficulties with being a homosexual are
>sociocultural, not inherent.  One might just as well be committed for
>celibacy.

This is the argument that says that it is society's fault that makes
the homosexual a neurotic, not his homosexual cravings and activities.
I daresay it is an argument that could justify any behaviour.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:25 PDT 1996
Article: 47070 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!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 (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:31:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4o0t7k$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References:       <4nm333$8r9@kryten.awinc.com> <319ECC4E.7C4A@pobox.com> <4ntmsc$mjk@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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


>Richard Anstruther (RAnstruther@pobox.com) writes:
>> Robin Krasichynski wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 18 May 1996 16:47:11 -0600 Duane Hewitt said ...
>> 
>>> >
>>> >BC ELECTION POLICE THREATEN TO CHARGE NCC
>>> >
>>> What is it that give the NCC the right to circumvent Canadian
>>> electoral laws?
>> 
>> Because B.C.'s election law is an unconstitutional restriction
>> on freedom of expression.

>If the NCC is contending that the law is unconstitutional, they should
>challenge it in court.  Until then, they are breaking the law.

One cannot "break" an unconstitutional law.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:27 PDT 1996
Article: 47080 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.vbc.net!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: National "Citizens" Coalition should list corporate sponsors
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:27:09 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4o0sv3$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nuhoq$22n@scipio.cyberstore.ca> <4nv4vi$6ni@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47080 bc.politics:2683

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

>Yes, it does matter what the NCCs record is, and it
>does matter who the NCC is and where their money
>comes from, not because they shouldn't have the 
>right to spend their money and lobby the government,
>etc.  But they need to be clear that they are a lobby
>group, where their funding comes from, what interests
>they represent, and who the members of the 
>board of directors are.  Frankly, the NCC is just
>a dumbed down version of an American 
>political lobby group - and they hide behind
>the idea of a "citizen" coalition.. 

Pardon me, but how is it that you know everything about the NCC, but
are complaining that they are a secret organisation? It is not up to
private citizens or private groups to "prove" their credentials before
anyone, and especially the government. 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:29 PDT 1996
Article: 47081 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.vbc.net!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: TO GEORGE ORWELL HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:27:46 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <4o0t09$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References: <4n2f93$m9i@steel.interlog.com> <4nag4d$sek@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <4nhar4$fr2@mongol.sasknet.sk.ca>  <4nqbb5$89u@julie.teleport.com>  <4nva7q$qmd@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:2684 can.politics:47081

ar@ccinet.ab.ca   (Alberta Report) wrote:

>In , johannp@aimnet.com (Big O ) writes:
>|>
>>The capitalists do NOT force you to work for them and if no one works for
>>them then they have no products or services to sell and, thus, would be be
>>out of business.  Therefore, the wages paid and accepted are a mutually
>>agreed upon voluntary contract.  Just because you don't get the wages *you
>>want* doesn't mean they are cheating you.  Labor is just another commodity
>>under the supply and demand rule -- if your specialty is in high demand
>>and the supply is low -- the wages goes up.
>>
>INDIVIDUAL capitalists don't force workers to work. But in a capitalist 
>society, the worker who chooses not to sell his labour doesn't live for 
>very long.

Nonsense. The worker can choose to sell the product of his labour
instead. That is the choice in a capitalist system. 


>Indeed, in nascent capitalism, during the transition from earlier forms of 
>social organisation, coercion is often necessary to create a pool of free 
>labour.

What nonsense. Slavery of some sort was the foundation of all
pre-capitalist societies.

>Farmers must be dispossessed of their land, the guilds and other 
>feudal organisations destroyed, and access to wage goods and arable land 
>outside of the market fenced off.

The guilds and feudal organisations were simply the natural extension
of organised slavery. 

>Just look at the history of colonial societies, where workers could grow 
>or gather their own food. 

I don't quite follow you here. Colonial societies lacked
transportation infrastructure. It wasn't a *choice* to grow one's own
food.

>And the market isn't the measure of morality. Just because labour is a 
>commodity whose price varies with supply and demand doesn't mean that 
>labour sells at its real value.
>Indeed, if labour didn't sell for less than its value, capitalists would be 
>unable to accumulate capital.

Let me give you a little hint: No one is interested in your valuation
of your labour. It is the valuation *they* place on it---meaning it
must involve their own needs and abilities---that is meaningful. And
capitalists don't sell things for their cost, but above their cost.
Capitalists don't simply accumulate capital----they very often lose
it, as well.


>>Comparing what a typical major corporation lays out in total compensation
>>vs. what it makes in profits and goes to shareholders/owners -- the bulk
>>goes to the workers.
>>
>Take GM Canada's 1995 after-tax profits. Divide them equally amongst all 
>the corporation's full- and part-time employees. Each worker, from the 
>lowliest assembler to the brightest engineer, would have received a year-end 
>bonus of about $40,000.
>And GM isn't atypical. In most capital-intensive firms, profit per worker is 
>substantial.

Take GM Canada's 1995 after-tax profits. Divide them by the total
capital investment. You will see that the workers are overpaid.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:30 PDT 1996
Article: 47082 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.vbc.net!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:28:19 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4o0t19$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References:  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4mt7vr$m09@news1.io.org> <319246DC.ED0@bnr.ca> <4muvts$6tl@news1.io.org>  <1996May10.162520.1@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca> <4n7cmv$3s8@apollo.isisnet.com> <4noj3r$sip@news2.cts.com> <4npfil$dti@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47082 can.general:78355

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

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>>>There are already situations in law that require stuff like  this to be 
>>>part of an obvious pattern.  We interview everyone in your life and if we 
>>>don't find that you were openly gay they you're outta luck.  You're gonna 
>>>have to start acting gay right now.  Go blow someone.
>> 
>> I'm afraid your ignorance is showing. No such investigations can be
>> undertaken, because "sexual orientation" cannot be independently
>> verified. 

>	An immigrant marrying for citizenship can be rooted out just as
>easily as a straight pretending to be gay.

Pardon me, but sexual orientation is not supposed to be a matter of
activities, but is, according to those who supported the amendment,
simply an innate "orientation". Are you now agreeing with what I have
been warning all along: That "sexual orientation" will now be
interpreted by tribunals and other authorities as incorporating
implicitly certain sexual and/or social *activities*? And, upon this
basis, views expressed with respect to certain *sexual activities*
will be considered grounds for charges of discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:32 PDT 1996
Article: 47083 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.vbc.net!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:28:56 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <4o0t2f$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References:        <4nm333$8r9@kryten.awinc.com> <4noj6k$sip@news2.cts.com> <4npo0n$7oq@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47083 bc.politics:2685

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

>On Mon, 20 May 1996 01:51:50 GMT Peter Kolding said ...
>>
>/>rkrasich@access.awinc.com (Robin Krasichynski) wrote:
>/>
>/>>On Sat, 18 May 1996 16:47:11 -0600 Duane Hewitt said ...
>/>>>
>/>>>
>/>>>
>/>>>
>/>>>BC ELECTION POLICE THREATEN TO CHARGE NCC
>/>>>
>/>>What is it that give the NCC the right to circumvent Canadian
>/>>electoral laws?
>/>
>>People outside Canada are not bound by Canadian laws, thank God.

>When the NCC becomes a group registered in the US and starts
>to participate in US politics, then they should be allowed to 
>buy all the time they want on US media. 

Anyone can buy time in the US. You don't have to apply to the
government for permission. In fact, it would be unconstitutional for
the government to try and make you apply for permission.

>I don't support the circumvention of electoral laws by third 
>parties who are disgruntled when they can't use their bucks.

Then I can only suggest you buy some time on a US station and let the
people of BC know, as evidently your own government prevents you this
basic freedom where you live.

>>
>>
>>>Why shouldn't the NCC be bound by the same limitations on
>>>electoral spending as all other groups in B.C.?  
>>
>>Nothing stops these other groups from doing business in the U.S.

>Good enough.  Off they go.  But as I was in Vancouver last week
>I also know that the NCC is using Vancouver papers and ads to 
>direct people to the election ads they are running in the US.  And
>further to that, since they were running 1/4 page ad every day I was
>there I am sure they are over their $5,000 limit for inside of B.C.

It seems to me this is direct proof that they are NOT running election
ads in contravention to the law.


>>
>>>Why is the NCC above the law?
>>
>>If the NCC is breaking this law, then so are all the people outside of
>>BC who are commenting on the election on the various Internet Canadian
>>politics newsgroups. 

>Commenting is not the issue.  You can comment all you like.  The issue
>is the amount of money you can spend commenting.

Of course commenting is the issue. It is, after all,  the NCC's
commentary on the election, the parties, the candidates and the issues
which is what you and the NDP government object to. 

>>
>>More to the point, all the people who are posting from *within B.C.*
>>are, without question, breaking the law. Are you going to do your
>>civic duty and report them, Robin?

>I haven't spend more than $5,000 commenting on the B.C. election.

Prove it. I think, using your own demands upon others as a basis, that
you should provide us all with your full personal and business
financial breakdown, proof of your citizenship and residence, the
names and addresses of all your friends and relatives, as well as
those of  businesses and political organisations you are formally or
informally associated with. Finally, you should also supply us with
all your bank records for the past year.

Until that time, I think any reasonable person can see that the costs
involved in distributing your numerous posts certainly exceed $5000.


...[some deleted]...

>Again, the issue is not about free speech or commentary - the issue
>is about the purchase of media time to air those comments.  The NCC
>is bound by the $5,000 spending limit as are all the other groups.

But they are not bound by any such law if they do not make those
comments, are they? So the central concern IS speech.

>I suggest you do some research on the actual issue before you start
>running off at the mouth.  It isn't a censorship issue - it is a money
>issue.  Now, if you want to make the case that limiting a third party's
>expenditures limits their ability to influence an election then we would
>be in agreement.

It doesn't limit their ability to influence an election---it makes an
election undertaken under such rules as arguably invalid. THAT is the
point no one seems to want to bring up. 


>The NCC can rant and rave all they want.  But during an election, in B.C.
>they are bound by the same media spending limits as any other third
>party.  

It seems to me strange that the NDP, the Liberals, the Reform Party,
etc., are not covered by this law. They are no more nor less third
parties than the NCC.




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:33 PDT 1996
Article: 47084 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.vbc.net!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:29:23 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4o0t39$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References:   
 <4nq6gn$e9c@cliff.island.net>  <4nqnlo$3gd@scipio.cyberstore.ca>  <4nrgen$7gs@scipio.cyberstore.ca>  <4nt1b7$auk@thoth.portal.ca> <4ntldo$778@fountain.mindlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47084 bc.politics:2686

"D. Rodney Smelser"  wrote:


>Perhaps not in any one general election, particularly when the best 
>funded party, SC, happened to be in a unique moment of historic 
>disfavour.  But generally speaking, over several elections, yes there is 
>a clear relationship between spending and other electoral efforts and the 
>vote received.

You are wrong. The "clear relationship" is that of incumbency and
re-election. And the party in government will always attract more
money because of its power. 






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:34 PDT 1996
Article: 47093 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news4.mr.net!mr.net!winternet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.vbc.net!alpha.sky.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: WHY ALLOW FAGGOTS AS SO-CALLED REFUGEES?
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:29:41 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4o0t3r$fsp@news2.cts.com>
References: <31907E7F.5E3E@compusmart.ab.ca> <4n544r$b29@archangel.terraport.net> <4nd2a1$ebm@archangel.terraport.net> <4nqek8$tr6@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

siller@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Paul Siller) wrote:

>In the not too distant past, I had trouble defining a family for the
>simple purpose of a "family membership" for a sport organization.
>For example do we included the estranged member of a divorced/
>seperated family? Do we include any boarders, lodgers or other
>itinerent family members staying at the residence.  I ended up
>accepting a family as anyone who felt they were... As long as they
>lived at the same address.

>If "family" is  presently vague and open-ended, would some
>conservative-type describe what the hell a traditional family is
>supposed to be? and where it exists in sufficient quantity to be
>considered "tradition?"

I'm not a conservative, but the question isn't particularly hard to
answer. The traditional family rests on blood ties within formal
marriage. In the post-traditional era (basically, this century) the
traditional family has also incorporated legally-sanctioned adoptive
ties as well.

Formal traditional marriage does not grant the husband and wife
membership in each others' families. It grants the CHILDREN of the
marriage membership. This, I think, is at the root of the argument of
those who oppose the many changes that have been made, and are being
sought in legislation with respect to marriage, family and the status
of people in relationships. A homosexual "marriage" cannot exist in
the traditional sense, because their is no possibility of children
having blood ties to the families of the couple. Equally, "common-law"
marriage is not "traditional" because there is no contract between the
parties to which the respective families can formally object or agree
to. And the children of a common-law marriage, in traditional terms,
can have no claim to membership in either of their parents' families,
unless they are formally adopted by a member of that family.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:38 PDT 1996
Article: 47101 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 (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 21:09:58 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4o2k70$c4i@news2.cts.com>
References:        <4nm333$8r9@kryten.awinc.com> <4noj6k$sip@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47101 bc.politics:2700

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article <4noj6k$sip@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:

>. . . 
>> 
>> People outside Canada are not bound by Canadian laws, thank God.
>> . . . 

>I take it you welcome corporate-sponsored advertisers influencing
>elections in our country by broadcasting their propaganda from foreign
>countries.

And I take it you want people who express opinions you don't share to
be arrested, charged and jailed by the government. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:41 PDT 1996
Article: 47102 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 (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 21:10:15 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <4o2k7i$c4i@news2.cts.com>
References: <4m3trt$2ud@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <4m7fus$mtl@granite.sentex.net>  <318792ef.64932729@news.uniserve.com> <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4n7ks1$1i7@news2.cts.com> <3197A5A7.2040@bnr.ca> <4njvnl$378@news3.cts.com> <161230.14096.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>In <4njvnl$378@news3.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:
>>"Rene S. Hollan"  wrote:

>>>Again, I ask those who support C-33, "Do you favour legislation that
>>>prohibits discriminating against an employee solely on the basis of the
>>>fact that they're homosexual, but grants no such protection to
>>>heterosexuals? Would you remain silent if such legislation came to
>>>pass?"

>>>C-33 does not do this. But, if the history of employment equity
>>>legislation is any guide, C-33 is a stepping stone to just such
>>>legislation.

>>C-33 amends the CHRA to make "sexual orientation" a prohibited form of
>>discrimination. The CHRA is the legislation that empowers and
>>instructs the Canadian Human Rights Commission to undertake
>>Affirmative Action policies on the pretext of countering prohibited
>>forms of discrimination. 

>My understanding is that the reason why the government did not
>proceed with the bill which was passed by the senate was that
>the government did not want to include sexual orientation in
>the provisions which permit (not mandate) affirmative action
>programs.

The Senate bill included AA for *gays and lesbians* specifically. That
is, it deemed gays and lesbians as members of two newly created
"disadvantaged groups", as understood in s. 15 (2) of the CCRF. 


>a group which by and large is better paid that the rest of us
>makes no sense. (On the other hand, it may permit reverse
>discrimination in favour of hetrosexuals if it was included.)

>I understand that the bill passed by the commons does not
>create any affirmative action.

>But I'm not sure.

>Does anyone have the full text of the bill?

I don't have an electronic version of the CHRA, but AA is already
included. The amendment merely adds "sexual orientation" to the other
prohibited forms of discrimination. The Commission can, and has,
proposed and enforced AA programs based on these criteria.






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:43 PDT 1996
Article: 47109 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news4.mr.net!mr.net!news.clark.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Hate Material will NOT BE Tolerated!
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 21:10:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4o2k7u$c4i@news2.cts.com>
References: <3198F740.2AC4@compusmart.ab.ca> <4ns29k$krc@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca> <4nt2qn$avi@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4nu9a1$s00@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4nug3c$bgu@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

llurch@Networking.Stanford.EDU (Richard Charles Graves) wrote:

>ck390@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil A. McEwan) writes:
>>     It should be pointed out here that censorship as currently practiced
>>in Canada is extremely one-sided.  It is much easier to prosecute a
>>neo-Nazi for saying that Jews are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy all
>>Aryans than it would be to prosecute someone for saying (a la Andrea
>>Dworkin) that men are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy all women.  It is

>Uness there has been some incredible coverup, Andrea Dworkin and her ilk
>have never killed millions of men, and do not threaten to kill men now.

Andrea Dworkin not only advocates the murder of men, but was paid by
the Canadian goverment to do so. She did this at a female-only
convention held in Edmonton some years ago, with the then Minister for
Women, in her official capacity, sitting in the audience clapping
madly. When questioned after the event about this outrageous behaviour
the Minister merely remarked that "people should understand". She
didn't extend her remarks to explain *why* people should understand
the Canadian Goevrnment's funding and approving of mass murder of men,
though.

In the next election, however,  that Minister, along with all but two
of her fellow PC's, lost their seats, their government and their
futures. Alas, they were not hanged as well, but I continue to live in
hope that justice will visit them properly in the future.







From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:44 PDT 1996
Article: 47187 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.illuminati,bc.general,ab.general,can.politics,can.atlantic.general
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:11:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv62q$5e2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.philosophy.objectivism:68728 alt.illuminati:13281 bc.general:45650 ab.general:9659 can.politics:47187 can.atlantic.general:1110

John Caballero  wrote:

>It is immoral to judge people by
>factors over which they have no choice. A black person has no choice
>about being born black, the same could be said for a person's sexuality.

I find this argument completely ludicrous. People may judge others on
any basis they wish. I would say it is immoral to suggest otherwise.
The moral question is not the criteria of judgement, but judgement
itself. In short, is it immoral to judge? The suggestion of the famous
Nazarene is that people shouldn't judge, lest they be judged. He
didn't base this on the qualities of those involved, but their
*authority*. The fundamental principle being, as I understand it, that
it is not the person or criteria of judgement that is the issue, but
the authority of the judge---which is a personal question each of us
must answer for himself.

>And finally I have a couple of questions for you - if a man uses his
>mouth to sexually stimulate the penis of another, consenting, man, would
>this be immoral. Or *must* the mouth belong to a female to qualify for
>that distinction, and if so, why?

There are an unlimited number of answers to this, but you don't
provide any context. Presumably, acts have consequences. Conscious,
consensual acts would also seem to imply the knowledge and intent of
conscious, consensual consequences. It seems to me the argument could
be made that sexual acts, by definition, are implicitly concerned with
reproductive consequences. Any sexual act, by this reasoning, that
denies or obstructs reproductive consequences could therefore be
judged as immoral.





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:45 PDT 1996
Article: 47188 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.illuminati,bc.general,ab.general,can.politics,can.atlantic.general
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:11:56 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4o420k$4ub@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nv6tn$638@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4nv89a$m39@news.accent.net> <4nv8s5$m39@news.accent.net> <4nvfne$c7a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.philosophy.objectivism:68729 alt.illuminati:13282 bc.general:45651 ab.general:9660 can.politics:47188 can.atlantic.general:1111

John Caballero  wrote:

>No, it just appeals to your predjudices and hatred of humanity. If, by
>your own assumptions, the only "metaphysically honest" reason to engage
>in sexual activity is to procreate, then anytime a couple engages in
>protected sex (or homosexual sex), they are immoral. My wife had a
>hysterectomy a few years ago thereby rendering us unable to have children
>- I can't wait to tell her that we don't have the right to have sex any
>longer! Your Fundamentalist Christian ideology has no place here (no
>matter how you try to justify it). Go preach to people who actually
>believe in God - you'll get nowhwere with Objectivists.

I'm afraid you have things completely ass-backwards. In the Christian
faith a hysterectomy---even virginity---is no bar to reproduction. Sex
within marriage is one's moral duty, notwithstanding the pleasure this
involves. :-) 

Some denominations, however, take the view that sex should be
undertaken for the right reasons and that it is immoral to deny or
subvert this. Just as it would be immoral to pray insincerely, or to
bear false witness, they argue that sex undertaken deliberately to
avoid reproduction is immoral. 






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:46 PDT 1996
Article: 47189 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.webdirect.ca!news.challenge.com!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.illuminati,can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:12:35 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4o421r$4ub@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com> <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nmeoq$mn0@loki.tor.hookup.net> <319F174B.448C@crosslink.net> <4nngju$ceq@cheshire.ucs.ubc.ca> <4nnk3q$jat@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.philosophy.objectivism:68730 alt.illuminati:13283 can.politics:47189

VAVLACH@mail.utexas.edu (Vicky A. Vlach) wrote:

>And as far as "sexual crimes" are concerned -- isn't crime about power,
>control, intimidation, etc.?  "Sexual crimes" (rape, incest, sexual abuse)
>use sexual organs/orafices to wield said power, control, intimidation,
>etc. 

You now seem to be saying that homosexuality is simply one form of
sexual expression that you happen to approve of. Other forms that
involve "power, control, intimidation", somehow, by some singular
reasoning---unexplained to us----do not qualify.  However, please do
us all a favour and stop denying that rape, incest, bestiality and all
the other illegal activities at issue ARE sexual activities. For if
you don't, I don't see why anyone else has to accept sexual activity
between same-sex couples as sexual either.

>Intercourse between consenting adults should _not_ be a crime. 

This is arguable, but let us pass over incest for the moment. My
concern with the place sexual orientation has taken in law is that
objecting to certain sexual activities is now to be a crime. That
seems to me an affront to freedom of thought and opinion, not to say
that of freedom of association. 

> And
>to suggest that love between two people should be treated as a crime
>(sexual or otherwise) just because they are the same gender is not only
>ludicrous, but also totally illogical.

I don't think "love" is at issue here. Or even homosexual activity. It
is the equation of sexual orientation as the basis of marriage that is
fraudulent.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:47 PDT 1996
Article: 47213 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!fdn.fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:10:36 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4o41u4$4ub@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv443$468@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

John Caballero  wrote:

>In article <4npvni$fai@news.accent.net> The Omnipotent Philosopher,
>ferrari@infobahnos.com writes:
>>x4gk@unb.ca (Matt Evans) wrote:

>>There is an objective logical way to classify ever action as either
>>moral or immoral.  You obviously don't understand ethics.

>Right now, I'm quietly snapping my fingers. No one else is in the room,
>so I'm not disturbing anyone. Please classify that as moral or immoral
>and tell me how you came to that decision.

Difficult to do that without more information. Have you taken an oath
promising not to snap your fingers? Are you of a religious or
philosophical persuasion that snapping the fingers has special meaning
or power? If so, is snapping fingers the same sort of procedure as
putting pins in voodoo dolls? Do you believe that snapping your
fingers is only to be done in the presence of others, say, a jazz
band?



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 24 17:09:48 PDT 1996
Article: 47217 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!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:13:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4o423a$4ub@news2.cts.com>
References:  
 <4nq6gn$e9c@cliff.island.net>  <4nqnlo$3gd@scipio.cyberstore.ca>  <4nrgen$7gs@scipio.cyberstore.ca>  <4nt1b7$auk@thoth.portal.ca> <4ntldo$778@fountain.mindlink.net> <4nv6qt$6h9@scipio.cyberstore.ca> <4o0bho$4pp@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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


>The concern here seems to be the principle of the thing:  free speech to
>the highest bidder.  Years ago parties used to pass out whiskey and money
>to the voters.  Is the current prohibition on such activity contrary to
>Charter guarantees of free speech as well?

I would say Yes. The practice of handing out whiskey and money to get
votes is now the standard form of politicking.  Today, of course, the
bribes are far more substantial. Jobs, wealth, medical care, and the
persecution of enemies are just some of the items offered by today's
politicians. The difference is that in the old days they had to use
their own money. Nowadays, they use the voters'.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:36 PDT 1996
Article: 47653 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Education vs Prohibition (was: Ringma ...)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4o8nd1$dki@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4l0b5j$fut@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <4l1im9$nhg@thoth.portal.ca> <4lehb0$pt3@news1.sympatico.ca> <4m0nfq$hb6@orb.direct.ca>  <4ms3a7$u6m@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4mv18l$4cd@thoth.portal.ca> <4n6f3k$k1a@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4n8apn$t88@thoth.portal.ca> <4nbe8n$1684@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4nej06$kft@thoth.portal.ca> <4nrmje$94e@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:2976 can.politics:47653

klorenz@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (Kevin Lorenz) wrote:

>: You can legislate actions, but you cannot legislate morality or
>: attitudes.

>There's a significant difference between legislating morality (making 
>certain behaviors mandatory or illegal for the sole purpose of affecting 
>morality), and protecting people while in the process influencing 
>the behavior of people.  It's far less important that people accept the 
>equality of the Charter designated groups then that they act like they do.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the designated groups. It
is not a definition of the condition of people, but a legal *status*.
The people in these groups are not to be treated *equally*, but are to
be accorded privilege at the expense of those people not in a
designated group.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:38 PDT 1996
Article: 47654 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,bc.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: rich support poor?
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4o8nd4$dki@news2.cts.com>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:2977 bc.general:45828 can.politics:47654

rs@ham.island.net wrote:

>Now if you're lucky enough, smart enough, skilled enough, educated
>enough and society pays you a really good salary, you shouldn't complain
>about contributing more back to society than the guy making $20,000 and
>working just as hard.

The intellectual error here is that it isn't society that pays people,
but people who contribute to society.

>You GET more from society, so why shouldn't you pay more?

This is just trashy and self-serving thinking. Using this reasoning
one could as well say that those who "get" less from society obviously
don't pay enough---and therefore should be obliged to pay more.






From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:39 PDT 1996
Article: 47655 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4o8ndp$dki@news2.cts.com>
References:        <4nm333$8r9@kryten.awinc.com> <4noj6k$sip@news2.cts.com>  <4o2k70$c4i@news2.cts.com> <4o3ue1$r7i@thoth.portal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47655 bc.politics:2978

kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) wrote:

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

>>And I take it you want people who express opinions you don't share to
>>be arrested, charged and jailed by the government. 

>C'mon Peter, you must admit that it is far more efficient than to
>convince your opposition that you are right and they are wrong.

I don't doubt its efficiency, I just wonder how people express these
views while simultaneously saying they are in favour of free speech
and equality before the law. It's completely Orwellian. The problem I
have is that these people exercise this doublethink without the
pressure of Orwell's state apparatus of fear and obedience. 



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:39 PDT 1996
Article: 47656 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: WHY ALLOW FAGGOTS AS SO-CALLED REFUGEES?
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:27 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <4o8nd8$dki@news2.cts.com>
References: <31907E7F.5E3E@compusmart.ab.ca> <4n544r$b29@archangel.terraport.net> <4nd2a1$ebm@archangel.terraport.net> <4nqek8$tr6@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>  <4nvsnb$bea@news1.io.org> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

bb821@torfree.net (P. Berry) wrote:


>ron (lovebite@io.org) wrote:

>			[snip]

>>The stereotypes of gay
>>people are still strongly ingrained;  that they are selfish and
>>promiscuous and want to "recruit" young people. How could these
>>people form loving families?  Well, truthfully, *some* are like the
>>stereotypes (though I've never met anyone that was for "recruiting")
>>and they still seem to get an unproportional amount of media coverage
>>*but* the vast majority are not like that.  Most have aspirations so
>>similar to the heterosexual majority as to be indistinguishable but
>>they are the ones that don't wish to have the media glare upon them.  

>With all due respect to the points that you make, Ron, even if the
>stereotypes were true of a large proportion of homosexuals, the standards
>for censure of those stereotypical behaviours (as intolerably immoral)
>seem to be arbitrarily intensified when dealing with homosexuals. The same
>types of behaviour if engaged in by heterosexuals would not nearly raise
>the same level of moral outrage from such a large number of people. 
>Indeed all of the behaviours you mention above are common to the
>heterosexual world. 

The problem with this circular conversation you are having is that
both of you refuse to address the objections to, or even the subject
of homosexual *marriage*. You perpetually make a number of assumptions
that are incorrect with respect to the nature of marriage, and then
dwell upon the errant conclusions that reasoning upon these
presumptions produce. Firstly, marriage is not based on "sexual
orientation", and there is no more a thing as "heterosexual marriage"
as there is "homosexual marriage". Secondly, homosexuals are not
barred from marriage---they simply have to marry someone of the
opposite sex. Thirdly, the fundamental maintenance of all families
relies on the birth of children within formal marriage who share the
bloodlines of the two parents.

>Selfishness, both material and sexual, is ubiquitous to the narcissism of
>the era we happen to live in. 

That is probably true, but the world has survived selfishness before.
But it is not the sexual activities of people that are at issue here,
notwithstanding the wish by some that the issue was so simple. The
issue is the legal equating of sexual activity as the basis of
marriage and the award of privilege.


>Promiscuity is probably as prevalent now in heterosexual relations as in
>homosexual relations. 

So what? There is no law against promiscuity. All the fidelity in the
world won't make a homsexual relationship a marriage, and no amount of
promiscuity can stop a child born in wedlock from being a member of
both the families of his wedded parents.

>And regarding the recruitment of youth into the ranks of
>gender-roles/sexual orientation, the whole notion of 'normal sexual
>relations' is foisted on us from day one. 

I think this is just wishful thinking---a very common thing among
young homosexuals, and quite understandable. If there is one
outstanding feature of teenage gays and lesbians it is their rather
pathetic view that some object of their attentions is really gay, but
just doesn't realise it yet. 


...[some deleted]...

>IMO, the purported 'unnaturalness' of homosexuality is just a last-ditch
>attempt to add a tone of scientific authority to an otherwise moral
>argument whose veins were varicose by the time Quentin Crisp first put on
>a pair of pumps, whose moribund steps began to falter with Lord Devlin's
>Maccabaean Lecture in 1959, and whose lingering misery was finally
>euthenised by Michel Foucault's History of Sexuality in 1976. 

I think the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" is fairly
strong. The point, of course, is that it isn't important.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:40 PDT 1996
Article: 47657 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Youth Crime Soars, due to government bungling ?
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:41 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <4o8ndl$dki@news2.cts.com>
References: <319b8565.78593890@205.208.30.3> <4nm988$shj@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <31a0b467.809680@205.208.30.3> <4o0khn$f2j@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <31a465e1.4421129@news.icons.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

jshaw@cyberus.ca (John R. Shaw) wrote:

>On 23 May 1996 03:03:19 GMT, pfrank@julian.uwo.ca (Pablo Frank) wrote:

>>In article <31a0b467.809680@205.208.30.3>, jshaw@cyberus.ca says...

>>>That is not always so clear, there are many places with very tough
>>>laws that have high crimes rates, look at the southern US, tougher
>>>laws, tougher prisons, but more crime.  Matter of fact if the
>>>toughness of the laws was the only criteria we would be in a crime
>>>wave worse than the states, but we are not.
>>
>>	Oh, definately.  There are certainly other factors.  I am suggesting 
>>that all things remaining the same, you increase the harshness of the law, 
>>you decrease the level of crime with some possible exceptional circumstances 
>>(which I can't think of right now). 

>From what I understand the controllable factors that make the most
>difference are the speed and sureness of justice and punishment.
>While laws that punish only minimally break this requirement,
>exceptionally harsh punishments do not linearly increase the results
>(diminishing returns that actually become counter-prodcutive at some
>point, if you can go to jail for 20 years for third time minor theft
>then why not 'go down shooting', as has happened in California)

Third felony conviction. And you can get life. People will be sent
down for minor infractions only in the event they commit these crimes
while they are on parole, which is a felony.






From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:41 PDT 1996
Article: 47658 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:43 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4o8ndn$dki@news2.cts.com>
References:      <4nm333$8r9@kryten.awinc.com> <319ECC4E.7C4A@pobox.com> <4ntmsc$mjk@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4o0t7k$fsp@news2.cts.com> <4o30ku$ru0@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> cn612@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil Fernyhough) wrote:
>> 
>>>If the NCC is contending that the law is unconstitutional, they should
>>>challenge it in court.  Until then, they are breaking the law.
>> 
>> One cannot "break" an unconstitutional law.

>The courts have not ruled that this law is unconstitutional, have they?

The Courts don't transform laws. If this law is ruled
unconstitutional, it was always unconstitutional.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:42 PDT 1996
Article: 47659 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:47 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4o8ndr$dki@news2.cts.com>
References: <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nl64j$eub@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4nngue$bcq@news.accent.net> <4nnkvj$h24@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <4nq0e3$fmr@news.accent.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

pkitty@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

>And here you refute your own statement. One of the functions of the 
>prostate is to produce pleasure. This is clearly one of its functions, 
>because it DOES produce pleasure when stroked, which is why anal sex 
>feels good. 

>Thank you for proving the point.

I regret to say your point remains obscure. The only
pleasure-producing organ is the brain.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:43 PDT 1996
Article: 47660 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why Youth Should Be Allowed To Vote
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:49 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <4o8nds$dki@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mq9jq$qe3@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4nnt1p$27l@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4nsfqb$s9@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4o0km1$i4l@yendi.mdd.comm.mot.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>I *STRONGLY* support extending the enfrancisement to any Man, Woman or
>Child that can prove they are literate.  In effect you will be giving
>extra votes to those with young families,  

If literacy is the only criterium to qualify a person to vote,
shouldn't a test be instituted? And if a test is instituted, who draws
it up and marks it and decides who paases and who fails?



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:43 PDT 1996
Article: 47661 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Nikki
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:50 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4o8ndu$dki@news2.cts.com>
References: <832726228.4020snx@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <4nvfrb$hi5@ns2.ryerson.ca> <4o0mn9$ma2@news.sas.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

jkodish@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:

>Calvin Henry-Cotnam (cal@cate.ryerson.ca) wrote:
>: Jason Kodish (jkodish@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca) said...

>: OK, they were refused social assistance and had to sleep in the mini-bus.
>: A fire broke out, and the child died.  Therefore the child's death was
>: caused by the changes to the social assistance program?!?

>Wake up, rightoid. If they weren't forced to sleep in the minivan, the
>girl would still be alive today. I hope you enjoy your tax break this 
>year, knowing it was paid for by the life of that little girl.

So far as I can tell the vast majority of people are denied social
assistance----but I don't see the skies of Canada blackened with the
smoke of 25 million burning minivans as a consequence. 





From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:44 PDT 1996
Article: 47662 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:51 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4o8ndv$dki@news2.cts.com>
References: <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nl64j$eub@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>     <4o3g47$t6d@cliff.island.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

rdgood@qb.island.net (Meaghan Walker) wrote:

>I have no interest in trying to figure out _why_ I am the way I am, anymore 
>than I would expect a person who knows they are heterosexual to fret about 
>_that_. Quite frankly my bisexuality causes me no problems.  The reactions of 
>_other_ people sometimes are a problem to me, but the fault lies with them and 
>not with me.

If this is the basis of your social and personal outlook you are
simply a psychopath. The views above are no different from those
expressed by run-of-the-mill rapists, serial murderers and child
molesters.






From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:45 PDT 1996
Article: 47663 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:52 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4o8ne0$dki@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nv6tn$638@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4nv89a$m39@news.accent.net> <4nv8s5$m39@news.accent.net> <4nvfne$c7a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4o1um3$g29@news.accent.net> <31a5187b.11823081@news.winternet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

hjack@winternet.com (Hjack) wrote:


>Without man the concept of rights would not exist.  Rights are the
>product of a rational being's determination of what is neccessary to
>survive in a social context.  They don't exist outside of a social
>context and they cannot apply to creatures withouth the capability of
>choice and reason.  The concept of right's is nonsensical outside of
>such a context.  Hence no chicken rights, no Kodiak bear rights, no
>fetal rights.

I question the argument that rights can only be applied to those with
the capability of "choice and reason". Do I lose my rights when I am
asleep? One may lose the ability to exercise one's rights from time to
time through circumstance, but one doesn't lose or gain rights as a
matter of choice or reason. Choice and reason is applied to the
*exercise* of rights, not their creation or destruction.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:46 PDT 1996
Article: 47664 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:53 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <4o8ne2$dki@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com> <4mg5s5$led@news.sas.ab.ca> <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nmeoq$mn0@loki.tor.hookup.net> <4o2ui3$4qe@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca> <4o3cja$ali@loki.tor.hookup.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

baisa@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:

>My assertion is literal. In order to ascertain truth about 
>*hetero*sexuality, you have to follow a certain inductive method, which 
>starts from within, and then works out to embrace observations of the 
>behavior and statements of others about sexuality.

>The fact that your own sexuality is good is self-evident, and the existence 
>of this faculty in others is demonstrated by the facts of reality.

This is a giant leap of faith. It is not true that one's own sexuality
is necessarily good, self-evidently or otherwise.

>You can only have direct psychological knowledge of your own mind. 

Or you may not. And I would repalce the phrase "psychological
knowledge" with the word "awareness". Awareness is not the same as
being knowledgeable, as the infant remarked just before being eaten by
a tiger.

>Your knowledge of others is through deduction. You apply this process 
>to other men AND  women to come to the conclusion they are also 
>sexual beings.

But does one? One's sexuality and orientation is not dependent upon
anyone else's sexuality or orientation, if they have any at all.
People cannot be "sexual beings" within your argument, because
sexuality has no meaning under your reasoning. 

>Homosexuality is nothing more than black swans/white swans. If you deny 
>that homosexuality cannot have the same cognitive status as 
>heterosexuality, you are claiming some kind of mystic insight into the 
>consciousnesses of others that you can't possess -- OR are claiming that 
>you will use one method to evaluate the claims of heterosexuals, but an 
>entirely different one with homosexuals. 

Whatever "cognitive status" homosexuality is assigned, it is not the
cognitive status of heterosexuality, by definition. It seems to me it
is just avoiding the issue to claim that all views, habits,
orientation, actions and statuses are equal and undifferentiated
simply because they all descend from the minds of similar biological
beings. That is the denial of sexuality and "cognitive status", not
the affirmation of it. 

>And I should point out that psychologically speaking, a straight man 
>should have a much greater empathy with another man, even if the 
>second is homosexual, since they have the same anatomy. 

What has anatomy to do with empathy? Psychologically speaking, such an
outlook bespeaks some deep-seated denial.

>Obviously, a man cannot directly understand the experience of 
>sex of the opposite gender. So one cannot claim belief in sexuality in an 
>opposite gender, but then deny such could be taking place in homosexual 
>instances of one's own gender.

Since when is experience the basis of belief? Belief is far more
likely to define experience, rather than the other way around. By the
way, are you now making another jump of faith and claiming the
sexuality of a heterosexual female is that of the homosexual male, and
that of the homosexual female is that of the heterosexual male?

>Maybe straight sex between couples with differing hair color or skin color 
>is metaphysically proper,

There is no such thing as "metaphysically proper". The causes and
nature of things is neither proper or improper.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:47 PDT 1996
Article: 47665 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:56 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <4o8ne5$dki@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mt00d$q73@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n1ajl$in6@news.agt.net> <4n7kua$1i7@news2.cts.com> <4nd6hr$csa@knot.queensu.ca> <4njvmb$378@news3.cts.com> <4o4jjm$lt9@archangel.terraport.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

catht@enterprise.ca (Cathleen ) wrote:

>On Sat, 18 May 1996 07:54:23 GMT, pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:

>>I know perfectly well what the laws says, and I have described on more
>>than one occasion what this means in practical terms: People will be
>>obliged to condone and/or approve of all sexual activities that could
>>be construed, however tangentially, as reflecting upon any sexual
>>orientation. They will not only be denied the right to association on
>>the basis of their opinion of people and the sexual acts they
>>undertake, but they will be open to legal sanction if they even
>>express disapproval.

>I've got to agree with Timothy (and others) on this.  Your opinion on
>what this law means is only that - your opinion, and I think it's
>wrong (but then, that's only my opinion ).  Nobody is being forced
>to condone anything.  It's not illegal for you to think whatever you
>want.  The law does not forbid you to hate/fear/disapproveof gays.
>Just as it doesn't *forbid* anybody to hate/fear minorities, women,
>etc.  It does, however, forbid you to act upon your hate or fear or
>disapproval. 

Well, we are slowly getting to the point I see. Now, if people would
just explain to me why people may not act on the basis of their
disapproving of the activities and views of other people. As I've
pointed out before, it is one thing to pass laws with respect to
race---using the argument that a person's race has no intrinsic view
or activity associated with it---but it is quite another thing to
forbid people to discriminate on the basis of acts and/or views
intrinsic with another characteristic. It is perfectly understandable
to pass a law forbidding discrimination on the basis of religion, for
instance, but it is unreasonable to forbid people from actively
disapproving of kneeling eastwards, genuflecting or chanting
mindlessly. In the case of sexual orientation, however, since
orientation---unlike religion---is independently unverifiable, people
are now going to be forced to condone and/or appprove virtually any
sexual act that some nameless tribunal might construe as a
characteristic of some sexual orientation. 

>Doesn't that make sense to you?  It's not trying to
>control your thoughts, only any behaviour that discriminates against
>others. 

Please answer the question: Is an employer permitted to hang signs up
and make speeches to his employees that decry any sexual acts beween
people of the same sex? Please note the word "acts". We are not
talking about sexual orientation, we are discussing sexual acts. 

It seems to me that inclusion of sexual orientation makes disapproval
of any sexual acts grounds for a charge of discrimination. One's
sexual orientation being independently unverifiable, all evidence with
respect to such charges under this provision would have to rely on
opinions relating to sexual *acts*.


>All the law does is include sexual orientation (that includes
>heterosexuality, FYI) on the 'list' of 'minority' groups that you
>cannot discriminate against.  Just like religious groups, ethnic
>groups, etc.... 

>> And I pose the question again:  Why should the
>>government force people to approve of you, your sexual
>>orientation, or your sexual activities?

>See above.  I think that many people, including Timothy, have
>responded to this question several times.

But they haven't, and neither have you. Please tell us all what , in
practical terms, constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation? If an employer says "You're fired because you're gay"
presumably that is an open-and-shut case. However, if he says "sexual
acts between men are immoral" and hangs signs to this effect---is this
discrimination? What if he says "sexual acts between females is the
only moral form of sexual activity"---is he guilty of harrassing
heterosexuals? Can he fire a person who indulges in sexual activities
he finds morally repugnant?



>In another post, you said:
>>: What rights, exactly, are you denied? Homosexual activity is not
>>: criminalised. Why should people be obliged to condone, approve or even
>>: like you?

>Then, in reply to Timothy's answer, you said again:
>>But you haven't answered the question I asked, you avoided answering
>>it. As everyone else has. This is because there are no rights that are
>>denied people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

>I am guessing that you are not gay (gee, that was a hard guess),
>PKolding.  I also bet that you have no gay people close to you in your
>life.  And that you don't watch any tv shows or movies with gay people
>in them.  Because I'd find it hard to believe that, if I'm wrong on
>any of these guesses, you'd actually think that gay people don't
>suffer from discrimination and actions based on hatred and bigotry.
>They do, on a daily basis, to an extent that someone who is not gay
>could ever comprehend.

Thank you for again failing to actually address the question, as all
those who have gone before have done. What rights are denied
homosexuals? The answer is NONE. 


>Yes, this law is somewhat redundant, considering that 8/10 provinces
>already had this in place.  So what does it hurt?  With all due
>respect, if, as you say, gays aren't denied any rights, why are you
>complaining?

Because if they are not denied any rights, then they are being given
privileges in law simply because they claim they engage in homosexual
activities. And evidently people are now going to go to jail and lose
their businesses because they will be so unwise as to publically
object to any sexual practices, no matter how deviant and offensive,
simply because homosexuals want special treatment. 



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:47 PDT 1996
Article: 47743 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 (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: National "Citizens" Coalition should list corporate sponsors
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <4oap49$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nqnla$3gd@scipio.cyberstore.ca>  <31A14528.1286@pobox.com>  <4nv6ha$a8p@news.istar.ca> <4nvc83$sog@sanjuan.islandnet.com> <4o23ie$p1u@news.istar.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47743 bc.politics:3033

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article <4o23ie$p1u@news.istar.ca>, wordwork@fox.nstn.ca wrote:

>. . .  This smoke screen about an alleged NCC corporate 
>> agenda is just another variation on the left-wing name-calling that 
>> pollutes so much of the debate in this newsgroup.  . . . 

>I think that if a group purposely operates under a misleading name, then
>it is doing a benefit to society to expose it.

Just because your misled doesn't mean the rest of society is.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:48 PDT 1996
Article: 47795 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: National "Citizens" Coalition should list corporate sponsors
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:00 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4oap47$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nuhoq$22n@scipio.cyberstore.ca> <4nv4vi$6ni@kryten.awinc.com> <4o0sv3$fsp@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47795 bc.politics:3062

sranta@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:

>In article <4o0sv3$fsp@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:

>. . .  It is not up to
>> private citizens or private groups to "prove" their credentials before
>> anyone, and especially the government. 

>It is misleading for a group to call itself the  National "Citizens"
>Coalition if in fact it has been mostly controlled and financed by
>corporations, not citizens. 

On the contrary, it's misleading to suggest that the National Citizens
Coalition is not controlled and financed by Canadian citizens.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:49 PDT 1996
Article: 47796 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:03 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <4oap4b$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References:        <4nm333$8r9@kryten.awinc.com> <4noj6k$sip@news2.cts.com> <4npo0n$7oq@kryten.awinc.com> <4o0t2f$fsp@news2.cts.com> <4o5a6m$en8@kryten.awinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47796 bc.politics:3063

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

>>Until that time, I think any reasonable person can see that the costs
>>involved in distributing your numerous posts certainly exceed $5000.

>Twaddle.  If you take the time to notice what I have written, I haven't
>written a damn thing about the B.C. election.  I have only written
>about the issue of third party spending during an election - which
>is not campaigning for or against any political party or candidate.
>I have commented on the validity of the law, as per the discussion
>in this particular thread.

Now, now---as you yourself have claimed, it is not the content of your
electioneering speech that is at issue, but the enormous amounts of
money being spent in distributing it.


...[some deleted]...

>>
>>It doesn't limit their ability to influence an election---it makes an
>>election undertaken under such rules as arguably invalid. THAT is the
>>point no one seems to want to bring up. 
>>
>So what you are now saying is that they aren't actually being denied
>the opportunity to comment or influence - you just want them to be
>able to spend more money commenting and influencing? 

The point of all laws with respect to democratic elections is that
they aim to protect and maintain them as free and fair. Denying people
the right to express themselves to whatever extent they wish, using
their own money, makes elections under such a system highly suspect.
The law limiting spending of "third parties" during an election is
simply tyranny in action.

...[some deleted]...

>>>The NCC can rant and rave all they want.  But during an election, in B.C.
>>>they are bound by the same media spending limits as any other third
>>>party.  
>>
>>It seems to me strange that the NDP, the Liberals, the Reform Party,
>>etc., are not covered by this law. They are no more nor less third
>>parties than the NCC.

>They are registered political parties, running candidates in the current
>election.  The NCC is not a registered political party, makes no
>claims to be a political party, and they are not running any candidates
>in the election.

What has any of this to do with the right to express oneself during an
election? I daresay the average voter is not a registered politcal
party, running as a candidate, nor makes any claim to be a politcal
party either. I suggest that if one is going to limit speech during an
election, it should strictly limit the speech of the Parties and their
candidates, rather than the voters.

>In fact, they are in the esteemed company of such
>groups as Planned Parenthood, the Catholic Church, Anti-Abortion groups,
>the Freemen, the Dukhbours (sp?), the SPCA, and the B.C. Medical
>Association.  They are third parties.  I am sure you can obtain a
>copy of the legislation which will clarify for you what a "third party" 
>is under this legislation.

I know what the definition of a third party is: It is essentially
anyone who may vote and is not officially attached to a political
party. So much for democracy.




From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:50 PDT 1996
Article: 47797 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: BC Electoral police threaten to charge NCC
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:06 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4oap4e$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References:        <4nm333$8r9@kryten.awinc.com> <4noj6k$sip@news2.cts.com> <31A70F66.3A@wimsey.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47797 bc.politics:3064

Stephen Samuel  wrote:

>Peter Kolding wrote:
>> 
>> rkrasich@access.awinc.com (Robin Krasichynski) wrote:
>> 
>> >On Sat, 18 May 1996 16:47:11 -0600 Duane Hewitt said ...

>> If the NCC is breaking this law, then so are all the people outside of
>> BC who are commenting on the election on the various Internet Canadian
>> politics newsgroups.

>> More to the point, all the people who are posting from *within B.C.*
>> are, without question, breaking the law. Are you going to do your
>> civic duty and report them, Robin?

>Mimimal spending is not banned.. Unless you're spending big money on your
>internet connection just to promote your favorite group, you should be fine on 
>that count.

>Let's not get over-reactive, shall we?

I was simply pointing out the absurdity of the argument that this law
is about money, rather than about limiting speech. 



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:51 PDT 1996
Article: 47798 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: CANADA AS A SEMI-DEMOCRACY
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <4oap4g$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References: <4njidg$t62@tigger.planet.eon.net> <4o372v$61h@sandy.max-net.com> <4o409g$hjg@piano.synapse.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

prodgers@synapse.net (Paul Rodgers) wrote:

>In article <4o372v$61h@sandy.max-net.com>, sdc@vcn.bc.ca says...
>>
>>dnorton@tic.ab.ca (Deryk Norton) wrote:
>>>With governance by appointed senators, 

>non-elected, appointed juges, anti-democratic Charter of Right whose 
>intent is to transfert legitimate powers and responsabilities from 
>elected members of Legislatures to non-elected, nominated 
>conservative political left-overs , juges. Thanks to Trudeau:-)) Not 
>a democrat but a despot.

>A central government guided by constitutional and judicial 
>terrorists like Allan Rock, Stephan Dion who do not hesitate to 
>associate themselves with an agitator like Me. Guy Bertand to impose 
>on a democratically elected provincial government, not only a 
>unilaterally modified constitution and a staight jacketing amending 
>formula, but a canadianized U.S.S.R Gorbachew plan to add, 
>unilaterally, with the blessing of nominated political left-overs 
>sitting at the Supreme Court of Canada, sesession conditions into a 
>constitution who is silent on the question.

>How can Canada call itself a democracy when it is headed by 
>non-democrats?

One reason is that those in charge also do not view Canada as a
country at all, but as a "post-national" entity. Max Yalden also
recently let the cat out of the bag when he approved of the attempts
of the Canadian human rights commissions to get standing with the
United Nations. As he pointed out, this would make these organisations
beyond national control, and, in effect, make them and their activties
above democratic or legal challenge. That's the future the Canadian
political elite envisage for Canadians. One where the conduct,
enforcement and regulation of the citizenry is undertaken by
unelected, tenured bureaucrats with internationally-sanctioned
sovereignty and power, while the political elite may get on with more
important things.




From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:52 PDT 1996
Article: 47799 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:10 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <4oap4i$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv62q$5e2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o4n01$kp0@ns.pol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

Mark Steward Young  wrote:

>pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:
>>John Caballero  wrote:
>>
>>>It is immoral to judge people by
>>>factors over which they have no choice. A black person has no choice
>>>about being born black, the same could be said for a person's sexuality.
>>
>>I find this argument completely ludicrous. People may judge others on
>>any basis they wish. I would say it is immoral to suggest otherwise.
>>The moral question is not the criteria of judgement, but judgement
>>itself. In short, is it immoral to judge? The suggestion of the famous
>>Nazarene is that people shouldn't judge, lest they be judged. He
>>didn't base this on the qualities of those involved, but their
>>*authority*. The fundamental principle being, as I understand it, that
>>it is not the person or criteria of judgement that is the issue, but
>>the authority of the judge---which is a personal question each of us
>>must answer for himself.
>>
>>>And finally I have a couple of questions for you - if a man uses his
>>>mouth to sexually stimulate the penis of another, consenting, man, would
>>>this be immoral. Or *must* the mouth belong to a female to qualify for
>>>that distinction, and if so, why?
>>
>>There are an unlimited number of answers to this, but you don't
>>provide any context. Presumably, acts have consequences. Conscious,
>>consensual acts would also seem to imply the knowledge and intent of
>>conscious, consensual consequences. It seems to me the argument could
>>be made that sexual acts, by definition, are implicitly concerned with
>>reproductive consequences. Any sexual act, by this reasoning, that
>>denies or obstructs reproductive consequences could therefore be
>>judged as immoral.

>Any judgement based upon this "reasoning" would be wrong.  Such is 
>inconsisten with REALITY.  In REALITY, human sexuality is only 
>periferally concerned with reproduction. The primary natual aspect 
>implicit in the MAJORITY of sexual liasons is bonding.

I don't think you have read my post closely enough. I don't think
sexual acts between people are primarily, naturally, and implicitly
unconscious or non-consensual. On the contrary, I suggested that
conscious, consensual acts will implicitly involve the expectation of
conscious, consensual consequences. If sexual activity has at its root
the desire, conscious or unconscious, for "bonding" that in no way
makes the reproductive consequences null and void to the people
involved.

>Further, reproduction, per se, is not the only means of passing on your 
>genetic material.  If you increase the odds of your FAMILY 
>successfully passing on their genetic material, you are biologically 
>doing the equivalent of reproducting.

I see the basic thrust of this argument, but it is very weak.
Different hereditable traits are passed to males and females with the
same parentage, often skipping a generation and passing to the
opposite sex as well. I am not at all sure what constitutes the
"successful" reproductive strategy for humans as a species, by the
way.  And there is no reason to believe that anyone else does either.



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:52 PDT 1996
Article: 47800 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:13 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4oap4l$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv62q$5e2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o5mrg$lll@cliff.island.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

rgood@qb.island.net (Ron Good) wrote:

>In article <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:

> It seems to me the argument could
>>be made that sexual acts, by definition, are implicitly concerned with
>>reproductive consequences. Any sexual act, by this reasoning, that
>>denies or obstructs reproductive consequences could therefore be
>>judged as immoral.
>>
> Both these arguments _can_ be made, which is to say: they may be uttered. 
>They are not, however, supportable.

Oh, I think they are eminently supportable, it just depends on the
degree to which one is prepared to admit what is a sexual act within
the definition, i.e. implicitly involved with reproductive
consequences. Religions have been created that were dedicated to sex
using these arguments, by the way. Of course, the governing view in
those cases was that all activities were sexual in nature and were
dedicated, implicitly and at even the furthest remove, to
reproduction. 




From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:53 PDT 1996
Article: 47801 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:16 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4oap4n$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv62q$5e2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o5ouu$pcj@loki.tor.hookup.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

baisa@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:

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

>>It seems to me the argument could
>>be made that sexual acts, by definition, are implicitly concerned with
>>reproductive consequences. Any sexual act, by this reasoning, that
>>denies or obstructs reproductive consequences could therefore be
>>judged as immoral.

>The fact of the matter, is that the vast majority of heterosexual 
>encounters are motivated by the desire for the pleasure it will give the 
>participants, and great care is usually taken to *prevent* the possibility 
>of conception.

I really don't see what this has to do with the argument that sexual
acts are implictly concerned with reproduction, except to confirm it. 


>Therefore, it would seem that Mr. Kolking's reasoning is not only 
>completely disconnected from reality, but in complete opposition to it.

There is nothing remarkable or novel about my argument or reasoning.
It is quite straightforward and entirely compatible with reality.





From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:54 PDT 1996
Article: 47802 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:17 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4oap4p$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv62q$5e2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o5ouu$pcj@loki.tor.hookup.net> <4o62si$1oq@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

yu121569@yorku.ca (Steve Smolinski) wrote:

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

>: >It seems to me the argument could
>: >be made that sexual acts, by definition, are implicitly concerned with
>: >reproductive consequences. Any sexual act, by this reasoning, that
>: >denies or obstructs reproductive consequences could therefore be
>: >judged as immoral.

>	OHMYGOD!!  Kissing is immoral!!

How do you figure this? If the kiss is a sexual act, it seems to me it
enhances rather than denies or obstructs the chances of a reproductive
consequence. On the other hand, if the kiss is not a sexual act then
it is has no bearing on this argument one way or the other. 





From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:55 PDT 1996
Article: 47803 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:18 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4oap4q$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com> <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nmeoq$mn0@loki.tor.hookup.net> <319F174B.448C@crosslink.net> <4nngju$ceq@cheshire.ucs.ubc.ca> <4nnk3q$jat@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>  <4o421r$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o5ph0$pcj@loki.tor.hookup.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

baisa@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:

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

>> My
>>concern with the place sexual orientation has taken in law is that
>>objecting to certain sexual activities is now to be a crime. That
>>seems to me an affront to freedom of thought and opinion, not to say
>>that of freedom of association. 

>The proper public policy principle in this department is the following: 

>1) the government may not, in any matter, dicriminate against anyone on any 
>irrational basis. So all government jobs, statutes, etc., must be 
>completely neutral with regard to aspects of individuals which are 
>irrelevant to the matter in question. 

I think this is reasonable in a wooly sort of way. The central
objection is that what is defined as "irrational" is more often than
not simply a matter of disagreement. In terms of sex, marriage and
family, especially, the rule of "rationality" is highly irrational to
my mind.






From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:56 PDT 1996
Article: 47804 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:20 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <4oap4s$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References: <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com> <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nmeoq$mn0@loki.tor.hookup.net> <319F174B.448C@crosslink.net> <4nngju$ceq@cheshire.ucs.ubc.ca> <4nnk3q$jat@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>  <4o421r$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o67ba$jdg@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

kevboy@isiss.net (Kevin Wayte) wrote:

>In article <4o421r$4ub@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:
>> I don't see why anyone else has to accept sexual activity
>>between same-sex couples as sexual either.

>Then I don't see why I should accept sexual activity between opposite-sex 
>couples as sexual either. 

I'm sure you aren't interested in actual thought at all, if your quote
snipping is any evidence. My full quote follows, and it reveals you to
be either an idiot, or a bigot looking for trouble:

"You now seem to be saying that homosexuality is simply one form of
sexual expression that you happen to approve of. Other forms that
involve "power, control, intimidation", somehow, by some singular
reasoning---unexplained to us----do not qualify.  However, please do
us all a favour and stop denying that rape, incest, bestiality and all
the other illegal activities at issue ARE sexual activities. For if
you don't, I don't see why anyone else has to accept sexual activity
between same-sex couples as sexual either."

>>I don't think "love" is at issue here. Or even homosexual activity. It
>>is the equation of sexual orientation as the basis of marriage that is
>>fraudulent.

>Call it whatever word you like.  Call it "bonding" for all I care.

>I want, and should be entitled to, a legal binding jointment between myself 
>and my same-sex significant other, for life.   

Why? And more to the point, what prohibits you from drawing up
whatever economic and/or spiritually binding contract you wish?


>I would actually PREFER not calling homosexual "marriages" marraige.

>We don't want your stinking male+female word.

>So keep it.   Just legally bond me to my partner for life!

Why should legal entitlements be accorded on the sole basis of one's
sexual orientation?




From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 13:41:57 PDT 1996
Article: 47805 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 23:23:21 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4oap4t$cu0@news2.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv62q$5e2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o793d$tmq@news.sas.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

glenn@ecbs.sas.ab.ca (Glenn St-Germain) wrote:

>On Fri, 24 May 1996 10:11:08 GMT, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
>wrote:


>>There are an unlimited number of answers to this, but you don't
>>provide any context. Presumably, acts have consequences. Conscious,
>>consensual acts would also seem to imply the knowledge and intent of
>>conscious, consensual consequences. It seems to me the argument could
>>be made that sexual acts, by definition, are implicitly concerned with
>>reproductive consequences. Any sexual act, by this reasoning, that
>>denies or obstructs reproductive consequences could therefore be
>>judged as immoral.

>By this reckoning, birth control is immoral, even methods such as
>"natural family planning" (aka the Rhythm Method). By this reckoning,
>any type of sexual activity which is for a purpose other than that of
>procreation is immoral. Is this what you are trying to tell us?

I am not trying to tell you anything. The moral dimensions of a
person's conscious and consensual acts are entirely dependent upon the
personal context involved. Various modern birth control methods
prevent reproduction---but so does deliberate chastity and abstinence.

The same arguments that deem birth control immoral could also be used
deeming abstinence and chastity immoral. 



From pkolding@cts.com Mon May 27 16:20:20 PDT 1996
Article: 45828 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,bc.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: rich support poor?
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 04:41:24 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4o8nd4$dki@news2.cts.com>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:2977 bc.general:45828 can.politics:47654

rs@ham.island.net wrote:

>Now if you're lucky enough, smart enough, skilled enough, educated
>enough and society pays you a really good salary, you shouldn't complain
>about contributing more back to society than the guy making $20,000 and
>working just as hard.

The intellectual error here is that it isn't society that pays people,
but people who contribute to society.

>You GET more from society, so why shouldn't you pay more?

This is just trashy and self-serving thinking. Using this reasoning
one could as well say that those who "get" less from society obviously
don't pay enough---and therefore should be obliged to pay more.






From pkolding@cts.com Tue May 28 07:41:48 PDT 1996
Article: 47986 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics
Subject: Re: Lougheed slams rigbt-wing ideologues
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:38:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <4oel2b$884@news3.cts.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca can.politics:47986 bc.politics:3201

dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:

>Exceprts fromFrom the May 27 issue of MacLean's Magazine

>The Nation's Business: By PETER C. NEWMAN

>David Frum's Winds of Change conference that opens in Calgary
>this week ostensibly is about combining the forces of the right to create a 
>more efficiently run Canada. But its overriding agenda--if Frum's own writings 
>are to be believed--is to subvert democratic politics to the idea that 
>compassion is for losers, social justice sucks and greed conquers all. 

>There is no question that the status quo in Canada is dead; 
>nor is there any doubt that a new politics based on current reality instead of 
>past hopes is essential. Our mushy social welfare, multicultural and 
>share-the-wealth economic policies have escalated far beyond the genuine needs 
>and aspirations that originally propelled them. 

>That's why the voice of respected individuals like Peter Lougheed, who can 
>claim legitimate conservative credentials as a former Alberta premier yet 
>reject the neocon gospel of Frum & Company, is so essential. 

>"If Canada was to be strictly a market economy," Lougheed told me during 
>a Calgary interview recently, "we would quickly become another Puerto Rico. Thi
>s country has never had much economic logic to it. If you judge everything mere
>ly on the basis of the bottom line, you can't have a country." The answer, he 
>insists, is not to follow the Frum prescription of swinging blindly to the far 
>political right, but to deal with people's problems on the basis of need 
>rather than ideology.

>

>Meanwhile, the ex-premier continues to expand his reach as arguably Canada's 
>most influential corporate director, sitting on 15 boards of companies that 
>command more than $230 billion in assets. 

>===end of excerpt===================================================

>The point being is that one does not have to be a "Marxist" to object to the 
>David Frum/Mike Harris approach to government.

One should also note that Lougheed didn't object to "ideology" or say
these sorts of things when he was actually in power.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue May 28 07:41:50 PDT 1996
Article: 47987 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: John Manley and I'net PINs
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:38:28 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4oel28$884@news3.cts.com>
References: <4o75pq$2bh@freenet-news.carleton.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

alain@e-sense.net (Alain Simon) wrote:

>In article <4o75pq$2bh@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>au532@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Rose Lee Kim) sounds the alarm:
>>  Did anyone else find John Manley's news item on issuing Canadians with
>>  PIN for the internet disturbing? It was buried on the news, but the jist
>>  of it was; That Canadians may be issued with a communications Personal
>>  Identification Number (PIN, like your ATM card) so you would use this
>>  for all communications, phone, radio, Internet etc.. Sounds like the
>>  [  . . .  ]

>      While this should be a very tempting thought for any statist drone,
>      therefore a credible threat, I'd like to hear confirmation before I start
>      banging on garbage cans.... as I will. Anybody knows anything more?

I only know that there has been an awful lot of "consulting" done in
Ottawa recently, all on "securing the Internet", and with all our
favourite SIG's pushing for censorship and various forms of
registration.

Off the topic, somewhat, is a recent, little noted act of the British
parliament. They have given the police the powers of MI5, and will
allow them to break into people's homes and search for evidence, and
plant survelliance equipment. All without informing the people
targeted.



From pkolding@cts.com Tue May 28 07:41:51 PDT 1996
Article: 47988 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:38:25 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4oel26$884@news3.cts.com>
References: <4md3nj$ov8@news1.io.org> <318a3020.44628598@news.uniserve.com> <4mjaob$9as@news1.io.org> <318ec353.205909407@news.uniserve.com> <4mo5pm$6bc@news1.io.org> <319101FD.5191@bnr.ca> <4mt7vr$m09@news1.io.org> <319246DC.ED0@bnr.ca> <4muvts$6tl@news1.io.org>  <1996May10.162520.1@stimpy.fhhosp.ab.ca> <4n7cmv$3s8@apollo.isisnet.com> <4noj3r$sip@news2.cts.com> <4npfil$dti@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4o0t19$fsp@news2.cts.com> <4o7eur$4m4@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:
>> 
>>>	An immigrant marrying for citizenship can be rooted out just as
>>>easily as a straight pretending to be gay.
>> 
>> Pardon me, but sexual orientation is not supposed to be a matter of
>> activities, but is, according to those who supported the amendment,
>> simply an innate "orientation". Are you now agreeing with what I have
>> been warning all along: That "sexual orientation" will now be
>> interpreted by tribunals and other authorities as incorporating
>> implicitly certain sexual and/or social *activities*? And, upon this
>> basis, views expressed with respect to certain *sexual activities*
>> will be considered grounds for charges of discrimination on the basis
>> of sexual orientation?

>	I think what you are saying is "Will sodomy be grounds for getting
>kicked out of Canada"?

>	I really have no clue, can you be a bit more clear?

I don't think I can be much clearer, but I'll try: Is one's sexual
orientation a matter of the acts you perform, or the orientation you
incline to?



From pkolding@cts.com Tue May 28 07:41:51 PDT 1996
Article: 47989 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:38:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <4oel23$884@news3.cts.com>
References: <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nl64j$eub@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4noj6q$sip@news2.cts.com> <4npfb5$dt3@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4o03gr$1lj@news2.cts.com> <4o7e76$4ee@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>>>	Since about 4000 years ago, Peter. 
>> 
>> Moral and legal principles have been derived from the idea of
>> *authority*, not consent. Democratic principles grant *authority* to
>> the people who then consent that others exercise this authority on
>> their behalf. The Divine Right of Kings is similarly a matter of the
>> authority of God being granted to Monarchs.

>	So, might makes right?

Why do you think that one gains authority simply through exercising
might? 

>> But you are making the case that these things are immoral and illegal
>> because they are done without consent. I merely point out that since
>> children and animals are not deemed capable of consenting to anything,
>> therefore anything done to them---good or bad---must by your standard
>> be immoral and/or illegal.

>	If it's done in the child's best interest, then it is moral and
>legal. If it's against the child's best interest, it is imorral, but not
>neccicarily illegal. Conning a child out of half a chocolate bar is
>imoral, but not illegal.

But you have already said that it is *consent* upon which moral and
legal principles are based. The best interests of a child will always
be a matter of debate---it is those who are deemed to have
*authority*, however, who are granted the right and power to exercise
them.

>> I don't think defining rape is the moral explanation of it. The
>> morality of things is based on our conception of the "Good", without
>> reference to consent at all. Even in law there is the basic principle
>> that one must know "right" from "wrong", and not the definitions of
>> crimes as set out in statutes.

>	Morality is based on the times. It can't be codified becuase it's
>always changing.

This is arguable, but beside the point. If morality is changeable,
however, consent cannot be a necessary moral or legal principle.


>>>	It's very rational. There is no way that consensual sex between
>>>adults can be deemed immoral, unless one of them dies in the process. 
>> 
>> What if one of them has AIDS, or whose family has a history of
>> hereditary insanity, or is bound by an oath of chastity or fidelity,
>> or whose partner is a blood-relation, or if the sex act takes place in
>> front of children, or in a religious shrine, or during work
>> hours...etc...

>	Aids: Like any activity (hocky, boxing, etc) you consent to
>certain risks. 

I think it's a ridiculous (and self-defeating) argument to say that to
consent to one thing means consent to all things. Virtually every case
of AIDS is a result of consensual sex after all. Or is it your view
that consent is something given after the fact rather than before?

>Insanity: That's sounding quite nazi-ish. Eugenics is way off topic.

Insanity is hereditable, as are a number of other afflictions. There
is no fundamental conceptual difference between passing on AIDS, and
passing on some hereditable illness through consensual sex.

>	Chastity: If she gave her consent, then it's not the other
>person's problem. 

You are missing the point. If someone has made such an oath and then
paticipates in consensual sex, it would be an immoral act for that
person.

>	Sex in front of kids: Exhibitionism, the children are participants
>in the sex act and therefore it is not between two consenting adults.

This is far too convenient. Sex in front of children is not by any
means proof of exhibitionism, nor is observation of a sex act a sex
act in itself. In fact, it could be argued that observation as a sex
act is *impossible* without the consent of the observers, and since
children can't consent, they can't be participating in such a sex act.


>	At church: Is marriage a sex act? Why should it be conisdered
>wrong to have sex in a church?
>	During work: Ok, you got me. That's ripping off the employer.

If you can understand "ripping off the employer" you should be able to
understand "ripping off" anyone---including those who construct and
maintain religious shrines for the sole purpose of specific religious
practice.


>> There are literally an unlimited number of ways "consensual sex" could
>> be deemed immoral---all of them based on conceptions of what is
>> "good", and not what is nominally consented to.

>	Deemed immoral by you.

Not at all. You are the fellow who has already admitted that
consensual sex undertaken during work hours is immoral. The question
is not what you or I deem immoral, but the standards we use. You said
that  "there is no way that consensual sex between adults can be
deemed immoral, unless one of them dies in the process." Now, however,
we are now both agreed that there are, indeed, ways consensual sex can
be deemed immoral. This, IMHO, indicates to me that *consent* is
either irrelevant, or inadequate, as a principle for determining
morality.






From pkolding@cts.com Tue May 28 07:41:52 PDT 1996
Article: 47990 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:38:16 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <4oel1t$884@news3.cts.com>
References: <132612.13796.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4o03gd$1lj@news2.cts.com> <4o7d4l$45q@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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


>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> sjenuth@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca (Stephen Jenuth) wrote:
>> 
>>>In <4nakon$k35@news3.cts.com> pkolding@cts.com (PKolding) writes:
>> 
>>>>As I've asked more than once: What acts and expressions would
>>>>constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? 
>> 
>>>The following are examples:
>> 
>>>You are fired from the telephone company because you are gay!
>> 
>> A person's sexual orientation cannot be independently verifiable.

>	You are correct. 

>	I have decided you are gay. Nothing you say will convince me
>otherwise. If this had happened at 2 am, and i was a rabid gaybasher, you
>would be dead. Luckily, it is only usenet. 
>	Can you prove you are heterosexual? 

No more than I can prove that I like mangos and dislike spinach.


>> I
>> wish to know what act and/or expression constitutes discrimination of
>> the basis of sexual orientation. For instance, if an employer made the
>> statement that sexual relations bewteen men was morally wrong and
>> repugnant---would he be open to a charge of discrimination or
>> harrassment on the basis of sexual orientation?

>	If he acted on it. I can say "Christians should be killed", but if
>i make plans to kill christians, that's a no-no.
> 

What constitutes "acting upon it"? Can he hang signs in his employees'
workplace to this effect? Can he open each workday with a statement
decrying homosexual behaviour? 

>>>An employer might do so and continue not to discriminate against
>>>his employees on the basis of sexual orientation, and so long has
>>>his expressions are not too frequent or outrageousm, there is no
>>>problem.
>> 
>> I don't understand this last proviso. An opinion is either grounds for
>> discrimination or it isn't. It is the content of the opinion that is
>> at issue with respect to discrimination.

>	No, opinions are not grounds for discrimination in any form.
>Acting ont hem so that others are harmed is discrimination.

You mean an employer can hang signs in the workplace stating her view
that men and homosexuals are pigs?

>>>Just like discrimination on the basis of religion does not
>>>require one to condone or approve any particular religion.
>>>You just aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of that
>>>religion.
>> 
>> But it is discrimination and/or harrassment for an employer to say
>> that Jews or Christians or Muslims, etc. are morally suspect and that
>> their religion is repugnant. One the other hand, it is not harrassment
>> for an employer to say that genuflecting, facing East or circumcision
>> is repugnant or absurd. When sexual orientation is added to this mix,
>> however, people are faced with having to condone or approve any sexual
>> activity that can be construed, even tangentially, to reflect on
>> someone's unknown sexual orientation.

>	Not in any way.

This is no answer. I know how sexual and racial harrassment is
determined by these tribunals, and it is very much a matter of
tangential opinions being stated that others construe as reflecting
upon their sex and/or race.




From pkolding@cts.com Tue May 28 07:41:53 PDT 1996
Article: 47991 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:37:44 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4oel0s$884@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv62q$5e2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o66iu$jji@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:

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: it is not the person or criteria of judgement that is the issue, but
>: the authority of the judge---which is a personal question each of us
>: must answer for himself.

>I'm not sure I agree.  What about when he said, "Let he among you who is 
>without sin throw the first stone."?  That seems to suggest that we 
>should be more concerned with improving ourselves than with putting 
>others down.  Not an authority issue; a priority issue. 

I used a well-known Biblical quote to provide background to the
argument I was making---not as a commentary on the views or works of
Jesus. Nevertheless, your quote seems to also talk about the authority
of those who wish to punish, and that they have no more authority than
those they wish to punish.



From pkolding@cts.com Thu May 30 13:50:13 PDT 1996
Article: 48442 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!utcsri!uniserve!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 17:04:32 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4okkie$fia@bogus.cts.com>
References: <195713.14696.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

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

>>Pardon me, but sexual orientation is not supposed to be a matter of
>>activities, but is, according to those who supported the amendment,
>>simply an innate "orientation". Are you now agreeing with what I have
>>been warning all along: That "sexual orientation" will now be
>>interpreted by tribunals and other authorities as incorporating
>>implicitly certain sexual and/or social *activities*? 

>Who cares?  I suppose that ones sexual orientation has something
>to do with whom one goes to bed with and whom one holds hands with
>and who's picture one on their desk.

Finally. So, after weeks of argument, the fact is that discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation is going to be simply a matter of
disapproving or not condoning any sexual act someone decides to claim
reflects on his sexual orientation.






From pkolding@cts.com Thu May 30 19:59:51 PDT 1996
Article: 48499 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.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!news.mindlink.net!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.fibr.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,bc.general
Subject: Re: B.C. needs proportional representation.
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4ol8h6$788@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4ohi40$a0b@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <31AC9746.47CB@starvision.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:3458 can.politics:48499 bc.general:46137

Willington Wong  wrote:

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

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



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:27:32 PDT 1996
Article: 46137 of bc.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!news.mindlink.net!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.fibr.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,bc.general
Subject: Re: B.C. needs proportional representation.
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4ol8h6$788@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4ohi40$a0b@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> <31AC9746.47CB@starvision.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca bc.politics:3458 can.politics:48499 bc.general:46137

Willington Wong  wrote:

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

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



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:37:09 PDT 1996
Article: 48536 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Latest Growth Industry, Government Regulation
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:33 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4ol8he$788@news3.cts.com>
References: <31acc426.114449622@news.icons.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

horton@icons.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:

>In the last twenty years the federal and provincial governments have
>passed over 100,000 new 'regulations' (stat per the DSS of the federal
>government).  

>You now pay twice as much for a florescent  light bulb, and may not be
>able to buy over 60 types of cheese that people have been eating for
>centuries, just two very recent and minor examples (but ones that
>strike me as particularly stupid and useless).  The total is perhaps
>10s of billions lost in the economy, there is no way to measure the
>cost of lost choices.

>When will the control freaks who dominate government realize that
>there are only a limited number of areas that can be effectively
>regulated, that people are not so stupid and are able to make informed
>choices by themselves thank you very much. 

I don't think you understand what may be called the "natural function"
of government, i.e. to regulate. The government sees its job as
regulating everything, down to the most mundane and personal
activities of even the most obscure and harmless citizen. They do not
do this so much out of conscious planning, as by destiny. Just as some
have observed that "anatomy is destiny" in the natural world, the
anatomy of modern government compels the destiny of regulation. Those
laws and regulations that are not justified by the exigencies of the
day simply take another route, and nurse for a while as "voluntary" or
"recommended" suggestions. It is at first "recommended" that aspirin
be stored carefully, and soon sprouts the regulation demanding that it
be. It is "suggested" that toys have no sharp edges, but, as sure as
the sun rises, eventually some mother will face child abuse charges
because little Johnny cracked his head on an unapproved toy. And with
each application of a newly minted law or regulation, the more
justification government sees in its regulating and suggesting and
recommending more and more.

The end is always the same though---everyone becomes a criminal, the
law is ignored by both the police and the citizenry in their daily
activities, and ends up only being applied on the basis of politics
and corruption, when applied at all.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:37:10 PDT 1996
Article: 48537 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:31 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <4ol8hc$788@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mc2pb$529@apollo.isisnet.com> <4n7n7p$1ur@news.accent.net> <4nmeoq$mn0@loki.tor.hookup.net> <319F174B.448C@crosslink.net> <4nngju$ceq@cheshire.ucs.ubc.ca> <4nnk3q$jat@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>  <4o421r$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o67ba$jdg@apollo.isisnet.com> <4oap4s$cu0@news2.cts.com> <4ogvao$qga@apollo.isisnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>In article <4oap4s$cu0@news2.cts.com>, pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:
>>>I want, and should be entitled to, a legal binding jointment between myself 
>>>and my same-sex significant other, for life.   
>>
>>Why?

>Are you DENSE ????

>Why do you want to be legally bonded to your female for life?
>Isn't simply living together without ceremony for life good enough?

>Your answers are the same as mine!

>Public, registered, logged, documented, and legal bonding of myself and my 
>same-sex S.O. is what I want.  Just like you want with your female.

I was refering to your claims that you should be "entitled" to this
legal privilege. One can at least see the point of the legal
recognition and necessity of the institution that has maintained the
bloodlines of families from time immemorial. What you want, on the
other hand,  is special recognition and legal privilege simply because
you have sex with men.

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




From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:37:11 PDT 1996
Article: 48538 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:28 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <4ol8h9$788@news3.cts.com>
References: <132612.13796.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4o03gd$1lj@news2.cts.com> <4o7d4l$45q@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4oel1t$884@news3.cts.com> <4og4pf$kmu@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> ah787@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:
>>>	I have decided you are gay. Nothing you say will convince me
>>>otherwise. If this had happened at 2 am, and i was a rabid gaybasher, you
>>>would be dead. Luckily, it is only usenet. 
>>>	Can you prove you are heterosexual? 
>> 
>> No more than I can prove that I like mangos and dislike spinach.

>	Fine. Unless you can prove to me that you like mangos, you will
>lose your job, and get beaten up by five guys.

Well, since I don't work for you, I doubt you can make good on your
first proposal, and as to your second---there is little difference
between getting beaten up for one's pocket change, or one's unwanted
attentions to wives not your own, or your sexual orientation. There
are already plenty of laws against assaults, and the inclusion of
sexual orientation provides no more protection.


>>>	If he acted on it. I can say "Christians should be killed", but if
>>>i make plans to kill christians, that's a no-no.
>>> 
>> 
>> What constitutes "acting upon it"? Can he hang signs in his employees'
>> workplace to this effect? Can he open each workday with a statement
>> decrying homosexual behaviour? 

>	It's called Conspiracy, it's in the criminal code.

One must conspire to commit some crime, though. I'm asking you to tell
us whether hanging a sign in a workplace denouncing homosexual acts is
now to be a crime.

>>>	No, opinions are not grounds for discrimination in any form.
>>>Acting ont hem so that others are harmed is discrimination.
>> 
>> You mean an employer can hang signs in the workplace stating her view
>> that men and homosexuals are pigs?

>	As long as it doesn't offend anyone or cause trouble, yes.

So, according to you, freedom of speech is now to be subject to the
approval of others before it will be allowed?


>>>	Not in any way.
>> 
>> This is no answer. I know how sexual and racial harrassment is
>> determined by these tribunals, and it is very much a matter of
>> tangential opinions being stated that others construe as reflecting
>> upon their sex and/or race.

>	Now you know i feel when you don't make sense!

It makes sense, you just don't understand it. An example in a racial
case would be an employer or supervisor who expressed opinions that
many African countries were unstable and had corrupt governments. The
facts of the opinion are perfectly true, but the Black complainant
would declare that it was, either deliberately or otherwise, racially
demeaning and constituted a form of harrassment. And many tribunals
would agree with this---not because it actually was racially
demeaning, but because it was an opinion a Black person didn't care
for and had no direct workplace purpose. We thus see the elimination
of the right to free speech not on the grounds of workplace necessity,
but because someone disapproved of an opinion. In the case of sexual
orientation this tendency will be even more pronounced. This is
because whereas a Black would have a hard time claiming harrassment on
the basis of his race, in the scenario outlined above, if he couldn't
prove he was black, similar claims of harrassment on the basis of
sexual orientation would require no such proof. The tangential opinion
that "sodomy was sinful", or that the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah was
deserved, or that most AIDS patients were homosexuals would require no
more proof to be considered harrassment than the mere declaration of
the complainant that he found such opinions offensive. And thus I come
to my conclusion that the inclusion of "sexual orientation" will,
inevitably, mean that any views regarding sexual *acts*, rather than
sexual orientation, will be the practical standard for complaints
under this provision. And this simply means, as I have proposed from
the beginning, that employers will now be obliged to publically
condone or approve *any* sexual acts, for fear of being prosecuted.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:37:11 PDT 1996
Article: 48539 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Hate Material will NOT BE Tolerated!
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:23 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4ol8h4$788@news3.cts.com>
References: <3198F740.2AC4@compusmart.ab.ca> <4ns29k$krc@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca> <4nt2qn$avi@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <4nu9a1$s00@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4nug3c$bgu@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4o2k7u$c4i@news2.cts.com> <4obn13$aap@yendi.mdd.comm.mot.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: llurch@Networking.Stanford.EDU (Richard Charles Graves) wrote:

>: >ck390@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil A. McEwan) writes:
>: >>     It should be pointed out here that censorship as currently practiced
>: >>in Canada is extremely one-sided.  It is much easier to prosecute a
>: >>neo-Nazi for saying that Jews are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy all
>: >>Aryans than it would be to prosecute someone for saying (a la Andrea
>: >>Dworkin) that men are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy all women.  It is

>: >Uness there has been some incredible coverup, Andrea Dworkin and her ilk
>: >have never killed millions of men, and do not threaten to kill men now.

>: Andrea Dworkin not only advocates the murder of men, but was paid by
>: the Canadian goverment to do so. She did this at a female-only
>: convention held in Edmonton some years ago, with the then Minister for
>: Women, in her official capacity, sitting in the audience clapping
>: madly. When questioned after the event about this outrageous behaviour
>: the Minister merely remarked that "people should understand". She
>: didn't extend her remarks to explain *why* people should understand
>: the Canadian Goevrnment's funding and approving of mass murder of men,
>: though.

>: In the next election, however,  that Minister, along with all but two
>: of her fellow PC's, lost their seats, their government and their
>: futures. Alas, they were not hanged as well, but I continue to live in
>: hope that justice will visit them properly in the future.

>It is my own sentiment that Andrea was quite right in her claim that
>what was needed to stop public apathy about the physical abuse of 
>women was for some more of them to up and *Kill* their abusers.  

But should the *government* be sponsoring such views? What's the point
of law when the government implicitly supports and suggests that
murder is okay when undertaken by one group, explicitly defined by
their sex, against another group, explicitly defined by their sex?
Dworkin wasn't advocating the murder of abusers---she was advocating
the murder of men. And a Minister of the Crown agreed and supported
her.

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





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:37:12 PDT 1996
Article: 48540 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:22 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4ol8h2$788@news3.cts.com>
References: <4oaq5s$b7g@knot.queensu.ca> <833169091.4069snx@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:

>You know, boys and girls, I gotta wonder about these people who spend
>so much time being conserned about other's consentual sexual practices.
>Do they not have their own lives to deal with?

I agree. Too bad the government doesn't.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:37:13 PDT 1996
Article: 48541 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: DISGUSTED byt the vote on Homo Rights
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:13 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4ol8gp$788@news3.cts.com>
References: <132612.13796.s0931bs@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca> <4o03gd$1lj@news2.cts.com> <4o67bb$jdg@apollo.isisnet.com> <31A9D2B4.2DCE@bnr.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:

>In article <31A9D2B4.2DCE@bnr.ca> "Rene S. Hollan"  writes:

>>Except it has been established, w.r.t. AA legislation, that only members
>>of designated groups can claim criminal discrimination, for example, a
>>white male fired by a black employer on the basis of race has no case
>>under the law.

>That is absolute nonesense.  In Liberia perhaps, but not here.  

The Ontarian NDP government produced a report for the instruction of
officials and other bureaucrats concerned with the NDP's various
pieces of human rights' legislation. It proposed that people accused
of offences be presumed guilty if they were not a member of a
disadvantaged group. The "thinking" behind this view was that only
whites could be racist, because they "had the power", and only men
could be sexist for similar reasons. Under this regimen it would be
impossible for a Black employer to be guilty of a racist act, unless
it was directed at a disadvantaged "visible minority".






From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:37:14 PDT 1996
Article: 48542 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Marriage
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:05 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <4ol8gj$788@news3.cts.com>
References: <31907E7F.5E3E@compusmart.ab.ca> <4n544r$b29@archangel.terraport.net> <4nd2a1$ebm@archangel.terraport.net> <4nqek8$tr6@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>  <4nvsnb$bea@news1.io.org>  <4o8nd8$dki@news2.cts.com> <4o9tiv$nqh@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

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

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) writes:
>> You perpetually make a number of assumptions
>> that are incorrect with respect to the nature of marriage, and then
>> dwell upon the errant conclusions that reasoning upon these
>> presumptions produce. Firstly, marriage is not based on "sexual
>> orientation", and there is no more a thing as "heterosexual marriage"
>> as there is "homosexual marriage". Secondly, homosexuals are not
>> barred from marriage---they simply have to marry someone of the
>> opposite sex. Thirdly, the fundamental maintenance of all families
>> relies on the birth of children within formal marriage who share the
>> bloodlines of the two parents.

>The Book of Common Prayer service for the solmenization of matrimony cites
>three purposes:  hallowing the union between a man and a woman; the
>procreation of children; and mutual society, help and comfort.  These
>purposes are modified (for example, in the mariage of people past
>childbearing age) without affecting the intention to solemnize the union.  

I don't think the conversation will get anywhere if we are to forward
competing religious views as definitions of marriage. I am discussing
marriage in the universal civil sense---which has been around far
longer than the Book of Common Prayer or the Christian religion. In
fact, marriage as I have defined it above---as the fundamental
maintenance of family lines through the birth of children within
formal marriage---has been the universal rule for as long as history
has been recorded.

>If marriage is confined to people of the opposite sex then it is, indeed,
>based upon sexual orientation. 

A number of people have implied the same thing, but none of them ever
explained their reasoning for this conclusion. Marriage is no bar to
homosexual activity, any more than investing in an RRSP is a bar to
homosexual activity. The object and purpose of marriage is not the
indulgence of one's sexual orientation, or the fullfillment of one's
sexual desires. It is the maintenance of families by way of extending
bloodlines. 

>If you want to pussyfoot around and say that it isn't made explicit, 
>fine, but we still have a case of gender discrimination in the make up 
>of couples who will be considered for matrimony.

I'm afraid human reproduction demands this "discrimination".

>If people unable, or not intending to have children are routinely allowed
>to marry than the idea that procreation is the key must be incorrect. 

Many people who are unable, or do not intend to vote are routinely
allowed to do so as well---but that isn't a justification that their
inability and non-participation is therefore a standard or example of
voting. Please note also that I have never suggested that married
people who have produced children should automatically get divorced.
There are a thousand *familial* activities and duties that have
nothing to do with procreation, but none of them require marriage for
their performance.

>Mutual society, help, and comfort; and the "hallowing of a union" (ie.,
>legitimization of sexual activity) are equally important; and all three
>are mutually exclusive.

But none of these things are necessary to marriage, or available only
within the bounds of matrimony. In some cultures the husband and wife
do not even know each other before they are married. Love, respect,
comfort and togetherness are simply artificial appendages to marriage,
and are not the central purpose nor, IMHO, sufficient reason for
marriage.

>> I think the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" is fairly
>> strong. The point, of course, is that it isn't important.

>Homosexuality occurs in nature, hence the argument that it is "unnatural"
>is specious.

I did put the word in quotes, but I think people go too far when they
say that what occurs in nature is therefore "natural". Everything
occurs in nature, after all, so this would mean that nothing whatever
is unnatural. Not even thalidomide babies.



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:37:14 PDT 1996
Article: 48543 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:04 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4ol8gg$788@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv62q$5e2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com> <4o5ouu$pcj@loki.tor.hookup.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

lisa@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) wrote:

>In article <4o5ouu$pcj@loki.tor.hookup.net> baisa@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) writes:

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

>>>It seems to me the argument could
>>>be made that sexual acts, by definition, are implicitly concerned with
>>>reproductive consequences. Any sexual act, by this reasoning, that
>>>denies or obstructs reproductive consequences could therefore be
>>>judged as immoral.

>>The fact of the matter, is that the vast majority of heterosexual 
>>encounters are motivated by the desire for the pleasure it will give the 
>>participants, and great care is usually taken to *prevent* the possibility 
>>of conception.

>Not to mention the fact that there are heterosexuals who are incapable of 
>procreating.  Is this Kolding person trying to say that there's something 
>immoral about such people engaging in sex?

I really wish people wouldn't get so defensive about this subject. It
is not the capabilities of people that are at issue, or the success or
failure of their activities. It is the deliberate denial or
obstruction of reproductive consequences that I posit is immoral. And
let me say that I am not telling anyone how wide they may spread their
net on the issue of what specific sexual acts may have reproductive
consequences. Some may very well go to the extent of saying that
homosexual acts are, indeed, reproductive acts from the perspective of
the reproductive strategy of the species as a whole, for all I know.

I would also point out that I haven't called anyone "immoral". I've
simply offered my view of a standard for moral behaviour with respect
to sexual activities. 





From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:37:15 PDT 1996
Article: 48544 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (was:Re: call your MP now)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:47:01 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <4ol8ge$788@news3.cts.com>
References:  <4nu08f$52m@cliff.island.net> <4nu8na$ood@nntp1.best.com> <31a28678.101483746@news.winternet.com> <4nv62q$5e2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <4o41v4$4ub@news2.cts.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

pkitty@netcom.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:

>Peter Kolding (pkolding@cts.com) wrote:
>: There are an unlimited number of answers to this, but you don't
>: provide any context. Presumably, acts have consequences. Conscious,
>: consensual acts would also seem to imply the knowledge and intent of
>: conscious, consensual consequences. It seems to me the argument could
>: be made that sexual acts, by definition, are implicitly concerned with
>: reproductive consequences. Any sexual act, by this reasoning, that
>: denies or obstructs reproductive consequences could therefore be
>: judged as immoral.

>And do you BELIEVE that line of reasoning? Do you believe that any act of 
>a sexual nature that does not involve reproduction is immoral?

To a certain degree. It all depends on what you construe as being a
sexual act that is not involved in reproduction. How wide do you cast
your net? I mean, if one takes a broad view, using the perspective of
the species as a whole, almost all sexual acts, by everyone, could be
construed to be geared towards reproduction. 

>Do you believe that doing something for pleasure is immoral?

Not at all. But neither do I believe that because something is
pleasurable it is therefore moral. What I try and do in my life is
behave in accordance with my moral views, but acknowledge to myself
when I've failed. And I especially watch out for any tendency of
rationalising immoral behaviour on the basis that I found pleasure in
it, or it resulted in some great advantage to me, my friends or my
community and seemingly hurt no one. I would also say that I do not
take the hard line on immorality, i.e. that it is to be punished. I
simply think immoral acts are dead ends, and lead one to living a
false and hollow existence. 


>By the same line of reasoning, an argument can be made that eating, by 
>definition, is implicitely concerned with keeping us healthy and alive. 
>Any food that is not optimal for our health coudl therefore be judged as 
>immoral. Candy bars and granola are immoral.

I suppose one would have to decide what constitutes a healthy life
first. For instance, I once saw a man get blown up and killed when he
tried to defuse a terrorist bomb. He was indulging in an unhealthy and
life-threatening profession by any definition, but I wouldn't say his
actions were necessarily immoral because of it. 

But I will make a general statement, knowing that there are exceptions
to every general statement: It is immoral to starve yourself into
ill-health and/or death deliberately.


>I'm not accusing you of following this line of reasoning...I'm asking 
>you: Do you believe it?

Let me put it this way: I believe it, but I have a hard time deciding
how that belief is correctly applied in my life. 



From pkolding@cts.com Fri May 31 07:37:16 PDT 1996
Article: 48545 of can.politics
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!atmnet.net!newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: pkolding@cts.com (Peter Kolding)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Do you want your children homosexualized?
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:46:56 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <4ol8gc$788@news3.cts.com>
References: <4mt00d$q73@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4n1ajl$in6@news.agt.net> <4n7kua$1i7@news2.cts.com> <4nd6hr$csa@knot.queensu.ca> <4njvmb$378@news3.cts.com> <4o4jjm$lt9@archangel.terraport.net> <4o8ne5$dki@news2.cts.com> <4oaq5s$b7g@knot.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pkolding.cts.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

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

>: Well, we are slowly getting to the point I see.

>My phrasing of that line is that one of us (you) is *very* slowly 
>starting to understand plain English after it has been repeated many times.

>: Now, if people would
>: just explain to me why people may not act on the basis of their
>: disapproving of the activities and views of other people. 

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

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

>And whereas it is impossible, much less consciensciable, to prevent 
>a person for forming an opinion regarding another based on morally
>irrelevant traits, it is possible and reasonable to prevent action based
>upon those beliefs.

It seems to me unconscionable for anyone, least of all the government,
to tell people which moral views are "irrelevant", and force them to
condone and behave in immoral ways on pain of law.

>(2) It is not democratic to do so.  If, within a society, one cohort 
>chose to take actions against others for morally irrelevant reasons, that 
>cohort is assuming de facto political power greater than its numbers 
>warrant.  

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

...[some deleted]...
	
>: In the case of sexual orientation, however, since
>: orientation---unlike religion---is independently unverifiable,

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

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


>	If I claimed that I was discriminated against on the basis of 
>religion, I do NOT need to provide 'independent verification' that I am a 
>member of the religion in question.  I have repeated this point in 
>multiple posts to multiple threads that you have been taking part on.  In 
>fact, I KNOW that you have seen that point since one of your responses to 
>it is not that one has to independently verify membership to the 
>religion, but to provide independent verification that said religion exists.

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

>	I would imagine that such independent verification, in the case 
>of a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., is rather trivial to 
>provide.  In fact, it could presumably be even accepted as common 
>knowledge and therefore not even necessary to show.  Similarly, to 
>independently verify that heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality 
>exists is another extremely trivial task, and, again, one that can 
>presumably be dispensed with in any legal proceedings.

That these things exist is not the issue. It is whether someone has
been discriminated or harrassed on the basis of these things. With the
single exception of sexual orientation, both complainant and
respondent must rely upon independent verification of the facts, and
opinions and actions said to be discriminatory must accord with these
independent verifications. In the case of sexual orientation, on the
other hand, *any* disapproving opinion with respect to *any* sexual
act could be held as discriminatory to anyone who simply *claimed*
that such an act was intrinsic to the expression of his sexual
orientation.

...[some deleted]...

>: Please answer the question: Is an employer permitted to hang signs up
>: and make speeches to his employees that decry any sexual acts beween
>: people of the same sex? Please note the word "acts". We are not
>: talking about sexual orientation, we are discussing sexual acts. 

>If it can be *reasonably* shown that the employer, in doing this, is 
>creating an environment hostile to at least certain employees, then the 
>employer is guilty of violating labour standards code, and civil action 
>can be taken against that person. 

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

That's all I was pointing out. Discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation is actually going to be interpreted as the disapproval of
sexual "acts", not orientation, and people will be obliged to
publically condone behaviour they find abhorent, and associate with
people whom they find repugnant, on penalty of law.

...[some deleted]...

>: But they haven't, and neither have you. Please tell us all what , in
>: practical terms, constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual
>: orientation? If an employer says "You're fired because you're gay"
>: presumably that is an open-and-shut case. However, if he says "sexual
>: acts between men are immoral" and hangs signs to this effect---is this
>: discrimination? What if he says "sexual acts between females is the
>: only moral form of sexual activity"---is he guilty of harrassing
>: heterosexuals? Can he fire a person who indulges in sexual activities
>: he finds morally repugnant?

>If you would be so considerate as to actually read the posts that I and 
>others have made in response to your query on this in the past -- alas, I 
>will nevertheless repeat myself (again!)

>An employer maintains the legal right to dismiss an employee for 
>reasonable grounds (such as unsatisfactory performance of duties).  An 
>employer does not maintain the legal right to dismiss an employee for 
>reasons of gender, race, religion, and, (in 8 provinces and the federal 
>govt) sexual orientation (as well as other criteria).

You are simply quoting a synopsis of the law upon which I have based
my questions above. Please answer MY questions.

>	Should an employee be dismissed, that employee can make a claim 
>to the relevant labour relations board that the dismissal was made under 
>unreasonable grounds.  The complainant would present evidence to support 
>his or her claim and the defendent (the employer) would present evidence 
>that the dismissal was under reasonable grounds.  Examples of the 
>evidence presented could be the employee showing that the employer had a 
>history of making heterosexist statements and believed that the terminated
>employee was gay (note, that whether the terminated employee is gay is 
>NOT relevant) and the employer providing evidence of shoddy and 
>unsatisfactory work or work reviews of the employee.  Since the case is 
>civil, the victor of the case is the one who has the balance of evidence 
>(as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt).  Decisions of the labour 
>relations board are appealable. 
>	Despite sexual harassment protection, women can still be fired.  
>Despite racism protection, visible minorities can still not get the 
>job.  And so on.   

This is all very interesting, but, as in all your previous posts, you
still haven't managed to actually answer the specific questions I
posed.


>: Thank you for again failing to actually address the question, as all
>: those who have gone before have done. What rights are denied
>: homosexuals? The answer is NONE. 

>Mr. Kolding, if my memory serves, you have asked this question or made 
>this point -- and I have responded to it -- over ten (10) times.  

You respond to virtually everything Huyer, but you don't actually
address the points being raised. I suspect if you were asked your age
you'd respond with a dissertation on the Gregorian calendar----all
very interesting, I'm sure, but utterly pointless and designed to
avoid saying anything you may actually have to justify.

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