Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Question for Canadians
Message-ID: <1162@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 16:29:17 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1162
Posted: Mon Mar 25 16:29:17 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 03:30:27 EST
References: <709@ccice5.UUCP> <891@utcsri.UUCP> <374@talcott.UUCP> <538@whuxl.UUCP> <925@utcsri.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 38
Summary: 

In article <925@utcsri.UUCP> west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes:
>>> Does the Canadian government actually violate this fundamental right?
>
>>I have to agree with Greg on this one.  I think Nazis, Communists,
>>Ku Klux Klan members *all* should have the right to speak and express
>>their opinions.
>
>  Political views are one thing.  Hate literature is another.  I would 
>object to a restriction of speech of political natures, (and we 
>Canadians are a little more tolerant of the communist and socialist types
>than Stateside),  but I can conceive of no possible benefit of 
>allowing hate literature to be circulated.

Hate literature *is* a form of political expression.  

>  There can never be any justification for the hatred of a group based on
>racial grounds.  I can understand (<> agree with, = understand) the
>justification for the slaughter in all sorts of countries based on political
>grounds, and thus am willing to allow for the existence and discussion of
>such.  But in no way can I even comprehend of such a justification as far as
>racism goes.  It is in violation of my extreme base ethic:  One doesn't kill
>somebody for irrational reasons.  Hence I will fight against hate literature
>in any means possible (within legal confines, however).  If this means a loss
>of freedom of speech, so be it.  The only lost speech is that which, in my
>opinion, *must* be destroyed.

If the government is given the right to define "truth" and enforce it,
nobody's freedom of speech will be safe.

If, as you claim, the beliefs in question are irrational, then it should
be easy to prove them wrong.  If you call for censorship as a substitute
for argument, you show a lack of confidence either in the correctness of
your beliefs, or in the ability of most other people to think.
-- 
	David Canzi

"Women compromise more than a third of Britain's work force."
	-- The Vancouver Sun