Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics Subject: Re: Zundel etc. Message-ID: <409@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 11:06:29 EST Article-I.D.: mnetor.409 Posted: Thu Apr 11 11:06:29 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 12:17:55 EST References: <407@mnetor.UUCP> <5459@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 82 Summary: In article <5459@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >if you prosecute Zundel, not becuae of ``inciting hatred'' but because >of ``publishing something that is untrue'' then you have effectively >killed the book industry. Nobopdy is going to publish anything but fiction >because it will be too much trouble to hire a board of experts who will >testify that there was ``reasonable grounds'' to believe that the >manuscript was true. And where do speculative works fit in? Religious >writings? We don't want people writing falsehoods with a "Non-fiction" label! I don't think that this would happen - after all, we do have libel/slander laws and that hasn't killed the book industry nor has it prevented people writing about specific people. I see no effective difference between saying "individual X" is a criminal and "group Y" is criminal. Where you say "reasonable grounds to believe that the manuscript is true" is *not* the point - the point is "does it direct unfounded accusations at someone or some group?" Speculative works are not by definition a libel or slander of anyone (eg: Von Daniken's books). Speculative works about the criminal activities of a group *might be*. You might have a point about Religious writings - not about truth, but about accusations. Hence, under this interpretation of libel/slander, we might see the Talmud, Koran, Bible, etc. purged of their intolerant "not-us-they're-bad" garbage. I personally wouldn't mind this (except for "archival, of historical interest copies"). > >The question is should ``inciting hatred'' be a crime? Committing acts >of violence against my neighbours should be, and inciting acts of >violence -- but should just hating them be? As a specific example of why "inciting hatred" should not be a crime in itself, consider the inciting of hatred by Jews against Nazi war criminals (NWC). They do and I think that is justified. Hating someone should not be a crime - it is *not* a crime to hold any particular belief in this country no matter how absurd that the belief is. Noone has the right to force anyone to change their mind about something (true or not). It is violence, prompted or not by personally held beliefs, that should be actionable by law. And, if we can prevent people from publishing untrue accusations via libel and slander laws, a lot of the hatred that we see will never take root. Violence, with or without justifiable hatred/reasons, is not normally condoned in this country anyways - it is always subject to legal sanctions. If some accusations are provably true (speaking in general, not specifically of Zundel), then publication should be allowed. Inciting hatred via publication of demonstrably true statements seems perfectly reasonable to me where the hatred is directed against the person(s) responsible. Before you get all excited about the previous statement, please reread it, and see the following examples: 1) If I can prove that person(s) X (John Doe, blue-haired people, Nazi war criminals, home computer phreaks; pick one or more) ALL kill people then hatred against them *is* justified. 2) Even if I can prove that *some* members of (racial group, tall people, people who have home computers) kill people, then hatred against them AS A GROUP is *not* justified. The problem, as I see it with my "ideal view" is that many people tend to interpret the "some x" as "all x". However, that is not a problem with the publisher per-se, but the recipients. The recipients should be held responsible for *their* interpretation of the publication. Through proper education of our children regarding such idiocies like "the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons" the situation will improve. We all have a responsibility here! As a specific example within the current context, it is perfectly reasonable for Jews to hate Nazi war criminals and publish true material inciting hatred against them (as *some* unquestionably do, with full justification), but *not* reasonable for them to publish material implicating *all* Germans or people who weren't even born then. Such material is demonstrably false, and can be handled by libel/slander laws protecting groups. > >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321